Lurker > COVxy

FLUFFYGERM posted...

@COVxy

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/suicide-rate-in-australia-reaches-10year-high/news-story/cb5d8384aadb571778775bda236f3c35

you can stop pretending to care about suicides now that we see what really happens

Nobody is pretending to care, and that is some shit evidence that you're trying to parade as a definitive answer to the issue.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

REMercsChamp posted...

COVxy posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Well you're certainly not employed at a job

I mean, technically you are.

See, I read stuff like this and I can tell you've never been outside of academia. You have no idea what it's like actually working versus going to school.

You're silly. I mean I have a state contract as a state employee with a salary.

I also worked full time throughout high school and undergrad, so that's a pretty laughable claim.

PhD students are the people that do the large majority of published science. You are literally saying that scientists don't do real work, btw.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

FLUFFYGERM posted...

People killing themselves in the privacy of their house has nothing to do with public safety. Being members of the population doesn't mean that killing themselves affects public safety. That's a disingenuous argument and you know it.

No it's not. I think preventing deaths through policy definitely falls under this realm. It's not like these people up and rationally deciding to kill themselves. It's induced by mental illness and is completely preventable given the right healthcare and restriction from access to easy methods.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

REMercsChamp posted...

Well you're certainly not employed at a job

I mean, technically you are.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Originate as a legal purchase.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

darkjedilink posted...

COVxy posted...

darkjedilink posted...

And the left doesn't want to do anything about it except make it harder for innocent people to defend themselves from gang members.

Where exactly do you think illegal guns come from?

Gangbangers breaking the law in one fashion or another - either they're stealing firearms from innocent people, stealing firearms from other gangbangers who stole them from innocent people, or they're crossing state lines and making strawman purchases which violates a shit-ton of federal laws.

I guarantee that the vast majority of illegal guns originate from legal purchases that are only possible because the regulations are so lax.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

darkjedilink posted...

And the left doesn't want to do anything about it except make it harder for innocent people to defend themselves from gang members.

Where exactly do you think illegal guns come from?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

This is a weird gimmick. Go back to pretending like pushing carts at a grocery store is harder work than obtaining a PhD in a scientific discipline.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

So it is not members of the public that commit suicide?

This whole topic is "let me futz with the statistics such that I have a result that seems to support my conclusion".
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Excluding suicides is even sillier since there's interesting data to suggest that gun restrictions reduce suicides.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

josifrees posted...

You ever read this?

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf

Pretty pretty interesting

Nobody should read such trash.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

_Near_ posted...

not surprised

You should be. Everybody should be.

Getting used to the insanity of this administration is something we should avoid. This administration has been trying their best to redefine the truth and evidence, and to the extent to which you get used to them is in some part to the extent to which you implicitly start to become more accepting of their bullshit.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

...to help prove that it wasn't the Russians.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html

You can't make this stuff up.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

KazumaKiryu posted...

If, however, someone were to say "There are several cases where people claimed their child developed diseases or had side effects from vaccines, and I think we should investigate this," what would be your reaction?

It's already been investigated to hell and back. No need to waste more resources just to appease lay people who will not look at the evidence anyway.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Darkman124 posted...

burgers should be cooked well done.

You are missing out on some medium cooked deliciousness out of overcaution.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

A perfect place for a family night out!
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

He's foreveralone.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The more appropriate question is: why does Germany work so few hours?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

...but we don't work that many hours.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Looks like we're pretty close to the mean...
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

What are questions you ask when you don't view or treat women like conspecifics, Trebek.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Pretty much all he had to do was post "whoops I was wrong" and this topic would have been dead in 15 posts.

His refusal to accept responsibility for the things he says is what solidifies him as a troll poster.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Jeez, you burned me so bad, I'm such a neoliberal.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The phrase "shilling for Hillary" tells me that it might not be worth having a serious discussion in this topic.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

TrevorBlack79 posted...

COVxy posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

2017 IT was more faithful in tone than the miniseries

I don't even agree with that. It misses a large part of the tone completely.

Can you elaborate? 2017 IT was a legitimate horror story with Stand By Me style character bonding (which is exactly what the book was). Miniseries was just pure cheese with a not-so-scary series of monsters and bad acting.

That cheese is cheese from the books. Pennywise acts deliberately cheesy, because the entire point is that he's playing off of children's fears, and as they are adults bringing it back. The book wasn't exactly constantly dark and brooding like people seem to think it was. The whole "it seems darker and therefore the tone must match more" is just a really bad inference.

