I would really rather that these were actual examples, and not conspiracy theories. We all have our own unsubstantiated ideas about what shadowy no-gooders are doing, but I’d rather hear about things that are actually happening.
That you catch a cold because you’re cold
IIRC there’s some evidence that cold temperatures weaken the immune system. Assuming it’s valid, that does mean that cold could be the deciding factor between contracting a cold or fighting if off.
Now obviously germ theory is correct and it takes external infection to catch a cold, but it’s a pretty safe bet you’re being more or less constantly exposed to COVID and the flu whenever you’re in an indoor public space.
Anyone that says J6 was a “peaceful protest” that “got out of hand”
We all saw the footage of that day. There were gallows and calls to hang a sitting vice president.
It was an insurrection, fomented and encouraged by Donald Trump’s speech and actions leading up to that day. Plain and simple.
The right-wingers who say it wasn’t as serious as it was are gaslighting their base.
Edit: Victims of gaslighting in my replies
Sounds exactly like CNN’s headline “fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting” after the George Floyd protests where like, 30 people died.
Do you not think it’s relevant to point out that:
- Only 3.7% of the protests involved vandalism or property damage
- Only 2.3% of the protests involved any sort of violence (excluding vandalism or property damage)
- Much of the violence was directed against the BLM protesters
- Much of the violence was begun or escalated by police (who are supposed to be trained to de-escalate)
- Much of the property damage and property damage was not linked to protesters
If 5% of the people involved at violent BLM protests were violent and if the numbers above reflected only protester initiated violence, then that would mean roughly 0.12% of BLM protesters (or 1 in a thousand) were violent. But since, as we know, most of the violence was directed against them, that number is probably more like 0.05%, or 5 in 10,000. Obviously that number would be much worse for the actual instigators of most of the violence (police and far-right Trump supporters).
Also weird that you say “like 30 people” died when it was more like 10:
- 8 BLM protesters
- 1 far-right, pro-Trump protester, who was shot by a self-identified anti-fascist protester who said he had been acting in self-defense
- the above anti-fascist protester, who was shot by police
Yes, there were like 25 deaths related to political unrest in 2020, but most of those were not at BLM protests. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled
But hey, keep telling yourself that an active, intentionally orchestrated attempt by Trump and his supporters to violently overturn the results of our Presidential election was “basically the same thing lol” as a bunch of people who were protesting police violence and racism.
It’s comments like this that make me glad Lemmy has a star that lets you favorite them. Thank you very much.
an active, intentionally orchestrated attempt by Trump and his supporters to violently overturn the results of our Presidential election was “basically the same thing lol” as a bunch of people who were protesting police violence and racism.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. -_-
Across the country? Damn that’s like less than a person per major city and I saw how brutally the police attacked protestors. If it hadn’t been mostly peaceful it’d’ve been in the hundreds dead.
I get your /s but I don’t think anyone should be dying in a protest, regardless of how small that number is relatively speaking.
Conversely, anyone who says January 6th was a coup or anything approaching more then a wet fart. We should be so lucky that a fascist police state could be overthrown by 200 disorganized unarmed people walking into the capitol.
Whether it was a successful coup is a separate matter.
The problem wasn’t them getting anywhere near literally overthrowing the entire state, but the fact that they were trying/hoping to kill people.
200? What planet do you live on? Watch a video of it. Read the January 6th Commission report.
On the day it happend I watched the videos being shared by the people participating amongst each other. There were tremendously more than 200 people.
Communism=Authoritarianism
I was taught in school the characteristics of authoritarianism and a couple weeks later, when i was being taught about communism, the same characteristics were said
deleted by creator
They usually come packaged together. You’ll have a hard time naming democratic liberal communist countries/leaders.
But a very easy time naming democratic communists. Even Stalin wasn’t a dictator, according to liberal historians such as Conquest who are experts on the soviet union. Socialism is more democratic than capitalism.
Going a step further, the idea of authoritarian. Every ideology with a state relies on some type of authority to function, as a term it is an attempt at equating fascism and communism and serves as holocaust trivialization.
“Owning a car = freedom”
“You need a big truck/SUV to haul things” (it’s just a coincidence that people drove much smaller cars before a multibillion dollar deluge of advertising)
“It’s consumers’ responsibility to reduce plastic pollution by recycling, and recycling is effective” (whoever came up with this one belongs in the PR scumfuck hall of fame)
America is the greatest country in the world. Only those who haven’t travelled much would believe that.
It is a libertarian’s dream country though. No where else is it so easy to get others to invest in your idea.
Really? What kind of barriers to investment exist in other democracies?
deleted by creator
It’s wild how unburdened they are by having to conform to observable reality, they can just go nuts and say whatever. Jewish space lasers? Fuck it, why not, throw some alien clones in there too
“Democrats are liberal/progressive”
In reality, they’re pretty conservative.
Democrats are liberals. Republicans are too. Both of them are reactionary.
That’s only true if you use the international definition of “liberal”. In America, “liberal” means “left wing”. And we’re talking about American politics.
In America, “liberal” means “left wing”.
No it doesn’t. Widespread ignorance does not change objective reality. This sort of thinking is Hyperliberalism. Just because most Americans are politically illiterate doesn’t mean the definition is changed. 40% Americans also believe the entire universe is only 6000 years old.
