Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

You think it would be possible to get them people to believe that covering yourself in tar and feathers protects against Covid?
Ofcourse it will need to be crow feathers.

[Reelya]

Okay, sure, so what? Agreed that the number of calls to poison prevention is up. Fine, the number is after the 'disinfect the lungs' speech. What is, is. What isn't, is your hyperbole that 25% of americans are getting brain damaged by huffing bleach.

Throw numbers at it all you'd like, I'm asking you to cut the bullshit off the top so I don't have to do this rigamarole when it comes to the data you're presenting.

You're being excessively shrill about me poking fun at people. Is it the religious dig I did that you're really actually upset about? Calling Republicans brain-damaged bleach-chuggers normally wouldn't gain this much ire. After all, they're lead by a man who openly promoted bleach-chugging, and is arguably brain-damaged. Yeah, sure, that's not strictly "statistically accurate" ... but you have to actually have a better reason than the stated one for being so upset about it.

Really, it was just a joke that the number of Republicans believing that crazy conspiracy was about the same as the number of people reporting negative effects from deliberately exposing themselves to bleach and disinfectants, and asking if there was some connection. Not sure why you're so upset about it.

[Reelya]

The ArsTechnica article does not appear to misrepresent the study. They cited the size of the study, and the break down of the different percentages accurately from the CDC report. It's the same data.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

ArsTechnica wrote

In all, they surveyed 502 US adults and used statistical weighting to make it representative of the country’s population.

Which is exactly what the original study says they did.

Overall, 60 percent said they were doing more cleaning and disinfecting amid the pandemic and 39 percent admitted to doing at least one non-recommended cleaning practice the CDC considers high risk.

The most common risky practice was washing fruits, vegetables, and other foods in bleach solutions. A total of 19 percent said they did this. From there, 18 percent said they used household cleaners—not hand soap—to wash their hands and/or other body parts. Ten percent said they misted themselves with household cleaners and disinfecting products.

Most concerning, 6 percent of respondents said they intentionally inhaled the fumes of household cleaners, including bleach. And 4 percent of people reported gargling or drinking household cleaners, soap solutions, and bleach solutions.

Unsurprisingly, 25 percent of respondents also reported unpleasant health effects from exposures to cleaning products, such as dizziness, skin irritation, nausea, and breathing problems.

All that's directly from the study, and there's a graph of this data, which is just a direct reprint of what's in the original paper on the CDC's website. So ArsTechnica isn't twisting anything. All the relevant figures are there.

If you're really that upset that I joked that 25% of people are getting high off the fumes or something, and thus they believe a specific crazy conspiracy which is also coincidentally believe by 25% of people, then I apologize. But clearly ... that would be a joke.

[Reelya]

Yeah, but you attacked every other point except that one before. You're not discussing in good faith. It's just passive aggressive stuff. (especially that "deflect" thing. I did nothing to you: you're the one gunning for me for absolutely no reason. That's passive aggressive when you're the one concocting an issue here. I have zero things to answer to you over, so calling me out for "deflecting" is bullshit).

First you didn't like the sampling, then you didn't like the median age of the sample. Next, you didn't like Ars Technica's headline. You keep changing the topic of the debate then call me out for "deflecting". Like are you saying that if one thing says washing and another says dunking their food in bleach, then that's deliberately misleading? ArsTechnica writing "dunk" actually sounds like they're downplaying the level of exposure compared to "wash", not exaggerating it. "Dunks" are quick whereas "washing" is prolonged. Seems a huge stretch to attack that point, seems like you're just hunting for various things to nitpick.

Point being, i have nothing to deflect, the whole thing was about telling a joke to start with, nothing more.

Even when I posted the original 25% comment I did include the exact quote you're "correcting" me on:

Unsurprisingly, 25 percent of respondents also reported unpleasant health effects from exposures to cleaning products, such as dizziness, skin irritation, nausea, and breathing problems.

That was in my own post. I then wrote:

That stuff is also going to be hell on your brain cells if you're inhaling enough to get dizzy. Notably, the ones getting dizzy from sniffing bleach (1/4 of all Americans) is very close to the number who believe the Bill Gates / Vaccine / Microchip thing.

... but anyone can tell that part is the joke, and anyone can read the quote from the article which outlines the breakdown of what the 25% is made up of. So no, I didn't misrepresent the study. I never claimed the study said that, I just made the "observation" that the number of people having adverse effects to the cleaning products is very close to the number of conspiracy believers. The only really glossing over was that i handwaved all adverse effects as "getting dizzy" (but right before that is the quote explaining the different adverse effects). I really don't see how this could "mislead" anyone.

