Lurker > adjl

Njord posted...

You see, the difference between the events that led to World War 2 and today, is that we have policies and law enforcement agencies set up to ensure that large groups with followings like the National Socialist German Workers' Party doesn't happen again. But that's not the responsibility of the public. That's the responsibility of the federal government and law enforcement agencies.

And which policies would those be? Laws exist to prohibit violence, certainly, but not to prohibit policies from being put in place that erode or erase the rights of certain groups. Heck, Trump got elected after suggesting that Muslims should be registered to prevent Islamic terror attacks (which, fortunately, did not translate into actual policy).

The Nazi party did not start out by murdering Jews in the streets. They started by appealing to people who just wanted to Make Germany Great Again and pointing fingers at scapegoats. They didn't actually start hurting those scapegoats until they were in power and had convinced enough other people to be mad at them to not mind, by which point there were no longer laws or policies to prevent them from doing so.

Letting Nazis (and their ilk) speak unopposed is dangerous. Let them speak, sure, but make sure to tell them and everyone else in earshot what garbage they are for saying such things. Staying silent only gives them more power.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

rjsilverthorn posted...

Except the audience that is actually watching the joke are laypeople and even non-laypeople wouldn't get the joke if they used some made up term for it.

The surface value of the joke ("lol he called a song from the 90's 'classical' that's so silly") is going to be apparent enough to laypeople, even if the subtler nuances of it (poking fun at the modern tendency to lump everything more than a century old into a single genre label regardless of actual period/genre definitions and obvious differences between pieces) are lost on people that don't know enough about music history to recognize that we do that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sarcasthma posted...

Damn, that would've been a nice stp...

And it probably would have been if I hadn't been typing one-handed because I hadn't finished my sandwich yet. So disappointing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Well were they?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sure it can. Heck, the original narcissism involved noticing his own reflection and falling in love with it. If anything, being accidental is built right into the etymology of the term.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Njord posted...

I'm not ignoring her right to be there.

You're not exactly mentioning it.

Njord posted...

I have the right to attend or counterprotest a BLM or SJW protest, but I'm not going to go there because I have other things to do and also just don't care.

Would you be similarly critical of those who did care enough to do so?

Njord posted...

Nope, but it's been 10-15 years since I've taken a class on 20th Century European History so I couldn't begin to tell you what I learned as I've phased it out of my mind. Care to remind me what I'm missing or forgetting and how it relates to 20th Century European History?

Well, if you paid a little more attention, you might remember an obscure event called "World War 2" that happened largely because a bunch of Nazis were being Nazis and the rest of Europe decided to "be the bigger man" and "let them do their thing." And then a whole bunch of people got hurt and were sad and Europe realized they'd made a mistake, but by then, the Nazis had power and it was a whole lot harder to stop them.

When you let Nazis "do their thing," people get hurt. They might not be hurting anyone right away, but the ideology demands that they do, so any apparent peacefulness is merely a ruse to help them reach a position of sufficient power to do that. It is the moral responsibility of anyone that hasn't forgotten history to shut them down before it gets to that point. Permit them to speak, sure, but don't let them or anyone else forget that they are trash garbage, because if they do, that's when the problems start. Stamp them out before the infestation becomes entrenched.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sarcasthma posted...

So then why even make that statement?

It's almost like he knows he's fighting a losing battle and is trying to slip strawmen in there that can make his argument look less hilariously empty.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Njord posted...

I'm not defending them.

You're reminding everyone that they have a right to be there while pointedly ignoring that Jen also has the same right to be there. That's pretty defensive.

Njord posted...

I'm just pointing out that you guys are making them out to be a bigger issue than they are. Let them do their thing.

I take it you slept through every class you've ever had on 20th century European history?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sarcasthma posted...

Where did TC say she was going to physically attack them?

inb4"Blasting music can cause hearing damage", because that's obviously a reasonable interpretation of Jen's plan.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ArvTheGreat posted...

