The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Donerail]

Putting this here bc I doubt that even Icespear would agree

also IceSpear, who used to be D-WA, but is now D-PA is probably this site's best poster.

[Donerail]

Hate speech being covered by the first amendment is absolutely unacceptable.

opposing freedom of speech "gets a yikes from me"

[Donerail]

If you disable that feature (and use the enhanced ignore features Virginia has so graciously added to this website) then maybe this thread would not devolve into whatever this is?

[Donerail]

Conversion efforts are abusive to congregants. By sending their followers out to "spread the good word," religions do not expect to win any new adherents. They assume (correctly) that the outside world will be hostile to their attempts, and that normal people will balk at them and be rude to their members. Then, when the congregants return to the security of the cult, they feel welcomed and at home again. The familiarity of the group calms their anxiety, and they are gradually taught to hate and fear those outside of the cult through conditional exposure. The goal is not to convince anyone to join the faith; that's just icing on the cake. On the contrary, their intention is to solidify their flock's dependence upon the cult by making them feel isolated, persecuted, and victimized. It's an insidiously genius method.

I think this deserves a serious answer, but I also know that you consider religion per se abusive to congregants, so maybe there's a premise problem.

I'm not sure what sort of serious answer you'd expect to a post like that. It is plainly true that many religions do grow through evangelization, so the premise that religions do not expect or intend to win converts is incorrect. The rest is the sort of anti-religious ranting that is standard for Dule, and I am grateful that he saved us the trouble by posting it directly into the thread.

[Donerail]

I'm not sure what sort of serious answer you'd expect to a post like that. It is plainly true that many religions do grow through evangelization, so the premise that religions do not expect or intend to win converts is incorrect. The rest is the sort of anti-religious ranting that is standard for Dule, and I am grateful that he saved us the trouble by posting it directly into the thread.

I appear to have struck a nerve. Perhaps you'll think about this post the next time you ring somebody's doorbell to give them some "literature."

I am not a member of a church that does much, if any, evangelical work — this is part of the reason my denomination and ones like it are fading, while other traditions that place a greater emphasis on evangelism are growing. You don't have to like it, but it's hard to deny its effectiveness.

[Donerail]

Common sense. Disappointing, if not downright horrifying, that this isn't unanimous.

Click thread for context

Nothing absurd or ignorant about observing that the Court has always held facially discriminatory laws to be unconstitutional.

[Donerail]

21 people need to get their head checked

I bet you would’ve said the same thing about Zapata in 2016.

New annoying hack

You don't get to rename the thread about a guy who only has 50 posts — especially if the post motivating the renaming is actually just a funny own of you. The honor of the thread name has to go to a poster with a lengthy track record of absurd and/or ignorant posts, like this.

[Donerail]

while the Iraq War was controversial, we did establish democracy there

[Donerail]

People do realize one of the main functions of school in society is such that working parents are able to work?  If teachers go on strike the parents can often struggle.

The GOP still does a lot of other #elitist sh**t but this isn't one of them.  Not all working people are in a union.

IMO It shouldn't be "illegal" exactly as in the teachers could be locked up for it but I wouldn't mind the state refusing to recognize public unions.  Although as far as I understand usually there aren't any legal penalties and it just makes it even easier to fire striking teachers.

https://www.governing.com/archive/tns-west-virginia-strike-ends.html

The strike left working parents of younger students looking for child care options while it continued. In Bluefield, the city Parks and Recreation Department offered an alternative. Children were playing Wednesday at the Bluefield Auditorium along Stadium Drive.

oNLY peOPLe in unIoNs CAN be WorKiNg cLAsS

do you think people are criticizing you because they think "only people in unions can be working class" or is it because you hinted that you wouldn't really mind if we imprisoned teachers for demanding decent working conditions?

[Donerail]

The first three sentences are indisputably correct and I found myself nodding along, wondering why it was in this thread, and then you hit the last sentence...

[Donerail]

If y'all took literally 2 seconds to maybe just click the post in question, then you'd find links to multiple demographical polls that show exactly how the initial statement in question was "factually very wrong" (so, more than qualifying for inclusion herein). Now, maybe it "make(s some of) you mad" that the statement in this question was "factually very wrong" & so you might not wanna hear it, but the available evidence suggests that it just patently was "factually very wrong." That's just a fact, so don't attack me for daring to - *gasp* - tell the truth about an election on a forum that's about elections.

