Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
51
-
15
-
14
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Sure @greenteadisease . The first problem is that you didn't actually link to any papers. Instead you c&p a snippet from Wikipedia (or some other text) then dropped in some of their references with the links removed. That makes actually reading the references much more difficult, especially on mobile.
Once one actually gets to the papers you find out that they either have very little, if anything, to do with Atrazine or they are statistically irrelevant with critically low numbers of participants. Some are even both with one paper enrolling just 3 child participants, none of which were exposed to atrazine nor was any information relevant to atrazine involved.
The text is bias, it had a foregone conclusion then set about trying to find papers to try and make it seem more legitimate than it actually is.
The reality is, we simply do not know what, if any, effects atrazine has on the human endocrine system. That knowledge gap caused Atrazine to be banned in the EU, because in the EU if you don't know then it's scary and needs to be banned.
But in other countries such as the USA, that knowledge gap has caused a more reasonable response with RUP status being implemented meaning those using the product have to wear serious PPE. Testing has also focused on the amount making it into food stuffs, which as I previously mentioned is so small as to be near nonexistent.
That humans aren't exposed to atrazine makes any even unknown side effects to exposure irrelevant.
2
-
Actually, DNA evidence is also as unreliable as fingerprints. The NAS has a whole report dedicated on why DNA evidence is also junk science.
The reason this stuff is admissible is simple. Lawyers and judges aren't scientists and often aren't scientifically literate. The job of prosecutors and police is to close cases. Higher the profile of a case, the more pressure there is to close it. Police aren't special magic people that can see into the past, they don't know who did a thing anymore than anyone else does. But they have to close cases or they get in trouble and eventually lose their job.
So with the expectation of cases where the perp isn't obvious and clear to the casual observer, they just throw shit against the wall until they believe something has stuck enough to get a conviction. Actual guilt is irrelevant, it's all about closing cases.
Or it goes the opposite direction and they become emotionally involved in the outcome and develop tunnel vision for someone they want to be the perp. Again, actual guilt is irrelevant they feel they're guilty therefore they are and the case becomes about reverse engineering evidence to prove themselves right.
But mostly it's because of the social outcome. If you told people the truth, you know what, all these things we call evidence are actually bullshit. We've actually got nothing, we don't actually know who murdered those girls or robbed that store or whatever and actually we have no way to find out either.... If they came out and said, hey you know want we don't know what's going on anymore that you do, you think anyone is feeling safe day to day? That society functions after that? That people keep their jobs or politicians stay in power? Of course not.
Most people in the back of their head know this stuff has to be bullshit. It only takes slightly more than a passing thought on it to realise just how crazy these claims are. But people believe them, because they want to believe, they want to lie to themselves that we can somehow make society safe. That we can make life "fair" and there are consequences to people who break the rules. But if the lie were true, none of the people in power right now would be in power. They'd all be in jail.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you have to have armed guards at your schools to keep the children inside safe, you have utterly failed as a society.
No, the mass shootings didn't start with the columbine shooting. There were 6 other mass shootings in the USA the same year as Columbine, 3 of which happened before columbine.
No 2019 didn't see fewer gun deaths than previous years. 2019 had the highest number of mass shooting incidents on record, and killed the most amount of people.
Dan is factually incorrect on those two points and they're the two points from which everything else he says flows.
The reality is mass shootings in the USA started taking off in the 1960s. Before 1960 there was 2 or fewer mass shootings in the USA per year (outside of civil war). Most years prior to 1960 had no mass shootings.
Then in 1960 suddenly you start to see the rise of both the serial killer and of the mass shooter. The 1960s also saw massive social upheaval and cultural change, it isn't a coincidence that as community engagement went down, murders went up.
The problem in the USA isn't guns. The problem is the level of indifference towards the lives of others that exists. With anonymity comes dehumanism and risk, that is if society strips you of identity so you become just another number is a sea of other numbers it starts to not matter to people if you live or die.
