Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1. RZA ignores that the only reason Napster was able to steal from the music industry was because the industry was a bloated, corrupt monster that had grown fat stealing from their customers and artists. The RIAA was an oligopoly engaging in price fixing and collusion. In 1997 Tower Records was selling 2pac's Hail Mary single for $13 (1997 dollars). Multiple artists (including Wutang) put out double CDs to instantly double their revenue without actually having enough good material to fill the record. Recording contracts were charging artists completely fraudulent fees like "Breakage Clauses" on contracts that were already incredibly predatory and exploitative (eg: Artists were seeing pennies off a CD sold for $20+, but then forced to pay all production costs and bullshit fees from their penny stake.) This is why artists like TLC could go multiple times platinum & multiple globally iconic hits while simultaneously going bankrupt. All of this would have been illegal, but the only thing the RIAA didn't skimp on was investing in lawyers, lobbyists and bribery in order to cement their position of power. Napster would not have made a dent in their business if: 1) Prices were set anywhere near the real fair price for the product. 2) The industry used its massive revenue to invest in improving the customer experience by developing innovative music delivery technology (I mean fuck they should've been the ones to invent Napster) 3) Customers perceived illegal downloads as actually stealing from the artists, rather than from the bloated bureaucracy between them. Honestly, stealing Jeru the Damaja's entire music catalog and sending him $1 in the mail would've been a lot more generous than actually buying all his albums. RZA doesn't care because Wutang started from such humble beginnings and became so wildly successful that he can overlook the fact that 98% of his money early on was stolen by his bosses. But he needs to shut the fuck up about illegal downloads.
    1100
  2. Smith was unhurt. The intruder left bleeding heavily with multiple contusions & was hospitalized after for brain swelling. CJ Ross scored the bout for the intruder. Cecil Peoples called it a draw. The third judge asked for an extension because he didn't understand the assignment. This is who we are.
    416
  3.  @Laocoon283  100% not true. Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you. Netflix is successful despite the fact that i can literally go to duckduckgo and find any movie streaming for free within the top 3 results. When Weezy's new album dropped i listened to it on Spotify despite the fact that it was widely available on bittorrent and i already had utorrent installed on my PC. Even before Napster, tape decks allowed you to get music for free from your friends. The industry didn't fail. Nothing is free. Limewire, kazaa & napster were expensive in terms of time investment because you'd frequently get corrupt versions of the song, mislabeled copies, viruses, etc. And the product offered was inferior. Time is not free. Furthermore, breaking the law is not free, and even though the risk of getting caught is negligible, it still creates marginal stress and occupies a bit of thought. The problem is that the only official alternative was ridiculously overpriced, produced in a very restrictive format (CDs), and sold to you by blatant white collar criminals.
    149
  4.  @lachyt5247  Hmm.. yeah I don't think so. $100 million dwarfs all those petty complaints. Joe's getting older and can see the end on the horizon. He's not passing on cash to be hero to a bunch of broke internet douchebags for the next few years.
    43
  5.  @AnApplesLegend  exactly. This seemed pretty clear.
    28
  6.  @Laocoon283  1) Yes. There's a percentage of the population that will always steal regardless. That's always been a given. These are not your target consumers, and never were. 2) The 'fair price' is the price that would prevail had the RIAA not engaged in illegal price fixing and used their monopoly (oligopoly) power to artificially inflate profits.
    24
  7.  @andymeh499  seriously right? Even the branding seems cool.
    21
  8.  Nerdy old white Guy  Napster was shut down. It was illegal bc Napster was hosting the content on their own servers. We're using 'Napster' as shorthand for all the imitators that emerged right after (kazaa, emule, limewire, a revamped Napster, etc.) that improved on the model by facilitating sharing without hosting the material on their own servers. Since they were not hosting the actual material, the idea was that they were simply a medium for communication, and therefore not liable. Similar to like if you sell drugs over the phone, they can't arrest the phone company. This is at least the argument p2p companies were making at the time. The new imitators also frequently set up shop overseas in foreign jurisdictions making it difficult (but not impossible) for law enforcement to intervene.
    16
  9.  @sirashley2355  Sir, I promise you that if you buy property and don't have a tax fund police force to enforce the law, I personally will steal your shit. Pay taxes or pay me.
    15
  10. If you have to reference an outlier like Matt Hughes to make your point, you probably don't have a point.
    12
  11. You must not be familiar with Henry Cejudo.
    12
  12. The current opiod crisis is present in a bunch of conservative strongholds. Also, most major cities are liberal anyway, so hard to single out 'liberalism'. Particularly the cities with pleasant climates year round, that make outdoor living practical (eg: NYC doesn't have a public shit problem) Also, much of the current homelessness is the result of conservative scaling back of the social safety net including reduced funding for welfare, mental health services, lack of public healthcare, affordable housing initiatives, etc. Not to mention Republican led financial deregulation that has caused multiple financial crises in the past 30 years. If you were to remove the number of people who were made homeless due to lack of access to mental health services, or due to bankrupting themselves paying for a medical emergency, or due to losing their jobs or savings because of a financial crisis, you would probably not have a homelessness problem to begin with.
    11
  13. Uh.. guys I'm pretty sure if you ask virtually any women they will tell you they don't like being hit on in the streets. It's because they're thinking about the 90% of the time that it happens at an inconvenient time, with a terrible approach, by a guy who's like a 2 and batting way out of his league. That's a fairly hellish existence. Meanwhile you guys are thinking about the 10% of the time that it is done well. A Friday night in front of a nightclub when everyone's out to meet people, or a decent looking guy with a relevant comment at bookstore, etc. Regardless of what kind of guy you are, you should probably have some respect for the abysmal stats they're dealing with. Could you imagine if every time you went out a bunch of Brock Lesnar sized gay dudes kept trying to holler at you? Some aggressive and persistent, some creepy or angry when rejected. I think street game is fair game, but I'm not gonna lie to myself that there isn't a problem as the situation stands.
    9
  14.  @shawncox6719  "Fair" price refers to the price that reflects actual supply and demand. The price was unfair because the industry colluded to inflate it. This has nothing to do with the way they treat their artists. You're confusing 2 separate points.
    9
  15.  @lachyt5247  Hmm.. If that were real, I suppose it would be a problem. But that's not really the case is it? Why invent Boogeymen? YouTube's criteria aren't really arbitrary and are fairly well established at this point. Every now and then there are misunderstandings, but on the whole the JRE knew what was generally expected of them. They tailored their content accordingly, much as I'm sure they will tailor their content to avoid violating the standards of their new host. And let's be honest, Joe's revenue stream was actually fairly diversified across multiple YouTube channels, non-YouTube platforms, sponsors, and business activity. There was never any real risk of being de-platformed and the rare instance of individual video demonetizing was comparatively peanuts. Annoying? Yes. But not the existential threat you're making it out to be. $100 million dollars on the other hand is more money than Joe's ever seen in his entire life. The writing on the wall is very clear. Seems like you're just bending over backwards to avoid seeing it so you can convince yourself that Joe's actions are somehow vindications of your own personal anti-YouTube bias. Sorry, he didn't leave because of your politics he left because he's old & they offered him "fuck you" money.
    9
  16. That's a damn solid description.
    8
  17. Actually, this was one of the first times i felt like Joe was getting talked over.
    7
  18.  @Xplora213  I didn't respond to you because I didn't understand your point the first time and I don't understand it now. Something about your style of writing is impenetrable to me. I'm not sure what your conclusion is.
    6
  19.  @majesticmojo3823  he's gotta go to work some time.
    6
  20.  @ericmendieta455  BRO! dO YoU KnoW hOw LiTTLe a pICo iS?
    6
  21. Guys u don't have to say bye, just let yourselves out.
    6
  22. Nah the problem is dinosaurs like you not realizing you're extinct. You reek of insecurity.
    5
  23.  @heythere6983  hey, sorry i skipped your first comment because it's an incoherent mass of text with no paragraph breaks. In response to your 2nd: My initial post was an explanation of the causal factors and the hypocrisy in singling out a relatively benign criminal behavior while ignoring the more damaging criminality that provoked and supported it. This is different from justifying it. So, I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here. That said, my personal opinion is that Napster piracy was indeed probably justified given the criminal nature of the industry, the fact that in most cases you were not affecting artist royalties at all (or at best negligibly), and that in the long run it probably helped the artists & society at large in prompting innovation in content delivery, marginally better industry practices and a somewhat more level playing field for independent artists.
    5
  24.  @aristideregnier4883  Pretty sure this is not true and has been stated with no research. There's a ton of 'frictional' homeless for a variety of reasons. Eg: among women the number one cause of homelessness is domestic violence. For families, it's lack of affordable housing. Among men the numbers bumped up significantly after 2008 financial crisis. These are all populations who aren't just gonna immediately be like "oh well, time to shit in the street!"
    4
  25.  @nkznkz3800  Intrinsic nature as determined by you of course. Lol very convenient.
    4
  26.  @heidernheinreich4827  I'd rather not get wrapped up in an argument about our comparative bootlegging skill. You get the main point. You can sub in any example of a product for which cheap or free alternatives exists and the premium is mainly paid for streamlined, convenient, and consistent delivery.
    4
  27.  @MichaelJames-lz7ni  This is not true. Record sales revenue did not pay for production costs. Rather, the tiny portion of record sales revenue earmarked for the artist were used to pay production costs (and multiple other invented fees). The company's share was untouched. This was known as 'recoupment'. Many platinum artists did go bankrupt directly as a result of predatory recording contracts (TLC, Toni Braxton, etc.). Furthermore, it's extremely misleading to include examples like Madonna & Michael Jackson who are radical outliers, even among platinum artists (who are already outliers). This doesn't represent the prevailing reality. It's a bit like studying poverty but only looking at homeless people who won the powerball lottery twice. Finally, it's important to understand that even among these super-outliers better terms came as a result of contract renegotiation subsequent to their success. They lost a lot of money under the terms of their first contracts. The prevailing wisdom amongst managers, agents, and financial advisors was that in the absence of some miracle, the vast majority of artists (particularly debut & sophomore) should expect to realistically earn $0 from recording royalties after fees were deducted, and focus on merch, live shows, and capturing as much of the advance as they could. This was all the case before the invention of .mp3 Let me be clear: Unless you were already a multi-millionaire, there was no way in hell you would see a million dollars from selling 1 million records.
