|
Is wi-fi a  plot to dumb down the American people with brain cancer so they'll be docile useful idiots of the Republican-Democrat Uniparty?IEE 802.11 was released in 1997 during Bill Clinton's administration right as the two parties were battling subversive outsider candidate Ross Perot who almost drove them out of power. I'm not saying any of this is true but we can't rule it out and not only that we should assume it's true.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Mixodorian posted:I got asked if I was worried about fluoride and cell phone signals and no, I'm not. There is irrefutable evidence about the safety of both. There is not the same for wi-fi, as the lengthy research from last year I linked to shows. So cell bands at 1.9GHz are totally cool but 2.1GHz is the magical fry-babies'-brains frequency?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Remember when Hillary said autism was suspiciously on the rise in 2008 when asked about vaccines? I do The Wakefield study on autism and vaccines was proven to have fabricated its data in 2010, so it's not totally unreasonable for a non-professional to have been worried in 2008. Jill Stein, a medical doctor, continuing to pander to believers in a discredited snake-oil salesman's crackpot theories post-2010 is inexcusable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:This is my point : would Jill stein, in hillarys shoes, have made the same choices to resulted in human suffering and loss of life? I don't think so... So why does being a goofy hippy within reasonable parameters make her crazy? It's all I ever hear about her and I really don't see how it's anything worth worrying about. I do not trust someone who is an anti-science crackpot or who panders to anti-science crackpots to make responsible appointments to the FDA, and judging by the polls 99% of Americans agree. Maybe Jill Stein should stop pandering to crazies and abandon her terrible and idiotic positions if she wants to convince people to vote for her, instead of just whining that everyone else is so mean for not wanting to vote for the dumbest bullshit ever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Holy poo poo hahahahaha. So being anti vax was fine til 2010? I think a lot of people owe that McCarthy lady an apology. Clinton wasn't anti-vax in 2008. "We should look into this possible link" is a much more reasonable position before you find out that the evidence for the link was fabricated by a huckster. What's Jill Stein's excuse for "I'm just asking questions about vaccines" six years after the autism link was revealed to be a fraud?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Na, Stein only said she didn't want to ignore her constituents that felt that way. She went on to say she is pro-vaccine and they are important in modern healthcare. We should ignore people who "feel that way" because people who "feel that way" are wrong, scientifically, their dumbshit feelings and opinions are medically dangerous, and they should have no influence in government. Also she went on to repeat anti-vaxxer lies: "Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say? -- approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence". Which is not true: In reality, most members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee work at academic or medical institutions, not drug companies. So either Jill Stein is ignorant of who is on the FDA advisory committee, or she is lying to pander to anti-science crazies, or she is anti-science and won't trust credentialed academic or medical institutions in their field of expertise. It doesn't really matter which of these is the reason she makes irresponsible statements and panders to unfounded anti-scientific fears, it's inexcusable either way. Maybe greens should stop nominating idiots, liars, and crackpots rather than complaining that the 99% of Americans who don't want their candidate anywhere near executive office are just being soooooooooo unfaaaaaaaair. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:"I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out." And then we did find out: the study showing a link was not reproducible and shown to be a complete fraud. "I want to look at the evidence...okay two years later the evidence is in and vaccines are safe" vs "Well I'm just asking questions here and hmm hmm how can we trust anything, big pharma, corporate influence" forever and ever regardless of evidence. Gee I can't tell which option is good or bad, help me Jill Stein! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I believe the idea, nowadays, is that the first one shows you to be a feckless flip flopper, no doubt in the pay of Big Something, while the latter demonstrates your inspiring moral courage. The greatest thing about Jill Stein is she's steady. You know where she stands. She has the same questions about vaccines on Wednesday that she had on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
I like the inability to connect "well Green Party doesn't want to ignore constituents who feeeeel that [insert anti-vax/Jews did 9-11/killer wifi beams/Assad did nothing wrong here]" with the Green Party's devastating unpopularity with 99% of the public.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Well I did have some posters excuse her for saying the rise of autism might be linked to vaccines which amazed me. It's not funny, it's just anxiety inducing. How do you not get the difference between Hillary wanting more information about a link in a possibly anomalous study in 2008, and Stein continuing to say "well I just don't trust the FDA on vaccines" and lie about corporate influence in the vaccine advisory board six years after the link was proven to be fraudulent. Jill Stein voter as bad at critical thinking as Jill Stein. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:The article is too complicated to actually have an effect. Also,  at the IBTimes, which nonstop sucks the cock of every Republican corporatist anti-regulation free-market worshiper suddenly complaining that Republicans overrode Clinton's veto and legalized lying to investors after a decade of Republican-appointed judges like Sam Alito were building it into president.gently caress every one of these small government assholes who votes R because we have to get government out of the way and then  s about "why isn't the government protecting me anymore""But I thought when we got rid of the regulations, I'd be on top swindling everybody not the other way around!  "
