a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
94%
then a day later the first post made
This made a lot of people very angry and has largely been regarded as a 'bad move'.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
No posts please thank you.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
P_K crabboi'd the neolibs long before /r/cth. The original gucci if you will.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
You best start believin in struggle sessions, cause you're about to be in one.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
Ok wrap it up I think we're done here.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
I hate to be that guy, but this is a common confusion that isn't correct. It's actually named for his nephew. He dabbled in ice cream blending throughout his life, and this is the famed 18th flavor of Louis Neapolitan.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
No worries, that whole thing was a mess.
Cheers!
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
Yeah, I guess in that case I agree that the person calling him an asshole went to far in that sense, automatically assuming the worst case scenario and going on the attack.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
I mean I read the following
She's also sorry, and I say it's fine because I want her to feel better and recover, but secretly I'm fucking raging.
As raging at her. That's what it seems to convey to me. If not, then yeah, disregard me.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
You were deliberately undermining evidence-based precautionary advice regarding vaccines and masking
Yes, as evidenced by the fact that I stated I masked everyday in a KN95, spray ELAH in my nostrils twice daily, and have every vaccine I am eligible for.
Look you don't get to pretend everyone who has a different take on the morality of individual covid precautions is undermining the science of individual covid precautions. I was arguing with a colleague in March 2020 about the efficacy of the N95 I was wearing to the store because "CDC said there's no evidence those help", I'm not about to take accusations of mask efficacy minimization from you seriously.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
kinda weird for you to cite someone else's work when you report those numbers then no?
No, you can use the info there and elsewhere to do your own risk calculus. They have their raw counts in the table.
First, are you using "significantly" here to mean statistically significant or as a synonym for "much"
Both depending on your alpha level; the odds ratio for this specific dataset and viral myocarditis is
Fisher's Exact Test for Count Data
data: matrix(c(3, 12460 - 3, 18, 284592 - 18), ncol = 2)
p-value = 0.05583
alternative hypothesis: true odds ratio is not equal to 1
95 percent confidence interval:
0.7182998 13.0456836
sample estimates:
odds ratio
3.807808
That's a pretty large effect size in the sample.
Without more information about how much uncertainty there is in these odds, even if we abuse the statistics to draw an invalid comparison, at best we'd conclude that the post exposure odds of dysautonomia are about the same between groups.
There is no abuse of statistics or invalid comparison to report an observed sample difference. Sample proportions are unbiased estimators. They observed an higher IRR in the post-vaccine than the post-infection group. It'd be inappropriate to claim with any level of confidence maps to the population proportions, but nobody is doing that.
You seem to have at least a passing knowledge of probability theory, so please, reread the authors' corrections for their own explanation as to why the comparison that your argument rests on cannot be drawn from the data or results in the work you cited, for POTS, myocarditis, or any of the other outcomes studied.
I'm a statistics professor. Their note on fully adjusted odds comparisons isn't of interest to me doing back of the envelope math for my own personal risk calculations. Unless you're going to posit the the presence of severe confounding factors between the two seperate populations, I'm going to help myself to the null that the randomization limits the effect of the populations being exclusive on the final parameter in question. They helped themselves when they did their between group comparison, and you felt it was worth including and bolding when it supported your argument.
these results indicate that POTS might be occurring at a higher-than-expected frequency following COVID-19 vaccination, although at an overall rate lower than the frequency of POTS occurring following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
You kinda do if vaccination unconditionally lowers the risk of negative outcomes,
Why would you ever use unconditional probabilities for inference when the prevalence of negative outcomes are so heavily stratified? To give you a more extreme example, this is like quoting airplane safety statistics at someone whose on a plane that the wing just fell off of. The statistics about unconditioned airplane safety are true, but meaningless once conditioned with additional information. Specifically, the study you linked to on myocarditis found a large effect with the Moderna vaccine than they did with covid infection.
In the studies that have included mRNA vaccine and SARS-COVID-19 myocarditis measured by the same methodology, the incidence rate was increased by 3.5-fold over control in COVID-19 compared with 1.5-fold for BNT162b2 and 6.2-fold for mRNA-1273.
When you know which vaccine someone got, the appropriate probability is the conditioned one, not the unconditioned one.
