Jump to content

Pick a 3 digit number on covid cases on Google

markstanco

By markstanco
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10493

Posted
Posted

After reading the Snopes article, I still don't understand. Typing in a number and "new cases" will obviously pull up results for covid. What else would anybody possibly be trying to research with that phrase these days? New cases of polio? Google is kinda good at knowing what you're trying to search for. If it didn't give you articles about Covid, their search algorithm has seriously fucked up

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9990

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

After reading the Snopes article, I still don't understand. Typing in a number and "new cases" will obviously pull up results for covid. What else would anybody possibly be trying to research with that phrase these days? New cases of polio? Google is kinda good at knowing what you're trying to search for. If it didn't give you articles about Covid, their search algorithm has seriously fucked up

people with a confirmation bias for believing that covid is some sort of planned mechanism/social experiment to control people from leaving their homes (by an evil cabal of underground lizards and is completely fake/hasn't killed half a million americans) are flabbergasted by the notion that over the course of last year, there have been enough published statistics of new cases from various levels of community from facilities, neighborhoods, towns, cities, regions, states, and countries that they can find an article that show that the specific three digit number they type in by one of the largest data aggregators in the solar system was reported as a number of cases somewhere at some time.

they believe this is a machination of the control over the sheeple who are too asleep and need to wake up(!!) to the fact that the jewish space laser operators and the rothschilds apparently want to trick everyone into thinking a virus might harm their community because they want to destroy commerce and the economy (that they are the biggest beneficiaries of) for everyone.

in other words, lunatics and legions of morons like the op.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34658

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Player said:


Which is likely where stanco found it. He has to be aggy, right? I hate to think his dumbass actually received a degree from Texas.

someone mentioned a while back that @markstanco is a sooner

2 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

After reading the Snopes article, I still don't understand. Typing in a number and "new cases" will obviously pull up results for covid. What else would anybody possibly be trying to research with that phrase these days? New cases of polio? Google is kinda good at knowing what you're trying to search for. If it didn't give you articles about Covid, their search algorithm has seriously fucked up

how would that be amazing, tho?  @markstanco told me that the first 5 or 6 tries i was supposed to get something amazing.  but @markstanco never mentioned what that might be.  instead, @markstanco ran away from this thread like every other time he's posted in CR since the great conservative migration to the DT safe space happened.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted
On 2/22/2021 at 8:43 PM, markstanco said:

 

Try it. Type in xxx covid cases and hit search.

 

Abstract yet the message is deafening - if not blinding. The Conservative Mind is utter madness.

Spoiler

Conservatism is difficult to categorize. For many young people it is just a pragmatic response to what they perceive as a new and undesirable leftist agenda, while many others, most typically seniors, adopt it wholeheartedly on ideological grounds. The latter see conservatism as a full‐fledged alternative to both classical liberalism and socialism, as one of the “big” ideologies. But does conservatism truly stand for anything in particular, or is it just a reactionary worldview? Furthermore, to the extent that conservatism is a coherent ideology, is it worth supporting or are its main tenets simply wrong? In light of the widespread confusion around this topic, I shall briefly discuss three of conservatism’s shortcomings—that it is inoperative, unprincipled, and dangerous—in an attempt to salvage its valuable lessons from its mistaken motivations.

INOPERATIVE

Firstly, conservatism is inoperative; it is incapable of giving any guidance whatsoever for dealing with the future. In its crudest version, it can do no more than look at the past to identify those social arrangements that have been useful and then advocate for their protection and reproduction. It thus commits the mistake that every trader warns against: to believe that past returns guarantee future ones. Moreover, conservatism overlooks the fact that the very set of institutions, values, and customs whose revival it demands is itself the result of particular innovations in the past—innovations which, to a consistent conservative, must be seen as an attack against an even older tradition. This is the paradox that lies at the heart of conservatism and that paralyzes it. On what possible grounds could we assume that the morals and habits typical of the early twentieth century—which for some reason seem to conform the ideal societal model of every Western conservative—represented some sort of cultural zenith? Why should we stop the clock a few decades in the past and not a few decades in the future? The answer is not straightforward, and conservatives therefore appear to be defending an arbitrary freeze of time when appealing to tradition.

However, many conservative thinkers are well acquainted with the paradox and have offered more refined arguments to back up their theories. A particularly appealing version of conservatism takes an evolutionary twist. It argues that we should aim at protecting only those traditions that have proved capable of evolving and adapting to the new ages, since their longtime survival supposedly evidences that they have a valuable task to fulfill in society, even if we are incapable of fully comprehending it through bare reasoning. Such institutions are said to contain a “latent wisdom,”1i.e. knowledge that has accumulated over the years and been bequeathed from generation to generation. Compelling as this reasoning seems, it still fails to offer any indication as to what to do and where to go in the future; at best it tells us what not to do. Even a keen evolutionist like Hayek thought that conservatism could not show the way to progress because it constitutes no more than a minimal requirement for survival. According to him, “by its very nature conservatism cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving,” which would eventually force it “to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing.”2

UNPRINCIPLED

Secondly, conservatism is devoid of content since it lacks criteria to determine what is good and what is not. This obstacle cannot be overcome even if we accept Oakeshott’s claim that conservatism, though not a systematic political doctrine, is still a necessary “disposition”3 towards change, especially towards sudden reformations of the polity. Conservatism is faced with an unsolvable conundrum when asked “what makes a lasting tradition successful or valuable?” In other words, what does “successful” mean for the conservative? Why does he believe that anything durable is worth keeping at all? If the answer is “because it has shown to solve people’s problems,” then how does he define what a “solution” is? Is it that what makes individuals happy? Or is it that what makes them virtuous? Why not powerful, or simply free? Consistent conservatives, unfortunately, cannot respond without falling into a circular reasoning: what exists is desirable because it exists. The same conclusion was reached by James Mill while discussing Burke’s work:

[Burke] worked himself into an artificial admiration of the bare fact of existence; especially ancient existence. Everything was to be protected, not because it was good, but, because it existed.4

What conservatives are missing, then, is an overlying principle that justifies their adherence to some such cautious attitude. John Kekes is aware of this impediment and therefore endorses a more robust doctrine which curiously enough he prefers to call “traditionalism”—not conservatism. Instead of an unprincipled reverence for the past he defends only those traditions that foster “good lives”—which, according to him, are those rendering individuals “morally wise” or virtuous.5 And Kekes is not alone in his endeavor of providing conservatism with a soul; other theorists—most notably John Finnis 6—have attempted to root their conservative mindset in a more profound understanding of life’s value. (Finnis develops his own theory of natural rights.) Consequently, conservatism can at the most aspire to be an accompanying attribute of other, complete ideologies—one could, for instance, think of “conservative liberals” or “conservative socialists”—a fact which should remind conservatism’s followers that their puzzle of the world is lacking a substantial piece.

DANGEROUS

Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, conservatism can ultimately carry intolerable consequences. Its appealing rejection of drastic, hasty, and uncontrolled change, is actually a double‐edged sword, for all too often it calls for the adherence to otherwise unacceptable traditions. For example, women might not particularly enjoy their customary subordination to men but there is not much a conservative can say against the traditional configuration of the family and the reproductive role of women within it. The point here is not whether evolutionary arguments can be found in favor of gender equality or even matriarchy (it surely is possible); rather, the objection is based on conservatism’s proneness to sacrifice ethical considerations concerning the lives of real individuals in order to maintain a given social structure, even though it is the latter that should be subordinated to the former.

This danger increases dramatically when conservatives join forces with moral relativists in an attempt to defend their uneasy positions. Successful traditions are said to be dependent on the time and place in which they are set and have grown, which in turn impedes our evaluating some traditions as objectively wrong and others as objectively right. Precisely, it was this line of argument which referred to slavery as the South’s “peculiar institution” as though it were just a cultural oddity instead of the abominable practice it obviously was. The same approach can be employed to endorse, among other abhorrent habits, female genital mutilation or human sacrifice: after all, both are or have been equally traditional in particular cultural contexts.

