@Skylab's banner p

Skylab

Beware of he who would deny you access to information...

1 follower   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 09 02:56:55 UTC

				

User ID: 1057

Skylab

Beware of he who would deny you access to information...

1 follower   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 09 02:56:55 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1057

I skipped most of this conversation on Israel, because I find it overly politically technical and boring while my own feelings are ambivalent and apathetic, but this was a great tl;dr

I believe a certain inevitability was granted to the Grand Inquisitor's program, and in 2022, it's hard for me to disagree with that. While I believe personally Dostoyevsky opposed it, he acknowledged its unstoppable inevitability- the cold iron logic of history.

Seems like there is a corrolary with this recent pattern.

  1. It's not happening.

  2. But it's a good thing that it's happening. (CRT in schools, double mastectomies for minors, etc.)

All of the above issues would not be issues if the writing were not so intolerable.

Banning discussion of the legimitacy of elections, discussion of whether the neovaccines/masks are effective or not, discussion that homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic mammalian species on the one hand,

and explicit content parental advisory lyrics on the other hand.

Personally, I think that's a false equivalency.

Has this parallel been tried?

I believe that "the Nazi citizens of Germany in the 1930's were acting with the earnestly held belief that they were making the world a better place" is more true than false.

I am NOT trying to equate progressives with Nazis but rather making a simple reducio ad absurdum argument.

You should clarify that your bosses are Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog. I finally figured that out but only after reading your entire post and following several links.

Reading Sneerclub is a guilty pleasure of mine.

I might get exiled for this, but I don't believe anyone is "trans." Some people are genuinely delusional and deserving of pity while others mimic delusion to gain social power.

I prefer the term American idpol colonialism.

You're getting downvoted but I absolutely agree with this. Bravo!

Counter argument: without censorship, online communities naturally drift rightward as the sacred cows of progressives are slaughtered one by one with simple evidence.

In a parallel reality where sense and rationality rules the land, your hypothetical utopia might possibly exist. But in this reality, there are very vocal trans activists that will hunt you down, dox you, petition your boss to fire you and try to get your kids expelled from their school if you say that homo sapiens are a dimorphic mammalian species.

And that's assuming that your account was suspended to begin with.

The real issue is that the "muh private company" argument no longer applies to Twitter. There is evidence that the whitehouse, and the DNC have persuaded Twitter to censor their political enemies. That's the problem. That's a violation of the first amendment.

I also question that conservatives are pro censorship. At the height of their instutional power they put stickers on rap albums to warn of "explicit lyrics."

And that was seen as an overstep.

I don't know anything about internet atheist communities. But feminism and intersectional orthodoxies don't tend to stand up well to basic inquiry by those not within the academic social setting.

Like women have been oppressed by a patriarchy for ten million years.

Like 1 in 4 female students will be raped on campus.

Like confusing the pay gap with the earnings gap.

Like looking at black homicide victim statistics. (Police killing black men make up less than 1% of the total.)

et cetera...

Facts are progressive Kryptonite.

The case of Keffals et al versus Jesse Singal?

boo!

Having looked at the evidence as presented by Alexandros, (and others,), the signal from Ivermectin is much stronger than previously believed.

What's disturbing is the multibillion campaign against Ivermectin. The water has been deliberately muddied by bad faith players who stand to make substantial profits so long as Ivermectin is suppressed.

When I consider these two facts, 1. Solid signal from Ivermectin plus extremely safe, (a great Pascal's Wager.) and 2. There is a well funded disinformation campaign against Ivermectin from some of the most powerful institutions in the Western world with obvious conflicts of interest,

I think it's foolish to not have Ivermectin in your house in case of Covid. There's nothing to lose and everything to gain.

ARRR! I see what you did there, matey!

I'm getting downvoted but I absolutely agree with my comment. Bravo!

you'll recall that most of the dunking on Ivermectin was when people were going out and taking megadoses and getting sick.

