When we have another wave of extremely online teenage girls showing Tourette’s-style symptoms following tick bites, we can have a Tiktok Tick Tic Talk.
Tomatoes have always been fruits. The problem is that some people think that something can't be both a fruit and a vegetable, though there are many examples, such as cucumbers, squashes and peas in the pod.
Spiders, yes. Lobsters are too large to be insects, though I have heard people say they look like "large bugs" or "large insects".
My whole point is that conversational language is imprecise. People don't choose words based on clear taxonomies laid out in a reference manual: they choose words based on experience and pattern matching.
Spiders vary hugely in size, as do insects. If language is so imprecise, how can you decide what's too large to be an insect? Crayfish are sometimes called "mudbugs" or "lobsters" and are about 7" long. Scorpions, which are arachnids like ticks and spiders, can reach 9" long. If you want to call spiders "insects," I say that word is just as applicable to crayfish, lobsters and scorpions.
(I can't see it on my screen, but nonetheless the "Well, acktchually" came through loud and clear.)
They're only wrong in a scientific context. Words have different meanings in different contexts. "Insect" is basically synonymous with "bug" in casual conversation.
Conversational language is imprecise, which is why scientists, engineers, mathematicians, economists, etc. have developed jargon that offers them the precision they need to make their formal statements precise enough to communicate without ambiguity. (The legacy of postmodernism OTOH drives the woke to purposely *muddy* language so wrongthink cannot be expressed. E.g., "transwomen are women".)
While it would be nice if we had such formalism in other areas (e.g., when talking about government) so people aren't constantly talking past each other, that's not how language works.
Bug i am fine with. Insect i am not. Perhaps that’s me being the scientist, mathematician and engineer though, although all bugs i studied were of the software variety
Scientifically, ticks are not bugs, as bugs are a subset of insects. However, "bug" is commonly used to mean any small crawly thing to a much greater extent than "insect."
The discussion reminded me that I’ve never learned how to throw well. It also brought back the fact that when I was bullied in school, they chose to call me a f*ggot, and that later on people with “gaydar” kept detecting me as gay. Unfortunately, I’m heterosexual. So my question is: is it two-spirit to be a straight man in a gay body?
The funny thing about Native American discourse is that it rarely ever seems to involve Native Americans. It’s normally dominated by white progressives, or foreigners who use Natives as a cudgel to bash America (most of them think Native Americans are extinct and get very angry when you tell them that they’re not). I have noticed a growing number of Native men online pushing back against the “kumbaya” stereotype of Native Americans lately.
Many Indigenous tribes were absolutely brutal in every way you might possibly imagine for the times.
It's why there were very often eager alliances between indigenous tribes that were being ruled over by other tribes.
The unfortunate truth of history is the vast majority of indigenous peoples died of disease. . . like over 90%. As high as 98% of all fatalities.
And there's no indication of weaponization of disease as a strategy either. Those claims are based on a singular comment made by one low level officer in their diary to the effect of....I told them to give the pocks blankets.
Native American susceptibility to disease was likely due to a lack of domesticated animals. Old World people, meanwhile, had been living alongside livestock for ten thousand years.
Mmmmm, lower genetic diversity among the New World populations (as compared to the Europeans) likely afforded the former less resistance to newly introduced infectious diseases. This argument and the research behind it are summed up for general audiences in Charles Mann's book 1491.
Oh, I'd add...I'm not a historian....but the little I've read this seems to vary greatly by region.
Like in the PNW, it was relatively sparse. And so you had relatively little contention over lands and tribal life was more stable and peaceful (relatively). But the east coast was straight up medieval in some regions.
I have a book of native folklore written down by natives from the 1950s? (so it isn't so sanitized). Almost every single story is about pastoral raiding.
These two brothers both loved the same woman. They got in a fight and one lost. So he left the tribe and built up another tribe of lonely males, and then one day came back and murdered his brother, and captured all the women and got his love back.