To sum up this digression into statistics, if you can estimate the odds ratio of negative outcomes to infection and vaccine (for a specific cause or all cause, that's your choice), conditioned to your specific demographic and health information, you can then calculate a daily risk of COVID infection, p~critical~, at which point rolling the dice with covid is actually a safer bet than the vaccine. That might be quite small, and very likely will be for most people, (to the point where the vaccine is a safer bet), but it's not 0. To give you a concrete example; my 95 year old neighbor is unvaccinated. She hasn't been to an indoord public place since February 2020, apart from doctors offices, which she wears an n95 into. She only has me and her daughter come into her house, and everyone will wear an n95. She has a list of drug sensitivities and comorbidities as long as my arm (I do grant that I consider some of these exaggerated). Her daily risk of infection is so vanishingly low, that yeah, in her case, p~infection~< p~critical~, the probability likely works out in favor of not vaccinating. Do you buy that?
That's an opinion you should keep to yourself in a post explicitly created to vent about someone in OP's life deliberately doing less less than OP has asked for to protect themselves and OP.
Only if we want them to stay mad at their significant other. He's welcome to be mad about his situation, he should be. But what good outcome do you foresee about reinforcing that anger at an individual and not the fucked up system that put us here.
a_blanqui_slate
Now
•
100%
I don't know what liberalism is even supposed to mean in this context; surely any sort of Marxist or materialist analysis would tend to put the blame on the systemic forces shoving people into the orphan juicing machine, not on the individuals navigating the systems incompetently.
*[Ding]* *You are now free to post on the comm*.
This is the typical throwaway line used by liberals when it's pointed out that Israel should stop doing war crimes, but I'm not sure what it's trying to convey. *Rights* are always a tricky abstraction, doubly so at the international level, so I'm not sure what asserting the existence of some *right* is supposed to do. Israel obviously has the capability to defend itself^1^, so what good is asserting some intangible right to do so? Are they actually saying "We should not stop Israel from doing what it wants to defend itself"? I imagine even they would object to Israel use of sarin or nuclear weapons, so I don't think that's what they mean. Is it "Israel should be given wide but not unlimited latitude by the US to respond as it sees fit"? Cause if that's what they mean, the easy answer is "not with our tax dollars". Anyway this just seems like one of those empty pat expressions used during arguments I hate. --- 1. When they aren't busy doing racialist dismissiveness of Palestinian military capability.
Protocols of the a Learned Elders of Cottagecore.
Hi there, I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble, but I've blocked users who I've found annoying (and who find me annoying) and they are still somehow able to see and reply to my comments/posts, which to my understanding should not even be possible. I don't imagine they know they're doing anything wrong by doing that (because they don't know they're blocked) but this definitely seems like a bug.
Apologies for posting. --- I should say by way of introductory remarks, that while this is an effort post, it is an effort post on a shitposting website, and thus *ab initio* a shitpost and therefore be taken in the correct spirit of levity in which it is intended. Don't get my thread locked. --- Recent discussion on here has touched on the moral status of the execution of the Romanov family by Bolsheviks ahead of the advancing White Army^1^. While not exactly of practical significance given how few of us have Royal Families locked up in our basement, it did reveal several significant, (sometimes severe) differences in the philosophical underpinnings of the posters on this website. ### A Moral Communism *Moral status* as such actually has very little to deal with communism/leftist (in the Marxian vein) in terms of it's internal mechanism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the rest of that intellectual lineage^2.^ famously thought very little of moral philosophy. A communist is thus entirely at liberty to dismiss this entire discussion as idealism, and observe that within a Marxist framework, there are no 'good' and 'bad', merely a historically deterministic sequence of class antagonisms that will eventually resolve in favor of the proletariat and thus choosing to be a communist is merely choosing to throw one's hat in with the predetermined victors. This strand of amoral communism thus is not terribly interested in this discussion, and anyone here that adheres to that framework is excused from the discussion as having won the argument. Given the rest of us do have moral considerations that prefigure our political beliefs, it's necessary for us to sketch out at least a scaffolding for what moral commonalities leftists share before going further, lest we fall into a morass of fundamentally incompatible frameworks stemming from different axiomatic premises. Speaking from my own personal position, I ascribe to leftist political positions as they offer me the greatest promise of granting a comfortable and dignified existence to the largest number of people possible. That in of itself does not make a moral axiom though, as achieving a large amount of something is valueless if the individual components don't themselves have value, and therefore, and a fundamental value informing my politics is the axiomatic value/sanctity of human life. So I am taking on as an assumption that generally speaking, want everyone to have dignified and comfortable lives^3.