Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - monsta666

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83
Medicine & Health / Re: 🦠 Killer Superbugs!
« on: July 09, 2020, 02:33:23 PM »
I think they should test all the vaccines on Trump. He could snort them at bedtime with his Adderall.

Does injecting him with covid-19 count as a vaccine? ::)

It can't be worse than bleach!  :laugh:

"antifa, antifa, antifa" = the new "Benghazi!" for the 2020 electoral season.

The BIG question!

Can he fit Obama, Killary, Benghazi, Antifa and Radical left all into one Tweet?   ::) ::) ::)


Be careful RE; one of Trump's goons could come knocking at your door. I mean if Trump can call Obama an anti-facist then what does that say about the state of the union? You on the other not only support socialist policies which is basically equivalent to devil worshiping but you also call America the facist states of America!

Surly Newz / Re: The Daily Meme
« on: July 03, 2020, 07:03:35 AM »
Mask wearing during the Covid-19 crisis faces the same resistance as condom wearing during the HIV crisis. It is not macho to protect yourself. It is a sign of weakness!

Surly Newz / Re: The Daily Meme
« on: July 02, 2020, 07:16:35 AM »

The guy in the coffin is either black or a Democrat so no worries! ;)

Surly Newz / Re: The Daily Meme
« on: July 01, 2020, 01:23:00 PM »

But I can't breathe with them on!

Medicine & Health / Re: 🦠 Killer Superbugs!
« on: June 30, 2020, 12:23:06 PM »
Some apparently credible sources strongly suggest that there may be serious problems with the reliability of the one test we do have for this virus.

Obviously, the pandemic is real enough, as large numbers of people have been getting seriously ill … and have died from a certain symptom set which is in some way at least very likely associated with a virus.  But the article I have linked to raises a lot of questions about testing and the disease!  -- provided it is not itself seriously flawed or presenting false information.

I can't comment on the veracity of the article as I am no expert in testing but I do know the PCR tests do generate a significant number of false negatives. How much exactly? I do not know for sure but I believe it could be as high as 30%. Main coronavirus test produces ‘false negatives’ at least 20% of the time, study shows (Global News)

There have been numerous cases when people have tested negative repeatedly before testing positive. Moreover the way the test is administered means that if the person taking the swabs is not skilled they may not even get a valid result. So in practice the test can be even less reliable than the figures given in the lab. Saying all that the doctors and other healthcare workers understand the limitations of the test so in cases of uncertainty they will look at the list of symptoms the patient is exhibiting and they can run other tests such as chest x-rays to gain confirmation. Indeed when the Chinese ran short of tests or perhaps did not have confidence in the tests being applied for a time their "gold standards" was to check the x-rays and if there was an opacity around the lung area (a sign of inflammation of the lung) then they would positively identify this as a case of corona. These days suspect cases i.e. a person who tests negative but has coronavirus symptoms is often tested again to verify the results of the first test. There is a real need for a quicker, simpler and more accurate test but as of today there hasn't been such a test that has scaled to amounts where it can be used effectively.

Medicine & Health / Re: 🦠 Killer Superbugs!
« on: June 30, 2020, 11:52:20 AM »
I have more than a little bit of a hard time comprehending folks who say that if we test more that will cause there to be more positive cases. Will someone please explain this in a simple enough way to understand?

Also, I found it interesting that no one responded to this post at all.:,13759.0.html

Well in the simplest terms if everyone had coronavirus but I could only test 5000 people a day then the number of positive cases is bound to go up if my testing capacity where to increase above 5000. I suppose what some people can get confused with is the fact that if more testing leads to more positive results it is like the test results are making the outbreak worse. They make the association fallacy whereby they think that tests contribute to the spread of the virus since more testing has led to more positive results. Doesn't help that Trump himself is insinutating this. Off course that isn't the case and the disease will spread regardless if there is testing or no. Testing merely captures the number of cases so it can be recorded, monitored and then managed (at least that is the hope!).

