The closest thing we have is homeless populations - they spend most of their time exclusively outside - and they still get sick: https://www.sfpublicpress.org/covid-19-cases-spike-among-hom...

So making some big claim about how outdoors transmission is impossible is kind of preposterous.

I honestly can't understand this whole obsession with shaming people for wearing masks. Who gives two shits if someone else is wearing a mask? How does it affect you?

So my point stands: flashiness doesn't correlate with performance.

Lots of people too scared of 'cancel culture' (read: being caught and having to pay the consequences) around here.

Maybe being flashy and showy isn't all that important after all.

* The CDC's default position is caution * We know more now than we did in the past

In February, we realized vaccinated people could still get asymptomatic infections. Out of an abundance of caution, the CDC recommends vaccinated people keep wearing masks because the vast majority of the population isn't vaccinated.

As evidence accumulates in the intermediate time, we realize that vaccines also lower the percentage of people with asymptomatic Covid-19 [1]

With even more evidence, we realize vaccinated people overwhelmingly avoid hospitalization, which is the real issue we are trying to avoid [2]

With those two pieces of information, the CDC can now change their recommendation. Nothing nefarious going on, nothing 'unknowable' to anyone paying attention.

The problem is when people who are already predisposed to distrust the CDC - most likely due to their media diet - and put 0 effort in understanding the changing landscape see the CDC change the recommendation and assume it must be 'something political'. Those of us who were paying attention weren't that surprised about the announcement.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0428-vaccinated-adu...

Do you think the people now being attacked in this thread because they originally called for Richard Stallman to face consequences are being 'canceled'? I see a lot of people claiming nobody should take them seriously ever again, blah blah blah. Sounds like 'canceling' to me. Is this mob any better than the supposed 'cancel culture' mob?

In other words: should we stop using the term 'cancel culture' only in one direction?

There's a number of terms being used ('SJW', 'woke', 'cancel culture', 'cultural Marxism', etc.) to denigrate and quell any kind of discourse that goes against conservative talking points. I'd suggest you go and watch any of the self-described 'conservative comedians' to understand the level of otherization and systematic invalidation of any views that don't match theirs. Then come back here and tell me their behavior isn't as much of a moral panic as the supposed 'cancel culture'.

The fact that it is majorly powerful self-described Christian conservatives politicians that are constantly pushing the 'cancel culture' narrative should be a hint, don't you think?

I'm not here to convert anyone. Catharsis is also a perfectly valid reason to do something.

> The problem with pedophilia isn't that it's offensive, it's the harm caused. As you well know... If you can make a good case that soydev memes are as bad as, you know, molesting kids, then please do.

Filling people's heads with 'edgy' stuff has led us to the current situation were we have self-declared incels shooting up public places while live-streaming their violence 'for the lulz'. The Christchurch massacre was the perfect example of the logical conclusion of the nihilistic onanism that is 4chan shitposting.

I'd argue that setting people into the edgy -> racist to be edgy -> conspiracy theories about replacement -> violence sausage machine, on the premise of laughing at 'soydevs' (whatever that is supposed to mean) has real-life consequences just as bad as pedophilia.

> That space isn't really meant for you and doesn't have to conform to the rules of politeness of mainstream culture, much as you wouldn't go into, I don't know, a punk rock concert and ask them to tone down their language a bit.

> Would you deny these weirdos their safe space, where they can joke about wagecucks and gnutards?

As I said, the problem with these weirdos' safe-space is that it is increasingly leading to consequences in the real world. They can say whatever the hell they want in their safe-space, but you can't ask me to not tell them how stupid and/or deranged they sound when they come to my space. That's the only way to adjust their expectations ``

> Ironically, you're being more interpersonally combative/abrasive than anyone I've seen on LS's channel! Less nice, in other words. With your attitude, and your sailor's mouth, you might belong on 4chan, after all.

Almost like people can have strong opinions without having to resort to calling others 'soydevs' and 'suburban white women'.

Kidding aside, I'm not sure what margins they are running on. I can't imagine they are selling enough kits that lowering the price wouldn't it make it impossible for them to exist.

One would be forgiven for thinking you are a dishonest hack.

You are trying to downplay this as if it was just some goons setting an empty Denny's on fire, but you know exactly what was happening and who was in that building at the time they broke into it.