Comments by "Oblithian" (@Oblithian) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
597
-
230
-
94
-
93
-
74
-
51
-
34
-
31
-
29
-
21
-
@justiceandliberty9724 So you admit he didn't make it great in this last term? What evidence is there that he will this time?
The dude, failed on his campaign promises. The man didn't go his own way, he just adopted the republican plans. He claimed he would hire the best people and "drain the swamp", but has instead fired dozens of people he initially touted as great and later called incompetent (a diligent/competent leader can hire good employees, he has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot.). He even still has people currently working for him who he has recently stated aren't great, and he knowingly hired people who are literally criminals. More importantly for hard working middle class america, he has caused endless problems for farmers and labourers with his illconcieved tarrifs and trade blunders. He didn't give substantial cuts to people who weren't the hard working middle class. He promised not to cut medicare, but would expand it; he instead worked with the attempts by republican congress to do just that. The man hired his kids and their spouses... look at any company, that's not how you get the best people for the job, that's just a hallmark of a poorly run business. Even Henry Ford the second, almost destroyed his father's legacy.
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
@hamishgaffaney5323 Which is weird because he is not at all an 'alpha male', he isn't even traditionally masculine, nor does he have leadership traits. However, he does have some negative traits that lately have been treated as male exlusive traits within certain vocal groups (despite being universal): a guise of competence, narcisism, pride, pettiness, ilmannered, gluttonous, laziness, lacking a sense of responsibility, dishonesty/no accountability.
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
if you don't pay attention and just get all his promises word of mouth he would have sounded like... hmm maybe we should give him a try.
At first I thought "hey, Trump seems like a good choice, he seemed business savy on the apprentice, and isn't supporting any of the Republican positions."
Then after watching him speak, I was like... "this guy is full of crap, and does not seem knowledgeable, professional, or even intelligent. Let alone trustworthy".
Bernie seemed (seems) too extreme, but looking into him more it became clear he is a man of integrity, was capable, and fights for his constituents. So even if I didn't like his policies he would be a better choice. Then Clinton won the primaries and I was like... "shiiiiiiiiiiiiit, well this country is going to eat itself".
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, it is stupid, but in most contexts (ie uses) it is the same as saying "I am not homosexual but...". Followed by something that could draw their sexuality into question unintentionally, not because being gay is bad, but that it maymake things confusing. Which means that the issue would be that merely discussing your sexuality is homophobic... or at least telling someone you are straight is homophobic... Which is over reaching.
Now, if someone outstreached their arm with their palm out and said, "No, homo" then they would be using the term homo, as a slurr. No "homo" in itself is not a slurr, unless it is used in a negative context, otherwise it is merely an abbreviation of a long word, and holds meaning in itself as a prefix. ex:
One may also say, "No homo, please" or "anything but homo" when specifying their milk preferences to someone buying groceries. Context is significant in the english language. If you don't like it, give one word/phrase only one meaning, and replace inflections with a grammatical particle... or something.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jtg1972 it's not even gullibility or stupidity (...entirely anyway), it's largerly polarization. The result of these eye for an eye, stereotypes and straw-man arguments.
Anything anyone says in disagreement (regardless of their affilitation) is automatically defined as the extreme of the (left or right) oposing party, and obviously because all leftists are the extreme "SJW" "Socialist" "libtard" "SoyBoys", and all on the right are the extreme "Neo-Nazi" "Incel" "Misogynists", their opinions don't matter no matter if they agree on 99/100 other issues. In fact, any opinion held by them after that over generalization is applied, is abhorrent and absurd, because any opinion by X terrible thing, must also be terrible.
Anyone can have useful insight once and a while, be they a dunce or a Nazi. It doesn't mean you have to agree with all of their views, it doesn't validate them either. Take the points of commonality and find points of compromise where you can.
You don't have to like an opinion, but even if you disagree with its conclusion, chances are some arguments at least portions of value.
But no, no one wants to question the foundations of their view of reality, and it's easier to shout and call people names.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
David's take on 'cancel culture' is just willfully ignorant at this point. He deliberately creates the biggest strawman for a set of behaviours anyone can see happening, and he himself was subject to. Only this is on a much larger scale.
Fox News' version of 'cancel culture' is also absurd, but I expected better from David Pakman.
When a show is cancelled that is literal cancellation. But to be caused by 'cancel culture' (as people are seeing it done) the fundamental aspect is the concerted effort to tear down someone's life beyond merely their job based on objective performance measures or what is reasonably acceptable. There is a widespread trend of hate mobs trying to exact justice of their verdicts based merely on differences of race, opinion, religion, or association. In otherwords discrimination. It's one thing to say, this person is unprofessional, they shouldn't be working, or they should get training. It's another to say Chris Pratt goes to a church I don't like, I am going to harass and bully him and anyone he likes or associates with and actively campaign that he never work again, and they never work again.
Even for merely not going out of your way to declare support for something a random user requested can be the trigger. It's objectively a thing, it's visible, and it is measureable.
