USPOL Spring: i can't believe HMS Leopard press-ganged my face

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Spring: i can't believe HMS Leopard press-ganged my face

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.

USPOL Spring: Bikeshedding Bathrooms

# ¿ Mar 22, 2019 12:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 28, 2024 20:44

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.

glowing-fish posted:

Well, the thread was entitled "The FBI has a longer attention span than you".

If you want to write up a scathingly hot take about how you knew that this was a waste of time, because the only thing that can really change things is giving the people of the United States the Trotskyism they so desperately and obviously desire, you can do so! You just have to wait two hours to do it! Perhaps in this vast ocean of time you can write a post where you manage to capitalize your letters.

For the record, here's how far I got before I hit the donald reddit and simply lost steam.

https://imgur.com/a/F3XCIXo

The only spin they can offer is the same no indictment assertion gloss getting offered elsewhere. The Federalist hasn't been updated to touch it.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2019 02:26

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.

It is worth reiterating that Donald Trump�s Twitter account has, since the beginning of his term, always been a curated PR space. Its reflection of his mental state has always been, at best, mediated by the people who manage it.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2019 14:55

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.

pseudanonymous posted:

You're saying that they workshopped terms like covfefe and hamberders and decided that's what they wanted to go with?

I never said they were competent, but there�s a reason he goes silent at times and throws up flak at inthers.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2019 17:27

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.

As with the last time (sigh), please don't share the manifesto or assume it's valid.

It's both a) unconfirmed and b) definitely partially in bad faith, intended to gently caress with people who read it and think it's honest. The only new thing about this one is it's very directly trying to get more alt-righters to carry out attacks.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2019 22:07

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.

Jesus loving christ what did I just beg you not to do, there is no goddamn thing to learn, to debate, to discuss, in some nebulously real chan shooter's manifesto. It doesn't matter if it's real.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2019 22:44

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.

A channer manifesto is not going to give you any insight into the shooter. It is a product intended to stymie consumers. It is not honest, it is not a window into ideology or soul. It will not tell you why it happened, it will not give you "strategic insight", it's garbage designed to gently caress with you.

This isn't new, we talked about it the... :sigh:

...the last time it happened.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2019 23:03

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.

Current research says the brain stops developing (on average, which is a big caveat) at 22-24. This has all sorts of ramifications for things with neurotraumatic exposure, like football or drinking.

mod sassinator posted:

If Barr flat out refuses to testify and ignores the subpoena, what then? He's the head of the branch that would have to prosecute him right? That seems like a major loophole.

Congress has direct inherent contempt authority and can directly arrest him. It's what they should, and hopefully will, do.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2019 16:46

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 why the shooter said he didn't like trump, which is why it's not useful to parse the manifesto.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2019 21:15

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.

Vogon Poetry Slam posted:

Say a prayer, goons. My mom suffered cardiac arrest last week and she just passed.

My condolences on your loss.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2019 06:02

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.

Stickman posted:

That doesn't make any sense. Sexual assault is a crime, so Wohl is recruiting people to falsely accuse a public figure of a crime. How could that possibly not be illegal? And if it is, it seems like they got far enough along to prove intent.

Bear in mind that popehat is a fairly hardcore libertarian himself.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2019 03:24

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.

FizFashizzle posted:

Well at least trump is looking out for bomb rear end tittays

FDA won�t ban breast implants linked to cancer at this time

I've not looked into this specific case, but generally when you see a campaign of this sort it's funded by a competing industrial group. "linked to cancer" is a framing that contains a multitude of ambiguities and a lot of room for strategic fearmongering.

# ¿ May 2, 2019 20:58

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.

Feinne posted:

Yeah FDA have strong enforcement options and aren't generally afraid to use them if they think something is serious.

I've in fact had several very busy days recently because they take their job very seriously.

Ooh, can you share any details?

# ¿ May 3, 2019 05:37

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.

Darko posted:

Exactly. There was a group that was doing it in good faith because they thought everyone was in on the joke and would just not care when they got of the computer, and then those legitimately getting pleasure from downing people. And the former *decided* to stop because they saw it wasn't so harmless, while the latter were just forced to.

I stated at the bottom of the last page, one of my wake up moments was "wait, these FYAD guys really are the stereotype and act like this to real people in real life?" That's a good point you're making here; I assume a good portion don't ever leave that mold, and sink deeper into it when they realize that society and people are turning more and more against their abrasiveness as they see that it can have actual negative effects.

Even when I actually ran E/N websites, I had people "trolling" me by doxxing me and calling my house in the middle of the night constantly and stuff, and I was always like "why are you taking stupid Internet stuff so far?" Then I reverse doxxed them and just answered the phone with their name and they ran away. It's this mentality of people that really are behind a lot of alt right online movements and recruit the younger generations into it, imo.