You link to a writeup of two polls run by the same organization, in The Hill, showing a minor bump in Biden's numbers immediately after the VP announcement. It is fairly common for polling numbers to increase immediately after a VP announcement because it's an occasion for a lot of media coverage of a presidential candidate, usually in a favorable light. Using that evidence to suggest that a VP selection had a meaningful effect on the outcome in November requires better proof than that. I am quoting your post because it is absurd/ignorant to suggest that a poll from August is proof of your claim.

[Donerail]

You link to a writeup of two polls run by the same organization, in The Hill, showing a minor bump in Biden's numbers immediately after the VP announcement. It is fairly common for polling numbers to increase immediately after a VP announcement because it's an occasion for a lot of media coverage of a presidential candidate, usually in a favorable light. Using that evidence to suggest that a VP selection had a meaningful effect on the outcome in November requires better proof than that. I am quoting your post because it is absurd/ignorant to suggest that a poll from August is proof of your claim.

Again with the strawmen, just like the original poster in question on the original thread. That's not what I was suggesting. The OP whom I was pushing back against in the original thread suggested that Harris likely did nothing for - &, indeed, may have even hurt - the ticket with Latino voters & later suggested reasons as to why her selection shouldn't have done anything to help shore up the Biden campaign's support among Black voters. In response, I pointed to the polling in question to show how the Harris selection was indeed significantly well-received by both the Black & Latino communities, & that polling among those demographics is more-than-sufficient to back up the claim.

It is possible for her selection to be received positively in August and yet ultimately "do nothing for the ticket with Latino voters" in November. There's no contradiction between those two ideas.

[Donerail]

It's a hot far-right take and the government is continuing to milk it for propaganda. In case you missed the sub-headline of your own link:

Is it "a hot far-left take" to believe that a bat bit a pangolin that infected a person? There is no direct evidence for either of these scenarios and I am unsure why you are ascribing an ideological position to one or the other.

[Donerail]

It's a hot far-right take and the government is continuing to milk it for propaganda. In case you missed the sub-headline of your own link:

Is it "a hot far-left take" to believe that a bat bit a pangolin that infected a person? There is no direct evidence for either of these scenarios and I am unsure why you are ascribing an ideological position to one or the other.

Thank you for posting your absurd and ignorant take directly into the thread, makes things easier.

The notion that the virus was created in a lab is an unfounded conspiracy theory that is being spread by right wing pundits and media in order to both seek to punish China (or to them, anyone who "looks" Chinese) and ascribe blame, so they can point to someone and say "look its their fault" as well as remove any responsibility from themselves in stopping the spread.

The origin from a pangolin is theory, but at least based on there being some degree of evidence that it originated in a food market, and is not being used to spread any sort of political stance.

So yes, one of these talking points is absolutely, undeniably, an ideologically-driven talking point.

You're just regurgitating labels without making an argument. Whether or not the virus was created in a lab is a factual question. People will marshal assortments of facts in service of their agendas, but either it was or it wasn't. There is no direct evidence — as you admit — for either theory, but facts, by themselves, cannot be "far-right." Arbitrarily deciding that a lab origin can be ruled out, because it'd be politically inconvenient for you if it were true, is very, very stupid.

[Donerail]

You're just regurgitating labels without making an argument. Whether or not the virus was created in a lab is a factual question. People will marshal assortments of facts in service of their agendas, but either it was or it wasn't. There is no direct evidence — as you admit — for either theory, but facts, by themselves, cannot be "far-right." Arbitrarily deciding that a lab origin can be ruled out, because it'd be politically inconvenient for you if it were true, is very, very stupid.

There are no facts that it originated in a lab, and the scientific and medical communities have pointed out that it's highly unlikely. The problem is that takes like yours are treating a conspiracy theory that was created solely for propaganda purposes, not only as a rational thought, but as something that is factual or grounded in reality.

There is no scientific consensus on this question and even the most ardent advocates of that view will, if pressed, admit there is no direct evidence in support of either theory. Stop trying to support your position with a consensus that doesn't exist — and, if you're so confident that the evidence supports your view, maybe try explaining why instead of resorting to the lazy label of conspiracy?

[Donerail]

Whether or not Gulf Coastal elitist was hatched from a spawn of Cobra eggs is a factual question. But either he was or if he wasn't. There's no direct evidence for or against this Theory, but facts by themselves something something something politically inconvenient something.

Am I doing this right?

Last post was deleted by fascist mods (hi jdb! luv u) so I'll play nice for a bit: do you sincerely believe, as you're suggesting, that this is equally as realistic a scenario as someone in a laboratory messing up? That it's completely beyond the realm of reality to believe that someone dropped a vial, someone labeled something wrong, someone put their mask on without sealing it properly? Why do you think it's so implausible that an accident happened here?