Nazis dont exist just cause you cosplay as cloud doesnt mean your offspring of zack

"Christians don't exist just cause you cosplay as a churchgoer doesn't mean your the child of God"

Subscription to an ideology isn't something that relies on any sort of external definition. The only person who decides whether or not somebody follows and values an ideology is that person themselves.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Njord posted...

In any case, just because you have the right to say whatever you want, doesn't mean you should.

And Nazis shouldn't, because Nazis are trash garbage, so it falls to the rest of us to remind them that they are trash garbage with heads made entirely of poop.

The fact that you're using "free speech is a right!" to defend literal goddamned Nazis while refusing to accept it as a defense for criticizing literal goddamned Nazis says a lot of things about you that nobody should ever want to be said about them. You should really reevaluate that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Njord posted...

Where? Under freedom of speech?

Yes. "Verbal" means "speech." Surprise!

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Njord posted...

Yes, you all have the right to counterprotest, but that doesn't give you the right to verbally or physically attack them.

Actually, it does include verbal attacks. Quite explicitly so. Physical, no, and verbal attacks are prohibited from falling into the defined exceptions of threats and harassment (the latter of which requires a systematic, targeted effort, not simply showing up at protests and being annoying), but calling Nazis poopyheads is as legally permitted as it is morally imperative (which is to say 100%).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Njord posted...

Meh. They've got bigger issues now, so they've clearly moved on.

I think you need to think this through more, because that's really not a response to the analogy proposed, which suggests to me that you don't understand it.

Njord posted...

Or you could, just, like I said, not, and move on with your life.

Or she could counterprotest, a right bestowed to her by the Bill of Rights. Free speech goes both ways, bro. If it's an adequate defense for being a goddamn Nazi, then it's certainly an adequate defense for telling Nazis that they are poopyheads, given that that's substantially easier to defend than being a goddamn Nazi.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVUsu37ZjRE

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Njord posted...

There were no laws saying you couldn't do this.

I'm pretty sure the Empire - being the sole legislative power in the galaxy - would consider it illegal to blow up their death star.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not a change, and thus not a reform.

Would a state in which prison guards did not unnecessarily abuse inmates not be different from a state in which prison guards do unnecessarily abuse inmates?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This has nothing to do with prison reform, everything to do with following established procedure and the law as it stands.

And, in turn, reforming prisons to bring them in line with that. Wheeeeeee!!!!

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Blightzkrieg posted...

No, but they also shouldn't be given special treatment. Millions of people are already subjected to abuse in the American prison system, and yet nobody would seriously consider their release.

Pretty much this. If they want to advocate for not going to jail because of the conditions there, they need to advocate for improving everyone's conditions. If they're just whining about their own mistreatment and not caring about anyone else's, "suck it up, terrorist scum" is pretty much the only reasonable response here.

That said, given how many of these groups operate, I wouldn't be surprised if "beaten" means "physically moved into cells when they refuse to cooperate" and "threatened" means somebody told them they'd risk being shot if they tried to escape, or other such pedantic interpretations of assault and threats, but for the sake of argument I'm okay with giving them the benefit of the doubt and presuming genuine abuse is happening.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Smarkil posted...

It kinda is unreasonable because there are pretty specific musical time periods. Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc.

Laymen just call everything old classical, but for a super genius and extremely pedantic person like Spock, it doesn't really make sense.

Fair. I was thinking more in terms of laypeople, but that wouldn't necessarily apply to Spock.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The Witcher (1, but presumably also 2 and 3 whenever I get around to playing them) comes to mind. They just did such a good job of letting me craft the story that I feel like I'd be disrupting the established canon by replaying it and making changes. Kind of silly, but it's enough to tank my motivation to go back to it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LeetCheet posted...

I think I recall they implemented that a couple of years ago. Not entirely sure though.

They did. Part of the moderation reform, which generally amounted to being more lenient about minor offences.

Solid Sonic posted...

You can but it's one of the stupidest ideas ever. It'd be okay if the message were also flagged for everyone else to see but if it's just for you then it doesn't actually convey anything to the rest of the forum that what you posted was unacceptable.