The character development and coming of age, and the return of nostalgia are all minimized in the new movie, and you kind of just rush from one encounter with Pennywise to the next.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

TrevorBlack79 posted...

2017 IT was more faithful in tone than the miniseries

I don't even agree with that. It misses a large part of the tone completely.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts a bit more elaborated on.

It's interesting how my thoughts have developed in relation to my training. I mean, the first lab in which I got neuroscience training definitely looked down upon the neuroimaging work I currently do, since it's correlative in nature. The lab was a traditional monkey neuropsychology lab, so they kinda have represented the gold standard in systems neuroscience experimentation since their type of work was one of the few able to be call true experiments, assessing causality.

So as such, I even find quantitative work that is correlational hard to reconcile as rigorous.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

scar the 1 posted...

I see what you mean, and I think that it's inherently a lot harder to distinguish good research from bad research the softer it gets. Another issue I've seen is that in softer disciplines, people tend to draw really strong conclusions from results that don't really validate such strong hypotheses. I don't know if it's a language thing where they're just using the language in a more informal way, or if it's somehow a flaw in their actual reasoning.

I think that language is always going to be informal. I think the fact that the formal logic underlying everyday language is still being sussed out in analytical philosophy is a testimony to that.

This is one of the reasons why there's a lot of trouble with a lot of the theory in neuroscience, because a lot of the theories aren't formalized, so language lends itself to uncertainty and artificially creates a divides across certain groups because of simple semantics.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

scar the 1 posted...

Alright, thanks. On principle I disagree, but I see where you're coming from. And it's a very common stance within hard branches of science.

I mean, in the end it comes down to convincing argumentation. Because that's all science is, evidence based argumentation. I think subjective assessment is far too likely to be driven by individual bias and innate flaws in judgment to be considered reliable. To be convinced, I need to be able to see that when you count those events, they are actually more probable, rather than simply being more salient because they violate some expectation of your's.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

scar the 1 posted...

COVxy posted...

No, everybody gets the point. The issue is that the point is so obviously flawed and partisan.

Your comment makes me think of a typical mindset people within quantitative research have. I'm not saying that it's necessarily applicable here, but I'd like for you to comment anyway.
So the mindset I often see is that conclusions from soft/social sciences based on qualitative research - similar to the post you're responding to - often get dismissed just because they are qualitative. Essentially, data is the only worthwhile evidence. Do you know what I'm talking about? How do you stand on that issue?

Unless qualitative research is coded and quantified, or at the very least accompanied by additional quantitative research, I don't really consider it evidence.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Ma1ikii posted...

You guys are missing the point.
With these mass shootings, they always use harmful code words.

When a Middle Easterner commits a mass murder, the media calls them a terrorist and people start associating Middle Easterners with terrorism.
When a Black person or a Latino commits a mass murder, the media calls them thugs (and if one of the victims was in law enforcement, a BLM supporter) and people start associating Blacks and Latinos with thuggery. (Or start associating BLM with terrorism)

But when a White person commits a mass murder, the media does its best to humanize the culprit, and doubles down on the possible "mental illness" aspect of it. How many times have you seem them talk about the culprit like "he was quiet, reserved, sometimes nice, always kept to himself, he volunteered at so&so, he did this&that, etc.?" And they also make sure to emphasize that the culprit acted alone, so that no one can associate White people with terrorism. And they shy away from talking about gun laws and stuff when it comes to White culprits, but have lots to say when the culprit isn't White.

I'm just saying we should treat all the culprits with the same disdain/sympathy. If you're gonna demonize/humanize one, do it for all of them, don't pick and choose, cause at the end of the day, all of them murdered several people with insane reasoning, so they're all basically the same.

No, everybody gets the point. The issue is that the point is so obviously flawed and partisan.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

scar the 1 posted...

It's really sad how people are really quick to dismiss shooters as mentally ill, but they never put up when it actually comes to addressing mental health issues.

It's interesting that the mental health discussion has been called political on both sides of the aisle for different reasons, healthcare and gun rights.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Ma1ikii posted...

Terrorist = Middle Eastern
Thug = Black & Latino (BLM Supporter = Black)
Mentally Disturbed Lone Wolf = White

That's how it always goes.

That's a terrible oversimplification. Most of the time the situations are indeed different.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

pinky0926 posted...