It's a tactic used in every dictatorship to have ever existed. By robbing you of your identity you become objectified and people don't care about your death. But more importantly, they also don't care as much about taking your life themselves.
There is no real accountability because you don't know that person. You don't know their family. You didn't grow up together. Your parents aren't friends or acquaintances. So there's no direct accountability, no real sense of bringing shame or dishonor in taking a life.
This is where the USA finds itself today. If you then add on top of that people who are experiencing psychosis from drugs, people who are mentally ill, people who are disenfranchised from society (especially youth who lack the ability to fully comprehend consequence), people in desperate economic circumstances, sexually frustrated youth, and you then not only normalise but glorify violence to them through news media, political discourse, film/television, games, advertising and give them easy access to guns...
Christ under those circumstances you'd be more surprised to not find mass shootings.
The reason there is no "this is the solution" being put forward by anyone is in part because no one talking in the debate really understands the problem. But it's also because there is no one solution because it's not just one problem. It's a concert of problems that are all interacting in complex ways to deliver a specific end result. But each of those problems has a different solution attached.
Why not start though with legislation designed to encourage media and politicians to promote a sense of unity and community. Start by mitigation of the dehumanisation of society. Instead of putting armed guards in schools, enforce uniforms and give every* child a badge that says their name and something about them. It's much harder to kill someone if you're forced in the moment to think of them as having parents, a family who love them. A person with their own agency who likes and dislikes things, who has a life just like you. It might sound dorky, but it is a meaningful mitigation technique that is used in the frontline service industry around the world to reduce abuse and has been demonstrated to work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cutting threw Joes bullshit, it comes down to this. All policy decisions have to be set for the lowest common denominator. So if, as Joe admits there's a whole segment of people who don't deal well with cannabis, who do become less productive, who do become a drain on society, who do have chronic aggression problems as a result, who do have cannabis induced mental health problems, and regardless of what nonsense Joe wants to believe DIE as a result of cannabis use, then the policy has to be set for those people.
If Joe feels it doesn't effect him the same way, great. But we're not setting policy for him. We're setting policy for all the people who do badly with it.
The policy for alcohol is set the same way, as is the policy for literally any other thing. Some people never drive their cars above 30mph and wouldn't be seriously injured if they weren't wearing a seatbelt in such a low speed accident. But policy isn't set for those people, it's set for the people who drive fast and die if they aren't wearing one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Plenty of men watch Law & Order, as well as it's spin offs. It's why the female partner is always an attractive, girl next door type. Law & Order is actually a show for couples. It's something bland where both genders can watch it equally.
Law & Order and it's spin offs attempt to mimic reality in a controlled way. Sometimes the outcome of a case is never established. Sometimes it seems they got it wrong. In every episode some bumbling cops who have no idea what they're doing or how to tackle the case just start throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. They try to pin it on everyone that crosses their path, then they fail, some time passes, they try to pin it on someone else, they fail, some time passes, they try to pin it on someone else and this person doesn't have the resources to get out of it. Whether they're actually guilty is irrelevant, it's just about closing the case and putting someones name to it. That's how real cops operate too.
Shows like CSI, NCIS, Castle, reacher and others where the criminal is always caught are actually propaganda campaigns. They exist to change behaviour, which is why they often get preferential treatment in terms of permits and government grant funding. They target a family audience. If all you see on TV in regards to crime are shows where police always catch the person who did it then you inevitably make two assumptions
1. Police are competent at their jobs, and always catch criminals. This makes you feel safer and in turn become more productive.
2. It's pointless trying to commit a crime because you are only going to be caught. Studies have literally shown that when these kinds of crime shows are popular, instance of crime goes down...by a lot.
Crime shows built for women specifically are "who done its". Women like to imagine they are very good are puzzles and deduction, so they tend to enjoy crime mysteries where they can try and figure out who did it before the show tells them. Shows like Murder She Wrote, Veronica Mars, Nancy Drew, Mrs Marple, etc...
A western is called a western because it is set in the american western frontier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1