HardyBoy

Nah, suburban moms are about to start talking about it when it gets picked up on the today show and the view.

Yeah, so this seems like it is already in exponetial growth, just in the early phases so far. This statement from the nfl is going to give it a ton of visibility to people outside the football world.

Yeah, so this is long and a bit meta...I feel the same way btw on it not really getting me worked up because it's just so far out there and has me concerned he is having mental issues. Here's the long part: I wonder how much of this also plays into him being a minority and really not having that much actual agency to cause impacts. It honestly might be proving we have systemic racism. I promise I'm not trying to bend over backwards to make this about him actually being the victim here, it's just that what he said is so universally agreed on as being ridiculous that people aren't going to start a fight with each other on it, and that is what I find super interesting. So think of any statement as a ball, and the nature of the words describe the size of that ball. Totally neutral words/statements are tiny, say golf ball size for this example, and really powerful words/statements are huge, say a big beach ball. How much impact that ball has when it hits something is not described by the size of the ball alone...just like a single person screaming vile words in a room alone has no impact, the size of an individuals reach matters a ton, and in my example is how hard/dense the ball is. It is the difference between being hit by a hard baseball and a soft baseball...same words, same size ball, but because one has few people that will not just be able to hear the words, but also take action on those words (and the key is those people's actions will have actual impact). Compare that to someone who says the same words, but the people listening actually have the agency to make things happen. For example, if I'm calling on people to protest with social disobedience by walking on a highway to disrupt traffic and I have a reach of 10,000 who are super commited, but they are all in their 90s and in wheelchairs, I have a lot of reach, but ultimately those people have little agency. On the other hand, if someone else only has 100 people who listen, but they are both willing and able to walk on a highway, well you can close a highway with that reach, even though it is much less substantial (so I guess size of the ball is a factor of how powerful the words are and reach multiplied by agency, which gives you density). What I'm trying to say, first the words Jackson is saying are so out there that the people he is reaching with those words are really small, and the agency of the people who he is able to reach is small (would have to think you are in pretty rough financial shape if that type of scapegoating connects with you enough to take action, and money is power in our society). Brees on the other hand, the people resonating with what he said actually have true power (and I'm not looking to judge what he said, I have a personal opinion, but I'm focusing on the conceptual basis of why we might not be seeing the same level of pushback). The President of the United States might retweet what Brees said for crying outloud (that softball of saying he might retweet Jackson's tweet as well is so tempting as a joke, but I'll just tease it, because genuinely not looking to make this specific post about the validity of what people are saying, just why there might be more pushback based on the agency of the people that are impacted by the words). There are a lot of very powerful, extremely rich people who agree with Brees, so his words while having less size (using what you think is Hitler is way way bigger than words about the flag...and not saying what Brees said is positive or negative...size is not a factor of positive or negative, because I think the size of the words are equal regardless of the perspective of if they are seen as positive or negative by different groups, and that could be super interesting to see if words have the same size for people looking at it from different perspectives...would think equal sized balls on both sides lol, of an argument would magnify the reach), have more impact...the ball Brees' words generate is smaller, but so much more dense...like getting hit by a basketball vs a lacrosse ball going at the same speed. Anyway, that's my theory of why what Jackson said isn't getting more traction. The people who are reached by the words and moved to take action do not have the agency to really make any change, so it is ignored. I would imagine the majority of people who would be in that group are of lower socio-economic status, and likely black (admittedly assuming here), and poor black people have some of the lowest amount of agency in the country I would expect, which is exactly the reason for the fight to end systemic racism, because this should be a huge deal, but in my mind it is the lack of power the people listening to that message have is not a threat to enough people...wild, isn't that kind of the thing the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were saying and the reason for open carrying as a means of peaceful, though adversarial, protest? So I actually came up with a lot of that theory solving stuff in Excel and seeing a common concept in how I was solving increasingly complex problems and using that concepts to solve problems I couldn't solve in the past. I'm starting to take a graph theory course online too, because while I stumbled on it on my own, I think there is basically a whole wing of math dedicated to it.

