Biden calls for 'immediate ceasefire' in Gaza
ltxrtquq @ ltxrtquq @lemmy.ml Posts 0Comments 224Joined 2 yr. ago
ltxrtquq @ ltxrtquq @lemmy.ml
Posts
0
Comments
224
Joined
2 yr. ago
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you went from
you still have to account for the fact that covid might kill an old person that would otherwise die to influenza in a month or two
thinking covid wasn't causing any/many additional deaths per year, just speeding them up a little
to providing a graph that shows thousands of extra people are dying each year
The increase of 2022 and 2021 was expected due to general decline of normal viruses (caused by covid measurements)
to saying all those extra deaths were because people weren't getting sick from normal diseases, despite us not seeing much of a drop in 2020 from people not getting those diseases during the covid restrictions. But now that the restrictions are lifted and they're being exposed to those normal diseases (and covid) again, all/most of theses extra deaths are from the normal diseases and have nothing to do with covid.
Norway absolutely did a better job at handling covid than the US, but the US's death rate seems to just be permanently higher now as a direct result of covid. Maybe removing all restrictions was the right thing to do, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that it comes at the cost of several thousand more people dying each year, just in Norway.
It looks like you're getting the data from here (except the Norwegian language version), so I have to ask: is there a reason you're cutting off the part of the graph showing "Deaths per 1000 mean population" spiking in 2022?
This new table is from here, and you can click "Choose variables" at the top if you want to see different data. But even just the graph you provided shows that total deaths for both sexes jumped up dramatically in 2022, the year you say covid restrictions were lifted. What are you trying to prove here exactly?
Even if I ignore you moving the goalposts, would you really look at a graph like this
that's a few years out of date and assume the total deaths settled back down into the old pattern?
I'm not finding a more up-to-date data source for deaths per month, but it's not like you're providing any kind of data that covid isn't still killing a lot of extra people per year.
As many people die from covid as do from influenza or RSV at this point.
I understand you don't feel affected by covid anymore, but you're incredibly wrong.
CDC estimates for influenza deaths in the 2022-2023 flu season: 21,000
CDC cumulative covid deaths from Sep 9, 2023 minus Oct 1, 2022: 84,560
Honestly, I'm not seeing a death count for RSV, but based on this RSV Burden Estimates, it's at most: 10,300 per year.
And this is all shown pretty well in the Trends in Viral Respiratory Deaths in the United States graph.
If you just search "doctor roe v wade abortion", most of these articles are the results on the first page. Econgrad is being disingenuous about what sources they're willing to accept, so I just googled it for them in way fewer words than it took to lie about why they wouldn't take the NPR article.
I’ll take some local news website or something that lists that sources
In Missouri, hospital doctors told a woman whose water broke at 18 weeks that "current Missouri law supersedes our medical judgment" and so she could not receive an abortion procedure even though she was at risk of infection, according to a report in the Springfield News-Leader.
Oh wow, what's this? Is the NPR article linking sources, and to a local news website no less? Wild. But if you won't accept an NPR article, would you accept an interview on PBS?
Jamila Perritt, President & CEO, Physicians for Reproductive Health: It's important that we understand that abortion is just the tip of the iceberg. You're absolutely right reproductive health across the board is going to be impacted in a really devastating way. We know for folks that are seeking abortion care, the inability to obtain that care results in long-term economic, social, emotional outcomes that are negative as compared with those who have been able to obtain that care.
Or a guardian article (linking a study by the New England Journal of Medicine)?
Despite a carve-out for medical emergencies, the law endangered the lives of high-risk pregnant patients, according to Texas researchers documenting its consequences in a recent New England Journal of Medicine study. Some patients needed to be “at death’s door” to receive pregnancy termination under the law, the paper found, underscoring how abortion bans create dangerous repercussions for complicated pregnancies.
Or a CNN article citing a study published in the American Journal of Gynecology?
But when five of its doctors published a study – one of the first of its kind – about the effect of abortion bans in real life, the medical center didn’t issue a news release. The research, published in the American Journal of Gynecology, found that at two Texas hospitals, the abortion bans were “associated with significant maternal morbidity.”
Or a Texas Tribune article?
Meanwhile, despite exceptions to the law, the number of monthly abortions in Texas has dropped into the low single digits. Women are nearly dying from pregnancy complications, or actually dying after having to travel out-of-state for abortions, or facing million-dollar lawsuits for helping friends acquire abortion medication. An unknown number are having babies they never planned for.
Or a Fox News article?
According to the lawsuit, one of the doctors, Damla Karsan, "has seen that physicians in Texas are even afraid to speak out publicly about this issue for fear of retaliation" and has witnessed how "widespread fear and confusion regarding the scope of Texas’s abortion bans has chilled the provision of necessary obstetric care, including abortion care."
Or a second Fox News article?
Doctors told Cox that if the baby's heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior cesareans, and that another C-section at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child.
"It is not a matter of if I will have to say goodbye to my baby, but when. I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer," Cox said in a statement.
In July, several Texas women gave emotional testimony about carrying babies they knew would not survive and doctors unable to offer abortions despite their spiraling conditions. A judge later ruled that Texas’ ban was too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications, but that decision was swiftly put on hold after the state appealed.
Does it matter what the source is? Do you even care?
I have been in locker room conversations enough to know what goes on in both boys and girls sides, because I am a privacy advocate (I write guides) and people find it easy to trust me, and know their secrets will never leak out. Taboo topics are a massive part of it. Being a fuckboy/hoe is often discussed. Dark humour and alcohol is often there. There are plenty things that go on, that never come out. And both sides do it.
Taboo topics are always spicy and welcome when the public morality filter/mask is worn off in a private setting. Humans are evolved animals and the primal instinct desires sometimes want us to get dirty, messy and perverted. Practically nobody is an exception to this.
Again, do you want it to be normal that some people get objectified? Do you think it's good that sometimes you go on a rant about some perceived negative quality other people have? You could try actually talking to the people you're gossiping about, give them some kind of feedback if their behavior is anti-social. But instead, you're here defending group chats where people share (fake) nude photos of their (underage) classmates.
You also haven't shown any real evidence that feminism is behind any of the problems you see in the world. Don't you believe in the pareto principle? Do you think it might be possible that all the negative, vitriolic things you see (that you assign to all of women and feminism) comes from a small minority of people? And that, just maybe, those people don't even have to be part of the feminist movement at all?
And I really don't care about your favorite youtubers, I just think you shouldn't listen so much to just one source. Especially when all they do is react to the latest social media outrage. But specifically for Fresh and Fit: that video you linked came out at the beginning of June, and the demonetization happened in mid August.
I don't want to debate the finer points of what makes a fascist. Maybe just take a minute and do some self-reflection as to why so many people see the things you write and instantly think "this belongs in the red-pill, right wing section of the internet."
Should I start to assume when someone says they are a feminist, they are NOT a feminist? This line of logic does not fall in very well with the act of consenting. If someone says they are a feminist, they ARE a feminist. No debate. A woman says she is a feminist, she IS one. Counter her points about female privilege and how good it feels.
Nowhere does she say she's a feminist. She's telling a story about being a model in California. Feminism isn't just being a woman. Google "feminist pretty privilege" and the top reddit post you find is way more compelling for what a feminist would say about "pretty privilege" than a random tiktoker your favorite youtubers managed to find.
I am not asking about what someone is saying. Does the preaching get practiced in real world? It is all that matters.
Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?
You very literally were asking about what people are saying. You asked "why don't women get told to talk to guys?" and the answer is "they do."
Why am I assuming a body positive feminist is a body positive feminist? What is this kind of argumentation? An apple is not an orange, and a banana is not a papaya.
At no point in the video does anyone even claim the woman was a body-positive feminist. Your favorite youtubers start talking about body-positivity as if she was, but she never claimed to be one and we never get to see any kind of evidence that she actually is.
Men are told not to approach. Men are obeying feminist agenda. Young feminists are sad and pissed the dating market is Sahara desert. Men chose to adapt and become risk averse in the same ways women neurobiologically have behaved in all of human history. Laws favour women and ignore men. Feminists favour women and ignore men (not their responsibility). Society favours sympathising with women to earn brownie points with other women. Nobody helps men, so men help themselves.
Maybe watch the podcast.
Again, I watched the part labeled "What is causing the rise in sexless men?" and the expert didn't say anything at all about feminism. The podcast host brings it up briefly as a possibility, but then they move on to another topic. They aren't talking about feminism. You're bringing it up like it's the most natural thing in the world, but to do that you need to make a lot of assumptions that aren't supported by these things you're linking. I'd tell you to watch some of these videos again, but I'm sure you'd just inject your own narrative into them again.
Your argumentation is based on a false premise that I indirectly love rape fantasies and locker room talk.
You're the one that keeps bringing it up. "Locker room talk" has become a euphemism for sexualizing and objectifying women. I asked if you meant private conversations between boys, but the one real world example you brought up of locker room talk was a group chat where a bunch of teens were sharing photos of their classmates. If you want to be talking about private, girl-free conversations, tell me. Otherwise I'll keep assuming you think the kinds of things described in the "locker room bois" story should be normal and acceptable.
Women objectify men in girl locker rooms more than men could ever objectify women in boys locker rooms,
I've never heard of a girls' only chat where they shared fake nude photos of guys in there class, and yet here's a story from last week of your "boys locker room chat" that ends with a someone killing themself.
because objectification of women is very normalised in porn
You'd think this right here would be enough of a reason to understand why the feminism movement exists, but oh well.
Taboo factor is the core tenet of what entices people towards BDSM, gore, zoophilia, pedophilia and other acts of depravity. The more exclusive something is, the more exciting and demanded it secretly is. These locker room talks provide space for taboo discussions more than anything else.
You'd think there'd be a much larger audience for the truly taboo subjects, like cannibalism and cutting your arm off with a rusty pocket knife. The kind of things everyone knows you obviously shouldn't be doing. They definitely exist, but they're a very small group considering how "exciting and demanded" it should be based on your logic.
They are what I consider to be the most balanced, sensible, non-controversial and non-reactionary centrist social commentators on YouTube. That is the consensus.
Where are you getting this consensus from? One of the videos you sent me was literally all about how one of the guys said something controversial on twitter, and all they do is react to other people's content. Even if you use the more relevant definition of reactionary, they seem like they'd be pretty opposed to feminism making any real ground and actually changing the way they life their lives.
They are the reason why Pearl and Fresh&Fit, giant redpillers close to Tate/Sneako, got demonetised.
I'm pretty sure JustPearlyThings got demonetized for her pro-hitler song, not even Fresh&Fit know for sure why they got demonitized but I get the feeling it wasn't because of Aba N Preach. I just don't think the 0.5-2 million views they get per video is enough clout to get a video demonetized.
You are labeling and cancelling them without knowing about them
What does it even meant to cancel them? I'm absolutely labeling them, but do you think I have the power to make them stop producing new content? Or is canceling something just the same as not liking something?
Do you live in a swing state? Because I don't. As far as I see it, voting third party won't have any effect on the election, but might at least signal that I want change. It's not like the popular vote matters in this country.
One of the core tenets of fascism is making the “enemy” look weak and strong at the same time
Looking at these three (1) (2) (3) descriptions of fascism, only one of them (2) brings up enemies that are both weak and strong at the same time. But looking at that list, you're showcasing way more of the features of fascism if we're being honest. You clearly don't like how modern society is organized and seem to want to go back to how things used to be (1 and 2), you're very obviously showing social frustration (6), I could argue that you're obsessed with a plot (7) about how all feminists hate men, you're claiming women are physically weak and yet have social/cultural power over you (8), and there're some hints of (12) machismo, specifically the disdain for women.
Masculinity is not fragile or weak. This is nonsensical and cartoonishly evil propaganda invented by females to weaken the diametrically opposite gender.
Masculinity is a social construct. What you think of as "masculine" is shaped by society and the people around you. It's as strong or as weak as you believe it is, and different people can have different beliefs about the same thing. You can find plenty of academic studies or articles talking about this, and they all describe it in a similar way:
Now on to the examples you gave.
Let a feminist tell you about pretty privilege.
Why are you assuming anyone in that video is a feminist?
Men at work being scared of women is a common thing.
This was right after the Me Too movement, a response to the very real crimes perpetrated against women in the workplace. If I remember right, it was all started in response to Harvey Weinstein being accused by over 80 women of various crimes. Similarly, Bill Cosby had over 60 women come forward with stories about him. Just these two guys have over 100 victims and got away with it for decades. The department of labor still estimates that somewhere between 25% to 85% of women have experienced sexual assault in the workplace. False accusations happen, but unreported crimes are way more common.
Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?
That video literally opens with a woman saying other women need to be proactive when trying to get a date.
Far more feminists use the small hand gesture or reject men based on small height, compared to men lightly teasing women as “flatboards” or whatever else. Easy to search. Here is a body positivity feminist doing it.
Why are you assuming the singular woman talked about in the video is a body-positive feminist? We know literally nothing about her except she sent a message to this random youtuber that was complaining about wearing a condom during sex. The guy got insulted on social media and made a 12 minute video response about how he wasn't hurt by it.
Men are avoiding approaching women and going sexless, thanks to feminism.
What part of this says it's because of feminism? I skipped to the "What's causing the rise in sexless men?" section (because I'm not about to listen to the entire 90 minute podcast) and the expert said it was because of reduced alcohol consumption, being generally more risk averse, and just not wanting to date.
Women and their one sided disregard for mens’ emotional sanctity (as sacred as womens’ physical sanctity) is why locker room talk will always exist. Disregard for the privacy of mens’ emotions has been a problem for thousands of years. And let’s not act like “girl talk” does not exist. Girls always do a lot of talking while the boys are kept out. This is another female privilege clubbed together with its self-inflicted devastation of their mental health, which they cry about later.
Again, the "locker room" talk that you're so desperate to defend is fantasizing about rape. You can have private conversations among men, that's fine and no one is trying to stop that, but you keep specifically bringing up "locker room" talk. Where you objectify women and only consider their physical attractiveness. You even say that women do it and are worse off for it, why do you want "locker room" talk to be respected so much?
And why are so many of the videos you posted from Aba N Preach? Looking at their channel, it seems they post a new video about once every 2 days, and the vast majority of it is just reacting to social media posts and other videos. They seem like a rage-bait content mill. And since you posted over 4 1/2 hours of videos, I feel pretty okay about linking this video explaining the "manosphere", because Aba N Preach seem like they'd fit right in.
I consider it very fascistic that feminists choose to call masculinity “fragile” and masculinity is somehow weak and strong at the same time.
Alright, what does "fascism" mean to you? Because it seems to just be "insulting a thing I like/believe in". And what does it mean to "cancel" someone? Because all that can happen to you here is you get some downvotes, unless you do something to break the rules.
Fragile masculinity means that a person is so insecure about their "manliness" that they go too far in the other direction and overcompensate, usually to the point of being either annoying or actively harmful in some way.
Women have a lot of privilege that got carried over on top of all the equality stuff going on
Do you want to describe any of these privileges? I'd hate to keep making assumptions about your beliefs.
men continue to shoulder the burdens of creating and maintaining society, and men are only surviving due to their strong masculinity and natural biological advantages, which the current feminist agenda does seem to want to equalize.
There are plenty of jobs that aren't involved with construction. I'd be willing to bet that most men don't work in construction or infrastructure repair. And at least in the US, the percentage of women working in construction is growing, so maybe someday it'll be an even split and your entire argument will be moot.
Too many are “dumb” and “hurtful” and are amplified by social media. Harvard research on Twitter shows misinformation gets 6x faster amplified than facts. Similar thing is said about common sense being not so common. There is a reason why men are leaving the dating market in droves, population growth is slowing down and men are refraining from having sex at an alarming rate. They do not want to deal with crazy.
You won't catch me saying that social media has been a net benefit for society. All the more reason to step away from it.
Declining population growth is normal in any developed/developing country. These are society-wide trends that can be seen in countries all around the world. You're going to have to give some kind of evidence that it's because men "don't want to deal with crazy," instead of just following the population pyramid like so many other countries in a similar economic situations.
forgot to tell about locker room part
I don't know much about the story other than what you posted and this article says. It's tragic that someone unrelated became the center of attention and was targeted by online vigilantism, but you still shouldn't want to normalize what you're calling "locker room talk".
I'm pretty sure this article was written before all the information about the case was sorted out. But even if you remove that last part, the "locker room talk" should in no way be acceptable.
No, masculinity being about resilience does not mean you just sit silently while people run towards you with axe and hammer. You can absolutely defend yourself and when cornered, attack when necessary. Masculine resilience does not mean you become this statue that remains so even if birds come and poop in the mouth. Eventually you will grab one bird by the neck.
Grabbing the bird by the neck would probably count as an abusive behavior, the second half of your definition of masculinity. You're very quick to compare whatever treatment you've received (I haven't really seen anything) to physical violence, which probably feeds into why a lot of people you interact with come off as so hostile to you and your beliefs.
Women have always been privileged in different ways than men have. It just so happens men focused on money (key form of capital) and ended up as being more advantageous. Men also have biological advantages that favour them over women.
It wasn't all that long ago that women gained the right to vote, so it should be pretty obvious that women had fewer privileges than men just 100 years ago. Time marches on, and things are more equal now, but there's still a measurable difference in pay by gender just for an example.
I was even being labelled (Jordan) Petersonian by some person despite insisting I have never pushed his conservative talking points or wanted to.
I try not to listen to Jordan Peterson, but if you're saying things in line with his general philosophy, it doesn't really matter whether or not you want to be pushing his talking points or if you even know you're doing it. I can't say for sure you are, but I would generally associate this kind of "women are actually more privileged then men" talk as at least similar.
I have encountered radical feminists wanting genocide of men, men being called male (animal implication), hand signs for dick size, feminists saying “all men bad/die” and “men are not our responsibility”, feminists faking boys locker room chats to gain online attention and harass men, and so on, so I have zero faith in anyone, leftists or rightists.
You meet people that say dumb and hurtful things all the time. My own grandfather once told me that immigrants dying while trying to cross the border was a good thing because it would send a message to others that they aren't welcome and they shouldn't try to come. But that doesn't mean you always need to take them seriously and apply the absolute worst things you've heard to a larger group of (mostly unrelated) people. But also, are these "locker room chats" the harmless kind, or the fantasizing/reminiscing about sexual assault kind?
I read through some of your comment history and found this comment chain which I think is what you're referring to here.
Women love psychological manipulation and think they are the hot shit, until they start going “good guy”-less by their 30s and the “beauty” starts to subside. Too much high school teen garbage, and most have not mentally grown out of it.
Even if you say you don't hate women, it's pretty clear you don't like a certain kind of women, and don't make much of a distinction between them and everyone else.
True masculinity (said by certain kind of people to be toxic) is about resilience, emotional control, inner strength, confidence and the ability to withstand life’s hardships without resorting to insecurity (dissing manhood) or abusive behaviours (psychological manipulation).
We are getting tired of hearing we are toxic, disposable and physical tools for others. And I must tell you this – the devolving and rotting feminist movement is exactly what is causing the explosion of the other extreme end, redpillers. A lot of people are starting to disapprove of these extremes.
Men are not “toxic” because they are not as emotionally charged or like vulnerability. Men are simply hardwired to be more resilient, calm, less hysterical, and protect their emotional sanctity the exact way women protect their physical sanctity.
Wouldn't it be the truly masculine thing to do if you just didn't take all of the accusations of toxic masculinity to heart? Shouldn't be be using your calm, resilient, less hysterical intellect to try to understand just why so many people seem to have a problem with what you're saying or how you're saying it? Don't you want to have the ability to withstand life’s hardships without resorting to insecurity (worrying about perceived threats to men's rights) or abusive behaviours (assigning traits to a group for the actions of individuals)? I don't want to imply men aren't allowed to complain or have problems, but it seems you're either betraying your ideals for what a man should be, or are trying to hold all men to an unrealistic standard.
Lemmy (and leftist instances) as a leftist space is fine with ostracizing men’s rights because feminists maliciously club it with redpillers/incels.
As far as I can tell, this paragraph is about all the actual men's rights issues you're talking about:
All I have seen is double standards whenever men’s issues need to be talked about versus women’s issues. Mental health issues, women pedophiles/predators versus men pedophiles/predators, or male SA versus female SA, military recruitments, physical risk jobs like ones at construction sites, women publicly allowed to get away with sexual harassment or roadside flirting, or men being called creeps for being nice to children but women are “inclusive” and never creepy, et al. And any debate is intentionally and dishonestly avoided by women and feminists on these things by clustering men’s rights with redpill manosphere movement.
which is mostly about double standards, unless you just really want to interact with children, flirt with women in public, and not feel pressured to take certain jobs. Unless your idea of a leftist is someone like Bill Maher, I'm pretty sure most leftists would be pro-(mental) healthcare, pro- equality under the law, pro-union/workplace safety, anti-pedophilia, and generally anti-war.
It's a little different. The Upside Down in Stranger Things is a kind of alternate dimension, whereas in the movies Upside Down and Patema Inverted it's that gravity is reversed for some people.
If you like the concept of Upside Down, you might be interested in the anime movie Patema Inverted. It has the same premise and came out around the same time.
If the 4 hour long hbomberguy video is to be believed, the Angry Video Game Nerd channel (?) got bought by a company that turned it into something of a content mill. And there's some plagiarism involved.
Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League
Skull and Bones (looks like it was removed from steam)
Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth - Remake Part 2 (PS5)
Mario vs. Donkey Kong (Switch)
Rise of the Ronin (PS5)
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons Remake
Personally, I'm not really excited for any of these. But I have enough of a backlog as it is, so maybe that's a good thing.
I think that's the point: that a state-owned operation wouldn't brick their own products because they're afraid of losing money
If that plan worked perfectly, you'd solve the land use and, giving you an extremely generous benefit of the doubt, the emissions from manure problems.
All you have to now is figure out how to build and maintain these high-rises cost effectively, and how to generate enough power for a matrix-like experience and all the VR headsets and treadmills for the cows. And even then you'd still be wasting a lot of food by feeding it to animals rather than just eating it directly.
I mean, no, we really can't. There's not enough data available (that I'm willing to search for) to say for absolutely sure that excess deaths has increased and will stay high, but even just the snapshot you provided here shows that it's slightly lower in January, and massively higher the rest of the year. Maybe the May 2023 data shows that the numbers are evening out compared to 2016-2019, but the one year we actually get to see shows way more excess deaths over the course of a year compared to before. You can't just look at the most recent month, that's not how yearly trends and averages work.
You won't have much of an argument that the numbers are going back to "normal" until you've got closer to a full year's worth of data with that excess deaths line being close to zero.