Lurker > joe40001

• 103 hospitalizations prevented per million doses for 6 months to 4 years old.
• 16 hospitalizations prevented per million doses for 5 to 11 years old.
• 19 hospitalizations prevented per million doses for 12 to 17 years old.
• 75 hospitalizations prevented per million doses for 18 to 49 years old.

Honestly the whole Barbie/Oppenheimer juxtaposition was to rev up the film industry again after covid and Marvel/superhero genre fatigue. I think someone in the film industry did some good PR maneuvering to orchestrate the whole thing.

Seriously. Sane people in the industry scream to the heavens every day about the shenanigans of Big Pharma, insurance, and for-profit healthcare and get silence from the right. Actual things that actually hurt or kill patients and healthcare providers.

But as soon as those conspiracy theories, blatant lies, and studies interpreted exactly opposite of reality come out, boy, right-wing political parties want a serious conversation about these real issues and anyone who pushes back is in on it.

Who needs studies and statistics and pretty much every expert in the world? Weirdo YouTube viewers have crazy, disgraced quacks and laypeople as uneducated as themselves. It's pretty much the same on both sides! /s

Linux was developed from Unix if I recall correctly.

No, emotions are not weakness.

He was grieving, isolated, depressed, not in a good state of mind, and rebuffed by someone he felt a new connection for. It made perfect sense and wasn't a stretch

I honestly thought he was gonna Josh was gonna kill Aaron's family immediately the first time he went there so the ending when it finally happened didn't surprise me. I didn't really mind the abrupt nature of it either. I mean at that point what else was there to really do? I like the ambiguity more than just "oh one of them kills the other and then he's fucked" ending

But that's still an *objectively* bad, and horrendously reductive take anyway.

1. I didn't say that I was fine with the laws targeting children.
2. This is a summary of a specific claim that came up in that topic, it is not a comprehensive representation of everything that was discussed in that topic.

i am functionally ignorant as to how the algorith works. all i know is, i watch a million chess videos in a row, it suggests more chess videos. watch 1 political yt and half the feed is now politics. watch 2 and it's all politics

i take this to mean that the algorithm encourages "hot button" engagement over what i have shown for year to really be interested in

No.

Because I'm curious as to how often in any given day you engage with other people.

Even treating these now third-hand anecdotes of vague unease as an issue, it seems to me that the problem they pose is miniscule in comparison to the impact of state efforts to wipe entire subjects of study
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/27/1151725129/florida-advanced-placement-african-american-studies-backlash
Or censor professors
https://reason.com/2023/03/15/a-florida-bill-to-censor-professors-just-got-even-worse/
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/18/1164530319/florida-professor-fired-racial-justice-woke
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/sep/14/black-us-teachers-critical-race-theory-silenced

What happens when you treat politics as a test for your theoretical muscles is that you can end up fixated on the inner workings of some individual storm while unaware of the tidal wave of real effects on people. The media focus on these campus culture stories has not just overshadowed but abetted the legislative push by Republicans to remake the ideology of college institutions by any means necessary.

All I found plastered on his Twitter feed after a bit of scrolling is "social media and cell phone bad"

Not exactly the most groundbreaking additions to public discourse

You got a better idea?

There is some data that would suggest that actually, it does funnel people into more radical content
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-of-youtube-comments-shows-how-its-turning-people-onto-the-alt-right/

feel like he makes a topic as innocuous as any other on here, but he gets completely flamed and blown up for no reason

???

Does anyone know what Joe does for a living?

Nothing you say will have any impact on what Joe thinks. He'll say "interesting point" and the move on to repeat the same shit over and over because these topics aren't about discussion, they are about validating his thoughts. Particularly those curated by YouTube over the past decade.

Do you disagree?

Yes in think it's largely overblown. I don't think it's something most people encounter in daily life and I think the discourse ends up creating unnecessary fear and chilling effect in some people about how "you can't say this in 2023", etc.

If a date sees the poster and immediately drops him because she doesn't think a Reagan fanboy has opinions or societal thoughts she finds valuable I don't really have an issue with that. That's what dating is..finding out who you are compatible with and who has certain values you agree with. It ultimately depends on what the exact opinions she thinks he has. Like, should she ask him and confirm her suspicions? Sure, it's good to not assume too much all at once.
And as I mentioned above, chilling effect. He now thinks every date is going to be someone who even cares in the first place, and now he's going to extraordinary steps to hide it.

What is wrong with judging someone based on their politics and idea of local, state, and national policies?

Could I date someone who agrees with some conservative ideas about taxation or the importance of local and state policies? Sure. Them wanting a lower capital gains tax and me wanting a higher capital gains tax is not a red flag.
Could I date someone who is a modern day republican and thinks immigrants are a scourge on the country? NO!!! Does me saying no mean I'm judging someone on their politics? What counts as politics? So to answer your question, I think it's good that people date based on compatibility and acknowledgment of shared important values, even if those values are about politics and policies.

It was interesting a couple years ago but I've come to my opinions about these topics, opinions that I think are pretty consistent. I just have little interest in diving back into the discource

I reiterate

No, I do not find discussing the finer points of white supremacy to be interesting, no.

You claim to be about discussion and "refinement" yet you clearly think there are correct ways to communicate, correct ways to think, and you absolutely refuse to deviate. You don't appreciate the human element of communication anyway given given how cold and emotionless you believe it should be.

You've told LGBTQ people to their faces that the bigotry lobbied against them is not so bad, that there is room for refinement, that clearly it isn't as bad as it sounds, that there must be some validity to the concerns of the bigots and we would all understand each other and come to a middle ground if we just smoothed out the language

I shudder to imagine your posts if CE existed in the 1940s.

All this is saying is "I'm not responsible for the things I post."

It's trying to pretend that you as a person are not a factor in these discussions. That you exist outside of them.

But this has never been true for any of us and certainly not you.

You did not pick this video at random. You selected it and presented it to us.

You as a person are a part of this process.

If you want your own history as a person to be completely detached from the discussion, post under a different account.

Also IMO you are doing yourself a disservice by making such broad judgements of a person

i made no judgment of him as a person. i told you i didn't want youtube railroading me into propaganda.

Similar opinions I'd say.

Oh I'm definitely played out with campus politics stuff from elite colleges that ends up on the national politics discourse.

Skimmed and stopped at a section where Coleman said his friend from college would take down his Reagan poster after the first couple dates, but then would bring it back up if he thought the date was special and serious.
Like ok . I'm guessing the topic during that section was about people being too "politicized"

I'd be curious about the thoughts of anybody else who checks it out.

i looked into him and he's got a video called 'the myth of systemic racism' so i didn't watch his content because i don't want youtube's algorithm force-feeding me alt-right propaganda.

okay, my bad, that's not his video, he's just a guest speaker. in the video about the 'myth' of systemic racism. trying to avoid getting algorithmed is tricky.

At what point are we allowed to move together?

So often these "good faith discussions" take the form of rehashing long-settled topics. Dead and discredited ideas - climate change denial, bigotry, trickle-down economics - get propped up Weekend at Bernie's style in our discourse. That's not so we might sharpen our rhetorical blades against them, but to stifle our ability to move on to new subjects and make concrete progress on issues.

Additionally, to people for whom politics is a matter of life and death (trans people, pregnant people, those at risk from climate change) and for those whom politics makes material difference in their lives - the working class - it becomes incredibly tiresome to see the matter treated as an intellectual exercise, where policy outcomes are rendered secondary to mental masturbation.

Is the discussion different than what a regular Sam Harris or Coleman Hughes video is? Those topics have been discussed...a lot by people like Hughes, Harris, "IDW" adjacent already.
I skimmed it for 10 seconds and I don't plan to watch it as I'm confidently well aware of what the themes are going to be already