However, neither David nor Fox is reporting on it objectively. Fox is greatly over applying it and using it to suit their political views and false narratives (as Fox does). But in not wanting the appearance of giving them any credibility David is doing the same thing by exaggerating the concept and dismissing the objective truths.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I can tell you right now, if you want a new medical system you should start from a point of greater advancement, one that the bureaucracy is impeding in other countries.
Use expert systems (AI. ...not true AI, you troglodyte. A logic system built using the knowledge of experts in the medical field), as the public facing interface for general (non-emergency) medicine. Doctors are effectively troubleshooting systems. A computer can do that sort of function better than a person, since it will know all possible diagnosis at any moment (and the most up to date research). Doctors have different quality levels and make mistakes (they also may write unnecessary perscriptions for a cut of drug referral), where as an expert system gives everyone top-level care. It can even automate blood tests, do photo referencing, and check vitals. Hell even eye exams (though programming the former is much simpler). It will then give advice, issue non-controlled perscriptions, or escalate issues as necessary to real doctors.
With all that preliminary stuff out of the way it will reduce time doctors spend with patients, improve access, and a provide more consistant level of care. You can even take it a step further and have one tier of caregorization and escalation online in a reliable way (not web MD). Patients can then be directed to the nearest machine or directly to a GP or even a specialist. Again, this will reduce wait times, give 24 hour access, and not impede emergency care.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You have to look at this from the perspective that this is a group of former enemies that are now a part of the country. If you want to assimilate a group you have to make concessions like, giving recognition to the dead and the people who fought for them unless you want an uprising and more conflict. I suspect, most of these things were done/allowed with that in mind.
A few generations down the line it's not going to matter as much, but if you start attacking the group (the regions that were a part of that) you start getting them gathering together against those attacking them. If you start heavily antagonizing people for being the children and grandchildren of _ then you are going to upset them because you're attacking their family (even if their family is deserving of criticism) and chances are, they themselves are not deserving of such vehement attacks. Even outside of the region such significant attacks on moral integrity like calling them racists merely for having a flag on their vehicle (likely because they liked dukes of hazard), they wouldn't be bothered by the label if they didn't think it was wrong to be racist. Now you have an even bigger group that starts to cluster together. The biggest issue now, is for anyone who started out as mainly a bystander to start adopting the more extreme views of those they have been pushed into a corner with. This applies to any group.
Never moving past issues, only causes rise to more. One of the best examples is how hatred of and excessively punishing Germany created a path to WW2. Now in this instance, war seems absurdly unlikely. But any time a person is attacked for something they had no part in, be it a family member, a friend, or an acquaintance, it is discrimination by association.
If the media didn't make a big deal of these things, or the masses didn't start labeling everyone a racist for what started as merely disapproving of vandalism, they probably could have phased a lot of these out without anyone caring (except history buffs, or the odd person who is a kkk member). Should it be phased out for unity, yes. Should it be erased from history? No. If they took statues/flags down and put them into museums, it would probably be amicable. But once you try to ban something you're making a metaphorical martyr of it, and getting upset by long irrelevant symbols, historical figures, etc. Gives those things more power than they should have over you, and more power & recognition to any splinter group that remains.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This time there is no war, no substatiated animosity, and they are children. The argument that they could be spies is not going to fly. Not to mention ease of information sharing (videos, emails, social media). I highly doubt it will go unscruitinized.
Also, 150 supervisors for 5000 children is completely insufficient the average inept "educated" caregiver/teacher can't/won't even catch bullying in a classroom of 20-30. Under those conditions, I would expect violence, crime, murder, possibly even rape occuring (both from abusive adults, and between children) as a result of extreme conditions and insufficient oversight.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Look this situation wasn't handled well esp. by Trump. BUT...
There are consequences to shutting down the country, both monetary, and casualties. I don't have the numbers so I can't say at what point one outweighs the other. However, it is still something we need to consider (the consequences, and deaths both direct and indirect from combatting the virus in this manner). Turning a blind eye is negligent.
How could this kill people well. In the short term it won't kill many but, there will be people becoming homeless as a result of job losses, some won't recover. There are at risk individuals with mental health issues where (we all know, isolation is the worst possible thing for them) and there will be an increase in suicides as a result. Limiting access to healthcare that is independent of the virus treatment, will also cause problems/deaths. Then there's starvation risks. Again, job losses affect the ability to feed ones self as well as shelter. Not only that, not every individual has a kitchen in their dwelling (as sad or absurd as that may be), if restaraunts shut down. They just won't be eating. Not everyone has a nearby grocery store, if they can't take public transit, and restaraunts won't deliver, they may not be eating, or it's still winter and there is then an increased issue of cold related injury, illness, death, and if they are outside all the time commuting for groceries, they're increasing the Covid transmission risk.
So even if people aren't losing their jobs immediately from the virus, a lack of opportunities resulting from the massive economic downturn resulting from the shutdown may mean no-new opportunities for a long time. Which means more opportunity for these issues. It is something that is extremely difficult to measure, but it is still an issue. These things are always a number's game, and failure to plan ahead could potentially cause more harm, than doing nothing. (again it's a possibility, I don't have the numbers and I am not saying we shouldn't take these distancing precautions).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the thing about 'systemic racism' the term was chosen to be impactful, inherently abhorent, and in most cases that's making it out to be more than it is. However, when systemic decisions are intentionally planned to harm a specific group, that is racism flat out. So when someone makes a law trying to supress a vote of a certain population, that is in every situation I can imagine TOTALLY INEXCUSABLE.
However, when you have societal norms, or innocuous decisions which inadvertantly affects one group more than another, that is a systemic problem that may need addressing, but it is not 'racism'. For example, you choose to give away 5 items to the first 5 people to enter your store. They all happen to be caucasian. Do they need to take them away and only give them out to the first person of each colour? Is that more equal? Is that more fair? That just makes the odds of winning dependent upon your skin colour, and that is racist. Now on the otherhand, if you decide to only provide post-secondary education to the highest scoring students but education is a known issue in a... hispanic community. 1) the education issue NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. But until then, that is unjustly favouring more wealthy and other ethnicities of citizens. So, 2) The system needs a way of balancing scores relative to their school of origin. But if the system is working properly there won't be just one ethnicity who is affected by poverty or poor education facilities, and those accomodations will be made for everyone in those situations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are definitely allowing your biases to compromise your ability to objectively evaluate this study.
Based on what you said, those searches are grouped together, not looked at in isolation. What if, they merely compared certain phrases in how the question was asked, perhaps in other parts of the country people asked using different terms.
Yes there are other possible explanations for the correlation, Age, health (last I recalled, obesity was a significant cause of erectile dysfunction), the demographics of rural america have a fairly high rate of both of those. Then there is also a lack of access to doctors the more rural the population (which leads more people to google). Lets say for a moment they do have smaller penises in that area, is there an environmental factor? Is the demographic have significant ancestry from areas with historically smaller genitals? This is a reach, but a possibility, are there more dissatisfied women searching for ways to make their husbands more impressive, due to a inflated perception of what their lives/husbands should be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We're all talking speculation, until someone shows me the numbers of deaths directly caused by the virus, and directly or even likely by the shutdown and restrictions. I can't just say one is 'OBVIOUSLY' more or less significant.
I mean once the annual numbers are released then we could at least get some indication of what's what. (i.e. 2019 vs 2020 less corona virus deaths). If that number is the same, then even if many people died as a result of the steps taken, the number is insubstantial. But if 2019 less (2020 less covid-19 deaths) is greater or even close to equivalent to the number of deaths caused by corona virus, we really need to examine that and find better ways to approach shutdowns.
But at the end of the day, most countries had an appalling response. Not even "not doing enough" but not doing the right things, not taking action fast enough, taking too much action in the wrong way making things worse, fumbling the responses they were doing, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately this really serves to validate both sides. The pro-police who say, people are vilifying individual police officers often undeservedly, and then still expecting the officers to come to their aid. And it gives the anti-police extreme one more justification for their crusade and discrimination against all officers.
Now. I think it's the responsibility of everyone there to get over themselves and recognize something that is going too far, and deal with it appropriately (for the officers it's to do their job no matter what, or quit their job). The same goes for protesters when they were seeing looting, violence, etc.
But at the end of the day, short clips typically manipulate people by only allowing enough information to make your initial judgements. You always have to question what went on before, and after, and if it was orchestrated. Because it seems like everyone wants to be some sensationalist these days, and it's obscuring the real issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's another terrible campaign strategy right now, perhaps it is even worse.
As Brainlet (Shoe0nhead) pointed out, stereotyping, labeling and attacking Sanders' supporters (burnie bros), IS going to make most of them do ANYTHING BUT vote for another democrat candidate, should Sanders lose.
It really ties into and stems from the new trends and culture of labelling to create strawmen and dismiss any oposing argument. But it is foolish, attacking someone doesn't convince them to see your perspective. You see it with Rep/dem, you see it with games, people on twitter who disagree are all made out to be "trolls" (which doesn't even have a solid definition anymore), and you even see it with films of all things. Some are attacking people for not wanting to see a movie, it's ridiculous, a movie isn't owed your money (unless you snuck in to watch it, that's theft). But I digress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think we are reaching a little in what he said. He may be trying to draw association, but he is doing it in a way that's so loose that no rational person would draw any significant merit from it. Like this, "I, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., like Alexander The Great, like Gandhi, and so many other great men... Do in fact deficate, and that's what I am going to do" The action being related isn't defining. What made MLK great was standing up against opression, fighting for rights and respect, not bureaucracy, lots of people do bureaucracy. So yes, it was pointless to mention, and criticsm for it is merited but outrage is a bit much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regardless of the alleged crime, investigate properly, and don't treat them as if they are guilty until proven to be.
Domestic abuse, sexual assault, and rape are very serious crimes, and should be taken seriously. However, they are very emotionally charged crimes to the extent that even readers will lose impartiality. Regardless of how abhorrent the idea of these crimes are, actions should not be taken under an assumption of guilt.
If you want to help, and doubt their innocence observe/investigate and report additional findings to the judge. Guilty or innocent, evidence is what leads to justice. Not harassment, firing, assault, or battery of the accused themselves (That can actually benefit them in court).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1