On April 14 2023 12:31 CurbStomp2 wrote:
will china invading taiwan kick some shit or is it just sanctions and words and military aid?
sanctions and military aid, NATO isn't going to war against China for Taiwan, but unlike Russia, China is very economically tied to the US, sanctions would be brutal and while the US would obv suffer too, they can eventually get supplied by other countries, but there aren't any other markets where China can sell their stuff, so China needs the US more than the other way around, I have no idea about the military aid part because if China surrounds Taiwan then theres no way to supply it.
lol funny that they add him believing his uncle was killed by the government as part of his history of conspiratory beliefs.
Antivaxxer bad... his takes on Ukraine in that article seem better than the current narrative, Nato has been way more aggro with Russia than the other way around since the Cuban missle crisis americans play chicken with the Russians and as soon as they push back they cry about it, and obv it doesn't justify invading a sovereign nation but see interviews with american government officials about taking responsability on the aggresiveness of Nato towards the Russian border and they wont take any.
On June 16 2023 03:14 RiKD wrote:
Robert Kennedy Jr.
I'm just watching it develop. Maybe that's what someone wants me to do. Certainly Robert Kennedy Jr. wants me to watch (and buy his books) but who else? Is he good for the democrats or republicans?
On June 18 2023 01:31 Baalim wrote:
Apparently a dr that specializes in vaccines has been invited to go on the show with RKJr and getting 100k donated and he seems to be dodging.
RFKJr went on Rogan recently and went HAM on vaccines for over an hour. It would be interesting to see a debate because I was skeptical of a fair amount but overall he seemed to back up what he was saying. If RFKJr is right that makes me feel like an idiot for taking all these vaccines but I think most people will not want to feel stupid and have a negative response to it. Like I can aknowledge that these vaccines were unavoidably unsafe but how unsafe? I actually don't know what the adjuvant was in all the ones I took (flu shot too). I don't think it was mercury but what about aluminum? Do I honestly want to trust a corporation like Pfizer? Do I honestly want to trust lobbyists and the government?
Listen to the Rogan ep if you can. It's obviously not a good look for this PhD MD blah blah blah to be dodging which makes you wonder if these "experts" knew what they were talking about.
Imagine there is $200 billion on the table. All you have to do is discredit anything that isn't the vaccine. Vaccine is god and big Pharma scoops the pot. As always.
This Peter Hotez is living high on the virology hog no way he goes on the show. I guess I can't hate for trying to negotiate but he smells like a coward.
FYI: I looked it up there was not any adjuvant in the vaccines I took so I don't see why they were unsafe?
RJFJr claims that autism used to be 1 in like 10,000 vs 1 in 37 today. Vaccines causing autism would be big news (actually it probably wouldn't be especially from mainstream media) but I don't really see where the evidence is?
I don't know. Hopefully, someone takes him up on it. Culture/society needs more long-form debate.
Last edit: 18/06/2023 03:17
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jun 18 2023 07:00. Posts 3093
Long form discussions are great, 'debate me for money' isn't, and trying to use 'who wins this debate' as a scientific tool to determine what the truth is is idiotic. It's not like scientific communities are never wrong but statistically you're gonna be much better off adhering to the consensus than going with the 1/100 outliers.
Like, here's the killer for me: I can see how American doctors have some perverse incentives to make unsound recommendations. Plenty examples of this, what with the opiate crisis. I can see the same for American media, with how they tend to be politically aligned with one of the two parties and for some reason the vaccine became politicized and more supported by one side of the political spectrum. (It's not like leftists generally support 'big pharma' in the first place.)
But advice on vaccines looks really consistent everywhere. Even countries where stuff like 'people in x age group shouldn't take moderna' became policy, 'the vaccine is still overwhelmingly more beneficial than harmful' was still the overall message. Plenty good reasons to question CNN - but there's no historical alignment between CNN and BBC and NRK and SVT that would make all of them agree upon a common narrative.
That vatnitsoup thingy is great though I mean there are some absurdly outlandish statements out there, like that Anne Frank quote.. Much wow.
At the same time he looks kinda serious about environmental protection? So overall maybe I'd prefer him even though he seems kinda batshit crazy in many ways.
On June 18 2023 06:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Long form discussions are great, 'debate me for money' isn't, and trying to use 'who wins this debate' as a scientific tool to determine what the truth is is idiotic. It's not like scientific communities are never wrong but statistically you're gonna be much better off adhering to the consensus than going with the 1/100 outliers.
Like, here's the killer for me: I can see how American doctors have some perverse incentives to make unsound recommendations. Plenty examples of this, what with the opiate crisis. I can see the same for American media, with how they tend to be politically aligned with one of the two parties and for some reason the vaccine became politicized and more supported by one side of the political spectrum. (It's not like leftists generally support 'big pharma' in the first place.)
