Archive link

I had someone telling me it was a mind-control chemical they were spraying to pacify the people once. That’s about the closest I’ve ever come to talking to anyone that took this theory seriously.

BCG isn’t nearly as protective as modern vaccines aim to be. The GSK vaccine in question in the article and similar ones in development in other research groups are aiming to improve protection over BCG.

It’s insane how common latent TB is on a global scale and it’s quite a challenging problem to solve from a technical standpoint.

What are you, some Russian bot?!

Sincerely, A see see pee bot

Definitely not giving up, was just making a bit of a bait-and-switch joke about how so many people feel like they give up their “freedom” by giving up their cars.

In reality I take my bike with me everywhere and love it when public transport is accommodating to this.

Nah, I’d rather not give up my personal vehicle. Frankly, biking is so much better than all the alternatives when possible.

Soon as we fix the climate crisis. Time to get out the ice cubes!

Gotcha. All good, I know how that is!

Just wanted to check this was the case and I wasn’t missing something.

Am I reading the talk page and attributed user accounts that commented wrong? Doesn’t the name of the user who left the comment follow the comment immediately?

It looks like TheFriendlyFas2 and Yfff argued that being part of the division did not imply he was a white supremacist and it was Death Editor 2 that was arguing the opposite.

I felt the same way until I started trying to correct errors in my professional field of research and they stubbornly refused to fix the errors despite a wealth of primary literature showing that the current scientific consensus contradicts what was written on Wikipedia.

As useful as it is for science, it has serious issues. I wish I could say I haven’t found many similar errors or poor/outright contradictory sourcing over the last decade. They need to seriously examine their own biases and restructure their editing process. Wikipedia is one of my favorite human projects, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore its flaws.

It looks like only a portion of the article is available on Prolewiki. Is the page still being edited or is the partial transcription on purpose? Shouldn’t be a problem since the source is open access, but I’m curious since it cuts off in the middle of the introduction.

Nitter mirror for the thread.

Living rent-free in your mind. Kudos on your dedication to your community, but your time may be better spent on a different hobby. Maybe try reading “tankie” theory?

China bad! Yellow Peril!

Look, the commentor knows how to Google, but not well.

Every media source is biased, some are just open about their biases while others like to hide theirs. Take the time to read with a critical eye instead of dismissing the source because some website told you they couldn’t be trusted.

There are plenty of examples of mainstream, Western sources publishing absolute garbage, they just have better optics.

Better yet, try to do it without using the letters U-L-T-R-A.

Today I stumbled on some of the .world and kbin posts and comments you interacted with over the last week. Yeah, I think I get why you’re ok blocking them now.

I think many of those who weren’t banned figured out how to block us at an instance level through apps. Not always, but often they are much worse than they were when they see Lemmygrad or Hexbear on their communities.

I definitely get the desire to block instances, but there are also some good commenters from .world (though they are usually the minority) and I would like to see their contributions still. Blocking individual users is a bigger pain, but results in a better experience in the long term IMO.

It makes me appreciate that our admins only defend from truly scum-of-the-earth instances. As much as .world feels like Stormfront at tines, they’re no Exploding Heads.

You make a lot of good points about religion being a vector for anti-communism and I generally feel the same way about the influence of Christian groups. The instances where I disagree tend to be exceptions to how these institutions act.

For instance, there is a religious group that lives near me that isn’t well known that has formed their own commune. I’ve found them to be very warm and accepting people despite having some beliefs that have no scientific basis. They aren’t trying to spread their religion, they are accepting and hospitable to outsiders, and they just seek to meditate in their small commune. Anecdotal, yes, but I can’t deny their existence and how compatible they are in practice.

Religious institutions and beliefs along these lines, groups that don’t subscribe to the toxic, patriarchal views of most religions seem rather innocuous. Can they be vectors for the spread of reactionaries? I can’t argue against that. These people are surely the exception to the rule and despite their openness to discussing ML theory, I’ve run into plenty of other more agnostic beliefs that absolutely led to the opposite, regardless of their willingness to discuss in good faith.

I think this is something I’ll need to think about more. I generally think, so long as it does not interfere with scientific thought and despite it being antithetical to it, religious beliefs can be tolerated. I won’t deny that they historically have very much been harmful to our cause, but we also can’t be blind to how prevalent even agnostic beliefs are and how our reactions to this can alienate people that may otherwise be allies. There are plenty of examples of comrades who are religious and this makes me think tolerance is a better path, but I can’t deny that you are right, religious beliefs are rooted in idealism and can be a conflict of interest vs class consciousness. Again, I’ll need to think and read on this more.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.