AbeVigodaLive wrote:I just hope that we don't have anything like this again...
Right now, I'm young enough and healthy enough not to be at risk. But in a few decades, I worry about all those people who don't get worked up and don't care whether I'm stuck in the house alone void of contact with loved ones and hoping I don't die from random contact with somebody who's sick. People who just consider me to be an old person who was probably gonna die anyway. To be fair, some of those guys who can't bother to get worked up will be my contemporaries at that point, so we'll at least have this to look back at fondly together.
If vaccines work you have nothing to worry about.
I hate to say it but the people in charge don't mind getting rid of old people on SS and Medicare.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:For those who don't have any trust in the media, polling and other stuff... I don't think you're blindly winging your takes. So where do you go to for the "best" (as in most reliable or seemingly sincere or most informative or whatever) news online?
This is a 100% non-condescending, nor leading question. Obviously, any of us could point to 2 or 3 or 200 or 300 cases of media bias if we wanted to. So either we aggregate from several sources on both sides of the proverbial aisle and apply a generous amount of salt... or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously some here have taken the latter approach.
And that's ok. I'm not against it. I try to avoid some places already (and entirely ignore the FOX, MSNBC, CNN tv personalities). But then where are we getting our information...
I'm cool with reading and learning new things. Share some of your favorite links?
Thanks.
[Note: For transparency, I'll visit the following sites from time to time depending what I'm searching for... StarTribune, PioneerPress, WaPo, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, Axios, Real Clear Politics, Forbes, NYT, New York Post, FOX News, NPR News, TheHill, Politico and others... along the way I stopped bothering with poorly disguised propaganda machines such as Gateway Pundit, Salon, Vox, Breitbart, et al. And... I'll be honest... style matters. Writing matters. Aesthetics matter.]
The news is simply knowing the news is BS.
So you're just making stuff up on your own as you go? You don't have any sources?
AbeVigodaLive wrote:For those who don't have any trust in the media, polling and other stuff... I don't think you're blindly winging your takes. So where do you go to for the "best" (as in most reliable or seemingly sincere or most informative or whatever) news online?
This is a 100% non-condescending, nor leading question. Obviously, any of us could point to 2 or 3 or 200 or 300 cases of media bias if we wanted to. So either we aggregate from several sources on both sides of the proverbial aisle and apply a generous amount of salt... or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously some here have taken the latter approach.
And that's ok. I'm not against it. I try to avoid some places already (and entirely ignore the FOX, MSNBC, CNN tv personalities). But then where are we getting our information...
I'm cool with reading and learning new things. Share some of your favorite links?
Thanks.
[Note: For transparency, I'll visit the following sites from time to time depending what I'm searching for... StarTribune, PioneerPress, WaPo, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, Axios, Real Clear Politics, Forbes, NYT, New York Post, FOX News, NPR News, TheHill, Politico and others... along the way I stopped bothering with poorly disguised propaganda machines such as Gateway Pundit, Salon, Vox, Breitbart, et al. And... I'll be honest... style matters. Writing matters. Aesthetics matter.]
The news is simply knowing the news is BS.
So you're just making stuff up on your own as you go? You don't have any sources?
Right...the folks who say they trust zero data from the news, yet somehow are able to form a belief system about what is going on in the world through.....how exactly? They must be getting their information somehow. If all sources of news are untruthful and corrupt or part of some grand conspiracy, what makes their sources so fact-based, independent (i.e. not part of the conspiracy) and trustworthy? Of course we'll never get a coherent answer on that question.
Folks have indulged WolvesFan previously in this stuff. It's not worth it. Love his basketball takes though!
Wolves fully vaccinated. Great news for wolves basketball.
Wiggins say he still will not get vaccinated. Curry and belly trying to convince him otherwise. Great news for wolves basketball
Kyrie saying he will not get vaccinated. Could be bad news for the Wolves. Irving for Simmons deal makes sense for both sides of Kyrie refuses vaccination
kekgeek1 wrote:Wolves fully vaccinated. Great news for wolves basketball.
Wiggins say he still will not get vaccinated. Curry and belly trying to convince him otherwise. Great news for wolves basketball
Kyrie saying he will not get vaccinated. Could be bad news for the Wolves. Irving for Simmons deal makes sense for both sides of Kyrie refuses vaccination
It's already been rumored that Kyrie Irving would retire if he was traded out of Brooklyn. I think the Nets were intrigued by the idea of Ben Simmons, but Irving's reps killed that.
We are the virus. Misinformation is the new mutation. Mother earth just needs to shed some virus so we're probably a little doomed no matter what.
The scientific method works. But as a culture we've ignored science in favor of logical fallacies most of my life.
Reading shit on the internet is not research. Andrew Wiggins has the resources to afford for someone to show him, in a microscope, what the virus and it's variants do to human cells, and what the vaccines do to: 1). dramatically reduce likelihood of his cells running amok under the influence of the virus for his benefit 2). Reduce the spread for the benefit of the larger culture.
leado01 wrote:We are the virus. Misinformation is the new mutation. Mother earth just needs to shed some virus so we're probably a little doomed no matter what.
The scientific method works. But as a culture we've ignored science in favor of logical fallacies most of my life.
Reading shit on the internet is not research. Andrew Wiggins has the resources to afford for someone to show him, in a microscope, what the virus and it's variants do to human cells, and what the vaccines do to: 1). dramatically reduce likelihood of his cells running amok under the influence of the virus for his benefit 2). Reduce the spread for the benefit of the larger culture.
Belittling him benefits no one.
Yeah there should be some lab tours for prominent vaccine hesitant people (NBA players, entertainers) who can influence. Mayo clinic and KAT should sponsor.
Cam, Cool, Mr. Hockey, and WolvesFan are killing it in this thread. I agree with essentially every post. Refreshing to know that there are others out there who can think for themselves. Well done.
I'm intrigued by both the Wiggins and Simmons situations, and actually find some similarities. Both players have the physical ability to play for the teams that are paying them, but are essentially choosing not to. I guess there is some precedent today for players choosing to take a day off now and then for funerals, births, etc., but this is different...unvaccinated Wig is choosing to miss more than half his team's games, and Ben is threatening to miss every game. I understand that Simmons' contract is unusual from a cash flow standpoint (he has already banked $8 million, and is due to receive his second $8 million installment this Friday), but it will be interesting to see how the Warriors and 76ers handle these voluntary absences.
Friday will be a very revealing day for Simmons and the 76ers. I'm also curious whether Philly has any claw back potential on the $8 million they have already shelled out.
