46th President of the United States, Joe Biden
Discussion
Electro1980 said:
Addiction is prevalent among people with unmanaged or poorly managed bi-polar. Both poor impulse control during phases of mania and self medication make addiction a very high risk.
Agreed. Living with that right now - a friend/colleague is in a very bad way because of it.g3org3y said:
One man's 'conspiracy theory' is another man's alternative viewpoint worthy of discussion. Two years of covid has certainly shown us that things are more complicated than binary black or white, good or bad. Beliefs considered considered 'conspiracy theories' at the start turned out to have a decent amount of truth behind them.
Which ones? And is it not more a case of "a broken clock being right twice a day"?Russell Brand is a prat. The funny thing is that he was labelled a prat by some of the very people who are now lauding him as some kind of "Voice of Reason".
Countdown said:
g3org3y said:
One man's 'conspiracy theory' is another man's alternative viewpoint worthy of discussion. Two years of covid has certainly shown us that things are more complicated than binary black or white, good or bad. Beliefs considered considered 'conspiracy theories' at the start turned out to have a decent amount of truth behind them.
Which ones? And is it not more a case of "a broken clock being right twice a day"?HM-2 said:
g3org3y said:
Russell Brand is 'Right Wing'? Ok.
Obsessed with woke 
Nowhere near as much as many on the left are...............If you've not read them yet I can highly recommend the following............by the following right wing fascists
Cynical Theories. - James Lyndsay & Helen Pluckrose.
The War on the West - Douglas Murray.
The New Puritans - Andrew Doyle.
and....for a laugh, Woke Fragility.
Crackie said:
Nowhere near as much as many on the left are...............Crackie said:
James Lyndsay and Helen Pluckrose
Douglas Murray
Andrew Doyle
So, in turn:Douglas Murray
Andrew Doyle
> An "anti-woke" campaigner and overt homophobe whose greatest call to fame is failing to get noteworthy academic journals to publish nonsense papers, plus another overt "anti-woke" campaigner also involved in Sokal Squared.
> A right-wing journalist and promoter of far-right conspiracy theories such as Great Replacement
> A comedian most famous for running a troll Twitter account satirising identity politics
It's almost like you're just suggesting particular individuals and their publications that happen to align with your own political and ideological views, pandering to a different (and equally toxic) version of IdPol rather than providing any kind of balanced and reasoned assessment
HM-2 said:
Countdown said:
g3org3y said:
One man's 'conspiracy theory' is another man's alternative viewpoint worthy of discussion. Two years of covid has certainly shown us that things are more complicated than binary black or white, good or bad. Beliefs considered considered 'conspiracy theories' at the start turned out to have a decent amount of truth behind them.
Which ones? And is it not more a case of "a broken clock being right twice a day"?- Suppression of alternative points of view re Covid management (i.e scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration). Collins and Fauci leaked email exchange.
- Concerns re population mandatory vaccinations and loss of bodily autonomy (fines +/- job loss or essentially societal exclusion as punishment): See Austria (among others). These have now been scrapped (as it's so ludicrous and not based in any good science).
- Claimed suppression of information from government agencies (CDC etc), turns out that was the case (owing to 'fears' of misinterpretation of the data).
FWIW, I don't buy into any of that WEF/Great Reset stuff that people seem to be getting excited about of late.
g3org3y said:
- The lab leak theory was actively suppressed at the start of the start of the pandemic[/url]
The lab leak theory is no more supported by scientific evidence now than it was at the start of the pandemic. g3org3y said:
- Suppression of alternative points of view re Covid management (i.e scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration)
Not seeing a "conspiracy theory" here. g3org3y said:
- Concerns re population mandatory vaccinations and loss of bodily autonomy
Not seeing a "conspiracy theory" here.g3org3y said:
- Claimed suppression of information from government agencies (CDC etc)
Provided evidence doesn't support the claim made here. HM-2 said:
g3org3y said:
- The lab leak theory was actively suppressed at the start of the start of the pandemic[/url]
The lab leak theory is no more supported by scientific evidence now than it was at the start of the pandemic. g3org3y said:
- Suppression of alternative points of view re Covid management (i.e scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration)
Not seeing a "conspiracy theory" here. g3org3y said:
- Concerns re population mandatory vaccinations and loss of bodily autonomy
Not seeing a "conspiracy theory" here.g3org3y said:
- Claimed suppression of information from government agencies (CDC etc)
Provided evidence doesn't support the claim made here. 2) Conspiracy Theory: Alternative points of view for Covid response were being suppressed. Reality: They were.
3) Conspiracy Theory: Vaccinations will be made mandatory in the population. Reality: Austria did their best.
4) Conspiracy Theory: The government/agencies were withholding information/data about Covid. Reality: They were (see also Scotland).
Anyway, this has gone somewhat OT, at least we've quite reasonably ascertained that Russell Brand is indeed not 'Right Wing' but somewhat of a contrarian with a penchant for conspiracy.
Edited by g3org3y on Thursday 30th June 22:01
HM-2 said:
Catatafish said:
To be fair, you have to prove that Biden's policies did not cause this event in order to justify keeping on about it.
"To be fair", I don't. I'm not making any claim, so there's no burden of proof associated with my comments. Pointing out that there's a complete absence of evidence presented by people who claim his administration are responsible for events, despite being provided multiple opportunities to support these views with evidence, doesn't require me to present evidence that his administration wasn't responsible.
This is really basic stuff and I'm slightly perplexed as to why you seem unable to grasp the difference.
Catatafish said:
I would also like to remind that there is another thread where Brand is slagged off as a hearsayer/propagandist by people posting hearsay/propaganda.
Feeble. Brand is "slagged off" because he perpetuates clear falsehoods purely because they align with the ideological positions he happens to favour right now. There isnt a right answer. Probably the best remark is that there are too many factors in immigration generally to conclude how much any one admistration affects it. For any specific individuals motivation, you dont know for sure unless you are them, and even then, likely to be beyond your control.
I dont care for any recent politicians, but Biden is equally fascinating and disturbing as a zombie placeholder for the anything-but-trump voter. I also despise Trump btw. I am amazed by the every-four-year popularity contest that can only muster up these clown contestants.
Actually, Biden puts out a similar amount of loony content to your fav Brand. I find him irritating so I dont watch, but hes got Biden beat on pronunciation. My opinion is simply dont base your credibility on anything Biden says or does as that slams your credibility down to nothing. Its such an odd hill to die on. I am genuinely intrigued as to what merits going to bat for him? trying to troll the so called MAGA mob, contrarianism?
Something genuinely useful would be a thread with a table of which Brand videos are actually debunked independently. The last one I saw he was just reading out stats from the pfizer data, which was widely discussed and matches accounts from diverse, "proper" outlets.
So at least one has a real factual basis, therefore its illogical to me to blanket dismiss everything he has put out, just because hes irritating, or you disagree on one point out of the billions of issues. He's just one blip on the map of thousands of content parrotters/forwarders that have replaced actual journalism. The messager is unimportant.
But then again, this thread isnt about Brand...
Back on topic -
Whats Biden said now? I thought he said he had never talked to Hunter about China business???
Sadly, I think he will have actually forgotten a lot from his past. Where does a lie fall on the immoral scale if you forgot what you did and said?
HM-2 said:
Crackie said:
Nowhere near as much as many on the left are...............Crackie said:
James Lyndsay and Helen Pluckrose
Douglas Murray
Andrew Doyle
So, in turn:Douglas Murray
Andrew Doyle
> An "anti-woke" campaigner and overt homophobe whose greatest call to fame is failing to get noteworthy academic journals to publish nonsense papers, plus another overt "anti-woke" campaigner also involved in Sokal Squared.
> A right-wing journalist and promoter of far-right conspiracy theories such as Great Replacement
> A comedian most famous for running a troll Twitter account satirising identity politics
It's almost like you're just suggesting particular individuals and their publications that happen to align with your own political and ideological views, pandering to a different (and equally toxic) version of IdPol rather than providing any kind of balanced and reasoned assessment
t crazy Titania apologists, loons who believe that cultural appropriation is a thing and people who use the term Nazi when describing Russel Brand at the other.I think most are woke in it's original form of 'being alert to injustice' ...............unfortunately, as is often the case, noble & worthy causes are deliberately targeted & hijacked by extremists for use as a Trojan horse to further political agendas. Thankfully society, from all sides of the political spectrum, is now alert to these tactics and an increasing number are speaking out against this deliberately divisive behaviour. Hopefully this will begin to redress the severe political imbalance within the US education systems.
