The brilliant thing about this is that they have been so brainfucked that what they mean by liberation is going back to work. Freedom is being a wage slave.
Printable View
The brilliant thing about this is that they have been so brainfucked that what they mean by liberation is going back to work. Freedom is being a wage slave.
I miss my job so much. I'm going stir crazy. I looked at a photo of my office yesterday and felt a little homesick.
I'm just WFH. Have been quite busy this week actually. The only annoyance is the over-abundance of my wife and kids but what to do right.
Am I hallucinating or did Trump just suggest injecting bleach into the body to treat CV?
https://twitter.com/AndyOstroy/statu...284122626?s=20
The reaction shot is amazing.
Yes, buddy, there are a lot of ways to remove the virus from a body. That's never the hard part. I love that he's so stupid that he actually thinks he's helping. In his mind scientists are sitting in front of the TV furiously taking notes.
Not exactly*, but he did say something about getting sunlight inside your body, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
*In a shocking turn of events, he was asking a question at the time.
flashlight?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If it has output in the UV range, I guess. Pretty sure that's what he was talking about.
I don't think he knows what he's talking about. The questions he was asking would be perfectly legitimate for someone who is stupid when it comes to medical matters to ask a doctor in private. If it were leaked he quietly asked medical experts if it was possible to safely inject disinfectant, I wouldn't consider that newsworthy, but to make such comments in a public address watched by hundreds of millions, it's really hard to believe anyone is this idiotic.
Maybe, but his ratings are through the roof!
Gotcha again Fauci!
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/03...4782239692.jpg
Hahahaha Toilet Duck is top trending in the UK.
Not sure if that product is available elsewhere, but if it's not, it's a bog cleaner in a sort-of duck-shaped bottle designed to get under the rim of the toilet.
https://www.therange.co.uk/_m5/9/8/1459915887_304.jpg
Yeah, sure, but idk, shouldn't we wait for an inquiry before we pass judgement? Surely he's well intentioned..Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you suggesting that perhaps his medical advisers told him injecting disinfectant was a potential cure?
I think he's suggesting Trump wasn't intelligent enough to grasp what they were telling him, or what it meant. But, I'm sure an inquiry will be needed before we can know for sure. Even still, as long as it was an honest misunderstanding, he's good to go as POTUS.
My point was that boost's sarcasm was misplaced. We're not talking about poor decision making here, we're talking about saying dangerous things that nobody could have possibly advised him to say.
I mean boost's comment is just gleeful opportunism. He knows it's a poor comparison, but he couldn't stop himself from having a dig.
Of course, that applies to you too poop for your follow up.
Oh I get it. Poor decision making that costs thousandss of lives is ok as long as it's well-intentioned, but saying something really dumb on TV is dangerous.
You're on another planet if you think you have a point here. I can only assume you're just running with this to amuse yourself.
I mean to emphasise how ridiculous this is, you seem to be suggesting that we'd need an inquiry to determine if the comment he made about disinfectant was something he might have been advised to say, or that there is merit to his comments, just because I argued that an inquiry is the correct forum for accountability when it comes to policy.
No, I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry. It's entirely possible that CDC guy told him they were going to test injecting disinfectant and inserting UV light up people's asses. We don't have all the facts. That's what an inquiry is for.
Please make this your signature.Quote:
No, I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump...
That was pretty fucking dumb.
What are your thoughts on how to improve reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Jesus Christ(owitz), I lol'd.
https://media.thedonald.win/thedonal.../4RHdFkgF.jpeg
Did it work?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ahhh perfect.
Right, so now you're not allowed to post anything critisising Trump, I will delete any such post.
Ok I'll focus my criticism on the UK gov't then; plenty to work with there.
Ah, Twitter, naturally the correct forum for journalism and accountability. More trustworthy than Reuters, and much faster than an inquiry.
You're right - that guy is just entrely making shit up. It's not that the gov't won't tell us who is on their scientific committees, and it's not that they claim the committees are independent, and its' not that Cummings has been sitting on at least one of those 'independent' committees. None of that is known already to be true and being lampooned in this tweet.
I didn't even click the link, I just saw it was directing to Twitter. I mean, if that's how you do accountability, that's up to you.
idk what reasons the govt have for not disclosing who their scientific advisers are, perhaps it's a question of privacy. They can still be called to give evidence at an inquiry, and they will be under oath. I don't care if his name is Professor Bob Smith, I care about how reliable the information he gives is.