I think the right is equally avoidance-driven when it comes to white mass shooters, because suddenly all those hard hitting calls to action turn into thoughts and prayers.

The left is guilty of this too. Altogether too quick to show you how many Muslims are also grieving, as if to say "see, there's nothing to see here!"

It's telling where someone sits when they'll make those arguments. Easier to blame a faceless enemy than admit to any uncomfortable problem.

Oh, by left and right I mean left word cloud and right word cloud. That's a misunderstanding that I should've seen coming lmao.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

It's also interesting to me how frequently, when the motives aren't attributable to things like terrorism, the supernatural label "evil" is used with a straight face. Watching CNN this morning, reporters and pundits have used the word 'evil' to describe the texas shooter several times now.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

pinky0926 posted...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN8Bhq8XcAAJncb.jpg

Lol, that's pretty interesting. Though, it is important to note that they are actually usually different circumstances.

But it's interesting how the left word cloud is so avoidance like and the right word cloud is so approach like. You get the indication that it's not simply political motivation but also a feeling of helplessness with one situation and not so much on the right. Perhaps because there's an easy target in the right.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

billcom6 posted...

One thing that annoyed me was the use of the old trope

"take out the leader then all the rest of them will just die!" that shit is lame

I mean, in this case it was super appropriate, since the big bad seems to be a collective consciousness.

I think it's interesting to think about this as a big continuation as opposed to discrete seasons with problems all of their own. I think it's reasonable to assume that the mind flayer was responsible for everything in the first season, and that he's the one controlling the entirety of the alternate reality.

I hope the show goes in the direction of somehow illuminating the mythology underlying the monster, who was perhaps isolated into it's own reality a long time ago, only to have abused the cracks caused by the experimentation in Hawkins.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

He's giving them away because there's absolutely no way he could exchange them before these markets crash...
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

"My politicized fictional depiction of political society is better than your politicized fictional depiction!"
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

whitelytning posted...

Because he is a rational human being that wants to pay as little tax as possible? I don't know.

This stance is pretty awful. Claiming it's irrational to want to pay taxes.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Jedi Outcast had the best lightsaber play hands down.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator generates returns for older investors through revenue paid by new investors."

Whoops, is that not like just what i described?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The worst.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

KazumaKiryu posted...

I'm trying to make sense of it

Sure you are.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Zurkon posted...

There were a lot of little references to the book throughout the movie. Also, the book has so much content I couldn't imagine them fitting it all into just two movies. I liked the movie and thought the way they did it was great.

Little references without the context. It wasn't a bad movie by any means, but I'd call it IT inspired rather than an adaptation. The tv miniseries was a much more faithful adaptation.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

chrono625 posted...

I'm still trying to have someone explain to me what makes bitcoin a superior currency over anything else.

Because the only reason people are buying into bitcoin is to make cash.

So if bitcoin is the future why are people looking to cash out rather than stay in?

It's what makes me believe it's a huge fucking bubble ready to explode. If you do get out and make bank, that's great. But I'm still not going to trust in it as an actual currency.

Cash and normal denominations aren't going to just disappear or become worthless, like one friend claims every day bitcoin goes up. That my 401k will be worth nothing in years.

More or less, these are just speculative gambles being run like a ponzi scheme. People are hoping you buy their bullshit and thus buy coins driving the price up.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I Like Toast posted...

Congratulations on watching your first book to movie adaptation tc

However, unlike other adaptations, this one has people saying that it is somehow more faithful to the books.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Blue_Dream87 posted...

COVxy posted...

piUrsEitanizm posted...

if you had an accident that caused tremendous head trauma but your weed use activated it?

Lmao. This is so fucking stupid.

Dude, this is a subject where you should provide information instead of ridicule. Not changing any minds or correcting misconceptions, if they're wrong, they're going to continue to be wrong unless you explain why they're wrong.

I mean, I'm 99% certain he's trolling. He thinks mental illness is only possible through extreme head trauma, and that everything else is weak-willedness.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

piUrsEitanizm posted...

if you had an accident that caused tremendous head trauma but your weed use activated it?

Lmao. This is so fucking stupid.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Nomadic View posted...

I mean, you ignored all the posts telling you that gender dysphoria isn't necessarily transgenderism, as SRS reduces gender dysphoria. The reason it's classified as a mental illness is the dysphoria itself, and transitioning reduces it.

To be transgendered is to feel gender dysphoria as your born sex. But not necessarily to feel gender dysphoria.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]