If you ask an american political scientist to define “liberal” they will tell you the “international” definition. If you allow technical and scientific terms to be subjected to “language just evolves” you end up with a Tower of Babble type situation where different groups of people are unable to communicate with one another despite using the same language and society collapses.
If you ignore the actual usage of words then you’re speaking your own language and talking only with your own in-group bubble.
This was not a conversation about the political science term “liberal”. It is about lies told to everyone. We’re obviously discussing common usage.
We’re obviously discussing common usage.
Saying something is obvious doesn’t make it true. The only noun you use in your first comment is “Democrats” so how is this not a discussion about politics? I am having a discussion about politics and I’m going to do my best to use political terminology in its established scientific meaning not a niche dialect that you believe is “common use.”
The world is much bigger than the USA. Americans only make up 15% of the English speaking world. What you call “common use” is just “ignorant and wrong” to the rest of us.
Socially left, but not communist
The Toungue map.
The idea that different parts of the tongue are responsible for feeling different tastes. This blatantly false idea was made up in 1901 out of thin air and then made its way into biology classrooms somehow. It was taught to schoolchildren (including me) for about 100 years as a biological fact, even though every human being in that time proved it false by experiment thousands of times by eating things and tasting them with the “wrong” parts of the tongue. It doesn’t quite count as an example of this happening today, because we finally realized that it simply wasn’t true and have stopped teaching it, but still: 100 years is a long time to realize that something is false when every human being in the world is confronted with physical evidence several times every day.
I don’t think this is actually a myth. I think there’s an extreme version of the statement, but it nevertheless is true that there are specialized taste buds and that they aggregate on sections on the tongue.
And I think there’s a whole rabbit hole here, of overeager “corrections”, that are not in fact corrections but just someone engaging in bad faith with a statement that’s close enough to the actual truth. It’s actually more wrong to categorically dismiss it, then it would be to note the difference between it and the truth, which is to say while they are not strictly regions, they’re nevertheless as attested to be the NIH:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8956797/
There is undoubtedly a spatial component to our experience of gustatory stimulus qualities such as sweet, bitter, salty, sour, and umami, however its importance is currently unknown. Taste thresholds have been shown to differ at different locations within the oral cavity where gustatory receptors are found. However, the relationship between the stimulation of particular taste receptors and the subjective spatially-localized experience of taste qualities is uncertain. Although the existence of the so-called ‘tongue map’ has long been discredited, the psychophysical evidence clearly demonstrates significant (albeit small) differences in taste sensitivity across the tongue, soft palate, and pharynx (all sites where taste buds have been documented).
In my opinion, the more interesting phenomenon is understanding how these facts, and the temptation to correct, challenges our ability to sustain nuance and to carefully differentiate between degrees of truth, instead of just making blanket denials.
Its still being taught at least in Romania
It’s what I was taught in American public school ~15 years ago
A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink.
“I have to admit, I’m always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up,” the CIA agent says.
“Thank you,” the KGB says. “We do our best but truly, it’s nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them.”
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. “Thank you friend, but you must be confused… There’s no propaganda in America.”
…in Ba Sing Se
Removed by mod
The belief that colour blind glasses work
See megalag’s videos
Americans with their ‘greatest nation on earth’ charade.
It has a name: American exceptionalism. It’s used both by people who know it’s a lie and by people who believe it.
So it worked!
the Hitler was an atheist seems pretty popular, also that Einstein was religious.
The WEF really is infiltrating governments with their pawns. One of Canada’s national papers is finally acknowledging this, and its the more left one.
That there was a protest against something in Beijing from April until June 4th 1989.
Heard the glorious communist party rolled over the protestors with tracks but that’s impossible!
The only people who say “Tin man square never happened lmao” are western liberals saying it ironically, trying to own China. China never said there were no protests or movements. They don’t ban people from talking about it.
But if you repeat CIA propaganda as truth, they will indeed prosecute you.
Removed by mod
This isn’t reddit you don’t have to do that
Chinese people learn about the June 4th incident in school lol
Also the tank guy didn’t get run over, did you watch the full video? Some of his friends convince him to leave.
“the June 4th incident”, can you elaborate on what they learn about it?
“the June 4th incident”
I dont understand the scare quotes.
can you elaborate on what they learn about it?
My mandarin is bad but let me see if I can find a textbook again. If not, I’ll link an article on it, or ask a Chinese friend for help.
In the meantime, please share what you think they should learn, to avoid you moving the goalposts and/or to see what misinfo you have learned about the event
Nah I’m good. It is typical that you use the CIA playbook. Immediately cast doubt and make counter accusations. I guess I shouldn’t expect good faith.
You asserted that Chinese people are taught about this without any proof.
That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. In other words, put up or sit down.
Also immediately implying that what people know that is not the official Chinese party line is misinfo seems to be straight from the Trump playbook.
And finally you refer to “a chinese friend” as an authority, you pulled a hattrick of fallacious conversation in that post.
Okay lmao, have a good day. To clarify though
And finally you refer to “a chinese friend” as an authority,
I was going to bother them for resources after doing my own due diligence as they know a lot about it and can find mandarin documents more easily than me.
I did say this by saying “or ask a Chinese friend **for help. **” which you seemed to omit in your interpretation that I was going to use them as an authority.
communism means no freedom / no food / whatever. anti-communist propaganda was a massive and very successful effort in the west
