Fuck it, I'm calling it. Marketwatch probably qualifies as fake news.
In a story about how there are actually 20 million covid infected in USA, they claim the CDC came up with the number, but there's no link to a CDC statement, there's no source to anything anywhere!
Why the fuck are people trusting this site for science news!
Source of story that got me annoyed:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cdc-20-million-americans-thought-to-have-contracted-covid-19-2020-06-25
You know what keeps bugging me about the attempts at downplaying Corona-chan? Everyone focuses solely on the death rate. They all pull supposed infection rates out of their ass, inflating infected cases by up to 10x times based on no exact evidence, all so they can claim death rates are somehow no higher than a flu.
Let me remind you dipshits of something: the guessing work of people who might have had corona and never tested, is not something you do for the flu. You don't go every year to say "we only had X reported cases of flu, but we think the number has to be Y, even if we didn't do any medical consult to the rest of them". Sure, you can extrapolate SOME unreported cases, but not fucking 10x times worth.
But that's not even the main point I wanted to make. What annoys me is that we know Corona is not something you just get out of your system and are suddenly completely recovered. We know this thing can leave your body extremely weakened, to the point where any number of later acquired conditions could spell your doom. Death is not the only negative consequence of Corona. This needs to talked about more.
Do you have any idea how many cases of recorded deaths from HIV there are? Probably none! And you know why? Because it's not the AIDS that actually kills you. Is the other infections you get while your immune system is wrecked. No direct deaths from HIV, and yet we still consider it one of the most dangerous viruses out there.
Corona-chan is not dangerous because it kills off sick old people. Corona-chan is dangerous because it has the potential to leave young and healthy individuals with a crippled body. The usual flu doesn't exactly come with the risk of long term or maybe even permanent lung damage. Corona does.
Something I should note, this was in a section discussing how sexual deviations and fetishes aren't wrong and shouldn't be condemned or seen as "unnatural", and that individuals should embrace and accept their deviations. While "deviation" may often be intended in an insulting or offensive manner, in this context it is being used to explain why asexuality is being listed among the other sexualities, and why it too should be accepted.
I also don't necessarily agree with the second paragraph, about being sexually sublimated by their jobs. Regardless, even in modern times, this acceptance of asexuality would be seen as rather progressive. Over half a century ago, when this was written, something like this was practically unheard of.
"Even the asexual has a deviation - his asexuality. It is far more abnormal to have a lack of sexual desire (unless illness or old-age, or another valid reason has caused the wane) than it is to be sexually promiscuous. However, if a Satanist chooses sexual sublimation over overt sexual expression, that is entirely his own affair. In many cases of sexual sublimation (or asexuality), any attempt to emancipate himself sexually would prove devastating to the asexual.
Asexuals are invariably sexually sublimated by their jobs or hobbies. All the energy and driving interest which would normally be devoted to sexual activity is channeled into other pastimes or into their chosen occupation. If a person favors other interests over sexual activity, it is his right, and no one is justified in condemning him for it. However, the person should at least recognize the fact that this is a sexual sublimation."
(Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible, 1969)
I consider it very interesting that Satanism has officially considered asexuality to be a valid identity, and condoned and accepted it, going all the way back to its foundation in the 1960's. Acceptance of asexuality among the LGBT community is very recent, only a decade or two ago you'd find countless people denying that it even existed. Even today, many in the LGBT community exclude asexuals, or don't accept the validity of asexuality. And yet Satanism - a highly sexual religion - has accepted asexuality from its foundation in the 60's. Sexual freedom is an incredibly important part of Satanism, but sexual freedom doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity. Many who claim to promote concepts of "sexual freedom" and empowerment have very narrow definitions of what that "freedom" includes. Someone who wishes to devote themselves to a single person and remain monogamous should be free to do so, if they are truly sexually free. Someone who doesn't want to have sex at all should be free to do so, if they are truly sexually free. Someone who wishes to be in a committed relationship with two or more people at once should be free to do so. Someone who doesn't want to be in a relationship at all, and just wants to have sex with no strings attached should be free to do so. Someone who doesn't wish to have sex with someone should be free to refuse consent, for any reason whatsoever, or even for no reason at all. For true sexual freedom, all of these things must be accepted and seen as valid.
