Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
predicto
Jul 22, 2004

THE DEM DEFENDER HAS LOGGED ON
Note that the guys we are calling "The Federalists" are actually just two law professors. They do not speak for the Federalist Society (which has literally thousands of members).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Snacksmaniac
Jan 12, 2008

Does anyone know why the usual right wing morons are taking a victory lap on ivermectin?

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



Snacksmaniac posted:

Does anyone know why the usual right wing morons are taking a victory lap on ivermectin?
I think once again they misinterpreted something from the medical community, some paper or policy or whatever

Absurd Alhazred
Mar 27, 2010

by Athanatos
I dug into it the other day but didn't save the webpages. Basically some doctor sued the FDA for harming their ability to use Invermectin to treat COVID. FDA lawyer said they can't stop doctors from prescribing Invermectin to treat COVID. Conclusion: FDA approves Invermectin to treat COVID, they're responsible for countless deaths from COVID that could have been prevented if they hadn't made fun of it as a treatment. I think this is old news that was revived in Charlie Kirk's show because some other right wing hack claims to have used Invermectin to cure their COVID and cited this alleged change of policy.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
This is another case among the many where FDA losing authority over physician prescribing practices results in innumerable deaths- one of the more straightforward ones.

Snacksmaniac
Jan 12, 2008

Ok thanks I dug past the blue checks and found about the same.
I have, of course, not found a study that ivermectin beats placebo — but they were always right I guess.

OgNar
Oct 26, 2002

They tapdance not, neither do they fart
I just smile for the fact that anyone that abuses its use will have urinary and anal leakage for the rest of their lives.
Sad that some rubes will also be subjected to that though.

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



It should be mentioned that multiple mass shooters have used this idea of the ‘Great Replacement’ as part of their rationale for killing masses of people

https://twitter.com/shane_burley1/status/1690870511067430912?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA

Glazius
Jul 22, 2007

Hail all those who are able,
any mouse can,
any mouse will,
but the Guard prevail.

Clapping Larry

Snacksmaniac posted:

Ok thanks I dug past the blue checks and found about the same.
I have, of course, not found a study that ivermectin beats placebo — but they were always right I guess.

There was a study from IIRC the Philippines before we had a developed vaccine that found ivermectin improved survival over placebo, but parasites are more endemic there and ivermectin also helps treat parasites in humans. It was basically more "treating parasites with this powerful drug still results in improved survival even if the patient also has COVID".

There's a certain strand of crank that thinks parasites are also endemic in the USA and you're crapping them out when you dump the caustic cleanse du jour down your gullet, instead of shedding bits of your own intestinal lining.

Glazius fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Aug 14, 2023

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.

Glazius posted:

There was a study from IIRC the Philippines before we had a developed vaccine that found ivermectin improved survival over placebo, but parasites are more endemic there and ivermectin also helps treat parasites in humans. It was basically more "treating parasites with this powerful drug still results in improved survival even if the patient also has COVID".

There's a certain strand of crank that thinks parasites are also endemic in the USA and you're crapping them out when you dump the caustic cleanse du jour down your gullet, instead of shedding bits of your own intestinal lining.

They're not entirely wrong, and the more our infrastructure breaks down the worse it's going to get.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/09/12/550387650/the-u-s-thought-it-was-rid-of-hookworm-wrong

The Lone Badger
Sep 24, 2007

There's no need to jump straight to horse paste though. Less damaging antihelminthics are easily available.

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.
For parasitic infections - in human and veterinary medicine - Ivermectin is almost magically effective. There's a reason the discoverers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine (jointly with another discovery). It's been revolutionary in treating parasites, especially the various types of roundworms.

The problem is that people take it the wrong way, in massive doses, to try and treat something it has zero effect on. Because the Internet said to.

In fact the run on the stuff made it really difficult to treat actual parasite cases in both humans and livestock, because idiots bought up the supply.

Panfilo
Aug 27, 2011

EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬

FlamingLiberal posted:

It should be mentioned that multiple mass shooters have used this idea of the ‘Great Replacement’ as part of their rationale for killing masses of people

https://twitter.com/shane_burley1/status/1690870511067430912?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA

Matt tries to bring up the hypocrisy of the left by observing that if some invasive species of hummingbird were in an area leftists would support actions to be taken to restrict the entry of those species, arguing that the bird negatively affects the area, particularly by reducing populations of animals that were already there. Yet when a bunch of (brown) people immigrate into an area leftists welcome them even when those people commit crimes and reduce the white population.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
I wish something Irreversible would happen to Matt Walsh

I AM GRANDO
Aug 20, 2006

How does the addition of more people who aren’t white reduce the number of white people? Because the white people are so lazy and weak they’re instantly outcompeted and can’t find work?

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

I always assumed the implication was that the white people were too horny for non white people and that’s why they’re always on about “the future for white children.” It’s a basic acknowledgement of the idea that the demographics will change because people aren’t procreating within the races or something.

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.

I AM GRANDO posted:

How does the addition of more people who aren’t white reduce the number of white people? Because the white people are so lazy and weak they’re instantly outcompeted and can’t find work?

:umberto:

Panfilo
Aug 27, 2011

EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬

I AM GRANDO posted:

How does the addition of more people who aren’t white reduce the number of white people? Because the white people are so lazy and weak they’re instantly outcompeted and can’t find work?

The non white people vote for harmful Democrat policies that make crime legal, destroy jobs and businesses white people are good at, have a million anchor welfare babies, etc.

Space Fish
Oct 14, 2008

The original Big Tuna.


I AM GRANDO posted:

How does the addition of more people who aren’t white reduce the number of white people? Because the white people are so lazy and weak they’re instantly outcompeted and can’t find work?

The Matt Walshes of the world had to wait through a non-white classmate's portion of "popcorn reading" in grade school and concluded "those people" were holding them back from attaining true wealth and power.

Proust Malone
Apr 4, 2008

Lemniscate Blue posted:

For parasitic infections - in human and veterinary medicine - Ivermectin is almost magically effective. There's a reason the discoverers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine (jointly with another discovery). It's been revolutionary in treating parasites, especially the various types of roundworms.

The problem is that people take it the wrong way, in massive doses, to try and treat something it has zero effect on. Because the Internet said to.

In fact the run on the stuff made it really difficult to treat actual parasite cases in both humans and livestock, because idiots bought up the supply.

On the plus side, maybe that whole hookworm thing can be finally cured in the south.

je1 healthcare
Sep 29, 2015

I AM GRANDO posted:

How does the addition of more people who aren’t white reduce the number of white people? Because the white people are so lazy and weak they’re instantly outcompeted and can’t find work?

It doesn't, the white population has only grown everywhere over the past several decades. Their definition of "white genocide" is just interracial marriage.

Jesus III
May 23, 2007

je1 healthcare posted:

It doesn't, the white population has only grown everywhere over the past several decades. Their definition of "white genocide" is just interracial marriage.

This is one genocide im happy to participate in. I love my inter-racial daughters.

Neito
Feb 18, 2009

😌Finally, an avatar the describes my love of tech❤️‍💻, my love of anime💖🎎, and why I'll never see a real girl 🙆‍♀️naked😭.

I AM GRANDO posted:

How does the addition of more people who aren’t white reduce the number of white people? Because the white people are so lazy and weak they’re instantly outcompeted and can’t find work?

One drop theory combined with "Brown people have bigger families than whites so they're literally going to gently caress us out of existance".

Fighting Trousers
May 17, 2011

Does this excite you, girl?

je1 healthcare posted:

It doesn't, the white population has only grown everywhere over the past several decades. Their definition of "white genocide" is just interracial marriage.

And more specifically, white women marrying/having kids with non-white men.

bird food bathtub
Aug 9, 2003

College Slice

I AM GRANDO posted:

How does the addition of more people who aren’t white reduce the number of white people? Because the white people are so lazy and weak they’re instantly outcompeted and can’t find work?

Umberto has already been posted so yeah, it's basically that. Fascist rhetoric. In that moment, for that specific sentence, it's useful to have the line of white people being out-bred so you need to be scared for the future of white children. Tomorrow when they're on a different talking point the definition of whiteness will be expanded to include italians irish catholics whoever is politically expedient and the two thoughts will never collide.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

bird food bathtub posted:

Tomorrow when they're on a different talking point the definition of whiteness will be expanded to include italians irish catholics whoever is politically expedient and the two thoughts will never collide.

The Spanish speaking population is now going to be folded into whiteness.

Crunch Buttsteak
Feb 26, 2007

You think reality is a circle of salt around my brain keeping witches out?
The year is 2040. The term "white people" now includes Floridian Cuban-Americans who refuse to clarify why their ancestors decided to flee their home country.

skeleton warrior
Nov 12, 2016


I mean, that’s literally what happened a century ago. The Great Replacement Theory existed back then as a much more public, popular idea, bolstered by self pro-claimed ‘leading scientists’ like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard publishing books like “The Passing Of The Great Race” and led to the return of the KKK and massive immigration restrictions.

It’s just that in the 1910s, “white” meant only “Anglo Saxon and maybe some Swedes” and they were being replaced by Italians, Poles, Jews, and all those other ‘swarthy’ and ‘Mongoloid’ races. So yeah, at some point “white” will include Latinos and they’ll be talking about the horrors of Middle Eastern and African immigrants.

FMguru
Sep 10, 2003

peed on;
sexually

skeleton warrior posted:

I mean, that’s literally what happened a century ago. The Great Replacement Theory existed back then as a much more public, popular idea, bolstered by self pro-claimed ‘leading scientists’ like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard publishing books like “The Passing Of The Great Race” and led to the return of the KKK and massive immigration restrictions.

It’s just that in the 1910s, “white” meant only “Anglo Saxon and maybe some Swedes” and they were being replaced by Italians, Poles, Jews, and all those other ‘swarthy’ and ‘Mongoloid’ races. So yeah, at some point “white” will include Latinos and they’ll be talking about the horrors of Middle Eastern and African immigrants.
It's a key point in The Great Gatsby

F Scott Fitzgerald posted:

“Civilization’s going to pieces,” broke out Tom violently. “I’ve gotten to be a terrible pessimist about things. Have you read ‘The Rise of the Colored Empires’ by this man Goddard?”

“Why, no,” I answered, rather surprised by his tone.

“Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”
Note that the guy praising the book has the last name Buchanan, which isn't Nordic or even Anglo-Saxon.

Captain_Maclaine
Sep 30, 2001

Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

skeleton warrior posted:

I mean, that’s literally what happened a century ago. The Great Replacement Theory existed back then as a much more public, popular idea, bolstered by self pro-claimed ‘leading scientists’ like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard publishing books like “The Passing Of The Great Race” and led to the return of the KKK and massive immigration restrictions.

It’s just that in the 1910s, “white” meant only “Anglo Saxon and maybe some Swedes” and they were being replaced by Italians, Poles, Jews, and all those other ‘swarthy’ and ‘Mongoloid’ races. So yeah, at some point “white” will include Latinos and they’ll be talking about the horrors of Middle Eastern and African immigrants.

Hell, before 2001 a lot of Middle Easterners were well on their way towards it and in large numbers were comfortably ensconced within the Republican coalition as it was in those days.

Then something happened to change all that but I can't quite recall what. Probably something Clinton or Obama did.

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



Yes Obama did 9/11, as we know

I AM GRANDO
Aug 20, 2006

STAC Goat posted:

I always assumed the implication was that the white people were too horny for non white people and that’s why they’re always on about “the future for white children.” It’s a basic acknowledgement of the idea that the demographics will change because people aren’t procreating within the races or something.

I never thought of the one-drop rule as one weird trick for global domination. Being a racist sounds exhausting.

They should have just made the one-drop rule about how any white ancestor instantly makes you white instead, the stupid loving crackers.

Zedhe Khoja
Nov 10, 2017

sürgünden selamlar
yıkıcılar ulusuna
I mean Cuba basically did that and it had pretty mixed results from the standpoint of white supremacy.

MrUnderbridge
Jun 25, 2011

Virginia did that in 1924. One drop of anything besides white in your background and you were now legally whatever that was.

Which was devastating to Virginia high society people who had proudly declared Pocahontas as a distant ancestor.