That is practically the default story. Rape, raiding, theft, rape, betrayal, murder, rape, raiding, and so on.
Not that you don't see that a lot of places, but when you read their folklore it is very clear what kind of society it was, and it was hardly kumbaya.
After the Indian Vaccination Act of 1832 was passed (according to one historian, Professor Pearson) "The ... Act was executed with systematic discrimination leaving many tribes without vaccination, tribes that were deemed as problematic with the United States government because they opposed settlers on their lands or were not willing to relocate. Professor Pearson details the history of ensuing smallpox epidemics that decimated those unprotected tribes later in the 1830s while those who were vaccinated resisted the epidemics."
By 1800, roughly 95% of the entire indigenous population of North America had already died.
The politically motivated selective vaccination was, yet another, terrible episode. In 1830'sh the indigenous population was around 500k. It declined to 250k by 1900. Only a small percentage of that decline is attributable to the event you cite. A total social collapse, other diseases, warfare, malnutrition, displacement, declining fertility, and economical and social collapse account for the majority of the decline in that century.
Because of the selective allocation and differing previous exposure rates, some individual tribes were completely decimated. But overall populations was more impacted by the aggregate of other factors. . . even if they were vaccinated.
A lot of fucked up shit happened in that period of human history. Appalling, barbaric, terrible shit. But the absolutely devastating population collapse of indigenous peoples in the Americas is a story of disease and epidemics. Not systematic genocide. And that's just a historical fact.
I know that most of the population collapse of native Americans between 1500 and 1900 was due to the unintentional spread of contagious diseases not systematic genocide or genocide as government policy. Although the native Americans were treated cruelly by the European settlers and government in many ways that fell short of genocide.
The reason I brought up the Indian Vaccination Act (I actually hadn't known about it until shortly before I posted): probably most of the people reading these posts know about the story of smallpox being deliberately spread by giving contaminated blankets to a particular tribe. For whatever reason, that story seems to be "common knowledge". On the hand, far fewer people know that a US federal law to promote and provide funding for vaccination of native Americans against smallpox (the only vaccine that existed then) was passed in 1832. And that while the law in itself was a good thing, the vaccine was systematically withheld from tribes that were classified rebellious or disobediant, for reasons like not leaving their ancestral land for reservations when ordered to do so - the cruel and evil part.
The point I was trying to make is simply that for almost any important historical event "there's more to the story than (most of) you know". So it's good NOT to assume "I already know everything important about this part of history" and instead assume "there's a lot I still don't know, and I could learn more by seeking out reliable sources of information". Hope that makes sense as a "general principle" when a historical event comes up for discussion!
>And that while the law in itself was a good thing, the vaccine was systematically withheld from tribes that were classified rebellious or disobediant, for reasons like not leaving their ancestral land for reservations when ordered to do so - the cruel and evil part.
I don't know seems like fairly sane government policy given the situation. It was a different moral time. They weren't part of the same social contract.
Those are some interesting numbers, because I’d read that there are currently more than 7 million Native Americans in the US. I guess that’s due to marrying and having children with non-indigenous people?
This is compounded by the problem that the standard to be part of a tribe in America is usually only like 1/8 native or whatever, so you get a lot of 7/8 white people with a great grandparent who was native making that a huge part of their identity when most of their values and schooling is very much that of a white progressive.
In some tribes it’s not based on genetics, but tribal membership. So that grandparent themselves may not be fully indigenous…they could be 1/8 or less themselves.
Meaning someone may have no genetic traces of indigenous peoples and still be a member of the tribe.
I came to the comments to make sure we all clocked the Final Destination log scene, saw this message, then heard Jesse say that. They owe us a watch along now.
Jesse saying that sex differences mean boys aren’t affected by relationships with adult women feels a bit naive to me. A lot of teen boys who felt that way realized they were damaged in some way as they got older. Maybe that’s more sociological than biological, but it’s still very real.
Also, the part people leave out is just how utterly pathetic an adult woman who sleeps with underage boys is to other women. I don’t think guys realize how gross we find it. So of course we’re not going to view it favorably.
I can see why women find it gross and biology is a big reason. Teenage boys are skinny or fat and don’t turn on women. Also, risking pregnancy with a geeky teenage boy is horrifying. Besides sex with a boy won’t last too long, he’d finish up before you knew it.
How many people haven't been ‘damaged in some way’ by their first romantic / sexual relationship, regardless of who it was with? Unless you're the one who chose to end it, and even then, it often results in tremendous pain and heartache. That's life.
So you'd have to show that these boys are damaged in some fundamentally different or more powerful way. And by the relationship itself, not by misguided adults or peers convincing them after the fact that they had been victimized.
I'm not saying that these relationships should be normalized or tolerated, but I think it helps absolutely no one to blow them out of proportion and exaggerate the harm.
I think doing this causes much more harm to the boys in question, and results in excessively punitive punishments for women that have serious issues, but who aren't evil and didn't really cause much if any harm to anyone.
> So you'd have to show that these boys are damaged in some fundamentally different or more powerful way.
Sorry, coming to this very late!
I used to know a guy who as a teen was passed around his mother's - I kid you not - all female Renaissance dance troupe. On the one hand, all the athletic 30-40 something women he could eat. What an amazing teenage. On the other hand, he then had difficulty forming relationships with girls his own age, and wildly unrealistic standards of female beauty/fitness because he had been punching above his natural weight.
Yeah, like I was saying before, it might be more sociological than anything else, but it’s very odd that people generally accept that teen boys are less mature than teen girls, yet believe they are somehow less vulnerable to grooming than girls are.
I’ve read a tiny bit about them and always heard them called guinea fowl as Jesse said.
i considered getting some for my home to reduce, but didn’t want to deal with their with their excessive noise and destroying my grass. My neighbors have a rooster and that’s bad enough.
I’ve found that consistent lawn mowing to keep the grass short works fine
I knew a bison rancher that had them on her farm to control ticks. They always just bobbed up and down and scattered with panic when I drove to the store.
Vis-a-vis alpha gal, don't forget that two professors of medical ethics wrote a paper suggesting it is moral to intentionally infect people with the syndrome to reduce the consumption of meat. (Without addressing little nitpicky things such as anaphylaxis fatalities and that annoying "Hippocratic oath.")
I’m surprised Katie and Jesse didn’t mention this. That’s the tie in I’ve heard about this conspiracy and Bill Gates. He wants less real meat consumption so he has the incentive to infect us all with alpha gal. Making money on the vaccine is secondary I guess.
Enough with half-measures! Making humans extinct would completely eliminate human consumption of meat, which according to metrics in the paper is ethically superior to merely reducing it.
There was something a little COVID-lab-leak-discourse about this episode.
“These conspiracy theorists think someone has been experimenting with disease-carrying insects. Ridiculous. Yes, the government has, historically, experimented with insects as disease vectors. And yes, in an entirely unrelated funny coincidence, a government animal-disease research facility with biological-warfare history—is sitting right across m from the place where Lyme disease was first recognized as a distinct outbreak. But anyway, these idiot conspiracy theorists. What are you gonna do?”
I don’t get why Katie doesn’t just get a reliable vehicle, and stay in dog friendly hotels or airbnbs. The only reason her trip was a fail was because of the van, and she should know better by now.
I am always amused when conspiracy theorists say the CIA is running some complex nefarious scheme. The CIA is mostly useless and incompetent and their history shows this. As for Bill Gates running a secret plot, he couldn’t pull off cheating on his wife without her finding out, so don’t think he could infect ticks.
Also, If a US government agency ever did discover a terrorist plot and prevent the would-be terrorists from carrying out their plan, then no terrorism happened. If no terrorism happened, that's exactly the same if there was no plot in the first place. If there was no plot in the first place, then the government did nothing to fight terrorism. Folx, you just need to learn how to logic better.
When we have another wave of extremely online teenage girls showing Tourette’s-style symptoms following tick bites, we can have a Tiktok Tick Tic Talk.
Tiktok Tick Tic Talk Sponsored by Tic Tac
With a nod to Dr. Seuss.
Welcome to Barpod, Stephen Pastis.
Ticks aren’t insects. They’re arachnids
There's the scientific insect, and the colloquial insect. Most people speak colloquial.
The "tomatoes are fruits" problem.
Tomatoes are two-spirit.
Fruit in the field, Veg in the kitchen
Veg in the kitchen, fruit in the bedroom.
Tomatoes have always been fruits. The problem is that some people think that something can't be both a fruit and a vegetable, though there are many examples, such as cucumbers, squashes and peas in the pod.
The real fruits are the ones who believe the tick conspiracy theories.
“Most people speak colloquial” is a scientifically perfect sentence.
I based it on that scene from ST:TNG where the fat Ferengi said "I never learned to speak hypothetical!"
Would most people say that spiders are insects? What about lobsters?
Spiders, yes. Lobsters are too large to be insects, though I have heard people say they look like "large bugs" or "large insects".
My whole point is that conversational language is imprecise. People don't choose words based on clear taxonomies laid out in a reference manual: they choose words based on experience and pattern matching.
Spiders vary hugely in size, as do insects. If language is so imprecise, how can you decide what's too large to be an insect? Crayfish are sometimes called "mudbugs" or "lobsters" and are about 7" long. Scorpions, which are arachnids like ticks and spiders, can reach 9" long. If you want to call spiders "insects," I say that word is just as applicable to crayfish, lobsters and scorpions.
I bet if you did a survey then scorpions would come back as insects and lobsters and crayfish would come back as shellfish.
Could be.
Lobsters are definitely bugs.
Maybe, but they are still wrong
(I can't see it on my screen, but nonetheless the "Well, acktchually" came through loud and clear.)
They're only wrong in a scientific context. Words have different meanings in different contexts. "Insect" is basically synonymous with "bug" in casual conversation.
Conversational language is imprecise, which is why scientists, engineers, mathematicians, economists, etc. have developed jargon that offers them the precision they need to make their formal statements precise enough to communicate without ambiguity. (The legacy of postmodernism OTOH drives the woke to purposely *muddy* language so wrongthink cannot be expressed. E.g., "transwomen are women".)
While it would be nice if we had such formalism in other areas (e.g., when talking about government) so people aren't constantly talking past each other, that's not how language works.
Yeah bro... I mean... what are "words" anyway?
Bug i am fine with. Insect i am not. Perhaps that’s me being the scientist, mathematician and engineer though, although all bugs i studied were of the software variety
Those weren't bugs either! They were features.
This is the real scandal in this episode.
But are they bugs?
Scientifically, ticks are not bugs, as bugs are a subset of insects. However, "bug" is commonly used to mean any small crawly thing to a much greater extent than "insect."
This is an important “actually.”
And also, actually Jesse, the real NBA roster building bugaboo is the repeater tax, not the second apron. Discuss.
Where is JTEB when you need her
The discussion reminded me that I’ve never learned how to throw well. It also brought back the fact that when I was bullied in school, they chose to call me a f*ggot, and that later on people with “gaydar” kept detecting me as gay. Unfortunately, I’m heterosexual. So my question is: is it two-spirit to be a straight man in a gay body?
You are clearly a gay man that identifies as straight.
That's as queer as it gets.
Yes, it can be. But you have to claim it before it expires.
You'd have to ask a straight white liberal.
To a be total jerk anytime I see a man who cannot throw my immediate gut reaction is "not really a man".
The funny thing about Native American discourse is that it rarely ever seems to involve Native Americans. It’s normally dominated by white progressives, or foreigners who use Natives as a cudgel to bash America (most of them think Native Americans are extinct and get very angry when you tell them that they’re not). I have noticed a growing number of Native men online pushing back against the “kumbaya” stereotype of Native Americans lately.
Many Indigenous tribes were absolutely brutal in every way you might possibly imagine for the times.
It's why there were very often eager alliances between indigenous tribes that were being ruled over by other tribes.
The unfortunate truth of history is the vast majority of indigenous peoples died of disease. . . like over 90%. As high as 98% of all fatalities.
And there's no indication of weaponization of disease as a strategy either. Those claims are based on a singular comment made by one low level officer in their diary to the effect of....I told them to give the pocks blankets.
Single, not singular.
Native American susceptibility to disease was likely due to a lack of domesticated animals. Old World people, meanwhile, had been living alongside livestock for ten thousand years.
Mmmmm, lower genetic diversity among the New World populations (as compared to the Europeans) likely afforded the former less resistance to newly introduced infectious diseases. This argument and the research behind it are summed up for general audiences in Charles Mann's book 1491.
Mmmmmm, 1491 has been widely criticized. It's basically Guns, Germs, & Steel.
Not by people up on human genomics, no.
Oh, I'd add...I'm not a historian....but the little I've read this seems to vary greatly by region.
Like in the PNW, it was relatively sparse. And so you had relatively little contention over lands and tribal life was more stable and peaceful (relatively). But the east coast was straight up medieval in some regions.
I have a book of native folklore written down by natives from the 1950s? (so it isn't so sanitized). Almost every single story is about pastoral raiding.
These two brothers both loved the same woman. They got in a fight and one lost. So he left the tribe and built up another tribe of lonely males, and then one day came back and murdered his brother, and captured all the women and got his love back.
That is practically the default story. Rape, raiding, theft, rape, betrayal, murder, rape, raiding, and so on.
Not that you don't see that a lot of places, but when you read their folklore it is very clear what kind of society it was, and it was hardly kumbaya.
After the Indian Vaccination Act of 1832 was passed (according to one historian, Professor Pearson) "The ... Act was executed with systematic discrimination leaving many tribes without vaccination, tribes that were deemed as problematic with the United States government because they opposed settlers on their lands or were not willing to relocate. Professor Pearson details the history of ensuing smallpox epidemics that decimated those unprotected tribes later in the 1830s while those who were vaccinated resisted the epidemics."
By 1800, roughly 95% of the entire indigenous population of North America had already died.
The politically motivated selective vaccination was, yet another, terrible episode. In 1830'sh the indigenous population was around 500k. It declined to 250k by 1900. Only a small percentage of that decline is attributable to the event you cite. A total social collapse, other diseases, warfare, malnutrition, displacement, declining fertility, and economical and social collapse account for the majority of the decline in that century.
Because of the selective allocation and differing previous exposure rates, some individual tribes were completely decimated. But overall populations was more impacted by the aggregate of other factors. . . even if they were vaccinated.
A lot of fucked up shit happened in that period of human history. Appalling, barbaric, terrible shit. But the absolutely devastating population collapse of indigenous peoples in the Americas is a story of disease and epidemics. Not systematic genocide. And that's just a historical fact.
I know that most of the population collapse of native Americans between 1500 and 1900 was due to the unintentional spread of contagious diseases not systematic genocide or genocide as government policy. Although the native Americans were treated cruelly by the European settlers and government in many ways that fell short of genocide.
The reason I brought up the Indian Vaccination Act (I actually hadn't known about it until shortly before I posted): probably most of the people reading these posts know about the story of smallpox being deliberately spread by giving contaminated blankets to a particular tribe. For whatever reason, that story seems to be "common knowledge". On the hand, far fewer people know that a US federal law to promote and provide funding for vaccination of native Americans against smallpox (the only vaccine that existed then) was passed in 1832. And that while the law in itself was a good thing, the vaccine was systematically withheld from tribes that were classified rebellious or disobediant, for reasons like not leaving their ancestral land for reservations when ordered to do so - the cruel and evil part.
The point I was trying to make is simply that for almost any important historical event "there's more to the story than (most of) you know". So it's good NOT to assume "I already know everything important about this part of history" and instead assume "there's a lot I still don't know, and I could learn more by seeking out reliable sources of information". Hope that makes sense as a "general principle" when a historical event comes up for discussion!
>And that while the law in itself was a good thing, the vaccine was systematically withheld from tribes that were classified rebellious or disobediant, for reasons like not leaving their ancestral land for reservations when ordered to do so - the cruel and evil part.
I don't know seems like fairly sane government policy given the situation. It was a different moral time. They weren't part of the same social contract.
Those are some interesting numbers, because I’d read that there are currently more than 7 million Native Americans in the US. I guess that’s due to marrying and having children with non-indigenous people?
7 millionths (7.7) is the "American India, Alaska native alone or in part" number.
American Indian or Alaskan Native alone is like 3.5.
So less than 1/2 or so their original population numbers. . . . .
But you said it was down to 250k in 1900. That’s a massive increase from then to now, unless I’m misunderstanding you.
This is compounded by the problem that the standard to be part of a tribe in America is usually only like 1/8 native or whatever, so you get a lot of 7/8 white people with a great grandparent who was native making that a huge part of their identity when most of their values and schooling is very much that of a white progressive.
Almost…and actually it can be much worse.
In some tribes it’s not based on genetics, but tribal membership. So that grandparent themselves may not be fully indigenous…they could be 1/8 or less themselves.
Meaning someone may have no genetic traces of indigenous peoples and still be a member of the tribe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre
Strong opening from Katie with a scene straight out of Final Destination
Yes, and Jesse didn't call it out but then referenced Final Destination in a separate context a few moments later! I was so confused.
I came to the comments to make sure we all clocked the Final Destination log scene, saw this message, then heard Jesse say that. They owe us a watch along now.
Glad you’re OK, Katie. Would hate to have a parafuneral for one of my favorite parasocial relationships
Jesse saying that sex differences mean boys aren’t affected by relationships with adult women feels a bit naive to me. A lot of teen boys who felt that way realized they were damaged in some way as they got older. Maybe that’s more sociological than biological, but it’s still very real.
Also, the part people leave out is just how utterly pathetic an adult woman who sleeps with underage boys is to other women. I don’t think guys realize how gross we find it. So of course we’re not going to view it favorably.
I can see why women find it gross and biology is a big reason. Teenage boys are skinny or fat and don’t turn on women. Also, risking pregnancy with a geeky teenage boy is horrifying. Besides sex with a boy won’t last too long, he’d finish up before you knew it.
How many people haven't been ‘damaged in some way’ by their first romantic / sexual relationship, regardless of who it was with? Unless you're the one who chose to end it, and even then, it often results in tremendous pain and heartache. That's life.
So you'd have to show that these boys are damaged in some fundamentally different or more powerful way. And by the relationship itself, not by misguided adults or peers convincing them after the fact that they had been victimized.
I'm not saying that these relationships should be normalized or tolerated, but I think it helps absolutely no one to blow them out of proportion and exaggerate the harm.
I think doing this causes much more harm to the boys in question, and results in excessively punitive punishments for women that have serious issues, but who aren't evil and didn't really cause much if any harm to anyone.
> So you'd have to show that these boys are damaged in some fundamentally different or more powerful way.
Sorry, coming to this very late!
I used to know a guy who as a teen was passed around his mother's - I kid you not - all female Renaissance dance troupe. On the one hand, all the athletic 30-40 something women he could eat. What an amazing teenage. On the other hand, he then had difficulty forming relationships with girls his own age, and wildly unrealistic standards of female beauty/fitness because he had been punching above his natural weight.
As far as I know he never managed to settle down.
So I think the arrangement derailed him badly.
Yeah, like I was saying before, it might be more sociological than anything else, but it’s very odd that people generally accept that teen boys are less mature than teen girls, yet believe they are somehow less vulnerable to grooming than girls are.
I agree, it's disgusting.
Now that's some good opening music!
The only opening music I recognize. ✊
The bird is called a guinea hen. They are spherical birds. They are also really stupid. Greatly entertaining but loud birds.
A quail being snobby about a guinea fowl is on point
I’ve read a tiny bit about them and always heard them called guinea fowl as Jesse said.
i considered getting some for my home to reduce, but didn’t want to deal with their with their excessive noise and destroying my grass. My neighbors have a rooster and that’s bad enough.
I’ve found that consistent lawn mowing to keep the grass short works fine
I knew a bison rancher that had them on her farm to control ticks. They always just bobbed up and down and scattered with panic when I drove to the store.
The actually research shows they are not particularly effective at reducing ticks.
And while they will eat them they also carry them.
Yes, the neighbors won't like it...
That is when you double down and double the flock!
"We often suffer more in imagination than in reality." - Seneca the Younger
"He who fears he shall suffer already suffers what he fears." -Michel de Montaigne
"Only a young man can imagine more suffering than the old knows to be true every morning." -- Seneca the Elderly.......probably.
NAMBLA? The National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?
Probably some overlap.
Now this is an organisation I could support
Vis-a-vis alpha gal, don't forget that two professors of medical ethics wrote a paper suggesting it is moral to intentionally infect people with the syndrome to reduce the consumption of meat. (Without addressing little nitpicky things such as anaphylaxis fatalities and that annoying "Hippocratic oath.")
https://philpapers.org/archive/CRUBBS
I'm glad they wrote up this idea, because it's bonkers and deserves to be rebutted fully in public!
I’m surprised Katie and Jesse didn’t mention this. That’s the tie in I’ve heard about this conspiracy and Bill Gates. He wants less real meat consumption so he has the incentive to infect us all with alpha gal. Making money on the vaccine is secondary I guess.
Enough with half-measures! Making humans extinct would completely eliminate human consumption of meat, which according to metrics in the paper is ethically superior to merely reducing it.
Humans are tirelessly working on their own extinction. Be patient, it takes time.
There was something a little COVID-lab-leak-discourse about this episode.
“These conspiracy theorists think someone has been experimenting with disease-carrying insects. Ridiculous. Yes, the government has, historically, experimented with insects as disease vectors. And yes, in an entirely unrelated funny coincidence, a government animal-disease research facility with biological-warfare history—is sitting right across m from the place where Lyme disease was first recognized as a distinct outbreak. But anyway, these idiot conspiracy theorists. What are you gonna do?”
Cue Jon Stewart on Colbert.
I don’t get why Katie doesn’t just get a reliable vehicle, and stay in dog friendly hotels or airbnbs. The only reason her trip was a fail was because of the van, and she should know better by now.
She refuses to take advice or admit that she's wrong. Same reason she won't drop $5 on an ethernet cable so the live episodes don't lag.
Yeah, but you gotta admit she is a hottie.
While I don’t advocate for it, I was a teenage girl and had sex with adult men. Not traumatized by it.
That is why teenage boys resent adult men.
I had more sex with teenage boys, than with adult me.
I am always amused when conspiracy theorists say the CIA is running some complex nefarious scheme. The CIA is mostly useless and incompetent and their history shows this. As for Bill Gates running a secret plot, he couldn’t pull off cheating on his wife without her finding out, so don’t think he could infect ticks.
That was before he met Fauci and learned the ways of the conspiratorial Jedi.
Yeah, the CIA figured out 9/11 on 9/12. Useless agency.
They probably don’t know ticks are arachnids.
Also, If a US government agency ever did discover a terrorist plot and prevent the would-be terrorists from carrying out their plan, then no terrorism happened. If no terrorism happened, that's exactly the same if there was no plot in the first place. If there was no plot in the first place, then the government did nothing to fight terrorism. Folx, you just need to learn how to logic better.
You know….the tick increases kinda correspond to the increase in data centers…..
2010s feminism produced a whole lot of alpha gals