The conservative‐evolutionary argument unconsciously commits the naturalistic fallacy. The straightforward version of the fallacy is “what is, also ought to be.” The conservative variant is “what has allowed human beings to survive, ought to be preserved.” Flawed as this reasoning is, it still enjoys great support, especially among those fearful of a supposed decline of “Western morals and culture,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Consequently, conservatives in the American context tend to confuse hierarchy with social stability, control with security, and puritanism with morality.

What conclusions can be drawn from this short reflection? On one hand, it is indisputable that a conservative mindset can be a valuable defense against rapid change: it provides the citizenry with a shield to counter the aspirations of power‐seeking politicians and the potentially disastrous effects of top‐down policymaking. On the other, viewing conservatism as a systematic ideology, as Scruton does,6 is not only mistaken but also misleading. That approach drives us away from the crucial question of how to improve individual lives and perpetuates even the most intolerable of existing social arrangements. Conservatives, therefore, ought to make sure that their support of traditional institutions springs from solid reasoning and not the fideistic glorification of oldness.

Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Hackett 1987).
Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (University of Chicago Press 1978), page 398.

James Mill, History of India (James Madden 1858), pages 200–1.

Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (Methuen & Co 1962), page 168.

John Kekes, Moral Wisdom and Good Lives (Cornell University Press 1995).

John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press 1980).

Roger Scruton, The Meaning of Conservatism (Palgrave Macmillan 2001), page 1.

 

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/three-problems-conservatism

give a monkey a keyboard and just wait for Godot.

Absurdist art.

Jojo Rabbit movie information

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21323

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2/24/2021 at 4:04 PM, sidis said:

people with a confirmation bias for believing that covid is some sort of planned mechanism/social experiment to control people from leaving their homes (by an evil cabal of underground lizards and is completely fake/hasn't killed half a million americans) are flabbergasted by the notion that over the course of last year, there have been enough published statistics of new cases from various levels of community from facilities, neighborhoods, towns, cities, regions, states, and countries that they can find an article that show that the specific three digit number they type in by one of the largest data aggregators in the solar system was reported as a number of cases somewhere at some time.

they believe this is a machination of the control over the sheeple who are too asleep and need to wake up(!!) to the fact that the jewish space laser operators and the rothschilds apparently want to trick everyone into thinking a virus might harm their community because they want to destroy commerce and the economy (that they are the biggest beneficiaries of) for everyone.

in other words, lunatics and legions of morons like the op.

If you run into these people in real life please ask them to explain.  Then suppress your laughter as long as you can.  My record is right at 30 seconds.  I last much longer in SA’s mom.  

Edited by ChiTownDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11669

Posted
Posted

I am a little interested in the mathematical certainty here:  there are evidently 4115 cities in the U.S. with between 10,000 and 100,000, and 350 cities larger than that.  Presumably, 99%+ have some sort of journalism attached to them that publishes articles online.  You also have larger entities that are worth reporting on: counties, MSAs, states. You also have different time periods you can measure across: weeks, months. There have been 28.6M cases.  There have been a years worth of infections.

It would be interesting to figure out if a story with literally every number between 100 and 999 has occurred for a geographic entity for a reportable period.  And if so, just how high of a number do you have to get to before there are not stories with that number of COVID cases?  Can we get to 2000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8350

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I am a little interested in the mathematical certainty here:  there are evidently 4115 cities in the U.S. with between 10,000 and 100,000, and 350 cities larger than that.  Presumably, 99%+ have some sort of journalism attached to them that publishes articles online.  You also have larger entities that are worth reporting on: counties, MSAs, states. You also have different time periods you can measure across: weeks, months. There have been 28.6M cases.  There have been a years worth of infections.

It would be interesting to figure out if a story with literally every number between 100 and 999 has occurred for a geographic entity for a reportable period.  And if so, just how high of a number do you have to get to before there are not stories with that number of COVID cases?  Can we get to 2000?

