The idea that you could sum up something so infinitely complex like the combined spheres of "health", climate and cryptocurrency into one number and then reduce it to 49 cents! Really?! Anyone even remotely sensible would say 50 cents cause there is no precision in what they're estimating.
Liberals seem to have a view that it's impossible they're anything like the troglodytes on the other side: uneducated, superstitious, gullible.
But it's clear that this strain of thought on the left, book-burning without fire - is a mirror image of the crazy Midwestern Christian fundamentalist mom that thinks that satan is lurking in Harry Potter, rock music and video games and TV.
You'd say the same thing regardless of outcome, which is why I'm saying there's an asymmetry where the other side will never admit their hubris or even possibility of fallibility.
There's a certain commitment to doom, as though they can't imagine a world where things just fizzle out - as we'd expect due to seasonality and rising immunity - and society moves on.
The issue for you is that if the outcomes of a couple states like California and Florida are even in the same neighborhood for comparison in spite of supposedly vastly different policies - it means that your catastrophizing and support for violations of enshrined civil liberties are not justified.
It means that you have a flawed grasp of whats going on.
If Texas drops the "crucial" regulations on public life and numbers trend downwards, there's something wrong in your analysis.
History will be very unkind to the people who catastrophized everything over the past year (and subsequently used every opportunity to preach, advance their own political agendas and then in a dehumanizing fashion condemn everyone else).
> If you live in the US, and you don't see white supremacy, I encourage you to pay attention to what non-white people have to say about their experiences.
That's like saying: "Q is everywhere and if you don't think so, I encourage you to listen to some Q supporters."
I encourage you to maybe focus on your worldview that monomaniacally reduces the entire world to an arena of skin color - never qualifying things, unable to contextualize.
Frankly, anti-racism is fundamentalism.
We traditionally called people that think in those terms: racists.
> However, it would be very hard to do and may take very long time, given the Ivy League folks are pretty much the same group of people in power, none of them would like to make their degree looks cheap, and the irony is they often claim that they support social justice.
Yea, this is spot on.
They love the exclusivity, status and authority. Authority and social justice go hand-in-hand.
It's an end-justifies-the-means movement, so they'll use whatever blunt object they can find to bludgeon people.
It was obvious when Cuomo was doing a victory lap book tour during the summer declaring that masks work and he figured out how to fix things, only for infections to pick up again when the season changed.
I expect it'll be obvious in retrospect that human interventions had much less effect than thought, and the largest factors were a mix of demographics like obesity and nutrition, as well as geography (which influences sun exposure, humidity, etc.).
There is a very unlucky band of kids that've been irreparably screwed over by teachers looking to completely abandon any pretense they're essential to society or have any responsibility to work, liberals looking to avenge Trump and otherwise anti-science, monomaniacal anxiety-ridden adults. It's heartbreaking.
So far we've got no evidence that industrial scale meat production has caused this, and the only similar hypothesis has been zoonotic spill-over - which has it's own trouble substantiating evidence, nevermind explaining how a disease perfectly mutated for human infection seemingly sprung up in Wuhan.
The default position nowadays is that women/trans people/etc. are exactly the same as men but magically better.