We are what we pretend to be, etc. It was a different, older expression of the same perverse self-defensive irony poisoning that Anon used, that became the alt-right.

# ¿ May 4, 2019 16:41

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.

Mummy Xzibit posted:

On the subject of Loomer, I know we don't kink-shame, which is cool and good, but is it okay to kink-shame people with a Nazi fetish?

That's an interesting question, kind of like the people who have race-specific fetishes. In both cases they frequently seem caught up in unpleasant power dynamic stereotypes, so...maybe? Treat it as an example of an unintentional but still harmful bigotry, like a lot of racial insensitivity? But it can be reflective of other political views, so...I'm not sure.

# ¿ May 4, 2019 21:56

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.

mdemone, why not have users phone their own members of congress? Nadler isn't wavering on this, and is already following what procedures exist to set up an ironclad contempt proceeding. We need to start putting fear into other votes in congress.

# ¿ May 8, 2019 13:46

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.

eke out's analysis is correct to the best of my knowledge of the subject.

# ¿ May 8, 2019 15:47

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.

mdemone posted:

Yup I remember that too, you didn't dream it. I'm damned if I can remember any identifying details but I bet it's easily found if you look.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/archaeologists-finally-know-what-happened-brutal-reform-school-180957911/

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article229136219.html

# ¿ May 8, 2019 22:03

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.

Charlz Guybon posted:

How can an article like this not say how the committee voted!?

Obviously some Republicans voted to subpeona him, but how many and who?

It's not public. The story appears to have probably come from Burr himself.

# ¿ May 9, 2019 05:07

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.

You can still use things other than Uber or Lyft. The companies themselves are monstrous on several levels past taxi companies.

# ¿ May 9, 2019 17:31

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.

The source on the STEM school vigil is right wing.

# ¿ May 10, 2019 02:54

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.

Leak from IRS just hit the washington post.

Confidential draft IRS memo says tax returns must be given to Congress unless president invokes executive privilege

https://wapo.st/2QhCkHm?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.ae3ec02b0d6a

# ¿ May 21, 2019 23:55

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.

Cru Jones posted:

How do you invoke executive privilege on tax documents from years before you were president

There are some theoretically viable rationales, although they aren't strong ones. The memo was basically saying invoking privilege (even if the privilege invocation was garbage) was the only even theoretically meaningful way the IRS could deny such a request.

# ¿ May 21, 2019 23:59

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.

Imagine what the white supremacists in Charleston, SC will get up to when this is undone.

"telling stories", my rear end. Is antivaxx "telling stories"?

# ¿ May 22, 2019 14:58

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.

SickZip posted:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

I am going to strangle you with each of these in turn.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355
This is a poor quality "push review" containing no original research. It exclusively cites a set of extremely non-credible studies on different amounts and forms of electromagnetic exposure, in different models, frequently of poor quality (the equivalent of putting mice in a microwave). Even its intro acknowledges the shittiness of making these claims based on this evidence.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf
Conveniently, this is a pretty good example of how studies are abused to get results - a rat model is tested under so many different variable conditions that random chance produces a statistically significant effect in one of them. This is called p-hacking and it's a profound abuse of statistics and scientific ethics.

Your third link is invalid. The proper doi is https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3
This is a commentary piece by an NGO citing unrelated or insufficient work to make overly broad and unsupported claims.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Discendo Vox posted:

Short version is that IARC (and also California) have basically optimized programs to take good scientific research in and output absolutely maximum cancer fearmongering about anything. They correctly classify plenty of things, ofc, but in addition they wind up creating all sorts of pseudoscience fuel. It's especially bad when the causal mechanism of carcinogenesis or exposure is really inconsistent or vague, like with hairdressers. They gesture at a substance in hair dye and list all the other chemicals that hairdressers are exposed to, but then instead of drilling down and attempting to assert a research program on specific substances, or anything else concrete and actionable, they list hair care professions as probably carcinogenic through exposure. Which solves nothing, produces no policy, and makes people terrified. Classification at such an abstract level, with so little direct testing on the claim, also maximizes the possibility of a false positive, because it creates so many different semi-plausible things to test.

A good associated example of this is the red/processed meat classification. There are probably specific processing ingredients or practices that can produce carcinogenic substances in some degree, and those could be measured and excluded from processing and the food supply. But because IARC released a categorical classification, we're now afraid of "processed foods" as a whole (despite there not being a very good definition for what processing entails).

