General Current Events/Political Discussion

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

22 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

You're really trying to argue semantics here.

Unfortunate common theme in this thread.

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

5 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Authorities, I think it was the CDC, did say months ago that no mask was necessary, but then reversed that decision shortly after.

Probably because New York exploded in sick people in like two weeks.

It's been "wear a mask, please for the love of god wear a mask!" since then.

The doctor's note fcgamer posted was from a little over a week ago.

[Tulpa | 3,501]

4 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

The doctor's note fcgamer posted was from a little over a week ago.

They probably forgot to revise the language. That certainly isn't the CDC message now.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Edited July 2, 2020 by Tulpa

[Tulpa | 3,501]

8 minutes ago, Estil said:

Just like with condoms, masks only provide some protection and reduces the risk...but it cannot eliminate completely.  The very best and more important means of protection by far is as much "abstinence" (social distancing) as you realistically and reasonably can.

Everyone wearing masks provides LOTS of protection, too. Distancing is also important, but it's not mutually exclusive with mask wearing.

You can do both.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

"Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control. This recommendation is based on what we know about the role respiratory droplets play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, paired with emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows cloth face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth. COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet), so the use of cloth face coverings is particularly important in settings where people are close to each other or where social distancing is difficult to maintain."

Edited July 2, 2020 by Tulpa

[Estil | 1,265]

Sorry if you misunderstood @Tulpa but I didn't mean to imply the two were a "one or the other deal"...of course you should do every reasonable and realistic precaution you can.  But the top of the list by far is the social distancing.

Did I forget to mention that a few weeks ago my apt building's luck finally ran out and we got our first COVID case?   I do hope he/she fully recovered of course.

[Tulpa | 3,501]

Just now, Estil said:

Sorry if you misunderstood @Tulpa but I didn't mean to imply the two were a "one or the other deal"...of course you should do every reasonable and realistic precaution you can.  But the top of the list by far is the social distancing.

 

Okay, cool. Though we'd like to stay six feet apart, sometimes you have to get a little closer to people to actually do things. Hopefully both are wearing masks.

Just now, Estil said:

 

Did I forget to mention that a few weeks ago my apt building's luck finally ran out and we got our first COVID case?   I do hope he/she fully recovered of course.

Stay safe, dude.

[Estil | 1,265]

Luckily I'm already a mostly homebody introvert (as Forrest Gump would say, introverts and kitties go together like peas and carrots! ) who very seldom goes anywhere besides the grocery store (luckily just a few hundred yards away; one of the main reasons we chose this apt building in the first place!!) so luckily me and kitty staying safe is easy  

But I know most can't go nearly that far so hence why I said as realistically and reasonably as you can.

[fcgamer | 4,723]

57 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

Things like the circled item @fcgamer showed is misleading. It is very easy to interpret this as "if you are healthy, there is no need to wear a mask". It ignores the fact that you can be an asymptomatic spreader without a mask. This has been well known for months.

Dude, this was a F'ing health check a guy received. To quote the concerned:

"The messaging is really inconsistent and makes people like me think COVID is concocted for nefarious purposes"

I can understand where he is coming from, first bogus who bullshit, then leftists trying to push their agendas.

[fcgamer | 4,723]

49 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Everyone wearing masks provides LOTS of protection, too. Distancing is also important, but it's not mutually exclusive with mask wearing.

You can do both.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

"Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control. This recommendation is based on what we know about the role respiratory droplets play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, paired with emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows cloth face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth. COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet), so the use of cloth face coverings is particularly important in settings where people are close to each other or where social distancing is difficult to maintain."

Been telling you that since January or February...

Oh yeah!!!

[Gloves | 11,779]

North American politics be like

[Estil | 1,265]

You know I'm pretty sure one of my summer community college courses (which I had to take to get my double degrees on time; early 2000s) had a textbook that included a part (political ideology test?) that had a 0-40 (most liberal to most conservative) which gave Jesse Jackson as a 0 example (most liberal possible) and Ronald Reagan as a 40 example (most conservative possible).  Of course they didn't include the radical extremes of either end on this scale, just the range that they could reasonably have a realistically decent following in the political arena (again I'm probably not explaining that quite right).  Even so, I think I can confidently say that Margaret Thatcher made Reagan look like a bleeding heart liberal!  