    4
  28.  @heythere6983   You have strong opinions. Unfortunately most people, the entire field of economics, the FCC & reality disagree with you. The fair price of music, is the price determined in the market by supply & demand. Not the price determined by a criminal conspiracy to artificially inflate it. It does not take millions to get a CD recorded. In 1999-2005 $500,000 was a great advance. Only a portion of this was used to produce and facilitate distribution of the CD. The dip in sales we are discussing on this thread is the one alleged to occur during the Napster days. This was before the proliferation of 360 deals. The current post-360 dip in CD sales is just because they're obsolete technology generally. 8-track sales are also down lol.
    4
  29.  @heythere6983  1) paragraph breaks 2) I don't know how much more specific I can get. The FCC determined that the RIAA colluded to illegally inflate the price of CDs. The subsequent punishment coincided with the advent of Napster and dwarfed the impact of Napster on record company revenue. 3) Promotional costs are paid for from the artist's royalties. Not from record company sales revenue. (Although a lot of the examples you are using are illegal) 4) While it was theoretically possible for an album to cost millions to produce at this time, it was extremely unlikely and this figure should not be used when discussing album production costs industry wide. In the same way it's theoretically possible for a car to cost $5 million, but this is not the figure we use when discussing car costs industry wide. The rest of your post are blatant subjective opinions and cannot be responded to.
    4
  30. Be honest though. Did anyone even run into any criticism of Tom Segura before this video? I don't think anyone who matters cared.
    3
  31. This actually isn't that bad. Character design overall looks alright. Kinda an average superhero team with a little indy influence. Honestly, if it wasn't for two cringey names, no one would've even looked twice. The New Warriors have always been something of a silly sideshow to test drive ideas. And Stan Lee has always been pretty supportive of progressive politics. Y'all need to stop being whiney bitches.
    3
  32.  @kal-el_fan7422  Magical backpack with pocket dimension she can't control the contents of is pretty dope. Her build reminds me of any number of other chubby characters (Micro from the Punisher, Denise from Walking Dead, etc.). Also kinda cool since it: a) embodies the power type: chubby nerd who always has her backpack is a common archetype b) is realistic in a cool way. In the same way Peter Parker being broke and anxiety ridden humanized heroes by making them flawed. See? Not all characters have to make you horny to be compelling. "Internet gas" is immediately funny, but not a total write off since we literally only heard two words. And let's be real, there's a whole spectrum of silly super origins. I mean bitten by a radioactive spider was as silly & exploitative of a "futuristic technology" at the time, as "internet gas" is today. Yeah, it really does seem like you're not actually a comic fan, you're just looking for something to over-politicize. Sad.
    3
  33. @MidouBan I looked up the full size images on marvel's page and I actually have to agree. Most of the characters look kinda shitty and generic. THE GOOD: - B-negative is acceptable and the tie in with Michael Morbius is a cool idea. - the fat chick is fine. Her look matches the power, and the power is cool. - Safe space's power is a cool idea THE BAD - The twins and the Internet Guy need to be totally redesigned. - Two male characters look kinda gay and Snowflake is non-binary. This is a little too much on a single team. - The names are pretty bad. Overall though, considering it's the New Warriors, it's not as big a deal as people are making it. I mean this is the same team that produced skateboarding "Night Thrasher" during the skater kid/dark brooding hero era and disco outfitted Firestar in the late 70s/early 80s. Cringe is what these guys feed on.
    3
  34. @James Connor Nah, pretty much anyone who isn't uneducated or ignorant tends to push it. But some people are more tactful than others.
    3
  35. @James Connor I know. I'm saying in the US, Jewish people may be overrepresented in the demographic of highly educated people with cross-cultural experience & awareness.
    3
  36.  @juliusrage1987  Right, because you were a huge New Warriors fan before.
    3
  37.  @ShardTown  This is a reading comprehension failure on your part. I didn't say what you thought I said. Also, your numbers are way off. Jewish donations to the Democratic party are 50%. They also comprise 25% of Republican donations.
    3
  38. Didn't seem that bad. Backpack chick seemed alright. Character design of most seemed alright. Just the names of two were a bit stupid. Without the dumb names no one would've even looked twice. Pretty average superhero team, slighty indy influence.
    3
  39.  @woodlepuck3  NGT's tweet is like if every week I skull-fuck an elderly person to death and then turn and say "Hey, do you know how many Americans die from preventable obesity related illness every year? Don't waste your resources catching me.. you're responding to spectacle." Anyone with half a brain understands that NGT's tweet is first & foremost offensive to science, as it is logically invalid. It's a demonstration of both the "false equivalency" and "Tu quoqe (whataboutism)" logical fallacies. He's attempting to justify apathy to one issue merely due to the existence of another (tu quoqe/whataboutism). He then does a cross-issue comparison using only 1 variable (# of deaths/48hrs). He's purposely ignoring all the other critical variables to make an accurate comparison: different risk cohorts, different costs of response, different social benefit of the related activity from which the deaths arise (healthcare vs. gun use), etc. Hey, according to the one variable (# of deaths/48hrs), people driving is way worse than people molesting children. How many people died while molesting children in the last 48 hours? After this complete corruption of science, he proceeds to characterize very recent murders as "spectacle", unnecessarily trivializing the deaths. This is a borderline braindead level of insensitivity that could only be forgiven if you were presenting some kind of savant level genius argument. But you can't be stupid and insensitive.
    3
  40. In fairness, KKK and various other hate groups call themselves Christian organizations. And the US has started more wars in the past century than any other country. And European greed and aggression was responsible for the slave trade, colonization, and finally the deaths of like 100 million of their own people through two world wars. And Buddhist extremeists are currently engaged in ethnic cleansing campaigns. In this company, Islam doesn't really stand out.
    3
  41.  Vince Carter  Or raped in a for profit prison. Oh wait, that's the US.
    3
  42.  @MistorDi  I suppose it's probably better than being blown up along with thousands of other innocent people in an airstrike that doesnt have any particular target in the name of securing some oil rights for a private company owned by some already obscenely rich white guys because deep down they truly believe they should have all the money.
    3
  43.  @heidernheinreich4827  It would only be misleading if it weren't true. But we disagree on that point. It might help if i clarified that I'm not being 100% literal. 'Virtually' any film, within the 'first few' results (excluding obviously stuff that's still in theaters). Buy i think u know what i mean already.
    3
  44.  @dianevrules  The clauses I liked the most were: 1) Free samples: The full retail price of the number of CDs given away as free samples to facilitate distribution was deducted from the artist's royalties. Wtf? 2) Breakage: A set amount was deducted from the artist's royalties to pay for CDs that broke in transit. Obviously CDs almost never broke in transit. But old school records frequently did. So they applied the % break rate of records to CDs and then charged the artist for that amount of hypothetically broken CDs. Both of these were pretty much industry standard contract clauses. The same cartel that used monopoly power to set prices used monopsony power to establish terrible compensation rates for artists.
    3
  45.  @ThemFuzzyMonsters  Your analogy is flawed. If Mcdonalds raises the price too high, consumers will go to another restaurant or buy groceries. Thus they would be forced to drop their prices. So consumers do set the prices at Mcdonalds. That is the fair market price. The rate at which McDonald's is happy to sell and consumers are happy to buy. This situation is more like if Mcdonalds illegally colluded with all food suppliers to simultaneously raise the price of food. Then consumers would not have the option to shop around and Mcdonalds could raise their prices beyond the fair market price.
    3
  46.  @ThemFuzzyMonsters    I was trying to simplify things for you. Read my comment more carefully. I already addressed supplier costs. When I said "the price at which producers are happy to sell and consumers are happy to buy" I mean, the price at which producers cover their costs. The point where supply and demand intersects, is the fair market price. Obviously, this is not a debatable point. Your analogy was flawed because it didn't take into account illegal price setting through cartel behavior. I disagree with your new itunes analogy because I'm not aware of any evidence of illegal collusion between various streaming providers. This might just be standard monopoly/oligopoly market dynamics, or a number of other possibilities. (Ie: the compensation rates for artists are wildly different across different streaming platforms, doesn't seem like they're coordinating).
    3
  47.  @ThemFuzzyMonsters  Of course you blow them all out the water by offering me your whole $0.02 lol They probably think ur a madman
    3
  48.  @unnamed776-m9h  This is well beyond my field of expertise. I understand contract terms and economics, but I have no idea what it takes to make a star. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving much advice in this regard. That said, I can suggest generally: 1) Keep costs down 2) Perform often 3) Focus on establishing a living wage through your work before thinking about being a star. Being a star is a unicorn/winning the lotto type thing. If you can earn a living wage from your art, you're already ahead of most people. 4) Find visual artists that can help you with branding. A cheap way to do this is to find senior year visual arts students. 5) Read any contract carefully. Do not sign anything on the spot. Always ask politely for time to review. No exceptions. 6) Seek the assistance of pro-bono lawyers. Organizations like Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts provide these services at little to no cost. 7) Try to minimize the duration of any contact you sign. Preferably 3 albums, although this is often difficult to get them to agree to. More than 5 is too much. 8) Treat the enterprise as a small business. 9) Get health insurance, establish a savings & retirement fund, go to the dentist and brush your teeth. These sound silly, but little things like this derail entire careers. An unchecked cavity can become a career ending disaster when you find out an infection has spread and you need $10,000 to treat. Now you have to get an exhausting job and are trapped in a cycle of debt that is difficult to break free from. 10. If you get signed, treat your advance like the only money you'll get, because its the only thing guaranteed.
    3
  49.  @992ras  Bro I have difficulty understanding you. You seem to be a bit all over the place. In addition, I suspect English is not your first language. In any case, my OP was an analysis of the industry in the 90s. My views on the current situation are well summed up in @GarethK.Music's post, as well as comments I made earlier in the thread that i prefer not to repeat.