In short, you googled, picked the first results, quoted the introductions only, and got the same pile of garbage that people keep spewing on these topics year after year. gently caress them, and gently caress you for spreading them around. gently caress off.

# ¿ May 22, 2019 17:40

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.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

There's also a really good skeptical blog called Science based Medicine that did a takedown of this stupidity recently

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/5g-is-coming/

I recommend people check out the other topics written about there.

SBM's great struff, strongly recommended.

# ¿ May 22, 2019 18:21

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.

Too Shy Guy posted:

You didn't actually refute anything Vox pointed out, y'know. I know you're not going to either, based on your posting history, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to thank Vox for their thoughtful takedown of your bullshit.

It was convenient that after getting into them I had read all but one of the linked articles before.

# ¿ May 22, 2019 19:36

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.

SickZip posted:

There's nothing to refute because he fails at any sort of substantive criticism.

There's studies that point to EM radiation having health effects and the matter is still generally regarded as an open question and something taken seriously within the scientific community. In response, Vox pathetically flails around a bunch and makes reference to the scientific consensus conveniently located just off-screen.

I want to highlight the dishonest shift happening here to "EM Radiation" as an entire overarching category. That's deliberate, and it matches some of the citations he was listing earlier. It's a way of laundering legit safety research on other ranges and exposures into wifi fearmongering.

# ¿ May 22, 2019 19:54

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.

Ogmius815 posted:

Maybe I�m stating the obvious, but isn�t electromagnetic radiation a very broad category including everything from visible light to uv rays to gamma rays? So saying �em radiation can affect your health� is a bit like saying �food can affect your health�?

Yes, you're correct.

# ¿ May 22, 2019 20:07

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.

CuddleCryptid posted:

Because literally nothing good comes out of the right

Reddit AMA by investigative journalist detailing some ways why raising the smoking age to 21 is in favor of big tobacco

It's a few different bills so the reasons are different but they are a mix of selectively excluding vapes from the bill, avoiding a total ban on advertising tobacco products, and the realization that most people start smoking before it is legal to anyways.

It's unlikely these will proceed, but I should note that scientific consensus is looking at around 22 years for the average age at which the brain stops developing, as a point to inform regulation of basically anything with neurological effects like tobacco, drugs, alcohol, or trauma risk activities like tackle football.

# ¿ May 22, 2019 22:55

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.

On Terra Firma posted:

Juul took what should be an incredible opportunity to get people to stop using tobacco and hosed the industry over in order to market to young people. Now they're trying to clean up the mess. I don't know if they'll be able to fix the damage they've done at this point.

It was never an opportunity for tobacco cessation. e-cigs were capitalized from the very beginning as a way to circumvent FDA regulation and target kids. Industry sued to prevent their regulation as cessation devices because then they'd have had to deal with the massive influx of new, underage consumers. The people behind e-cigs make traditional big tobacco look like saints.

# ¿ May 22, 2019 23:27

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.

On Terra Firma posted:

None of this is true. At all. Either you're really misinformed or you're straight up lying.

Most of what could be described as "the industry" sprang up long after smaller shops and manufacturers were in business. The most widely used devices were, for years and years, built by smaller companies with no ties to the tobacco industry. Innokin, Kanger, ijoy, etc. Almost all of the e-liquid was made in relatively small batches by people who had zero affiliation with any big tobacco brands.

Most shop owners are loving livid at what Juul has done. The places selling to minors are stores like Walgreens and CVS, not vape shops.

As with tobacco, industry has cultivated a subculture of users who firmly believe in an alternative, industry-funded body of evidence to support their continued and increased use. The cultivation of an intermediary low-scale distribution base as political leverage to create deregulatory pressure isn't new; it's what happened with dietary supplements. This is what happened with e-cigarettes- the social media groups, the raw material suppliers, the studies out of Britian. e-cigarettes are not smoking cessation aids; they are a mechanism of nicotine abuse and an attempt at a bolthole for a new, even more predatory industry. I am not going to engage further with you on this.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:48 on May 22, 2019

# ¿ May 22, 2019 23:45

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.

https://twitter.com/FordFischer/status/1132380126128332801

# ¿ May 26, 2019 00:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 28, 2024 20:44

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.

The tubal ligation and birth control issues being raised tend to involve state medical boards, outcome uncertainty, med mal liability and insurance guidelines, all things that are at least at a degree removed from executive or even congressional action - congress could in principle do something about it, I think, but it'd not be straightforward exercise of existing systems. There are also some complexities to some of these issues that would cause stakeholder groups (particularly clinicians) to oppose them. It ties into a few complex underlying tensions in med mal concern in particular.

# ¿ May 26, 2019 23:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Spring: i can't believe HMS Leopard press-ganged my face