/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15043701
Instead of getting mad at the people who write these retarded studies or the people responsible for scandals like the Balenciaga campaign, these people get mad at you for talking about them.

>>15034375
>Inject people with nano-technology, graphene, etc.
>Implement 5G and 6G to exploit the "vaccinated" people with graphene.

This was just a disinfo psyop to make actual COVID policy dissidents looks bad. That's why every single one of the popular right wing alt media people were constantly taking about nano-technology and microchips and Bill Gates and the "depopulation agenda". All of that shit was being heavily promoted within a lot of the controlled oppostion alt media circles like the Qanon community and all the Zionist neocon types like Alex Jones, Mel K, and Laura Loomer.

It's basically a strawman narrative created by the deep state and dissemenated by their shills in the alternative media for two reason. First of all, it functions as a distraction, and secondly, it makes anyone who questions the COVID narrative sound crazy, and it gives the mainstream media a convenient strawman to attack. The people who fall for that shit are basically strawmanning themselves, and giving their opponent are very convenient target to attack. That's exactly the first things normies and mainstream media journalists always bring up is muh Bill Gates and muh microchips.

COVID vaccines are not made with nano tech or microchips, and they have nothing to do with schizo tier shit involving graphene and 5G. The purpose of all the COVID hysteria was not to find a pretext to inject the masses with 'microchips' or whatever. The purpose of the COVID pandemic was to acclimate the public to modern biotech like mRNA vaccines and vaccine passports, and to make the people comfortable with an entirely new set of norms and a new approach to public health, bodily autonomy, and privacy. This is about something much bigger and longer term than some sort of microchip. This isn't about one piece of technology like muh microchip. This is about an unending stream of new technologies and new political policies to go along with them.

>>15027353
Hunting should be regulated, but overall encouraged. It's definitely more sustainable then meat produce on factory farms, and I think arguably more ethical as well.

>>15022876
Yeah, they've been shilling the cold water shit for years. The earliest I can remember is from like 15+ years ago when I was a kid a Tide started a new line of "Tide Cold Water" detergent that they shilled super fucking hard.

I hadn't noticed the liquid detergent thing, but that actually a good point. It's weird that we're moving towards liquid detergent, when clearly much worse from an environmental/sustainability perspective. Water is really fucking heavy, and transporting a lot of water is going to use a lot of energy. Each detergent bottle probably has at least a gallon of water. Multiply that by like 6 bottles of detergent a year for 300,000,000 Americans, and you have a very big number. We're probably transporting literally billions of gallons a year unnecessarily, and each gallon of water weighs roughly 8lbs. That's a lot of fucking weight that we're transporting for no reason.

It's all part of the Great Reset and Agenda 2030.

>>15020848
>>15021027
>>15021032
I agree, and I think the entire sex/gender distinction is largely bullshit, but the person I was replying to >>15013328 is claiming that we have evidence that trans people are trans because of brain scans that show them to have brains that "match the opposite sex". Presumably, this person also believes that sex and gender two different things, and that sex is biological, while gender is a social construct. If that is indeed the case, then by their own reasoning, brain scans are entirely irrelevant to the topic of transgenderism, since brain scans concern human biology, and hence can only say anything about sex, but not about gender, which again, is supposedly unrelated sex or human biology.

pic unrelated

How and why did they get "the science" so wrong, especially given that COVID policy was supposedly "settled science"? Woke pro-censorship normies have spent the last two years claiming that any and all COVID policies were "settled science", and that anyone who question these policies or narratives was therefore objectively wrong, and engaging in the spread of misinformation. But if that were indeed correct, then how has the science on so many issues changed? How did two weeks to slow the spread turn into two years of lockdowns, and economic crisis, and the introduction of vaccine mandates and vaccine ID cards/vaccine passports?