BiggerBoat
Sep 26, 2007

Don't you tell me my business again.
According to 6pm drive time guy, George Bush got raked over the coals for flying over New Orleans after Katrina (since he didn't want to be a distraction). No mention of the complete and total lack of government action for over a week while we all got to watch people starve on live television. Nope. Just the plane ride.

Meanwhile, according to this dude, Biden is getting a pass on the Maui fires from the liberal media and apparently said "no comment" since he's on vacation? This is actually true

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4152105-white-house-blows-off-criticism-of-biden-on-maui-wildfire/

But unlike the other disaster this guy cited, it appears that the federal government is, in fact, mobilizing pretty forcefully

quote:

Biden on Sunday morning, during a bike ride in Rehoboth, replied, “We’re looking at it,” when asked about whether he would go to Maui. Later on Sunday, following a stop at the beach, he responded “no comment” when asked about the rising death toll in Maui.

Jean-Pierre was pressed again by Tausche about the White House response to critics who suggested that the president should not have been vacationing during the wildfire.

She responded that the president is “deeply concerned” to the point that he has mobilized a whole-of-government response. She pointed to the 300 FEMA personnel on the ground, 50,000 meals brought in and thousands of cots and blankets.

I dunno, I guess it's good outrage fuel for outrage radio stations but everything I've read and heard seems to indicate that the government is working at it. You know, as opposed to sitting on their rear end. I suppose Biden could go out there and toss paper towels at people but wtf is his 80 year old senile rear end gonna do in Hawaii?

Also, LOL at RWM wondering where the federal government is during a disaster.

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



That 'no comment' also turned out to be wrong.

https://twitter.com/Craigipedia/status/1691140004922142724?s=20

Absurd Alhazred
Mar 27, 2010

by Athanatos

He didn't lipread this, he was told this by lipreaders. :shepface:

Quorum
Sep 24, 2014

REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

MrUnderbridge posted:

Virginia did that in 1924. One drop of anything besides white in your background and you were now legally whatever that was.

Which was devastating to Virginia high society people who had proudly declared Pocahontas as a distant ancestor.

Which is why the FFVs persuaded them to include the Pocahontas Clause, excluding from the one drop rule "persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood." :v: Never underestimate the determination of old white high society people to have their racism cake and eat it too!

The act had racist aftershocks right up to the present day, too. As a knock-on effect, the law was used to justify classifying members of Virginia Indian tribes as black, because the one rear end in a top hat registrar decided that there must be loads of black people pretending to be Chickahominy or whatever to get around segregation. This was a serious impediment when Virginia's tribes were seeking federal recognition.

Panfilo
Aug 27, 2011

EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1691212356364226560?t=PGgNUEqAteIU8_mAAHl9UA&s=19

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Panfilo
Aug 27, 2011

EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬
People in the replies are saying he gave such a good answer. How the hell is it a good answer?! He didn't really address the question, instead he sidesteps it to argue people shouldn't be forced to make gay wedding cakes or let trans women compete against cis women in sports.

And there's some rich irony there:
:v: "Majority of Americans support Medicare for all and gay rights"
:byodood: "Tyranny of the majority!"
:v: "Gay people should have the same rights and protections as straight people."
:byodood: "Tyranny of the minority!"

Isn't there uhhh a few things in the constitution Vivek is missing here?

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1690898045100326913?t=Hs5D5dxQYeLPbd7kIv_QnQ&s=19

quote:

.@VivekGRamaswamy: What's your opinion on same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community?

"I don't have a negative view of same-sex couples, but I do have a negative view of the tyranny of the minority. In the name of protecting against the tyranny of the majority, we have now created a new tyranny of the minority, and I think that's wrong.

I don't think that somebody who is religious should be forced to officiate a wedding that they disagree with. I don't think a woman who has worked hard for her achievements should be forced to compete against a biological man in a swimming competition.

I don't think a woman who respects her bodily autonomy and dignity should be forced to change her clothes in a locker room with a man.

That's not freedom. That's oppression...

Adults are free to make whatever choices they want but do not foist that ideology onto children before children are in a position as adults to make decisions for themselves.

I think a lot of the frustration in the country, and if I'm being honest, that I also share, comes from that new culture of oppression where saying those things can actually get somebody punished.

And in my case, that's part of why it's my responsibility to say them."

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply