This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jhkim

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 584
1
Whether to believe a particular scientific point shouldn't be based on the speaker's politics or on the tone they use, but on the weight of the evidence behind them.

I agree. But you and I are both not experts on the subject, and yet we are faced with the decision to take an experimental vaccine that has only been created this past year. Information on the long term effects of these vaccines are impossible to determine. I resent the idea that we are not allowed to be critical of the subject, and any concern is dismissed by government and the mainstream media. That makes is exceedingly difficult to determine who to "trust" on the subject.

Sadly, the dismissive tone has become standard for all politically-tinged discussion these days from both sides, and worse, covid-19 has become politically-tinged. I've fallen prey to it at times, though to be fair, I've also encountered it a lot.

For medical matters, my general rule is to follow my doctor's advice. In this matter, both my personal doctor and doctors in general are not just recommending the vaccine, but taking the vaccine for themselves. That's the biggest reason that has sold me on it.

I've followed plenty of Internet news about covid, which is natural given how vital it is for all our lives. But in most matters, I don't let my Internet research trump my doctor's advice. At most, I'll seek out a second opinion if I don't like my doctor at the time. Technically, both my parents are medical doctors, and I'll listen to them too, which I guess means I've sometimes gotten 3 or 4 opinions - but mostly that seems excessive and they mostly agree. In pre-covid times, I've seen too many people go down a rabbit-hole of following some Internet advice they found against what their doctor says, which usually turns out badly.


I concur that Nirenberg doesn't seem to have any relevant credentials, and clearly has an agenda. Doesn't mean he's wrong in his critique, but it does mean we'd have to examine it closely. But I also agree that while Bossche does have some credentials, he's not particularly authoritative, his theory seems sketchy, and he appears to be the only one promoting it.

Thanks, Pat. As you note, this isn't about Nirenberg, since the views he promotes are shared by many others. I thought he did do a good job of explaining in detail and giving detailed references, but he did have a dismissive tone. Below is another rebuttal of Bossche. It is written by Jonathan Jarry, who is a molecular biologist working as PR for McGill university. However, he consults with specialist Dr. Paul Offit for the facts, who is the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine and a highly qualified expert.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche

2
As for the substance of his claims, there are a number of rebuttals. The link below seemed the most scholarly. It's not my field, so I can't confirm most of it, but it is thoroughly referenced.

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressing-geert-vanden-bossches-claims

Correct me if I'm wrong, the article writer, Edward Nirenberg, has no published papers a PubMed and no presense on Linkedin.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Edward+Nirenberg
https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?keywords=edward%20nirenberg&origin=CLUSTER_EXPANSION

You're not wrong on that, but the author provides an extensive list of fully-sourced references to back up his explanation. He's not speaking on his own authority, but rather acting as an educator to point people to more authoritative sources. He apparently just graduated with his degree, and seems to be in paper-writing mode.

I haven't found a leading vaccine researcher who specifically takes the time to address Vanden Bossche's points individually. However, that's not because they agree with him, but simply because they are focused on addressing the general public rather than addressing individual opposing opinions like Bossche.

Would you be interested in my providing links to explanations from leading virologists and vaccine researchers on the general topic? Here are some that I looked over:

https://www.chcradio.com/episode/Angela-Rasmussen/564

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2020/december/penn-mrna-biology-pioneers-receive-covid19-vaccine-enabled-by-their-foundational-research

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBWIzg6wBec&t=1s

I guess we should all stop asking questions about the vaccine and just accept it without debate or discussion.

I'm sorry that Nirnberg has a dismissive tone, but that doesn't mean he is wrong. Here on this forum, a lot of posters are less than humble in how they talk about opposing views.

Whether to believe a particular scientific point shouldn't be based on the speaker's politics or on the tone they use, but on the weight of the evidence behind them.

3
Personally, I’m not a fan of glass cannons or it’s opposite extreme, the stone wall (can take it, but can’t dish anything meaningful). I’m more prefer slightly specialized jack-of-all-stats types.

Or to put into numbers... Let’s say a D&D Fighter is a 10 fighting (the best attack progression with best weapons and amor)/1 magic (can use magic items) and a Wizard is a 1 fighting (can use daggers, darts and staves)/10 magic (eventually make genie wishes look underpowered).

With those as a baseline, my preference would be Fighters having 7 fighting (have to pick particular fighting styles, weapons and armor and some creatures are naturally better than even a fighter at physical combat)/4 magic (in this case reliably pulling off superhuman feats of prowess like Hercules or various other mythic heroes) while Wizards have 4 fighting (can wield sidearm-style weapons like swords and wear gambesons, mail shirts and brigandine vests)/7 magic (say capped at 6th level spells, but get more 5e cantrip style at-will minor magics).