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

1 hour ago, captmorgandrinker said:

It should be common knowledge, but that's not getting shouted from the rooftops like the "don't infringe on my rights" narrative.

Seriously, how much does it put one out to wear a mask for a few hours?   I understand some with legit health reasons can't wear them, but not all these fuckers I see without them.  

 

I don't know how it is up north, but I don't see hardly anyone wearing them around here.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

10 minutes ago, Bearcat-Doug said:

I don't know how it is up north, but I don't see hardly anyone wearing them around here.

Mixed bag here in Nebraska. I see a lot of younger folk wearing them and a lot of older folk not. I saw an older gentleman denied entry from Menards because he refused to put one on.

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

Just now, CodysGameRoom said:

Mixed bag here in Nebraska. I see a lot of younger folk wearing them and a lot of older folk not. I saw an older gentleman denied entry from Menards because he refused to put one on.

It's been the opposite here. I've seen them mostly on older people. 

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

49 minutes ago, Gloves said:

North American politics be like

It's like this in Canada too?

[Gloves | 11,779]

8 minutes ago, Bearcat-Doug said:

It's like this in Canada too?

Pretty much yeah. We don't point the finger as much as the States, we're not SO divided, but as far as voting goes at least, most people will tell you you're basically throwing your vote away by voting for anyone but the big 2. 

I had a big post typed up but I prefer not to get into it, suffice to say I wish we could make a change.

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

1 minute ago, Gloves said:

Pretty much yeah. We don't point the finger as much as the States, we're not SO divided, but as far as voting goes at least, most people will tell you you're basically throwing your vote away by voting for anyone but the big 2. 

I had a big post typed up but I prefer not to get into it, suffice to say I wish we could make a change.

You had a mayor that smoked crack. Jerry Springer was the mayor of Cincinnati. I think it's even worse on the local level

 

[Estil | 1,265]

 

13 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Pretty much yeah. We don't point the finger as much as the States, we're not SO divided, but as far as voting goes at least, most people will tell you you're basically throwing your vote away by voting for anyone but the big 2. 

I had a big post typed up but I prefer not to get into it, suffice to say I wish we could make a change.

What kind of change?  And not only do you use the opposite colors we do for the main political parties but weren't the Conservatives (are yours called Tories like the ones in the UK?) not too long ago called the Progressive Conservatives?  I mean it was like the party couldn't make up its mind whether to be left of center (sorry centre ) or right of centre!  

[Estil | 1,265]

14 minutes ago, Bearcat-Doug said:

You had a mayor that smoked crack. Jerry Springer was the mayor of Cincinnati. I think it's even worse on the local level

Didn't that mayor know what smoking crack does??  (sorry I couldn't resist)

And for those who don't know what crack is...

 

[Gloves | 11,779]

Just now, Estil said:

 

What kind of change?  And not only do you use the opposite colors we do for the main political parties but weren't the Conservatives (are yours called Tories like the ones in the UK?) not too long ago called the Progressive Conservatives?  I mean it was like the party couldn't make up its mind whether to be left of center (sorry centre ) or right of centre!  

TBH I'm not in the head space to get too into it but yes - our politics are actually very centered at all. I don't recall who said it but it's true - the left of today would have been the right of a few decades ago.

The change I'd like to see if primarily in the sense of the methodology. I don't think we should be voting on names/faces.

IMO we should be:

1. Able to vote online
2. Voting on the things we value, not a name
   1. For example, it could be multiple choice; you'd choose between things like "pro/anti abortion" etc.
   2. Based on your selections of values, they'd be weighted and tied to a party

Honestly a LOT of people have NO FUCKING CLUE what the hell they're voting for. They're voting right/left because they see it as either "I am progressive!" or "I have good Christian values!". It's VERY us vs them and it's terrible. I think a lot of people would be surprised with the person or party they'd land on if they actually put their values on paper and were told "Oh you actually look like you prefer the Green Party!" (one of the parties in Canada). 

Everything in politics is fucked and people need realize it, accept it, and push for change. 

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

5 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Everything in politics is fucked and people need realize it, accept it, and push for change. 

I agree. Too many people want to vote with the party instead of on the issue itself. 

[Estil | 1,265]

2 minutes ago, Gloves said:

TBH I'm not in the head space to get too into it but yes - our politics are actually very centered at all. I don't recall who said it but it's true - the left of today would have been the right of a few decades ago.

The most perfect example of that I can think of is in the US, not too long ago, it was the left (especially the ACLU) who most emphasized freedom of speech and often lamented (and I saw a political cartoon to that effect back in 1990 in my local newspaper archive that I've been reading) that conservatives are so gung-ho about the Second Amendment but the First Amendment, not nearly so much.  Boy has that done a complete 180!!  Now free speech (especially in academia; you could say that Campus Reform organization I mentioned a few pages earlier is like a "Conservative Viewpoints Matter" movement of sorts) is apparently a right wing thing!!  It's now the left and SJW's who are most into cancel culture whereas a few decades ago is was mainly the radical religious fundamentalists who were doing the cancel culture thing.  Go figure!

[Gloves | 11,779]

2 minutes ago, Estil said:

The most perfect example of that I can think of is in the US, not too long ago, it was the left (especially the ACLU) who most emphasized freedom of speech and often lamented (and I saw a political cartoon to that effect back in 1990 in my local newspaper archive that I've been reading) that conservatives are so gung-ho about the Second Amendment but the First Amendment, not nearly so much.  Boy has that done a complete 180!!  Now free speech (especially in academia; you could say that Campus Reform organization I mentioned a few pages earlier is like a "Conservative Viewpoints Matter" movement of sorts) is apparently a right wing thing!!  It's now the left and SJW's who are most into cancel culture whereas a few decades ago is was mainly the radical religious fundamentalists who were doing the cancel culture thing.  Go figure!

That's honestly part of why this thread irks me a lot and I come in and say to stop taking things to personal levels. A lot of you will agree with each other on a lot of things you don't even realize but there's this big label sitting in front of you that just says "LEFT" and "RIGHT" and it puts knives in hands and at throats.

I see a lot of arguing over semantics, worrying over whether we think something is racist or not, when seriously these are stupid piddly little things that are just arguments you've honestly been LEAD to have. The people in control WANT you divided in this way when really you're all saying the same things in different ways. Like seriously sometimes you go at each other like the other guy is out here murdering people. Hone that anger and point it at the guys controlling you.

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

4 minutes ago, Gloves said:

That's honestly part of why this thread irks me a lot and I come in and say to stop taking things to personal levels. A lot of you will agree with each other on a lot of things you don't even realize but there's this big label sitting in front of you that just says "LEFT" and "RIGHT" and it puts knives in hands and at throats.

I see a lot of arguing over semantics, worrying over whether we think something is racist or not, when seriously these are stupid piddly little things that are just arguments you've honestly been LEAD to have. The people in control WANT you divided in this way when really you're all saying the same things in different ways. Like seriously sometimes you go at each other like the other guy is out here murdering people. Hone that anger and point it at the guys controlling you.

I'm sure there are people in the middle. I'm registered as an independent. I usually disagree with the left and right so I guess I need a knife in both hands. 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

8 minutes ago, Gloves said:

whether we think something is racist or not, when seriously these are stupid piddly little things that are just arguments you've honestly been LEAD to have.

I agree with most of what you said especially arguing over semantics, I'm sick of that for sure.

But I disagree with the above quote. Trying to educate people on racism is not a stupid piddly thing and it's not an argument I'm being lead to have. I've been anti-racist since I educated myself on race relations as a teenager two decades ago. It's got zero to do with my political leanings or what you think someone else wants me to believe. It's my right and my duty to call out racism, racist beliefs, and racist ideas. I'll continue to do so in life and I'll continue to do so on this board as long as I am allowed to do it.