[Loud Whispers]

Mfw American companies using slave labour and manufactured products made in concentration camps, literally profiting from genocide, say they're antiracists

Apple, Nike, Volkswagen, CocaCola, very happy to support literal slavery and genocide whilst pretending to support BLM when it's profitable.

The point here is not to diminish the goals of BLM, but to point out that these companies are friends of no one. They have no beliefs, no values and WILL support your destruction the moment it becomes profitable.

*EDIT
It's also not limited to just silence on China. It's real fucking rich seeing Nestle and Kelloggs bawl about how seriously they're supporting BLM when they're literally using child Asian and child African slave labour in plantations and refineries. Don't let these self-congratulatory fucks get away with rebranding themselves

[voliol]

Mfw American companies using slave labour and manufactured products made in concentration camps, literally profiting from genocide, say they're antiracists

Apple, Nike, Volkswagen, CocaCola, very happy to support literal slavery and genocide whilst pretending to support BLM when it's profitable.

The point here is not to diminish the goals of BLM, but to point out that these companies are friends of no one. They have no beliefs, no values and WILL support your destruction the moment it becomes profitable.

*EDIT
It's also not limited to just silence on China. It's real fucking rich seeing Nestle and Kelloggs bawl about how seriously they're supporting BLM when they're literally using child Asian and child African slave labour in plantations and refineries. Don't let these self-congratulatory fucks get away with rebranding themselves

Sadly not unexpected. Profit comes first, then human rights and bothering telling the truth.

I wonder though, how do they wish to profit from this? By increased sales? Or are they trying to buy protection for their crimes against humanity through goodwill, as a safeguard in case the protesters ”win”? Either way they are betting for the human-friendly side, which is... positive in its own way? I suppose? It would certaintly be scarier if a bunch of big companies openly supported the cops, that would mean they didn’t fear the people, an even extremer late-stage capitalism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Unfortunately, it's both, which is why the companies can do both those things. Liberals care about lip service - put a rainbow version of your logo up for June and they feel you aren't obstinately conservative enough to boycot. But the actions of true power, treatment of employees domestic and slaves foreign, are fully fascist. And this is what fascists care most about, too.

Now sure, fascists on the internet whine about pride month logos too, though they call it "virtue signaling", but for them the complaining is performative as well. That's why they make the accusation. A fascist does not, as Sartre famously pointed out, care about their words or much at all about anyone else's. That's just good fun, the real struggle for them is power. To prove this, imagine if Nestle were to raise the price of chocolate because they stopped using slaves. Even libs would be upset by that, but you'd see fascists battering down the doors of Nestle's corporate office where as they just whine on the internet about pride logos.

Corporations who have the money to learn the lessons are fairly good about threading the needle between libs and fascists to bring them together in profit. There's a reason why they tend to aggressively ignore leftists up until the point where they suddenly go "well, I guess we're just going to have to hire death squads and hitmen" as happens in certain industries, most notably logging and agriculture.

[Naturegirl1999]

Ok. Now that the misunderstanding is dealt with, let’s ask why the fuck the president didn’t wear a mask while entering the swab production factory in Maine, and thus, contaminated them so they would need to be discarded. Oh right, Trump probably doesn’t ever wear a mask since he seems to think the virus won’t affect him. Why can’t we get someone who listens to epidemiologists during a pandemic, and work to not spread it, and work to not contaminate testing material?

[wierd]

NG-- the BBC helped produce an interesting documentary some years back.  I think you should watch it.  It will help you better understand why we have Trump.

Reader's digest version for the attentively impaired:  Ruling the ACTUAL world is Hard yo, so the world leaders have collectively agreed to live in a more manageable fantasy; By dictating the narrative, rather than responding and reacting to the real world, they can pick and choose which problems to focus on, which ones to exploit politically, et al.

Then something like Corona comes around, and you have people like Trump contaminating testing materials by ignoring actual reality.


As for modern fascism-- it was noticed by political science types DECADES ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Fascism_(book)

The new face of fascism is not Adolf Hitler, it's more Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and pals.

[thompson]

My personal theory about all this is that during the whole slavery era the US developed a culture where people became excessively sensitive to moral criticism. This would have come about due to Northerners and foreigners almost constantly piling on the South over the slavery issue (or, were perceived to be piling on). Over time the geographic divide was subsumed into the R/D political divide. What we’re left with is a US where people simply will not even bother trying to understand what anyone perceived to be an “outsider” thinks, instead assuming they are ignorant, immoral, or running some hidden agenda.

It’s basically a siege mentality where people assume bad faith from just about everyone else and limit themselves to ideologically aligned echo chambers. I think the latest bout of siege mentality was triggered by conservative backlash to political correctness, in particular the arbitrary nature of some PC “rules” and the complete lack of discretion in its application. There are legitimate complaints there. The trouble, of course, is that The PC backlash is as intellectually lazy as the PC lynch mobs themselves. It’s like we’re caught in an eternal deterministic cycle of offence and backlash which will ultimately consume us.