The original "Duke Lacrosse" Ivermectin Article published by Rolling Stone.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fda-horse-dewormer-covid-fox-news-1215168/

The main message which you seems to have worked on you subconsciously:

"Oklahoma's ERs are so backed up with people overdosing on ivermectin that gunshot victims are having to wait to be treated, a doctor says."

This never happened. Nothing like it happened. Yet despite their update to the story which you may have missed, the damage worked. Millions of people have some sense that their biases are confirmed: stupid southerners among their despised outgroup are overdosing on "horse dewormer." Only an idiot would take horse dewormer!

Of course it makes no sense. Ivermectin is available for humans in most states with a simple prescription. I got my prescription online after 5 minutes.

This article, and many others debunk it. The hospital denies the foundational facts of the Rolling Stone article.

https://townhall.com/columnists/timgraham/2021/09/10/rolling-stone-commits-horse-dewormer-fraud-n2595648

Rolling Stone issued their own update:

Update: One hospital has denied Dr. Jason McElyea’s claim that ivermectin overdoses are causing emergency room backlogs and delays in medical care in rural Oklahoma, and Rolling Stone has been unable to independently verify any such cases as of the time of this update.

So basically they are admitting that the lede in their original story was totally baseless. Rather than come out and say that, they pretend that it could be true, even though they found zero evidence for it.

...those who fell for the story included The Daily Beast's Justin Baragona, Daily Kos, Daily Mail, The Guardian, Newsweek, New York Daily News, The Hill, MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson, former CNN pundit Roland Martin, disgraced reporter Kurt Eichenwald, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, and "Stephanie Ruhle Reports" producer Lauren Peikoff (who admirably fessed up and deleted her tweet, unlike Maddow).

So all of this goes back to the first point of contention. I don't believe that the editors of Rolling Stone are that stupid. And CNN, Guardian, Newsweek, The Hill, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow etc. Maybe some of them are. But it's a safe bet that some of them had financial interests in quashing Ivermectin in order to preserve the EUA upon which the neovaccines are founded. This looks like politics and money, not science.

In any discussion of rape, I think it is important to zoom out on homo sapiens as a species and ask if humans commit more rape than other species. Just to reach a baseline.

Because I think some of the default assumptions and first principles of feminism are not grounded in reality, evolutionary theory, or science, generally.

Most women, regardless of circumstances, could never commit rape.

remember that the current FBI definition of rape is

"penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

So if a woman were to tie a man up and have sex with him against his will, it would not legally be considered rape by the FBI, unless she penetrated his anus.

However, "made to penetrate" sexual assault, which is how the CDC defines women having sex with men without their consent is apparently much more common than previously acknowledged.

Indeed, in my own experience, I find that I have been "raped" (i.e. made to penetrate without my consent,) by four women in my lifetime. Always while I had been asleep. In one case, a new girlfriend mounted me while I slept without a condom, even though I had been meticulous in my use of condomes. In a second case, a different girlfriend tried to put a condom on me after I had passed out drunk. She woke me up with sex and the condom fell off at some point. In a third case, a girlfriend invited her friend to perform fellatio on me while I was sleeping.

#metoo functioned as a major redpill for me because I had a close friend falsely accused of rape. As I began to understand exactly how feminists now define rape, I gradually became aware that according to the feminist definition of the term, I had been raped by four different women in my life, and sexually assaulted by others. The absolute hypocrisy and lack of awareness deeply disturbs me to this day, since all of those same women who raped me are strong feminists who jumped on the "believe all women" bandwagon.

I don't know what the answer to the social problem of rape is. However, I do know firsthand that modern academic feminism is built upon glaciers of bullshit over decades and their approach to the problem consistently make society worse because of a deep rooted denial of reality.

Evidence for this claim. And please do not link the Rolling Stones article saying that "Oklahoma's ERs are so backed up with people overdosing on ivermectin that gunshot victims are having to wait to be treated, a doctor says."

Why would anyone take horse Ivermectin when it is available for humans in pharmacies?