It's usually only employed for pretty minor violations, with the intent of saying "hey, careful you don't take that too far." Actual unacceptable posts still get deleted.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Rent a tuba and do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs4P1kKK-5k

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Far-Queue posted...

Not on this scale, with regards to energy consumption.

Pretty much. Consumerism in general is bad for the environment, obviously, but crypto is quite exceptionally so, especially considering the only tangible benefit it provides is another table at which investors can gamble.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Veedrock- posted...

I don't understand how moderators let it slide honestly, it's clearly mocking autistic persons. You can't even say autistic on this site without a stern warning but mimicking the screech is cool, even as an insult with the direct implication that you're calling the person autistic.

inb4 somebody replies to my post with reeee.

Bring it up on Ask the Mods/Hellhole?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

To be fair, assuming the series takes place at least 200 years in the future, "Classical" is currently used as a blanket term for basically all music of that age, regardless of conventions, instrumentation, or anything else that subdivides it. It's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that it will continue to encompass all "old" music moving forward.

Of course, the extent to which we are now able to archive music does throw a wrench into that idea. It's still an argument that can be made, though, and the whole point of sci-fi is to consider hypothetical futures like that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

That's not that unreasonable if it's somebody you've got a more casual relationship with. I usually default to "Hello [name]" if it's somebody I've never interacted with before, "Hi [name]" if they're more familiar or have spoken less formally to me (especially if they respond to "Hello" with "Hi"), and "Hey [name]" for less formal communications for people with whom I'm quite familiar.

Starting every email that way is kind of weird, though. That said, so many standards for "professionalism" are basically just arbitrary rules with no practical merit that exist purely as an opportunity to judge those that don't follow them, which is really kind of silly.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MartianManchild posted...

You have the power to stay six feet away from people by moving away from others or asking them kindly to back away from you when they get too close.

It's axiomatically impossible to stay 6 feet away from somebody by asking them to back off when they get too close.

MartianManchild posted...

Plus our world has been set up so you literally dont have to leave the house if you dont want to. Pretty much everything can be done remotely these days if youre that scared.

Except that's generally pretty unhealthy and is completely unnecessary if people stop trying to insist that the ongoing public health crisis shouldn't require any personal action on their part to solve. I can, in fact, go out and about quite safely here (including dining in restaurants) because people around here actually listened to public health guidelines from the outset and we've been able to get and keep our case numbers quite low. Those who refuse to listen are acting to prevent that state from being reached, and should therefore be treated like the antisocial garbage they have chosen to be.

MartianManchild posted...

Now there were some cities like Houston and Detroit were some of there hospitals got full or close to full but they were able to send them to other hospitals nearby. I would hardly call that being overrun.

"The hospital was full and they had to send patients elsewhere" is precisely what the phrase "the hospital is overrun" means. Like, there's no other possible interpretation for it. What on earth are you talking about?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Because you're distancing yourself from society, though a lot of places have switched to "physical distancing" in recognition of the fact that being socially distant carries more connotations than just personal space, not all of which are particularly healthy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

What_The_Chris posted...

regulate the crazies is a better idea but that's none of my business

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/538/731/0fc.gif

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

When has this ever happened?

Pretty much any time a property with historic value is up for development, you get people trying to preserve the history, and people telling that first group of people to stop living in the past and let developers do whatever they want. It's far from a perfect correlation, but that "capitalism first, everything else is dumb" position tends to be more common among the far right, which is also where "we must preserve the statue of this guy who murdered ten thousand black people" tends to be found.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

I pity whoever reported those actual figures as trolling, and proving the mods mod based on agenda.

Are you really so deluded that you think you were modded for the figures themselves, and not for explicitly saying that none of those deaths mattered enough to justify preventing more?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

agesboy posted...

bokurano was pretty atypical for a mecha

I can second this. Fighting was still a central concept, but the overall focus was much more on character exploration.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

I don't get it the other way, too; since Haitian, Mali and Kenyan culture are radically different

They are, so treating "black" as a hegemony is also fallacious, but "Black American" is its own distinct culture that formed out of the slave population, since they were stripped of their ancestral culture and left to form their own. People are a little too quick to lump all black Americans into that, which is a mistake, but it's not a mistake to talk about "black culture.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I used to get into arguments where I'd berate those people for examples of how they 'protect' their culture - ie traditions, recipes...seemingly none of them actually have any 'culture' to preserve in actuality. Otherwise they'd have some f***ing cabbage roll recipes.