[Donerail]

I’m not even a mod on this board   That said, if you don’t want your posts deleted, then don’t make personal attacks, especially ones that blatantly OTT.

Rich coming from you.

You seem to hate my guts for reasons that remain a mystery to me and that’s fine, but you still have to follow TOS just like everyone else.

Don't play dumb, it's not cute.

[Donerail]

I would be the Fascist mod and I will give you a time out if you do not cool your jets.

I apologize for responding to badger with the same level of respect and courtesy he routinely extends to others.

[Donerail]

I would be the Fascist mod and I will give you a time out if you do not cool your jets.

I apologize for responding to badger with the same level of respect and courtesy he routinely extends to others.

I don't care if you are rude to him, just as long as you don't resort to the drinking nonsense.

Yeah that's fair tbh, my bad

[Donerail]

Whether or not Gulf Coastal elitist was hatched from a spawn of Cobra eggs is a factual question. But either he was or if he wasn't. There's no direct evidence for or against this Theory, but facts by themselves something something something politically inconvenient something.

Am I doing this right?

Last post was deleted by fascist mods (hi jdb! luv u) so I'll play nice for a bit: do you sincerely believe, as you're suggesting, that this is equally as realistic a scenario as someone in a laboratory messing up? That it's completely beyond the realm of reality to believe that someone dropped a vial, someone labeled something wrong, someone put their mask on without sealing it properly? Why do you think it's so implausible that an accident happened here?

Other than the fact that there is not far exactly zero evidence for such a proposition, yeah, I'd say they're running neck-and-neck as far as credibility.

More to the point, your argument was a misplaced syllogism that conflated the conceivably theoretically possible with the arguable and credible.

[Sorry to do this in this thread; it's off-topic, and please feel free to move it if necessary. There is a COVID origins thread in Individual Politics (for some reason) that this may fit into better]

The evidence for an artificial origin is purely circumstantial, but that doesn't mean there is "zero evidence." Given where the disease originated and the conduct of the CPC thus far it seems exceedingly unlikely that we will ever be able to gather reliable direct evidence on the origins of the disease (the joint statement on the WHO's "investigation" released by the State Department today indicates as much).

Here is what we know: the virus is most similar to a coronavirus (RaTG13) found in bats, and it was first detected in Wuhan. We know most of the early cases are linked to a seafood market in that city, and we also know that it's unlikely that it originated from the market (the market, contra early reports, did not sell either bats or pangolins, the theorized animal hosts). We know that no animals with similar viruses have been found nearby, with the horseshoe bats that host RaTG13 native to Yunnan, which is hundreds of miles away. As far as definitive knowledge about the virus itself goes, that's pretty much it — if you see a way to take those facts and assemble them into "this is definitely zoonotic," let me know.

We also know that there are three high-security virology labs in Wuhan, one of which contained the world's most comprehensive bank of bat coronaviruses. We know that lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was performing gain-of-function research, attempting to develop more infectious strains of disease to prevent future outbreaks. And we know, based on diplomatic cables from 2018, that the lab did not meet accepted safety standards for handling those kind of pathogens.

The alternative theory is that a horseshoe bat infected a person, maybe a miner or farmer, directly, and that at some point RaTG13 went through some sort of dramatic change, maybe combining with another coronavirus to produce SARS-CoV-2 (there's some suggestion that the Mojiang virus, a poorly-studied virus found in Yunnan, may be involved). I am personally skeptical of this explanation because there are several characteristics of the virus that are still difficult to explain, but I certainly acknowledge that it's a possibility.

This matters not because it provides a reason to "punish China" — it is only luck that this happened in China and not the US, where broken vials and human errors are just as common. (A researcher at my alma mater, for instance, died in 2009 from a lab accident involving the plague. That's not an exception — there have been hundreds of similar accidents at supposedly secure US labs.) It matters because there are labs in the US and elsewhere performing similar research. If it came from a bat, that's a reason to focus more on zoonotic diseases, including maybe performing more gain-of-function research to identify and respond to emerging threats, and maybe more broadly to change how we are expanding human settlement into the urban-wild boundary. If, however, it escaped through a lab accident, that's a reason to focus on lab safety, where we locate our labs, and how we do research.

I do not understand why you are so quick to dismiss either hypothesis — we simply do not have the evidence at this point to make a definitive determination. There is a reason 60 Minutes is having a discussion about both possibilities, there's a reason Robert Redfield came out and said this week that he personally believes a lab leak is more likely, and there's a reason Tedros said yesterday that "all hypotheses remain open."