But advice on vaccines looks really consistent everywhere. Even countries where stuff like 'people in x age group shouldn't take moderna' became policy, 'the vaccine is still overwhelmingly more beneficial than harmful' was still the overall message. Plenty good reasons to question CNN - but there's no historical alignment between CNN and BBC and NRK and SVT that would make all of them agree upon a common narrative.
That vatnitsoup thingy is great though I mean there are some absurdly outlandish statements out there, like that Anne Frank quote.. Much wow.
At the same time he looks kinda serious about environmental protection? So overall maybe I'd prefer him even though he seems kinda batshit crazy in many ways.
I"m all for vaccines and "antivaxxers" are idiots, however I'm all for hearing a long dicsussion particularly about the covid vaccines between Kennedy and that Doctor, Rogan even offered that he "appoints" somebody else to talk about the pro-vaccine stance in case he doesnt want to for whatever reason and I mean, I think its very important to reinforce the reputation of vaccines in an all-time low confidence worldwide in them, so why not take this chance in a massive platform mand have a big impact, if they refuse its a terrible look and it would be hard to not think that there is something that Kennedy points out that they don't want to admit.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jun 18 2023 11:05. Posts 3093
I just don't have faith in an oral debate to actually clarify things in this regard, unless they do stuff like link reputable statistics on a big screen while it's happening.
I'd love for Kennedy to debate some 'this guy represents the consensus of medical professional'-type of person in writing, where both parties argue elaborately for their point of view and back it up with sources. That, I think would actually be good - but I don't think people would tune in for it. But if it's two people debating, my experience is that the stronger debater ends up looking more convincing, not the person with the better argument. I'd expect a Kennedy vs medical professional debate to have one person claiming that one statistic is the right one and the other person claiming the other statistic is the right one, as the only possible way one can be opposed to the covid vaccine is through having been exposed to and accepting statistics that are not the official statistics. (People can be opposed to mandates or various degrees of forced vaccinations or vaccine passports etc for other reasons, but if it's a simple 'did people who took the covid vaccine get more sick/more dead than people who did not' then the official statistics are pretty clear.)
People 1 speaking for two minutes and then the other person speaking for two minutes, which is like the height of public 'debate', is generally not very illuminating, especially not between people who inhabit different information universes. If both people accept the same data, sure, but they don't. I also don't think Rogan is really a great arbiter of the truth.
lol POKER
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Jun 18 2023 11:36. Posts 2226
no he's not an "arbiter of truth" a cliche useless phrase that should have ended 10 years ago
scientific consensus and science communication are different, that's why michio kaku and neil degrasse tyson and bill nye are popular science communicators despite that the first is a clickbait crackpot and the second has made no contribution to furthering his field and the third doesn't have a field
joe rogan is someone who wants to hear from and give platforms to as wide a group as he can because that's how he himself learns, he doesn't invite people on and go okay audience X won so believe X now
he's saying okay someone went on my show, you disagree with him, then you come, and as a bonus $100k to charity, note when robert kennedy came on i doubt he got $100k to the autismvax foundation charity, he's saying okay if your message is important and you have even a minimum amount of balls here's an equal shot
like how is flinging shit on twitter a BETTER forum? if the guy is weak or whatever i understand he can just say "actually i have a phobia of podcast studios, but you know who'd be great and would love to do it, my esteemed colleague blahblah"
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jun 18 2023 13:41. Posts 3093
Lol I'm not preferring twitter come on now. In writing doesn't mean 'in writing in the medium which puts a cap on message length thus hindering nuance'. I just think that this debate isn't going to do squat to make the scientific-consensus-skeptic more scientific-consensus-accepting. I'm not sure if that's a goal you agree with so then it makes sense that we feel differently about it.
If the Joe Rogan debate can feature some visualizations of data and statements akin to 'x % of medical professionals in this field agree with this data' and giving both parties long periods of uninterrupted speaking time while having to relate to the statistics being presented then hey, that'd be sweet. But if it's just a 'hey, here's a platform, now speak without whatever shit you fling being challenged because there's nobody taking the job to determine what is actually true' then I think reaching a wide audience is an overall negative, not positive.
To be fair counting covid deaths isn't quite 'do humans contribute to global warming', norway changed its approach during the course of the pandemic, belgium had higher numbers from counting differently, figures do vary significantly, but there must still be some method of establishing a common understanding of the data one chooses to go by. Written debates offer this option (give your sources, people can evaluate whether x source is trustworthy or not), but oral debates without visual aid does not.
United States. Jun 16 2023 04:14. Posts 8552