"We must preserve our history!" *Openly berates anyone who tries to preserve historic buildings or sites other than that one statue of a dude that the SJW's don't like*

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Nay.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Veedrock- posted...

It's an incomplete observation, as not every vaccinated individual has been examined.

Generally speaking, you don't have to examine every vaccinated individual to find all of the ones that develop serious medical emergencies. They tend to identify themselves.

Veedrock- posted...

Sure it's impractical to give everyone an exam but to state the statistic is for certain "6/7,000,000" is dishonest.

Stating for certain that 6 cases have been reported out of 7 million doses, however, is not only honest: it's a fact. At this early stage in the investigation, yes, it's quite possible that more will come forward with milder symptoms that weren't identified as readily as the more serious cases, but there's no reason to suspect that that will inflate the figure by all that much. Non-serious cases also shouldn't really be included as examples of serious adverse effects, for obvious reasons.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Clench281 posted...

you really can't define 'white' without being exclusionary and referring to other groups. 'White' has just been the word used as shorthand for not-oppressed-minority.

The "why am I not allowed to celebrate white culture?" group have always struck me as being quite ridiculous. "White" is just "not not white." The various cultures that make up the demographic are all perfectly acceptable to celebrate (nobody's ever given me a hard time for having haggis with neeps and tatties for Robbie Burns day). What's not acceptable is celebrating not being black, because that's just being a racist douche.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

NightMareBunny posted...

there haven't been enough people vaccinated for you to think "let's move on with our lives!"

The really annoying thing is that vaccinations are proceeding at a rate that means we're *really* close to being able to start getting back to normal. We just aren't there yet, and people acting like we are are only going to set that coveted point back even further and cost more lives in the mean time.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

...because there are always medicines/treatments that only dangerous for certain groups or harmful because of potential drug interactions. If you're not a member of that group or taking the other medication, you're fine.

Until you determine for sure which groups it's safe/dangerous in, though, best practice is to suspend its use entirely while you look for that answer.

Zeus posted...

And this is a great case-in-point of the impact when lying with statistics. Adjl here believes that the completely misleading 5% means that J&J isn't widely in use, overlooking that this is based on VACCINES GIVEN OUT SINCE THE BEGINNING. It's not 5% of what's being done now, it's 5% of what's been done SINCE THE START, including months where the J&J vaccine wasn't even out. So now because of this bogus statistic, he believes that it's not going to have much of a trajectory despite the fact that vaccines tend to have far more impact when they're available compared to when they're not available. And the J&J was one of the only two super-easily accessible vaccines.

I completely understand the point you're trying to make, but you seem to have missed mine. Yes, taking J&J off the market is going to hurt overall vaccination rates, and by quite a bit more than the 5% share it currently represents. That said, because it only accounts for 5% of vaccines delivered to date, taking it off the market is only going to slow the current rate of vaccine delivery by 5% (approximately). It's going to slow the growth of that rate by a greater margin, but not the current rate.

Basically, vf=vi*0.95, af=ai*(some number smaller than 0.95). This has cost the vaccination campaign acceleration, not (more than 5% of) velocity. To that end, telling people that it accounts for 5% of the current vaccination rate informs them that things are going to continue roughly as they have, not be catastrophically set back such that everyone should panic. It does not mean that they're trying to convince people that it's better not to keep growing, which is the only possible objection I'm seeing in your ire here.

Zeus posted...

it was clearly connected to a fatal condition,

Except for the part where the association was not immediately clear, was still an incredibly remote risk even when it did become considered likely that there was a link, and the condition was quite rarely fatal. You make it sound like AZ killed a significant number of people, not that it has a side effect that's still orders of magnitude less dangerous than side effects on drugs that are currently on the market and you've shown no objection to (unless you've been complaining about how unhealthy birth control pills are and I've just missed it, which isn't impossible).

Zeus posted...

and -- what really pissed me off -- was that cross-contamination issue which f***ed up the J&J vaccine.

Which you keep mentioning, but not actually providing any concrete basis for believing it to be a major problem aside from accusing it of every issue that's arisen with J&J.

Zeus posted...

The fact that you're not enraged by this makes me wonder if you have some personal stake in AZ. Maybe instead of asking about my investment portfolio, we should be questioning *your* financial ties?

My ties are to providing sensible public health advice. My position has always been to wait until experts in the field have determined that the apparent side effects probably aren't mere coincidence, and even then I've continued to maintain that these side effects are such a remote risk that they shouldn't dissuade people from getting vaccinated. That's true for AZ, and it's true for J&J. I'm not sure why you're trying to insert a bias there, unless you have difficulty differentiating between disagreeing with you and being biased against the things you like.

Zeus posted...

Otherwise we know that the cross-contamination happened -- although I'm sure you and the other AZ proponents would prefer we didn't -- and these impacts seem to fit around the timeline. It's not hard to draw a line between the two.

So your entire basis for unilaterally blaming AZ for every side effect the J&J vaccine has is that the cross-contamination happened "around the timeline"? Not that the doses which caused side effects were affected by the contamination event (which everyone studying the issue would know because lot numbers are immediately reported to the manufacturer when something like this crops up). Not specific dates that could reasonably be inferred to indicate causality. Not that the doses in question even came from the same facility (there being one or two factories producing these things, after all). Just some vague sense that these events have happened in a timeline that you feel confirms your suspicion?

Protip: Johnson & Johnson is a multibillion dollar corporation. They have the resources needed to investigate this issue in infinitely more depth than some dude in a computer chair who read a couple articles online will ever be able to. You are nowhere close to the first person to consider that the side effects could be linked to the cross-contamination. If there were *any* chance that it was the cause of these side effects, J&J would already have identified that potential link and released a statement to that effect. That they haven't means there isn't.

Now, I am once again going to ask you: What basis do you have for blaming J&J's side effects on the AZ cross-contamination? You have two choices:

• You may continue to lie to yourself and everyone else about how well-informed you are and your ability to make well-reasoned deductions about the pharmaceutical industry
• You answer "I have none, never mind" and never attempt to make this claim again

Bear in mind that the apparent third and fourth options of "never come back to this topic and hope everyone forgets" and "necro this topic shortly before it purges while ignoring the question and hoping nobody notices so you get the last word" fall under the umbrella of option 1. There are no other options.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MartianManchild posted...

Well how about you stay 6 feet away from them and wear your double mask. Then you dont have to worry about what theyre doing

If you can figure out a way to ensure nobody comes within 6 feet of me that doesn't involve stabbity death (as tempting as that might be when dealing with social inept idiots who don't understand personal space), I'm all ears.

acesxhigh posted...

They banned restaurant dining about 2 weeks ago in BC and it didn't really improve the situation at all. Actually it's gotten even worse. I don't think it's a good solution to be honest.

It worked pretty much perfectly here in NS back when we had our second wave in November/December, but at that point nearly all of our exposures were in bars/restaurants, so it was easily the most sensible thing to do (said second wave also peaked at 35 cases in one day as an extreme outlier, so we caught it very early). When exposures are more complex than that, it's going to have less of an impact, and even with our simpler situation, that measure was paired with things like fining everyone present at gatherings $1000, instead of just the hosts (which is honestly how it should always have gone, since fining only the hosts encouraged the largest parties possible).

It's also worth noting, though, that any measure taken isn't going to bear fruit at all for 10-14 days. Two weeks is enough time that, if it were going to help, it will have, but you should still expect things to continue getting worse before they get better, even if a measure is working. This thing has a lot of momentum. Even here, in-person dining was suspended for 5 weeks, largely because that 5-week period spanned Christmas and New Year's and those two holidays were expected to set us back further if restrictions were lifted, and was only ultimately relaxed because case numbers did what they were supposed to.