This post is probably way too long, but it really does bother me that so many people are willing to jump to conclusions when we just don't have the data to support them. Figuring out what exactly happened here is essential to preventing another pandemic. It's obviously bad that politicians on the right are attempting to exploit that for racist ends, but that shouldn't be a reason to justify foreclosing any investigation into all the possibilities.

I think I'll celebrate this reproachment with a wee dram of either the two whiskeys my wife bought for my birthday Friday! Yukatori or Quiet Man? Decisions decisions...

 wish I could pour you a splash through the internet.

Ah, it's springtime (at least in California), all the cool kids are back to drinking claws now

[Donerail]

And isn't six figures in the Bay Area not even very much? Blame the tech bros and predatory development speculators for that one.

God I wish we had some developers & some tech bros running things — instead, we have long-time homeowners insisting on minimum lot sizes and height limits and parking minimums and, most recently, an environmental review process for a sidewalk. Important to direct your ire toward the parties who are actually responsible.

[Donerail]

I do love how everytime someone wants to lecture me on the simple folkways of the interior where they don't need your big city wages because everything costs a nickle it's a California or Washington Av.

Please excuse us, our brains are broken by the housing market. I have lived here for less than a year and already endured severe psychic damage.

[Donerail]

> Latinx

I'm always a bit bemused by the way that a huge majority of even left wing posters on here are so freaked out by that term.

I'm torn between thinking this is more a sheer obstinate refusal to even try and understand the sorts of issues that are  significant outside of the English speaking world (which works the other way round too - see the "how would Belgium vote if it was a US state" type threads, where people try to calque US issues onto a context where they aren't especially relevant); or that it is simply down to the US being much more conservative on issues related to gender and LGBT equality. Nevertheless, it's remarkably different to how I see the issue being discussed by left wingers in French or German.

Outside the English-speaking world? Latinx is an English word near exclusively used by English speakers. Much less common to see it in Spanish-speaking communities.

[Donerail]

I mean, yes, the response to my post that gender neutral language is an apparently exclusively American concern (?!) rather seems to back up the point I was making

No one is making that claim. The point is that this specific word is a very clunky attempt to de-gender the word “Latino” in English that doesn’t really make any sense in Spanish or Portuguese, and as a consequence is rarely used outside of academic/professional or activist spheres in the US. There’s a reason many in Latin America prefer the neutral “Latine” instead (in part because it’s a word that you can actually pronounce out loud).

That raises a whole host of issues besides gender (“linguistic colonialism” is a phrase I’ve seen thrown around). There's something very uncomfortable about using an English pronunciation, adopted in the US and largely used by Anglos, to refer to a US minority group that the minority group does not actually use to describe themselves (something like ~3% of US Hispanics identify with the term). On this forum, in a political context, I think it’s gotten particular attention as an easy example of the disconnect between the largely-Anglo intelligentsia that steer the ideological and cultural direction of American liberalism and the voters they rely on to hold political power.

[Donerail]

OK, but that's fundamentally not the original point that I was making. The point was that "Latinx" is a term used to turn a generic masculin into a gender neutral term. It was not specifically about that one word, but about the fact that this is a very mainstream concern across the world. Your criticism of the term is one that seems totally reasonable and legitimate (personally I'm minded to think that anglicising the pronunciation of a loan word is completely natural and acceptable, but I come from a linguistic community that very much isn't in the dominant position that English is, so...).

That said, most criticism of the term that I see on here is along the lines that "no the word is Latino, therefore we must use Latino". As in, it's not a criticism relating to the power dynamics between linguistic communities, but a rejection of the idea of no longer using a generic masculin, or even a refusal to accept that this is actually a debate that exists in Spanish and other languages that have grammatical gender and generic masculins.

I think that's a fair point, but that there's a distinction to be drawn between the reaction to Latinx and resistance to other efforts to replace generic masculines (what few we have) in English. There definitely are people who object to the replacement of gender-specific job titles — Chicago is having a bit of a controversy right now over renaming aldermen as "alderpeople" — or the replacement of words like "mankind" with more gender-neutral language, but at least some of the reaction to Latinx seems to come from a different place, and it seems a little more intense than opposition to, say, "firefighter."

At least here on the forum, though this happened before November too, it seems like a bit of an overwrought reaction to the 2020 election. I agree that there's probably more than a little cultural conservatism underlying the objection to the term, or (not sure if this is a more or less charitable interpretation) at least a desire to appease the views of a group of voters who are more culturally conservative on aggregate. But I think the racial context makes it difficult to separate out those motivations or even to determine what combination of them is motivating opposition to the term.