- Mar 4, 2014
What, exactly, have I said that's factually wrong?When that distinction makes the difference between something factually wrong and something factually right, yes, you should have to.
Even if I said, hypothetically, that diversity didn't exist long ago (which isn't much of a stretch, as the majority of societies have been hemogenous, and those that haven't have usually been empires), how would that actually be relevant to what's being discussed?As soon as someone makes a claim about something not existing long ago (as you did), then that necessarily expands the conversation to include what things were like a long time ago.
Yes, transport has been around for millennia. Diversity has been around in some form or another ever since human groups started bumping into each other. You're pulling a millennia old "technically" that's irrelevant to the actual subject, because it's silly to draw equivalents between the two.I brought it up because you said something factually incorrect. If someone said transport is a 1900s invention, and I said it's actually been around for millenia, it would be a bizarre defence to say "well, the context of the thread is modern stuff so obviously I meant modern forms of transport!"
Then why bring it up?This is a lie. Saying that two things qualify as examples of X doesn't mean those two things are equal in any other ways.
No-one's said transport is less than two centuries old. If, however, you're discussing something that exists in the present day, the bounds of conversation pertain to the present day.So to get this straight: you think it would be perfectly reasonable and correct to state that "transport is less than 2 centuries old"? Because the surrounding context is about modern stuff and thus we should all just assume that when you say "transport" you actually mean specific modern forms?
But they ARE contentious. I've cited numerous examples of them being contentious. You've gone from actually engaging with the issues at hand to dragging wheelchairs into this.EXACTLY. But you haven't been saying "equity in these areas is contentious". You've been saying equity itself, and DEI, are contentious in themselves. That necessarily includes the innocuous and harmless stuff alongside the rest. This has been exactly my point from the start.
It IS funny, because you've taken us down this semantic rabbithole.Funny how a discussion about DEI, which encompasses equity, can lead to discussing examples of equity! How odd!
You're seriously engaging in the distinction between "can' and "does" in this context? You understand that by this measurement, nothing could ever be an issue unless it was true 100% of the time.It would be true to say equity CAN disadvantage people. But to say it necessarily disadvantages people, you must believe that any examples that qualify as equity must also disadvantage people. And that is mutually contradictory with your acknowledgement that wheelchair accessibility doesn't disadvantage anybody.
You might have had a leg to stand on if the subject of equity, on this thread, wasn't brought up in a clear, specific context. If I'm talking about equity in a given context, if I'm citing people in said context, and bringing up issues in said context, going outside that context doesn't actually address anything. It's not exactly a case of whataboutism, but it reminds me of when people pressed a company (Nike, I think) about paying its workers a living wage, and the entire thing entered quibbling as to what a living wage actually was. It's semantic avoidance of the actual issues at hand. Or, again, if I'm on the climate change thread, it's a waste of time to quibble that climate change has happened throughout Earth's history. It's a waste of time because everyone already knows this. I KNOW wheelchair ramps exist, the people I've cited know that wheelchair ramps exist, I'm sure that the universities requiring DIE statements have wheelchair ramps, none of this is actually relevant to the discussion. To mention a recent article on The Conversation, which details the tensions between equity and liberal democracy, asking "but what about wheelchairs?" doesn't actually add anything, unless you're such a literalist that a mention of something in one context must, ipso facto, include the thing in each and every other context. Again, if I'm discussing climate change, quibbling about climate change from millions of years ago, or debating whether it should be called global warming or climate change, doesn't add anything, it's just wasting people's time.The only way to reconcile this is to acknowledge that equity doesn't always disadvantage people.
If you condemn equity as a whole, then you're condemning all implementations and forms. And that's what you've been doing: rather than condemn specific instances, you've been condemning the entire principle.
By showing you perfectly innocuous forms of equity, I'm showing you that you cannot tar the entire principle with the same brush.
I'm not sure what your point is here. You start by saying you don't care about Cuba, but clearly do because of geo-political relevance, so...Snip
That diversity-- not the modern form of diversity, not diversity "as we currently understand it", not "harmonious" diversity, just simple mixing of human demographics-- is extremely new.What, exactly, have I said that's factually wrong?