In between those you could then drop a 6/5 holy warrior (or thief/rogue if you defined their “magic” as their arsenal of clever/dirty tricks) and a 5/6 “red mage” (gish) without either feeling so middling that they’re gimped by their lack of specialization.

Coming at this more from a background of more GURPS, Hero System, Runequest and other non-D&D systems. I think the default in other systems tends to be characters who are less specialized than old-school D&D -- i.e. more 7/4 than 10/1. However, I like being able to smoothly handle all of generalists, hybrids, and specialists.

It sometimes has taken some special GM attention to make things work, but I've had good games that included generalists as well as specialists like glass cannons and pacifist healers. The specifics of the system can make things wonky, but I like having the variety.


Regarding the OP-based rant about warriors versus wizards, I find that a common pattern especially in D&D is that spellcasters become increasingly vital for their strategic and non-combat capabilities, while the fighters become more like "grunts". Even if they are vitally important for combat, they become less important overall. This has been less of an issue in games with more social aspects. One of the important non-combat power of fighters is being respected heroes and leaders.

4
Not sure what exactly you expect an Allergologist is going to add to the discussion regarding a viral epidemic.

I mean treating Hayfever I would back her opinion 100%.

She's speaking because she is President of the American Medical Association which has over 240 thousand members, and is speaking for the AMA. Representing an established organization of 240,000 doctors is fundamentally different than just being a single doctor with an opinion. With over 9 million doctors worldwide, there are individual doctors with a huge range of opinions. There are licensed doctors who support faith healing. There are licensed doctors who opposed vaccination programs in general. Simply having a degree in the field, even in a sub-field allows a huge range.

Regarding Geert Vanden Bossche...

Dr. Vanden Bossche does appear to have a Veterinary Doctor degree and a specialty in virology. From PubMed, I can see that he has 8 publications between 1988 and 1995, but nothing after 1995. (ref) Looking over his LinkedIn profile, he seems to have jumped around to a number of virus-related companies or foundations from 1995 to 2011. He did work for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation from 2008 to 2011 as a senior program officer. He is noted, for example, as having helped a researcher get a grant from the Foundation in 2010. (ref) After that, though, his main work is for companies called Univac and Vareco - which I can't find any references to other than his own credits.

In his 2021 talk, he credited himself as "Founder and CSO, Coimeva Llc", which isn't listed on his LinkedIn profile, but that does turn up this company profile.
Quote
Company Description: Coimeva is located in Huldenberg, FLEMISH BRABANT, Belgium and is part of the Education & Training Services Industry. Coimeva has 2 total employees across all of its locations and generates $37,000 in sales (USD).(Employees and Sales figures are modelled).
Key Principal: Geert Vanden Bossche
Industry: Education & Training Services
Education Sector
Schools and educational services, nec
Arts and crafts schools
Source: https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.coimeva.1c30a7c7a2e48d651cac3e61842ae2cf.html

In his letter (ref), he says that he was a keynote speaker at "Vaccine Summit Ohio" in 2021. From the site, he isn't listed in the advertised 14 speakers for that conference (ref). However, he among the 47 total speakers in the full program.

From this, it seems to me that he is recognized enough to speak at among 46 others at an Ohio conference, but he does not seem to be a leader in the field.

---

As for the substance of his claims, there are a number of rebuttals. The link below seemed the most scholarly. It's not my field, so I can't confirm most of it, but it is thoroughly referenced.

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressing-geert-vanden-bossches-claims

5
In reply to Ratman_tf's video, Chris Christie had a pretty good video answering questions of this sort.



6
I can't wait to see how this jibes with HIPAA regulations. It's going to be fucking hilarious.
HIPAA regulations don't really apply. First, HIPAA only aplies to healthcare providers. Second, the cards are hand-written on paper, not electronic, and the security rule only applies to electronic records.

As a parent and former teacher, I know getting proof of certain vaccinations was a regular thing at schools both for students and teachers - well after HIPAA was in place. As a teacher, I had to get a regular tuberculosis test as well (every four years).

7
Both sides have a point.

It's very hard to disappear, today. Too much is tied to central databases, and too many things in life, from jobs to apartments to loans, require proving who you are. To disappear, you either need official help (like battered women or witness protection), or to be hiding from just a few people with limited resources (like your parents).

A thousand years ago, it was very hard to escape your village. You had to uproot yourself from everything and everyone you know, and you had no money because subsistence living. Travel was very hard.

A hundred years is in the middle of a transition. Travel was easier, there was more discretionary money to facilitate escape, and social ties had weakened. But while passports had started to be a thing and the government was getting ready to track people with magic numbers, databases and social media and omnipresent surveillance didn't yet exist. It was still rough, going out on your own, but it was easier to escape than either the earlier period, or the later period.

