When your debating someone an they just keep gishgalloping and repeatedly posting screeds for you to read rather than offering their own argument.

A video on the topic here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJTTnRBIods

pretty much has to be Confabulation and Crytonesia, aka , the mass spread of miss information and people simply not paying attention to the news at the time.

The invention of the theory is incredibly suspicious, as it was invented by psychic or "Paranormal Consultant" Fiona Broom. You have to realize that psychics and paranormal investigators are experts at manipulating people and information (essentially the same as stage magicians in most cases), and has likely created a giant hoax using basic misdirection.

The truth being that most people are willing to lie rather than admit that they have no idea what day Nelson Mandela died, and will lie about the lie in order to not look stupid.

However, this "Theory" has become a little bit too popular . There is even a movie on this stupid topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viwAykESWng

There is also a small chance that this entire "Mandela Effect " bullshit is designed to get us ready for a lot of re-editing of major motion pictures from the the past 50 years in order to make people not question the censorship of mass media. To show you how easy this editing is, take a look at the digital re-editing of the movie ET to replace guns with walky talkies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwYiAfDOG5A

They can also do much simpler things , such as simply removing scenes, and re- dubbing audio.

the best advice I can give you is to start archiving everything you can before things get worse, as you can expect racists with whit out to go around your local library trying to remove pro - black lines form books (The Mandela thing is a reference to a KKK story about Mandela making car bombs and being a terrorist.

http://www.inminds.com/article.php?id=10267

Trust me on this one. This is a KKK operation.)

​

https://www.reddit.com/r/ConspiracyMemes/comments/hngihi/the_dark_truth_of_disney/

While the standards for proof on conspiracy theory sites are very low in most cases, this one here is a great example of bad logic.

- In this case we have a good case of an invalid logical inferences built from two pieces of insufficient supporting evidence, as well as jumping the gun.

Definition of Logical Validity :

The truth of the Premises in a statement lead necessarily to the truth of the conclusion of a statement.

They're failure to make a salient logical statement can also be explained if you look at each point as a failed logical inference

Definition of a logical Inference:

Premise A is a Necessary and also a Sufficient Cause for conclusion B (A -> B)

This means that a proposition needs lead to one and only one possible outcome based on the proposed facts in order to be a valid inference.

In this case, we have several pieces of evidence, on of which is very week, leading to a conclusion about a very large American conspiracy involving a paedophilia ring run by Disney top brass

First piece of evidence: Subliminal sexual messaging in Disney cartoons and material. (Not a Sufficient Cause)

This might point to something, but not necessarily grooming as the propose in this post. I can think of two alternate explanations right of the bat

explanation 1. The sexual messaging is used as a gross form of advertising, in order to improve their sales numbers

explanation 2. The Sexual messaging is in fact an inside joke created by disgruntled Disney Employees, who are either sick of their job, or are trying to see what they can get away with for their own amusement.

There are other explanations a person could think of as well, for example, this particular picture could be a visual coincidence, or a Freudian Slip made by a sexually unsatisfied female or homosexual employee.

Second Piece of Evidence A pedophile caught working on a Disneyland park ride. (Not a Necessary Cause)

This piece evidence falls flat for not pointing at Disney incorporated as a culprit. This is because of the level of involvement of the person mentioned in this post is so low that it that their actions can be explained by simple oversight. Their actions are also so far away from any Disney properties as to be beyond arms length. (No evidence provided of either internal collusion between Disney Staff members, nor of the use of Disney properties in the perpetration of their crime, unlike the previous piece of evidence provided above).

​

While this meme provides two good pieces of evidence, they are not strong enough to even come close to supporting the conclusion which they make at the end of the meme (that the head management of Disney are involved in a vast criminal human trafficking and child predation operation).

edit; I have to acknowledge that thisentire meme may have been a joke, but I have to address their "funny but bad argument".

EDIT: It is not so much that I disagree with him. Merely that he does not make his argument well. His note about privileges is close to the truth, but is said in the wrong way. It would be more accurate to say that Rights are illusions if they fall away every time you need to enforce them / whenever it is convenient t o ignore them.

​

Listening to Dan Karlin here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gkjWxCl6zE

So Dan Carlin makes some stupid arguments about right.

- Tells you that you do have rights because you do not have the right to be coddled and pampered by the state. Uses tu quo que to compares it to "the right to own a gun to kill your girl friends parents".

- Uses the reference to god given rights in the constitution as a straw man argument about rights, then disproves god. We all know they are granted by the system of government and system wide accountability.

https://youtu.be/3gkjWxCl6zE?t=43 - 0:42 to 1:09

​

- Says that thy aren't real because - people disagree on them, and have different number of official rights keeps using the facetious god argument.

>"Doesn't sound like god to me, sounds like human people making human decisions - work around with a lie and a fixation on a single line int he constitution to make the truth sound incredulous. - https://youtu.be/3gkjWxCl6zE?t=145

2:25 - 2:28

- Says that they do not exist because they can be taken away. A statement that is not true if you made it about anything else. take property and goods for example. someone can take them away from you and you woudl never say that they do not exist.

- Arguments about the Japanese interment camps, referring to temporary war measures and waivers, then tells us that we have temporary rights that can be suspended at any time, by referring to a situation where rights were temporarily suspended and and returned. Treats the exception as the rule.

- Goes on to tell us that we don't have rights because the government controls the rights, contradicted by his earlier argument about guns and the second amendment.

- The government hates you and controls your rights. - Rights protect you from the government. You control the Government (theoretically).

- Miss defines privileges as being temporary rights, not actually what a right is. If he framed it slightly differently he may have been correct. Actually about population and not temporary nature (privileges are special rights for special people as defined by dictionary.com ) https://www.dictionary.com/browse/privileges

​

- Bill of rights getting shorter and shorter and shorter - in reference to what exactly? when has a constitutional right ever been taken away? We have had a number added in fact. here a link to the process https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-does-it-take-to-repeal-a-constitutional-amendment He just made some shit up. Also refers to the right to bear arms as if it were a bad thing, making me wonder if he himself wants the bill of rights to get shorter, and shorter, and shorter (only topic I could find under removed constitutional rights)

>"And pretty soon people are going to realize that the government doesn't give a fuck about you. It doesn't care about you, or your children or your rights or your welfare, or your safety, It's interested in it's own power,that's the only thing keeping it and expanding it wherever possible."

3:47 - to - 4:34 https://youtu.be/3gkjWxCl6zE?t=227

Also terrible run on sentences. and that fucking stupid breathy excited voice he uses. Just an aggravating rhetorical style. It is as if he thinks that his words can get away from you by talking too long for you to take a break to hear what e is saying.

- We either have limited rights, or no rights at all - basic false dilemma - There is no need make a radical choice between either have complete lawlessness, and complete and total authoritarianism and being a food slave locked in a 2by2 foot room. Obviously bullshit.

​

What actually concerns me is the thing that he is advocating. What the heck is stating as the alternative?

That said, Dan Carlin's rhetorical style is basically identical to trump's rhetorical style. If you can master Dan Carlin, you can master Donald Trump. I would be surprised to find out if Dan Carlin was not Donald Trump's actual script writer.

​

edit: Dan Karlin's conclusion is not necessarily wrong, he simply goes about it in the wrong way. Saying that your rights are actually in-a liable is definitely true, in that rights need to be defended with force of arms, and that you need to stand up for yourself in order to urn them (something like privileges in this case, since you need to urn them.) There are also better examples he could use other then Japanese internment camps if he wanted to make his point about America not protecting people's rights. See this (again) from Albus Huxley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30&t=4313s

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/index#wiki_what_is_collapse.3F

I screened caped them here, just in case changes are made to the page after this post http://qzackshomepage.wikidot.com/local--files/gallery/index%20-%20collapse.pdf

​

I was going through the collapse wiki. From what I can tell they are a dangerous pro oil Soviet front organization, which should be avoided at all costs.

**The first tip off is their avocation of population control **

7. World population is increasing.

World population is growing around 1.09% per year. The annual growth rate having reached its peak in the late 1960s at around 2%. Although, the rate is expected to continue to decline in the coming years.1

**Second is their obsession with "resources" (in this case oil. always oil)**

1. We are overwhelmingly dependent on finite resources.

Fossil fuels account for 87% of the world’s total energy consumption.1, 2, 3 Economic pressures will manifest well before reserves are actually depleted as more energy is required to extract the same amount of resources over time or as the steepness of the EROEI cliff intensifies.4, 5, 6, 7

2. Global energy demand is increasing.

Global energy demand increased 0.5-2% annually from 2011-2017, despite increases in efficiency.1, 2, 3 Technological change could raise the efficiency of resource use, but also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use (i.e. Rebound Effect).4, 5, 6

**Third is their absolute denial at every turn of both the effectiveness of any any renewable resource, and efficiency of any shape or kind. **

3. We are transitioning to renewables very slowly.

The renewable energy share of global energy consumption had an average growth rate of 5.4% over the past decade.1, 2, 3, 4 Renewables are not taking off any faster than coal or oil once did and there is no technical or financial reason to believe they will rise any quicker, in part because energy demand is soaring globally, making it hard for natural gas, much less renewables, to just keep up.5, 6 New renewables powered less than 30% of the growth in world energy demand (which went up 15%) from 2009 to 2016.7 In contrast, transitioning to renewables too quickly would likely disrupt the global economy. A rush to build a new global infrastructure based on renewables would require an enormous amount resources and produce massive amounts of pollution.8, 9

4. Current renewables are ineffective replacements for fossil fuels.

Energy can only be substituted by other energy. Conventional economic thinking on most depletable resources considers substitution possibilities as essentially infinite. But not all joules perform equally. There is a large difference between potential and kinetic energy. Energy properties such as: intermittence, variability, energy density, power density, spatial distribution, energy return on energy invested, scalability, transportability, etc. make energy substitution a complex prospect. The ability of a technology to provide ‘joules’ is different than its ability to contribute to ‘work’ for society. All joules do not contribute equally to human economies.1, 2

The things that should concern you the most however, are

Their use of passive voice - (abusing words and adjectives without connecting them to real subjects or subjective facts) , Their complete disregard and actual disrespect for the intelligence of the reader (telling people to go to a suicide hot line after the weight of their voice hits them over the head ) and their use on Means justify the Ends logic. This is an inversion of the ethical fallacy - ends justify the means. I am using it to refer to their insistence on the truth of collapse by any means necessary, so as justify their own fantasy, and other nefarious acts relating to the "collapse" concept (possibly argument form Identity).

Passive voice and the purposefully ambiguous use of the word Collapse.

The term collapse is used to mean several different things at several different times, depending on the need of the writer at the time,and at their convenience.

It is defined as

the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state.

( a highly suspicious definition ) used to differentiate it from the straw man term decline

It then defined as a constant cyclical destructive process

“The difference between my view and that of many others in the collapse field is that a lot of them assume that the first wave of crisis will be followed by total collapse, and I argue that it’ll be followed by muddling through and partial recovery, then by renewed crisis, and so on.

It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse

and soon after

“The difference between my view and that of many others in the collapse field is that a lot of them assume that the first wave of crisis will be followed by total collapse, and I argue that it’ll be followed by muddling through and partial recovery, then by renewed crisis, and so on. Thus I don’t think it’s actually that useful to have a single metric for what counts as collapse, because collapse is a process, not an event; the collapse of industrial civilization has been under way for quite some time now, and will still be a going concern for longer than any of us will be alive.”- John Michael Greer

Here they use the straw man term decline, to envision everything we associate with an actual collapse of any of the following things; extinction (species collapse), the end of human society ( civilization collapse), or the end of an ecological epoch ( ecological collapse). The definition of collapse and decline quoted here from Michael Greer is in fact, the opposite of the standard usage of the term, where decline is defined as the slow decrease in complexity, ability, and effect, and collapse is defined as a sudden destruction of an entity from within.

Definition of collapse from the Merium Webster dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collapse

: to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely : fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure

or

a sudden failure : breakdown, ruin

Definition of decline from Merium Webster : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decline

to tend toward an inferior state or weaker condition

or

a change to a lower state or level

This definition of decline looks suspiciously identical to the web pages initial definition of collapse.

​

By any means necessary

You may notice that of most of the causes listed on the main page, about half are devoted to both climate change, and denying any and all actual practical solutions go climate change, with two out to 10 points dedicated to Climate change, and 3 dedicated to denying the effectiveness of returnable energy at all costs. a final 2 points are dedicated respectively to oil, and increased energy consumption ( meaning that their argument revolves around oil at almost every point and case)

What would cause collapse?

These are the primary pressures pushing civilization towards collapse. We've chosen to outline those which are the most global, systemic, and potentially impactful.

2. Global energy demand is increasing. (...)

3. We are transitioning to renewables very slowly. (..)

4. Current renewables are ineffective replacements for fossil fuels. (...)

5. Best-case energy transition scenarios will still result in severe climate change.(...)

9. Climate change is rapidly destabilizing our environment.

​

It then uses the most vacuous possible definition of collapse to make an apparent distant and undeniable collapse appear to be inevitable,.. within the grand scale of cosmic and infinite time.

The inevitability of collapse is widely disputed and distinctions are difficult to make in terms of the potential or ability of humans to change their conscious or unconscious behaviors leading to specific outcomes. Collapse is certainly inevitable if we continue down our default path. Our ability to conceive of the inevitability or probability rests deeply within our basis of understanding collapse and numerous factors feeding into it.

​

Active Disrespect to their readers, (Telling them to go kill themselves)

In the section labelled "Barriers", The makers of r/collapse run the reader through the Five stages of Grief, specifically "1. Denial and isolation; 2. Anger; 3. Bargaining; 4. Depression; and 5. Acceptance. ":https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

Assuming that the intensity and impact their voice would send the reader into a mental tailspin. In doing so, they also attempt to walk the reader through all of doubts they are inevitably having relating to the accuracy and legitimacy of their argument, that might help them resist their lack of sense and point.

Barriers

There are numerous barriers to developing an understanding of collapse. Despite how obvious some of these may seem, an awareness of them helps to navigate them and be more tolerant of others, regardless of what stage we are at.

Ignorance

Ignorance is the most prominent barrier to understanding. It should not be confused with ‘nescience’ or a state of not knowing because knowledge is entirely absent or unattainable.(..)

Denial

Denial occurs after we have taken in information and consciously reject it to avoid an uncomfortable truth.William Catton termed this behavior ‘ostrichism’ (...) A recent theory of mind proposes it may have been central to our development as a species.(...)

Apathy

We’re referring to generalized apathy, not the diagnosed syndrome, versions with a biological basis, or forms of depression. (..)

Complexity

Understanding the underlying causes and nature of our predicament is extremely challenging. Collapse is a concept against which our human brains are almost incapable of reacting to.

Hope

Hope is a belief in or expectation of some future outcome. Depending on the likelihood and variety of what we wish to occur

Belief

Beliefs are barriers in so much as they distort our views of reality or reinforce ignorance.

In the section labelled "How do I Cope", the writers of the page direct readers towards a Suiside hotline, and several indoctrination related forums and webpages which link back the creators of the web page and their (I have to say it) cult .

How do I cope?

If you are considering suicide call a hotline or seek professional help. If you are feeling down and looking for dialogue you may visit r/CollapseSupport or the Collapse Discord.

Coping with the reality of collapse is an ongoing process. Many of the resources, articles, and perspectives shared here do not adequately engage the psychological or spiritual implications of this predicament. Managing our intake of information and remaining aware of our mental health throughout this process is critical, as anxiety and depression are natural reactions. Paul Chefurka shared his perspectives on the various stages of awareness and how we may react throughout them:

(this may be a work in progress, I may come back with updates) end notes: I personally believe that the group is advocating something quite evil. This is evidenced in their weird inverted definition of collapse, and weird focus on the inevitability of collapse as they define it, which appear to represent something entirely different. Their focus in the "loss of complexity" definition is moat concerning of all. They appear to be advocating some form of "violence" towards American Civil Society, while "Simplification" could very well be a code word for "ethnic Simplification" or other forms of so called "cleansing". As to actions to take, they seem to be entirely insistent on identifying population control as the one and only solution to their imminent, eternal all encompassing problem, seen in their vehement attempts to deny any other practical solutions to the actual issues that they address (specifically involving oil consumption, renewable energy, and climate change, which seem to absorb much of their attention).

#I would consider this to be a highly dangerous group, who's ideology reeks of justified killing of any person, and would not recommend any member to engage with members at any time or place unless heavily escorted and armed, or with the absolute highest levels of anonymity and cybersecurity.

https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/gekop8/au_abc_forgets_documentary_which_absolutely/

Bad rhetoric breakdown

• Absolutely Skewers
• The Far Green Left!
• Micheal Moore is in trouble, RIP
• Runs story on how Electric Cars don’t work because of Coal power electricity, and then gets on to tell people that coal is the answer.
• Some times the wind falls off. - a problem solved by the energy grid system they go on to complain about.
• Some irrelevant point about how you can never go off the grid
• Not currently fully renewable grid
• Dispose of.. replacing infacstructure not environmentally friendly
• Fake digital footage of renewable energy farms being left to rot., from a pro green energy documentory describing rot after humanity dies out from a climate apphocolipse
• Referencing some documentary called planet of the humans for a huge amount of time rather then looking at real data
• Fuck you Richard Branson
• Al gore pretending to care about the rain forest
• Tuque Que sugar farming
• So the film says that the only way to fix the environment is “When I snap My fingersaru!!!!”

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz_FOPYFJyQ

I have heard this argument elsewhere, however it is something that is patently falls and dangerous to believe. The main points of his argument argument goes as follows.

> Only humans want to kill its host. Other natural creates want to preserve their environment

This is false on a number of levels. Firstly, many animals technically do "destroy" their environment (or at least their food source) when they grace or move through it, and therefor have to constantly migrate in order to find mature lands. To give you a balanced opinion on the topic, I will link you a discussion on the topic by Alan Savory (Why herd animals are important to maintain grass land habitats, and also an explanation of why herd animals migrate introduced at the beginning of the video.) https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertification_and_reverse_climate_change/transcript?language=en

It is also not the case that viruses need a healthy host in order to survive. It needs only to keep the host alive long enough enough to find a new host. Staying within a healthy host has its advantages, but is not nessisary for the virus to spread. There are also diseases that can remain viable in the environment for a long period of time a dormant state

> People with good immune systems live, but those with weaker immune systems die. This is because

This is something that people say, that prompt them to be un cautions around COVID . This is why many

> they will mutate into something milder over a period of time, and become something less dangerous.

This may be true, but only over a long period of time. He also contradicts this statement by describing at least ancient disease that did almost kill him (Cholera) This is one of many disease that continue to be deadly after many generations and over hundreds of years.

​

To be fair, his mode of thinking is not dissimilar to that of major leaders in government, who believe that you can create herd immunity by eating it spread, and then containing it to prevent second infection. I will not give this man credit for giving these leaders this belief wither. This policy has however backfired in the places where it has introduced, including in Great Britain https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-path-speci/special-report-johnson-listened-to-his-scientists-about-coronavirus-but-they-were-slow-to-sound-the-alarm-idUSKBN21P1VF .

This may be the best break down I have done yet. Stay safe everyone.

Promised I would stay away from reddit, but things have been too important to ignore.

So there have been some very silly and dangerous rumours spread about the Novel Corona Virus (Covid 2019). Also known as the Wuhan Virus for a period of time. I came here to dispel those myths. These selections are based on what I have seen. There are some very bad miss information initiatives out there though.

Quick example here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CRxyHU9Oxo Now it may may take you a little while to notice that there is something wrong with this video, specifically he tells people to not get tested for Corona virus (Covid 2019).Right towards the end of the video he tells people to not report to the hospital if they experience flu like symptoms because they "need to save resources for people that have real problems." The problem of course here being that the initial symptoms for the COVID Virus are identical to those of a flu. There is also no promise that this man is a real doctor, only his word.

Link here for a quick guide to COVID virus signs and symptoms from the Center of Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/COVID19-symptoms.pdf

If you are wondering why someone would lie about true symptoms of the COVID virus remember that there were groups spreading mis information about the vaccines. Some of the culprits include actual fascist terror groups which were responsible for dissemination anti vaccine pamphlets amongst communities, for the purposes of getting people sick. The purpose of these attacks was to Attack America, and in many cases specific people. Case details here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/measles-outbreak-tracking-down-the-people-behind-anti-vaccine-pamphlet/

All this said, there are a number of rumours that have disseminating through the public, through one way or another. This post is made to dispel a number of those myths. . . . 1. Wuhan came from Bats. We have no idea what animal the virus came from, or how it made the leap into the human population. The point of origin has been narrowed down to a market in wuhan, but how it originated has yet to be determined Source- World Health Organization : informational video https://openwho.org/courses/introduction-to-ncov?fbclid=IwAR21VihaGs2bkMuXLsaqZW6e1rgYz_1zyke7cGa3hregXyj1U_D33jaWBlI

2.Corona Virus is the Same as the Flu This is like saying that cats are the same as dogs (because they are mammals) Corona Virus is a broad classification for viruses with a specific body plan, for round viruses covered in suction cup like contact points. This genus includes many common illnesses such as The Flu, The Cold, SARS, MERS, Swine Flu, and also COVID2019. Source - WHO : https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

3.That The Flu Is More Deadly Then Covid 2019 This is utter nonsense based on actual bad math. People will usually make this statement with the following statement: " I shouldn't worry about COVID, or Corona Virus. The Flu kills more people than the COVID Virus." This statement assumes a lot of things. First that the Corona Virus Death numbers will not rise, and that there will be no new cases, that people that have just been infected will defiantly recover rather then die, and that of the number of deaths from Corona Virus will remain the same as they are at the present moment, non of which are close to reasonable assumptions at this point. It also measures the wrong thing. When looking at the killing capacity of a disease, we want to look at a number factors. The kill rate of the disease, (number of people infected that die rather than recover), which is the important measure in this case. We also want to look at the spread (where is the virus located?) Contagion (how likely it is to be passed on from one person to another), and rate of infection (how many people have the virus, and how many are predicted to have it at a later point in time.) In this case, the flu has a higher spread a the present moment than COVID does. however this is not likely to remain the case. I took the liberty of looking up the numbers on this one. The Flu Annually kills 389 000 annually world wide, with a death rate of 5.9 out of every 100,000 people infected (global average death rate)a or 0.000059% per all people infected. COVID 2019 has a reported death rate of 3.8% as of today (last calculated march 3rd according to source) With 4,638 deaths world wide, 68,313 supposed recoveries, and 126,380 reported cases. b These numbers only track confirmed cases, and may not reflect the total rates of infection, death, or recovery for unreported cases. Source: ahttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/ bWorldometer.com: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

4. Masks Do not work, Only work on sick people or make you sick This is a myth based on the fact that reusable masks need to be disposed off after use. If you wear a mask without washing it and past its prime. They also recommend that masks not be touched, and be used in combination with hand washing and hand sanitizer, since touching a mask can get it dirty (still better then touching your face directly) As to whether a mask should only be used if you yourself are sick, I would argue that you may already be sick, and not know it yet. It is therefor better a curtesy to wear a mask, to reduce the general rate of infection. 5. The government is doing its part, so I do not need to be worried. The government needs the help of public awareness in order to do its job properly. This means people who are sick going in for testing, people who are feeling sick going into self isolation, and smaller organizations complying with government guidelines and regulations. Government screening is also only the first line of defence. You yourself and your actions are a part of the public health effort, which means every person has to do their part to keep each themselves safe. The government in some places has also made some very big mistakes, such as, for example Very Poor Public Information Campaigns in Canada for example, which means that there are likely very large number of unreported cases here and in the United States of America. There has also been some reports that current reported cases and cured cases may be being manipulated by various culprits. report from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/15/heres-why-the-white-house-doesnt-trust-chinas-coronavirus-numbers.html

6. COVID 2019 only effects old people and the immune compromised

While these populations are more likely to die from COVID 2019, there are plentiful cases of perfectly healthy people dining form the disease. These include some very prominent examples, including the doctor that discovered the disease(Dr. Li Wenliang, <New York times>), and the head of the hospital where the disease was first treated (Liu Zhiming, <CNN>).

Stay safe everyone!

(Found a typo in the title of my last post. Reason for the repost)

Here we see what happens when a political thug community is allowed to stagnate for too long.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/et6pq5/found_on_rdankleft/

What does it mean?

This is a case of political brand marketing at it dumbest, and the dangers of news organizations breaking journalistic integrity and allowing sponsorship into their stories. If you listen to the CBC you may have heard of the so called Justin Trudaux " Donut scandal". This refers to a case purchased local donuts at Oh Doughnuts, instead of purchasing donuts at Tim Hortons

https://globalnews.ca/news/6440682/canadians-criticize-trudeau-after-visit-to-oh-doughnuts-bakery-in-winnipeg/

This scandal was apparently by a number of twitter trolls, and "went viral", which is a nice decoy for the obvious Tim Hortons sponsorship.

More on native advertising : https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2014/07/07/native-advertising-examples

The fact that this method has been allowed to creep into political narrative is a very dirty and disgusting thing.

Luckily "real journalistic sources" can see right through this charade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdI4J_zKRN4

Snopes Summary : https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-wilderness/

Article with original Video (NSFW) : https://www.nathab.com/blog/lemming-suicide-the-no-1-nature-hoax/

​

The hoax was created by taking tame lemmings and placing them on a turn table which threw them over the edge of a cliff. They would also chase lemmings into the ocean to get footage of them running into the water. This was performed in order to create their own evidence for something that they could not find in nature. I would speculate however, that as Disney was culprit of this action, that they simply did not care about the factual accuracy of their film, and were perfectly happy to create a fantasy (they are a cartoon making company after all.)

Update: I mention the word algorithm a lot in this article. This is the pop - term for Content targeting algorithm, which is a term for programs that select content that is show on either the feed or front page of user social media streams.

The term itself is problematic in my opinion, since is it implies that process involved is random. This is somewhat true for some schematics, such as algorithms based on counting likes, finding similar key words, or tracking similar viewers. The term however does not apply to random selection criteria, but to automatic processes that select what you see on their web page. Such non random automatic processes would include a program that say, showed every male Youtube user videos advertising body spray. I make no claims either way on the inner workings of Youtube's video algorithm, since it is a black box, and I will never be given access to the inner workings of said program.

A few disclaimers before I make this post

1. I have come to realization that not only should I not be on reddit, but that no one should be here.
2. You may have noticed the super weird post that I left on the home page. I left it there for a reason
3. I have come to the sad realization that this page exists largely for me to vent, about internet poop. this post heavy on youtube - poop.
4. I am about 65% certain that this entire thread I got sucked is fake outrage designed to create publicity for short treks, and that youtube's algorithms are exploiting my online influencer status on this sad corner of the internet for publicity. Well call me a sucker.

I have had the unfortunate displeasure of being exposed to YouTube critique videos aimed at the Short Trek's Trouble With Edward. https://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-short-treks/ This is a comedy spinoff of Star Trek featuring a number of well known comedians including H.John Benjamin, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0071304/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 who is famous for his work as a character actor in comedy series and cartoons. The episode features a hapless star fleet scientist, that causes mayhem after being transferred to a low damage position on the ship.

This bit of genre subtlety seemed to have been lost on the youtube fan - commentary video (and sponsored shill) community on youtube. I'll lazily post some of them below. We have The Woke ness of modern Star Trek by Computing forever. Men always being humiliated by women on Star Trek Discovery and Short Trek by Major Grin , (a pattern is starting to emerge here) and Star Trek Short Treks Short Treks are an Insult to Fandom! - Review of the Trouble with Edward by Bowles Trek .

To this last one, yes, it is insulting the fandom. Parody however is a basic comedy fair . and no-one complained when Funny of Die stepped on the fine name of captain planet in Don Chapple is Captain Plannet.

A number of video reviews are little bit less cringe worthy. The Difference between TNG and Star Trek Discovery / Short Trek by Major Grin Illustrates how exactly the show writers understood labor relations and tone on Star Trek, and how these were well spoofed.

Youtube and other social media pages (fight me on this, but I'll hold to this stance) has a bad habit of amplifying (and creating) issues for anything to do with sex and women's issues. I am referring specifically to the stream of videos made in response to Anita Sacristan's Chanel . (Oh wow! there was a game to?) but there are others that I am sure you are aware of (Gamer Gate for example). In this case the trigger was depiction of a male being disrespected by a female boss.

In defence of this obviously conservative sponsored media bullshit, the main mandate of short trek is not SPESssSSIFICALY limited to comedy....(Edit: It is a mixed genre program) but then I remember that youtube shoved these videos in my goddam face thanks to targeting algorithms.

Edit: I got sick of this story part way through writing it. You can tell right?

Is painfully so no?

explanation of the title - Earlier I posted about how bad it is for a politician to roast their own constituents. This is a prime example.

original tweet

"Rep[sic] Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous," Trump tweeted. "His district is considered the Worst in the USA...As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place"

....As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2019

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1155073965880172544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

​

He follows this up with more tweets

​

Why is so much money sent to the Elijah Cummings district when it is considered the worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States. No human being would want to live there. Where is all this money going? How much is stolen? Investigate this corrupt mess immediately!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1155076476930338816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

​

This has, among other things, lead to aligations of racism( by Nanci Pelosi non the less) , which is ( I think) the least of his worries, as he has committed more offenses then that.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/27/pelosi-calls-trumps-tweets-cummings-baltimore-racist-attacks/1846921001/

https://donotlink.it/BWVX

You see, your side, not my side, thinks of rednecks and conservatives and Christians as being obsessed with a psycho-pathological phobia and hatred of gays. Your side coined an silly term for the alleged phobia because it did not exist until you invented it: homophobia.

My question to you is this: do you believe that some, even most, hetero men have a visceral and instinctive desire to beat homosexuals to death?

If so, why is it bigotry if I report that your side believes this?

Why is it bigotry if I speculate that this belief in homophobia, fairly common among your side, was perhaps the reason behind the writers’ decision to use Korra and Asami as their couple of choice rather than, say, Aang and Sokka?

Let us suppose I shared your belief. Why is it bigotry when I report that heteros have this barbaric and grotesque instinct and not when you report it?

Answer: it is not. Which is why the opening part of the quote where I made that clear is missing.

Notice how at first he defines homophobia as being common around "rednecks and conservatives and Christians" but then moves towards homosexuals as a whole...this is strawmanning via his own definition of homophobia.

Fyi, this is homophobia: https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-verizon&ei=d4QvXZ6mBJKxggex0LOICA&q=homophobia+definition&oq=homophobia+def&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.1.0.0l8.1095354.1097402..1097847...0.0..0.180.1678.0j12......0....1.........35i39j0i20i263j0i131.hzMjqA9uSGQ