• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Vent Thread

O

O.D.D.

Guest
Even if you are right, I think the biggest difference between us, personally, is that I often like to question or bring about speculation regarding the state and its intentions. I don't particularly think having a position of questioning for what we are commonly told is true or false is a bad mindset without speculation, especially in an age where misinformation is ramped, regardless of where its coming from tbh, including the questioning of the "science".
This seriously reminds me of the panic over thimerosal (sp?) in vaccines... which was pretty silly if you had any understanding of what it was, what its function was and how your body interacts with it.
 

Punji

Vaskebjørn
Yield sign =/= Merge sign =/= Stop sign

That is all.
 

Monsieur Lune

Well-Known Member
I main as Pyro because I have absolutely no skill.

But I top at Scout. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
*I main pyro because I know it is very effective and makes babies in lobbies cry.
Fixed that for you. ;D
I main medic but really do amazing with any class my best skill wise is sniper. I top score and most of my kills are headshots. The whole bot crisis really annoys me because I get hackusationed even more now but now I have to worry about accidentally getting kicked and confused for a bot because I constantly get nonstop headshots and do "too good" for a legit player. Sometimes it feels like when I pick sniper I spend more time proving I'm not a bot or cheater than actually getting the chance to play. :(
 

LameFox

Well-Known Member
Baby bro managed to convince mom to let him play Skyrim. He's 10. I bought the disc and he found it. The case says it's rated M.
"I don't think he should be but okay"
*sets up family settings on his computer*
As he gets ready for bed I get a knock on my door telling me to set the family settings on... there are none... it's a rated M game for a reason...
GUESS HE'LL JUST HAVE TO SETTLE FOR OBLIVION
As someone who was allowed free reign to ignore ratings as a child, I always got the impression they really didn't have much of a grasp on what would actually be distressing to kids. It was more like they figured if we saw something we'd grow up to do it, and for some reason decided we could commit assault or even murder but probably shouldn't ever have sex or take a drug.

I'd often be surprised that when seeing something with an R rating it had so little impact compared to things I'd seen under our M rating for mid teens. Sometimes even PG had it beat. They just don't seem to account for the way it's presented at all. Too hard to define maybe.
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
Wrist still sore. Way too hot outside. Had to start my day cleaning cat barf. Yay. :V

As someone who was allowed free reign to ignore ratings as a child, I always got the impression they really didn't have much of a grasp on what would actually be distressing to kids. It was more like they figured if we saw something we'd grow up to do it, and for some reason decided we could commit assault or even murder but probably shouldn't ever have sex or take a drug.

I'd often be surprised that when seeing something with an R rating it had so little impact compared to things I'd seen under our M rating for mid teens. Sometimes even PG had it beat. They just don't seem to account for the way it's presented at all. Too hard to define maybe.
I don't think it's as simple as "will it be distressing/traumatizing or influence the child to do bad things?" There's a lot of space in between, and that's where I think most restricted material goes. Which is not to say that ratings guidelines aren't ludicrously arbitrary - they absolutely are.

A LIS uni classmate mentioned the school library they worked at had 50 Shades of Gray. Like... maybe okay for the 8-9th graders to read, with appropriate debriefing/support from adults who can discuss the material with them. Not so much suitable for 4-5th grade. >.<
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
Baby bro managed to convince mom to let him play Skyrim. He's 10. I bought the disc and he found it. The case says it's rated M.
"I don't think he should be but okay"
*sets up family settings on his computer*
As he gets ready for bed I get a knock on my door telling me to set the family settings on... there are none... it's a rated M game for a reason...
GUESS HE'LL JUST HAVE TO SETTLE FOR OBLIVION

As somebody who started playing Warhammer (first 40K, then a few years later Fantasy) back when I was a very early teen and has generally kept at least some touch with the community since then, age-appropriate rating systems for media are there for a reason and I dodged a bullet when GW (at that time) gave zero regard for recommended age. ... Admittedly they still do, but that's a different Vent. There's also a talk to be had on what it should be set at for GW.

This may sound like something of a joke ("Obviously something happened in Attaman's past" and whatnot) but seriously: It's a good example of what happens when a setting is built around very specific themes, jokes, premises, so-on, and you bombard people with them from a young age wherein the satire, point, narrative nuance, references, et al are going to go way over their head á la a "Wow cool robot" Gundam meme.

