@Evinceo's banner p

Evinceo

Resident Normie

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:40:19 UTC

				

User ID: 224

Evinceo

Resident Normie

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:40:19 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 224

I don't think that NIH wants to be in the Eugenics business, so they're taking steps to avoid it.

  • -22

Persuit of truth is important, but so is keeping a lid on data which can be misused. As far as I know, there's data that Joe Public just can't get about nuclear weapon internals, for example. I suppose they're treating 'which genes make you smart anyway' as similarly hazardous research. I can't blame them.

  • -19

I mistakenly assumed that everyone around me regularly got flu shots and would be totally ok getting experiencing less than a second of pain to avoid harming my family. And I suppose now that the old folks are already dead from covid I shouldn't have anything to worry about-it's not like they're going to die again. But just like you, I feel like it's the principal of the thing. Choose Team Mankind or Team Virus (or, hell, Team China if you believe in lab leak theory.)

I think people should have the absolute authority to choose what goes in their arm, but if I see someone with 'death to /u/evinceo's ancestors' tattooed on their forehead, I'm going to treat them with some amount of contempt.

  • -15

This is a wild supposition. What they're preventing is embryo selection for intelligence, or worse, people monkeying around with CRISPR. If it prevents HBD studies that's just icing.

  • -14

The FUD that he tanked revenue by pissing off advertisers? Yes.

  • -12

I would say that moves towards a GATTACA world are dangerous.

  • -12

Does he have credibility left to lose after weeks of own-goals?

You think the NIH is creating superintelligent superdoctors in secret?

You could broadly say that NIH wants to be in the germs business but not the make people smarter business.

Of course, but if we're going to count 'defensive gun use' as 'any time a gun made its owner feel safe' we're getting dangerously close to making policy based on feelings. Should we count every time the presence of a gun made someone feel unsafe as an offensive gun use? I don't think police departments would support that sort of standard.

Seems like an entirely arbitrary place to draw the starting line.

you

Me in particular, or just people who aren't HBD enthusiasts?

9/11 truthers tend to (but don't always) avoid saying something as antagonistic as 'hey nyc cops, your buddies didn't die in 9/11, they were crisis actors, you're an actor' etc. I would expect someone as high profile as Jones doing it to get Dorner'd.

Neither the administration or users encouraged illegal acts.

Debatable. I would categorize the act of doxing someone as aiding and encouraging harassment or worse. KF knew what it was doing. Telling their readership not to use the information for illegal purposes might have been sure footing the first time, but they apparently didn't learn their lesson. Eventually if you keep doing a thing and it causes another thing to happen, regardless of your strenuous verbal discouragement you own those consequences. To Wit, if you rig up a bridge with explosives and leave a big old 'destroy bridge, do not press' button in public, people are gonna start blaming you for the exploded bridges after morons have knocked down the first few.

Doxxing is not illegal

In the US, no. On the internet... like I said, it's the closest thing to illegal. It makes you a pariah. An outlaw. I'd expect someone doing the equivalent in real life to be assaulted on a regular basis. They chased clout by doing the forbidden thing, had a pretty good run, produced some good and many not so good externalities and finally got run out of town on a rail.

How can you have faith that people will critically examine the evidence if themotte is accused when nobody bothered to do so for KF?

I don't think CF examined the specific accusation (which was an obvious op) but I think they got an overall sense of what KF was about and decided it wasn't the hill to die on.

KF's nuance behavior attracts hostile ops like the one that ultimately got them. Eventually one was going to succeed.

Consider also that for CF to explain why they dropped KF would require them to explain a decade or so of internet lore to an audience that didn't give a damn. Much easier to just point at a bomb threat and go 'there, you happy?'

They're cops. They're still gonna be solidly red.

any other "conservative president" would have lost in 2016 making this whole point moot anyway

I disagree. If Trump hadn't run, we could have ended up with a boring normal republican who would have almost certainly won against doomed candidate Hillary Clinton. Of course no candidate in 2016's primary was equipped to deal with his shenanigans or frankly live in the meme economy at all.

you would prefer a nicer, polished Trump?

