Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Common Soldier]

I wrote this back in April:

I don't think there is any reason to be more optimistic about a vaccine now, but there are still some experts claiming to be. If antibody-dependent enhancement can be ruled out, and if immunity lasts for a year or two, which is the case with some other coronaviruses, then an annual vaccine (if successfully developed) could be used to prevent major outbreaks.

In any case, there will be treatments, some candidates in the early stages of investigation look like they have the potential to reduce the fatality rate by about half.

Here's a nice headline for you:

WHO warns it could take up to 5 years before the coronavirus pandemic is under control

Even though we may never come up with a vaccine, we may come up with effective treatments like we did with HIV. HIV use to be a death sentence, now it is no longer. It is the deadliness of COVID-19 that is the real problem if it were no more deadly than rhe flu, we would not be panicking as we are now.

[Common Soldier]

The "history repeats itself as a farce" equivalent of the Bay of Pigs invasion. I can't believe how these experienced Venezuelan émigrés took such an obvious case of charlatanism seriously. Goudreau's incredible adventures are perfect material for a good, Hollywood comedy.

Bay of Pig had CIA backing, and perhaps if the US has provided air support as the invaders expected it might have worked.. This guy sounds like rather a nut job all on his own. Not quite the same.

[Aexodus]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9530706.html

aand the mask just slips a bit. What is really worrying is the amount of Twitterati who support the political partiality of the particular civil servant who did this. When the civil service undermines a Liberal or Labour government I can't imagine they won't behave completely hypocritically.

[Abdülmecid I]

Meanwhile in Kentucky, nostalgia abounds! A bit disappointed that the camouflage pants dude failed to hang the effigy with the first try.

[irontaino]

Trump threatens Twitter and other social media platforms. From the freedumb of speech folks, I hear deafening silence.

[Vanoi]

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/...r-with-police/

Protests in Minneapolis got kind of bad. Smart thing to do is to convict the officer responsible if they don't want any rioting.

[Cope]

That's not much of a solution in the near term. The FBI are already investigating the incident, and a trial - if it goes to trial - will take months, if not years, to resolve.

[Aexodus]

Trump threatens Twitter and other social media platforms. From the freedumb of speech folks, I hear deafening silence.

Probably because I didn’t know about it

Yes, that is not good and a black mark against Trump.

[Cope]

Social media platforms using the propaganda wing of the Dem party (CNN, WaPo etc.) and nameless "experts" to "fact check". What could possible go wrong?

[Vanoi]

That's not much a solution in the near term. The FBI are already investigating the incident, and a trial - if it goes to trial - will take months, if not years, to resolve.

Oh there's no near term solution. I mean arresting the officer might help a bit, but tensions are flaring. Protests getting hit with riot police didn't help either.

[Cope]

Oh there's no near term solution. I mean arresting the officer might help a bit, but tensions are flaring. Protests getting hit with riot police didn't help either.

Even so, whether those involved should be convicted ought to be based on the evidence presented in a trial and the law, not on whether there will be riots.

[Vanoi]

Even so, whether those involved should be convicted ought to be based on the evidence presented in a trial and the law, not on whether there will be riots.

Riots can only happen if they do nothing. And remember, this is America. Its not a guarantee he'll be convicted.

[Cope]

Riots can only happen if they do nothing. And remember, this is America. Its not a guarantee he'll be convicted.

I already acknowledged that there may be no convictions when I said the following:

That's not much of a solution in the near term. The FBI are already investigating the incident, and a trial - if it goes to trial - will take months, if not years, to resolve.

If one or more of the officers are indicted, what defence they use will be anyone's guess. I'm willing to speculate that they will try and argue negligence on the part of the local PD for improper training or (and this seems more likely) that the victim's death was not a consequence of the way he was restrained. That being said, I expect that we will find in due course that the victim died from restricted blood flow to the brain caused by the pressure being exerted on his neck.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Trump threatens Twitter and other social media platforms. From the freedumb of speech folks, I hear deafening silence.

Are you aware of the legal background for this at all? Just asking so I know how much free education I need to dole out

[irontaino]

Social media platforms using the propaganda wing of the Dem party (CNN, WaPo etc.) and nameless "experts" to "fact check". What could possible go wrong?

I'd rather have nameless experts than Trump rambling and throwing around claims with no evidence.

[Sar1n]

I'd rather have nameless experts than Trump rambling and throwing around claims with no evidence.

Do you realize it's the same thing?

[irontaino]

If you say so.

[Cope]

I'd rather have nameless experts than Trump rambling and throwing around claims with no evidence.

I wonder how you'd feel if every time a senior liberal tried to make point about race discrimination, their claims were plastered with Twitter warnings containing the FBI statistics on violent and interracial crime. Or if trans activists had their posts labelled with "fact checks" from the Daily Wire insisting that homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species. Or if comments about gun-control were covered in Fox News caveats noting the comparatively low number of homicides involving ARs.

You see where I'm going with this? "Fact checking" is a political endeavour in which the "facts" are contorted to fit the interests of the "checker". Social media companies coordinating with so-called "legacy media" outlets to try and standardize truth is not something we should be applauding.

[irontaino]

I wonder how you'd feel if every time a senior liberal tried to make point about race discrimination, their claims were plastered with Twitter warnings containing the FBI statistics on violent and interracial crime. Or if trans activists had their posts labelled with "fact checks" from the Daily Wire insisting that homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species. Or if comments about gun-control were covered in Fox News caveats noting the comparatively low number of homicides involving ARs.

You see where I'm going with this? "Fact checking" is a political endeavour in which the "facts" are contorted to fit the interests of the "checker". Social media companies coordinating with so-called "legacy media" outlets to try and standardize truth is not something we should be applauding.

If you were going somewhere with this, maybe. Fact is, Trump consistently makes claims and pushes conspiracies that are often baseless (I.E. the birther conspiracy or those "millions of illegals" who voted for Hillary) or just flat out false (his whole schpiel about mail in ballot fraud). The examples in your post would be examples of deflections, not fact checks.

[Cope]

If you were going somewhere with this, maybe. Fact is, Trump consistently makes claims and pushes conspiracies that are often baseless (I.E. the birther conspiracy or those "millions of illegals" who voted for Hillary) or just flat out false (his whole schpiel about mail in ballot fraud). The examples in your post would be examples of deflections, not fact checks.

The so-called "fact checkers" also consistently make baseless claims and push conspiracy theories which suit their political interests (WMDs, Russigate etc). They are partisan actors, not reliable sources of information - a problem which Twitter compounded by making logically fallacious appeals to authority (ie. the "experts" say so).

And you prove my point for me when you claim that my examples would constitute "deflections", despite the fact they were generalized to a point which would make making such a determination impossible. One person's "fact" is another's obfuscation. Social media companies should stick to letting people have their say; they should not be in the business of colluding with legacy media or editorializing.