Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Kryten

Members
  • Posts

    5,413
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Kryten

  1. On 3/28/2021 at 9:50 PM, Devron44 said:


    Haven’t read through all the pages so hope this hasn’t been post yet.

     

    Pretty standard Death Metal but I just love these guys. They look like some regular dudes that just got off a construction job shift and love to head bang after work haha 

    Yep. Banger. Love it. Thank you. 

    • Like 1
  2. On 4/7/2021 at 2:39 AM, Angry Goose said:

    @Coconuts @falcon45ca@Davathor @Kryten @Gollumpus @Devron44

    & anyone who would like to participate!

     

    This was brought up in another thread so I thought I'd ask here.  Your top 5 metal albums that influenced you or consider a favorite for whatever reason.  

     

    Bonus points for posting a YT video of the album or fav. song and a blurb about it.

     

     

     

    This list will not be as original as others. Good music is good music, even if it is now considered mainstream. 

     


     

    1. Pantera - Vulgar Display of Power

     


    My introduction to metal, will be forever grateful. 
     

    2. Metallica - Master of Puppets

     


    Probably the best metal album ever. Never gets old.


    3. Ministry - The Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Taste

     


    This band is criminally underrated. Their live shows were so $&@#ing entertaining. 

     

    4. Soulfly - Primitive

     

     

    Incredible album reminds me of many great nights with friends and teammates. Loved that this band experimented with different genres and who doesn’t enjoy tribal drums? (And yes, also a Sepultura fan). The posted song is one of my favourites. 

     

    5. Disturbed - Ten Thousand Fists In The Air

     

     

    Another great album that never gets old, love that I can play it through without skipping a single track.


     

    This was a difficult list to make as there are many albums that influenced me that I didn’t mention as they either aren’t really considered metal or they just did not have enough bangers IMO to make the list.
     

    Some of my other loves: Surfer Rosa, Independent Worm Saloon, Nevermind, No Control, RATM, Demanufacture, Bloody Pit of Horror, Toxicity, All Hope Is Gone, Chamber Music, Doolittle, Pioughed. Also any song performed by Floor Jansen. 

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Cheers 2
  3. 3 hours ago, The Lock said:

    To be honest, I don't know if it's possible to fully get a grasp of the extent science gets condemned by the left and the right because in both cases you have people for science and against science. However, after thinking things through a bit, I still think the right's a little more hampering of science than the left. Here's why....

     

    For example, on the right, you have a lot of religious people who put religion before science. You also have a lot of the people who are pro-oil companies and are against any science that will change all of that. In general with the right, it's about conservatism and yet science is often about change. The more advancements in science, the more change there is. So fundamentally, the right is going to hamper science.

     

    With the left, you have a lot of activists, but the interesting part of it is you have activists for science (ie. preventing climate change). The left fundamentally is for change which coincides with science. Now, obviously there are the issues you have brought up in terms of activists against certain research, but that is small compared with what we see the right side blocking.

     

    Look at Texas right now and their issues and how they don't want something as simple as green energy while making up their own science. Or look at Trump and how he's claimed on multiple occasions that climate change isn't even happening. I know Trump's Trump and probably not the greatest example but people are going to believe him.

     

    So I weigh both sides, and it sucks to see certain fields get a lack of research due to left activists, but then I see what the right is doing.... which is going to affect everyone in terms of the (lack of) scientific outcomes just because they don't want change.

    Yes this is what I mull over when conflating one side with the other in respect to scientific facts and the push back involved.


    I wonder how many scientists experience the “Who Killed the Electric Car” scenario compared to others? A scary thought. 

     

    The act of scaring young scientists into disciplines that are career safe and unchallenging might prevent innovations like the electric car from ever being created in the first place. I wonder if the first nuclear vehicle or other volatile propulsion system will face the scrutiny of the uninformed activist as opposed to the scientific peer? What could offend the activist? Environmental impact? Health impact? Social impact? Perhaps I am simply guilty of romanticizing the act of innovation. I hope so.


    I see religion comes up often and I find it funny to be the one to offer up a minor defence for it since I am an atheist. IMO, religion and science can co-exist only if science takes precedence in real world applications. I have no problem if someone uses their religion to make themselves a better person. However, if it is used to coerce or police others then it can GTFO. 

     

    I look at social media as a game changer, and not just for refuting science facts. A left-winger wielding a hashtag can force a CEO to fire anyone in his/her company who offends the “customer” simply because that CEO has chosen to publicly join the woke brigade of inclusion and is now obligated to do their bidding without due process or a proper analysis. Previously, a team of lawyers and publicists would shield a company from the wrath of public opinion but nowadays CEO’s are in the trenches trading blows with everyone and their dog and they are pressured to act immediately or risk losing revenue. 
     

    A right-winger can barely find a platform to post their content haha. Yes, this consequence is largely their own damn fault (RIP Clam and Harvey), but there are liberals on platforms who are being called right-wingers and being banned for just bringing up controversial subjects that are not remotely conservative talking points. That is another slippery slope that worries me and puts me in the position of having to defend the right-wing’s right to a platform for them to post whatever crap they want, within reason of course. I would be bummed if I lost the ability to follow George Will as much as I would if I could no longer follow Noam Chomsky. Both are important voices.

     

    I am aware that this online activism is a fairly recent development but I fear this is only the beginning. I want healthy debate across all platforms and I want a healthy opposition to better keep ourselves grounded in reality. I’m going to enjoy it while it lasts at the very least. 

    • Like 1
    • Cheers 1
  4. 52 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

    If you want to divide individual human being's into just 2 categories, I believe that humanist and non humanist are better descriptions than left or right.

     

    35 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

    I would totally agree with the fact that there are far more non humanist human being's who are anti-science.

    Interesting, have not heard this perspective before. I am assuming this is referring to greed and the relationship with capitalism and the evolution of such a union?

    • Like 1
  5. 1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said:

    @RUPERTKBD @Kryten

     

    Don’t mean to intrude on the conversation but wanted to point out that your conversation was a bit of an example of online misinterpretation and the solution of elaboration which requires the willingness to hear the other out. 
     

    Could prevent a lot of misinformation by having an open mind and figuring out exactly what someone meant when they say something critical online like you guys did.

     Very true and I should add that I know Rupe’s heart is in the right place and he is a smart guy. Certainly knew that I was opening a can of worms and I was willing to take some hits until we reach the place necessary to have what is I believe to be a very interesting discussion. I can’t wait to get to @The Lock ‘s post which is a good one.

    • Like 2
    • Cheers 2
  6. 1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize for misinterpreting your post. However in my defense, the following quote led to my confusion:

     

    In any event, as I said in my other response, you weren't the only person I was responding to and I still believe that others believe the problem is equally (or close to equally) represented on both sides of the political spectrum.

    I see, no harm done.

    • Like 2
    • Cheers 1
  7. 1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    It's quite simple really. I admit that there are science deniers on the left, but I disagree that their numbers are anywhere near what is on the right. That is exactly what I meant by saying "false equivalency" (and you are not the only one who was suggesting that. That is why I didn't single out your post)

     

    If you meant that both sides are not equal in this regard, then we have no disagreement.

    That is what I meant and thank you.

    • Cheers 1
  8. 3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    I wasn't the one who made that determination.

     

    Someone else made the claim that "both the Left and Right" are anti-science. The implication that the two camps are equally so, is what I was pushing back on.

    Never said that which is why I wanted you to quote my post. My assertion is that both left and right are guilty, not just the right. Equality of blame was never in mind.

     

    My controversial opinion, and yes it is open to change, is that the left will do more damage to science than the right if we continue down this path of unvetted activism. 

  9. 11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

    so "the left" has a wide range of people with different ideas and motivations. So what? these people don't represent a main stream anything. 

    They don’t have to represent the main stream, social media has allowed them to bypass the vetting process and go right to the source. That is the point and I was hoping for your thoughts on online activism and your opinion on cancel culture and it’s effect on universities and their scientists. If you don’t feel like offering an opinion, that’s ok. I’m disappointed if that’s the case but c’est la vie.
     

    8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    Then let me answer that for you. The answer is "no". No there are not.

     

    Hence my "accurate" point about false equivalency....

    I would ask you to prove it but I really do not care about the numbers as it does not have anything to do with my position which you have unequivocally failed to address. The numbers are not important, what is important is the fact that the left has a mob of online activists influencing everything from policy to science in a very negative manner. I respect your position Rupe and was hoping you would offer your own opinion instead of just a criticism of mine. 

    • Upvote 1
  10. 6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

    OK so this is an example of one guy on a mission to discredit a single clinical trial. The guy is pissed that someone is suggesting a potential psychological aspect to a disease. There's nothing here about "left or right" though so I don't see the political angle to this example at all. 

     

    It is an example of how toxic social media can be for sure, but this doesn't support some sort of lefty attack on the scientific method. 

     

    It was not a partisan hack piece which is why it did not use politically explicit language. Tuller is not “one pissed off guy”, he crowdfunded and spearheaded a movement. The majority of his supporters are left-wing and they used their influence to curtail the very research that could potentially help them because they felt offended that their affliction may not be strictly anatomical.


    If a more explicit piece is required, fine. Here is a piece by a more partisan author on a very controversial issue (which is why I didn’t lead with it but alas, it is what is):

     

    https://quillette.com/2018/12/09/a-surfeit-of-empathy-and-an-absence-of-compassion/

     

    Olivia Goldhill (now covers Covid response for Stat) wrote these pieces before the Left discovered the power of social media activism:

     

    https://qz.com/740569/one-of-the-fastest-growing-fields-in-science-still-makes-a-lot-of-people-very-uncomfortable/ 

     

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/qz.com/1177154/political-scientific-biases-the-left-is-guilty-of-unscientific-dogma-too/amp/ 

     

    Right-wingers are not the only ones opposing their own interests. 

     

    43 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    A fair amount of false equivalency going on here, IMHO....

     

    One one hand, we're given a single example of someone (or someones) pushing back against a non-traditional type of medical treatment and we're told that this somehow "cancels" an entire branch of Science. (Although I'd argue that the thing being disputed is this particular application of the branch, rather than the entire field of psychology)

     

    Meanwhile, OTOH, you have literally millions of people who don't believe in Climate Change, vaccinations, or earth being over 6000 years old....

     

    But yeah, "both sides".....:rolleyes:

    You are misrepresenting my position and please don’t be afraid to quote me or the article (especially the post where I acknowledge my exaggeration), your paraphrase was not at all accurate and not appreciated. 
     

    IMO, the left was just as culpable as the right in the anti-vaxxer movement, especially here in BC. I am a vaccine advocate and the push back is from ALL sides (just look at what we are experiencing now). Anyways, here is an article which touched on the partisanship of the anti-vaxxer movement:

     

    https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_liberals_or_conservatives_more_anti-vaccine_108905.html

     


    Left and right are both wrapped up in religious BS. Evangelicalism, Satanism, Baptist, New Age, Sunni, Jainism, Shia, Wiccan; all have members of varying political affiliation. 
     

    Climate is absolutely a failure on the right side of the spectrum. They value the spectre of trickle down economics more than our future (and their children’s future ffs). The failure to fight climate change is 100% the fault of the right. No argument there. 
     

    I know I am being tough on liberals but that is because I am one and it pains me to see bad faith arguments, whataboutism, cancellation etc of diverse opinions simply because it is not in line with today’s group think. Yes, most liberal activists have good intentions but those intentions could very well cause harm. They should embrace dialogue and research, not shut it down.

     

    Are there literally millions of left-wing activists who employ silencing tactics? I don’t know. All I know is that such tactics are wrong, I do not care how many use them. 

    • Like 4
  11. 14 minutes ago, The Lock said:

    I didn't go too far into the research. Like I said earlier though, I can see your point. In no way was I attempting some sort of "bad faith" argument or anything. I was legitimately curious and I hope you can see that. I don't even know enough about CSF to really have an opinion on it itself. I'd have to take time to actually form an opinion on it but really that's a little pedantic from the whole argument.

     

    I am of the mindset that you can go too extreme with both right and left, which I am assuming is the main premise of your initial argument to begin with at least. I just wasn't too sure on the science aspect of it.

    It was and I apologize for my passive aggression, it’s just my way of being an ass (I deserve to get smacked every so often so I remember to mind my manners). I admit I initially thought you were being bad faith, but I do remember you being reasonable in the past.

    • Like 1
    • Cheers 1
    • Vintage 1
  12. 1 hour ago, The Lock said:

    K I meant branch. Sorry if that one word confused you. I just thought you'd be able to understand what I was asking.

     

    CSF actually still is being researched according to a quick google lookup: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Chronic+fatigue+syndrome+research+2020&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

     

    I don't know to what extent compared with before. It just may not be in Britain? I do see how it can be a problem though, but at least it's not completely stopped being researched if that helps.

    Lol, did you actually read those research notes? Those are reviews and epidemiological studies, not actionable research. 