There are things I wish he'd done differently, even adjusting for our obvious political differences. I wish he'd kept turnover lower and cultivated effective leaders he could delegate to. I wish he'd handled Covid differently rather than deferring to states and letting the CDC go off on adventures. I wish he'd had a more pragmatic plan to deal with China. I wish he'd thought more carefully about his responsibility as a leader to set the stage for future leaders who aren't him.

Right but any conservative president would have done the same. It's congress that made sure he got to nominate three instead of two.

It's big of you to admit that the source of your dead is that the idea of being in an other than majority white country freaks you out. Most white folks will tie themselves in pretzels to avoid saying it. Since there's really nothing an individual can do to change something like that, the advice is the same as it is for those made anxious by climate change: consider therapy. You need to be the best person you can in the world we have, not the one you wish you had.

You seem to be contrasting conspiratorial thinking with blind trust in authority. I don't think that's the only alternative. I think the default assumption is that any given individual or group is foolish and treading water and build your hypothesis up from there.

the inability of society to 'reign in' female sexuality in a healthy way contributes to almost every form of social dysfunction we observe.

Isn't it mostly men doing the rioting, heroin, shooting, looting... did I miss any?

I never got a flu shot. Why would I? I'm neither old nor immunocompromised.

Because A) getting the flu can suck even if you're young and B) you might infect a child or elderly person, or infect someone who does.

It comes, it goes, its effects are negligible.

I suspect you've had colds rather than the flu. When I was young I had a flu which kicked my ass. Though I'd actually been vaccinated, so I suppose that's not the strongest argument for vaccination!

Covid was not a problem

Well not for those who didn't die I suppose.

Nobody I know had any problems from covid more serious than flu symptoms, no matter how sickly or old they were.

Your anecdote; mine is that people I cared about died.

I will not accommodate the opposition by retreating into mistake theory while they sit on their conflict theory gains.

My initial post regarding the face tattoo wasn't conflict theory enough?

validates the ideological crusaders and policy-makers and nudges the overton window in their favor.

Let me get this straight: the insurmountably small protection you get from a covid shot is negligible, but the insurmountably small influence on policy you exert by getting one isn't?

I would rather spite them for all the harm they've done than cooperate to attain some minor benefit.

This is hard sentiment to sympathize with, because you're hurting everyone to spite them. This is the type of thing I was comparing to a face tat. Or spitting in people's hamburgers because you hate your boss at McDonald's.

Do you care about me and mine

I would prefer that y'all not get sick, if that matters to ya.

where you are afraid of society's vulnerability to viruses and I'm afraid of society's vulnerability to totalitarianism/social engineering/witch hunts.

I see 'surrendering to a virus' as just as dangerous a meme as what you've listed. We are mankind and we make shit extinct, damn the consequences.

You assume incorrectly.

That might explain some of the disconnect then. Maybe you live somewhere where the lockdowns were truly draconian. Stateside they, well, weren't. Unfortunately, having not actually imposed a lockdown from the top down, nobody had the proper authority to lift the lockdown either, so you've still got some folks for whom 2020 never ended, which is its own kind of problem, while the rest of us have long since resumed our lives.

I guess I also don't buy that avoiding a non-mandatory vaccination is in any way resisting the imposition of a police state.

Choose team liberty over team coercion.

Same, but please also make good decisions, not just decisions based on vibes.

Choose team economy over team lockdown.

What does that have to do with getting a shot?

I'm really not sure what you're saying here

I was hamhandedly drawing an equivalence, ie, a very expensive signal to show that you don't care about me and mine. Which is fine. I don't want to coerce you into caring about who you hurt. But it might affect my decision to invite you to parties, yeah?

Consider the pledge of allegiance-US school kids recite it every day. Compared to getting a yearly shot, this is an astounding amount of time, and a much clearer signal of conformity. I assume you're US-based, did you refuse that too?

And you never did mention if you got your flu shots.

Generational greavences are always like this.

Models don't have rights.