Cool it, Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
ps I'm a monkey twat
Pretty sure you're the Nazi, I saw the photo.
Obviously I wasn't being serious, cmon dude. When did I ever abuse my mod privileges?
Yesterday I saw a guy beating his wife in the street. I've organised an inquiry for when he stops beating her so we can find out what happened.
I don't understand the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Ong, we have accountability here too-- congress has the power of subpoena, it's great, except if you just stonewall them, and were able to stack the courts ahead of time, nothing comes of it. Maybe your system of checks and balances is more robust, idk, but to rule out public pressure as a lever against poor governance is naive.
This actually might be what sinks him. Two reasons to think this:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
1. He self mated in claiming it was sarcasm. He can't go to the next level and claim that claim was a joke. He's stuck with sarcasm. The problem is the "don't be such a snowflake, I was just fooling around" move utterly fails when 50,000 Americans are dead from a global pandemic and you're the head of state "sarcastically" suggesting people ingest poison as a cure. He needs to be relentlessly hammered on this point. This is all that should be talked about.
2. It happened, and people think it's absurd, but none of the commentariat is claiming this will bring him down. After all, if they were, it's almost a lock it wouldn't.
Notice how he insta-bailed on the questioning after the abridged episode of Reality TV Pandemic President today? I really don't think he wants to talk about it. Which is of course the perfect reason to keep bringing it up every time he shows his face.
ECON 101 on reality: humans have unlimited desires in a world of limited resources. To allocate resources to better meet desires, humans use their comparative advantages.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The above is one of the reasons that "wage slavery" is a thing. People want to go back to their jobs because they get more of what they want by doing so than by doing something else. People are slaves to reality, and the wage is a part of the very effective model that improves our lives given our reality.
Do you have a better model than the economics one?
The media has probably lost too much credibility by now.
Enough people know they give the public its opinion.
At least you're trying to engage in good faith, unlike poop.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
But you're still missing my point. It's fine to critisise bad governance. But laymen thinking they can tell the government how they should be dealing with an unprecedented situation because "other countries", as though things apply equally across the world, that's naive.
I don't know better. So I won't pretend to.
Said poop, never.
There's only one word I can use to reply to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Dickhead.
They certainly can tell the government that they're fucking up, and they should if they feel that way. It's called feedback. If those in power feel the criticisms are unjustified, it behooves them to find a way to convey that to the populace. Don't forget that the whole apparatus runs on the faith or subjugation of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm not so much saying you're wrong, but that I think you're failing to appreciate the full role of the populace.
whoa! Slow down-- he may well be a dickhead, but there's a time and place for name calling, and it's certainly not before he and the relevant parties have been put under oath at an inquiry!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hey, don't be so hard on Ong. We need to hold an inquiry to get to the bottom why he's resorted to name-calling before we can hold him accountable for his actions. He may just have received bad advice somewhere along the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I'll ignore your premise because I think it's extremely flawed, but also irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There absolutely is a scenario where you can work and not be a wage slave, and that is owning the means of production. Prime example for a company that does work that way is UPS. It is entirely self sustaining. There are no billionaire ceo's at the top doing their magic work, yet it functions more efficiently than comparable private companies.
I find it very hard to understand how capitalists can justify having people like Jeff Bezos syphon billions in surplus from their companies for their personal pleasure while paying their employees minimum wage. I know all the magical thinking that makes you justify this... what it comes down to is you're saying it's worth the human suffering because you think the company is more successful under your model.
I don't care about companies. I don't think there's any inherent value in being hyper efficient if it doesn't lead to better outcomes for everyone, and I disagree with the idea that capitalism is the more efficient model to begin with.
Trump talks about using uv-lights and injecting desinfectant, the next day they find Kim in a vegetative state. Coincidence? I think not.
The problem with the populace is that they are, as a unit, a bunch of mouth breathers who think they are experts on matters that very few people are experts on. Everyone has an inflated sense of morality, and it becomes a shouting contest. These public debates remain highly politicised, and it means the govt are wasting time responding to ambush journalism from agencies that are more interested in clicks and views than they are in anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Poop's problem is that he's not actually interesting in debating this, he's a typical member of the populace. Anyone who challenges his views deserves contempt, it's moral snobbery. I'm right you're wrong shut up. He's resorting to mockery because it's easier than trying to see it from another point of view. You're not quite like this boost, I applaud you for that.