Re The grievance studies papers. Lyndsay, Pluckrose and Boghassian submitted 20 deliberately absurd 'woke' papers to see just how crazy it was possible to make a critical theory and still have it accepted by the academic left; at the time that their hoax was revealed 4 had already been published, 3 more had been approved for publication and a further 7 were still awaiting peer review. Only had been rejected.
Catatafish said:
Ok so you can't support your "argument" aka opinion in any way.
What "argument" do you think I've made? Where?Catatafish said:
Actually, Biden puts out a similar amount of loony content to your fav Brand.
Holy red herring, batman!Catatafish said:
So at least one has a real factual basis
"Someone said something that was factual, therefore everything they say must be factual". You must be joking.Crackie said:
Woke is a spectrum, it clearly means different things to different people
If people can't even agree on what they're objecting to, it's a strong indicator that it's baloney. Crackie said:
I think most are woke in it's original form of 'being alert to injustice' ...............unfortunately, as is often the case, noble & worthy causes are deliberately targeted & hijacked by extremists for use as a Trojan horse to further political agendas.
I have no doubt that fringe cases of this taking place, but I see no evidence to indicate its is anywhere near as prevalence as those who like to bleat on about it make out. In fact, I would argue that what was, a couple of years ago, a reasonable objection to a problematic bur relatively rare set of occurrences has now become a pejorative accusation used to shut down ideological opposition from anyone more small-L-liberal than the accuser, and to prevent criticism of some of the truly objectionable views that many of the people (including some of those you've cited) hold. Crackie said:
Re The grievance studies papers. Lyndsay, Pluckrose and Boghassian submitted 20 deliberately absurd 'woke' papers to see just how crazy it was possible to make a critical theory and still have it accepted by the academic left
The main thing that the Grievance Studies affair actually indicated is that small, irrelevant fringe journals have poor quality assurance and peer review processes, which is exactly what everyone whose ever done any work in an academic environment already knew. Crackie said:
Woke is a spectrum, it clearly means different things to different people
HM-2 said:
If people can't even agree on what they're objecting to, it's a strong indicator that it's baloney.
Not sure if serious.People who are at the sensible end of the woke spectrum come in for no criticism at all; they are good people...........why would anyone be criticised for being aware of, and hopefully trying to reduce, social injustice. The people being criticised are the loons who suggest there is such a thing as cultural appropriation, the idiots who tear down statues, the clowns who want to decolonise the curriculum and the cancel culture/de-platforming / compelled speech / critical pedagogy nutters.
Crackie said:
I think most are woke in it's original form of 'being alert to injustice' ...............unfortunately, as is often the case, noble & worthy causes are deliberately targeted & hijacked by extremists for use as a Trojan horse to further political agendas.
HM-2 said:
I have no doubt that fringe cases of this taking place, but I see no evidence to indicate its is anywhere near as prevalence as those who like to bleat on about it make out. In fact, I would argue that what was, a couple of years ago, a reasonable objection to a problematic bur relatively rare set of occurrences has now become a pejorative accusation used to shut down ideological opposition from anyone more small-L-liberal than the accuser, and to prevent criticism of some of the truly objectionable views that many of the people (including some of those you've cited) hold.
Cardiff and Klien's study into the political affiliations of professors teaching in the US found the ratio of Democrats to Republicans, across all subjects was 5 to 1. In Sociology, it was 44 to 1. Diversity in all things.............except the political views of the nations educators.
You mention objectionable views.................indoctrinating impressionable young minds is one of the most objectionable things a human can do. It's Sunday school brainwashing for the modern age.
Crackie said:
Re The grievance studies papers. Lyndsay, Pluckrose and Boghassian submitted 20 deliberately absurd 'woke' papers to see just how crazy it was possible to make a critical theory and still have it accepted by the academic left
HM-2 said:
The main thing that the Grievance Studies affair actually indicated is that small, irrelevant fringe journals have poor quality assurance and peer review processes, which is exactly what everyone whose ever done any work in an academic environment already knew.