One of the better examples of this is where one of the books (Liber Chaotica) outright explicitly states "Nurgle's relation to their mortal followers is modeled after and emulates the mechanics of an abusive relationship". Like, straight up "If this were an animated / filmed discussion the character saying this would be looking directly at the camera and speaking to the audience the entire time they say this", it's so blatantly stated. That's... a bit of a heavy subject to be offloading in various rule book blurbs, faction pieces, short stories, novels, et al to recommended age group 10+ / 13+ (It varies between Editions which they use as a cut-off: At one point IIRC it even dropped to 9+).

I get that technically the novels aren't "Recommended age group 10+" (they aren't "Recommended age group" at all!)... but considering they'd just as shamelessly sell them in store to anyone with a pulse, how frequently people in the shop will actually discuss the hobby (including its side material), that that a lot of the setting's tie-in games are rated M (mostly for cartoonishly over the top violence and how cartoonish some of the voice acting lines get), there's definitely a level of responsibility dodged. To say nothing of, even if somebody cares literally not at all about the above, how financially predatory and sketchy it is to basically try to sucker a kid's parents into buying them into the hobby.
 

LameFox

Well-Known Member
Not sure I ever actually encountered a ratings system for books, come to think of it. Went straight from reading the ones my parents and grandparents owned, to buying from a second hand store, to buying online. The only stumbling block was having money, and later a card to order with. If there were even recommended guidelines I didn't run into them at all. I do remember my highschool had some of the Alien novels though, and I was still 12 for much of year 8, so technically I couldn't see the associated films for a few more years yet (but I had). Guess they had no legal trouble offering those to us.

Definitely encountered some weird and sometimes archaic attitudes in books but I can't say it seems to have had much of an impact. Fortunately 50 Shades of Gray wasn't written yet.

I think if it were up to me personally—I hope it never is as I don't want kids, but if it was—I'd probably forgo the ratings and just vet the content myself, for the short life phase until they learn to circumvent it.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Even if you are right, I think the biggest difference between us, personally, is that I often like to question or bring about speculation regarding the state and its intentions. I don't particularly think having a position of questioning for what we are commonly told is true or false is a bad mindset without speculation, especially in an age where misinformation is ramped, regardless of where its coming from tbh, including the questioning of the "science".
Being a cynic doesn't make you a skeptic.

If somebody believes in rumours because they portray the state as cynical, rather than because those rumours are supported by any evidence, then that person is merely a gullible cynic.

I have muscle atrophy and I am completely out of shape. Good God, being overweight is so horrible.

I hope your doctor is being supportive. If you haven't already asked them they may have lots of useful advice?
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Perhaps I might be both.

So I'd say, if you want to consider yourself as skeptically minded, then you need to check whether rumours are true before you repeat them.
It doesn't take a fancy degree or a big brain. Just a few minutes of effort and reading before you decide to repost something.

If you don't do this, then the irony is that people who have nasty intentions will take advantage of you. Some of the rumours on social media about coronavirus vaccines, for example, were deliberately started by groups in foreign countries who paid social media influencers to repeat them:
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
There were apparently some issues with some of the vaccines like the Moderna and AstraZeneca (though even getting an accurate, unbiased assessment of anything surrounding them might as well be impossible at this point) and the fact that the US government has made pharma companies effectively impossible to sue is alarming and should be struck down in court. The Delta strain thing is incredibly annoying and the whole "OH NO THE VACCINE WE GAVE YOU WON'T DO ANYTHING FOR IT GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO LOCKDOWN/MASK/ETC. AGAIN!" is even more annoying. The lockdowns already killed a number of local businesses including at least 4 of my favorite small establishments. Masks, whatever, they're a mild annoyance except for when you're working in the heat or when they make my glasses fog (most people refuse to wear them correctly anyway).

I don't think COVID is a super-killer virus though the Delta strain might be notably worse. The way this entire thing has been handled has been fucking shameful, though. Putting COVID patients into nursing homes where the first strains of COVID had a MUCH higher chance of hurting people and propagating more lethal mutations was so stupid that it's hard to believe it was a mistake. The government demanding a rush on the vaccines and then indemnifying pharmaceutical companies against lawsuits is patently idiotic and concerning. I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of virologists who realized this was going to happen and probably tried to warn the "right people", and I'm guessing nothing came of it because we're led by sociopaths, idiots and sociopathic idiots. The use of COVID as a political cudgel against opponents by anyone is disgusting and cheap, really shows you where people's priorities are. Something about not letting tragedies go to waste.

Avoiding any political commentary...
To my knowledge current vaccines still confer a level of protection against the 'Delta-variant'. The number of infections that result in deaths and hospitalisations has fallen dramatically in the UK- a country where 75% of adults have had 2 shots, and we have- whether or not it will transpire to be the right decision- ended most restrictions now.
So I hope everybody still feels encouraged to get their second shot.

I believe countries which are still being forced to issue lockdowns usually have lower vaccine uptake; below 40% of Japan is fully vaccinated, 20% of Australia is and 50% of the USA is fully vaccinated.

I feel with this situation, that it's going to be a continuing arms-race between the evolving virus and bio-medical scientists producing new vaccines, but that eventually life will return to something resembling normal.
Credit to the bio-medical scientists for what they've done so far though; correct me if I am wrong, but a couple of years ago there had never been a vaccine against a corona type virus.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
Since it's apparently relevant / topical again:
Me said:

I'll not mince words: Whatever your thoughts are on "Maybe provide reasonable access to preventative and general healthcare to the general population" or "Give poor people money so that grandma doesn't have a double-digit chance of drowning on land / suffering a major stroke for entirely preventable reasons" (and when I say "Whatever your thoughts" I mean "Don't even try debating these, I'm sure Moderation's already watching this thread like a hawk courtesy of 3+ usernames present, self-included), I am being entirely serious about the "Let's Find Out is utterly terrifying and anyone with half an inkling of the details on the ground is taking avoidance of this seriously for a reason".

10% of surviving COVID-19 victims are long-haulers. As in months (in some cases up to / over a year) after recovery and testing negative they persistently and consistently maintain multiple symptoms. This is just long-term symptom persistence and nothing else. About 1.5% of those who're hospitalized by COVID-19 (which runs a gauntlet of about 9% hospitalization rate for those in tip-top prime condition... to almost 40% for those with at least one or more underlying factors, factors which include things like "Arthritis" or "Overweight") have strokes. The percentage among hospitalized patients increases to 25% for specific cardiovascular complications and almost 50% for general long-term damage. Another 4% of the general COVID-19 infected population suffer some degree of permanent and / or long-term lung-scarring. There is evidence to suggest that those infected by COVID-19 will suffer increased susceptibility to Alzheimers, Parkinson's Disease, Dementia, et al, though just how much is still under study and the connection is predominantly made at this time with other diseases of similar nature that have similar neurological impacts with their symptoms.

This is not something to play around with. Turning it into "Another, weaker flu" is quite literally how you wind up with the 9/11 Responder crisis occurring on a national scale amongst the entire general population. Even if we do work all the kinks out with the virus and get a functional, 100% efficacy vaccine tomorrow that wipes out the disease before Fall, the fact that our response to such a thing was basically "Let's play Russian Roulette and hope we don't get the bullet" has a lot of public health officials concerned for obvious reasons (Namely, if I need to spell it out for some people: If we have to keep playing that game, one of those times the chamber isn't going to go "Click").

Also Me said:

This perfect storm has lead to a lot of officials taking this deathly seriously as the worst case scenario is "The ride never ends". It does not help that, on top of being horrible in mortality rate to older generations, evidence is increasingly piling up for long-term side-effects for those infected (especially those hospitalized) by the virus, so nobody wants to play the game "Want to find out what happens when 1/6th your working age population has chronic fatigue, prominent lung / neurological scarring, et al?" They especially don't want to play a version of this game wherein vaccination efforts reach a point they simply aren't feasible anymore (see: It mutates beyond a point we can 'cost-efficiently' handle), and the only answer to the above question becomes "It doesn't look like we have a choice in this matter now does it?"

This is why people are taking COVID seriously enough to the point of suggesting "Let's just throw people several thousand dollars a month to stay home", "What if we force businesses to take less customers / close outright for the short term", "Maybe Landlords can go fuck themselves for a couple of years", etcetera. Not as a political cudgel or to steal away people's rights, but because COVID really do be that bad.

Refer back to some of those numbers I shared earlier, for example. About how 10% of surviving COVID victims become long-haulers, another 4% (in some cases including the 10%, mind) suffering some form of permanent lung scarring. How about 9-40%+ of those infected by it without vaccination (9% being the healthiest proportion of the population, 40%+ those with certain underlying conditions or age ranges) tend to be hospitalized, and the sheer number of effects trickling down among those who are hospitalized (1.5% chance of stroke, 25% chance for cadriovascular damage, et al). This isn't even fully comprehensive either, with no mention of things like neurological damage that's been reported in numerous patients, or the long-term side effects we're right now only able to guestimate by comparing to similar long-term damage / side effects and how they rippled out from other coronavirus'.

Now remember that the worst-case scenario for the projection of COVID cases within the US alone - again, with 10% of victims long-haulers, and the worst case scenario for hospitalization rates hovering around 40% - was half to 2/3 the nation's population.

"Fuck around and find out" is really not a course you want to take when it comes to inflicting significant long-term health complications on potentially 20%-30% of your general work-capable population. Nationally. Because at best it makes the would-have-been costs of mitigation look like chump change, at worst... well, if one thinks the job market is dire now...
 
O

O.D.D.

Guest
Avoiding any political commentary...
To my knowledge current vaccines still confer a level of protection against the 'Delta-variant'. The number of infections that result in deaths and hospitalisations has fallen dramatically in the UK- a country where 75% of adults have had 2 shots, and we have- whether or not it will transpire to be the right decision- ended most restrictions now.
So I hope everybody still feels encouraged to get their second shot.

I believe countries which are still being forced to issue lockdowns usually have lower vaccine uptake; below 40% of Japan is fully vaccinated, 20% of Australia is and 50% of the USA is fully vaccinated.

I feel with this situation, that it's going to be a continuing arms-race between the evolving virus and bio-medical scientists producing new vaccines, but that eventually life will return to something resembling normal.
Credit to the bio-medical scientists for what they've done so far though; correct me if I am wrong, but a couple of years ago there had never been a vaccine against a corona type virus.
Coronavirii are very mutable. There have been enough people bleating about "NO PROTECTION" from every possible direction that the amount of FUD combined with that knowledge gives me zero faith in my Pfizer shots to do shit about it and frankly I'm in good enough health that it might not matter for me, but others might not be as lucky. If they go draconian lockdowns again, though, I fucking riot. I SAW YOU VIOLATING YOUR OWN LOCKDOWNS, ASSHOLE POLITICIANS.
 

Firuthi Dragovic

Gamer Dragon, former speedrunner
Just a few minutes of effort and reading before you decide to repost something.
That got me thinking about the time I had to address someone who was spreading a bad vaccine story.

Basically, there was something going on with the J&J vaccine (the one I have - I may need a booster eventually) and blood clots. The person in question was trying to say that it was smarter for people with blood clot risks to go without.

I checked into it, and "a few minutes of effort" later I saw that the clots were rare (but apparently still often enough that a full-on pause was put on that vaccine for a bit). Not non-existent, but rare. The way I addressed the person spreading the story went something like this:

"....except our general experience with non-vaccine people has them being far more reckless than you are about it. Also, wasn't the blood clot thing a few in a few million?"

I pretty much knew I had to acknowledge their anxiety/over-caution before trying to correct them.

They did answer calmly, though I admit I don't remember everything they said. I think they might have been a bit stubborn, but I do remember they hadn't previously considered why spreading the story they way they were doing was a bad idea.



However, that "a few minutes of effort" neglected something very important:
  • I knew the incidents were rare, but I did not check to see real common threads that the blood clot victims had.
  • Therefore, I could not have guessed if the person in question HAD that same factor.
  • Thus, my take on it can still put these people in danger for all I know.

At this point, trying to tell people to just "do a little research" is actually a bad play. Not just for "a few minutes" not covering the entirety of the problem, but for the complexity of these misinformation rabbit holes that have popped up. You don't exactly have control over what sources they will use when they "do a little research".

You're better off showing people how to read the situation first and realizing where they're coming from on it. Then LEAD them into the research.

....and I never thought in a million years that I'D be the one to try empathy.
 

LameFox

Well-Known Member
Regarding blood clotting, I was under the impression that's also something you can experience due to the virus itself. A brief search turns up more results on this than I have time to read right now but the gist of them seems to be that this is the case. For that reason I wouldn't worry about the minor risk from the vaccines unless you are somehow able to ensure you're not ever going to catch it for real.
 

JacobFloofWoof

Metal Misanthrope
Coronavirii are very mutable. There have been enough people bleating about "NO PROTECTION" from every possible direction that the amount of FUD combined with that knowledge gives me zero faith in my Pfizer shots to do shit about it and frankly I'm in good enough health that it might not matter for me, but others might not be as lucky. If they go draconian lockdowns again, though, I fucking riot. I SAW YOU VIOLATING YOUR OWN LOCKDOWNS, ASSHOLE POLITICIANS.
 

Yakamaru

Mr. Villanous charm
Coronavirii are very mutable. There have been enough people bleating about "NO PROTECTION" from every possible direction that the amount of FUD combined with that knowledge gives me zero faith in my Pfizer shots to do shit about it and frankly I'm in good enough health that it might not matter for me, but others might not be as lucky. If they go draconian lockdowns again, though, I fucking riot. I SAW YOU VIOLATING YOUR OWN LOCKDOWNS, ASSHOLE POLITICIANS.
cmpletely offtopic but you have good taste in music.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Coronavirii are very mutable. There have been enough people bleating about "NO PROTECTION" from every possible direction that the amount of FUD combined with that knowledge gives me zero faith in my Pfizer shots to do shit about it and frankly I'm in good enough health that it might not matter for me, but others might not be as lucky. If they go draconian lockdowns again, though, I fucking riot. I SAW YOU VIOLATING YOUR OWN LOCKDOWNS, ASSHOLE POLITICIANS.


I'm not going to comment on the political opinions of course, but I was able to check about vaccine efficacy.

At the moment the evidence is that having two doses of Pfizer or A-Z gives you high protection against hospitalisation from the 'delta' variant, comparable to the level of protection offered against previous variants.

I am providing a hyperlink to a summary: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ve-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant
which itself links to original research by public health england (pre-print)
I performed a double-check and similar results have been reported this August in the New England Journal of Medicine:
and because I am aware that this type of text isn't accessible to everybody,
I checked and you you can find this information in plain English on wikipedia:

That got me thinking about the time I had to address someone who was spreading a bad vaccine story.

Basically, there was something going on with the J&J vaccine (the one I have - I may need a booster eventually) and blood clots. The person in question was trying to say that it was smarter for people with blood clot risks to go without.

I checked into it, and "a few minutes of effort" later I saw that the clots were rare (but apparently still often enough that a full-on pause was put on that vaccine for a bit). Not non-existent, but rare. The way I addressed the person spreading the story went something like this:

"....except our general experience with non-vaccine people has them being far more reckless than you are about it. Also, wasn't the blood clot thing a few in a few million?"

I pretty much knew I had to acknowledge their anxiety/over-caution before trying to correct them.

They did answer calmly, though I admit I don't remember everything they said. I think they might have been a bit stubborn, but I do remember they hadn't previously considered why spreading the story they way they were doing was a bad idea.



However, that "a few minutes of effort" neglected something very important:
  • I knew the incidents were rare, but I did not check to see real common threads that the blood clot victims had.
  • Therefore, I could not have guessed if the person in question HAD that same factor.
  • Thus, my take on it can still put these people in danger for all I know.

At this point, trying to tell people to just "do a little research" is actually a bad play. Not just for "a few minutes" not covering the entirety of the problem, but for the complexity of these misinformation rabbit holes that have popped up. You don't exactly have control over what sources they will use when they "do a little research".

You're better off showing people how to read the situation first and realizing where they're coming from on it. Then LEAD them into the research.

....and I never thought in a million years that I'D be the one to try empathy.

You make a very good point that the truth can be subtle and complex, and that some claims demand a much larger amount of reading than other sdo.

I'd like to point out that I have not made a medical recommendation to anybody here.
I responded to a misleading claim that nasal swabs pose a cancer risk; they don't. Thankfully in this particular case, it does only take a small amount of reading to realise why.

My response to anybody seeking advice on a medical decision is always going to be to consult their doctor, who will be much better placed to inform them.
 
Last edited:

TyraWadman

The Brutally Honest Man-Child
I haven't seen my family for two months and my best friend for one month. Both tell me that I've lost a lot of weight and that I look slimmer now, but I feel the opposite - I feel like I have bloated and gained a lot.

I don't know what to make of this.
Do you own a scale? X)

On one hand, muscle is heavier than fat. Maybe you are toning?
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
I haven't seen my family for two months and my best friend for one month. Both tell me that I've lost a lot of weight and that I look slimmer now, but I feel the opposite - I feel like I have bloated and gained a lot.

I don't know what to make of this.
Got mildly sick yesterday, so I wasn't able to correspond on a timely basis with you, but body image and weight loss can be complex things to track and judge. It's usually best to have multiple methods to determine your weight like using a scale, consulting your general physician regularly, and measuring.

All that said, losing weight is a process that takes time and you need to focus on the final results ultimately. I helped my roommate get back to her college weight over the last year and half, which she managed to do despite the setbacks. It just takes time and focus, though that is easier said than done.
 

Firuthi Dragovic

Gamer Dragon, former speedrunner
Well...

I've talked in the past here about discovering I have at least a gluten intolerance, if not an outright allergy.

Since it's not anaphylaxis-level, I decided to take a cue today from what someone told me last time I mentioned it and test the limits of that allergy.

Severe stabbing pain in my stomach late morning. Random itches and weird pains all day. Possibly even some level of nausea.

Off of ONE. FRICKING. TRISCUIT!

Safe to say that the most gluten I can handle is at the cross-contamination level, as usual gluten-free menu items (of which I know three I can consume on the one night I get home late, don't tell me to pack a dinner as I know it'll get eaten 5 hours earlier than it needs to be) do not cause reactions like this.
 
Top