Daniel Dvorkin @medigoth@qoto.org

My Facebook Memories from 2020 and 2021 are full of posts about #Covid-19. It's so weird to me how that's just vanished from the national conversation.

Everyone knew at least one person who died from it, often more than one. Nearly everyone was terrified of dying from it themselves, and the ones who weren't were burying their heads in the sand. It killed a million Americans in a year and a half—more than every war we've fought, combined, for a *century* and a half. At its height, it was far and away the leading cause of death. It still kills people, albeit at a much reduced rate: far less than the big killers like heart disease and cancer, but about ten times as many as die in motor vehicle accidents. You know, by way of comparison.

And *it will happen again*. Maybe a new strain of SARS-CoV2, maybe influenza, maybe something else entirely. Something is out there right now, something that doesn't infect humans, or causes at most mild symptoms, or isn't easy to catch. Yet. Mindlessly waiting for the next mutation, for its turn.

I don't know what it's like in other countries. In the US, we seem to have collectively decided to pretend it never happened. We're good at that, of course—if we weren't, the current political landscape would look very different. And I don't want this to be about politics, but of course it is. When the next plague strikes, and the next after that, and the next after *that*, our response will depend critically on who's in charge. Sorry, folks, pathogens don't care about market-based solutions.

Honest, I'm not trying to ruin anyone's day. I just can't quite believe that we've all tacitly agreed to this case of national amnesia. But I suppose I don't have much choice.

I've written posts like this before, and no doubt will again. But I think it's a drum worth beating.

Here's the thing about ad hominem and its obverse, argument from authority: they're not always wrong. Overall, I'd guess (without making any claims of having actual evidence) that they're right more often than not.

In a perfect world, we'd have full information about everything, all the time, and could evaluate any claim purely on its merits. But of course we don't live in that world. So we *have* to trust people who know more about a particular subject than we do, and who have a record of talking about the subject honestly ... and we're wise to *dis*trust people who are demonstrably ignorant, or who have a record of lying.

I know a whole lot about gene regulation, a fair amount about gene-disease prediction and gene-drug interaction, and a little about everything else that falls under the bioinformatics umbrella. Thanks to my former career, I remember a great deal about emergency medicine and infectious disease epidemiology, but while that's still useful knowledge, it's out of date. And I know a little bit about paleontology, purely as a hobby.

That's about it. On those subjects, particularly those at the top of the list, I'm trustworthy. People who haven't studied them at all should believe what I say.

On *everything else* ... I'm at best a well-informed layman, and often not even that. Like everyone else: nobody can possibly know more than a tiny sliver of everything there is to know. There aren't enough hours in a day, days in a year, or years in a lifetime to do any more.

You also have people—a *lot* of people—who are proudly, willfully ignorant, but talk endlessly on the subjects they know the least about. Most creationists, antivaxers, and climate change deniers fall into this category. They take their cues from the much smaller number of people who are knowledgeable in the subjects at hand, but are deliberately lying for ideological reasons. These people know enough to craft convincing lies which the rest then repeat at length.

When you're dealing with qualified experts in a field not your own, who have given no reason to think they're habitual liars, the *best source of knowledge* is what they say. If the experts disagree, the best you can do is listen to what most of them say. The majority may be wrong, and the minority may be right—but that's for them to hash out. Kibitzers are almost guaranteed not to make any meaningful contribution to the conversation.

And when you're dealing with people who *have* shown they're habitual liars, or who proudly proclaim their ignorance but nonetheless have a strong opinion, by far the wisest course is to dismiss their claims out of hand. Ignore them if you can, mock them if you like, fight them if you must. But never let them pretend their voices are equal to those of people who have a meaningful say. Both-sides-ism is a fatal trap.

James #Inhofe is dead. I hope his spot in Hell is at a pleasant temperature when he arrives, but then steadily gets warmer ... and warmer ... and warmer ... Satan should be very amused by his constant denials.

#seemslegit

I bet you can guess the context.

"Of course. Everyone is ignorant of nearly everything. The totality of human knowledge is too vast for any one person to learn more than a tiny fraction of it in a lifetime, and all *possible* knowledge is far greater than that. All I can do is try to learn my little sliver, and maybe if I'm lucky contribute a little more.

"But I do know *how we know what we know*, and some dude sitting in his truck making a YouTube video about how evolution is fake and vaccines are a (((globalist))) plot and global warming is a hoax because it snowed yesterday ain't it."

Eloquent and succinct.

Leave aside the self-evident truth that the #Supreme #Court's #immunity ruling was purely for #Trump's benefit. Leave aside the near certainty that it will be applied generously to #Republicans, and stingily if at all to anyone else. Leave aside the breathtaking level of judicial activism required to create a class of immunity with no grounding in precedent or the plain language of the #Constitution.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

This is a terrible idea. In a sane world, breaking the law cannot be an official act, because the #President's chief responsibility in office is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." By saying that a category of official acts which are immune to prosecution *exists*, even hypothetically, the Court has placed any President, current or former, beyond a substantial portion of the law's reach. Any President to whom the (in)Justices in their wisdom deem it to apply, anyhow—but again, that's a side issue.

For anyone who disagrees, here's a challenge: think of one official act, any *possible* action the President as President could take, which requires immunity but is still within the law. One. Take all the time you need.

It's the macro-scale version of cops never writing each other speeding tickets. We should demand a *higher* standard from people we give power to execute the law, or at the very least an equal one. Instead we wink and nod at blatant abuses of that power. This does not strike me as a recipe for long-term national survival.

"Shocked but not surprised" is getting a real workout these days.

This is an excellent analysis of the fallout from the #Presidential #debate. TL;DR: #Biden's not going to step down, there's no reason for him to step down, and the #campaign will go on pretty much as before.

But I urge you to read the whole thing. And if you find yourself tempted to comment in response to my one-sentence summary, without following the link ... do it somewhere else.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jun29-1.html

And this kind of thing is why I keep coming back to #Quora, for all its sins.

===

**Did 3rd wave #feminism cause the #MGTOW movement?**

The MGTOW movement has been around for fucking centuries. It was just called bachelorhood and it was celebrated. The “nagging wife” image of her beating the man over the head with a rolling pin (gee, let’s check the stats on domestic abuse…oh. Wow.) The “old ball and chain.” Men giving away the bride to (usually) another guy. Feminism, regardless of wave number, or any type of societal breakage by women was met with the increasing levels of hatred and vitriol. You see, these guys who say “men built society” are correct. But the next time you hear that, you may want to ask “for whom did they build it, jackass?” Because it sure as shit isn’t built for fucking women.

This is why the very idea that society needs a “mens movement” be it MGTOW or red pill or MRAs is laughably fucking absurd. If you want to jerk yourself off for “building society” the least you could do is take responsibility for not building it on a nearly equitable level. Feminism looks to rectify that. Nothing caused the MGTOW “movement.” It just went online and went from being Henry Higgins singing 🎶LET A WOMAN IN YOUR LIFE🎶 to….just insufferable fucking whining. Spoiled little shits, the lot of ‘em.

===

Original: https://www.quora.com/Did-3rd-wave-feminism-cause-the-MGTOW-movement/answer/Zach-the-Voice

The system is working as designed.

This seems like sound advice.

#Covid #lockdowns and #vaccines saved almost a million lives in the US over the last four years. There's the really important part. If you stop reading now, remember that. Everything else is commentary.

The number will grow over time, because covid is still killing people. Last time I checked, it accounted for 0.4% of US deaths, 30-40 per day. Thirty or forty people who desperately wanted another year, another month, another day, another hour. Thirty or forty grieving families. Thirty or forty lifetimes of memory gone. Thirty or forty worlds entire.

Better than hundreds, or thousands, and if you don't remember those days then it's because you've made yourself forget. I can't say I blame you.

Cost, you say? *Cost*? I'm sure economists can break it down to the penny. Places I loved died, as surely as people. Ruined careers, shattered dreams, lives not ended but made less. Yes. I acknowledge this.

I say the real cost cannot be measured in money. The nineteenth crow broke us. We have collective post-covid syndrome, and it's not going away any time soon. Our sanity, not just as individuals but as a people, was maybe never that great to start with. Now it's staggering down the alley talking to itself, grabbing onto walls for support, and baby, there's no detox for that.

Some of those eight hundred thousand actively take the side of a virus against their fellow human beings. They survived not because of science or medicine or even plain luck, but because of some special virtue. They were chosen by divine favor. They came through okay, so it was never that bad. They know it was a commie plot. Whatever. You've heard it all before.

Not a majority, I still believe that. A hundred thousand? Two? Three?

*Enough*, along with tens of millions of others.

There it is, the worst cost of all. We tolerate their continued existence, these traitors to humanity, because the alternative is horror. Because we still hope, desperately, that we might be able to bring some of them around. Because they're our families and friends. Because we're better than them.

We pay for them, every day, and we will keep paying for the rest of our lives.

Next time, and there will be a next time, they'll be ready. Will you? Eight hundred thousand saved—and over a million gone. They'll do their best to add to the latter number. For *anyone* you love, whatever side they're on, stand up. Do what's right, and never stop pushing others to do the same.

Maybe it's time for me to stop banging this drum. I don't believe that, though. The next virus, or bacterium, or parasite ... it will be ready too.

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2024/05/09/social-distancing-plus-vaccines-prevented-800000-covid-deaths-great-cost

"How would the average #atheist react if his daughter got #cancer? Will he pray to #science?"

When my now 30-year-old son was a baby, his mother and I had reason to suspect he had a brain tumor. As it turned out, he didn’t: what he had was a benign fluid cyst that looked *remarkably* like a certain kind of tumor on x-rays and MRIs. It took the most specialized of specialists, the Air Force’s only pediatric neuro-radio-oncologist, to figure it out. That was a terrifying couple of weeks.

I did all kinds of stuff during that time. I studied the subject, taking advantage of the medical library at the base hospital where I worked. I talked with military and civilian specialists about treatment and prognosis. I discussed options and plans with his mother. I braced myself for the horrifying conversation I expected to have with my parents when I told them what was happening to their only grandchild.

You know what I didn’t do? Pray.

See, I worked in the ER. I saw a lot of prayer. Patients praying for relief of pain. Their families praying for their survival. And chaplains praying for the souls of the dead. Because the patients’ and families’ prayers never made any difference at all.

But most of our patients survived, and left the hospital reasonably healthy and whole. It wasn’t prayer that accomplished that outcome. It was our knowledge and skill. The hard work of the medics and nurses and physicians—not just taking care of patients, but for our whole careers. Late nights and early mornings, endless hours of study and practice.

Many of my colleagues prayed too. They wanted God to guide their hands, and they believed that praying would help make that happen. I’m fine with that: whatever works for you. Me, I’ll put my trust in what I can see and touch. A whole lot of people are walking around today because that trust was warranted. I have no idea if God was there when I was working on them … but I know *I* was.

So fuck you for turning other people’s very real pain and fear and death into an excuse to evangelize. If you ever need care, I’ll give it, because I’m a better person than you. God won’t save you, but I will. Chew on that for a while: I hope it tastes like ashes in your filthy mouth.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-the-average-atheist-react-if-his-daughter-got-cancer-Will-he-pray-to-science/answer/Daniel-Dvorkin-3

"#Feminists continue to tell me that #feminism advocates #equality and not #hatred of men. Sometimes, I'm not so sure but, no matter how much actual man-hatred I see by self-proclaimed feminists, they assure me that it's about equality only."

"'There is no cause so noble it will not attract fuckheads.' Yes, man-hating feminists exist. Most women I interact with in daily life are feminists, including my fiancee, my mother, and a number of close friends, and I’m absolutely sure none of them hate me. Like any political or social movement, feminism is best defined by what the *majority* of the people claiming that label say and do."

"Then let the majority raise their voice against the minority. If they do not, the accept that opinion" [sic]

"They do. I’ve been witness to many such arguments. The problem is that, well, fuckheads are fuckheads, and tend to go on with their fuckheadedness regardless of what anyone else says. Look at all the men telling other men not to do stupid shit, and what those other men do with that advice."

Probably this is one of those conversations with no good outcome, but what the hell, I figure it's worth a try.