guscost

57 ms·

331.
by guscost 6y ago
> I guess history is difficult when you only learn it through random-walk in Wikipedia. Please cut the smug attitude. I’m trying my best not to engage with this kind of low-brow personal attack. > Over the following years they worked
332.
by guscost 6y ago
Gee, where is an easy place to learn about the history of this period? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party > Hitler saw the party as a revolutionary organisation, whose aim was the overthrow of the Weimar Rep
333.
by guscost 6y ago
The trick is in deciding whether something is in the category of “things we can fight against and win”, or not. We probably agree that malaria is in that category. We may disagree about whether mosquitoes are in that category? Coronaviruses
334.
by guscost 6y ago
Our risk models are irreconcilable, and I can’t see us coming to agreement on this. Hopefully we can coexist in peace, but if not I’ll be fighting for the other side.
335.
by guscost 6y ago
That statement is in the context of “War on X”, and it is a quote from a movie where the “war” is a total war of mutually-assured destruction.
336.
by guscost 6y ago
Do you have a reference for a vaccine that confers near-total near-lifetime immunity? That would be a prerequisite.
337.
by guscost 6y ago
Look up the definition of “eradicate”, and also note that you’re talking about a parasite. The best (read: cheapest) hope for “vector controlling” mosquitos until the malaria parasite was extinct globally was probably DDT, until it was bann
338.
by guscost 6y ago
The original question starts with the word “Can”, and the answer is [going to be] no.
339.
by guscost 6y ago
Smallpox is: - Spread by contact - Off-the-scale virulent - Trivial to turn into a vaccine - Not present in animal reservoirs
340.
by guscost 6y ago
We can’t even wipe out mosquitos. Just tweeted this: > We lost the “War on Terror”, we lost the “War on Drugs”, and as long as we keep declaring war on fundamental forces of nature, we will keep losing. The only way to win is not to play
341.
by guscost 6y ago
This is one of the worst reductio-ad-Hitlers I’ve ever seen. The Nazi party was a minority party throughout, they used violence to seize power , and they certainly did not allow free speech at any time during their rule.
342.
by guscost 6y ago
Ok, that’s one prediction. > These aren’t serious people. They never have been , they never will be. Well, Giuliani prosecuted the NY mafia and won, so part of this statement is a little far fetched.
343.
by guscost 6y ago
Shall we convene a panel with myself, Dave Chappelle, and you, and debate the meaning of “First one not working out”? You’re completely ignoring my and his intended meaning, which is that restricting speech pushes people toward violence .
344.
by guscost 6y ago
Citation for my belief in a hypothetical? Sorry, not possible.
345.
by guscost 6y ago
This kind of bullying (from either side) leads directly to war. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn't work out.” - Chappelle
346.
by guscost 6y ago
If said candidate was also challenging the existing power structures in this country, they would.
347.
by guscost 6y ago
Whatever their justification, it is obvious that there is absolutely going to be a tendency to do this with anyone who is even half as much of an outsider as Trump. The notion that these watchmen are simply protecting us from “lies” is a
348.
by guscost 6y ago
Well they’re going to try to challenge lots of mail-in ballots that were either processed without poll watchers being able to see the signatures, or allegedly backdated by USPS, for a start. The first suit will be filed on Monday according
349.
by guscost 6y ago
The electoral college system affects both the campaign strategies and people’s decisions about whether to vote.
350.
by guscost 6y ago
Well, that was after Hillary had conceded.
351.
by guscost 6y ago
Sure: Twitter is trying to tip the election in favor of Biden. When the shoe was on the other foot, they never blocked news outlets (no matter how trashy) that promoted anonymous accusations without evidence, or shared illegally-obtained in
352.
by guscost 6y ago
That is absolutely not why Twitter acted in this case, and everyone knows it.
353.
by guscost 6y ago
I guess what I mean is more like a “crime against humanity”, thanks. Gaslighting civilians and deliberately harming public health to score a political/PSYWAR victory is extremely messed up, in any case.
354.
by guscost 6y ago
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of exper
355.
by guscost 6y ago
You have part of a point. But then you also go into this fantasy where most criticism of Trump is the sober assessment of dispassionate intellectuals with no conflicts of interest, rather than plain old opposition PR funded by the people wh
356.
by guscost 6y ago
“Political news” very often consists of what Daniel J. Boorstin called “pseudo-events”, actions taken by people for the purpose of generating news . Today’s example: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/politics&#x
357.
by guscost 6y ago
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that as it becomes endemic, it will evolve toward yet-another-cold. There is no evidence in all of history for an endemic coronavirus that is not yet-another-cold. https://journal
358.
by guscost 6y ago
> A monopoly isn't based on consumer's choosing a preferred service, but that they have no choice of provider. Survey a hundred small publishers, and ask them whether their use of Twitter is a choice.
359.
by guscost 6y ago
> Twitter does not enjoy immunity for content that they themselves produce Exactly. If the law is not changed, any challenge would hinge on the court defining their curation process as an act of production. It may not be as far-fetched a
360.
by guscost 6y ago
> I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights. The right to speech does not mean that you are

More ›