Now the WHO has set guidelines over what the adequete level of testing should be and their guideline is that if more than 5% of all tests come back positive then you are not testing enough. The reasoning behind that is if more than 5% tests turn positive it is probable the testing regime are not adequetely recording enough cases to accurately gauge the scale of the epidemic. A lack of data can then inhibit policy makers in making the right decisions so the chances of locking down too slowly or reopening too quickly is higher when your testing system is not good enough. Associated problems with lack of testing would be the time taken to get a result is too long and rationing of testing to only the worst cases which can skew mortality rates. In any case on this WHO guideline it can be said that the US is not testing enough because as of yesterday the US had idenitified 44k cases of coronavirus yet only conducted 600K tests in that time period leading to a positive rate of around 7.3%. A correct level of testing given the scale of the epidemic would be somewhere in the region 880k tests a day.

FSoA and Brazil are CURRENT Hot Spots.  But when India gets hit hard, you have a Billion people.  If you get whaat happened in NYC in Calcutta, WIPEOUT!  They don't hav a medical system that could possibly handle the numbers involved.  You only need .1% of 1B to hit !M.

Highly doubtful any reasonably effective vaccine is developed thi year. MAYBE in 2021.

August 31 was an early WAG, just because it is my Birthday.  lol.


With the amount of underreporting/suppressed reporting that goes around I wouldn't be surprised if the true total is closer to a million than half a million. WHO and EU say the Russian numbers in deaths are difficult to understand which is just a diplomatic way of saying they are liars. Then you have cases like Brazil where there is gross under testing so many people who die from Covid are never tested and are simply buried meaning they are never included in the official death numbers. I suspect you will get a lot more of that in the poorer countries India included.

Going forward this is likely to mean that whilst numbers may rise in India it is likely not going to increase to truly epic levels only because the official numbers are not going to capture all the people that die. The official stat is simply the tip of the iceberg. In many of the hotspots in India the hospitals are overwhelmed and they are turning away people. If those people die before they can even get into the hospital do you think they will be counted as a Covid death? To further illustrate this point The New York Times is saying that when viewing excess death rates in various countries it has detected 120,000 excess deaths worldwide (18,600 in the US as of June 23rd) not accounted for even after taking official Covid-19 deaths away.

120,000 Missing Deaths: Tracking the True Toll of the Coronavirus Outbreak

But even if the 1 million total is reached there will be some person who will say the flu kills 2 million people worldwide and this is just a global psyop from mainstream media.

Energy / Re: Energy, Ecology, Economics (and Politics)
« on: June 29, 2020, 11:50:28 AM »
And the USA imports a great deal of energy use from China and India, in the form of manufactured goods.  So it's all very complicated, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty certain that a strong involuntary energy descent future will occur if society fails to adopt a voluntary energy descent pathway. 

In my view, nothing can prevent a strong global energy descent over future decades, so we may as well take the voluntary route as a way of staving off various enormous environmental, ecological and social / economic consequences of a failure to do so.

The problem with VED is the politics, as you know.  I'm trying to address that key problem here … by proposing a "way out there" novel approach to politics, one which will require a shift in our "imaginary" of politics -- our "political imaginary".

Per capita energy consumption does show a strong correlation to real income i.e. income adjusted for inflation. Here is a chart posted by Gail Tverberg:

Then compare this chart to hourly earnings as taken from the Federal Reserve Economic Database (FRED):

As you can see both lines are on roughly the same trajectory. Incomes for the average household have remained roughly the same as energy consumption yet total consumption has gone up. How does this happen? This increase has largely come from reduced costs of goods and services via globalisation and the massive expansion of debt in the US. The financial crisis of 2008 was just a result of this debt bubble growing without enough safe guards.

Now I believe one of the major things that has postponed the day of reckoning is as BuddyJ eluded to is that the fracking for oil and to lesser extent gas has meant that instead of oil production decreasing to 65 million per barrel we have oil production at 80 million per day. This has largely, in my opinion, contributed to capitalism lasting for another decade. If Richard Heinberg had been right we would probably be looking under the barrel to a severe economic contraction if not outright collapse.

Thing is this fracking is not sustainable and with the current coronavirus pandemic and the prospect of low demand and low prices for the foreseeable future there is a real risk a lack of investment in future oil fields this could lead to reduction of oil production in the coming years. Predicting exact timelines is always a bit of a crap shoot but I think Heinberg is right overall but he just got the timing wrong. In the grand scheme though what is really the error of being 10 or even 20 years out? People in the future won't make that distinction and could even acknowledge the fact that when he said this he was going against the grain of the mainstream opinion that economic growth can go on forever.

The fundamental issue is we have a debt based monetary system and to keep it going we need continuious growth. Anything that threatens future growth has the potential of collapsing the entire global economy. This is why whenever there is a big crisis (such as coronavirus) you can expect the various central banks to act as lender of last resort and will fire as much money as it takes to maintain the status quo side-effects be damned. The question we really have to ask is what will be the limiting factor that derails future growth? My money is on a lack of energy but I acknowledge the bite point could easily be resource depletion such as lack of topsoil, water shortages, lack of fertiliser or ecological collapse while another distinct possiblity is uncontrolled global warming. I say an energy crunch is the most likely scenario because I feel that is likely to happen within the next 10 years (correct me if I am wrong BuddyJ  ;D) whereas stuff like resource depletion may bite at the end of the 2030's/early 2040's whereas I don't think we hit real climate problems until 2050. If global warming is the final nail in the coffin at least there will be some consolation for Diners as most people in this forum would be six feet under by 2050.

I do generally agree with your ideal political setup post collapse but for it to work I believe lots of people have to die to make it happen. The more people you have the more laws you generally need to have. To enforce those laws you need stronger instiutions for law enforcement and courts. This all calls for a bigger central government. As there is less people you will naturally get more political powers devolve into local regions particularly if there is not the high energy intensity to maintain long distance supply chains. Regional communities will need to be more self-sufficient and so local regions will have less dependence on central authorities. It happened in the collapse of the Roman empire when the empire gave way to feudalism. Who is to say history cannot repeat itself?

Marathon Man Newz / Re: Name Calling Is Not A Coherent Argument.
« on: June 28, 2020, 05:53:39 PM »
Probably be best to close that BLM thread. At least put it on cool down for a week. Everyone has said their piece and at this point people are just repeating themselves and getting pissed off in the process. Perhaps with that thread shut for a week it will allow for the opportunity for more productive topics to be discussed. As JRM alluded to I would like the topics to be more inquiry driven but one can only hope...

So Obama wasn't a tool of Corporate Amerika?    He wasn't Black on the outside and White on the inside?  He even sounded White when he talked!

I believe the correct term is coconut. The Asian equivlent would be a banana.

That's the problem with BLM.  To disagree is to automatically be a racist because, why, "black lives matter, and you are anti black lives therefore you are racist."  That's why it's a scam.  You can't even question it without being labeled a racist.  How is that educated thinking? 

Lucid, you got to be careful about making sweeping statements ESPECIALLY when used against a group of people. I believe in BLM movement but I would not automatically label someone racist if they disagree with some of the points made. However I do feel there is a misunderstanding that I have seen on more than one occasion. It seems some white people seem to think the notion of black lifes matter to mean that the lifes of black people are more important than white people. That is not the case. The reality is however that black people use the term because previously we are treated with greater suspicion and if something bad should happen to us then our plights are not taken as seriously.

In a previous post I made the point of this by highlighting the case of Madeline McCann. She was a white middle-class girl who got kidnapped and it created a huge furore in the media. At the time of the event I saw posters of several black children getting kidnapped yet nothing was ever mentioned in the news about their disappearance. Why the difference? Because the underlying narrative of the McCann story is how could an innocent person be kidnapped? This narrative that so captured the hearts of the people doesn't quite fit as well when the victim is a black person.

This lack of innocence whilst not commonly acknowledged stems from the dynamic that people often view black people with increased suspicion and this increased suspicious often creates the bias that blacks are more commonly associated with either crime or wanting to game the system. It is this suspicion that blacks are often handed harsher sentences and randomly searched on a more regular basis. This connection haunts blacks everywhere they go really as they are more heavily scrutinised when it comes to the law, sentencing, job applications or even assessments when working. As a result of this criminal association when bad things do happen people are less likely to care much in the same vein the average citizen would care less if a felon gets mugged. This association of blacks being more suspicious acts as a way of dehumanising them from their white counterparts and it is something that even children pick up on:

Black Boys Viewed as Older, Less Innocent Than Whites, Research Finds (American Psychological Association)

If there is a shooting and the victim is white you are more likely to get sympathy on the news than if the person is black. This is not a universal truth and I am sure some black victims do get sympathy but the bias exists. The black life matter movement wants every life to be treated on the same footing. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask for. If you agree with that sentiment you can agree with the cause. The issue could be in how that message is delivered which is another topic altogether. 

Yeah, that POTUS.  He was a black president.  That's progress.  How could we be a racist country and elect a black president?  That makes no sense.  Sure, there are racist in America, there are racist in every country.  That doesn't mean all of Murika is nothing but blacks and white racist.  To disagree with BLM's agenda is not synonymous with being a racist. 

Racism is simply the discrimination of people based on race. In this scenario it is still possible for a black person to get elected despite the country being racist. Both things are not mutally exclusive. The likely scenario is that a person from a minority background is quite likely going to face additional obstacles to the normal person. If the black person is much more qualified or has powerful connections or other competitive factors when compared to the other candidates they can still get the role despite the barriers. The barriers are not insurmountable but the barriers do exist and so in the law of averages you will see one set of people dominate the highest positions. It is certainly true in the corporate world. The glass ceiling is still a thing that prevents a lot of minorities and women from reaching the top. Saying that those things are slowly breaking down but that is not to say they are not there and any progress can quickly be eliminated when people get complacent and think they do not exist.

You have to admit that there is a very vocal group in America that are racist. More serious than that however is that racism is institutionalised and there are unconscious bias in people that are commonly detrimental to some segment of society. It is a long unending struggle and the danger is thinking we have won and there is nothing left to do. I can even give you  recent example of this. Last week a muslim guy stabbed three people. The media described the event as a terrorist event. But just this weekend a white guy attacked six people with knife much like the muslim guy. Was that event also declared a terrorist event? No. And this is what the bottom line is. White people and people of other ethinic backgrounds are often held to different standards. I am sure if you look hard enough you can find many examples in your country of the same thing occuring when people hold people of different races to different standards. That is not right and is the very definition of racism.

Eddie you make a good point that the educational differences in races can attributed to a number of factors. Moreover you could well be right that the biggest factor and problem is the cultural aspect but please do not undermine your carefully constructed arguments with weasel words such as cultural Marxism. Karl Marx only talked about economic systems and did not delve into social or racial arguments.

I will defend the use of that term again.


It is a real phenomenon.

I didn't name it.

I don't have another name for it.

It's important to call out the behavior of the perpetrators.

We could, I supposed, call them Maoists.....which is not far off...or America's Cultural Revolutionaries, or the New Red Guard, maybe.

You know these people are out there.....what term do you propose I use?  I am negotiable on it. But I need to call them something. Are you denying the existence of the movement I'm trying to warn you about?

That would not be what I would ever expect of you.

The big thing is Karl Marx never espoused things about race or cultural so whoever started the term cultural Marxism has committed a falsehood because the term has nothing to do with Karl Marx. To me this is just another way of tarring a complex topic into another left and right wing debate. It is not a useful designation and ultimately it is a red herring. Economic theory has little bearing in the differences in education attainment and I can easily illustrate this point by expanding on the arguments you made earlier Eddie.

One big factor you mentioned is cultural factors. Let me use myself as an example, I am a British Sudanese person. Now people in Sudan, at least in my social circles self-identify more towards the Middle East than Africa. When it comes to education and work attitudes the culture we have is different to say Nigerians or Jamaicans. Similarly those cultures have a different attitude towards how a man should behave, carry himself through life and how he interacts with others. This will all reflect in the levels of education being different. The term African American is really quite silly when you think about it because it implies the WHOLE continent of Africa somehow has one culture. We do not have American European as a racial group instead we call them British American or French American or whatever country they are from in Europe. When it comes to intergrating various societies you need to accomodate for those differences.

This leads on the following questions of how you integrate those cultures and asks questions about how you can get those communities more heavily involved in the schooling system. Not easy questions but you got to get the children and parents involved. Speaking of parents this leads to the second point. A big social factor that plays into a child's ultimate level of educate is, I believe the occupation of your father. My father is a doctor therefore it follows the probablity of education attainment is higher than had my father been a cleaner. In the grand scheme at least. That is an important factor to consider. The other social aspect that is probably quite prevalent in African-American families is the father is more likely to be unemployed or not even be there (either he left or is in prison). You think those factors do not play a role? I am sure most people would say the status of the father plays a part.

Other things to consider is what generation are these folk? I am a second generation British person and people from the second generation have different cultural views to the first generation immigrants or third generation. Second generations often have direct exposure to both cultures and have, at some point physically been to both their home country and their resident country whereas the third gen have little to no exposure to their home countries. Does that effect educational levels? Different generations certainly have a different family structure so this could well play a part too.

All these things play a big part in this debate and all these points could be made without the use of the term cultural marxism. Do you really think that by omitting the term I make the debate weaker? I will make a deal to all Diner. Do NOT use the term left or right for a week. Debate topics without those words and I promise the level of debate will become stronger on the Diner. This tarring of left or right only serves to distract and diminish the level of conversation.

Eddie you make a good point that the educational differences in races can attributed to a number of factors. Moreover you could well be right that the biggest factor and problem is the cultural aspect but please do not undermine your carefully constructed arguments with weasel words such as cultural Marxism. Karl Marx only talked about economic systems and did not delve into social or racial arguments.

The Kitchen Sink / Re: It's not true that we have nothing to lose.
« on: June 22, 2020, 02:10:03 PM »
BLM is a scam.

You are going too far here. The black lifes matter slogan has a real meaning and it comes from the fact that quite often the media do not value black lifes as much as white people. One thing that springs to mind was the abduction of Madeline McCann. When news of her going missing first came on the news the headline truly went viral. Guess what? Around the same time in London I saw various posters of missing kids who were black. Did the media give a shit about those kids? No because it doesn't fit with the narrative that an innocent girl went missing. You see this in many soceities were black people are seen as more suspicious, less trustworthy. It is this dynamic that plays a part on why a lot of people subsconciously believe black lives don't matter or at least not matter as much as white people because the index of susipion is higher among black people.

A lot of black people, myself included, face a greater degree of scrutiny. After the London bombings of 2007 I was "randomly" searched three times over a three week period. I actually challenged the final police officer saying if these searches were truly random. His response was they were but when an information request was made it was found black men were nine times more likely to be stopped and searched than the general population. It does not stop there when I am at work we sometimes get our customers sampled when we provide loans, insurances etc. I was randomly sampled eight times while in the same timeframe my white colleague only got sampled once whilst my other black colleague got six samples. Yes the sample size here is small and in all this we are told these are all random events. But when things like this keep hounding you in life it feels like someone is gaslighting you when they say racism is not a big thing and most of the things you see are in your head.

The common thread in all I say is that when people have a greater level of suspicion there is a common extension to that line of thinking. If you are more suspicious of people you tend to view them along the lines of criminals, potential criminals or people who are otherwise out to game the system. This idea of criminality can often dehumanise this subset of people so when bad things happen like death, kidnapping etc. we do not mourn for them because on some level they probably deserved it (notice how some people bring out Floyd's criminal record when talking about his death). In America this dynamic is all the more pronounced because on the whole criminals as a group are treated as second class citizens (people who have felonies can't vote for example). So even the taint of criminality which stems from this greater suspicion can make people think of black people as less human. It is this dynamic that the idea of black lifes matter stems from. We don't want preferential treatement we just wanted to be treated like white people. Denying our experiences or even downplaying them infuriates much of the black community as those accusations act like you are trying to downplay their everyday struggles.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83