MartianManchild posted...

The coronavirus doesnt have a 100% fatality rate.

I really don't understand why people keep bringing this up as though it means anything. Almost nothing has a 100% fatality rate. Off-hand, the closest I can think of in the world of diseases is Naegleria fowleri infestation, in which an amoeba that normally lives in warmer freshwater decides to crawl into a person's nose and start munching on their brain. That's got a 97% mortality rate. Despite that, N. fowleri has killed a grand total of 144 people in the US. Between 1962 and 2019.

By comparison, Covid has killed 564,000 people in the US between 2020 and 2021 (*with* countermeasures). In terms of deaths per year, Covid is over 225,000 times more deadly than N. fowleri, despite having a mortality rate ~300 times lower. "But its mortality rate is so low!" you say? Mortality rate is only one piece of the puzzle. Communicability plays just as large a role in a disease's ability to rack up a body count, and Covid is - objectively - vastly more dangerous than many diseases with much higher mortality rates purely because of how communicable it is. No amount of "it's not 100% fatal!" is going to change that letting Covid spread unchecked is extremely dangerous. That's just obvious reality.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but frankly I'm in no rush to get the vaccine. I've gone a year+ without catching Covid, I'm not whipped into a fear frenzy about it. Frankly, I'm good with masks for the rest of my life. This was the first year I haven't gotten sick once period.

While you'll probably be alright doing so, it's still going to be safer to get vaccinated than to not. Going a year without catching Covid doesn't mean you never will, and the odds of the vaccine causing anything bad to happen are substantially lower than the odds of catching Covid and dealing with whatever harm that brings (unless you're allergic to the vaccine, in which case, obviously don't get it). The statistics have already completed the risk analysis for you, all that remains is deciding whether the risk reduction is worth the effort of going to get two shots (which it most likely is, given what a trivial cost that is).

Lokarin posted...

I want to know how they figured out that it's 4 in a million in the first place since that's an absolutely gigantic sample size... larger than any science ever performed ever.

Presumably by counting the number of people that got the shot, then counting the number of people with clots that couldn't otherwise be explained, then dividing the latter by the former and multiplying by a million. It's an observation, not an experiment anyone's designed.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MartianManchild posted...

Maybe people should worry about themselves and not be so concerned about what others are doing.

When dealing with communicable diseases, being concerned about what others are doing is worrying about oneself.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Where's my "yes, and I don't drink coffee" option? I demand representation!

(My girlfriend stocks them.)

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

hockey7318 posted...

I love that you're better at Sunny's job than he is.

Better at the theory part, anyway. I'm sure he's quite competent at actually making food and whatnot, just not so much at talking about the finer nuances of recipes.

SunWuKung420 posted...

You can't buy premade french toast batter like you can with pancakes and waffles.

https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/egg-creations-original-liquid-egg-product/6000191279334

Not that premade batter/mixes should be brought up in any conversation about "#realfood". That you think they're relevant here says a lot about the pancakes/waffles you make.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Also french toast batter is 95% egg while the others aren't. Why he incorrectly thinks you use the same amounts of egg in all 3 is proof he isn't.

French toast itself, however, is ~15-20% batter at most, while the others are 100%. My usual pancake recipe calls for one egg to make 10-12 small pancakes (enough to comfortably feed two people). One egg will generally make ~3 pieces of french toast for me, which is a bit stingy for two people. My usual waffle recipe calls for 2 eggs to feed two people.

So... French toast uses a bit more egg per serving than pancakes (at least mine), but a bit less than waffles. I think they all use the same amounts of egg because that's a reasonable approximation of the number of eggs consumed when I make each product.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Most pancake and waffle batters are "just add water" recipes.

No, most pancake and waffle batters are basic muffin/wet-dry method recipes. You mix your dry ingredients and your wet ingredients separately, then mix them together to form a batter. Again, I don't know why you're bringing up pancake/waffle mixes in a discussion about real food, but you really shouldn't.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Those don't exist for french toast.

Every single french toast "recipe" is "just add egg." Couple splashes of milk and some seasonings to make it more interesting, but it's never a more complicated recipe than pancake/waffle mixes (which, again, have no place here).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Now that's what I call a Member of Parliament.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Looking back at my posts, the conclusion I jumped to was that this person was still kind and compassionate.

Which most people would consider to be mutually exclusive of subscribing to Nazi ideology.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think the eronous assumption here is that I must care whether someone is a Nazi.

That's not so much an assumption as it is a criterion for being a decent person. Nazis aren't decent people. Not by any metric that's acceptable in civilized society. Not caring about whether or not someone is a Nazi means you're giving them a free pass for that, which is itself not being a decent person.

You don't have to care about whether or not somebody is a Nazi, but you should be aware that handwaving Nazism is going to have some pretty significant consequences for how people view you, and not unreasonably so.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

VioletMassacre posted...

But then again people always change their minds about what's a kid and not depending on the situation.

Well, yeah. Implicit in the term "kid" is an assessment that the person is insufficiently mature for whatever the context in which the speaker is speaking. It doesn't have to refer to a specific age.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

And you're not wrong. But I see no problem with shelving the J&J jab either under the circumstances.

I don't either, but it is important to note that this is a decision made out of an abundance of caution while the potential association is investigated, not because the risk is unacceptably high. The risk is extremely low, far lower than many risks we accept on a daily basis (birth control pills being an excellent example of this, given that they're a couple orders of magnitude more likely than the AZ vaccine to cause clots). It's only because the option exists to do better that this option is being suspended, not because it's actually a bad option.

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

If we're in such a hurry to use the general populace as guinea pigs with these untested vaccines, fine...

No vaccine that is approved for use in the US is "untested." Period. Characterizing them as such is ignorant and dangerous, and should be avoided.

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

if a prophylactic measure to prevent a disease someone doesn't yet have is killing people, that's a pretty big "side effect" to consider. If the blood clots are killing more people directly than the risk of catching Covid would on its own, that particular vaccine isn't worth the risk at all.

That's quite correct, but you're grossly overestimating the risk involved to suggest that that's relevant to this issue. Roughly 0.00033% of Europeans that were given the AZ vaccine developed blood clots (not "died from them," merely developed them at all in such a manner that the vaccine has been implicated). Meanwhile, Covid has killed 0.15% of the US population. That figure isn't completely accurate as a simple measure of personal risk, given the demographics of those deaths, but it's 450 times higher than the risk of developing this clotting issue at all (again, not necessarily fatally). If every American were to be vaccinated with AZ, and we make the (completely unfounded) assumption that everyone that developed clots afterward died, it would still be expected to rack up less of a body count than Covid would.

Now, the presence of safer alternatives makes such an extreme unnecessary. In practice, this risk means you should get one of the other ones, if they're available. If they aren't, however, sensible risk analysis still dictates that one should take the AZ (or J&J) shot, since it's less likely to cause harm than remaining unvaccinated is.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So far all I know about the person is they question the safety of a specific vaccine. I don't think this is indicative of Nazi ideology, "neo-" or otherwise.

It's not, but...
JigsawTDC posted...

She was sharing fascist propaganda from Nazis

That is. TDC is also generally a rational enough person that I would not interpret "anti-vaccine misinformation" as "question[ing] the safety of a specific vaccine." I would interpret that as disseminating misinformation about the safety of multiple different vaccines. I'm sure, if you asked for examples instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that this assessment was exaggerated, he'd be happy to provide them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

-Snip-

Nobody's saying that bullying means trans people can't participate in sports. Just that it makes it less accessible, much like sports are less accessible for poor kids. It's not impossible to stubbornly tough it out and access those sports in spite of the accessibility issues, just decidedly harder and less pleasant than it would be for somebody without them, meaning kids with those accessibility issues are likely to seek out other pastimes.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.