^ If that position doesn't more or less describe you, you are also excused as having won the argument. ### Justifying Shooting a Tsesarevich in my Pajamas Which brings us to the Romanovs. In keeping with ^3.^ above, and considering the minor children of royals not culpable for the systematic injustices perpetrated under the dictatorship of their parents, we'll limit our discussion here to the minors (Anastasia, and especially Alexei), though I think the general outline of the argument can be applied to pretty much all of the Tsar's issue. The entirety of the family, along with their retinue, were bulleted and bayoneted in Yekaterinburg about 10 days before white occupied the city. In attempting to defend the legacy of one of the most politically successful socialist projects in history^4.^, this action has largely been justified on the left. Examining the commonly proposed justifications in light of our moral principles finds them universally lacking. 1. **It was *necessary* in order to safeguard the immediate success of the revolution against an individual with claim to the throne**. This argument goes that while we do value human life and dignity, our efforts to maximize these will sometimes require that certain human lives be forfeit, essentially turning this into a trolley problem^5.^. This argument differs in an important aspect from the trolley problem in that the trolley problem consists of single moment in time with clearly articulable and certain outcomes given at the outset. Leaving Alexei alive was in no way certain to doom the revolution to failure of significant struggle, as he could have been maintained in custody, and ascribing such outsized influence on the course of political affairs to the life of a sickly 13 year old is a profoundly anti-materialist approach to history. History is replete with challenges to establish socialist authority^6.^, none of which stemmed from claimants to the Imperial thrown. Further, liquidating the Tsar, his children, and his brother did not exhaust the Romanov line, his cousin could and did proclaim himself Emperor-in-exile, and despite being old enough to actually head a restorationist intervention, none materialized. So the notion that killing Alexei was necessary fails to stand up to scrutiny ^7.^. It is also worth noting as an aside that the Romanovs were deeply unpopular, and to wit, were not the government the Bolshevik revolution occurred under, and supporters of the provisional government (domestic and international alike) formed the overwhelming contingent of the White forces, and the notion that a 14 year old tsarist claimant to the thrown would have had a meaningful impact on that colossal clusterfuck strains credulity. 2. **It prevented a longterm challenge to Boshevik control in a manner similar to Jacobite uprisings or the Bourbon Restoration.** Taking a more longterm view of the problem, it might be acknowledged that the Alexei presented no immediate threat justifying his liquidation, but, drawing from the history of pre-CIA regime changes, he presented a longterm likely/probable/plausible/possible threat in the form of an eventual challenge, and that acting in light of that possibility was justified if not strictly necessary. If we wish to examine this in light of our moral principles, we need to develop some notion of probability calculus; at what point is taking in innocent life now justified in order to avoid certain possible harms that have a certain probability of occurring. You can formalize this to ridiculous extents^8.^, or you can take the legal systems more qualitative approach, of establish some standard of proof (you are, after all, justifying killing someone), where the execution is deemed justified if seems more likely than not/clearly and convincingly/beyond a reasonable doubt that it will prevent further, greater harm in the future. This lets you weaken the requirement that it is *necessary* to kill him to merely it is *prudent* to kill him. What is lacking though is any evidence that anyone has meaningfully carried out this process for any standard beyond plausible. The greatest extent to which this is established is that historically, there have been several restorationist insurrections, but no systematized historical study has been undertaken to quantify the risk of insurrection/coup in the presence or absence of an legitimate claimant.^9^. Well perhaps we leave it there; a *plausible* narrative that places Alexei as the cause of some harm is sufficient in our eyes to justify his liquidation. The problem with this is that it is such a liberal standard that it can be applied to nearly everyone. There are scores of documented peasant rebellions throughout history, so by the same standard it is plausible that any given peasant may be at risk for launching a peasant rebellion down the line and thus, by that same standard, we are justified in liquidating them. Universalizing from this generic peasant^.10. to all peasants. And thus our system named aimed an providing dignity and comfort is able to justify pretty much any atrocity. 3. **The moral culpability of for the executions lies at the feet of the Tsar who created the system and not the executioners themselves.