zlacker

[return to "Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah"]
1. csours+kk[view] [source] 2025-09-10 20:48:54
>>david9+(OP)
History books can tell you facts that happened, but they can never truly tell you how it feels.

I feel we're riding a knife's edge and there's a hurricane brewing in the gulf of absurdity.

====

Incidentally, I feel like this is why it is so hard to actually learn from history. You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.

◧◩
2. ttoino+Rq[view] [source] 2025-09-10 21:16:22
>>csours+kk

  You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
Interesting how this quote can be interpreted in fully opposite ways depending on what "side" you were on during covid
◧◩◪
3. ndsipa+uU[view] [source] 2025-09-10 23:40:51
>>ttoino+Rq
> depending on what "side" you were on during covid

It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. I can understand differing approaches, but it's the extreme polarisation that flabbergasts me.

◧◩◪◨
4. watwut+kC1[view] [source] 2025-09-11 06:18:41
>>ndsipa+uU
It was simple. People without ethical limits seen their opening to weaponize fear and discomfort ... and succeeded.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ttoino+mJ1[view] [source] 2025-09-11 07:33:08
>>watwut+kC1
Your sentence can also be applied to both ‘sides’
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. ndsipa+0P1[view] [source] 2025-09-11 08:29:25
>>ttoino+mJ1
I don't think that applies if one of the sides is using rational arguments and statistics. However, during the initial COVID outbreak, there was a lack of knowledge and statistics about it, so there was some element of guesswork involved (e.g. face masks may be effective as they help with some other infectious diseases, so let's try wearing them to see if that helps).
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. ttoino+uK2[view] [source] 2025-09-11 15:27:24
>>ndsipa+0P1

  I don't think that applies if one of the sides is using rational arguments and statistics
In most debates I follow, each sides have their own statistics to back their reality. And from a purely rational and scientific point of views, statistics do not prove anything when they mean something, they are always manipulated and most qualities of our existence cannot be measured / put into quantities anyway. Stats are not a tool to prove you're right at all.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. ndsipa+sN3[view] [source] 2025-09-11 22:34:13
>>ttoino+uK2
> Stats are not a tool to prove you're right at all

I agree - stats are a tool to try to figure out non-obvious links and trends to figure out what is actually happening. They can certainly be distorted (see mainstream media), but we shouldn't allow bad actors to prevent us making use of probably the best way to investigate population level effects.

[go to top]