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The problem occurs when someone enters such an overwrought "safe space" for something that they get called *ist and decide, "welp, guess I'm a deplorable now." I've had that; I had to restrain myself from voting for Trump just to spite some "Thought Leaders" on social media that I dislike.   is this.Or, you could use something called "discernment" to figure out the difference between something imaginary like ponyism and something real like racism. Then if someone calls you the former for not watching My Little Pony you can shrug them off as a weirdo instead of going "well I may as well just be a racist too!" Like, that urge you have, that makes you want to wear a hood and vote Trump? That's not some weird self-defense against furries, that urge is called "being a loving racist". You should own that and resist it, rather than blaming it on tumblr or w/e. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:That's directly something that's hosed up my life, though. I grew up in a very leftie open sort of place, so it wasn't like I just had no idea about anything, and I was on a good path to getting to the bottom of the mess of weird that turns out to be that I'm actually a girl, until I started to go online for more information and got immediately surrounded by people attacking me for not agreeing with them and seeing myself wrong and then when I learned to get quiet, I got to wash around in a bunch of political discussion that I strongly oppose and do oppose now. I really can't wait for gender identity to no longer force me to be tied to angry insert people. Could you explain how these people hosed up your life? Everywhere I look it's not furries on tumblr who are making us second class citizens, calling us perverts and child molesters on 24hr news, discriminating against us, and sending us to torture camps to "fix" us. I'm not trans so maybe there is something I'm missing, but as a gay man the effect on my life from angry internet tigersexuals on tumblr and fetish forums or w/e has been δ→0 whereas the effect on my life from everyday hetero bigots is ERROR:INT_OVERFLOW
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:So what do you do if you encounter someone who you disagree with but they consider it the next front in the war against racism? I have tried the hardest to not normalize racism my whole life, but if someone says I'm racist if I don't support reparations and won't listen to why I don't, then I'm either going to have that "I'm not racist because..." defensive disaster of a talk that makes things worse, or I walk away thinking "guess I'm a racist now." Well, what do you do if say a small-government Romney voter Republican calls you the real racist for bringing up voter disenfranchisement because "anyone can get an ID, stop coddling black people and assuming they're too lazy/stupid to go to the DMV". You evaluate it and decide whether it's a good argument or whether it's a baseless insult to paper over the lack of a coherent position, right? You don't (I assume) go "well I guess I'm a racist now may as well elect Trump to really get back at this Mitt Romney fella", do you? Like, I don't get the problem. Either the person telling you your views have racist/sexist themes is arguing in good faith, in which case you should consider their arguments and critically reevaluate your positions to decide whether they're right or wrong. Or the person is some aggressive idiot in which case you can just safely write them off, you certainly shouldn't just decide to adopt consciously racist positions because some moron called you one (and ironically prove them right after all).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Regardless of that, this is the point. I don't think supporting reparations or affirmative action is a minimum borderline for "not being human scum", but obviously other people think so. Well as a white dude I can look back and say that not supporting affirmative action didn't make me human scum, I was just ignorant about the situation because the particular barriers that black people face were wholly outside my experience. But then I learn about those issues that I couldn't see, I see studies where a black sounding name results in fewer callbacks and lower grades for identical resumes and essays, and I start to realize that just the unconscious expectations that black people will have lower achievement affects their treatment and their opportunities. And then I realize hey, all this was in front of me all the time, black people were getting into college and getting jobs at lower rates than white people all along, and just assuming that must be a fair result of their substandard ability and not unfair barriers was actually p racist on my part. Does that mean I was human scum? Idk ymmv on that but my feelings are irrelevant, what matters is reality, not whether my feelers were hurt when I had to admit to myself that I was wrong about something once.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
If you think racism is terrible there are basically two ways to deal with living in a racist society. You can determinedly ignore any and all evidence that any position you hold could be racist and get angry at anyone who suggests otherwise to make sure you never have to admit to being racist because being a racist is terrible! or You can seek out evidence and arguments against you and critically evaluate your positions for hidden racism to make sure you're not perpetuating racism because being a racist is terrible! One of these methods is a lot more effective at building a better society.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:IIRC the short version is he was poo poo when he was younger, realized he was being awful and spent years/decades working to make amends and help minorities. The NAACP doesn't give high marks to ex-klansmen just because they're Democrats, which is probably what your friend is going to keep arguing they did. Some idiot brings this up on my friend's dad's Facebook all the time. Said idiot's response to the NAACP's 100% rating for Byrd is "the NAACP can be bought". They don't care about the truth if they're bringing up Byrd, they just want a narrative that will let them ignore black people without admitting it to themselves/others. If they had an honest interest in civil rights they wouldn't be conservatives.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 23:31
|
|