Wow, that is what you took from the grievance studies affair...........critical theory is now dominating education in the states. The people who defend this pernicious and dangerous ideological theory are political extremists.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWJQ3jWjOG0
Edited by Crackie on Thursday 30th June 18:17
Crackie said:
People who are at the sensible end of the woke spectrum come in for no criticism at all; they are good people
Entirely incorrect. The "war on woke" is an ideological phenomenon which- these days, at least- doesn't discern between reasonable and rational critique and feverish IdPol. You only need to read the perspectives of some of the very people you've cited as authorities on the subject in this exchange to see there's actually no distinction in what they consider to be "woke". Criticise Douglas Murray for being the overt Islamophobe and proponent of white supremacist conspiracy theories that he is, and ridiculing his overt perpetuation of his own variety of identity politics based on a twisted reinterpretation of "cultural Marxism", and you're "woke" and therefore the enemy.
Crackie said:
Cardiff and Klien's study into the political affiliations of professors teaching in the US found the ratio of Democrats to Republicans, across all subjects was 5 to 1
This is is an absurd non sequitur, so flawed on so many levels I barely know where to begin.Are you assuming that just because individuals employed in particular jobs tend to hold certain political views, these views must translate into their vocation? The US armed forces and law enforcement have tended to lean Republican between 2-1 and 3-1, and yet I don't see anyone making the claim that this huge ideological gulf somehow influences their actions.
How much influence do teachers have in the curriculum? Generally, very little, so why does their political affiliation matter?
Are all Democrat voters "objectionable"? Do all Democrats embrace "woke"? That's what you're overtly claiming here. Care to back it with evidence?
Have you considered the fact- and it is a fact- that the reason academia is proportionally overpopulated by Democrat leaning voters largely because Democrats tend, on average, to have higher levels of education and therefore, even assuming there were equal numbers of Democrat and Republican there would be substantially more Democrats sufficiently educated to qualify as teachers?
That Republicans don't give a s
t about many of the disciplines on this list is hardly a secret, why do you assume Republican voters would want to teach them?It's baffling.
Crackie said:
You mention objectionable views.
You seem to be suggesting that all Democrat teachers have objectionable views here.Either that, or the first part of this post is utterly irrelevant to the second.
Crackie said:
Wow, that is what you took from the grievance studies affair
Yes, because that's all it served to demonstrate. It's not exactly a coincidence that the only journals that accepted falsified papers were those serving particular fringes of the academic community. The core argument being made by those who participated in the study- that academia as a whole is corrupt and biased in support of postmodernist philosophy and critical race theory- is, if one actually employs the scientific method, one not supported by the evidence.Crackie said:
critical theory is now dominating education in the states.
Maybe if you subscribe to the meandering ravings of lunatics like Chris Rufo- a man who believes that all public school educators are sex abusers- but in the cold light of reality...no.Seriously...this whole McCarthyist thesis about the scary domination of "critical race theory" is literally the creation of one right wing reactionary. One.
Edited by HM-2 on Thursday 30th June 21:41
g3org3y said:
1) Lab leak was actively suppressed as a 'misinformation' conspiracy theory in the early stages of the pandemic. It's now considered a very reasonable theory. Whether we'll ever get to the truth is very unlikely (because China)..
The trouble with the lab leak theory is there are actually 2 lab leak theory’sEdited by g3org3y on Thursday 30th June 22:01
1) an accidental transmission of a COVID virus sampled from a wild bat population,
2) the accidental or deliberate release of a genetically engineered virus.
When scientists and doctors talk about lab leak they generally mean 1, which is plausible although there is a lack of evidence for or against.
When a conspiracy loon talk about lab leak they generally mean 2, despite the fact that COVID has none of the characteristics or markers of genetic engineering.
So no, COVD wasn’t engineered by the Chinese then released by Biden to make Trump look stupid / force vaccination/ destroy the hospitality industry (delete as appropriate).
MBBlat said:
g3org3y said:
1) Lab leak was actively suppressed as a 'misinformation' conspiracy theory in the early stages of the pandemic. It's now considered a very reasonable theory. Whether we'll ever get to the truth is very unlikely (because China)..
The trouble with the lab leak theory is there are actually 2 lab leak theory’sEdited by g3org3y on Thursday 30th June 22:01
1) an accidental transmission of a COVID virus sampled from a wild bat population,
2) the accidental or deliberate release of a genetically engineered virus.