    Here, I copied a portion for you:

     

    Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a debilitating disease with unknown causes. From the perspectives on the etiology and pathophysiology, ME/CFS has been labeled differently, which influenced changes in case definitions and terminologies. This review sought to feature aspects of the history, developments, and differential symptoms in the case definitions. A search was conducted through PubMed published to February 2020 using the following search keywords: case definition AND chronic fatigue syndrome [MeSH Terms]. 
     

    Bolded for viewing pleasure. 
     

    Anyways, I am sure this is being researched by someone somewhere. That isn’t the point, the point is that research will now be stigmatized and create an arena for ideologues and not scientists to do battle. Scientists should be free to research however they choose and the feelings of the hypersensitive should not alter the results of such studies or result in the culture of fear if that research doesn’t follow the “plan”.

    • Like 1
  13. 1 minute ago, The Lock said:

    This still doesn't provide a field that's actually been stopped by left wing activists. It's your claim after all, so I was hoping you'd be able to provide evidence for that claim and that article doesn't really provide what I asked, at least from what I read.

    Who said anything about an entire field being stopped? If that is your only take away, I have a feeling you are leaning bad faith on this issue.

  14. 32 minutes ago, The Lock said:

    Would you perhaps be able to give a specific example of a field that's been lost because of the left?

     

    I think the problem's more how a lot of scientific studies are being conducted. John Oliver did a good show once on scientific studies.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

     

    Basically, there's a lot of "science" happening at the same time, where you have results that are funded by corporations and are just on in the best interest of the populace as a whole. So while, yes, there are issues happening that you are bringing up and I'm not denying that, there's also "science" that's not really science.

     

    I think, when it comes to science, there's just a lot of murky waters. Don't get me wrong. I love science and read a lot about space and technology and learn a lot about physics, but how many studies are promoting chocolate and wine, and then saying the opposite a few years later?

    Tuller and his loudest followers are left-wing ideologues. He is as left-wing as Ted Cruz is right-wing. We are talking about people who prefer crystals and naturopathy to real medical research. The article goes over the damage caused.

     

    I don’t know why you posted that Jon Oliver clip (watched every episode btw). It has no relevance to scientists being bullied by activists. 
     

    25 minutes ago, gurn said:

    This is bad news for everybody. However I didn't see anything identifying a left vs right type of fight.

    Just idiots against science.

    I see you missed the part of the article which stated David Tuller was a professor at Berkeley 

    :P

  15. On 2/20/2021 at 11:49 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

    no its an actual -ism. Climate and health policy in particular are punching bags for even mainstream right wing people. 

     

    Can you give me an example? I really can't think of something the alt-left is using anti-science thinking to push. 

     

    IMO, @Smashian Kassian is correct in saying both left-wingers and right-wingers are guilty of science denial/sabotage. I personally believe that the Left will end up doing more harm to science than the right, especially during today’s political climate.

     

    You asked for an actual example so I will give you one written by Kate Kelland from Reuters: 

    https://news.trust.org/item/20190418094429-rl1l2
     

    Science is under attack by BOTH extremes of the political spectrum, however; only the Left has been able to cancel entire branches of science because particularly loud individuals were offended by the results. Yes the Right cries about scientific results but the research is published no matter how much they whine. The Left keeps scientists in a state of fear that keeps them from doing the research at all. 
     

    More people need to be aware and combat this anti-progressive, scientific “cherry-picking”. 

    • Cheers 1
    • Upvote 1
  16. On 2/12/2021 at 1:49 PM, thedestroyerofworlds said:

    Just think of all the changes that occurred because people saw, for a split second, the exposed nipple from the "wardrobe malfunction" during Super Bowl XXXVIII.  To say that companies are only listening to leftist activists is a little simplistic, and not something that is new.  There are plenty more examples where the "morality police" have led to an overreaction by companies looking to preserve their bottom line.

    Strawman, I never said that. My opinion is that during today’s political climate and power of social media, the left is more prevalent and effective using their online activism to silence conversations or individuals they believe dispute their feelings than those on the right. The right certainly has their misguided angst, but they have more trouble than the left winning companies to their cause due to their politics being socially exclusive and not inclusive. Easy decision for companies to make, bad for those of us who want to engage in conversation and include all perspectives.
     

    There are obviously a few differences between your Super Bowl example and those we experience today, most notably IMO is that there are victims of cancel culture who aren’t famous working celebrities that don’t have the resources to revitalize their careers (many journalists and scientists included). The key platform for such non-celebrity is social media and that platform is hostile territory once blood is in the water. This causes people with unique perspectives to keep silent to avoid the trouble. P***** me off. 

    • Cheers 2
×
×
  • Create New...