Alex1Powell Categories Society
Equalities Minister \u2066@trussliz\u2069 says the government has been too focused on \u201cfashionable\u201d race, gender and sexuality issues and will now pivot towards focusing on poverty and levelling up. https://t.co/UOrxSapG7Z
— Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) December 17, 2020
So really simple questions
And there are so so many
Why are concerns over race, gender and sexuality put into air quotes e.g. "fashionable"?
Is "fashionable" meant as a derogatory?
Who are you selling this shite to when you write it this way?
When did the government become "too focused" on race, gender and sexuality issues?
Define "too focused" ?
Will now "pivot" - what you mean from today 17th December 2020?
Why could you not focus on "poverty and levelling up" at the same time as equality issues since some of these issues go hand in in hand after all?
Who and what are you "levelling up" from?
The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.
Can you game out where it would go it theoretically Trump did enact some EO demanding the impounding of voting machines? As that\u2019s clearly the game. Like he signs it, then what? Do marshals listen or refuse? Do states sue and get an emergency injunction and that\u2019s the end?
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 21, 2020
On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.
Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.
That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.
That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.
The Diversity section of your job application asks "Which gender do you identify as?" with options:
Male
Female
Other.
1/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/11
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology and there is no 'other' way describe one's sex.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/11
You then ask "Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?"
Equating 'gender' or 'gender identity' with sex is meaningless and relies on demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes. Sex is immutable.
4/11
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.
5/11
also attaching 2 past debunkings of widely disseminated US studies that health officials have attempted to
first, the kansas study spread by CDC and so many "twitterdocs" and politicians.
it's a master class in cherry picking and misusing data through truncation.
the data proving it was false was widely available at the time it was
CDC claims that masks stopped the spread of covid in kansas by comparing masked and non-masked counties.
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) November 23, 2020
counterpoint: this was a cherry pick in terms of date and seasonality.
they ended the "study" aug 23.
then, covid season hit and the masks look to have made no difference. https://t.co/LgyjqPodOC pic.twitter.com/P2cfuZRtDs
also the mass general study, a classic of the "sun-dance" variant: use no control group and then presume that any action undertaken was the result of some thing you did.
ignore the fact that the whole rest of (unmasked) massachusetts got the same
this is from the study that CDC head robert redfield showcased the other night to "prove masks work"
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) July 28, 2020
it it the epidemiological equivalent of doing a sun dance at 5.30 AM and claiming you made that ball of fire in the sky appear
it's assumptive, lacks a control, & proves nothing pic.twitter.com/yTdBa7UFit
the fact that CDC has been spreading studies like these and using them alongside flimsy lab bench experiments with no clinical outcomes or even real world measurement speaks poorly of both CDC & the evidence for masks
the good studies do not support use
back in the halcyon days of 2019, before the great politicization of epidemiology turned up into down and down into sideways, the WHO performed a survey of randomized, controlled trials on masks
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) September 28, 2020
1100 citations were winnowed to the 10 best for review.
masks looked ineffective. pic.twitter.com/A04MVVmXhu
and lab bench droplet projection studies are meaningless.
it's one tiny aspect of a large system and may actually be counterproductive if masks are nebulizing droplets and making virus more aerosol in spread and more deeply
this is a fascinating thread on possible physical properties of masks, viral spread, & infectivity
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) October 24, 2020
in essence, even if a mask stops large droplets, the force of expulsion may nebulize them into aerosols
so, it's possible that aerosol spread of cov is caused/accentuated by masks https://t.co/FiHfMU3NKD
Our society needs to seriously rethink of mental health. Our society needs to be educated
3 years ago, during my JEE prep, when I went into clinical depression, no one could diagnose me of it. I had every symptom of it.
I literally got no help. This is not about me, I'm telling this from a general 3rd person view.
Any help that I got was wearing a ring made of horseshoe of a black horse of a specific breed. All the blame was slapped on 'Shani'
I was being taken to orphanages and slum areas so that I could see that my ailments are nothing in front of theirs.
Loads of toxic positivity
Yes, \U0001d5fd\U0001d5fc\U0001d600\U0001d5f6\U0001d601\U0001d5f6\U0001d603\U0001d5f6\U0001d601\U0001d606 can be \U0001d601\U0001d5fc\U0001d605\U0001d5f6\U0001d5f0
— Atharva Kharbade (@athrvakhrbde) September 25, 2020
Before you let your ignorance kick in and make you laugh out loud, try seeing life with a new perspective
No BS
A thread...
Read this if you use sentences like "Good vibes only" or "Just be positive and stay happy"
I lived in a PG hostel. I used to go to institute. Used to meet numerous people everyday. But not a single person could diagnose me of any medical condition. Not their fault, even I didn't what I'd been going through
So I wrote back to @lucyfrazermp for another go. Here\u2019s my letter.
— Edmund Fordham (@EdmundFordham) November 28, 2020
They don\u2019t understand how serious this is.
If they can\u2019t tell us the oFPR, our PCR testing is worthless. (thread) pic.twitter.com/zHJ8SJCzf1
Without this information it’s impossible to interpret any result. If the oFPR is 4%, for example, and if the true prevalence is 0.3% (it’s probably less), then for every 10,000 tests, 400 positives would be false & 30 positives would be genuine. So 93% of positives are false.
As Mr Fordham points out, almost all policies pivot on PCR mass testing. Hancock previously admitted on talkRADIO to Julia Hartley-Brewer in late summer that the FPR was “just under 1%”. That was a flat lie (possibly inadvertent but he’s never corrected the record). The reason...
...we are sure Hancock told a lie is that they have never known the FPR. Those including Hancock who believe that the oFPR can be estimated by inspection of the lowest positivity ever recorded, while logical, is completely wrong. Changes in personnel, throughout, testing...
...architecture & the like can radically alter the oFPR. Since Hancock’s remark in late summer, PCR mass testing has moved into the Lighthouse Labs & this creates a new & urgent need to continually assess oFPR. I’ve good reason to believe it’s now VERY much higher now that the...
