491–500 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kinda disgusting how personal beliefs can influence professionals, no?
Why? Would you prefer that because someone is "professional" they discard all their personal ethics?
My opinion is that standing up for the current abhorrance of police violence connected to BLM is worth some endangering behavior on their own choice (i.e. going out in crowds, because it's a multi-100 year problem), whereas getting a haircut is not the same, but I see why that's contentious. 1000 more people getting a positive case that wouldn't have otherwise will lead to a few deaths, and they will spread it and kill a few more. It's personally horrible to just write down that fact and not know what to do with it.
1. https://bing.com/covid/local/washington_unitedstates
2. https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/NovelCoronavirusOutbreak2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a good idea in principle, the problem is that the devil is often in the detail and people can say things that seem broadly like a decent argument while slipping in details (whether intentionally or not) that completely reverse the meaning or make the meaning quite different. This is why cross examination in needed in trials - of course everyone tries to make a plausible argument, so noticing the incongruities is…
Pointing out, or asking about, incongruities is fine. How one does it makes a difference, as does the intention with which one does it. If you want to call all of that cross-examination, that's fine, but in that case we're using the term differently. The main distinction the guidelines are trying to draw is the one between open exchange and destroying enemies.
I think it’s clearer and more direct and has less of an implication of being overly deferential to bad arguments.
A week ago, a Facebook friend of mine posted a passionate post about the importance of wearing masks. This weekend, the same friend posts a photo sitting around with friends, sans-mask.
This same friend is very politically active. Honestly, some of his actions seem linked to whatever the current hot-topic is. I think there's been a shift in emphasis, hence the lack of caring for the mask this week.
Not a surprise, COVID19 is pretty soft compared to the historic pandemics. I'm actually suprised that this continued for so long, I gave the lockdowns 4 week, but I guess the media propaganda blessed it with longer life. Just to clarify about Covid: -The highest deathrate from it is around 1%, CDC reports 0.30 lately. -Hits predominantly the old parts of the population -The death comes in a normal way - pneumonia ->…
Link to source? Current data on cdc is 1,920,904 cases and 109,901 deaths which is 5.7% (and it doesn't appear to be changing much). That's about 20 times higher than your figure of 0.3%.
Quoted from a letter from 1,000 health professionals on the virus and protests [0] >However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from…
> However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission That's a shining example of weasel speak. They don't explicitly say it's not risky - because that would be plain lying, it is obviously risky - but they are saying they are not condemning it as risky. Which most people would take as implying it's not actually risky - even though they are not saying that. They…
Quoted from a letter from 1,000 health professionals on the virus and protests [0] >However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from…
> However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission That's a shining example of weasel speak. They don't explicitly say it's not risky - because that would be plain lying, it is obviously risky - but they are saying they are not condemning it as risky. Which most people would take as implying it's not actually risky - even though they are not saying that. They…
> When news of a mysterious viral pneumonia linked to a market in Wuhan, China, reached the outside world in early January, one of my first reactions was to order a modest supply of masks. Just a few weeks later, there wasn’t a mask to be bought in stores, or online for a reasonable price — just widespread price gouging. Many health experts, no doubt motivated by the sensible and urgent aim of preserving the remaining masks for health care workers, started telling people that they didn’t need masks or that they wouldn’t know how to wear them.
The concerns are right but public assembly is critical in a democracy, and cannot be put on hold indefinitely. It's probably the most fundamental right in any civil society and with all these takes I have seen on twitter about COVID and the protests, a lot of people seem to seriously unerestimate the value that free assembly has. Covid as bad as it is will be an issue of the near future, civil rights gains or losses…
Additionally, mask usage is seriously high at these protests. I’ll literally be marching down the street and see folks on rooftop bars, beers in hand, elbow to elbow, not a mask in sight. that scares me more than a protest where you can freely trail behind at distance.
A thing I've noticed is that they stopped mentioning the daily numbers on the radio (NPR, more specifically Iowa Public Radio). It's sort of like the media has extracted all the juice they can from the pandemic and now we're just left with the pulpy mess that no one really wants to deal with.
It is critical to the Democrats to shift the conversation. Clearly blaming Trump for the city's failure isn't going to work, so the pivot was to waiting until there was one particularly bad case of police abuse against a black person and then light the powder keg. If you look back this year there have been some awful cases.
For example, one stands out from February where a man was murdered execution style with 4 shots to the head and back[1]. Never heard of it in the media? That's because the person murdered was white so it was not politically useful to the Democrat media machine.
The takeaway for me is that this is only going to get worst. Elections are still in November. Biden is a terrible candidate so they're going to go absolutely nuts trying to sow discontent, instability, and outright rebellion. Can the US survive it's own media and it's two-party system, especially as foreign actors amplify the media's destabilizing message and focus on polarizing people?
---
[1] https://6abc.com/west-sedgley-avenue-shooting-north-philadel...