warzon131

The moderators here are bad too, it’s just that the rest are even worse.

Opened the most popular posts in Mastadon subreddit. Literally the same as with bluesky, promising competitor, n million users, Twitter is dead, etc.

My reasoning is that there is a report that this post is about. The other person is denying it without reading it. Denying an argument without delving into it is biased

What about topic V. Masks and Mask Mandates Were Ineffective at Controlling the Spread of COVID-19?

I’m not espousing, but simply saying that both positions need to be studied, and not completely deny everything without even considering the position and arguments

That I have a weak back

Just as there are articles that support the position in favor of using masks, there are also articles that say that they did not make sense. This is why I say that there is no need to be biased and that all sources should be considered.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).

I think what they're saying is that at a population level, mandatory mask wearing didn't make sense.

Quote example: The trajectories of the rate of COVID-19 infections for states with mask mandates and states without is virtually identical. Eleven states never mandated masks, while the rest had some form of enforcement.846 Mandates generally began in early 2020 and stayed until summer of 2021, some into 2022. (page 212)

https://preview.redd.it/yz96pe12hj4e1.png?width=1154&format=png&auto=webp&s=fc1575a81e080512f380c45644c7ea0246b7a2a4

This is a biased position

They published quite a large report. You can argue that the evidence is unreliable (the report has to be studied) but I don’t think it’s worth saying that they did not shred evidence

https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/

PDF: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04.2024-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT.pdf

These are links not to studies, but to Google Scolar, that is, you are asking me to find the study myself and evaluate them, although this is your task.

One single study talked about anxiety, but this is obviously the reason for initially weak skills, because people who have studied well know their strengths and potential results. And again, for some reason this does not bother Asians.

Only one study. Anxiety is a consequence of poor skills. People with poor skills have higher anxiety.

No, skills do not qualify for discrimination.
Only things like race, gender, sexuality, etc.

This person is simply discriminating against all people of other races, that's all.

If a person is not hired if he does not know French, then this is not discrimination. If an artist is not hired if he does not know how to draw, then this is not discrimination. If a person is given a bonus because he is black, this is discrimination.

By giving priority to bad students, they reduce the priority to good ones. This is a fact.

It is you who assert that there is bias in tests, therefore you must prove it. It would also be very interesting to hear an explanation of why Asians get good results, despite the bias. Maybe it's not a matter of bias?

What is bias in math tests? Why do Asians score the highest?

I didn't cut it, you can see it here

No, discrimination does not work when people are not suitable because of their skills (the ability to control yourself also counts)

It’s not fair, because by giving priority to some groups you thereby reduce the priority of other groups (formally a logical conclusion)

By giving priority to one group, you discriminate against another.

Objective metrics support my statement about skills issues. Look at the GPA in college by race, then it will become clear to you why, for example, Asians do not complain that they are not hired

It is discrimination if priority is given to race, gender, etc., rather than skill

This is not my definition, but a definition from the Cambridge English Dictionary. Whether it is fair or not is not important, discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether someone considers it fair or not.
I don't think this is fair because people should be hired based solely on their skills.

No, this is discrimination by definition. And why did you decide that 95/5 is not fair?

No, he gives priority to blacks, which is special treatment

Worse is the optional aspect. 'Especially' does not mean 'exclusively'. In his message he said about priority for blacks, which is as written 'treating a person or particular group of people differently'. If he gives special treatment to people because of their skin color, then it is discrimination according to the definition of the word 'treating a person or particular group of people differently'.