** This argument goes that it was actually the Tsar that placed him in position to be killed by standing at the top of a monarchical system that has ruined and ended untold numbers of lives. Had the Tsar dismantled that system before it came to blows, Alexei would have lived a happily inbred life as a continental European curiosity. This argument plays fast an lose with the notion of *fault* to an extent that borders on the absurd. Within getting into the morass that encompasses the legal notion of *fault*, I'll observe that the executioners where in total control of the situation, given the Romanovs were in the zone of immediate material influence, while the Bolshevik leaderships were at a more distant proximity, and Tsar Nicholas II at the head of the Imperial State was a fleeting memory, having greatly influenced the events that now overtook them, but having no control over them. The Bolshevik's in Ipatiev House or those in leadership in Moscow alone decided who in that house lived and died, they knew that, and they exercised that choice. 4. **Unpleasant things happen during a revolution and we accept that as soon as they begin.** This is true, but once again, it comes down to the notions of control and proximity. As a leftist, I acknowledge that the struggle for political power may involve the world becoming a worse place (as judged according to my moral principles outline above) due to my actions to make it a better one. This is an abstract acknowledgement. It may also result in me taking actions that I find unpleasant or repugnant^11^. If it is the moral principles that describe motivate my political struggle though, it is fundamentally self-defeating to exercise my control over my immediate surroundings to knowingly act in a manner that results in an immediate degradation of the world around me (once again, as judged by my moral standards). My actions in the here and now, must be justified according to my principles in the here and now and my actions in the here and now. If 10 minutes ago I was standing in Yekaterinburg and the Whites are closing in, and now I'm still standing in Yekaterinburg and the Whites are still closing in, but now there is a brand new pile of child corpses of my making, then I have made the world a worse place. --- ### No tears for dead peasants It is reasonable to ask why go to such great lengths to challenge the justifications for the murder of Alexei (which is so emotionally remote to me as to essentially be fictitious). To which I offer the following justifications. 1. It's ridiculous and therefore funny. 2. Because eventually some of us may be in positions to make decisions that make the world a substantially better or worse place for others, and I want it be very clear what stands before us when making those decisions. No, none of us are going to decide whether or not an heir lives or dies, but we are going to decide how to treat with those around us, and want everyone to pause before they exercise what little control they have in the world around them before making it a worse place, justifying it with a glib aphorism or some half-baked argument. --- ^1.^ The fitness for humor here is not considered, as something can be both morally bad and the legitimate target of well-done comedy. Like 9/11. ^2.^ I was promised ice cream if I didn't say 'ilk' here. ^3.^ To wit, one of the main justifications for political violence on the left is that it is directed at those preventing others from enjoying dignity, comfort, or well, life. ^4.^ Such as it is. ^5.^ which we may dub the Yekaterinburg Streetcar Defense ^6.^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_in_the_Soviet_Union ^7.^ One could alternatively take the logical form of necessity as a conditional, ~P -> ~Q with P being "the legitimate claimant to the imperial thrown is killed" and "Q" being "the revolution is successful". Given the contra-factual nature of ~P, the truth value of this statement can't be evaluated directly, but given the analogous situation in China with PuYi, we can strongly infer that this conditional is in fact false and thus logical necessity is not present. ^8.^ define x~i~ to be each enumerated possible future in space X, p(x~i~) to be the probability of that future occurring, and h(x~i~) to be the number of lives ruined by Alexei in that future x~i~. Shoot kid if  ^9.^ To reach a preponderance of evidence standard you would need to establish P(Insurrection|Legitimate Claimant) > P(Insurrection), which the strictly materialist interpretation would hold P(Insurrection|Legitimate Claimant) = P(Insurrection). ^10^ Regular viewers will recognize this as universal generalization. ^11^ Orwell's description of the conditions of fighting in the Spanish civil war come to mind.
Know how I earn a livin'. I'll fix this site for you, but it ain't gonna be easy. Bad site. Not like going down to stormfront and fixing /r/politics and /r/worldnews. This site, swallow you whole. Little postin', little commentin', an' down you go. And we gotta do it quick, that'll bring back your liberals, put all your takes on a payin' basis. But it's not gonna be pleasant. I value my neck a lot more than three thousand upvotes, chief. I'll find the problem for three, but I'll stop it, and fix it, for ten. But you've gotta make up your minds. If you want to stay alive, then ante up. If you want to play it cheap, be on the_dunk_tank the whole winter. I don't want no volunteers, I don't want no mates, there's just too many posters on this hellsite. 10,000 upvotes for me by myself. For that you get the 'no posting', the 'no commenting', the whole damn thing.
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/251 > With the deletion of the subreddits, /r/Chapotraphouse3, a community dedicated to not posting, was deleted. Could we get a community here to not post in?
Now