So when MSNBC pioneered the idea of an illegitimate election, and spent 4 years haranguing and indulging in massive conspiracy theories about it, that's not hazardous?
And it's not hazardous when the Washington Post removes an unflattering story about Kamala laughing about prisoners begging for water?
interesting, entertaining the stuff around USO lore though, wouldn't the energy required to navigate around the bottom of the ocean be immense though (more than whatever you calculated)?
I was referring to the comments by Parler's CEO that Amazon, Apple, Google and others banning them or ending service within a narrow window was the result of collusion.
I think it's a combination of avoiding liability and Parler's failing to comply with moderation policies.
People say this but the obvious point is that flu numbers are much lower if not vanishingly small, suggesting people are in fact largely complying with mitigation efforts.
So the only argument I see otherwise is that there's some radical difference in the R number between the viruses such that masks only lower substantially enough for flu and not SARS-CoV-2. But that's a much more specific argument that I don't see being argued much less substantiated and proven.
> flu numbers are much lower if not vanishingly small, suggesting people are in fact largely complying with mitigation efforts
The flu viruses are a different class of virus (rhinovirus) from SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) and could be expected to be affected differently by mitigation efforts. I don't know that the much lower flu numbers tell us that people are wearing masks properly; they could be due simply to social distancing and people staying home. Also, AFAIK there is not significant evidence of transmission of flu by asymptomatic people, whereas there is for COVID-19, so it is easier for people to avoid transmitting flu by self-isolating if they have symptoms.
Discourse is narrower than you'd like; that doesn't mean it's "gone". When someone makes extraordinary claims like "Discourse is gone," that is a red flag that they are not viewing the situation objectively.
The discourse has always been unduly confined. We never discussed whether it was a good thing to slaughter all the Native Americans, and we're not discussing whether all our stupid wars nowadays are good, either. War is off-topic in the USA "discourse". I'm sure other important things about which I'm less concerned are also "unduly" left out.
That's a better starting point for a productive discussion, but still hyperbolic.
Moreover, do you notice that my comment is being grayed out as people who disagree are downvoting it? A lot of people who claim to value discussion really don't; not on Hacker News, and not elsewhere.
Hopefully you realize the hypocrisy of graying out my comment in the name of promoting discourse, but I doubt it.
Ideas should absolutely be judged on their merits; here we agree. Too bad that's not how humans work. Instead, they tend to choose whichever truth they like best based on how it makes them feel; politicians know this, which is why they don't bother crafting logically sound arguments backed with evidence. They play on peoples' emotions.
Moreover, the university is not a public square. You attend as a student, which means you are there to learn, not to share your thoughts like it's a real-life HN thread. Don't want to learn the material? That's completely fine. The solution is to not sign up for the class, not to whine about how "discourse is gone" just because the teacher doesn't want to waste time on every edgy kid's opinions. People didn't pay massive sums of money to hear you talk. They paid to learn from experts.
No food for "the enemy". No air travel. No payment processing for their businesses or political causes they support. You can earn your social credit points back by kowtowing to Xi the Great - wait wrong country.
And it's not hazardous when the Washington Post removes an unflattering story about Kamala laughing about prisoners begging for water?