You tell me, you're the one who said it. People often appeal to the idea that things didn't happen in history to discredit modern ideas, so that could've been the motive for bringing it up.Even if I said, hypothetically, that diversity didn't exist long ago (which isn't much of a stretch, as the majority of societies have been hemogenous, and those that haven't have usually been empires), how would that actually be relevant to what's being discussed?
Correct. Yet it would still be incorrect to say the climate hasn't changed before. This is why it's better to refer to the current crisis as anthropogenic climate change.When we're discussing climate change, it's a red herring 90% of the time to say that the climate has always changed (which is true), that life has thrived when the planet's been much warmer (which is true), that humans have survived more extreme weather shifts than today (which is true). All of these statements are academic to the issue of climate change as it currently exists in the 21st century, and in the two centuries prior.
Which is why nobody drew equivalences between the two. For the fiftieth time.Yes, transport has been around for millennia. Diversity has been around in some form or another ever since human groups started bumping into each other. You're pulling a millennia old "technically" that's irrelevant to the actual subject, because it's silly to draw equivalents between the two.
? Because accuracy matters.Then why bring it up?
If someone says something that isn't limited to the modern day, then I'm not going to limit my response to the modern day. Be specific about the forms you're talking about and we'll be fine.No-one's said transport is less than two centuries old. If, however, you're discussing something that exists in the present day, the bounds of conversation pertain to the present day.
Your examples are contentious. Other examples aren't contentious. But you're tarring the latter because the former is contentious.But they ARE contentious. I've cited numerous examples of them being contentious. You've gone from actually engaging with the issues at hand to dragging wheelchairs into this.
"Can" and "does" have enormously different meanings.You're seriously engaging in the distinction between "can' and "does" in this context? You understand that by this measurement, nothing could ever be an issue unless it was true 100% of the time.
I'm not yet certain this story isn't entirely nothing. They initially had tens of millions in funding and got a team of 36 people to support Kendi's vanity project. Now they've realized that in the long term, they are only bringing in enough funding to support a staff of 17 towards Kendi's vanity project. The 19 people layed off are certainly not happy to be laid off, and they may be properly identifying that all that money toward's a Kendi vanity project is waste and grift, but there are still millions of dollars annually in grants and donations going into that.
Show me evidence that a covid lockdown anywhere provided more benefit than the costs incurred?Okay, let's address this, because you are so close to some sort of real insight here, let me see if I prod you over the line.
Every lockdown is different. Different circumstances, different policies, different areas, different length of time. What doesn't seem to quite click through your brain is that because no two lockdowns are the same, statements as bald as "lockdowns don't work" are prone to be ridiculous. It's a bit like saying "you can't stop a vehicle by throwing things at it". Well, depends on whether you're throwing a foam ball, brick or a grenade, and whether the vehicle a bike, family saloon or APC, etc.
So have a chew on these reasons you're beginning to think about, because when you do you should start to realise they undermine the very case you're trying to make in the first place.
<sigh> You don't understand the drug licensing laws.
Ivermectin has been through clinical trials and has recognised efficacy as a an antiparasitic. That then means, like many drugs, it can also be used "off-label" for conditions it has not been specifically trialled for. This use of "off-label" prescriptions is a very well-worn technique that provides benefits for millions of people annually when people can't be arsed spending hundreds of millions on a clinical trial when we all know perfectly well the drug works. Therefore, IVM did not require an emergency authorisation for covid: it was already available for physicians that wanted to use it irrespective of whether there was any halfway decent data to support it.
Remdesivir, however, at the start point of covid had not been approved through a clinical trials process for anything, therefore was illegal to use outside a registered clinical trial. Remdesivir, therefore, did require an emergency authorisation. Because these processes are generally rational ones to encourage responsible, evidence-based medical care, the authorities waited until they had data that suggested remdesivir's efficacy was at least reasonably plausible.
How is the name of fatty liver disease not basically exactly what the disease is?Thank you for spurting your grotesque ignorance over this forum (again).
Firstly, we might note the changed nomenclature was not just related to stigma, it's also that many professionals felt that given the increased understanding of this family of diseases, the old names were inaccurate or misleading.
Secondly, there are a shitload of considerations in changing the name of a disorder. They need to be designed carefully to be scientifically / medically accurate, and they need to weigh the risks of whether there is a benefit compared to costs such confusing patients (who will not be used to new terminology), etc. These decisions also generally have to be made by consensus of professionals and professional organisations, which means a great deal of consultations, discussion. Of course it takes a long time.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, why the fuck does anyone have a problem removing unncessary stigma from medical conditions? What is wrong with you?
You're literally just gaslighting at this point. It wasn't done and it's impossible to be done even today.What you're saying is impossible was literally done. That's really all there is to say here.
There's not a single reason I would take your amateur guidance over the recommendations of experts. Sorry.
Do you recognise the difference between making policy recommendations and reporting what the scientific evidence shows?
The evidence base for both drugs was different. Thus they were treated differently by medical experts and authorities.
I don't really give a shit about all these explanations/excuses. You asked for something he was wrong about. He was wrong about that.
What upper respiratory virus is contagious for 10 days or more? Erring on the side of caution caused hundreds of thousands of families the time to be with loved ones during their last moments.When you don't have good data, it's good policy to err on the side of caution. "We don't know a lot about this new virus, so quarantine until we're absolutely certain it's dead" was the correct play.
When I got covid in late January 2020, in Montana where we were certain Covid hadn't spread to, I stayed sick at home for 2 of my allotted 3 yearly sick days before "feeling better" and going back to work. The 4th day, when I actually felt better and realized my feeling better the previous day was a obviously false sense of recovery, it was already too late and I'd infected my roommate, several coworkers, and god knows how many customers.
The general public is not as perfect as you pretend you are.
You asked when he was wrong. I gave an example. Why did you even ask if you were just going to moan about me providing an answer?Everyone was wrong about something at several points. Fauci was far more wrong than Makary, yet he's some dangerous person to listen to and Fauci isn't?
As somebody who lost two grandfathers and an uncle in 2020, fuck you.What upper respiratory virus is contagious for 10 days or more? Erring on the side of caution caused hundreds of thousands of families the time to be with loved ones during their last moments.
IncorrectSounds more like you went back early because of the US's shitty sick time allotment vs you making some major miscalculation. Most likely no customers unless your job is spending a prolonged amount of time in a room with your customers.
The fuck are you talking about?See if I said what you said about getting covid in January 2020, you all would tell me it probably wasn't covid because I didn't get tested and Fauci said on February 29th that there hadn't been any community spread of covid yet in the US. But when I say it was fucking ridiculously obvious that covid was spreading in the US before that time, I'm completely wrong because I have no fucking clue what I'm ever talking about about ever...
How dare those dastardly, evil youths support diversity, the right to protest, and basic codes of conduct....Censorship and cancellation efforts have accelerated on college campuses in recent years. But many still argue over where the support for these policies originates, whether it be the faculty, students, or administrators. A new survey shows that the force of student opinions on campus censorship...unherd.com
By now most of us know that Coleman Hughes, a heterodox black thinker, got into trouble when he gave a preapproved TED talk echoing Martin Luther King’s “don’t judge a person by t…whyevolutionistrue.com
Protest? Or riot and trash the place so badly it literally makes the administrations not want certain speakers because the riots caused by the tantrums cause so much damage?How dare those dastardly, evil youths support diversity, the right to protest, and basic codes of conduct....
I mean, yeah. CDPR made a big deal over how supposedly trans inclusive they were being after they got called out for making a lazy transphobic joke, and what they gave us is still less sincere in its trans representation than Saints Row 2, an intentionally crude and offensive game that released in 2008.From Woke world.
Cyberpunk 2077's world is still too binary
People don't object to people disliking a video game.I mean, yeah. CDPR made a big deal over how supposedly trans inclusive they were being after they got called out for making a lazy transphobic joke, and what they gave us is still less sincere in its trans representation than Saints Row 2, an intentionally crude and offensive game that released in 2008.
This is why I don't buy that this "anti-woke" shit is specifically about performative activism, because the "trans-inclusion" in 2077 is performative activism, but it's a video game and as we all know not liking a video game is basically the same as doing the holocaust and 9/11 at the same time.
Okay, so why do you care?People don't object to people disliking a video game.
People object to people throwing round accusations of lycanphobia because a cookbook doesn't talk about werewolves enough.