From what I read, there were issues with the sampling method of the study. I'll see if I can find the actual study and read the method myself and break it down a bit when I get a chance. There for sure could be that going on, but if there are legit issues with the sampling method of the study, you might only be able to say that 90% of the people sampled in the study felt that way, and not apply it to the general population. WaPo I don't think did the survey, some org published a survey with arguably questionable sampling methodology, and WaPo picked it up and ran with the headline...subsequent sampling hasn't been able to replicate that specific poll either from what I understand...to me it looks like someone had an agenda and wanted to get that narrative out and picked up, but reading the sampling method will help understand if it was that or not.

Well, there are wars for land all the time..the revolutionary war is a great example...I'm not sure exactly how saying genocide of children is wrong and we should acknowledge it happened as a nation and stop pretending it didn't by, you know, glofying a term used by the govt to perpetrate that genocide is suddenly this crazy social justice thing...seems pretty inline with what we supposedly stand for as a country when we say invaded Iraq. I'm not for imperialism, and for example, I think what England did in India is morally wrong. So if a soccer team in the English Premier League had a derogatory term for Indians and a logo of a stereotypical Indian person I would say it should be changed (who knows they might). That said, if that same situation included the genocide of millions and millions and millions of indians, including children like with the native Americans that would be a whole different matter (again maybe that happened there too, but I always understood it as more of an apartheid situation). I'm not sure where not glorifying a genocide suddenly became some crazy sjw stance...wild times

I don't know if the term is racist or not, amd I certainly don't think someone using the word as part of the team name is representative of their thoughts on native americans...that's not what this is about. It's profiting off a genocide of a civilization for profit, where we then culturally appropriated that civilization to wash over said genocide while forcibly preventing that civilization from practice their religion and customs, punishable by death...death that was described and literaly put on bounty posters by our government usinng that specific term. I'll potentially stand with you on the hill of people calling you a racist for using that term, especially if your continued use of that term is not at all reflective of your thoughts on native americans, because it became a larger social protest at what you deam as thought policing...similar to people kneeling for the national anthem no? I don't know that I would agree with you (seems silly to say things that knowingly offend others, and would want to genuinely listen to your perspective to understand, because there is a slippery slope argument to be made. That said, in the context of this specific team name conversation, I truly believe the slippery slope argument is a straw man argument, because it is distracting from the real issue I mentioned above. I don't think you're doing it on purpose to shift the argument, and I also believe that calling the term racist is a bit of a strawman, at least when used by itself. Genocide and cultural appropriation is the key, and when used as part of that perspectives, the fact that that specific term was literally on the bounty posters, sets it apart from other terms that have become part of the lexicon, because agree things could get a bit crazy fast. Personally, I think terms like Braves and Chiefs should go away, because we literally as a nation murdered braves and chiefs in a genocide and should be ashamed of that, not cheering our largely white teenagers with those names on their shirts playing games. I believe it to be in really poor taste and we can do better, but I potentially could be swayed on that. However, using a term that was used to describe the actual bounties put on humans simply because as a country we wanted to take their land...nah, that's not ok, it clearly crosses a line and makes the slippery slope argument moot. Intent doesn't matter there...Snyder is making billions of dollars, they are getting tax breaks, they are fittingly the team associated with the nations capital.

Yes, you are expressing righteous indignation...you told me to go watch something else if I didn't like it. So let me get this straight I say...using team names that were culturally appropriated from the native Americans a civilization that our country conducted a genocide on (this isn't up for debate, that happened), especially one specific team name that was literally used to describe the government sanctioned bounties placed on native people is wrong, is somehow controversial? Can you please help me understand where that is controversial? Are you proud that we commited that genocide? Are you denying it happened? I'm not saying you are a bad person for not thinking it's offensive even, I don't know that using that term makes someone racist or not, that's genuinely not what this is about. It is about cultural appropriation following a genocide. Seriously though, only if you're mature enough to have a genuine conversation about this. If you're just going to use non sequiturs and ad hominems and think you're being an intellectual ninja or whatever, or if you're trolling, I'm good on that. I got two young kids that deserve my time that I'm willing to spend on this conversation if it is going to be genuine otherwise I'm good on that. Also, my high school name got changed from the Chiefs to the Patriots in 2001. Aside from a terrible choice of what we changed it too , the world didn't end. I am very proud we made the tough choice early and didn't wait (even though we kind of definitely waited).

Wait, are you native American? And my opinion doesn't mean jack? It's like if there was a soccer team in Germany called the Berlin Bankers...you don't think non-jewish German people could feel embarrassed by that name and want it changed?

I personally have a problem with the use of that team name. It represents a time of genocide and imperialism that our nation perpetrated on a entire race of people who had claim on the land. It's no different really than what the Nazi's did, and in in some ways it was way worse...imagine if the Nazis won the war and could expand across the entire USA unchecked. Then, when the actual hot war with the native Americans ended, we shifted to rounding up an entire civilization into reservations that were basically concentration camps with a palatable name. Then we abducted their children and sent them to boarding schools to become "civilized" against their wishes. We outlawed their customs, their traditions, we spat on them in the street, we raped their women so they would have white babies, and we made their children ashamed of their history. And then, when all that was said and done, we appropriated their culture. We turned them into cartoons. We raised our children believing we loved the native Americans the entire time, and that Custer was a hero, and it was our manifest destiny to murder, rape, pillage and destroy a civilization. The only book that that manifest destiny came from by the way was the checkbook. The use of the culturally appropriated names and customs THAT WE BANNED Native Americans from practicing, were a calculated propaganda movement by the wealthy elites to change the narrative and make people think anyone saying we destroyed a civilazation is just a nut job, because we know the intent isn't to shame them, because our puppet masters tell us we did it out of love, because there is no intent of hate in our use of culturally appropriated images and tropes. The right emotion here isn't indifference or talking about your intent. The right emotion is shame and embarrassment that our country perpetrated a civilazation sized genocide and is trying to hide it in plain sight through turning this into a cartoon. In Germany they say never forget...we we've clearly forgotten. This is the rinse and repeat of white European (and unfortunately American) imperialism that has been going on for centuries, and no I'm not ok with that. All the names need to change, becsuae the only slippery slope there is is keeping any of those names, because it allows us to pretend we are not guilty as a nation of genocide and have not come anywhere close to making amends for that.

Do you understand what a representative sample is and how it is necessary for a poll of like 500 people to be representative of a larger population? She had an issue with the sampling method because it did not generate a representative sample, so pretending that data speaks to anyone but the specific group polled is spreading an agenda (gaslighting at its finest right there) and you say she has an agenda...no dude, there is long standing proven math that shows how to pick representative samples. Your opinion means jack when it comes to picking a representative sample. You can have a sample of 100,000 people and it might not be a representative sample...the size of a sample has nothing to do with how representative it is...a bit counterintuitive, but very much true. If you are trying to take a small number of people in a poll and apply their answers to build a model that predicts how the total group will respond, you need that model to be representative of the overall population. If you have a sample of 100 people and only 5% are women, but the overall population has 60% women in it (hypothetical example, not sure what the breakout in that poll was), someone saying that is a faulty non-representative sample doesn't have an agenda that's mathematical/statistical facts...the people misusing science have the agenda, and you're falling for it hook line and sinker...as George Carlin would say "they got ya by the balls"

I haven't read the article yet, but I do think we are undervaluing the impact the wind had on JAs stats last year, especially the deep ball. The second half of the season had almost every game impacted by significant wind.

Plus chicken pox comes back as shingles.

I live in south florida, and the general idea of what you are saying (that it is easy and quick for anyone to get a test for any reason) is just plain not accurate. I personally know of people who work with kids with developmental delays in the child's homes where either the person going into the home, or people within the home are trying to get a test and it is taking them five days to a week to get scheduled for a test, and these are people listed as essential healthcare workers. Then tests are taking 5+ days to come back with results. On top of that, they are messing with the hospitalization data to make it so the state can stay open until after 4th of july. Again, it is starting to look more and more likely that people with mild symptoms could face significant lasting impacts across their entire body from this. Hospitalizations are going up in Florida...give it another week or two, or even four, because you're right on the testing causing more positive cases...what do you think nyc would have looked like in terms of positive tests for younger demos a month before the deaths started...likely exactly like this...this will get to older people and once it does, it will grow exponentially in that demo as well. Also, if this causes even a 1% decrease in long term lung or other metabolic function, for a pro athlete, that could be the difference between hall of fame vs out of the league...we are asking people to take a huge monetary risk here.

How the hell is a virus political? It isn't, please listen, take a breath and listen, this isn't political. The approach that was taken doesn't seem to be working. The time to judge that approach and the pepple leading is later. Right now we need tweaks to the approach now to do better. Also, please stop judging this on deaths only, there is a scary good chance this causes long term permanent damage in younger people. Even if that happens in only 5% of the population of 20-35 year olds, you are talking about huge generational socio-economic impacts. They are seeing this attack the testicles and potentially screw up testosterone level and impact fertility. Stop with the alive or dead narrative, the early data is really concerning...I was yelling about this virus in mid feb and peolle wouldn't listen and started calling me a crazy prepper until the moment the nba cancelled their season, and I was right. I've been saying since mid-march I was really concerned with long term impacts of not super crqzy infections based on SARS, MERS and early data on SARS-COV-2. This was the main story on reuters friday and they are not partisan: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-effects/scientists-just-beginning-to-understand-the-many-health-problems-caused-by-covid-19-idUSKBN23X1BZ If you think this is a conspiracy or whatnot, please consider the fact that your side might just as easily be getting socially engineered. Please, look at the motivations of everyone involved, objectively, trust no-one and then look for the most likely explanation on who has the most to gain with any given narrative. Please, please, please, just take a step back, nobody is attacking you personally, it is a refusal to engage in discussion beyond a few talking points. Your self worth is not diminished if you objectively reevaluate your position based on new evidence. I'm not saying change your mind because people want you to, just objectively view the evidence with regards to the virus without ego. I promise everyone wants the people in charge to succeed right now...this has a legit chance to cause permanent significant damage to healthy young people without significant symptoms, and until we can rule that out, this is extemely serious and not some game of political tic tac toe.

It's all in in terms of team building assets at the expense of future years...maxing out cap space with multi year deals, trading a lot of picks for short term value, but leaving the cupboard bare as they say, etc.

Then when she ends up having the kid, just say you were joking about pregnancy tests you always wanted her to get a pregnancy test (it's on us if we couldn't detect the sarcasm) and say were actually talking about a paternity test. That corrupt, Maurey Pauvich, calling me on his show to do a paternity test. And he's a phony, phony Maurey people call him, and it's all for the ratings and his ratings stink, though sometimes I do get surprised when they say "you are the father." I think wow, that is like a time machine, going back in the past to see who the dad was, poor guy has to live in these magical times of time travel, but the rating stink folks, they stink. Now they want you to believe that I am the father, but they have no proof, it's all fake news people, it's fake, they're just trying to use me for the ratings.

Well said. I think we saw the same concern with the virus being prevalent in hot south east asian counties in Feb and March. Regarding the bolded part, living in south florida, I think something that needs to be talked about way more is that during the summer down here, people go inside, and we spend a lot more time outside during the rest of the year. Not to discount people not taking it seriously, there are a ton of people acting business as usual down here. It's not even that we spend less time outside during the summer, it's that we can't really spend that much time outside if we wanted to. Forget the heat for a second (with an umbrella as long as the humidity isn't absolutely brutal you can handle it, and honestly I don't think we've even really hit the start of summer weather quite yet), it's the mosquitos. We got over 17 inches of rain in May and another 5.5 in June in fort lauderdale (mostly in big rainfall events). The mosquitoes are absolutely brutal on my back deck (hoping I found where they were breeding and flipped over a bucket, but our plants down here evolved to literally hold water in them for birds and such to drink out of. I actually bought a giant mosquito net when all this started back in feb, but the idea of having to take it down before every rain storm is keeping me from putting it up. Anyway, short version, I think in the summer up north people go outside, and down south in the summer people go inside, especially south florida where everything is pretty much so efficiently air conditioned.

Haha, except they always realize it after just about everyone is dead and it's delivered like: "As Jimmy stumbled out of the zombie apocalypse with the bits of his friends still floating down from the sky around him, Jimmy chose to focus on living his life differently going forward. In fact Jimmy learned a valuable lesson that day as he realized in the moment before the zombie bit his head off. That moment when his fear gave way to calm acceptance and the zombie just poof, vanished. He had it within him the entire time, amd though he didn't realize in time to save 30 of his closest friends and family, but he would keep with him forever the fact that they did not die in vain, and with that knowledge he could finally be happy. Because on that day he realized that fear is the root of all evil." Or something like that...I just read 500 pages for that moral! I've only read Cell, Despiration and Green Mile by him though and it was like 10 years ago...Green Mile for the win though, sooo good! Dean Koontz is similar in how he does that too a bit.

I think the understanding on the situation has changed on here a lot today on (maybe over the last few days, I hadn't been on in half a week or so). There are stages for dealing with things like this, similar to the stages of grief, and it looks like a lot of people are starting to make their way through to the end of them. I'm pretty objective in my approach initially to things, so I think that allows me to zoom past some of stages a bit at first. That's good in some ways (I was stocked up on stuff by the end of Feb), but bad as well, because when I go back to the stages later and am ready to talk about it, everyone has moved on (my dad died from cancer when I was 21, and I faked my way through the next few years with saying I was over it, and then finally was ready to deal with it and everyone had moved on...sorry for the downer in what is otherwise a super uplifting conversation, lol...fathers day sort of sucks especially now 15 years later having two young kids and everyone posting pictures of their dads and kids playing together). Anyway, point is, be kind to people that might not be ready to fully accept this situation, each one of us was doing the same thing at some point as we moved along the stages. Also, make sure you are asking people close to you how they're doing with situations as sad and stressful like this, especially your kids if they are old enough to talk about it, because even if they said good 100 times, they might just be uncomfortable talking about it. I would expect this to be a dam bursting situation with kids especially and just a ton of emotion pouring out when they are ready to talk about it fully. There is no need for them to carry that trapped deep down in them for 15 years.

Wait, so you are drawing a moral equivalence between people rising up in peaceful protest (99% of the protests have been peaceful) to bring attention to systemic racial injustice and going to the local outdoor store to buy a cooler? I'm not even gonna get into the entirely peaceful protesters protesting and press reporting on it in front of the white house, a symbol of American democracy more important as a representation of anyone can hold that office (I mean I guess that's more literal than I always envisioned it these days) than the flag, being pepper sprayed. Please, can you please please please show a picture of those protesters with their masks off (which they only took off because they got tear gassed), eyes red with tears and chemical agent, coughing all over each other because of the gas...so that in the foreground, with tear gas floating in the air and unmarked police marching in a line behind them in the middle ground, anf then the person most highly entrusted with ensuring the constitution is not stepped on in the background holding an upside down bible? I will bend over backwards to try and find middle ground with just about anyone to a point, and I hate left vs right line in the sand crap, because it's just flat out insane that on a multitude of topics any one side of an argument can be fully the best path forward, but you are making it a bit challenging. I would encourage you to try and be a bit more open to listening, because I'm sure you have valuable points to add to the conversation when you get past the repeating of someone else's talking points put in your mouth for their own personal gain.

Right, so you have peer reviewed research showing a consensus of research showing face mask wearing is at best inconclusive? Can you share that with us please? Cause if you're using the term science, you kinda gotta stick to the scientific method. Because science isn't like "your opinion man." It is applying a standardized method of gaining replicatable outcomes tested against a hypothesis to develop a larger understanding. So let's see your repeatable research

Are you excluding nyc and other early hot spots, because those aren't representative of the rest of the country at this point, especially nyc that had so many people. They were a few weeks ahead on the exponetial growth curve than the rest of the country.

I don't know either. What I think happens with unhealthy lifestyles is the arteries narrow with buildup, making it more likely a small piece of cholesterol coming loose or a small clot could block the blood flow. A big clot could do the same thing I would imagine. Interesting though that they put stents in...that makes me think the blood vessels were too narrow and needed to get opened back up. You wouldn't think they'd do something like that if there was just a random one off blockage.

Well, that paper in nature is talking about a crazy significant drop in free testosterone, so pretty much...

Covid19 is causing clotting issues and the evidence is mounting that this is true for mild cases in healthy younger people: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/28/847447222/covid-19-thickens-blood-causes-strokes-in-some-patients-with-mild-symptoms I would imagine if it can cause a stroke or pulmonary embolism they can block the heart as well (that particular article talks more about strokes specifically). Yes, google: covid clotting mild symptoms This is a crazy diseases and that to me is the most likely explanation that doesn't require extremely rare things to be happening with his genes or other random things.