What is there to debate with someone who can't be bothered to learn any of the facts? What kind of debate would you like to have?
I've repeatedly presented you with evidence that the UK is near the top of the worst countries in the world for CV, and noted how that coincides with a gov't whose response has been slipshod in nearly every way. And your riposte to that is that we don't know that it's the gov'ts fault, maybe they just got bad advice, and now is not the time to question their competence.
Perhaps it's not a coincidence that several other people here find your stance indefensible too. Maybe that should lead you to question its validity instead of getting all butthurt and personal about it.
I'm happy to learn the facts. We disagree on how facts are established.Quote:
What is there to debate with someone who can't be bothered to learn any of the facts? What kind of debate would you like to have?
Coincidences are not facts. Well done for showing some intellectual honesty and using that word.
Several? Don't exaggerate. Boost is not "several". And you're simply misunderstanding my stance. Facts are established in courts, not in the press, or social media.Quote:
Perhaps it's not a coincidence that several other people here find your stance indefensible too.
This isn't the best comment to get my point across, obviously lots of facts are established outside of courts, but I'd like to think you can try to see what I'm getting at.Quote:
Facts are established in courts, not in the press, or social media.
Many "facts" regarding covid need to be established in court.
Boost and I are not the only ones to call you out, coco and mojo have as well. No-one is agreeing with you. That's 4-0.
Where have you tried to dispute the evidence I've presented? Are excess mortality rates and the dates that various lockdown measures were taken seen as suspect in your eyes because they haven't been established by a court of law?
I don't want to keep repeating the same documented information that you will try to argue isn't valid, since at this point it's already obvious you're intellectually bankrupt on this topic. If you want to wait for an inquiry before you pass judgment, then go ahead. It's not going to change my beliefs one bit.
They've chipped in but they're hardly opposing my position strongly.
I haven't tried to dispute the evidence for good reason. I don't know or even suspect it's wrong. I question the motivations of those presenting such evidence as facts at this time.
Should it surprise anyone that criticisms of a gov't are more likely to come from people opposed to that gov't than those who support it? Surely that doesn't mean all such criticisms are 'fake news.' Criticisms, even on social media, can be based entirely on known facts. People may misattribute the motivations of those responsible, but their actions are usually clear to see, and those are what they should be judged on imo.
That's why I say I don't care if the UK gov't had the best intentions, I care about what they actually did and whether it was a huge collosal fuckup that is costing us thousands of lives. Which it was, and it is.
I'm also not concerned with parsing the responsiblity between the gov't and its team of advisors, because ultimately the gov't decides which advice to listen to, and so they bear the ultimate responsibility. If they got bad advice and followed it, then they should have hired more competent advisors. If they got good advice and ignored it, that's their fault too. If they got mixed advice, then they have to accept responsibility for the consequences of the advice they chose to adopt. There's no excuses about quality of advice that absolve the gov't from blame if things go wrong; that's not how responsibility works.
This is another problem with their continued insistence that they are 'following the science'. There is no expert I know of who would recommend acting late with containment efforts like lockdowns, and/or not preparing the health services with, e.g., adequate PPE. Their stance seems to be a veiled excuse 'if things suck and we end up having the worst outcome in Europe, it will be because we got bad scientific advice'. This 'bad advice' argument isn't a good excuse at the best of times, but seems even more disingenuous when there's no transparency about what that advice was or how any so-called expert could have suggested such an ass-backwards approach to the crisis.
They've also seem to have adopted the Trump line that 'we're doing a great job'. Well, like in the US, the numbers say otherwise.
I would be much more forgiving if they just came out and said 'look, we fucked up. Now let's all work together on this.' the way Macron did. Obviously we can't expect that of Trump, but it'd be nice if our own gov't at least gave us some straight talk on all this, instead of hiding behind its advisors and trying to gaslight us into thinking they've been doing a great job all along when it's obvious they haven't.
It's a strong indication that such opposition is politically motivated. It shouldn't matter if you're left or right. And no, it doesn't imply it's fake news. I haven't used that term. But when there's so much bullshit out there, it's important to not put too much stock in what you think is an indisputable fact.Quote:
Should it surprise anyone that criticisms of a gov't are more likely to come from people opposed to that gov't than those who support it?
I do care about intention. I also care about competency, but this suggestion of your that such incompetency has cost thousands of lives, that is not a fact. This is the kind of accusation that needs to be hashed out in court, at the right time.Quote:
That's why I say I don't care if the UK gov't had the best intentions, I care about what they actually did and whether it was a huge collosal fuckup that is costing us thousands of lives. Which it was, and it is.
You use an important word here... ultimately. I agree, but for me "ultimately" means when all the facts have been established. They haven't yet.Quote:
I'm also not concerned with parsing the responsiblity between the gov't and its team of advisors, because ultimately the gov't decides which advice to listen to, and so they bear the ultimate responsibility.
This is an untenable position. How are they supposed to know their advisers are incompetent until after they have demonstrated such? The question then is should the government have known? We can't know this, but it's so easy to say it.Quote:
If they got bad advice and followed it, then they should have hired more competent advisors.
Indeed, and if this is established at an inquiry, I'll agree they should be accountable for it.Quote:
If they got good advice and ignored it, that's their fault too
My argument remains the same. Inquiries are the correct forum for accountability.Quote:
There's no excuses about quality of advice that absolve the gov't from blame if things go wrong; that's not how responsibility works.
Lol, what a waste of time talking to you is.
It's a mutual waste of time. I hope you're doing something else at the same time. I am, I'm 24th out of 388 from 8500+ entrants in the $1 micromillions.
I think you're being a little naive on this one, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You seem to be saying that facts are created in the past, though... that we can't establish facts in the present, we can only wait until the present has passed before we establish facts about what is happening now.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I realised so, and quickly clarified.Quote:
I think you're being a little naive on this one, too.
Claims like "the government's incompetence have caused thousands of deaths" have not been established as fact yet.Quote:
You seem to be saying that facts are created in the past, though... that we can't establish facts in the present, we can only wait until the present has passed before we establish facts about what is happening now.
I'm now 4th with a 1m stack.
Ignore that, me being distracted meant I didn't read your post properlyQuote:
I realised so, and quickly clarified.
But it doesn't really matter. This isn't a sporting contest.
Let's revisit this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The "inquiry" that you speak of in this context is a criminal investigation followed by a trial. Even if you saw it happen, he's innocent until a court proves him guilty. That's how law works. That doesn't stop you from intervening, but if you simply read about it in the paper, well how do you know he isn't legally justified in his actions? Maybe she attacked him first, or even had a knife. Unlikely, but still, a court has to decide if he is legally accountable.
I think I know what you're saying, but it still strikes me as more "head in the sand" than not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you'd posted:
"Claims like 'the government's incompetence have caused thousands of deaths' are so mundanely, obviously, and regularly true that we can't get all hyperventilaty every time it happens. We need to put that unfortunate reality into the context of reality."
However, it can't be so cut and dry. On the whole, I agree with you that we shouldn't listen to uninformed laymen and amateurs and let that color our picture of what the experts are doing and why. However, I think it is fair to not wait until Nazism runs its course before we step in and call BS on it. Not to jump straight to Hitler, but to say there are extremes in which patience and acceptance of the political leadership is simply the worst.
We're in the middle of these extremes. It's bad enough to question whether or not the leaderships is competent enough at this crisis to keep them or to replace them with people who'd be more competent.
It's just not at all obvious that the leadership has been incompetent.
You (ong) seem to be saying that since it's not obvious Nazism, we should trust the leaders and assume competence.
IDK how that fits in your picture of democracy.
Is it only OK to examine whether the leader is competent during an election cycle?
Is it that no amount of incompetence should supersede a democratic election?
WOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Rock it!
If I saw the man beating his wife, then saw her the next day with bruises, then he argued that someone had advised him to hit her, I would believe he was guilty of assault. I wouldn't need to wait for a court to hold a trial and make it official. My standard of belief does not require independent verification from an outside authority, I can reach logical conclusions very well all on my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't need an inquiry to tell me 2 + 2 = 4.
That's not how it's intended. I'm not putting my head in the sand. I simply refuse to draw conclusions based on speculation. There is no way of knowing if action A or action B would also have resulted in less, more or the same number of deaths than action C.Quote:
I think I know what you're saying, but it still strikes me as more "head in the sand" than not.