"Public figures often apologize after making controversial statements. There are reasons to believe, however, that apologizing makes public figures appear weak and risk averse, which may make them less likeable and lead members of the public to want to punish them. This paper presents the results of an experiment in which respondents were given two versions of two real-life controversies involving public figures. Approximately half of the participants read a story that made it appear as if the person had apologized, while the rest were led to believe that the individual had stood firm. In the first experiment, hearing that Rand Paul apologized for his comments on civil rights did not change whether respondents were less likely to vote for him. When presented with two versions of the controversy surrounding Larry Summers and his comments about women scientists and engineers, however, liberals and females were more likely to say that he should have faced negative consequences for his statement when presented with his apology. The effects on other groups were smaller or neutral. The evidence suggests that when a prominent figure apologizes for a controversial statement, individuals are either unaffected or become more likely to desire that the individual be punished."
I need this in my life.
Unpopular opinion: sex work is highly manipulative, but not in the way you expected.
Women sex workers take advantage of a biological weakness of men, and manipulate them to give up their money, often for "work" that is insanely overvalued. It's basically equivalent to men taking advantage of women's weaker strength to force them to do something against their better judgement and will.
P.S. This post isn't intended as an argument against sex work of any kind, just more of a food for thought for anyone claiming that women are being exploited in the various sex work industries.
Also, it's just something that came to me like 5 minutes ago. Don't take it too seriously.
Public false rape/sexual harassment accusations should be a jailable offense.
@alyx public claims like this also endanger their life with the potential for vigilantes trying to enact justice where the law has "failed".
False rape accusations are a huge issue, you can effectively end someones life without any evidence or recourse.
Public false rape/sexual harassment accusations should be a jailable offense.
Hear me out, if you don't go public with a false rape accusation, but only report it to the police, and it gets proven false, you mostly waste time for the law enforcers, and the accused, while having gone through some hardship, at least can recover his life back to normal quick enough.
If you go public with it, you also waste time of maybe millions of people who learn about the accusation and waste time either white knighting or trying to figure out if the claim is likely true or false. On top of that, even assuming the false claim gets proven 100% false (which is unlikely, since it can be insanely difficult to prove something didn't happen, and it's an unreasonable legal standard to hold to), very few people of those that heard about the initial claim will also hear about the accused's innocence, and even fewer will actually believe it, leaving the accused forever a pariah, unable to resume his normal life. Thus, much more damage is being caused to not only the accused but to society itself once you make your false rape claim public, and you should be punished accordingly for it.
Left wing atheist (Tracie Harris):
>Problem: USA has very high suicide rate among men
>studies show that if people fail their first suicide attempt, they're a lot less likely to try again
>most men go for a gun to commit suicide because it's highly efficient
>Solution to problem: ban guns more, so less men commit suicide
This shows just how faulty left-wing thinking can be. Sure, all of that is probably true, if you ban guns, successful suicide rates are probably gonna drop drastically, but you're still not actually solving the issue. You're putting a band-aid over it.
The issue isn't the suicides, the issue is: why are so many men in USA so depressed and miserable to the point where want to be released from this mortal coil.
Banning guns as a solution to suicides is as logical as Foxconn putting safety nets around its building. Just because you deny/prevent someone from committing suicide doesn't mean they'll suddenly go looking for help for their mental problems. They're just gonna continue suffering on their own for a lot longer. Technically speaking, you're basically a sadist trying to torture them as much as possible, instead of actually trying to understand their problems and reaching out to give them a hand.
And the most absurd part of all of this, is that I guarantee you that the same person that advocated for this "solution" is probably pro-euthanasia (assisted suicide) for the terminally ill. Maybe I'm missing something, but I find this highly self-contradicting. Either you're fine with allowing people to have control over their life and death, or you're not. You can't have it both ways.
P.S. For anyone curious, I'm pro assisted suicide; and I think citing suicide rates is a terrible, completely inadmissible, argument for banning guns.
I should keep a link for this video for the next time someone gets offended when I call them an useful idiot.
A trip down memory lane.
P.S. Who here has ever played The Need For Speed?
なんで君はこれを読んでいるかよ
Just another random person passing by.
Oh hi.
The Alyx Vance must go this way anyway.
Gordon Freeman dies in All Dogs Go To Heaven 2.
I wasn't designed to be carried.
En Taro Igel!
Lift me up, let me go...