I generally agree - it was easier in 1920 than in 1020, but the main point is that in all three cases, it was really damn difficult. Social ties might be less important in 1920 than 1020, but they were still really strong, both for career and life. Notably, GeekyBugle said the greatest ostacle in the past was a bit of money. But I think historically and now, the greatest obstacle is giving up all your family, friends, and connections. Throwing those away is a huge sacrifice.

My most recent ex had her ex-husband disappear on her, stopping alimony payments and apparently dropping off the grid. I think that was a huge step, but it is evidently within possibility. I'm sure he was findable if the federal government really wanted to, but it was good enough that the local court and her couldn't find him.

A 100 years ago your greatest obstacle on moving and starting over was a bit of money.

Today people search your name in the web, think once you have been branded as a wazi people are going to want to hire you?

Back in the 1920s, it's not like one's past didn't matter. Social connections were if anything even more vital to career than today. Getting a decent job required education and references that would be checked on. It wasn't through the web - but it was through word of mouth or letter writing and similar. If you didn't give references from your past, you wouldn't get anything above a menial job.

8
Yes, and every time the cock-sucking Liberals and SJW's Reee and get someone fired for "wrongthink"--that just inspires more seething resentment, hatred, and rage. More enraged men just arming up, and mowing these fucking people down. More people just out of the blue crushing some Liberal rainbow-haired freak's head in with a lead pipe. More enraged women strengthening their support for a growing resistance, that will increasingly become more violent, and more bloody.

And the Marxist SJW's have no one to blame but themselves, and the cock-sucking Marxist MSM that loves to create strife and division.

Oh come on a bunch of street militias with pre-planning couldn't even kill more than a couple cops in their way at the capitol, the inaction of the American populace on all fronts is pretty well-documented on all political fronts.

edit: it's also wild how all these cock-SJWing-Liberal-Marxists are this unstoppable threat that's also real weak and easily taken out

The Capitol rioters didn't kill any police or staff. (Officer Sicknick was belatedly ruled natural causes.) The rioters caused some police injuries but the deaths were their own. So when SHARK talks about arming up and mowing people down, I think he's talking more about something like the 2019 El Paso shooting - where the attacker was pretty effective in mowing down Latinos, killing 23. I don't think that the lead pipe is a specific reference. From brief search, there was an Australian man who was threatened with violence but not actually beaten for his rainbow hair, but I don't think that's what he's talking about.

Thankfully, despite inflammatory rhetoric, we've seen less violence in recent years than in the 1960s, but the trend has been going up.

9
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« on: May 05, 2021, 08:50:31 PM »
I think judging from the generality of police behavior from a handful of cases isn't accurate. The police aren't one-sidedly either stereotype, and it's difficult to judge the spectrum of their behavior - but I also don't think it's necessary. One can say that it's wrong for the police to abuse and offer violence to people peacefully breaking the law regardless of their politics. We can talk about how police use of force independent of political side.

There's a massive difference between riots in a hundred cities and towns, 30+ dead, 150 federal buildings burned, and billions of dollars of damage. And prosecutors are dropping most of the felony charges, including violence against cops that was caught on camera.

Versus an "insurrection" where the cops pulled aside the barricades and invited people in, who stayed behind the ropes, and didn't smash the statues. And yes, a small contingent broke down some doors, took pictures of themselves muddying the desks of important nobles, and maybe swiped some stuff like laptops. And 1 got shot by a cop (the other 4 deaths are now known to be just unfortunate medical emergencies). And who are now being hunted down like terrorists.

You're making a false equivalence.

Pat - you're talking about Black Lives Matter versus the Capitol riot -- but political protest hasn't been the subject of the thread, and I certainly never mentioned them. We had been talking about covid, and most recently about police enforcement of masks. Zelen characterized this as the government sending out "stormtroopers with guns to physically and psychologically terrorize innocent people" - and we noted the Logan Ohio tasing incident.

This is a bait and switch - claiming that I'm drawing an equivalence between BLM and the Capitol riot when I never mentioned either, or about political protests at all in this thread.

10
Look at the people you reference as successful at fleeing in the current era criminals (already on the run), teenagers (no real employment/credit/education history) leaving their parents, and celebrities (who in this day and age may have enough to disappear and live a quiet life even if not up to their previous standard), spouses fleeing their partner (not being driven out by a mob so a much smaller trail, maybe criminal depending on the situation).

What about someone who gets targeted because they ask a question, donates to the wrong cause, or accidentally lets people know their political affiliation?  Do they ditch their kids or take them into hiding? How much harder is that?  How do you explain to your 10 year old that they can't ever see their old friends again?

It isn't like some people have been denied financial services, housing, or other services for their political views...oh wait...

You explain to your 10 year old that they can't see their old friends ever again the same way that people a hundred years ago explained to *their* 10 year old that they can't ever see their old friends again. Painfully.

And yes, people have been denied financial services, housing, and other services for their political views -- again, just like a hundred years ago.

You're continuing to act as if I'm justifying it by saying that it's been around. I'm saying that this sort of intolerance is wrong and always has been wrong. I believe that we need to have understanding, dialog, and tolerance. I'm reminded of how in my church, we just had a service where a conservative Christian speaker was invited to share his views. We're a very liberal community, but we try our best to be understanding.

https://www.uufrc.org/services/conversations-across-the-divide/

11
No, people 100 years ago should not have to abandon everything to escape a mob.

No, people today should not have to abandon every everything to escape a mob.

I suggest you start practicing that sentiment, then.

It's a lot easier to face a mob when you have allies and friends, rather than alone.

Because make no mistake: the taste for blood is not something a mob ever, ever gives up willingly.

I'm not clear what you're saying I should do differently. I support tolerance, free speech, and dialog between different sides - both online and in real life.

As for allies and friends - my friends are the people who don't form mobs, and who don't instantly jump to misreading me into their partisan prejudices.

12
I mean, I don't see how someone can be this dense. Geeky is pointing out how much harder it is to try and 'start over' when you try to escape your past (for good or bad reasons) nowadays.

Right. So since he claims it was easier to escape your past in the old days, he's blaming everyone a hundred years ago who failed to escape their past. I mean, it's their own fault that they failed to move out and were lynched, right?

Just like how I said that it's easier to escape your past in the present, therefore I'm blaming everyone in the present who failed to escape their past.
Seriously? This is why people get pissed with you. He's not BLAMING anyone.

You, on the other hand, are definitely doing so.

Again: should people have to abandon everything to escape a mob? Yes or no?

No, people 100 years ago should not have to abandon everything to escape a mob.

No, people today should not have to abandon every everything to escape a mob.

13
I mean, I don't see how someone can be this dense. Geeky is pointing out how much harder it is to try and 'start over' when you try to escape your past (for good or bad reasons) nowadays.

Right. So since he claims it was easier to escape your past in the old days, he's blaming everyone a hundred years ago who failed to escape their past. I mean, it's their own fault that they failed to move out and were lynched, right?

Just like how I said that it's easier to escape your past in the present, therefore I'm blaming everyone in the present who failed to escape their past.

14
From the other side, I know my ex's teenage son got pushback for wearing his MAGA hat to his liberal Bay Area school - mostly isolation from peers and a lot of harsh lectures from his mother. I tried to stay supportive with him, but haven't had direct contact since our breakup.

It goes beyond pushback. Children were being attacked for wearing MAGA hats.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-teen-maga-hat-bullies-bus-attack-video-hamilton-county

Sure, I don't disagree that happens. I was just talking about what I have direct experience with -- i.e. what has happened to people that I personally know. I realize that there are news stories about more extreme behavior, but those are often not representative of typical experience.


Perhaps that's why a notable amount of gay people are deserting the woke culture. Maybe they see echoes of the intolerance they once faced.

Maybe. Overall, though, people have just been growing ever more partisan on both sides.


You think that is equally difficult than moving away 100 years ago? Hell make it just before the internet, what is more difficult?

To escape a toxic town, maybe without any money and to go elsewhere to start anew or right now to try and escape from the woke mob?

Stop being disingenuous, you know the answer is right now it's more difficult.

I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.

So if the "woke mob" is attacking someone...it is their fault that they won't give up everything they know and love in order to escape?

Jesus, dude...go ahead and tell us how its the girls fault she got raped.

Every time I think you can't stoop any lower, you dig a hole under the fucking bar...

Fuck you, moonsweeper. That's not what I said, and if your head wasn't completely up your asshole, that would be obvious to you as well.

GeekyBugle claims that it was easy to escape mob condemnation a hundred years ago, but somehow you don't take that as him condoning lynch mobs back then. But of course, he can do no wrong since he's on your side.

Take your fucking strawman bullshit and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.

I don't condone hate mobs either a hundred years ago or today. What I disagree about is that whether today's Internet hate mobs are so much worse than the hate mobs of a hundred years ago.

15
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« on: May 05, 2021, 02:49:32 PM »
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.
So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?

I think there's a problem of people looking only at the news headlines of their chosen politics, and get differently-biased views of policing.

To liberal people watching only liberal media, then there are dozens of cases of police abuse or killing of non-white people and peaceful protesters -- and white conservatives acting violent and are arrested peacefully or even let go.

To conservative people watching only conservative media, then there are dozens of cases of police abuse of white people acting peacefully -- and non-white people acting violent and being arrested peacefully or even let go.

I think judging from the generality of police behavior from a handful of cases isn't accurate. The police aren't one-sidedly either stereotype, and it's difficult to judge the spectrum of their behavior - but I also don't think it's necessary. One can say that it's wrong for the police to abuse and offer violence to people peacefully breaking the law regardless of their politics. We can talk about how police use of force independent of political side.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 584