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 -
-- 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.
Retroviruses like HIV are able to insert their genomes into the human genome because they're built to do so.
COVID is not built to do so. It does not code for the requisite protein for reverse transcription, nor does it code for other vital components like the pre-integration complex, which...integrates the new DNA into the host genome.
The mRNA vaccine, which codes only for one surface protein of the virus that already doesn't have the machinery for DNA integration, naturally does not have the requisite protein for reverse transcription, or for its integration into the genome.
Even if it was from a retrovirus, stripping away the components that integrate it into the genome - i.e. isolating only one surface protein from the entire viral genome - would make the vaccine unable to 1) reverse transcribe that into DNA, and 2) integrate it into the host genome. It is not built to integrate into the host genome.
Even if you were able to integrate it into the host genome, what would you expect to happen? You'd have a stranded bit of coding sequence inserted into a genome essentially randomly without a promoter, coding for a surface protein that doesn't really do anything alone in the context of the human cell. The splicing might randomly impact the cell via accidentally inserting itself into a coding sequence, or an intron, or a promoter sequence, or it might integrate into a region of noncoding RNA where it might affect some of the local molecular architecture.
It would be a really, really stupid way of trying to genetically engineer a population, because it actively wouldn't work on so many different levels.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Yes, so what you are saying is that there are a bunch of HIV+ people walking around with reverse transcriptases in some of their cells.
What do reverse transcriptases do? They transcribe RNA into DNA.
They don't care if it's HIV or covid.
If I was masterminding a big conspiracy to sterilize a big part of humanity, this is the part I would be lying about.
Not saying that this is true or not, I'm just saying one possibility is that it is actually packaged in there and nobody has the capacity or will to check.
Heck, they could have been injecting us with reverse transcriptase in a separate instance (food, drinks, other injections), but that's a little bit too convoluted.
That's the fun experiment part.
Do this to billions of people and a few hundred thousands of them will have a few cells where the spike protein sequence just happens to insert itself in the right area to get translated into a functional protein. And some other hundred thousands will have sequences that do not generate a functional protein, but instead generate something like a prion protein, or turns the cell into a cancerous cell, which would be much worse. And some other thousands or millions will have some other kind of integration that just kills the cell instead and stops the issue...
Well maybe this was all a big test and it failed. Maybe they genuinely tried to engineer something functional to save humanity and they just screwed up big time and then they just kept doubling down on, covering their traces because of the stakes, the outrage, the money, and business as usual with Big Pharma and the people that are loyal to it.
So you're positing that the government is doing a massive psyop to...do untold things only to people with an active retrovirus infection (e.g. people with low HIV viral load wouldn't be nearly as susceptible), which might not even work because mRNA vaccines aren't actually using normal nucleosides but instead synthetic, modified nucleosides?
Wouldn't patients with an active HIV infection have, you know, more things to be concerned about, like their active HIV infection?
(Whether they would work would be an open question, but I could - with no knowledge of these particular nucleoside analogues - just as/even more convincingly say that it's protective against genome insertion especially compared to an actual infection, since after all, nucleoside analogues are exactly one of the ways we treat HIV via blocking reverse transcription!)
If they're lying about this, they could be lying about anything, couldn't they? HIV could actually not be a retrovirus and be some sort of coordinated poisoning of homosexuals that accidentally leaked to the heterosexual population. COVID could actually be a retrovirus (despite all 30k bp of the virus being public knowledge), and using an mRNA vaccine with is actually protective because we're reducing the chance of viral integration into the genome!
Especially since the sequences used for the vaccines are public knowledge for ages now! And when international labs sequenced it, they did find something interesting...just not about this particular conspiracy, but the lab leak one!
(Or maybe the entire world's labs are just in on one giant joke?)
As an aside, food and drink would be extremely implausible. It would have to survive heat and cold and digestion, unless you're alleging that government agents are clandestinely spraying synthetic viruses onto masses of foodstuff just before they're served.
And people would do this in such an obviously stupid way...why? If you wanted to run stupid experiments that are essentially the equivalent of throwing tomatoes into a shredder and seeing if one tomato manages to reconstitute itself perfectly as it falls, you could...use lab animals!
It would also depend on what integration mechanism is used. Retroviral integrases and integration complexes usually preferentially bind to sites of high transcription...which would suggest that you'd have a permanent transcription of spike protein sitting there waiting to be degraded and not doing much else.
If instead your aim was to do the maximum evulz, this is again an extremely expensive and inefficient way to do it, given that most people wouldn't even be susceptible!
(That wouldn't pass any sort of ethics committee, but neither would the human version you're suggesting, so what gives?)
The point is that, based on very public knowledge about the vaccine verified by many parties throughout the world, this was very obviously not something meant to gene edit the majority of humanity in any way for any benign or nefarious purpose.
Practically the entire world would have to be lying about the vaccine for this to work, including China, which explicitly has been pushing Sinovac to the exclusion of the mRNA vaccines despite its lower efficacy!
There are concerns regarding such a new technology first applied to humans, true. Some of it even makes sense (e.g. overlapping ORFs being a theoretical risk)! But none of it even remotely approaches what you're alleging.
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