    3
  50.  @composerdave68   There is a perverse hypocrisy in lamenting the artist's plight by singling out the relatively benign effect of illegal downloads, while remaining completely silent regarding the far greater theft perpetrated by the industry itself. Pointing out that hypocrisy is different from arguing that it is okay to steal (which I never did). Personally I'm inclined to leave it to each individual to contemplate the philosophical question as to whether it is moral to steal from thieves. "If the prices were out of line with the market, then the market would have faltered on its own" That's correct in a competitive marketplace. However when a criminal conspiracy establishes a cartel to control prices and eliminate competitors, then consumers are no longer able to vote with their wallets and 'out of line' prices can be perpetuated indefinitely without the market faltering. That's why this is illegal. The RIAA conspired to cause a market failure that would profit themselves. In this sense Napster emerged as an attempt by the market to repair itself by breaking the monopoly's stranglehold on the market.
    3
  51.  @composerdave68  The impact of Napster on artist income was negligible as compared to the impact of the RIAA's predatory behaviour, or the financial burden resulting from the FCC response to this. Artists get dropped when they individually underperform, but since mp3s impacted the entire market, it merely shifted the goalposts. Certainly the more direct cause of their inability to pay back the advance was the predatory nature of the contract to begin with. I think it's irrelevant how I'd feel personally, but if you're sincerely asking, honestly I'd be more upset with the guy who is stealing 95% of my money, than the guy stealing 0.1% of it. Not sure if that's the answer you were hoping for.
    3
  52.  @composerdave68   "So it's ok to steal..." This appears to be a reading comprehension problem on your part. "it doesn't justify" Here also. "you entered into the contract willingly" All predatory contracts are joined into willingly. This doesn't stop them from being predatory. The asymmetrical and unfair aspects of the contracts have already been described repeatedly in the OP and numerous subsequent comments. "Robin hood" You don't have to be Robin hood to dislike assholes and bad deals. Remember, the RIAA wasn't just stealing from the artist. It was also stealing from the consumer.
    3
  53.  @composerdave68  "What gives you the right?" I don't think I'm in a position to assign anyone rights. I was merely pointing out a hypocrisy. Who are you responding to? Generally, market analysis is an amoral affair. And when a contrived market failure is corrected for through the invention of a new technology that facilitates the safe creation of a black market that moves prevailing price for the legitimate good back in line with the true market value, I don't feel the need to condemn (or celebrate) participants in the black market.
    3
  54.  @composerdave68  Ok, if repetition's your thing: "you fail to account for collateral damage" Hmm... not sure if I buy into the human shield argument. That your theft is immunized from retaliation because you are currently in the process of abusing hostages who may be incidentally harmed by any such retaliation. I'd tend to attribute more of the blame for resultant collateral damage to the original criminal who entered us into this whole situation. Particularly if the collateral damage is minuscule as compared to the far greater harm caused by the original thief's current abusive practices toward those very same hostages. "you justify.." Where did I justify illegal downloads? I just pointed out a hypocrisy in coverage and multiple relevant contributing factors. I feel like I've said this before. Is this an attention span thing or a reading comprehension thing?
    3
  55.  @Sean-gq6vj  Yeah u right. I was just on a roll.
    3
  56.  @somerandomarmydude  Settle down, simpleton. The RIAA stole first and stole more from American citizens, from consumers, and from their artists than anyone ever could through Napster. Downplaying the RIAA's role in creating the mess is disingenuous and immoral. Personally, I find it difficult to indict the creation of a black market that corrects the market failure caused by illegal cartel behavior in the legal market.
    3
  57.  @keepitzipped WTF See that's the bullshit right there. After recoupment, various clauses, & overcharged label expense Pac's estate probably saw less than a dollar from that.
    3
  58.  @Cagon415  Agree, but would only add that a lot of times it's not the artist's decision, but the label's.
    3
  59.  @waylonwilson7262  yup. Like 3 of them. Lol
    3
  60.  @reginald8623  Prostitutes don't get a vote.
    3
  61.  @lachyt5247  I'm beginning to realize you don't know the definition of arbitrary. YouTube's demonetization actually follows a fairly recognizable pattern, and their rules are clearly communicated within their published community guidelines. There's literally nothing arbitrary about it. Occasionally a video is unexpectedly demonetized, but in general the creators who follow the rules see the vast majority of their videos untouched. There's no such thing as a perfect system, but the enforcement mechanism here actually performs decently. So if Joe has a problem with YouTube, its likely reflective of failing to abide by relatively consistent community rules, more than anything else. However, it seems like even in Joe's case the vast majority of his videos have been untouched (not including his much older videos when the rules were first introduced somewhat haphazardly). YouTube has been very profitable for him. Yeah, the evidence that this is him somehow taking a stand against YouTube is just ridiculously flimsy. Worse of all it basically requires you to ignore the existence of a $100 million contact as a motivating factor. You're the coroner that chooses to ignore the bullet hole in the head in order to attribute the cause of death to a paper cut. This isn't just motivated reasoning, it's frankly stupid. PS: There is no reliable source for Joe's yearly income.
    3
  62.  @champabay4746  Bingo. Right answer over here. It's kind of disappointing how few people are able to spot the obvious logical gap.
    3
  63. Jordan Peterson definitely oversold the danger of bill C-16. The bill was actually a pretty reasonable no-brainer. It didn't even mention gender pronouns lol. If anything, it was the OHRC policy released 3 years prior to C-17 that was problematic. But i guess because that was provincial (not federal) and obscure, it had less potential for Jordan to fame-whore off of.
    3
  64.  @Howling-Mad-Murdock  I'd also add 2 important points: 1) WHO's limited mandate is directly the result of countries like the US insisting on tying their hands. The US has consistently worked to strip these IGOs of any real power in the name of state sovereignty. You can't then turn around and complain when that limited mandate makes then reliant on the good faith of member states. 2) China likely misrepresented the extent of pandemic to avoid financial punishment. Which of course is precisely what Trump did by banning travel. Confirming that China's choice to deceive was probably the strategically correct one. Incidentally, financial punishment is a violation of WHO charter precisely to avoid creating an incentive for this sort of deception.
    3
  65. True. Look at all those silent slaves in the UK, New Zealand, France, Japan, etc.
    2
  66. The older I get the more I feel like Joe Rogan is a twit.
    2
  67.  Activate Kruger  Ah the small penised perspective chimes in.
    2
  68.  @novac1990  lololol. Finally put it together. It's an honor to meet you, Dirty Mike. Huge fan. https://youtu.be/u1j4mK6cs_A
    2
  69. @Cate someone   Listen buddy, you're not a woman or a man, you're a turd that has achieved sentience, and while that is impressive, it does not qualify you to make grand generalizations about half the population of the planet. At this point there is no consensus across any academic field to support any of the radical claims you are making (medicine, anthropology, sociology, economics, psychology, etc.) Furthermore your current turd status means that your kids are almost certainly genetically at least 50% turd. As such it is unsurprising they would encounter difficulties in socialization. In any case it's your job to get up off your lazy ass and help them deal with their own personal problems. Bullies? Deal with it. Bad teacher? Write a letter. But don't indict an entire gender and make vague unsupported bullshit claims about the school curriculum. Like seriously, who am I supposed to side with? A school I've never seen before or a sentient turd with a yt account? I say this all totally unemotionally. lol
    2
  70.  - Cicero  "and this is why women shouldn't be involved in politics," He whined bitchily to no one in particular. 😀
    2
  71.  @goober69er  I don't trust Jordan Peterson's opinion on anything including his superhero origin story. It's irrelevant anyway as he's long since committed to the path of scientific misrepresentation and neocon shilling. With regard to trans people in sports, I'm going to copy what i posted earlier: The record breaking you are seeing is simply the result of early movers benefiting from league rules that have yet to be updated to reflect the relatively recent phenomenon of gender reassignment. In the coming years I expect the controversy to fade as leagues update their rules to either exclude trans competitors or make adjustments to the rules to balance the playing field. In fact this has already happened in a number of leagues (eg: many major powerlifting meets have altered the rules to disallow trans competitors) Here's an example of potential rule accommodation. Fallon Fox probably should never have been allowed to compete in women's MMA. But the data gleaned from watching her fight, leads me to believe that trans women could probably compete fairly in female MMA if forced to compete 2 weight classes above their regular weight class, while maintaining the original weight. (Eg: a 125 lb trans woman would have to weigh in at 125lb, but fight a cis woman that weighed in at 145lb.) Anyway, my thought is that if you feel stuck in the middle and alienate both sides, you're probably doing something right.
    2
  72.  @goober69er    I think your analysis suffers a bit from 'mile wide inch deep' perspective. You brought up a smattering of issues, however when you look more carefully into each one, i think they are not all the concern they appear to be. 1) I don't know that Canadian law regarding child sex reassignment actually differs from US laws substantially. These procedures are already allowed in the US and have been for a long time. The issue is that barring the most extreme cases, they are very difficult to actually have done due to a combination of a stuff (ethical standards among provider professional associations, cost, exposure to legal/civil liability, etc.) Furthermore the process is not as simple as alarmist conservative media tends to make it, as the amount of medical and psychological evaluation that needs to take place prior to a full on reassignment surgery is so extensive that (barring extreme cases like biologically intersexed individuals) it is unlikely a child will be able to qualify before enough time has elapsed that the individual is at adulthood. All signs indicate that this seems to be a virtual non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. Almost certainly any reform in this area will probably happen through refinements in the criteria for surgery as published by the relevant professional associations and not by any new legislation. Simply put, this is a red herring. 2) I also agree with the Roe v Wade standards, as do most Americans. While half of your statement is true (with some conservative states trying to undermine the ruling by effectively banning abortion) the other half is not. There is no equivalent race to allow for abortions at the last day. The situation of the US right now is that we are failing to meet the RvW standards by a wide margin due to lack of funding, access, and a number of other deceptive and complex schemes plotted out by anti abortion conservatives. So again, this is not a case of evenly balanced sides. We are radically below the RvW standard, with zero risk of being above it. And only one side is working to undermine the law in this regard. 3) The US has faced much greater threats to freedom of speech than today's PC culture. McCarthyism, total domination of broadcast media in the 80s, etc. Currently speech is more free than it has ever been. Now, it's true that there are some annoying college kids out there. But there are a few things to consider: - There always have been. - Social movements tend to gain more traction when traditional sources of power are dominated by the opposition. The PC police are high profile because Trump is in charge, just as the Tea Party saw its zenith under Obama. Don't get distracted by the pendulum swing, it'll roll back when leadership changes. - Most social movements are initiated and led by their most annoying members. So it's usually ridiculous people asking for ridiculous things. But when the dust settles, we tend to find a good balance. When this is over we won't use some of the offensive language we used to, but we also won't be the politically correct automatons some young idiots are asking for. - Honestly the PC movement appears to already be losing some steam. I think it peaked like a 18‐24 months ago. - Comedy is a good example because whereas comedians complain about it, anti-PC comedy is actually extremely popular with all the anti-PC guys making record revenue. And comedy in general is experiencing a golden age right now. That's a good tradeoff for skipping some college gigs. So all in all, this doesn't seem like a real threat.
