Consept

The equalizer with denzel Washington or man on fire with denzel Washington, pretty much any film with denzel Washington

I don't really Tim pool but to be fair to him he didn't let Kanye gey away with what he was saying, he probably pushed back on him more than I've ever seen from a Conservative, hence why kanye walked off

This is pretty accurate actually, first time ive agreed with you. However, as good faith as say Sam Harris might be he does have blind spots, for example he really doesnt like Islam, Ben Shapiro is very conservative and Peterson has a strong dislike for the left. These are not bad examples and i get your point but its still very difficult. Also people get attracted to the extreme of whatever their belief is and the extremists get the most attention, so these are tough hurdles to get over

I agree with you and would love to see how you implement your new education system. The problem is you would have to convince the parents because certain parents will be threatened by anything that could challenge their beliefs that they are trying to indoctrinate their kids with. For example a lot of christian fundamentalists dont want their kids taught sex education and protest to teach creationism in schools, these parents will strongly oppose any educational reformations that will change their kids beliefs. This is generally true with blue SD but also occurs higher on the spiral as well.

In reality most of this work would have to be done from childhood, but the funny thing is most parents wouldnt actually want this to happen as the kids may question the beliefs the parents are trying to indoctrinate them with.

The point is youre saying people can disseminate information for themselves, this is true for some but not most people. People can definitely be manipulated into believing things by bad actors, I dont think you can deny this. The current freedom of speech and platform that we all currently enjoy has been manipulated by these bad actors, your solution is being played out in real time and the result is there has been record numbers believing and sharing fake information. So having the information pushed to you constantly will of course skew your idea of reality, especially with algorithms, you can get into a situation where youre only given a certain viewpoint. These things can have real world implications, for example if you fall down a racist, right wing rabbit hole, I am quite sure you may be more inclined to dislike black people. Youre perspective seems to be quite idealistic where if you let everyone say anything everyone will see the BS, but this has not played out at all in reality. Its actually caused unprecedented conflict and division between people, as well as razy beliefs such qanon .

So lets say flat earth for example, I dont think youre a flat earther, but they have been debated out of their position numerous times. There was a documentary where they spent money, 20k i think, on equipment to test the curvature and they proved themselves wrong, yet they still hold their beliefs. This isnt a one off there are many groups with outlandish beliefs that were proven wrong but they still keep their beliefs and even increase in numbers. So in reality people dont use their 'better judgement' for the most part if they have a strong belief, they tend to stick to it

You can have the discussion but the point is the people pushing for it are usually trying to put out an image that black people are less intelligent and therefore inferior. The real discussion is if they are statistically less intelligent what are the circumstances of this? Are they put in worse situations by nature of where theyre born and how theyre treated in childhood? If this is the case maybe we could look at equalising this through improving their education for example

What if you have the debate and are proven right but the person youre debating rejects all logic or reasoning and evidence and throws previously debunked conspiracy theories at you with evidence the only from obscure, questionable websites that are provably false? Should they be allowed to keep peddling false information?

It's not even a case of smart or dumb in terms of an iq test, it's just that we have so many bias', self-delusion, lack of solid epistemology, lack of big picture perspective, survival bias etc etc, that we don't even realise the decisions we make and the consequences of them. Look at 2 of the biggest companies in the world macdonalds and coca cola, essentially selling sugar water and highly processed food that is terrible for you but people make that choice everyday over water which is free and healthy food. People in general do not make the best choices for themselves and I'm including myself in that.

It's a good technology but if you're trying to exploit to make money fir yourself I think you're on to a loser. A lot of people have lost millions in crypto for this very reason.

Nahm is probably a good person trying his best but I found his posts incomprehensible. This either means he's way too advanced and I couldn't understand him or he's just not really making sense. Either way his communication style was not fit for purpose, I've listened to many differenr teachers and there's no one I would say I didn't at least get where they were coming from. I think this is the danger of putting your identity in your 'awakening', it can be a closed loop where even if you're wrong you're convinced you're awake and others probably aren't and therefore you must be right.

You do realise theres literally no innovation thats completely perfect, like its literally impossible. So by your logic every law is an abuse of power. Also the arguments youre proposing against the vaccine are pretty much exactly the arguments that those who didnt want the seatbelt law were arguing as well. But anyway you seem to be someone who is interested in growth as youre on this forum so i would urge to really question the way you look at information. Your current method is literally unworkable, it requires a lot of mental gymnastics and incredible jumps in logic. There is literally nothing to be gained for anyone debating you so it is a good test for us not to be drawn into the superiority of feeling right. On your side though consider that maybe other people on this forum have good perspectives that you shouldnt just outright dismiss and enforce your opinion upon.

I think this is your worst take, you do realise this is how any efficacy has to be tested for anything. Literally nothing would be classed as effective using your chosen metrics. More people die in crashes that wear seatbelts than crashes with people that dont wear seatbelts, does that make seatbelts ineffective?

Can you accept that death rate % of vaccinated vs unvaccinated would be a more accurate metric than just how many people died overall in terms of how effective a vaccine is? Please just answer yes or no as you often obfuscate with your answers, I just want to know clearly if this is the claim youre making

I think overall this thread actually shows the dangers of alt-media as it is. There is so much certainty whilst factually being wrong and the inflexibility of thought, these things are precisely what happens when certain alt-media is consumed as fact. Having said that, the same thing can happen with mainstream media, its just that theres more safeguards and regulation. Similarly alt-media can be a great tool, I just think as it is there are too many bad actors and people basically using it to get rich and famous with certain talking points, this isnt necessarily a problem in of itself but i think people need to and will get better at discerning the information. Its extremely new technology and these are all growing pains of something that hanges how we fundamentally consume information

Men that say masturbating is disgusting probably masturbate as well

OK we cant go any further theres too much bias here, thanks for the convo though

OK so youre dismissing the death rate, do you think that has no bearing on assessing how effective a treatment is? So if there were 100 people and 90 wore seatbelts but 10 didnt and out of the 10, 5 died and out of the 90, 10 died, you would say, following your logic that theres no way to know what wouldve happened to the 90 if they didnt wear seatbelts, therefore seatbelts are not effective because more people died wearing them? Does this make sense to you?

This is so intellectually lazy, the death rate is definitely the most important metric. If there are 100 people and 90 get vaccinated, let's say 10 of the vaccinated people die but only 5 of the unvaccinated die, that means 50% of unvaccinated people are going to die, whereas only 9% vaccinated people will die, obviously you will have a better chance of you're vaccinated. Do you see how you claim others are doing what you're actually doing, you've changed how you look at the numbers to give make your point of view correct, whilst also claiming other people are doing that. You claim to be one of the 'smarter' people that can discern information for himself but you seem to have very strong bias' that I would not associate with an open mind. Based

So if we cant trust them and they have no regulations and are clearly biased by their own admission, how will that help us get closer to the truth, if anything it will make the truth more murky. But even you seem to have trouble discerning what is true and whats not judging by the examples youve provided, so obviously alt-media is not really helping here.

Also this take is just wrong, more deaths will be of vaccinated people because more people are vaccinated but the death rate between unvaccinated and vaccinated is very different. Unvaccinated peoples death rate is much higher, you can find out more about that here - https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Bro, this is ridiculous, the first one is just a random article from the India TV news website, thats not a fact check site. Just to make sure you understand, youre supposed to present an article from a fact check site, snopes or full fact something like that and show where they proved something wrong and it was later revealed they were wrong and most likely paid off by the government. All these links are just proving how necessary fact checking actually is. Also notice your double standard where fact check sites need to be right 100% of the time, if theyre not then we cant trust them but alt-media can be biased, wrong a lot of the time etc but we can trust them

Read the fact check you provided, its about a post that was proved to be quite clearly false, linked to a false website etc. Theyre not talking about the idea that an organisation can exist that talks about sustainability, its literally about the facebook post. So if the fact checkers are claiming a whole bunch of false information, then just link one, this is the crux of your whole argument so i dont know why you sent me such a terrible example

BASED