Then you have individualism, where everyone seems to be under a lot of pressure to be exceptional in some way. It’d be hard for people to admit that an ideological enemy might have been right all along, after all.

In the end, the people who believe this crazy crap simply aren’t listening. This is also how nonsense like Young Earth Creationism can exist. Now, the US isn’t the only place people believe stupid crap, but it does seem to have an unusually strong influence on political discourse, at least for a developed nation. That last point could be incidental though. Could probably happen anywhere, but just happens to be the US now.

[Bumber]

Ok. Now that the misunderstanding is dealt with, let’s ask why the fuck the president didn’t wear a mask while entering the swab production factory in Maine, and thus, contaminated them so they would need to be discarded. Oh right, Trump probably doesn’t ever wear a mask since he seems to think the virus won’t affect him. Why can’t we get someone who listens to epidemiologists during a pandemic, and work to not spread it, and work to not contaminate testing material?

They may have needed to be discarded anyway, due to a lack of hair nets and clean lab clothes on the visitors. No possible source of contamination can be allowed.

Allegedly, Trump wore a mask during a Ford ventillator factory tour last month, but took it off for photos, claiming he "didn't want to give the press the pleasure" of seeing him in a mask.

[Loud Whispers]

Sadly not unexpected. Profit comes first, then human rights and bothering telling the truth.

I wonder though, how do they wish to profit from this? By increased sales? Or are they trying to buy protection for their crimes against humanity through goodwill, as a safeguard in case the protesters ”win”? Either way they are betting for the human-friendly side, which is... positive in its own way? I suppose?

By trying to attach consumption of their brand identity as part of a political identity, they hope to avoid being identified as part of systemic racism & so benefit in sales / avoid reform.

It would certaintly be scarier if a bunch of big companies openly supported the cops, that would mean they didn’t fear the people, an even extremer late-stage capitalism.

Corporations are not human-friendly, they are just frameworks for maximising profit. Thus you can be like JP Morgan, having a very cozy relationship with security services whilst claiming to fight the systems they designed

[Max™]

My personal theory about all this is that during the whole slavery era the US developed a culture where people became excessively sensitive to moral criticism. This would have come about due to Northerners and foreigners almost constantly piling on the South over the slavery issue (or, were perceived to be piling on). Over time the geographic divide was subsumed into the R/D political divide. What we’re left with is a US where people simply will not even bother trying to understand what anyone perceived to be an “outsider” thinks, instead assuming they are ignorant, immoral, or running some hidden agenda.

It’s basically a siege mentality where people assume bad faith from just about everyone else and limit themselves to ideologically aligned echo chambers. I think the latest bout of siege mentality was triggered by conservative backlash to political correctness, in particular the arbitrary nature of some PC “rules” and the complete lack of discretion in its application. There are legitimate complaints there. The trouble, of course, is that The PC backlash is as intellectually lazy as the PC lynch mobs themselves. It’s like we’re caught in an eternal deterministic cycle of offence and backlash which will ultimately consume us.

Then you have individualism, where everyone seems to be under a lot of pressure to be exceptional in some way. It’d be hard for people to admit that an ideological enemy might have been right all along, after all.

In the end, the people who believe this crazy crap simply aren’t listening. This is also how nonsense like Young Earth Creationism can exist. Now, the US isn’t the only place people believe stupid crap, but it does seem to have an unusually strong influence on political discourse, at least for a developed nation. That last point could be incidental though. Could probably happen anywhere, but just happens to be the US now.

I know there are various valid criticisms of his model, at least one alternative but similar one I know of, and various deeper reasons behind lots of shit in the US, but holy fuckbats the country makes so much more sense after seeing maps like Woodard drew up and various explorations of the idea like the ones this dude offers: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/maps-of-the-american-nations/ which are both an interesting read in general and an interesting read in particular for ameripol understanding.

[The Ensorceler]

There appears to be some pretty extreme racism in there masked by it being entirely about white people. 'This end of the country is made of accredited professional stock, therefore is genetically smarter vs this bit is inbred cousin-marriers who are just gonna be dummies.'

I wondered for a while if it was using genetics to attempt to map where cultural divides had reduced intermarriage, but yeesh. It's hardly acknowledging non-genetic cultural patterns or historic concentrations of wealth at all. Kinda hard to climb the regional intelligence ladder (barf) when your school system isn't getting the big city bucks and there's not really been a big national push to patch up district and state funding disparities.

[Max™]

There are genetic maps and whatnot in various posts, discussions about the claimed heritage vs actual heritage, how identities get passed along.