This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
A pure hypothetical thought experiment: imagine it occurs that the Pfizer mRNA vaccination + all booster follow-ups (4+ shots) regimen is disastrous to health, and has a high 10-year mortality rate. In other words, those who strictly adhered to the recommended CDC/Pfizer vaccination schedule have a 25% of dying by the decade’s end, or some such risk. What would be the public’s response and what would be the just punishment for those involved?
I think in such a hypothetical, the whole political climate of 21st century neo-neoliberalism will be fundamentally altered. There would be a huge rightward shift on distrust to authorities, especially but not limited to scientists and public health authorities. I don’t think the public would be satisfied with Fauci and other heads being tried, and will demand sentences for the thousands of individuals involved in the decision similar to what we would see in the Nuremberg trials. This would also fundamentally change the political climate, as the “vax-maxxed” lean left.
-- Profound dysegenic effects on the population. I'm not here to argue what the "smart" opinion is, or to generalize to the whole grouping, but the numbers don't lie: and it would be horrifying.
The discrepancies just get worse as you work into the tails, especially once you correlate with education. We'd lose disproportionately smart, educated, employed people relative to dumb, uneducated, and unemployed people. Simple facts. Fall of civilization level event? Maybe.
-- I think your definitions of Left-Right might be idiosyncratic to mine. One would think that the reaction to such an occurrence would be civil libertarian and a strong enshrinement of bodily autonomy, something like Kulak's dreamland. One could equally see urges towards civil libertarianism leading to 60s/BLM excesses and a corresponding backlash. I don't see a strong Right-Wing gain in the sense in which the Republican party passed the Patriot Act or the sense in which the Right wing favors abortion restrictions. All the political effects will be downstream of the dysgenic effects. If we lost 20% of our engineers, lawyers, codemonkeys maybe we get a safetyism administration that seeks to carefully husband our remaining human resources.
-- I'd like to think that political leaders involved would be permanently discredited, but that has not been my experience of prior disasters. See E.G. the Iraq war; people today say that everyone supported it. I point out that I went to large protests against it and Ted Kennedy fillibustered it, they say I'm nitpicking. It will all be memory holed.
If they're so smart, why did they fall for the psy-op?
I can see smart teenagers fall for it because they're too busy to study to go online and 'do their own research' which has been the easiest thing in history since circa 2005.
Anyone with a certain brain processing power that has lived in the Western world for 20+ years has no excuse.
Weren't you around for the Iraq WMD or any of these dozens of disasters resulting from trusting government and corporations?
What is your exact definition of the psy-op, here?
That young people had a need to turn themselves into GMO experiment.
-injections do not protect from getting the disease
-have negative side effects in a % of the pop, including fertility (imaging wanting children in the future and submitting to a potentially sterilizing procedure)
-below a certain age the disease itself is basically not deadly
-governments prevented travel from pure humans but that's over
-colleges prevented attending but that's on the way out
-some companies prevented holding a job, probably over and plenty of companies did not
In summary, injection was unnecessary, harmful to health, and not taking it relatively easy to avoid for presumably smart people
mRNA vaccines do not modify your genome. They trick your body into turning genes they carry into spike proteins, just like the virus does, but they don't replace your genes, and they don't make more of their own genes to repeat the process at exponentially-increasing scales like the virus does.
This stuff isn't as clearly against the rules as the "anyone with a certain brain processing power" above, but it is a good time for "proactively provide evidence" to come to mind.
They had better than 90% protection from disease in the first RCT. That dropped with time and with new variants, but even if it had had zero lasting protection, the temporary protection still would have been worth taking a chance for by vulnerable populations in the first megadeath-scale waves.
This is trivially true because "ow my arm" is a negative side effect, but for any serious claim you'll need specific side effects and numeric percentages. It didn't have as many negative side effects as getting Covid-19 one extra time. The trouble with trying to avoid risk here is that Covid's spread was so extensive that there was no way to avoid risk. There was just "risk exposing your body to a carefully metered dose of Covid spikes" versus "risk exposing your body, with your immune system unprepared, to an exponentially reproducing dose of Covid viruses".
And this is at least true because zero is a percent?
This is an especially weird one for me, because actual testosterone decline has been going on for 50 years, sperm quality included, with no complete explanations, and even the incomplete explanations don't seem to be engendering much concern from anyone. If one side of the Culture War wants to go all Buck Turgidson, couldn't we at least get some good out of it, and focus on an actual measurable corruption of our precious bodily fluids?
This is true or false depending on your definition of "basically" and "a certain age"; risks did rise pretty much exponentially with age, but there were still a few hundred pediatric deaths and tens of thousands of hospitalizations in the US. If you look at excess death counts Covid starts clearly showing up in the 25-44 age group; not kids, but not exactly great-grandma either.
This is all true (and more: some companies were forced to prevent holding a job, to remain federal contractors), and in hindsight (or maybe with foresight, from anyone who didn't see any a priori reason to expect long-lived sterilizing immunity against a disease not obviously more static than influenza) it was questionable to bar people even temporarily from half of society under the desperate belief that this was going to be the final step to push R below 1 for good.
The Reuters 'fact-checker' quotes Mark Lynas who is merely speculating:
"It does not enter the (cell) nucleus and cannot interact with your DNA or cause any changes to the genome (here)”.
Then this other source:
'In an explainer about COVID-19 vaccines, Oxford University’s Vaccine Knowledge Project rebukes misinformation about mRNA with equal force: “there is no way for human DNA to be altered by an mRNA vaccine.” (here).'
They are asserting this claim without evidence.
Until this is actually tested, it is possible.
Here's a few contradicting evidences :
Basically it is established that RNA can be turned into DNA and integrated into the genome.
This is a well-known phenomenon.
The point of contention is whether or not what is in the injection can do the same thing.
Until there is a study coming out to prove in a large sample that this does not happen, it remains a possibility, no matter what fact-checkers say, as this is something that happens in nature.
Here's one in-vitro study that found DNA integration of the injection product
Here is the commentary on that study that says 'vaccines are safe but actually that study makes a good point'
The mechanism exists in nature but we need to know whether or not it happens in injected humans.
Issues have to do with whether or not the injection reaches the cell nucleus, and whether or not the RNA gets reverse-transcribed, and what dose is needed, etc.
The FDA itself did not have even specify an actual dose on its emergency authorization if I recall correctly.
They are not controlling how much of the RNA mixture each injection delivers, as far as I know.
Here's one of your previous Fact-chunkers describing some of the side effects.
Regarding fertility, I'm basing it on the widely reported complaints about menstruation issues from women who were injected and some other anecdotes.
Even if it did not make one sterile, it still would not make sense for young people to take it.
A lot of unhealthy people in that age range that could use some more obvious remedies before dipping into transhumanism; for example watching their diet or avoiding paraphilia associated with sexually-transmitted diseases.
It also says that the reason they're worried is because of a study showing SARS-CoV-2 itself doing the same thing. Personally I'd like to see both studies replicated first. (I recall one interdisciplinary-department joke: nobody believes a theoretical analysis except the ones who wrote it, everybody believes an experimental result except the ones who performed it) But let's assume it's a non-negligible chance for now. Would you think it's fair if I said that anyone exposed to Covid-19 (or to any virus, since we seem to be ignoring the retrovirus/non-retrovirus distinction) is now a GMO, not a "pure human"? If so, then what's the point? If not, then what's the difference?
Again, if only "just never get exposed to Covid-19 genes" was an option, that would have indeed been the non-risky option! That hasn't been an option since 2020 (maybe since January 2022? even the near-hermits were getting Omicron) and it may never be again.
30μg per 0.3mL injection is what's on the Pfizer fact sheet, but I guess for all we know they've just got a guy in a back alley who mixes .001g into one liter and 10g into the next? It would be weird that 90% of doses still worked in the trials, and 80% still worked well enough in the long run though, wouldn't it?
Although as an aside, this really is something I'd love to find out more about: has there been any testing of dose-response curves? If we could have gotten half the breakthroughs for 5% more side effects with a higher dose, or half the side effects for 0.5% more breakthroughs, but what we did instead was just run with the first educated guess that someone got into trials, just because the FDA doesn't like to see things vary without restarting long expensive trials from scratch, that could belong pretty high on the long list of things the FDA ought to be criticized for.
Obesity was another Covid risk factor, though IIRC if you compared "serious obesity" vs "an extra decade of age", the decade was worse for you. And I'd put "obesity epidemic" even above "testosterone decline" on my list of weird potentially-horrible population-spanning issues for which we should be hunting down systematic causes. But why stop at remedying two problems? If I diet and exercise and avoid STDs, that makes me less likely to die; if I diet and exercise and avoid STDs and avoid being virgin territory for a novel virus, that makes me even less likely to die.
They did it for the children dose I think. They still came out with more death on the injection side than what covid gives to children, but somehow that was not a concern.
The fact that there is a standard dose is somewhat concerning, or is it not?
According to this article, there is a standard dose.
Now let's ponder what it means that Moderna/Pfizer had to create a dose that would work just as well for the finest 300 lbs American citizen and the diminutive 150 lbs one.
Is the material just as likely to reach the key immune components necessary for whatever immune response is expected by the merchants in a much bigger body?
Would a bigger body necessitate a larger amount of material to reach the same response due to some unknown logistics?
Are the less-boldly-bodied people getting a larger dose than they would actually need? An excessive dose perhaps, that would perhaps concentrate the material into some cells, say the heart or some other critical tissue?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link