b6 @b6hydra@social.cleverlibre.org

@eee Looking for alternatives I can understand. To me there's a huge logic gap when someone doesn't want an unapproved treatment so they take a treatment with even less approval as their alternative. The idea that people can convince themselves of literally anything in order to rationalize their behavior is what I find off-putting. Frightening was maybe too strong of a word in this particular context.

The degree of cognitive dissonance required to jump from "You can't make me take an unapproved vaccine!" to "I'll take horse de-wormer instead!" is frankly pretty astonishing. Interesting too, in a frightening sort of way.

#COVID #COVID19 #ivermectin #vaccine

@DavidBond They should have spent the money to update for Visa/MasterCard's new payment payment processing rules instead of fucking over the people that made them an attractive investment in the first place.

If I wasn't using it before I definitely won't use it now knowing what kind of pricks are running the show.

@namark Am I aware of the concept of context? Is there any purpose to that question other than to be smug and insulting?

I'm talking about historical continuities as they relate to homelessness on the basis of not just sex, but religion and economics, as well as how they are represented in today's "established culture." If that's not context then no, I suppose I'm totally ignorant on the concept.

I won't be answering your question for several reasons. Primarily, I don't have a comprehensive plan to address all social woes such that they address not only sexism, but also poverty, devalueing of life, etc. Moreover, nobody does. However, if you think you have the answer I'm all ears. Second, I never said I agree completely with @tripu. In fact, if you read what I said previously you would know I don't believe the issues he identifies can be solved solely by focusing on inequality based in sex.

My main disagreement with you is that you say sex is out of context. It isn't. It might not be the whole picture, but it makes no sense to discount it entirely given the _context_ from which these issues evolved.

@freemo @modrobert It's really strange to me how just generally people treat the oceans as being so vast that anything we do can't hurt them. We're (they're) doing the same thing with space, with all the waste and trash that's started to accumulate.

@namark

> but that is just a side effect to observe as a curiosity

The fact that you think it's merely a curiosity doesn't change that it's an inequality based on sex. I agree with you that we should strive for equity, not simple equality of outcomes, but again that doesn't suggest that the current inequality doesn't have a basis in sex.

I also don't understand why you think that because sex isn't the only issue at play that makes it irrelevant. Take homelessness. Historically, the concept of the deserving vs the undeserving poor has changed very little in the last 2000 years. Widows and "pure" women throughout that time have been thought of as the deserving poor, i.e. they deserve our sympathy and charity. It's said that they aren't at fault for their circumstances. Contrast that with men and "impure women" who, except for veterans, are largely lumped in with the undeserving poor. There is a ton of cultural, religious, and economic baggage wrapped into these concepts, and sex is part of that, it's not just a bizarre side effect.

I want to reiterate that I agree that we shouldn't simply be looking to make the numbers equal. Making sure more women die at work is an absurd proposal that nobody is suggesting. I'll go a step further and agree that if we only treat these issues as sex-based the solutions are likely to fail. They are deeply intertwined with many aspects of our society and I think will probably require significant and radical changes that the status quo simply won't tolerate. However, to say the majority of the issues @tripu brought up have nothing to do with sex is patently false.

@bonifartius OK, well I follow your logic. It makes sense but maybe I just don't know enough to make a specific prediction.

@bonifartius Oh that makes more sense, sorry. In that case would actually expect morbidity to increase while mortality decreases. Morbidity is rate of infection, mortality is rate of death. That's the evolutionary trend other similar viruses seem to have followed. Whether or not that will be the case with COVID, I don't know. Even in armchair theory I'm hesitant to speculate too much haha.

@bonifartius It seems highly unlikely a vaccine would directly cause a mutation. It might create a condition in which a naturally occurring mutation is more advantageous to the survival of the virus, but the vaccine actually causing a mutation in the virus' RNA though? No I don't think so.

@tripu I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you based on this, but the work deaths stat was kind of a shock when I first heard it. iirc men are something like 16-17x more likely to be killed at work?

@derek this makes it seems like it's some novel new idea, but their reference to decentralization makes it pretty clear they're expecting people to understand the concept

That website didn't work for me but that could just be my ad blocker, I didn't bother checking.

@freemo @kireicake Just in general those lists always seem really click focused to me. Like how every blog even remotely related to Linux has a "Top 10 terminals" list buts it's always the same stuff/just a list of programs that get the most google hits.

And yes, I clicked

If that's not a clickbait title I don't know what is...

@freemo Huh, and I always thought it was "Fuck the Beatitudes, Old Testament 4ever"