No, he doesn't. He straight up attacked Bernie on the College for All saying that we all don't need college, which is true. But the College for All bill included non-college related education and secondary education like trade schools and training programs. But he decided to ignore all of that to squeeze his head up Trumps ass and bitch about a program designed to give America blue collar people a fighting chance.
It's possible that College for All was a bad bill overall but happened to have a few good parts.
e.g. CANCELS $1.6 TRILLION IN STUDENT DEBT FOR 45 MILLION AMERICANS
The fact sheet says it would pay for all of this (in total $2.2 trillion) by taxing Wall Street speculation. So, somehow create a tax that represents almost 10% of total US GDP to cancel student debt and allow all future college to be almost free.
I can't imagine any world where that would actually happen. Bernie is living in the clouds.
This isn't giving anyone a fighting chance because it's not an actual, feasible solution.
Love the "both sides" that Deseret and BYU argues.
Far Loony Left: "People should be allowed to exist as long as they don't harm others."
Standard Right: "Gays should be drowned."
Centrist: "See, both sides are the same."
Jared, a 'centrist', in the article and how he puts in the words to basically say "I don't like women who think too much and don't want to be treated as property."
Then the next paragraph, they understate Emily, who is basically saying "I shouldn't be murdered at a traffic stop because a cop is having a bad day and doesn't like blacks." to "She said she worries conservatives don’t believe the same things she does about respecting racial differences or social causes."
I keep wondering how big of an incel problem BYU has due to the Mormon ethology of what a family structure must be and the servitude of females to the primary male. (Not talking about polygamy as that is supposed to be gone and was actually a reason one of my forefathers was kicked from their wagon train because he didn't want to take on another wife.) But just how the man's word in the family is law. So, the women seeing this might not want to get trapped like that which basically is like dry kindling to the fire that spreads incellism.
Spending 3 weeks in bed with COVID before the vaccines existed made me super risk adverse to people and especially people coughing. You have no concept of how long a week in bed is, let alone 3 of them. The long nights in pain. The long days just wishing you could get through the enormous headache to rest and sleep. The powerless feeling that you can't even sit up enough to do anything you have previously enjoyed. Heck, I still remember my son bringing in my copy of Cyberpunk that just came out and I didn't even have the energy to turn on my laptop on my lap to install it. Even when I got COVID again 2 years later and it was just a couple days in bed, I get super pissed off when people belittle it and the people who try to stay away from it.
Just last Saturday night, I was out shopping and some lady was walking around with a "smoker's cough". I tried to stay away and not go back into places she had been. When I got in line to check out and got stalled in front from a lady with a huge cartload and the cougher got behind me and started hacking her brains out, I just abandoned my cart and left.
I am not spending that many days of my life being sick again like that if I can ever help it. So when I say that YOU NEED TO REPRIORITIZE YOUR EMPATHY. Take that to mean that if this wasn't on a forum that I need to talk nice-nice, I would not be talking nice-nice.
A financially sound company not wanting to deal with a loser company that went from spiraling down the toilet to just bum-rushing the drain is 'political'?
Damn, this post reads like you are saying "I'm mad that the police are stopping me and my pals from lynching people I don't like for a fun Friday night instead of assisting us in doing it."
Yeah man talking is the same as murdering people and hanging them from trees. How can you be this stupid and still figure out how to register an account?
There is a huge reason to downplay it, especially in the USA, until things could cool around it or things could be worked out 100% factually and it is a science related - basic Psychology.
Even in my small town of 7000, an Indian lady was assaulted to "get back at those Chinese for giving us COVID (which doesn't exist and is just made up by the lame stream media)".
No this isn’t a good reason to shutdown actual scientific discussion and this whole thing felt like a red herring specifically played up to shut down dissent.
Anti-Asian hate crimes are a real thing, but both black and white Americans endure them at a higher rate[1]. Further, these types of attacks went up across the board during the pandemic however Asian based hate crimes represented only ~8% of these attacks with most other ethnic groups having way more attacks targeted at them[2].
Seems to me like an example of cherry picked statistics being used for political gain. Asian hate crimes being something that became way more common during the pandemic is simply not grounded in reality.
It must have been really obvious to all concerned that, by running to ground the lab leak theory, if it ever did get out (what they did) that it’d be a big net loss for trust in government and science.
So it follows that they must have been really (like really /really/) scared that it was absolutely necessary — damn the consequences.
But my guess it’s actually a feedback loop gone out of control. (We knew even then that this was no Ebola.)
At the same time, in the UK, right at the start, we have those now famous words: people were “made to feel more personally vulnerable”.
My guess is that the intended recipient of that initiative was us (i.e., gen pop), but the acute recipients (i.e., those most likely to hear, actively listen and be influenced) were those already involved in the campaign.
The volume could not be turned down (because it was assumed gen pop would otherwise not listen). But very stupidly, there also was no moderating mechanism for those “in charge”. So we have our loop.
(This doesn’t fully track, because later the British PM got seriously ill. And later still, the British PM also went back to partying. So, there would have been re-injected some non-trivial rationale to the severity worries, albeit only later. And there was also apparently a very effective moderating mechanism at least in central government. But as a simple model, it explains a lot for me.)
> It must have been really obvious to all concerned that, by running to ground the lab leak theory, if it ever did get out (what they did) that it’d be a big net loss for trust in government and science.
But a lab leak in itself would be a big loss of public trust in science. It exemplifies the worst fears of the uneducated regarding "God-playing scientists" who slice and dice the DNA like a Frankenstein, produce plagues for curiosity and "we were preoccupied with whether we could, but not whether we should"-style tropes. A real leak would validate these nutteries and play into the cards of the woo anti-science people (remember those times? Penn and Teller's Bullshit etc...). The fear around GMO etc. And this sort of research is international and wasn't localized to China and the Wuhan experiments aren't solely with Chinese involvement. So they thought better roll the dice and see if it gets out.
----
Trust is a very feeble thing, and nobody wants to do an honest postmortem. The train is simply moving forward faster and faster. Erode public trust, then smear and name-call anyone who doesn't adhere to an ever narrowing band of acceptable beliefs, dismiss them all as everything-ist nutjobs. Never admit wrong, just crank the heat up steadily year by year. Because surely that will solve the problems.
I don't think we should reject reality just because we're concerned others can't handle that reality without reacting violently. The notion that we should downplay certain ideas because of crimes committed by people that misunderstand those ideas is not something I can get behind, sorry. Do you post on reddit a lot? The phrasing of your argument and the intermittent spacing has that reddity vibe to me.
GP didn't suggest to reject reality out of concern for others.
He said we should make sure to be 100% certain of what the facts are before asserting what reality is to the public, especially when it comes to sensitive subjects.
The alternative is to say that reality is A, have a lot of people face (just or unjust) repercussions, then say "Oopsie! Turns out we were dead wrong". The damage is already done by that point.
Once again reminds me how no matter how many times people tell me "yoU HaVE to IgnoRE tHE RACiSM beCAUsE THey haVe goOD EcONOmic polICIES", that I will never put a checkmark next to anyone's name in any ballot that has an [R].
There is no monetary benefit that would ever make me cross that line.
So, by your argument, if people are riding a bus and the driver decides to just cartwheel out the door and leaves the bus parked in front of a fire hydrant, everyone on the bus should be arrested?