Two interesting words here... patience and acceptance. I have the patience, but this isn't blind acceptance. If mistakes have been made that should not have been made, then I do not accept the govt's handling if this matter.Quote:
However, I think it is fair to not wait until Nazism runs its course before we step in and call BS on it. Not to jump straight to Hitler, but to say there are extremes in which patience and acceptance of the political leadership is simply the worst.
Indeed. This is very important.Quote:
It's just not at all obvious that the leadership has been incompetent.
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for the time being. That's all. They have more important things to worry about. If anyone thinks that a change of government would be helpful at this time, fair enough, but I most certainly don't.Quote:
You (ong) seem to be saying that since it's not obvious Nazism, we should trust the leaders and assume competence.
Not at all. The time for an inquiry on this matter is immediately after it's over, not when there's an election looming.Quote:
Is it only OK to examine whether the leader is competent during an election cycle?
Still going. 24th out of 72 with just over average stack, 1.4mQuote:
WOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!
Yet more bad faith debate. Just don't bother, it's a waste of your time.Quote:
then he argued that someone had advised him to hit her
Just picked off a short stack, A3s vs 55, flopped the nuts. Brutal.
16th of 69.
8th of 66, AKs on bb, shove to steal raise and call.
This is going to be a messy finish. Average stack is 15bb.
It can certainly be disputed, but I've yet to hear a good argument based on anything that corresponds with actual evidence that does dispute it. So far, the main arguments to counter critique of the gov't have been platitudes such as 'this is not the time to criticise'.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If we restrict ourselves to provable facts, then:
a) the response in the UK was slow relative to other countries in Europe. This is evident in the graph from the Imperial College report I posted earlier. For example, total lockdown in the UK took place 7 days after we passed 1 death/million. Only Italy was slower to act in response to rising fatalities.
b) the deaths/million rate is high relative to other countries, on track to be the highest in Europe, if not the world. Here, we're counting excess deaths rather than 'reported' deaths, since the latter are susceptible to gov't manipulation. This is evident in the FT report I cited above, and in official documents re: excess death rates in various countries.
c) the government strategy has been documented by both Reuters and the Times to have changed course from a 'herd immunity' approach to a 'lockdown' approach while the crisis unfolded.
d) there is plausible evidence (cf. Reuters/Times reports, reports from frontline health workers, the gov'ts own reports of how many tests are being given) that the gov't failed to prepare by securing enough tests, acquiring PPE, etc.
e) the gov't consistently claims to be 'guided by science' yet is unwilling to explain who those scientific experts are or what their specific advice was.
Those are all indisputable facts. I choose to draw the conclusion that gov't incompetence is the common denominator behind them. If you have a better explanation I'd be interested in hearing it.
3rd of 50, AQ for my stack vs 77 and I hit.
I'll respond later poop, this game is priority now.
Pffft.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you stuart1973?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No, I'm OngBonga, and my IRL name is Matt.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_Quagmire.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
TILQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oh wait, looking at the wrong game. I think I see you now.
It's kinda weird finding out someone's real name when you've been talking to an alias for a decade!
I assume Oskar is actually called Oskar, other than that I don't know your names either!
I only see one game with 12 players and one with 11000
I'm actually called Poop. I identify as a bodily function.
You might really enjoy reading some economics philosophy. An entire field of well-respected academia is based on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What's the tourney ID?
It's MM event 89.
7th of 28.
8-max turbo NLHE $1.10
ID 2865554622
Ah, had turbo off on filter.
I see you now.
First place is $1190, sweet.
24th is $14.49.
Nice payout structure lol.
I don't normally play turbos but for a dollar I fancied it, a change from my usual badugi.
I knew it was £1k+ for 1st but I wasn't checking the current payouts, I was going to look if I got to FT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
3rd of 21
I'm Sean, BTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I know a few names.
wuf's irl last name is great. It's not mine to share, though.
Wuf Trump?
No wait,
Wuf Freedman?
Oooch!
QQ vs. KK, flops a set of Qs. River is K. (ong not involved, it was two other guys).
Sean.
TIL.
I raised A9s, had to fold pre. That was a brutal hand.
was that the one 32s won in the end? wasn't paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga