starting strength gym
Page 2740 of 3023 FirstFirst ... 1740224026402690273027382739274027412742275027902840 ... LastLast
Results 27,391 to 27,400 of 30228

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #27391
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,377

  2. #27392
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Jackson, MS
    Posts
    361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    I’m listening. In broad terms, who are the people doing it and how do they do it?
    I keep reading you trying to see why you seem so thick on this matter. I'm not understanding what you don't understand. For example, the push to universal classroom indoctrination (which has weakened the IQs and led to the state feeling like it has a say in your child's rearing) began with the four largest coal companies in the US. One of which, Peabody, is still not only with us but has its hands in all sorts of pies. These are people who are of the same school of thought- that social engineering is a good thing and freedom is messy. Those people drive the decisions. Peabody is owned by Hanson which is led by Andrew Dougal but Dougal isn't the sole voice in what that corporation has done over the past century. Individuals set the ball rolling, yes, but then it snowballs into a way of doing things, a school of thought. Rockefeller and Carnegie aren't still around but their trusts still stick their grubby little paws in all sorts of education and "liberal elite" type endeavors. If you want to skip over to the food realm where we're all concerned about Gates buying up farmland you see that Monsanto was begun by Queeny. But the man died in the thirties and that didn't stop the ball he got rolling from taking over the ag industry and sticking us with this monocrop bullshit we have now. If you want to look in the military industrial complex realm, which carried us into wars we don't need you find that Northrop Grumman began in the late 20's by Leroy Grumman who first made our Naval aircraft in WWII. Which is awesome except that after the cold war it started getting into surveillance systems and unmanned aircraft. Coincidentally, Ronald Sugar, one of it's recent CEOs as also involved with Chevron and Apple. Sounds like unnecessary wars in the Middle East were very good for Mr. Sugar.

    Knowing the names of the people doesn't mean anything. It grew beyond them as their companies grew and grew symbiotic relationships with the government bureaucracies and politicians that would help them fill their pockets and grow their power. Knowing names doesn't stop their reach or keep our politics safe from the money and perks they use to influence.

    If you go back to the original idea of "political correctness" which was adherence to ideology in authoritarian regimes (think Russia) the idea doesn't even fit. These social engineers weren't conforming to an authoritarian regime -- they were creating the regime. What you seem to be referring to as PC, is just the tool of language that modern liberals and social engineers use to help along their agendas. I disagree that that conformity is actually one of their goals, as opposed to a tool whereas you seem to think it's the goal and a lot of stuff just got tangled in that goal by accident. You also seem to have an optimism I don't share -- that people just want everyone to be equal and accidentally did evil to get there. But by all means, correct me if I've misinterpreted.

  3. #27393
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
    Isn't it ironic that in the age of information traveling at the speed of light, available on hand-held devices, we can't really get the whole story on anything easily.
    Because as the news media has shown so succinctly. Information rarely tells the whole story because truth generally has a lot of context around it.
    A cellphone video may be able to get from Ukraine to my house in a few seconds showing a tank blowing up with the title “Russian tank Destroyed” but the video of it alone is only a single point of information.
    I need more information to understand what’s going on. “Is that even a Russian tank” “What do Russian Tanks look like” “Was it destroyed through enemy action or because it was stuck” All of these separate pieces of info change the original piece of information.
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    I think you are making my point. Political correctness is a dangerous ideology. I believe it was born out of good intention and morphed into unsustainable stupidity. It’s always contradictory. A natural evolution, not an organized one.

    Perhaps some of the of more sophisticated participants of this forum can persuasively join our ideas or dispute them clearly?
    It’s not complicated, it’s just marxism. They want to revolutionise society and overthrow it. What do you think they mean by “revolution”?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Cracks in the wall? https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=19738 Lia Thomas ineligible for Olympics after new FINA ruling on transgender athletes
    No unfortunately, it’s too far gone for that. Eventually they’ll start going after Dr. who detransition people, then people who platform them under the guise of detransitioning being “conversion therapy”
    California just introduced legislation that takes Parents not affirming Kids gender as abuse and requires it to be considered in custody battles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    Of course I never claimed that the new world order is a hoax. I’m just asking, though, if it’s an organized evolution who did the organization and how did they do it?

    We probably are mostly in agreement about what is bad and what is good, I’m just consistently skeptical. I assure you, I’ll be the first to concede providing a better more plausible explanation comes along.
    James Lindsey is the man to explain it:
    New Discourses
    It’s not simple though and he tends to follow topics into the weeds.