This approaches infinite monkeys / typewriters = Shakespeare.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
heso

heso 2848

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I am a little interested in the mathematical certainty here:  there are evidently 4115 cities in the U.S. with between 10,000 and 100,000, and 350 cities larger than that.  Presumably, 99%+ have some sort of journalism attached to them that publishes articles online.  You also have larger entities that are worth reporting on: counties, MSAs, states. You also have different time periods you can measure across: weeks, months. There have been 28.6M cases.  There have been a years worth of infections.

It would be interesting to figure out if a story with literally every number between 100 and 999 has occurred for a geographic entity for a reportable period.  And if so, just how high of a number do you have to get to before there are not stories with that number of COVID cases?  Can we get to 2000?

I think a conservative number would be that the top 150 counties in the us by population  (470k and up) have all had at least 4 months (many have had closer to 8-9 months) of daily triple digit average of new Covid cases reported. That’s at least 120 days of triple digit cases reported per 150 counties. That’s 18,000 reports of triple digit new cases, just in the last 4 months. Most of the top 40 or so counties have been in the triple digits since June or July. 

That completely ignores the thousands of small town news papers that have added to the count. 

There have probably been 50,000+ reports of triple digit cases in the US in the last year. 

Just googling “beaver county times Covid”, a shitty small town newspaper covering a county with 150k people, the first article I clicked on has the numbers 200, 204, 763, 126, 111, 663, and 188. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Hornius Emeritus

Hornius Emeritus 12780

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Hi @markstanco, I see you are back in the CR in the active shooter thread. Any chance you can come back to the thread you started and let us know the significance of 3 digit numbers with regard to Google searches?

Sometimes I wonder if being as gullible as @markstanco actually,  physically hurts I.e. it is it a physical sensation that he feels as he's walking around on the planet? Does it hurt to be that dumb?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, UpperWestside said:

That kind of tone will never get you a job offer from @markstanco's company of eight dollars an hour with all the overtime you can ask for.

Is that real? I'm aware that lots of stupid people end up running companies due to family or just dumb luck, but damn. I can't imagine going into work every day knowing that my boss is someone this stupid.

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6263

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Is that real? I'm aware that lots of stupid people end up running companies due to family or just dumb luck, but damn. I can't imagine going into work every day knowing that my boss is someone this stupid.

He posted back in 2018 or thereabouts that his employees were paid 8 per hour and that there was more overtime than they knew what to do with. I feel bad for those folks that live a life where their boss pays them an absurdly low wage and that he honestly believes they enjoyed all of that overtime. They worked like that because they are just trying to survive. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

He posted back in 2018 or thereabouts that his employees were paid 8 per hour and that there was more overtime than they knew what to do with. I feel bad for those folks that live a life where their boss pays them an absurdly low wage and that he honestly believes they enjoyed all of that overtime. They worked like that because they are just trying to survive. 

Not to mention feeling bad for them because they have to go into work every day and report to a guy who gets his worldview from Facebook and Alex Jones. Oof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 years later...
elfenix

elfenix 34658

Posted
Posted
On 2/23/2021 at 8:45 AM, BradInATX said:

More of this please @markstanco. Since @DenverHorn slinked away in shame when the pedophile Democrats weren't mass-incarcerated on inauguration day and @TtomTerrific hunkered down in his school bus bunker until 2025, we've really been missing the "batshit insane weirdo" voice in our conversations. Thanks for making us whole again. Tell us more.

@TtomTerrific is coming back!?!?!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20834

Posted
Posted
On 3/24/2021 at 1:21 PM, UpperWestside said:

He posted back in 2018 or thereabouts that his employees were paid 8 per hour and that there was more overtime than they knew what to do with. I feel bad for those folks that live a life where their boss pays them an absurdly low wage and that he honestly believes they enjoyed all of that overtime. They worked like that because they are just trying to survive. 


Well he has to pay for his six-foot fence with an armada of security cameras that surrounds his three acre property SOMEHOW. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I sure hope OP comes back and clears his name. surely this is all big misunderstanding 

Surely he's not too chickenshit to own up to falling for some extremely obvious nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...