    2
  73.  K A  I'd argue that if you're at the point where you're comparing your performance to Mexico, you're already fucked up. The US is a much more advanced economy and not in the midst of a major cartel war. Our statistics should be more in line with Japan.
    2
  74. Hey is this the line to jump on Joe's nutsack? I have a Fastpass.
    2
  75.  @willjones6400  He mused as he sat on stolen land, founded on genocide, built by stolen labor, supported by perpetual wars of aggression, populated by overworked, undereducated, overweight and unhappy people. Yep, no irony here.
    2
  76.  @TomP-Atlanta  Disagree with you on a few points. First, there definitely is such a thing as toxic masculinity that exists separately from toxic people generally with a bunch of pop culture & social groups that reinforce it. This ad just does a shitty job of demonstrating it. There's also a kind of toxic femininity with its own support structures. But I don't know whether they're as big a problem as suggested in the ad. Toxic masculinity creates a scaffolding around which toxic people model their behavior. Even normal people are influenced negatively. Also, I definitely personally know guys who approach chicks just to harass them without much real intention of getting anywhere. Usually they're guys who've either given up on the possibility of winning and now just want to reject women before they are rejected or they just like to weaponize their sexuality because they have some other axe to grind. There are a lot of dudes like this. Finally I don't think the ad isn't so much part of a feminist conspiracy as it is a shallow and fairly cynical attempt by Gillette to exploit a contemporary social movement for private profit. Since they don't actually care about the issue, they present problematic masculinity as an overly simplistic bogeyman that borders on parody. So the ad is bound to be roundly offensive. This is basically their Kylie Jenner Pepsi ad.
    2
  77.  @kmolnardaniel  I disagree with this. Generally, I like RZA and i don't think that's what he was going for. But just my opinion.
    2
  78.  @Xplora213  I changed the post because I decided it was better to try to understand more clearly your point before making my own. I'd say it's marginally better now. The FCC ended up fining the RIAA and reducing some of the price inflation. The new industry standard "360" contracts deemphasize record sales, and focus on multiple revenue streams. They're still oppressive, but overall it seems that terms are a little better than in the 90s (which were already better than what was being offered in the 60s & 70s). The rise of social media also improved slightly artists' ability to go it on their own developing their own niche followings and merchandising opportunities. A good example of this are the artists under J. Cole's Dreamville label (eg: Bas) who are doing very well without being superstars. More importantly, the theft became significantly more opaque to the consumer as the 360 contracts are much more complex than the old style album royalty contracts. Most consumers believe that plays are less important to an artists revenue stream than merchandising and live performances. They're also under the false impression that these revenue streams are still protected from record company capture. Consumers also have no idea how little the artist gets from social media plays. Case in point, Joe Rogan doesn't know that a Tidal play is much more valuable than a Spotify play. Tldr: It's somewhat better, but more importantly, much less obvious.
    2
  79.  @MichaelJames-lz7ni   I disagree with your analysis of both the present and past But I don't necessarily want to go down this rabbit hole. It would take a lot of time to correct every wrong statement and bewildering conclusion. (despite the fact that they validate a lot of what I wrote originally) Suffice to say many successful new artists (and even genres) appeared in this period, as well as existing artists whose careers flourished. This period marked an expansion in the volume and diversity of music being produced, not a decline.
    2
  80.  @heythere6983  "the creator of something chooses the price" One creator in a competitive marketplace can do this. When a cartel uses monopoly (oligopoly) power to force a price this is illegal and immoral.
    2
  81.  @ThemFuzzyMonsters  tidal pays artists a rate something along the order of 3x the amount spotify does per stream and approx 20x the amount YouTube does.
    2
  82.  @composerdave68  "You keep focusing on one part of the equation" Well yeah. Because the video I was responding to focused on the other. This is the definition of pointing out an oversight. There is ofcourse, also the matter of proportionality. The equation is pretty unbalanced, since the RIAA stole more, stole more often, and stole first. Seems appropriate to direct the bulk of our attention there.
    2
  83.  @composerdave68  "all those mom and pop record stores went under" The ones that went under, did so due to the creation of .mp3, not because of Napster. They were not going to survive the Spotify/iTunes era either. You know all those mom & pop 8-track dealers went out of business too right? Lol
    2
  84.  @composerdave68  I think I addressed everything. Seems like we're done here man.
    2
  85.  @harrisonwintergreen1147  Source? Every source I could find suggests that their contract under laface entitled each member to only 2% of royalties after recoupment (which was subject to insanely questionable accounting practices that charged them far more than just the advance) TLC's members cleared 50k annually in 1993 & 94 after having multi-platinum success. This is theft. Its pretty obvious systematic theft from artists was standard operating procedure. Tribe Called Quest's members cleared a little over $30,000 each. Toni Braxton went bankrupt under the same label. The list goes on. This is pretty blatant and it's a bit immoral to attempt to shift blame to artist spending in the context of clearly predatory contracts.
    2
  86.  @ELstudioproductions1  I disagree. RZA is an intelligent man and I think he understands the business well. His speaking style is reflective of his background, not an indicator of his intelligence. Don't disrespect Bobby with outdated ethnocentric prejudice. I just think he has chosen to remain willfully ignorant of the narrative I'm proposing because he has so many good industry relationships that it's in his interest to believe in/promote their story. This is similar to how when Microsoft was subject to antitrust litigation Bill Gates suddenly forgot the definition of the word monopoly. I don't think this was proof that Bill Gates is dumb.
    2
  87. They're not really discussing a complicated topic though. I mean you don't need to pass the bar to know you shouldn't be speeding or driving without a license or registration.
    2
  88.  @h2bfz098  i feel like it's always young weak guys that say this.
    2
  89.  @sirashley2355  "directly" being the key word. It all comes from the same place.
    2
  90.  @sirashley2355  you're mixing fiscal and economic accounting as well as state, municipal, and federal budgets. Some fiscal spending is debt financed, but payments on that debt are made from tax revenue, so government services (like the police) are still ultimately paid for by your taxes. You even admitted it yourself when you said "another third on government salaries". Yeah. Like the police.
    2
  91.  @sirashley2355  "people with the skills desire and knowledge won't just disappear" They absolutely will. It's called 'brain drain'. They will pick up and move to other countries. Patrolling the border with a shotgun is low skilled labor. Nuclear engineers, doctors, rocket scientists, logistics experts, etc. are the concern.
    2
  92.  @sirashley2355   I was responding to your nonsensical hypothetical "in the event of no taxes" scenario. This would result in radical privatization, and essentially a return to feudalism. Quality of life would be drastically reduced and anyone capable of emigrating out of the US would do so, further damaging a spiraling economy. Eventually the country would split into numerous smaller states as private militaries would not be able to secure large territories. These smaller states would fall prey to larger foreign powers who would manipulate them via local proxies and exploitative financial relationships. Now, on to your more reasonable suggestion for tax reform. Tax is always being reformed. And a lot of smart people are working on it. But the truth is it's a very complicated and nuanced topic. Tbh, i don't think you're smart enough to even have an opinion on this matter.
    2
  93.  @michaelm8138  Hey dipshit u know burglary can happen when you're not home right? Lolol The cops are gonna nickname you 'Equalizer'.
    2
  94. I've notice that most people who claim to be hated for speaking the truth are usually just tactless dimwits.
    2
  95. Sure, but it was such a shallow and disingenuous attempt to exploit a contemporary social movement for private profit that it could only portray the problematic aspects of masculinity as a reductionist parody that was bound to be broadly offensive. But I feel like you probably thought the Kylie Jenner Pepsi commercial was 'woke'.
    2
  96.  james matthews  Thus spake James Matthews! Knower of all, Final Arbiter of the Intellectual Landscape and Wielder of the Holy Scepter of Unabashed Ignorance!👑👑👑👏👏👏
    2
  97.  @Typecast-L  Joe is spreading misinformation about a topic that he is blatantly ignorant about and jeopardizing the public health in the process. Elon Musk is extremely unqualified to weigh in on this matter and is far worse than Joe in this regard. He is peddling unscientific conspiracy theories and jeopardizing people's lives for his own selfish purposes. Both of their positions are directly opposed to the domestic and international scientific consensus on this matter. The entire world's supply of medical professionals, virologists, and epidemiologists are remarkably united in their disagreement Musk's (and Joe's) dangerous and outlandish claims. YouTube is exercising it's social responsibility by limiting the degree of dangerous misinformation being peddled. However, even within this context they have not censored Joe's discussions with Musk. So they have been extremely tolerant of both these guys abhorrent behavior. So let's be clear that neither of these men have the moral high ground here. That said, Joe's entire show is based on ranting. It's not surprising he'd rant about demonetization. However, as you said yourself, he's made a lot of money of YouTube. So demonetization isn't actually that big a deal for him. You know what is though? $100 million. PS: YouTube isn't silencing medical professionals. They are banning crackpots who are giving illegitimate medical advice that counters national and international guidelines during an extremely deadly pandemic. They're doing the right thing.
    2
  98.  @twizzy6760  Everyone knows that there is inherent risk in taking prescription drugs. And it is really encumbent on anyone filling a prescription to double check the drug, dose, interactions and basic instructions after their doctor and pharmacist have checked. Taking prescription drugs is a high risk activity. Why do you think there are so many damn warnings on the bottles, on the bags and in the papers that accompany them?
    2
  99.  @twizzy6760  yes but that's not what we were arguing was it? You were comparing the inherent risk of walking into a walmart vs the inherent risk of taking prescription drugs. The problem with the mass shooter risk is that the person who doesn't own the gun is the one incurring the risk. With prescription drugs, the person taking the drugs is also the one incurring the risk.