  4. #27394
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anticausal View Post
    I dunno man, I think the side that was enthusiastically rooting for a coup that got squashed in less than a day is the clear loser. I get the feeling this was the desperate last gasp of the Clown World offensive. I'm not ruling out it being a show from Putin and Wagner, but I'm still leaning towards failed CIA Hail Mary op.
    It wasn't squashed though. Prigozhin is still kicking and agreed to back down after Lukashenko came to him. It wasn't likely to succeed, but Russia cheerleaders on the internet have been hyping Wagner for a while now. Having your big wartime star turn on you looks bad. He also managed to flood TV with a lot of his own propaganda about how the war is not going as well as being said, casualty numbers are 4x higher, and so on. The Russian government is already countering even after the coup was aborted with propaganda that makes Wagner look bad. Any time a government pulls a 180 on its previously held position it looks weak. This is why COVID vaccines were allowed to just fade away as an issue but no one who insisted they were awesome and pushed for them to be mandatory actually took up an opposing view. They know they fucked up, but they can't admit it. Putin may still be there, and in fact he may yet survive this, but this is definitely an L for him.

  5. #27395
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    96

    Default

    I am sure many of you are aware of this speech but I have never heard of it until now. Its excellent, and should be read. It's the approximate 20 year anniversary within a few months.

    Crichton was way ahead of his time back in 2003 and saw all this coming when my little smooth brain was busy re-applying to college.

    Anniversary Issue: the Crichton CalTech Michelin Lecture • Watts Up With That?

    It does not paint Sagon, who I personally admire, in a very favorable light.

    some highlights: (emphasis mine)

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

    snip

    In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was “responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults,” and that it “impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people.” In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second-hand smoke as a Group-A Carcinogen.

    This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. *snip*

    As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don’t want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you’ll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we’ve given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We’ve told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

    snip

    No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world— increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.

    This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.


    Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

    Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the model-makers is breathtaking

    snip

    all of this should sound very familiar re: covid, food pyramid, transvestite issues, and of course global warming crisis and the so called energy transition.

  6. #27396
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    I’m just asking, though, if it’s an organized evolution who did the organization and how did they do it? ... I’ll be the first to concede providing a better more plausible explanation comes along.
    Yours is the less plausible explanation. It just occurred to me that you are treating this like the evolution vs intelligent design debate. The thought pattern is very clearly there. But in this case, it would be like having absolute proof that hundreds of other ecosystems similar to earth were intelligently designed, and still insisting that yours was created by chance. It's painfully autistic thinking.

    You aren't asking for "plausible", you're just saying "plausible" while demanding absolute proof. Conspiracy is the most plausible human behavior pattern in situations where money and power are being centralized and hoarded. But you want us to believe that some kind of natural process magically produced a system of political correctness that just happens to bolster Marxist ideology. It just happens to encourage fear of criticizing the "victimized" social classes, all the while preaching "equity", or taking from the "privileged" classes and giving to the "victimized". You want us to believe the gun shoots itself in the back of our own heads.

    What you are essentially doing, consciously or not, is propagating the "plausible deniability" meme that communist governments have always used to absolve themselves of responsibility.

  7. #27397
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    3,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post

    If you go back to the original idea of "political correctness" which was adherence to ideology in authoritarian regimes (think Russia) the idea doesn't even fit. These social engineers weren't conforming to an authoritarian regime -- they were creating the regime. What you seem to be referring to as PC, is just the tool of language that modern liberals and social engineers use to help along their agendas. I disagree that that conformity is actually one of their goals, as opposed to a tool whereas you seem to think it's the goal and a lot of stuff just got tangled in that goal by accident. You also seem to have an optimism I don't share -- that people just want everyone to be equal and accidentally did evil to get there. But by all means, correct me if I've misinterpreted.
    Thank you for a thoughtful response. I don’t, necessarily, think that PC is an agenda for achieving some goal. Again I believe (not know) that PC was born out of good intentions. For example the affirmative action of the 1960s. Its purpose was to make efforts in diverse hirings and school enrollment. It became PC when quotas were applied on top of affirmative action. It eliminated (or softened) the principle that the most qualified person was required or necessary with a continuously growing set of other social constructs. Said simply, you can’t put square pegs in round holes. The more factors applied the worse things got. A dangerous proposition. Agreed?

    Black as a race becoming African American is purely ridiculous.

    Pregnant men?

    But, none-the-less, this idiocy increases every day. Corporations and government agencies seem to go a long with it . Schools eat it up. Obviously compliance is a path to easy(er) money like COVID was. That’s where we all agree. We can explain pyramids to the feeble minded latter.

    My only objection are to statements that say “they” without specifying who they are and how they do it. (Your post clearly has some specific examples. Thank you.) But until persuaded otherwise I will stick with human stupidity as the common denominator.

  8. #27398
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    I don’t, necessarily, think that PC is an agenda for achieving some goal. Again I believe (not know) that PC was born out of good intentions. For example the affirmative action of the 1960s. Its purpose was to make efforts in diverse hirings and school enrollment.
    Why are diverse hirings and school enrollment Good things? Was "merit" an insufficient criterion?

  9. #27399
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    3,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subby View Post

    It’s not complicated, it’s just marxism. They want to revolutionise society and overthrow it. What do you think they mean by “revolution”?

    .
    IN GENERAL , who are the Marxist’s? Democrats? Atheists? Corporate executives? Organized groups or like thinking independent individuals. How do they plan to overthrow society? Death by a thousand cuts? Breeding?

    Don’t send me a book to read. What do you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Why are diverse hirings and school enrollment Good things? Was "merit" an insufficient criterion?
    Under affirmative action, merit was sufficient. The idea was to cast a wide net to find qualified people of diverse backgrounds. Like set up recruiting booths across all demographics. The thinking was the talent pool was not being fully utilized to everyone’s disadvantage.

    As it became clear this wasn’t producing much or people were finding work arounds , quotas were mandated and merit was thrown out.

  10. #27400
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Scarsdale, NY
    Posts
    368

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    I tried out ChatGPT for the first time yesterday and I found it very interesting, so I've gone down a rabbit hole. I asked it how I can get my squat to 405 at my age, and I was actually impressed with the answer. It actually said to consider Starting Strength, so I thought you might be interested. Here is the answer.

    Increasing your squat from 265 pounds for a set of five to 405 pounds is a significant goal that requires a structured approach, consistency, and dedication. Here are some steps you can follow to work towards increasing your squat strength:


    1. Evaluate your technique: Ensure that your squat form is correct to maximize efficiency and minimize the risk of injury. Consider working with a qualified strength and conditioning coach or seeking guidance from experienced lifters to assess and refine your technique.


    2. Set specific goals: Clearly define your long-term goal of squatting 405 pounds. Break it down into smaller, achievable milestones along the way to keep yourself motivated and track your progress effectively.


    3. Progressive overload: Gradually increase the weight you lift over time. Aim to add small increments of weight during each training session or every week. Progressive overload is key to stimulating muscle growth and strength gains. It can be achieved by increasing the weight, sets, or repetitions.


    4. Train consistently: Consistency is crucial for making progress. Establish a regular training schedule that allows for adequate recovery between sessions while still providing sufficient training stimulus. Aim for at least three to four squat sessions per week.


    5. Incorporate variation: Include different squat variations and supplementary exercises to target the muscles involved in the squat movement. Front squats, pause squats, box squats, and lunges are examples of exercises that can help improve your overall strength and stability.


    6. Focus on strength-building exercises: Apart from squats, incorporate compound exercises that target the lower body, such as deadlifts, lunges, and leg presses. These exercises will help build overall leg and hip strength, which can contribute to your squatting performance.


    7. Implement proper programming: Utilize a well-structured strength training program that progressively challenges your body while allowing for proper recovery. Consider using established programs like Wendler 5/3/1, Starting Strength, or StrongLifts 5x5, or consult with a qualified strength and conditioning professional to design a customized program tailored to your needs.


    8. Train for hypertrophy: Incorporate higher rep ranges (8-12 reps) into your training to stimulate muscle growth and increase overall strength potential. Hypertrophy training can complement lower rep strength work and help build a solid foundation.


    9. Prioritize recovery: Adequate rest and recovery are crucial for muscle repair and growth. Make sure to get enough sleep, manage stress levels, and fuel your body with proper nutrition to support your training.


    10. Track progress and adjust: Keep a training journal to record your sets, reps, and weights lifted. Regularly assess your progress, make adjustments to your training program when necessary, and celebrate the milestones you achieve along the way.


    Remember, progressing from 265 pounds to 405 pounds in the squat will take time and consistent effort. Be patient, stay focused, and stay committed to your training program.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •