251: back in my day wank meant something

[ryanongosling]

Please mark any spoilers clearly and try not to spoil stuff that hasn't even aired yet for people.

Keep the rules in mind.

LATEST PAGE | LATEST FLATVIEW PAGE

Game Hate | Canon Hate | Namedropping | Mods' Pet Peeves | Game Pet Peeves | Plurk Pet Peeves | Meme Pet Peeves

Report stupid shit here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

it's not a fucking competition, anon, but you sound really dumb saying this. out of season heavy snowfall can evacuate entire cities just as fast as any wildfire can, coming from someone who has been through both of those disasters personally.

[(Anonymous)]

full city evacuation has never happened where i live and we're covered in snow most of the year.

have you considered that it depends on the location and infrastructure, unlike wildfire which fucks everything

[(Anonymous)]

wildfires, famous for not depending on locations (fire risk zones) or infrastructure (fire response capabilities, fire codes followed during construction)

[(Anonymous)]

yeah i'm a ne anon and i'm wondering wtf anon is on about because i've never heard of anywhere being evacuated for a blizzard. it's usually the exact opposite where they tell you to stay where you are because trying to travel in blinding snow is extremely dangerous.

[(Anonymous)]

yeah trying to evacuate a city for a blizzard would be a stupid idea for just about every conceivable reason, if you live up here you know any governor who tried it would get mocked all the way to the next election cycle

[(Anonymous)]

yeah using "you don't evacuate for blizzards!!" as a gotcha for why they're not bad is, like, missing the whole point that a: severe blizzards cripple the ability to transport yourself and b: blizzards tend to be far more widespread, on average, than wildfires or tornados, not to mention significantly longer in duration, so relocating yourself to avoid one could mean moving hundreds of miles for, like, weeks. it's completely untenable.

[(Anonymous)]

blizzards do not last for weeks. holy shit where do you people get these ideas

[(Anonymous)]

maybe from the week long blizzards that i have actually lived through in the last few years? it's rare but it happens. a wildfire is going to do significantly more acute damage but blizzards can also be a serious problem, and saying "well you don't evacuate for them" is just a complete misunderstanding of how the two different disasters affect people.

[(Anonymous)]

you've been through that many blizzards and don't know that the protocol is go shopping, buy gas or salt, and resolve to watch movies and be cozy until the streets are clear again? do you live in the northern territories or are you making yourself the main character of natural disaster discourse where everything that's personally affected you is totally as bad as anything that's ever happened?

[(Anonymous)]

no i'm just not a sheltered idiot that ignores what happens in places where i don't personally live. just because i haven't personally died in a blizzard doesn't mean that no one ever has. do you read the news or do you just operate on what happens to your immediate personal sphere?

[(Anonymous)]

this is actually really hurtful because freak heavy blizzard weather did empty the town i was in and the desertion lasted for over a month for those of us who didn't evacuate immediately

of COURSE the repercussions can last for weeks/months if you're fucking snowed when you aren't prepared or expecting it, to the point your doors and windows won't open and you have no access/escape or means of refilling your basic supplies once they run out? are you kidding me??

where the fuck do people get the ideas that frozen disasters aren't still disasters for many human beings in certain parts of the world?? that these disasters can't can last for months on end? wildfires aren't the same as blizzards aren't the same as earthquakes or hurricanes but WOW, they can all be just as devastating depending on where you are so please don't pretend like you can somehow win the disaster olympics when you clearly have not lived through some of these circumstances

and yes

i know how to drive on fucking snow

[(Anonymous)]

[citation mcfucking needed]

[(Anonymous)]

fire is one of the only disasters they'd try to evacuate you during it. tsunami is the other, and that's likely not going to be effective, considering. you stay in place during an earthquake and then deal with fallout after. you stay in place for a tornado and hope your shelter doesn't get ripped up. you stay in place during a blizzard and hope you don't freeze to death. that doesn't mean the damage of natural disasters are negligible because you're not evacuating.

lbr here. we're seeing an elevation in the number of natural disasters and the damage they cause. katrina and the subsequent flooding was kind of the big oopsie start that drew attention nationwide. wildfires are out of control. this year was probably one of the least worst in pnw history for wildfires, and i have to wonder if it's not that most of the stupidly populated places have already burned down. it's really easy to brush off disasters that you personally haven't lived through. all of them are and can be devastating. you still die in blizzards. and every other natural disaster out there.

fires are the only one i can think of that are 'accidentally' (read: through negligence) caused by people. some ass throwing a cigarette out the car, or ignoring no fire warnings at campsites. or gender reveals. they're triggered by dumbfuckery. that's why there's more of them.

[(Anonymous)]

i have lived through many blizzards, dude

you do not die in them. the power almost never goes out, and if it does, people in blizzard-prone areas have contingencies for that. there is almost no chance, in fact, that you can possibly die in them, unless you literally go outside without protective clothing and wander so far from your house that you get lost, and nothing actually happens to your house afterward unless your roof was already severely damaged.

that's why people are saying the comparison is dumb.

da

[(Anonymous)]

so are we just ignoring the blizzard in buffalo in 2023 that killed 47 people? (https://www.axios.com/2023/01/20/buffalo-blizzard-death-toll-rises-emergency-response-delays) people absolutely do die in blizzards, and people absolutely do lose power as well. just because you live in an area with good infrastructure doesn't mean everyone is that lucky.

also to put some actual numbers out here so people will hopefully stop tilting at windmills (they won't because all the anons here, myself included, are argumentative dipshits):

in the current decade (https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#introduction), there's an average annual death toll in the us of 436. 35 of those are, annually, killed by wildfires. the listing that i found just gave a "storm" category, no winter storm separation, so i am sure most of them are tropical storms, but they account for the large majority at 243. similarly, storms account for an average of .43% of the us gdp in economic damage, while wildfires are .03%

wildfires are a tragic, acute disaster that are miserable to live through, but the real problem in the us is tropical storms by a considerable margin, with tornadoes and blizzards folded in there to a lesser amount

sa

[(Anonymous)]

also on a global level, as of the last few decades earthquakes are significantly more deadly than just about any other disaster - average of 13,000 deaths per year globally - so barring those who have personally been afflicted by the comparatively rare and small-scale disasters in the us, we're pretty privileged in that respect.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

did you read the buffalo article you linked? all but 7 of those deaths were fully preventable/driven by people not understanding what not to do in a blizzard, or cardiac arrest from shoveling. all blizzard-prone states have warnings, days in advance, to not shovel if you have heart problems, plan not to leave your house, and plan not to drive. only those seven were caused by something no one could have done anything about (delayed ems response)

this is an excellent example of recency bias however

[(Anonymous)]

"no one ever dies in blizzards"
> an article showing 47 people died during a buffalo blizzard, even if the majority of them were preventable
"well ONLY seven died in this specific blizzard"

also what does recency bias have to do with this. do you actually know what recency bias means or are you just trying to use a logical fallacy term to try and shut down an argument? because i really don't understand that point.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

the point being made is that wildfires typically happen in areas prepared for them to evacuate the population. blizzards typically happen in places prepared for them. lately, there's been less typical happening about the weather formations, and places not prepared, ergo, the population not being prepared, is leading to potentially preventable deaths if they had a clue what they would prepare for. when it ice storms in alaska, everyone's prepared. when it ice storms in afghanistan or new mexico, no one knows what the fuck to do.

it's like those stupid memes that go around of comparisons between 'winter' driving and how cities in warmer climates in the states screech to a halt at a centimeter of snowfall they aren't used to while canadian/northern us cities are pros at knowing you need snow chains and how to actually drive in snow.

fires are area devastating. they burn down buildings. they destroy stuff. most people see signs of a fire and can get out before it hits them. it results in less deaths, even if an entire city burns down. you can't evacuate in tornados or blizzards. you have to hunker down and hope for the best. and if your city isn't prepared for these events, or a person not used to it moves to a high-frequency area, then yeah, it results in death. power goes out in fires, sure, but people are already gone and unaffected by that. power going out when you need heat is a problem. power going out for ac is a problem. power going out for people that have power-necessary medical equipment is also a problem. and you seem to be really blase about generators and people being prepared without actually considering that a high amount of the deaths are related to indigent, elderly, or poorer neighborhood people who can't afford what's required to survive.

it reeks of affluenza.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

You're gonna mention that the Buffalo blizzard killed 47 people and ignore that the Camp fire killed 85 and the Maui fires killed over 100?

It doesn't really matter though. Heatwaves kill more people than any other disaster by a huge margin, though I'm not surprised you're ignoring that when it's inconvenient to your petty east coast vs west coast hissy fit.

[(Anonymous)]

unless you run yourself over with your own snowplow
u risk dying then

[(Anonymous)]

it really depends on the blizzard and how badly it affected the area it hits. yes, the blizzard rarely lasts for more than a day or two, but the effects of what it does can last longer. roads are snowed in/frozen over so help can't get in. powerlines are ripped/frozen down. pipes freeze and burst. those can take ages to get fixed, depending on the place hit and how much help is needed to fix it.

and when you have blizzards hitting places that aren't built to sustain it (most of canada is used to blizzards and has preparations in place. texas does not. neither does iran.) you get people who have no idea how to prepare or fix what's been damaged. texas isn't used to super cold weather, so when the southern united states gets blasted by blizzards, it can kill more people than it might in the north who are prepared. same as the north getting hit by heat domes and cities that aren't built with heat in mind having no ac or cooling measures in place winding up with death tolls.

you are incredibly ignorant and entitled in your experiences being the litmus of the world.

[(Anonymous)]

[citation needed]

[(Anonymous)]

citation extremely needed lmao

if they're talking about that texas ice storm then this subthread doesn't apply to them, as texas was clearly identified as a climate shitzone for like four different reasons

[(Anonymous)]

even counting texas, people don't evacuate cities for fucking blizzards