    2
  100. No one is 100% right in this situation. Reading through the allegations, there are definitely instances where Louis seems to have behaved inappropriately. However, in some cases, his accusers seem full of shit, as it seems like they openly consented. At the same time Louis' total surrender with zero attempt to defend himself seems lazy and dismissive. If he didn't agree with the accusations, why confess? I mean you make it hard for yourself and for other guys like Aziz when you don't tell the truth and defend yourself. Most of Louis' comedian friends didn't really stand up for him at the time, with people like Sara Silverman and even Joe himself bowing to the public at the time, and only now, over a year later beginning to say anything to defend Louis. This club promoter also seems to have distanced himself from Louis at the time, using the excuse "I lost your number". Dude just be honest, you were waiting for the heat to die down. I don't think anyone has the moral high ground here.
    2
  101. Legality in the US isn't just determined by written laws. It's also established through the code of regulatory agencies tasked by Congress. Eg: If i violate the code of conduct of the transit authority, i can be arrested. Even though there isn't a law preventing me from putting my feet up on a seat. Legality is also established through precedent and the court system which determines the boundaries of legislation. The IRS has an entire section breaking this down: https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c
    1
  102.  Y O J I M B O 用心棒  found the insecure pup looking for a team.
    1
  103.  Y O J I M B O 用心棒  So then how are you doing it? Dead serious. Show me the secret of your bitchass ways.
    1
  104.  @700Penguin  Glad you found her, but we didn't even know your mom was missing. Congrats though.
    1
  105.  @clear_solutions  Very few people deny the reality of anatomical differences between men & women. However, many people take issue with the much less established claim of specific psychological or behavioral differences, particularly as dictated by evolutionary psychology, as this is essentially stacking one poorly supported hypothesis on top of another. However with regard to transgendered people's participation in sports, the record breaking you are seeing is simply the result of early movers benefiting from league rules that have yet to be updated to reflect the relatively recent phenomenon of gender reassignment procedures. In the coming years I expect the controversy to fade as leagues update their rules to either exclude trans competitors or make adjustments to the rules to balance the playing field. For example, Fallon Fox probably should never have been allowed to compete in women's MMA. However, the data gleaned from watching her fight, leads me to believe that trans women could probably compete fairly in female MMA if forced to compete 2 weight classes above their regular weight class, while maintaining the original weight. (Eg: a 125 lb trans woman would have to weigh in at 125lb, but fight a cis woman that weighed in at 145lb.)
    1
  106.  @Hrothgrar  I feel like I'm striking a good balance of mockery and legitimate solid points. No need to dust off the memes from 2003 lol
    1
  107.  @Hrothgrar  Bitch I've never misgendered anyone in my life. Too fucking classy for that shit. I have, however drawn attention to the hypocritical nature of individuals who claim not to acknowledge a distinction between socialized gender role and biological sex while simultaneously using and valuing derogatory terms whose very meaningfulness hinges on prior acceptance of the validity of that very same distinction. It's a bit like being a luddite extremist cyber-terrorist. wtf?
    1
  108.  ryan king  I've made like 10 comments on this thread. You have to be more specific, doll.
    1
  109.  @novac1990  Lololol 😂😂 Ok, i get that this is the internet and we're all just talking shit. But this was waaay too specific. You've obviously definitely done this in real life. #Respect
    1
  110.  Onyeka Onyebuchukwu  This the shit u type when u come home from the club alone again.
    1
  111.  @novac1990  Thx, but that's a hard pass. Please don't get discouraged though. If this is your secret fantasy, I'm sure you'll find someone to play with at your next MRA meeting. Good luck!
    1
  112.  Milkshake Of Death  Excellent point, well stated.
    1
  113.  2300 Slatt  1) What are these benefits of being a man that they want? 2) What do you mean it's the man's job to die in a house fire to protect women? How do you know? Who said it was?
    1
  114.  2300 Slatt  The concept of female oppression has also been around for generations, but you appear to think it no longer exists. Why do you assume it's male counterpart still does? Also you ignored the first question. Are u not sure?
    1
  115.  2300 Slatt  Good answer, so feminists want things like not being shamed for having sexual desire and not being discriminated against in the workplace. But they don't want to be forced to pretend they don't have feelings at all. What part of that do you find objectionable? I mean those seem like pretty reasonable requests for anyone really. Now, separate from that you say feminists call you weak. Who are these feminists? I mean I've never seen any feminist manifesto that complained about men not being stereotypically 'male' enough. No academic papers, no rallies, no lawsuits, no major feminist speaker, no publication, etc. These are usually the things that define a movement. As I understand it, a major part of feminism is deconstructing the artificial polarity between our stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Understanding that people are more alike than we frequently assume. So it sounds to me like either: a) You're hanging around mean people who are bullying you or b) You're an exceptionally weak human by any standard male or female, and they're just calling it how it is. Both of these seem like personal problems. If you could provide some sort of example (even hypothetical) to suggest otherwise, maybe I'd appreciate it. Because right now it seems like you're wrong.
    1
  116. @Cate someone If your sons are over 4 years old it's unlikely you have the intellectual capacity to follow their lesson plan, as you appear to have the brain of a 3 year old. You lost all credibility with the line "We know all females are nasty and emotional" so nothing can you say can be trusted regarding what your son is being taught in school.
    1
  117. @Cate someone Coming from someone who insults 3.5 billion people he's never met? Hypocrite much? Honestly u have nothing to fear from me, I could never make you look as stupid as you make yourself. I've made a number of solid points with different people in this thread, but being taken seriously is not a right, it's a privilege. And being the lying turd that you are, you haven't earned it.
    1
  118.  @ninaa9k  "Facts". Suuure, if that's what we call conjecture and massive generalization today. 👍🏼
    1
  119.  @goober69er  Congratulations on your attempt to grow a brain. Now if only you could learn how to pay attention before commenting. I never made the point you're arguing against lol. I didn't take issue with the idea that men and women may have an evolutionary tendency to act differently. I took issue with people who claim to know precisely what that difference is, when even the people studying this stuff for a living haven't reached agreement on it. I also don't see why both can't be true. That women can have an evolutionary tendency to behave a certain way, but also that socially constructed gender roles influence people's behaviour as well. And if that's the case, where does one influence end, and the other begin? And which has a greater effect? And could they be in conflict with one another? Also, if we're using an evolutionary model, what is the rate of evolutionary change with regard to behavior? We know it may take millions of years to grow legs, but only a few generations to grow the ability to metabolize milk. So how many generations of complex human society are necessary to cause an evolutionary change to a psychological feature? If few, then animal models wouldn't help very much. Also, we run into a problem when we try to translate an emotional or cognitive characteristic into actual behavior, since behavior is as much determined by your instincts as it is by a cost/benefit analysis. This is why it's important to say, "yes, evolution may play a role in determining gendered psychology, but i will refrain from attributing gendered behavior to evolutionary forces because of all the confounding variables i have not accounted for."
    1
  120.  @goober69er  I'd also suggest that if you were to use evolution as your guideline, then you'd probably have to argue in favor of a gender spectrum with more than 2 genders. After all, we know that part of the way genes propagate themselves is through altruistic behavior, which is encouraged by the existence of non-competitor organisms within a family. As a general rule, diversity is a critical component of evolutionary stability. So, an exclusively bi-modal system would be vulnerable in a way that a mainly bi-modal system with smaller populations of additional gender roles would not. We certainly see that in the animal kingdom with some frequency.
    1
  121.  @goober69er  If you seek out extremist opinions, you'll find plenty of opportunities to get pissed off. An entire industry has grown around outrage politics with guys like Jordan Peterson and his left wing counterparts who make money by misrepresenting facts and demonizing the other side. This is made worse by the fact that reasonable moderates who are working in earnest, often haven't figured out every answer yet. But that isn't an excuse to say fuck it, because there are a ton of resources for learning what things like the trans movement and feminism actually are. And overall, they're both good things. The most basic concept to understand is that biological sex, gender role, and sexual orientation are 3 different things. And while they most commonly tend to align, sometimes they don't. It's not that big a deal as long as you're a chill fucker who treats everyone alright. All this gender pronoun stuff is just temporary noise while people are trying to get their bearings. The dust will settle in a bit. And as a general rule, when determining the source of an observed behavior, always begin by attributing proximate and quantifiable causes, before appealing to grand and vague ones. If a black guy robs you, think maybe he's short on money not "it is in the African's nature to steal as the warm climate is not conducive to long term planning" Same thing when analyzing Male/female behavioral differences.
    1
  122.  @goober69er  Incidentally, this was the point i was hinting at by shitting on people's personal lives. That the differences they attribute to grand Male/female distinction can often more readily be explained by the specific circumstances of their own lives, than by appeal to a very hazy concept of genetic determinism.
    1
  123. But i should point out that when libs get it wrong, you get trans people winning races and too many silly pronouns. When cons get it wrong you get widespread molestation and suicide of trans teens in abusive foster care systems, domestic violence and criminal underfunding of women's and reproductive health services.
    1
  124.  @goober69er  I think what it sounds like most to me is that you get your news from bad sources. Particularly when you talk about the team based language.
    1
  125.  @goober69er  You are wrong about New York. The number of abortion providers in NY has declined consistently and dramatically over the past 2 decades. The RHA only allows for abortions past 24 weeks when it is necessary to save the mothers life or when the fetus is already not viable. Other than that, it does not extend the limit. This is in line with Roe v Wade. This is the shit that I'm taking about. At this point how many times have i had to correct false information from you? Why would you even lie about this? If you didn't know, then who is lying to you and why? I can't even begin to unravel the Texas shit. As I understand it, the father's a gay con artist and trash talking the mother severely. The mother may or may not be a bit unstable. The kid has been showing signs of gender nonconformity (fairly normal behavior in kids) and the mother has taken him to a therapist. That's about it. Aside from that, nothing has happened yet. It's fairly common for therapists to recommend that kids try living as the gender they experiment with for a period. This is not particularly damaging in and of itself. If this kid is at risk of any damage it'll be due to having crazy parents. The trans issue seems incidental here.
