2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Fun Fact:
The term raining cats and dogs comes from victorian times when cats and dogs used to sleep in gutters to stay warm.
When it would rain heavy enough, the water would build up in the gutters, sending the cats and dogs down a slide and off the side of the house.
can you explain how you derived the bolded? i wasn't talking about the origin of the rumor or why trump brought it up in the debate.
i said haitians are not a race. "haitians eating cats and dogs is indisputably a racial slur" is literally false. "blacks eat cats and dogs" would be. arguably the supposition that haitians eating cats and dogs is racist is racist, assuming that if a particular culture or destitute immigrant is (accused of) do
Haitians aren't a race. Black people are. This rumor wasn't directed at Haitians because of their nationality. You think a rumor like this would've ever been started for an immigrant population of Europeans? Or white South Africans? Believing that it would is either naive if you're being earnest or disingenuous if you're not.
They do not, there is no credible evidence that they do, and if you continue to assert otherwise without evidence then I will ban you for racism.
Please reread the above.
it is in the sense that the topic is ultra-salient right now and it causes all normal media to discuss it (usually to debunk it, and related claims about whether it happens in Haiti itself, what voodoo is and so on).
it's also a way to address the topic of "legal immigration" more generally (it's very important that the Haitians in springfield are all there legally), it allows the right to claim even legal immigration can be really bad, when the left pushes for it.
then media has to say no, actually they work and they aren't eating pets. they interview people who employ Haitians and stuff like that.
But the right gets the media to admit 20k people were brought in a 60k people town, by Biden and harris.
And that's a lot; a very sudden change and the median voter in purple states doesn't love change.
so this topic is very relevant for the election, and the longer it stays in the news cycle the more it helps trump (imho), because of the discourse it generates.
All the post-debate polls on RCP have Harris as +3 or more. I think in order for Harris to win she realistically has to be polling at about +4 or +5 to have a good chance, if the polling trends from the last two elections hold. Notably, most statistical models show that whoever wins Pennsylvania has an amazing shot to win the entire thing, and there are no polls RCP and 538 are registering from there from after the debate.
All the post-debate polls on RCP have Harris as +3 or more. I think in order for Harris to win she realistically has to be polling at about +4 or +5 to have a good chance, if the polling trends from the last two elections hold. Notably, most statistical models show that whoever wins Pennsylvania has an amazing shot to win the entire thing, and there are no polls RCP and 538 are registering from there from after the debate.
pew polled Jews (nationally) and they break 64-35 for Harris which is like the worst in 40 years.
I think we have enough data between that and the relevance of PA to claim that picking Shapiro as a running mate would have been better.
Luciom, I would advise you to adhere to the directions I gave to the thread or face a long deserved ban.
this was absolutely the consensus NYT viewpoint in 2020... "chinese people love their bats and wet markets, pandemics inevitable, whatcha gonna do?" the lancet letter alleged claims to the contrary (virus could have originated in a lab) were racist, and the NYT science editor tweeted that lab origin views were racist
The source of which was the Chinese themselves. Here's one of the earliest NYT articles from the emerging pandemic, published 01/25/20:
A group of 19 Chinese scholars also called on the government to do more to regulate the trade and the public to stop eating wild animals.
Source:
The source of which was the Chinese themselves. Here's one of the earliest NYT articles from the emerging pandemic, published 01/25/20:
A group of 19 Chinese scholars also called on the government to do more to regulate the trade and the public to stop eating wild animals.
yes it was a Chinese government organized narrative to deflect blame over a lab **** up.
the lab controversy at this point is more about whether human made modifications were applied afterwards to get SARS-CoV-2 infective for humans, or if it was just a wild strain under analysis there which had already jumped the barrier naturally, but the more time passes the more the lab origin of the outbreak is accepted as reality by more people
yes it was a Chinese government organized narrative to deflect blame over a lab **** up.
the lab controversy at this point is more about whether human made modifications were applied afterwards to get SARS-CoV-2 infective for humans, or if it was just a wild strain under analysis there which had already jumped the barrier naturally, but the more time passes the more the lab origin of the outbreak is accepted as reality by more people
Except the previous SARS outbreak was attributed to the same thing by the Chinese, so your narrative about their narrative is a fabrication. From the same article:
At the peak of the SARS outbreak in 2003, the authorities banned the sale of civets and culled the existing stocks, but within months they ended the ban and trade had resumed as before.
Except the previous SARS outbreak was attributed to the same thing by the Chinese, so your narrative about their narrative is a fabrication. From the same article:
At the peak of the SARS outbreak in 2003, the authorities banned the sale of civets and culled the existing stocks, but within months they ended the ban and trade had resumed as before.
SARS was found in civets, they culled them because they were a reservoir.
afaik they didn't find SARS-CoV-2 (the human-infecting variant) in bats or other animals in wet markets
The source of which was the Chinese themselves. Here's one of the earliest NYT articles from the emerging pandemic, published 01/25/20:
A group of 19 Chinese scholars also called on the government to do more to regulate the trade and the public to stop eating wild animals.
so in order of preference:
not being the epicenter of a once-in-a-century global pandemic (oiacgp)
>
being the natural zoonotic epicenter of an oiacgp
>
manually creating an oiacgp.
in a world where lab leak was true and known by some, diverting blame to a natural cause center would be step 1.
fwiw 19 chinese scholars is proportionally equivalent to 0.08 haitian scholars. if one haitian scholar called on their country's u.s. immigrants to do better and stop eating cats/dogs, would it be 125x more likely that the rumor was true?
-wuhan's BSL-4 lab specializing in bat viruses, including gain of function research to make bat viruses optimally contagious for humans to study worst case pandemic scenarios, happened to be the global epicenter of a new worst-in-at-least-100-years-optimally-contagious bat virus. coincidence!
-the lab had a public internet database of all its sequenced strains of bat viruses, which it took down with no explanation in oct '19 and never restored. coincidence!
-in 2018 peter daszak (uk interloper to a us charity affording him the means to live in the hamptons) spearheads his nonprofit's
ELECTION 2024: i haven't followed this year's campaign closely, but judging from past presidential runs, i don't understand not just spending 3 months campaigning hardcore in the 3-5 most critical swing states that are most likely to decide the election. small towns, big towns, everywhere. would the benefit be offset by alienating the rest of country? i feel like default blue/red voters nationwide would cheer on their candidate going for the jugular in swing states.
The source of which was the Chinese themselves. Here's one of the earliest NYT articles from the emerging pandemic, published 01/25/20:
A group of 19 Chinese scholars also called on the government to do more to regulate the trade and the public to stop eating wild animals.
that article is trash - it treats extreme outliers as if they are standard ie yes there are rat farms and you can eat rat
but even in a major city you'd need to spend a bunch of time research where to find it and even then you'd need to be in the right area
here i am searching for bamboo rat in beijing and surrounding provinces
0 hits
well the south is where all the weird stuff is eaten anyway so let's go to the south then
now we find 4 of them
so it exists, it's there, but again this is literally like having an article talking about how americans are always eating bear meat and snakes and alligators and while technically true and we have all of that available for purchase and eating and millions of dollars of it is sold per year, it's still exceedingly rare and you'd need to really seek it out and via specific places as well
now this isn't to say there are only 4 places with it, but i think the point is very well made
that garbage article treats all that stuff as standard when i've literally never seen any of that
sea worms, jellyfish, organs of pigs and chickens (liver, brain, kidneys, stomache, etc) were fairly common "gross stuff" that we wouldn't eat but as farther as everything else, i literally never saw it
i'd occasionally see a dog meat restaurant if i was near the border of north korea or vietnam but that's mostly because ethnic koreans and vietnamese eat that stuff
so why am i saying all this, because he never says anything other than "19 chinese scientists said please don't eat animals" and doesn't list who they are or what organization etc
and... in a country of thousands of scientists, finding 19 to take an unpopular opinion wouldn't be difficult
for example there are 3.5k licensed architects and engineers in america who will publicly sign their names declaring 9/11 is a hoax
and he's also doing stuff like acting like a tweet with 45 million views is meaningful - that's not in a country with both rampant bot accounts and a billion people who are overwhelmingly all active on social media - my own weibo had thousands of "followers" and i never even used it just made the account and then ignored it, checked in on it years later and had like 36k followers (which were probably 99% bots) so it's incredibly dishonest for him to paint that as a meaningful metric
i'm absolutely appalled that nyt would post that trash
that article is trash - it treats extreme outliers as if they are standard ie yes there are rat farms and you can eat rat
but even in a major city you'd need to spend a bunch of time research where to find it and even then you'd need to be in the right area
here i am searching for bamboo rat in beijing and surrounding provinces
0 hits
well the south is where all the weird stuff is eaten anyway so let's go to the south then
now we find 4 of the
I didn't read much basis in your response to match your outrage with what the article actually got wrong. You seem to be railing against the objective facts it conveys. The actions it described were that of the Chinese government, so it's not just a selective group of scientists that you portray it to be.
so in order of preference:
not being the epicenter of a once-in-a-century global pandemic (oiacgp)
>
being the natural zoonotic epicenter of an oiacgp
>
manually creating an oiacgp.
in a world where lab leak was true and known by some, diverting blame to a natural cause center would be step 1.
fwiw 19 chinese scholars is proportionally equivalent to 0.08 haitian scholars. if one haitian scholar called on their country's u.s. immigrants to do
That all sounds plausible except for the fact the last pandemic from the same region was attributable to the factors the article discusses. And except for the fact that it was very early days in COVID, so to believe the Chinese government had both already determined a lab leak was the cause and they had time to formulate a comprehensive cover story stretches credulity.
The "eating pets" thing isn't the even problem, it's how cavalier the guy is repeating or amplifying whatever he comes across without considering the consequences. A bigger problem still is that he consistently frames things in a way that villainizes migrants, particularly those that tend to be the most politically vulnerable, poor, and darker-skinned.
Are you parsing the difference between racial slurs, xenophobic slurs, and anti-immigrant slurs? I agree that those things are non-identical. I assume that you likewise would agree that they are all kissing cousins.
Do we think that the distinctions are important for the purpose of assessing whether it is hateful to spread apparently false rumors about Haitian immigrants eating cats?
I feel I owe you a response.
A) Yes, I am parsing the difference between those labels. Jumping straight to "that's racist" is getting old.
B) I don't really care about the distinctions when it comes to the cat eating stuff. Doesn't affect me one bit.
The "eating pets" thing isn't the even problem, it's how cavalier the guy is repeating or amplifying whatever he comes across without considering the consequences. A bigger problem still is that he consistently frames things in a way that villainizes migrants, particularly those that tend to be the most politically vulnerable, poor, and darker-skinned.
Yeah, just think how this would have played out pre 2015. "This fat moron just saw something on TV and repeated it in front of millions without even looking into it. That alone disqualifies him from being President". We've got to stop with the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to conservatives. I'm as guilty of this as anyone and since how regular people need to treat conservatives is a common topic on this forum, I'll do much best to start holding them to the same standards I would hold a normal human.
Yeah, just think how this would have played out pre 2015. "This fat moron just saw something on TV and repeated it in front of millions without even looking into it. That alone disqualifies him from being President". We've got to stop with the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to conservatives. I'm as guilty of this as anyone and since how regular people need to treat conservatives is a common topic on this forum, I'll do m
I don't think it was from the TV i think he is being advised by "very online" people about the latest memes.
Which is why he just said that he will deport the immigrants in Springfield *to Venezuela* (a concurrent theme is the purported takeover of private buildings by venezuelan gangs in Colorado, purportedly venezuelan criminals released from prison there to be sent to the USA to wreak havoc).
Keeping up with the latest memes/narratives is quite hard even for perma-online people, he is detached from that but must necessarily be advised by some perma-online person (people claim it's Laura Loomer these days, purportedly the person who prepped him for the debates), so he is bound to get confused and mess up even with the memes major themes.
The "eating pets" thing isn't the even problem, it's how cavalier the guy is repeating or amplifying whatever he comes across without considering the consequences. A bigger problem still is that he consistently frames things in a way that villainizes migrants, particularly those that tend to be the most politically vulnerable, poor, and darker-skinned.
There’s a ton of problems and none of them is THE problem cuz it’s just a bed of nails at this point
1. Trump is an objectively stupid old man with low attention span or focus. ‘I saw it on tv’ should be disqualifying of any presidential candidate, it’s infinitely worse when that guy served as the president for 4 years. People would argue he says these things he knows are false because he knows it would rile up his base, but at this point I don’t think you could convince me he’s not too stupid to actually believe these things which becomes a problem because
2. Trump and his base are a revolving door of misinformation. His base spews bullshit, trump reads it and amplifies it saying ‘did you know this is happening?!?! I saw it on the internets!’ So that same bullshit is fed back to his supporters which is now legitimized cuz a former president and the Godking of the Republican Party is now the one saying it which becomes a problem because
3. Trump supporters can be boiled down to 3 groups. Group 1: trump represents a means to an end therefore they’ll handwave anything he says as ‘you can’t take him literally’ or will argue ‘words don’t matter, policy does’ or ‘ya fine but the real issue is blahblahblah.’ Group 2: trolls who are down for the cause for the lulz (see: PB and mongo as examples). Group 3: unhinged lunatic conspiracy theory nuts who are happy to do a J6 cuz of trump or call in bomb threats to a small town an upend their life cuz someone posted a joke about dog eating on Facebook, or go to a pizza parlor with an AR15, or, and this cannot be stressed enough, have proven to be so dangerous and menacing that people who have offered any pushback like the Arlington thing are so ****ing terrified of the consequences of trump speaking their name out of his mouth and having to live their lives in constant fear or threats and neverending menacing or doxxing that they won’t press charges or demand consequence for his illegality
All in all trump is a cancer that has metastasized into normal society. Defending him, politics be damned, is a sign of amorality
Hear hear!
I don't think it was from the TV i think he is being advised by "very online" people about the latest memes.
His excuse when fact checked on it was that he saw it on TV. No idea if he actually did was lying or just confused on where he saw it. The best case scenario for him is easy to argue against, so I just did that.