When scientists and doctors talk about lab leak they generally mean 1, which is plausible although there is a lack of evidence for or against.
When a conspiracy loon talk about lab leak they generally mean 2, despite the fact that COVID has none of the characteristics or markers of genetic engineering.
So no, COVD wasn’t engineered by the Chinese then released by Biden to make Trump look stupid / force vaccination/ destroy the hospitality industry (delete as appropriate).
If it is, then fair enough. Flukes do happen.
Genuinely happy to be corrected on this, but I thought they still haven't found the origin of the virus in the animals around Wuhan?
(ETA: I'm not saying I think it was on purpose. I'm saying it all looks to me like a normal (but large) human cock-up)
Edited by SpeckledJim on Friday 1st July 00:53
SpeckledJim said:
It's just a fluke that Wuhan has a lab working on this type of Corona virus and almost every other city in the world doesn't have a lab working on Corona viruses?
Wuhan is the eighth or ninth largest city in China, and a national centre for scientific research, so it's not especially surprising that China's premier virology institute is located there. Coronaviruses have been of particular interest to China since SARS so, again, it's not exactly strange they're a focus of research. It's entirely within the realms of possibility that it's mere happenstance, but people do like to infer patterns from loose correlation in the absence of any causal relationship.A lab leak is hypothetically possible, yes, but not supported by either scientific or even really circumstantial evidence. Many of the claims made that are purported to support the argument that some sort of lab incident and lockdown was taking place during around the time Covid-19 first appeared (such as planned conferences and events at WIV being cancelled) have subsequently been proven untrue.
SpeckledJim said:
Genuinely happy to be corrected on this, but I thought they still haven't found the origin of the virus in the animals around Wuhan?
There were a trio of separate studies released back in February that affirmed with high confidence the initial source of the Covid-19 outbreak amongst humans was geographically located at Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Now the carrier animal is still unknown at this point (and may never be known) and these studies theoretically don't preclude the possibility that the market was the centre of transmission from an infected human rather than an animal, but no scientific evidence has been identified of any transmission taking place before that identified as stemming from the seafood market.
Edited by HM-2 on Friday 1st July 08:03
getting back to Biden. His investigation into Covid wasn't able to uncover a great deal.
"Critical information about the origins of this pandemic exists in the People’s Republic of China, yet from the beginning, government officials in China have worked to prevent international investigators and members of the global public health community from accessing it. To this day, the PRC continues to reject calls for transparency and withhold information, even as the toll of this pandemic continue to rise. "
Joe Biden, 27th August 2021
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statement...
HM-2 said:
SpeckledJim said:
It's just a fluke that Wuhan has a lab working on this type of Corona virus and almost every other city in the world doesn't have a lab working on Corona viruses?
Wuhan is the eighth or ninth largest city in China, and a national centre for scientific research, so it's not especially surprising that China's premier virology institute is located there. Coronaviruses have been of particular interest to China since SARS so, again, it's not exactly strange they're a focus of research. It's entirely within the realms of possibility that it's mere happenstance, but people do like to infer patterns from loose correlation in the absence of any causal relationship.A lab leak is hypothetically possible, yes, but not supported by either scientific or even really circumstantial evidence. Many of the claims made that are purported to support the argument that some sort of lab incident and lockdown was taking place during around the time Covid-19 first appeared (such as planned conferences and events at WIV being cancelled) have subsequently been proven untrue.
SpeckledJim said:
Genuinely happy to be corrected on this, but I thought they still haven't found the origin of the virus in the animals around Wuhan?
There were a trio of separate studies released back in February that affirmed with high confidence the initial source of the Covid-19 outbreak amongst humans was geographically located at Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Now the carrier animal is still unknown at this point (and may never be known) and these studies theoretically don't preclude the possibility that the market was the centre of transmission from an infected human rather than an animal, but no scientific evidence has been identified of any transmission taking place before that identified as stemming from the seafood market.
Edited by HM-2 on Friday 1st July 08:03
Anyway, take each scenario in turn and run it through the story and one fits almost perfectly and with the other you're left asking 'why would they do that?' a lot. This proves nothing, of course, but it should affect the confidence. I'd be less inclined to be as defensive of natural zoonotic origin [ie no lab involvement at all] in the absence of any hard evidence. Just my opinion man.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff