Political correctness keeps finding new old, trivial things to retroactively demonize as "racist." At this rate, because one person maybe offended somewhere, all art must be destroyed, and making or possessing art will be punishable by death. "No singing either! Burn the racist heretic!" Has anyone ever surveyed actual gypsies to ask them if they find art in a card game fictional universe to negatively portray them?
Meanwhile, what are the same busybody zealots doing about grotesque socioeconomic apartheid (including criminal justice, disproportionately incarcerating precious minority brothers and sisters for a little weed), neocolonial pan-militarism, inverted totalitarian klepto-plutocracy corruption of democracies by rent-seeking, feudal billionaires, or the origins and prevalence of all types of mass shootings in the US? No, the Redskins need to change their name right now because reasons. [0]
People need to take a stand to reinforce that the social contract is implicit and doesn't need someone else's arbitrary Code of Conduct pseudo-legalese foisted onto every group or else you're somehow signaling that you're a terrible bigot because you don't do what others demand immediately. Oh, and apologize now, tomorrow, and the day after.. and defenestrate your worthless self properly or else!
I don't think it's about a single person being wildly offended or something, rather it's an internal decision by WOTC to about remove unnecessary references to what are easily taken as or explicitly are hateful depictions of groups of people. I don't think this is really any different than removing Confederate statues from public venues.
I'm not entirely convinced that these highly-debatable "micro-aggression" corporate PR articles coming out are written in good faith. There is obvious, systemic aggression occurring. Articles like these seem to be planted to create comments like yours, which detract from the real issue at hand.
Definitely. I need something different because I have some sort of treatment-resistant major depression that cannot be addressed with anything but medication, regardless of life circumstances, mood, health, or exercise. Although I'm not all that keen on psychedelics and disassociatives, I've tried at least 13 antidepressants and only 1 of them has done anything. The only one that's worked has been mirtazapine* with the caveats of partial GI paralysis and major weight gain. I was on it for 9 years. I tried others as my cognitive faculties and alertness have been declining over the past 2 years.
* Which is also a powerful antihistamine.
I'm beginning to wonder about the medical establishment's depth of understanding and nuance on treatment of serious depression and inability to address so-called treatment-resistant depression. For example, genetics, inflammation, auto-immune issues, diet, GI flora, and other factors that don't seem to be considered clinically. And then there's psychiatry, which is one of the few "medical professions" that doesn't directly test or examine the organ or systems they claim to treat. Psychiatry in particular seems unscientific, arbitrary, and crude.
I don't think there's any panacea, even shrooms, ketamine, or LSD, but the neuropharmacological field has a long way to go and depression is only going to become more commonplace.
> Although I'm not all that keen on psychedelics and disassociatives, I've tried at least 13 antidepressants and only 1 of them has done anything. The only one that's worked has been mirtazapine* with the caveats of partial GI paralysis and major weight gain. I was on it for 9 years. I tried others as my cognitive faculties and alertness have been declining over the past 2 years.
I’m also on mirtazapine and have been for a few years. It’s the first antidepressant I tried and the doc choose it because I also have insomnia and anxiety. It’s worked well for all three conditions so I’m happy with it. Are you saying you thought it was causing cognitive decline and that’s why you tried others? Wondering if it’s something I should look out for. I can understand the concern because
diphenhydramine has been associated with dementia, and it’s an antihistamine like mirtazapine. However, I read that the anticholinergic property of diphenhydramine was thought to be implicated here, and mirtazapine is not anticholinergic.
I actually used diphenhydramine nightly as a sleep aid for a few years while I was in college until a doctor told me to stop, long before I ever talked to a psychiatrist. Oops. It’s probably not a coincidence I ended up on mirtazapine.
Anecdotal. Demand on particular goods and services has shifted, but is overall net down. And whenever there is a threat of recession, large corporations scale back investment, jobs, purchases, and manufacturing.
The 1968 pandemic was roughly as bad the 1958 one. What's interesting is that there was either little/no surveillance in the US or there may have been censorship about it until after it was almost over, because it wasn't widely-reported when hospitals were overflowing and turning-away patients. It also caused severe delirium much like SARS2. I would wager there were asymptomatic carriers of it: my mom said she was bed-ridden with it while my grandparents didn't seem to get sick.
I'd love to see someone actually dispatch with Michael Levitt's work - as time goes by his claim that the disease spread of an isolated outbreak is never exponential seems to hold up. It's confounding that Japan seems to have limited the disease spread just by doing simple avoidance and hygiene measures. I pretty much discount people who seem to think we've got this figured out (the establishment and experts have been next to useless).
It looks to me as if it went back to exponential as of May-ish. Because while it slowed in places that did lock down, it got going in the places that were not locked down. Italy and NY are out, Brazil and Texas are in. Am I missing something?
I'm saying that isolated outbreak locations themselves don't seem to be accelerating exponentially. As though there's something outside mitigation measures that's slowing spread. Obviously if you aggregate the entire US, the curve will look like it's plateauing.
"isolated outbreak locations themselves don't seem to be accelerating exponentially"
I don't understand what this means. Different locations are different. Specific areas are plateauing or accelerating, there is a divergence, and the result is that overall, the epidemic is accelerating again but at the same time, the location of the growth has rapidly shifted.
You may assume it's causally unrelated to lockdowns if you like, but the growth has shifted away from the developed cosmopolitan countries and states that locked everything down to the populous, not so developed countries that could not or would not lock down and initially seemed to be doing better, and this has already happened before the reopening of the original group has really picked up steam. The wave is already surging before we even get to the effect of reopening the economy fully in western Europe and the US.
Meaning localities that have an outbreak follow a progression. If someone goes from one city to the next and carries disease, they're effectively seeding a new outbreak. By the logic you're saying, we're all just Chinese case numbers? It'd help to watch the video, cause I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying.
I'm saying that, for instance, China, Brazil, and the US didn't follow the same trajectory and continue to be different. And because of the diversity in trajectories (for whatever reason, as people continue to speculate) the location of the majority of new cases has kept changing.
Your first sentence sounds like you are claiming there is a uniformity that to me obviously doesn't exist.
I feel like people latch onto something that confirms their prejudices and then studiously avoid acknowledging current events that rapidly show it to be an error. Like, lots of poorer countries had much fewer cases per capita than western Europe and the US, but now the new cases are shifting to India, Pakistan, etc.
Actually maybe this is the best way to explain (especially on this site) - imagine the possibility of a spread with an extremely high initial first derivative of the number of cases, with a constant negative second derivative. I think there's a good chance this could be at least more accurate than what's commonly thought compared to all of these very severe exponential models.
- Apple doesn't volunteer device unlocking to the government. Why would they help them reach into random people's phones to disable their cameras? This sounds like a pizzagate conspiracy theory.
- Apple patents everything they possibly can, even if they never intend to use it and for a variety of reasons.
- Cell phone jamming would be unsafe.
- Phones with cameras will still take pictures with cell, wifi, and bluetooth turned off.
- There's nothing preventing people from taking pictures using the previous method of whatever was happening, or supposedly happening, and then posting them later.
Something else happened like a stinger MITM blocking certain sites, cell tower issues/overload, or it's a fabrication.
This is such a stupid assertion and attempt to control others. The world isn't going to sanitize every terminology word because you say so. Get a grip.
You're erroneously conflating two different uses of the same word. It means both things, but control-freak SJWs don't get to sanitize every meaning of every word.
The problem with this is it's another signal of "we're above the law and special." In California, non-federal government plates, including local police, are all numeric regular plates but without registration stickers. Maybe California government plates should pay registration if not to be consistent too.
Meanwhile, what are the same busybody zealots doing about grotesque socioeconomic apartheid (including criminal justice, disproportionately incarcerating precious minority brothers and sisters for a little weed), neocolonial pan-militarism, inverted totalitarian klepto-plutocracy corruption of democracies by rent-seeking, feudal billionaires, or the origins and prevalence of all types of mass shootings in the US? No, the Redskins need to change their name right now because reasons. [0]
People need to take a stand to reinforce that the social contract is implicit and doesn't need someone else's arbitrary Code of Conduct pseudo-legalese foisted onto every group or else you're somehow signaling that you're a terrible bigot because you don't do what others demand immediately. Oh, and apologize now, tomorrow, and the day after.. and defenestrate your worthless self properly or else!
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contr...