    1
  126.  @goober69er  Fuck Connie. She came out of the gate swinging and saying dumb shit. I don't have an obligation to educate every idiot. Mockery is a valid option. No idiot that is actually concerned about their kids gets on a YouTube comment thread and shits on an entire demographic. The only reason i didn't shit on you as well is because you're the only one besides myself who actually attempted to support your argument with a semi-scientific explanation (animal modeling). Now your argument was laced with insults and deeply flawed, but at least it was a logically coherent hypothesis that could be discussed. Everyone else has literally just been declaring shit to be a certain way and that's that. And remember: it's 20 morons, I couldn't possibly spend 2 hours on each walking them through the science and correcting their misinformation. Remember, the internet as a whole, and YouTube in particular are basically the scrawlings on a gas station bathroom wall. Mockery is the native tongue.
    1
  127.  @goober69er  If you follow conservative feeds you will continue to form conclusions based on false information. Because they are misrepresenting reality to you. Having attempted to clarify multiple instances in which your info is wrong, or perspective severely distorted, I don't even have time to unravel the clusterfuck that is your sense of being targeted because of your skin color. 1. Don't follow conservative feeds 2. Don't watch any tv news. They're all pretty bad 3. Check your news source against: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ They are non- partisan and publish their methodology 4. Listen to NPR. Period. Just do it. 5. To understand a complex issue, search the academic perspective, not the pundit perspective. Do these things you will be well informed. Do anything other than this and you will be manipulated.
    1
  128.  @Charmer4856  When has a president been less qualified?
    1
  129.  @chad6738  Nah, just don't enjoy being a lemming.
    1
  130. Is the Twitter position that in the context of an ongoing harassment campaign featuring coded threats, "Learn to Code" has a double meaning? Eg: Learn to tweet in coded racism, sexism, etc. Genuinely asking.
    1
  131.  @Sofa-king-black  Do you have data for this or are you just having an emotional moment?
    1
  132.  @Sofa-king-black  "common knowledge" lol ok, it was an emotional moment.
    1
  133.  @Augmintt  Build reminds me of any number of similar chubby characters. Micro from Punisher, Denise from Walking Dead, etc. No idea why you're clutching your pearls and fainting.
    1
  134.  @100videosandnosubscribers3  Except Neil is providing bad data, since his comparison of the issues involves only 1 variable (# of deaths per 48 hours). Read my above response to Jake Tappert.
    1
  135.  @MrMrcodmaster101  Nah bro, he only acts like that when there's girls around. He's actually pretty chill.
    1
  136. There Press Secretary's answer was terrible and extremely unprofessional. She was creating a false equivalency. First, newspaper opinion pieces are different from official White House statements. It's not a big deal if a journalist's opinion is incorrect. It's a big deal when the president is making false claims. There is no comparison here. Second, the president had access to better information than the media, but still made false claims about the virus. The media was reliant on China's false reports, the President had access to intelligence reports contradicting the Chinese reporting. Third, Trump's claims were more false than the media's. He claimed that his actions would prevent the spread of coronavirus. The media claimed that covid was less dangerous than the flu. He was making the more bold & specific claim. Fourth, lets try to remember that Trump is the cause of the toxic relationship between the White House & the press, as his fascist leanings and electoral strategy of fomenting a culture war involves undermining the value of a free press as well as attacking and threatening journalists. This is not a sharp woman shutting down a mean journalist, this is a White House abdicating their leadership responsibility by launching a childish attack against the press and then storming off the stage. What these hell is wrong with Rogan?
    1
  137. Louis woulda had a field day with this one if we hadn't killed him. Kinda regret that now.
    1
  138. Honestly I would've been disappointed in Joe if he didn't take the money. The man's willing to peddle COVID disinformation and risk people's lives for the sake of a couple of comedy gigs. This is relatively benign. So glad his acolytes are forced to come to terms with the fact that the JRE is neither a clubhouse nor a casual discussion. It's a business.
    1
  139.  @Earthad23  Hate to break it to you but that 'drama' is called science.
    1
  140.  @Earthad23  I'd say that's a very naive interpretation.
    1
  141.  @Earthad23  lol where did i mention how i feel? I made a logical scientific argument, which has clearly hurt your feelings. Sorry, facts don't care about your feelings and unfortunately, neither do I.
    1
  142.  @Earthad23  Ew! get away stalker. Sorry, u can be my fan from afar, but I'm not giving u any personal information.
    1
  143.  @willjones6400  I don't know what you're referring to. I'm a proud American, and we've won most of the wars we've engaged in. But I'm also not a moron who needs to warp reality and shit on other cultures to mask my personal lack of accomplishment. (Psst!That's you)
    1
  144. Rickson Gracie approves of this thread.
    1
  145. Oh yeah, I should also point out that if you offered many young women the option to never again be approached by any guy ever on the streets (or other such similar public but not specifically social venue) many would not take the deal.
    1
  146.  Julien Lefebvre  See first comment.
    1
  147.  @rossvegas7  lol I definitely listed in order of importance.
    1
  148.  @melange78  Even the superstars you mention often got fucked on their first contract.
    1
  149.  @unnamed776-m9h  Which part? I've made a lot of different comments on this thread.
    1
  150.  @unnamed776-m9h  yeah. It's me 2pac. shh...
    1
  151.  @unnamed776-m9h  lol no. But I conducted a research paper on the music industry focusing on contract terms in the period in question. A couple of years ago I assisted a friend in renegotiating his/her recording contract, I am also connected with individuals owning a large stake in an organization relevant to the discussion. I am purposely being vague bc this is the internet. That said, every point I made derives from publicly available information that is easy to look up. No special skills or access is required. Contract standards, payout breakdowns, industry records, fcc penalties. Most available on the internet. You might have to read 1 physical book max.
    1
  152.  @unnamed776-m9h  Slightly less, but it's still very unbalanced. The new 360 contracts are still pretty oppressive. The biggest change is that it's a bit easier for artists to go it alone & make a decent living by cultivating niche followings as opposed to becoming superstars.
    1
  153.  @ransmomebloke1949  the songs were written though collaborative effort with the band and other writers. They did receive writing credits. They had multiple billboard hits even before the CrazySexyCool album.
    1
  154.  @TheGARCK  Well said.
    1
  155.  @dad5220  cool. Let me know what the topic is when you get a chance.
    1
  156.  @composerdave68 ... think it stuck this time. kudos.
    1
  157.  @composerdave68  ?? This is borderline delusional. Can't see any substantive point missed. Also, i made the last post.
    1
  158.  @TheColdSoulz  Congrats.
    1
  159.  @outdaboxtv  Pandora puts out a free ad supported product and a offers a paid subscription to remove the ads. They have 6.19 million paid subscribers.
    1
  160.  @aeonnight1012  u know i gotchu
    1
  161.  @outdaboxtv  nothing is "0" cost. Even stealing.
    1
  162.  @zacharyyyy  Both Rza & I were referring to piracy during the Napster era, not current piracy.
    1
  163.  @zacharyyyy  Not sure I agree, but it's irrelevant to the current discussion anyway so I'll pass on commenting.
    1
  164.  @keepitzipped  💯
    1
  165.  @yewgong1248  not sure i understand your point...
    1
  166.  @PrincernPrince  this is a very long comment, with no paragraph breaks or punctuation. Straight up, i can't follow.
    1
  167.  Shock  Not sure I understand your point. Are you equating sampling with stealing? If so, I disagree as (when done properly) I don't consider it stealing.
    1
  168.  Shock  Perhaps we'll bump into each other at the bank.
    1
  169.  Shock  Samples are usually paid for and the original artist often experiences a subsequent boon in sales as a result of the renewed exposure. This is why many artists (Dido, Roberta Flack, Paul McCartney, etc.) have often expressed vocal support of the innovative way in which hip hop artists have sampled their work. The joke was that we'd bump into each other while they are depositing royalty & licensing checks in the bank. Obviously there are a few exceptions to the rule, but on the whole this appears to be a legal and fair practice that most people are comfortable with.
    1
  170.  Shock  The fees are paid to the owner of the rights. If the artist does not own the rights this is a problem with his/her recording contract and the sampling artist cannot be blamed for this. If a sample is rearranged to the point where it is unrecognizable it would qualify as an entirely new work. The sampling artist would be under no legal obligation to pay a fee and honestly it would be a bit immoral & money grubbing to attempt to collect one. It's funny you would doubt my example of Roberta Flack specifically, as the Fugees sampling of her work in 1996 did indeed lead to an increase in sales of her record, public plays and culminated in her issuing a statement to that effect. Dido did the same when Eminem sampled her work. The best data we have on the subject is a 2019 study published in the American Business Law Journal. The study demonstrated to a 99.99% statistical significance that sales of sampled songs did indeed increase after being repurposed in a modern work. The study was conducted using a robust & representative dataset and had been periodically revised over the course of a decade.
    1
  171.  Shock  You didn't specify that you were only referring to 'old school' artists until your 4th reply. In any case, I think we've both made our points.
    1
  172. People hear what they want to i guess.
    1
  173. Musk is a decent business man and a solid engineer. But he's severely socially stunted and is still playing those jr. high games where he's posing as a child's caricature of what a "genius" sounds like. He exaggerates his pauses and follows them up with a rushed sentence fragment to seem brilliant and deep. Rogan is uneducated so he doesn't really recognize a poser in this regard. He also really likes Elon's money and fame so he's more than willing to ignore it. I can tolerate it when benign, but when he begins to talk about life & death matters in which he has no experience or qualifications I kinda wish someone would tell them both to shut the fuck up.
    1
  174.  @Devin_Stromgren  that's actually a more interesting position. Wish you would've elaborated on why you prefer one type of taxation over another (assuming they end up getting the same amount of $ from you either way)
    1
  175.  @Devin_Stromgren  You're about as able to theoretically opt out of sales tax as you are of income tax. Stop working vs stop buying stuff. I mean we work to buy stuff. I guess you could save the money. But I'm guessing they'd count financial products (savings accounts, stocks, bonds) as taxable products.
    1
  176.  AnObviousUsername  Jesus christ you're a stiff.
    1
  177. This dude is annoying. It does seem like he was baiting Wilder. And his gleefullness at going viral seems slimey. Also kinda shady to take the name Radio Rahim.
    1
  178. Are you trying to say that restrictive state gun laws are useless without the backing of more restrictive federal laws to prevent guns from being bought in one state and used in another? Because that's what it looks like you're arguing for here.
    1
  179.  @AlexanderRM2010  Is there a third option? Gun related crime is a multi-factorial problem of which guns are only one dimension. Common sense gun restrictions would almost certainly reduce these serious crimes but it's best to combine this with other data supported interventions and a strengthening of the social safety net to prevent the conditions of poverty that often precipitate crime.
    1
  180.  @AlexanderRM2010    The idea that a social safety net must be funded by future tax payers is an assumption on your part, since there many ways this is done. But I don't want to veer too far from your original statement. If people's willingness to commit violence is the problem wouldn't it make sense to limit their access to guns?
    1
  181. Suicide is a serious problem in America. First Abraham Lincoln, now Jeffrey Epstein.
    1
  182. BLACK HELICOPTERS!
    1
  183.  @mcearl8073  Stop being racist.
    1
  184. It's actually pretty to cool to see the JRE acolytes forced to realize that these are not idle conversations, but that the JRE is a shrewdly managed business. Happy to see him go somewhere his misinformation and biased perspective will be a little less visible.
    1
  185.  james matthews  I think my argument is pretty clear. 🙄
    1
  186.  james matthews   My book is the HP Laserjet 3500 Printer manual, and it is extremely logical and reasonable. Unlike yourself, it only discusses its field of expertise and all its claims are evidence based and testable. It also doesn't have that distinct 'james matthews' whiney tone.
    1
  187.  james matthews  Come on now, we both know you're not old enough to play with fire. 😀
    1
  188.  @memyselfandi2506  lol uh.. bisexual people are pretty common. That was like the stupidest analogy ever.
    1
  189.  @memyselfandi2506  "Look if I want to participate in gay activities that's YOUR choice" ... Well done genius. Up to your usual standard of course.
    1
  190.  @memyselfandi2506  lol u fucked up bro. More than once. Just let it die. Tomorrow's a new day dumbass. Maybe you work on yourself instead.
    1
  191.  @memyselfandi2506  "that's like being a student and a teacher" "that's like being hungry and tired" "that's like being big and small" Jesus, you got bigger problems than the moozlems. Shot in the dark here: You're out of shape and live in a flyover state. Wow i must be psychic right? 😂
    1
  192.  @memyselfandi2506  suuure. I love how people who don't do shit are always like "I train mma". Not specific styles, just generic mma. Ok, karate kid. The idea is that many people can have homosexual and heterosexual desires simultaneously. So it's the worse possible analogy for a mutual exclusivity condition. Honestly I'm running out of ways to explain it to your dumb ass. Just sayin, if u want to be racist, xenophobic, don't do it in such a dumb way you embarrass your own people.
    1
  193. Oh also noone does 2hrs 'mma' every morning, as that level of overtraining becomes counterproductive. Nice try liar.
    1
  194.  @memyselfandi2506  lol I like how u linked a 6 day schedule to prove u train 7 days a week. I think u just proved my point. Once again: dumbass. Also, should i link a schedule from a movie theater that shows they're open six days a week to prove i go 6 days a week? Real smart.
    1
  195.  @memyselfandi2506  Indeed, sexual orientation has nothing to do with desire. Smart. I've explained this enough to your stupid ass. You don't provide an example of mutual exclusivity by selecting 2 categories where the single most salient defining traits are frequently simultaneously present. It's just a stupid choice. Go find a place to take remedial racism & xenophobia classes, then try again, dumbass. Bye bye?
    1
  196.  @memyselfandi2506  I think you misunderstood. You're definitely a dumbass, definitely a liar, definitely xenophobic, but i don't know about racist. Probably? But the courses aren't really offered separately. Also what does your race have to do with whether your racist? Like some ethnicities are immune from being racist? Are you being a dumbass again? (Sigh) Kinda getting tired of whipping that dumb ass. I'm ready to move on.
    1
  197.  @memyselfandi2506  lol "please read my shit but i won't read yours". Classic dumbassery. Listen i don't respect you enough to read through this much bullshit, but I tried skimming. Uh.. I don't know what to tell you. Black people can be racist against black people but you can't be bigoted and ignorant because you're Bengali? Here it comes... Suuure lol Sorry buddy, if you don't want to be accused of ignorance don't post ignorant comments.
    1
  198.  @memyselfandi2506  I'll extend an olive branch though. You can decide for yourself whether you're bigoted, or ignorant, or both. But you're stuck with dumbass & liar. Sorry, no changes there. Glad we're finally done here. Best of luck on your dumbass path, karate kid.
    1
  199.  @6Dawso  I guess the more important question is whether the tweet is actually offensive. I'd say yes for 3 reasons: 1) It doesn't hold logically, as it appears to be a false equivalency. 2) It's tactless and insensitive to refer to recent mass murders as "spectacle". Kind of a trivializing word. 3) It's coming from NGT, and people tend to think he's better than this.
    1
  200. @Seth H It's also scientists and statisticians who are upset that he would make a mockery of statistics like that. I gotta imagine the families of the dead probably took some offense too (but they're not on twitter)
    1
  201. He also hams it up a bit. He exaggerates his pauses and follows them up with a rushed sentence fragment to seem brilliant and deep. Musk is a decent business man and a solid engineer. But he's severely socially stunted and is still playing those jr. high games where he's posing as an child's caricature of what a "genius" sounds like. Rogan is uneducated so he doesn't really recognize a poser in this regard. He also really likes Elon's money and fame so he's more than willing to ignore it. I can tolerate it when benign, but when he begins to talk about life & death matters in which he has no experience or qualifications I kinda wish someone would tell them both to shut the fuck up.
    1
  202.  @coryb8432  I guess it's a good thing I don't have a platform. Kind of my point.
    1
  203.  @knaball  hmm... so narcissism is sharing any opinion that disagrees with yours? What an oddly narcissistic definition lol.
    1
  204.  @coryb8432  This appears to be a reading comprehension deficiency on your part. The idea is that Musk's own personal failings wouldn't bother me as much if they weren't being amplified uncritically by Joe's platform (and obviously to a lesser extent, his own) Glad I could help. 👍
    1
  205.  @coryb8432  Should also point out that it takes a special kind of thick headedness to characterize a 7 sentence review of a 3 hour podcast as long & rambling. Guess this is probably the most you've read in one sitting. Congrats lol
    1
  206.  @Thawhid  Or nah.
    1
  207.  @Typecast-L  Yeah, based on your initial comment, I strongly suspected that you're extremely uneducated in general and particularly ignorant with regard to this subject, but I was trying to be polite. Sorry?
    1
  208.  @yerpderp6800  1) Yes. entire world's supply. Virtually every single organization tasked with public health research as related to infectious disease has issued statements that reflect the same consensus opinion. From the NIH, WHO, CDC, the public health administrations of virtually every single country on the planet, every major pharmaceutical research firm, spokespersons for the AMA, the JAMA network, the UNDP, the IDSA, etc. But hey feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating some sort of expert consensus supporting Musk & Rogan's wild contentions. 2) Did you seriously just ask me what the difference was between $25 million and $100 million? $75 million. 3) It appears I'm being rude to @Typecast because he's a worthless piece of shit. He's going back and editing his posts to make it look as if I'm just hurling insults at him out of nowhere. He entered the conversation launching insults being belittling and pretentious without even making any actual points. I responded in kind.
    1
  209.  @Typecast-L  You entered the conversation hurling belittling insults without making a point. When I responded in kind you get offended. Unless you went back and edited your comments the record is clear. Again, you appear to be undereducated and misinformed. If you can demonstrate any major scientific consensus supporting Rogan & Musk's wild contentions I'd change my mind (any major infectious disease oriented NGO, IGO, professional association, or public health administration). You cannot because the expert consensus on this matter is remarkably consistent across the entire planet. Sorry if I don't but into your mysterious claim that you alone somehow know better.
    1
  210.  @singalexsong  Unfortunately it's not just government scientists saying it. Private sector scientists agree, virtually all major academic and research facilities, all major infectious disease oriented NGOs and IGOs, the public health administrations of virtually every country on the planet regardless of political orientation, etc. At a certain point it's foolish to continue disputing their position while not having any expertise, experience, or evidence to dispute it. And yes, the conspiracy theory driven opposition has an alarming number of crackpots and totally discredited spokespersons.
    1
  211.  @user-ju6zx3rm8d  A lot of the people claiming being systematically targeted are also classic agent provocateurs who habitually violate the rules to stir up drama. I'm not saying that YT's enforcement is perfect. But (particularly as related to the JRE) the issue is not nearly as serious as some of his more rabid fans like to believe. Joe has done extremely well on YouTube, and the vast majority of his videos have had no problem being monetized. But a $100 million contract would make anyone jump ship.
    1
  212.  @FATMAC2  I haven't watched CNN since 2001. If you're trying to imply that Joe owes you for being his fan, I disagree. He has no obligation to turn down $100 million to make your anonymous ass happy.
    1
  213.  @severusfloki5778  There's levels.
    1
  214.  @dickyboi4956  I've seen many YouTubers complain. I agree the system is not perfect, buy it's gotten a lot better over the past few years. And it's definitely far from totally random. I was making my comments in the context of creators at or around Rogan's level for whom it's basically a negligible issue. At this level, compliance is very easy to maintain with the given community guidelines I agree that it still needs to improve in terms of communication with small time independent creators and "one man" operations. But it's a far cry from the arbitrary nightmare being suggested in this thread.
    1
  215.  @Typecast-L  lol well that sounds like a retreat if I ever heard one. I invited you to back up your wild claims and you decide you're "done with me". Well played. Adios, you fake intellectual douchebag.
    1
  216.  @Kewrock  Nah, I don't. But I will check out what you suggested.
    1
  217.  @Typecast-L  Bitch I thought you were finished? Man up & stick to your word. I'm not going to sit here and educate you as to how to speak to adults. Read your comment again. It's literally all pretentious and belittling passive aggressive insults without a single substantive point being made. Grow the fuck up. Learn to engage in rational discourse with an evidentiary base instead of just calling everyone around you ignorant, incapable, and not worthy of your efforts. It is such a transparent tactic to avoid ever having to make an actual testable point. Either leave these childish delusions of grandeur behind or don't start crying when people call you on your bullshit.
