Poor kids are just as bright as white kids

This would probably give you some useful result with Codex

Barbados and Belarus are some good ones

Because I used “trusting the science” in quotes, I am referring to what those people believe to be science, which is just liberal science in reality. Simple. Also, even if it is good science, “trust the science” is still an oxymoron. Because skepticism is a cornerstone of science.

How do you arrive at that point where you know me that much?

I already explained this. “If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.”

Good news !liminalspace@lemmy.ml

The ‘context’ is that you uttered two incoherent points. The entirety of what you said in that bit is all the context you need. ‘Context’ seems to be a word you like to throw around when losing an argument.

OK. Let’s break down what I said so we can all see what a fool you are.

The first statement in question:
But for those people who disagree with me, their point is always “trust the science, don’t think critically and do your own research.”
So clearly, what this means is that I am QUOTING someone, because it is in QUOTES. I didn’t say that myself and clearly disagree with this, because I said exactly that. So the meaning of this statement is that I think “trusting the science” is an oxymoron. If you trust something uncritically, you are not thinking scientifically.

The second thing in question, which you paraphrased:
“and then you followed it up with why we shouldn’t trust ‘liberal science’”
Yes, so my second statement could be summed up as “don’t trust liberal science”

So explain to me how the statements

1. “trusting the science” is stupid and
2. don’t trust liberal science

contradict each other? When they have identical meaning?
I bet you feel embarrassed now, you can still delete your comment.

This is a straight-up strawman. I have never argued for eugenics

I never said you did! You are the one strawmanning me! My point was that it follows from your way of thinking. If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.

I’m not rushing to conclusions! These are the conclusions that have been reached after a hundred years!

True, science is not set in stone, but it also takes years to develop new technologies, and these have to be in the realm of imagination first before they put billions into development. So where is even the hypothetical or proposed path to eradicate covid? You believe in magic! You are a magical thinker!

You don’t seem to have a consistent point of your own, it seems: “trust the science, don’t think critically and do your own research.” and then you followed it up with why we shouldn’t trust ‘liberal science’?

Reading comprehension bro. Why don’t you reread the context of where I put that quote carefully.

I also love the presupposition that people who follow science are basically sheep. If that were the case, we couldn’t do literally anything without ‘being a sheep’.

So would you trust the eugenicists of the early 20th century? If “science” told you that certain races are worse would you believe them uncritically? I’m not anti-science, you are, because you wouldn’t know what science is if it hit you in the face. Every real Marxist understands historiography, the history of philosophy and the history of science, and knows that the study of these things serves the interests of the ruling class. If science could reveal something disadvantageous to the ruling class, it would never be funded in the first place. REAL science, relies on criticism, and not just an appeal to authority FALLACY which you are invoking. It’s you who doesn’t believe in science.

That’s not my reasoning. But for those people who disagree with me, they’re point is always “trust the science, don’t think critically and do your own research.” So if these people want to trust liberal science, of course it should be pointed out when that science even contradicts the points they are making.

And yes, with the vaccine technology we have today, it is impossible to completely eradicate covid. All means of preventing covid are based on increasing the correct antibodies to identify spike proteins on covid. The reason this doesn’t work for certain diseases is because these spike proteins are always changing through mutation. With covid, it is changing VERY quickly. With waves every 3 months, it suggests your immunity only lasts for 3 months. And in the case of Omicron, people seem to be getting reinfected after only 2 months. This is why we don’t vaccinate against the common cold either. Because it mutates too quickly.

If you have a plan to eradicate covid worldwide, let’s hear it! Because our epidemiologists have nothing. Until you come up with something, you can stop being rude to me and stop calling me a defeatist and anti-marxist when the entire world is already working on this and has come to the same conclusion that I have. I’m just a realist. The sooner you see reality as it is, not as it should be, you will be best equipped to handle its challenges. But if you can’t, then you are the anti-marxist.

Tandoor you say? Sounds tasty

both cases and hospitalizations are spiking past their peak last summer

I don’t know where you are getting your numbers, because covid cases and deaths didn’t peak last summer, they peaked winter 2020. And deaths in the US have not even surpassed the delta wave. On the global scale, you don’t even see an increase in deaths since omicron. This is how the pandemic ends. Each variant becomes more transmissible, less deadly, because being severe and deadly hurts the transmission of a virus obviously.

Going with “it’s never going away, might as well get used to it” is defeatist

But that’s the truth! What everyone is saying! If you think that covid can be completely eliminated like small pox, you do not have any friend in academia who will agree with you, not even Fauci. The approach has always been how to best deal with the virus, not how to eliminate it. So it’s not defeatist or anti-marxist, it’s just the truth.

As Marxists-Leninists, we don’t take current working class sentiment/opinions/rhetoric as law. The majority in this country believe socialism to be evil at worst or “good on paper” at best; does this mean we drop the idea of a working-class revolution because the majority of the working class is seemingly against it?

No, but you have to at the very least listen to what they are saying, understand their arguments. I get the impression that some of Marxists just want to dismiss the opinions of these people altogether instead of understanding the dialectic and learning from their concerns. They still arrive at their positions through pure reason and not through a dialectic relationship with the people. It is the job of Marxists to articulate the real concerns of the people, not to dictate.

Being a communist isn’t about being contrarian to anything that happens under a bourgeois capitalist society, it’s about looking at the situation critically and dialectically.

Which is what we are doing. We are not blindly antithetical to liberal ideology. I don’t just assume there are creatures with tentacles in the vaccine or that the vaccine is a genocide plot or other conspiracy theories. On the other hand, I wasn’t always skeptical either. My starting position was to trust what the news was saying about the vaccine and distrust other opinions.

I think I am in an in between period. On the one hand, I’ve wanted to be older and become more mature and responsible. Graduate, get a job, get my own place to live, get married, start a family. I’m approaching the point though where my growing age feels less positive, partly because of regrets, when you see the wild aspirations you had when you were younger go unfulfilled.

The Azov Battalion always reminds me of the bad guys in a Pokemon game. I guess it’s true for most neo-fascist groups.

No

No, because we don’t understand all that well how DNA affects intelligence. And we don’t know what side effects that could have, because these systems are all connected. You think you are modifying an intelligence gene, but then under the right conditions, this gene is expressed differently and is now producing prions. We can’t even quantify intelligence in the first place. There are just too many risks.

More than 90 lines answer to my meager 9 lines ? Wow ! You are great people here (Communism@lemmygrad.ml) but a little bit stressed aren’t you ?

Brandolini’s Law: The amount of time needed to refute falsehood is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it.

Its really 36 what they wrote, so they are being concise according to this rule.

Well, it’s a tricky subject. In the industrial revolution, working hours were at an all time high for all of human history. No one had ever worked longer than those generations. This is the demand of industrialization as factories and infrastructure are being built at a faster rate than any time in history.

However, post industrialization, living standards rise, working hours are shortened etc. So automation both raised and then lowered the hours we work. And the output for those hours is much higher. So overall, for an individual good like a table, what once took hours of dedicated artisanry, now is being put together in part by a machine in minutes. A person could hypothetically make 20 times more tables in a day. The question is where is this new wealth of value going if people are still working such long hours.

it is important that we don’t let our productivity slide. I think it is fair to say ---- wouldn’t have wanted that.

If I die, for future reference. Yes I do want that. All my coworkers get a two week vacation, that is what I want.

Don’t forget Marxists like Richard Wolff too. And you fail to see things in a national context. The reason you see this amongst communists in the west is because the situation is completely different. There are different vaccines with different consequences, and the people are responding differently. China is a democracy, and the people their have faith in their government to fight coronavirus and agree with the measures taken. In the US, this is not the case. Even in left leaning places like New York, workers are striking against mandates. So will you impose your pie in the sky dreams of zero covid onto these workers based on pure reason? This is not how Marxists are supposed to think.

We cannot blindly trust what Pfizer, Moderna, Bill Gates have to say about the vaccine or Liberal Science at all, we have to be critical. Liberal Science is based on the interests of the ruling class. In the case of big pharma it is to sell as many vaccines possible at the highest price. They will use the government to mandate several vaccines and foot the bill. Potential adverse side effects like myocarditis must be buried by the media so as not to encourage “vaccine hesitancy.” Already we are discussing a 4th shot only a year into the vaccines.

So what is the point of a mandate in stopping the spread of covid? Each booster shot is outdated for this purpose upon arrival. The first vaccine was made useless by delta, the booster made useless by omicron. They are not effective at stopping the spread. They admit as such! And something we know for certain: Covid is not ever, ever going away, no matter how many vaccines people take. Like the Spanish Flu, it will become gradually less deadly over time. Case numbers already diverged from hospitilizations with Delta, and with the Omicron surge, you do not see the same increase in deaths from covid.

You are also spreading misinformation. Cases are spiking past the old peaks true, but hospitilizations from covid are not even close to last years peak despite the surge in cases. And look, I got the booster too, and I would recommend people get the vaccine for their own safety. I am not anti-vax. The issue is whether we allow big pharma to use the government for their own profits or side with workers. Even if you don’t agree, why do you find it so important to propagandize on behalf of the vaccine, what the media and pharma are capable of doing themselves? Is the voice of communists really what people are waiting for to change their minds when they already disagree with the mainstream media? Instead, you are not convincing anyone, you are just losing credibility in the face of people’s real concerns.

That person clearly came just to brigade and not share their opinion in good faith. Most likely someone who was banned before and is evading too. No one should fear a ban for just wanting to discuss their opinions, but their is a huge influx lately of day old accounts trolling this anti vax stuff and those should be dealt with.

I know there is a christian socialist commune called Bruderhof that has locations in multiple countries. I’m critical of movements like this because by trying to build socialism this way, you do not create the utopia you think you do. You have to give them all of your property when you join, making it hard to leave, because you would have nothing. So it tends to be socially coercive when you have an economic constraint to the group and the groups religious rules. If you are a devout christian, it’s not a problem, but if you were born in the group and are at odds with the religious views, it can be hard for you. I think Bruderhof in particular is better about it these days because they give people who leave the group support so they can get on their feet.