PortableHotpocket

Did you actually do your research on that "deworming drug"? It's been used to treat a hell of a lot more than parasites. That is just its most common use.

This has always been funny to me as someone who actually works in healthcare and regularly reads scientific studies. Of all the things you could choose to hate Trump over, the example you give is one that plenty of people in the scientific community considered to be a treatment avenue worth researching.

Damn, the media propaganda machine is effective. Trump could run into a burning building to save a litter of puppies and they'd still find a way to make everyone hate the guy. It's impressive.

They probably would have just called you names instead of openly engaging with your ideas. That's the norm in my experience. I sometimes wonder why I bother posting at all.

Then again, I do get some traction, and some representation of ideas outside the common narratives is better than none. But it does seem like if you aren't in lockstep with the popular narratives, you get a cascade of downvotes just for entertaining unpopular ideas.

People don't want you to think for yourself. They just want you to parrot their beliefs back to them and give them affirmation.

Shit, if all conservatives had that nice an ass I wouldn't mind listening to their opinions.

Ah yes, I knew Demolition Man was an accurate prediction of the future. Thanks for confirming the direction we are headed in!

I'm so glad I have a career where I'll never have to worry about crap like this. I'd love to see how the higher ups would like it if they had to be on camera the whole day with AI watching them for mistakes/phone usage.

As much as Canadians like to believe conservatives and moderates don't exist up here, we actually do. You don't even have to be right wing to oppose the LGBT conglomerate.

I'm a bisexual, socially liberal moderate who doesn't like LGBT politics. It's got nothing to do with being religious. In fact, it's the way the LGBT ideology resembles a religion that I have the biggest problem with. They have their sacred idols, their dogma, and their blasphemies. They ignore science that disagrees with their beliefs, and they mark you as a heretic if you don't subscribe to their tenets. The only thing they're missing is a deity.

I know it's hard to believe, but you can be sex positive and still not be alright with pride parades where people march in bdsm gear. You can think drag shows are fine while still thinking they don't need to be in our schools.

And, really, that's what solidified my stance against the LGBT political lobby. They won't leave our kids alone. I'm one of the most live-and-let-live people you will ever meet. When you start trying to indoctrinate my kids because you believe your ideology is the norm (or should be), that's where my accommodation ends.

I accept you for who you are. I respect your existence just like I respect anyone else's. But your ideas are not neutral, they are not without harm, and I'm the one who gets to guide the developing values of my kids. You've been in control of the direction of our society for too long. It's time to draw some boundaries.

This is a bit of a misconception. Wealthy people don't get that way by not working, and they tend not to stay that way if they don't continue to do so. The difference is that the work they do isn't the physically laborious kind.

Wealthy people often work 60+ hours a week. They are constantly traveling, making deals, finding new investments, researching, etc. That's how they get wealthy in the first place, and that attitude doesn't go away just because they hit a certain level of income. They are self-motivated to keep pushing.

The issue is not so much that wealthy people don't do any work as it is that the value of hard labor has been devalued, while the benefits of labor have been siphoned to the top 1% for too long. Those benefits have to be redistributed throughout the system in a way that continues to encourage necessary production, without discouraging high performance individuals from creating value through high level trade and investment. Finding a better balance while taking that all into consideration is not an easy task.

I think one of the main reasons your theory isn't commonplace is the variance in tolerance people have for vigilance. Some people have a lot less tolerance, and appear lazy. Other people have an extremely strong tolerance, and to them, everyone else appears lazy.

I have adhd. My ability to motivate myself to do necessary tasks is very limited. But external pressures can improve my productivity by giving me less choice in the matter. By comparison, too much freedom can reduce my productivity by normalizing a reduced workload, making me intolerant of a workload I was previously capable of.

Laziness does exist. It can be fostered. But that doesn't mean you can't get improved productivity from a healthier balance in your workplace. Just as pressure has a range where it goes from motivating people to crippling them with stress, so too do healthy adjustments to workflow go from rejuvenating to lethargic.

This is a semantic argument made to ignore the issue. The reality is that social media platforms effectively have become the "town square" where ideas are shared. Stifling legal speech in that environment is very effective censorship of ideas.

You can argue that corporations have that right because they own the network. I disagree. Curation of what can be said on their platform turns them into a publisher, not a communications provider. Any lawyer active in that space could tell you how insanely detrimental it would be for that distinction to be made, at least in the U.S.

Imagine your phone company deciding you can't say certain words to other people using their service without facing dropped calls, suspensions of service, or being banned. All because your legal speech goes against the morality of the majority.

That's essentially what social media does at the moment. They are legally defined as, and receive the benefits of, a communications service. But they are acting like a publisher, deciding what is and is not allowed to be said. It's a serious problem.

Why should a creator be responsible for the voiced opinions of their fans? That standard makes no sense no matter how you slice it. A creator's job isn't to police their audience, it's to provide information/entertainment.

Just because he has the power to censor people you don't like doesn't mean he should, or that it's a reasonable ask. Instead of passively alienating you by not acting, censoring those people would actively alienate them. He's much better off letting individuals take responsibility for their own comments, rather than joining any given side's thought-police.

As soon as you create the standard that you are responsible for what your fans say and do, you've lost. You can immediately be held accountable for the speech of the worst of them, and good luck regulating that.

We're always finding ways to interact with the world and perceive it from a different dimension/angle. This comic isn't so much inaccurate as it is exaggerated.

I'm pretty sure this is exactly how scientists felt the first time they developed microscopes, electron microscopes, and other technology that lets us experience the world in a different way. A mixture of "woah" and "mind-blown".

I understand 90% of the science behind what I do as a medical diagnostic technologist. It's still fucking magic as far as I'm concerned.

CTs and MRIs? Atom spin/relax releasing detectable energy waves that are somehow able to be read and aggregated by algorithms into a high detail image of the inside of a human body? Tell me that isn't magic and I'll call you a liar.