    1
  218.  @Typecast-L  PS: dummy I was referring to Rogan & Musk's wild claims regarding COVID. Is this a reading deficiency problem on your end. I think this about wraps it up. Stick to your word and fuck off.
    1
  219.  @Kewrock  uh.. dude America is awash in censorship. YouTube's regulations are significantly less restrictive than virtually every major broadcast network now or in any period of American history. What are you talking about? Oh I also looked into Pizzaflix. The entire channel was demonetized, not just individual videos. My guess is this is probably an false positive on an automated copyright strike. Pretty sure that they can get this lifted fairly easily. The same thing happened to Sheet Music Boss and they were able to reverse it. This is assuming that he actually has done his homework and isn't violating any copyrights. He certainly could've saved himself some grief by indicating the copyright status of the works he was distributing either in the video or in the caption. As it was he was basically stupidly setting himself up for this kind of confusion. In any case, this is not the problem people are talking about. This is reasonable confusion about a fairly nuanced situation that is eminently correctable. It doesn't really amount to censorship or a broken system.
    1
  220.  @Typecast-L  You need me to be more precise and clear? I literally wrote: "Both of their positions are directly opposed to the domestic and international scientific consensus on this matter. The entire world's supply of medical professionals, virologists, and epidemiologists are remarkably united in their disagreement Musk's (and Joe's) dangerous and outlandish claims." "If you can demonstrate any major scientific consensus supporting Rogan & Musk's wild contentions I'd change my mind (any major infectious disease oriented NGO, IGO, professional association, or public health administration)." "Joe is spreading misinformation about a topic that he is blatantly ignorant about and jeopardizing the public health in the process." And you thought I was referring to demonetization as the dangerous unfounded claims? Are you idiot?
    1
  221. Come on dummy. If you can't figure out like 8 different ways to do this in 5 minutes you're not trying. What kind of fantasy land are you living in?
    1
  222.  @mikegonzalez9490  First of all I never said guns were the cause of high crime in Chicago, so I'm gonna ignore that part of your response. Second, I didn't say I was gonna walk you through it, I challenged you to try to figure out a way to buy an out of state gun. Come on man, I know you can do this. Hint: Buy pallets of guns in private sales and from gun shows. Truck them in to chicago and sell to your friends.
    1
  223.  @mikegonzalez9490  1) I can't speak to Indiana specifically, but I definitely know some ex-military guys (definitely not criminals) who have skirted background checks by buying in Texas precisely this way (minus the trafficking part). In fairness this was over 5 years ago, so I don't know if there's been improvement since. 2) Federal gun control is about more than background checks obviously. The idea is that background checks need to be universal (encompass private sales & gun shows) and be combined with a gun registration database that punishes people for everything from lost to stolen guns. It is the existence of more than one hole combined that allows guns to be trafficked from states w/ lax laws to states with tough laws. Thoughts?
    1
  224.  @mikegonzalez9490  Oh yeah, forgot to mention I had a friend who used a temporary address in Pennsylvania for exactly 90 days. Then bought a bunch of guns that he didn't have to register. Let me ask you, what do you think happened to those guns when he moved back to his home state? Do you think he brought them back with him or do you think he sold them in private sales? Does either option guarantee the guns remained in Pennsylvania?
    1
  225.  @mikegonzalez9490  We done here?
    1
  226.  @mikegonzalez9490  Oh, another question: how do you account for all the law enforcement and academic studies that have confirmed this trafficking of guns from states with relaxed gun control laws to states with stronger laws? Like they literally have maps of the trafficking routes and everything. This is pretty heavily documented. Why keep deluding yourself?
    1
  227.  @mikegonzalez9490  How're we doing here buddy? You a vegan yet?
    1
  228.  @mikegonzalez9490  Ah, good. So now we're agreed the Indiana to Chicago gun route is not a fantasy. If you'll recall, this was the only point you made and the only point we were arguing. I never claimed to have an answer for how to solve the gun problem in America. Hell I didn't even claim there was a problem. Just that the thing you think is impossible due to your limited personal experience is actually widespread. If you'd like to change the subject now, I'll follow you. But fair warning, this is beyond my wheelhouse, so a lot of this will be speculative and there are a shit ton of easily available resources to answer this question better for you.
    1
  229.  @mikegonzalez9490  thoughts?
    1
  230.  @mikegonzalez9490  Game, set, match. #vegancat
    1
  231.  @mikegonzalez9490  Ah.. I should've claimed to be an expert but only referenced personal experience and anecdote like yourself. My friend it's not a sin to be ignorant, but it certainly is a sin to revel in it. I'm fine leaving it here. Bluster aside, I suspect you won't be running around telling people gun trafficking doesn't exist. Long as you learned something, that's what counts.
    1
  232.  @twizzy6760  Right. NGT's tweet is like if every week I skull-fuck an elderly person to death and then turn and say "Hey, do you know how many Americans die from preventable obesity related illness every year? Don't waste your resources catching me.. you're responding to spectacle." Anyone with half a brain understands that NGT's tweet is first & foremost offensive to science, as it is logically invalid. It's a demonstration of both the "false equivalency" and "Tu quoqe (whataboutism)" logical fallacies. He's attempting to justify apathy to one issue merely due to the existence of another (tu quoqe/whataboutism). He then does a cross-issue comparison using only 1 variable (# of deaths/48hrs). He's purposely ignoring all the other critical variables to make an accurate comparison: different risk cohorts, different costs of response, different social benefit of the related activity from which the deaths arise (healthcare vs. gun use), etc. Hey, according to the one variable (# of deaths/48hrs), people driving is way worse than people molesting children. How many people died while molesting children in the last 48 hours? After this complete corruption of science, he proceeds to characterize very recent murders as "spectacle", unnecessarily trivializing the deaths. This is a borderline braindead level of insensitivity that could only be forgiven if you were presenting some kind of savant level genius argument. But you can't be stupid and insensitive.
    1
  233.  @twizzy6760  Oh yeah, also they've taken major steps to fix this problem as soon as it was documented. Prescription systems have been updated substantially, it is gradually becoming illegal to even write prescriptions any more (they are being transmitted electronically now). The hold up is really about roll out and necessary infrastructure. This contrasts pretty starkly with the backsliding in terms of gun control.
    1
  234.  @twizzy6760  So your response to troy is that everyone going into a Walmart should evaluate the risk as equivalent to going into surgery? Nothing about that conclusion seems absurd to you?
    1
  235.  @twizzy6760  We good here? You understand what @troy lucarelli was saying?
    1
  236.  @kurtstergar1042  I like this guy lol. "Go see a doctor" has got to be the best threat I've heard in a while. Turns out doctors in the US are so lethal, crazy stalkers don't send death threats any more... they send referrals. I'm here all week folks. (psst: medical error & medical negligence are not the same thing)
    1
  237.  @joeschmo247  The WHO disallows financial retaliation against infected member states because this incentivizes deception. Trump's unilateral travel ban was a financial retaliation. It was also mostly ineffective since the Covid strain that spread across the US came from Europe.
    1
  238.  @joeschmo247  No. You are mistaken. Trump put a travel ban on China February 2. The Europe travel ban didn't take effect until March 13, over a month later. Furthermore, Trump's "ban" on China wasn't actually a ban. 40,000 people traveled from China to the US in the 2 months following the fake ban. This was because the ban had tons of exceptions and was poorly executed. A ban must be >90% effective to have any effect on virus with a reproduction rate of 1.9 or higher. Trump's fake ban fell vastly short. This is because the ban was conceived as a political gambit, not as a genuine disease prevention strategy. It was a xenophobic attempt to stoke a culture war, which is his standard electoral strategy. Trump not only failed, but actively resisted all the steps necessary to actually prevent the damage that Coronavirus has done to America. Namely: Stockpile supplies, enact early testing, reach out internationally to establish multilateral strategies, enact early quarantines, direct emergency funds to strengthening relevant healthcare services, and generally take the problem seriously. This seriousness of this crisis is as much Trump's fault as it is China's.
    1
  239.  @joeschmo247  Correct. Trump put in place an ineffective travel ban against the wrong country in violation of the WHO charter that the United States agreed to. The WHO was against this on the basis that it was fear mongering while being ineffective against actual pandemic prevention and encouraging of the very deception which we now know played a major role in spread of the disease. So it appears they were right on all accounts. A month later Trump did the same thing again, except this time it was even more useless. The WHO correctly identified it as counterproductive and politically motivated.
    1
  240. NGT's tweet is like if every week I skull-fuck an elderly person to death and then turn and say "Hey, do you know how many Americans die from preventable obesity related illness every year? Don't waste your resources catching me.. you're responding to spectacle." Anyone with half a brain understands that NGT's tweet is first & foremost offensive to science, as it is logically invalid. It's a demonstration of both the "false equivalency" and "Tu quoqe (whataboutism)" logical fallacies. He's attempting to justify apathy to one issue merely due to the existence of another (tu quoqe/whataboutism). He then does a cross-issue comparison using only 1 variable (# of deaths/48hrs). He's purposely ignoring all the other critical variables to make an accurate comparison: different risk cohorts, different costs of response, different social benefit of the related activity from which the deaths arise (healthcare vs. gun use), etc. Hey, according to the one variable (# of deaths/48hrs), people driving is way worse than people molesting children. How many people died while molesting children in the last 48 hours? After this complete corruption of science, he proceeds to characterize very recent murders as "spectacle", unnecessarily trivializing the deaths. This is a borderline braindead level of insensitivity that could only be forgiven if you were presenting some kind of savant level genius argument. But you can't be stupid and insensitive.
    1
  241.  @dloganthegr8  Bullshit, he's taking wildly different causes of death that have very little to do with each other and presenting them with zero context. I also suspect he has knows nothing about the circumstances and particular challenges of addressing these other kinds of death. He just decided to exploit a tragic event to try to look clever by combining random stats without any context. Number of people dead is not the only relevant factor. His job is 'science communicator'. He shouldn't be presenting bad science publicly and communicating it poorly.
    1