mr_engineer

There are dangers to dumping a neurotic, messy woman, actually. You don't want her to turn into a psycho ex or something, you want to preferably end it on good terms with someone who's going to take it personally. And, you have entanglements with such a person, you definitely have dysfunctional patterns to work with that are keeping you stuck with such a woman. You could be a high-value person, for sure. But, the relationship is a mess! And, the priority should not be to replace the person you're with, it should be to fix the relationship. Or else, you're not, in fact, going to get another high-value person. The next person you'll get will be even worse, in fact, if you don't change yourself first. This is what it takes to make changes. That's why, my suggestion is that if you're comfortable and you're not bothered by her neuroses, it's relatively trivial shit for you to deal with, don't unnecessarily do anything to rock the boat!

Breaking up and finding another woman is a very, very tall ask in terms of lifestyle-change. So, if she doesn't bother you, why change anything?! Things just look comfy right now. Think about making changes when shit hits the fan. The reason for this is that you need to have a justification for her too. If she does something nasty/despicable because of her issues, or if you're able to pre-empt some bad shit happening as a result of her issues, focus on resolving those first. Then, think about breaking up. Because then, you'll have the right rationale/justification for doing so.

Okay, I will shut up now, cuz I don't want to be shadow-banned. But thank you for proving my point about cancel-culture. 'Political nonsense' At least, come up with a better excuse. Come on, Leo. You can do it. I'm a scientist. Show some respect to my credentials. And prove to me that you don't ban reasonable opinions by credentialed people, will you?! That's how you prove to me that this isn't a shadow-ban threat. You use the shadows of owning a forum, I use the shadows of owning credentials.

Those who did prove it, those who did leak information, got cancelled and silenced as 'conspiracy-theorists'. I know how the scientific-establishment works, how they create in-groups and out-groups. Right now, they have such a stronghold on everyone's minds that they can cancel anyone just by showing their credentials! They're spending millions and billions of taxpayer's money to fight each other and divide and rule the world. But, when it's time to fill their own pockets, they unite! And keep in mind that it's their armies doing the fighting. They're sitting pretty in their castles as billionaires!! The whole 'enemy' thing is in theory. In practice, everyone else who's an elite is their friend and ambitious middle-class people are their enemy. And they want to exert control over the lower classes by abusing the government. So, they're coming up with tricks to destroy democracy. They're professional marketers, brand-managers of billion-dollar companies. They're very good at what they do. In a war, they have to be partisan and pick sides. But, in business, if you fairly lost a vaccine-war and you complain about it, no one's going to listen to you. They lose credibility when they lose the vax-war! And they also understand this. Business comes first, nationalism comes second. They won't throw stones on other people's houses when their own house is made of glass. Anti-vaxxers do show evidence. The scientific-establishment just refuses to accept it! And they use brute-force to cancel anti-vaxxers, which is why you'll never see it on the mainstream. Alt-media has answers on this front. They're doing everything you're saying they could do. This is a very, very partisan environment. The alt-media, which has been heavily cancelled, shines light on this evidence. The elite are going to try to destroy the evidence of their own wrong-doings. But, they'll let go of people personally attacking them, because no one takes that shit seriously!! They don't care about their image, they only care about the image of their actions. Which they want people to trust. This is how they maintain their power. A big hint - look past your materialist-paradigm. There is no one materialist-paradigm, everyone has a different materialist-paradigm. But, the education-system and scientific-establishment is not conscious of this, which is precisely why they currently believe in indoctrination.

Pfizer revenue 2021 - $81 billion Sinopharm revenue 2021 - $77 billion. Reason - it really doesn't matter to most people which vaccine they get. What people end up getting is pure hit and trial at the end of the day. They're not reading WHO articles before getting them! They're looking at social-media disclaimers saying that 'all vaccines are safe and effective' and randomly selecting any vaccine. I'm not making a demand. I'm making a point, that what they've said isn't that outrageous. They're not saying that the Chinese vaccine is trash, they're just saying that theirs is better. And that this is not a legitimate foothold for anti-vaxxers to defame them. So, they're being sophisticated in their marketing/competitive-strategy while shielding out anti-vaxxers!

They didn't call the Chinese vaccine total trash. This is not something that anti-vaxxers can work with, honestly. It's surface-level tussles, it's not an all-out war to crush the competition. The people they really want to crush, are the anti-vaxxers. Cuz if the anti-vaxxers are proven right, that's an existential threat to their business. So, you do everything in your power to cancel anti-vaxxers. This is not just for this specific industry, this specific crisis or even this specific class of people. In any business competition, an unwritten rule is that you protect the fundamental image of the product itself first. Then, you compete based on your quality vs their quality, your price vs their price. You try to give a better deal than your competitors, but you don't attack the fundamental image of your product just to destroy competition.

@zurew https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/safety-of-covid-19-vaccines WHO says that 'Vaccines have been found to be safe and effective in people with various underlying medical conditions that are associated with increased risk of severe disease.' This is the disclaimer that all of the social-media giants give when anyone talks about the vax. They're talking about all the vaccines here. Not just Pfizer-vaccine. Why?! Because they don't want to overtly promote the brand, saying that 'It's our vaccine, not their vaccine'. Even if they're the market-leaders. Why? Because the priority is the image of the 'vaccine', as a product. They know that there are conspiracy-theories floating around and they feel the need to give out this disclaimer to people who are skeptical or 'vaccine-hesitant', as they call it. This is how they branded their product in this marketing-environment.

@zurew They did not want to give anti-vaxxers a single foothold. They wanted to present all vaccines as 'safe and effective'. As I said, they would want to maintain the image of the product way more than competing against the West. If they published something against Pfizer-vaccine, would Pfizer stay silent about their vaccine?! Pfizer would pay anti-vax researchers to publish something on the Chinese and Russian vaccine! And, everyone would suffer as a result of it. They understand this, which is why they don't engage in this competitive behavior. The elite-class protects their own. This is not unique to the elite-class, even the middle-class and working-class protect their own.

It's just not smart to find something wrong with a competing company who's as big or bigger than you. The smarter thing to do is to make friends with the few big players in your industry and to collectively target the smaller companies, defame them with way bigger marketing-campaigns than theirs and most especially, target anti-vaxxers. That way, everyone's rich and happy and powerful. For a Russian or Chinese company to do what you're saying, they would have to have nationalistic motivations that are bigger than money. And, I don't think that's the case.

Ultimately, money is what rules these people. It's not even nationalism. And they don't want to piss off the West too much either, they want to be seen as the good guys in their country too.

This reality about science, that it's primarily about survival of the scientists and not about truth, is what made me leave research. Scientists are very, very corruptible people. Heck, you just have to pay off the editor of the right journal and the entire journal will be biased in your favor! I was depressed for a long time after seeing this reality about science. Which is why I'm so passionate about changing science-education, where I advocate that students think for themselves. When you stop being dogmatic as a scientist, you will have a conscience that stops you from being corruptible and blindly defending your conditioning from your education.

They prioritize the image of the product over petty competition. They can form an oligopoly in the marketplace, that's mutually beneficial to everyone. And, if they're not divided, they can launch a full-scale war on anti-vaxxers together!

Alright. So, I'm going to tell you why I'm not taking 'the science' at face-value. I've spent 3 years of my life as a science-researcher. Day 1, lesson 1 of research is that science is not the absolute fact. It is created by researchers, in fact. As a researcher, your job is to prove a certain hypothesis 'true'. And, to gather the evidence in its favor. This is what you get paid for, this is your 'work'. Now, in a world where Pfizer sponsors everything, Pfizer is only going to pay researchers to gather pro-vax evidence!! Anti-vax research will not get paid. And, those people who speak out against the vax, are suppressed by the vax-companies. Their credibility is destroyed and they're labelled 'quacks' and 'conspiracy-theorists' by the government, who the vax-companies have lobbied. My request to all of you is to not act ignorant to these realities. Some you knew, some you had a hunch for and I'm probably confirming for you. So, what is the actual truth here? The full truth is that if there are ten anti-vax data-points and one pro-vax data-point, the Pfizer scientist will only focus on the one pro-vax data-point and have a blind-spot for the ten anti-vax data-points. So, 'the science' will be pro-vax, even though the truth may be the opposite! And, the reasons for the lack of this data may not be that it's not accessible, it could very well be a lack of funding by a corrupt establishment. Either way, this possibility, coupled with the taking away of democracy, should raise doubts. Their stats. They will only publish pro-vax stats and discredit anti-vax stats. Money is prior to science in today's world. And, the 'discrediting' happens purely by appeals to authority, which is deeply corrupt in and of itself.

Mob-mentality begets mob-mentality from the other side. You don't know these things would've happened, because they didn't happen. When they come up with a trick to destroy democracy, you should be skeptical of what they're saying. Because there are very real payoffs to them to destroy democracy. I'm talking about what actually happened, not an imagined scenario that you 'prevented'. Maybe the cure was worse than the disease.

Enforce masks if you want. But, social-distancing should not have been forced. That's anti-democratic. Again, you have the right to socially distance if you want. Feel free to isolate yourself! Forcing others to do it is a sin.

My point is that you don't get to justify this and say that you're for democracy. The reality is that the average person is so invisible to the elite of the first-world that the elite is just unreachable through any medium. Outright protesting is the only way to do it. In fact, the people should have the right to collapse the government through peaceful protesting and sloganeering, when the government attacks their body-sovereignty. And the government is so unreachable, the power-disparity is so huge, that genuine checks and balances are absolutely out of the question. Lobbying is an open secret, revolving-doors are an open secret. People should be able to take a stand when it affects them. Especially their health. No 'experts' should have the right to dictate terms to you. The government is answerable to the people, not to 'experts'.

Say, there's an authoritarian, psychopathic leader who wants to control and take over the world. Would they say 'I want to take away protest-rights' explicitly in this world, where people have been educated into believing that they live in a democracy?! No, right?! They would invent a crisis, they would take on the role of 'saving the world from this crisis' and they would ask the world to give up some freedoms in return. This has been steadily happening throughout history. Up until this point, where they attacked our right to protest. They got their police lap-dogs to violently crack down on peaceful protests. Like the Nazis who were 'just following orders'. Not realizing what they're doing to democracy.

A democracy, by definition, is a government that's by the people, of the people and for the people. The people in charge get their position knowing fully well that it's 'by the people', meaning, they're democratically elected representatives by the people. Now, how are they taken out of office in a democracy?! Peaceful protests. You abuse your power, the people say 'We oppose you, resign now'. Entire governments collapse like this. This is how it's supposed to work!! Government is supposed to yield to the will of the people, the people are acknowledged to have the right to do this in a democracy. And, when people gather together, band together and speak unanimously, that's it. Protest is a constitutional right in a democracy. But, if you are able to trick the people into agreeing to outlaw protest, you're not a democratically elected leader anymore. You're there by fiat, by force. By trickery and by gaslighting. This is an abuse of power, it's psychological manipulation. It's a psy-op, in fact. Now, the woke people may agree with the content of the actions. But, it is very unprincipled and low-integrity to want to change the structure of the system to get your way. It's cheating, from the perspective of someone who values democracy. And it sets a bad precedent, a new low in politics in general. Don't be so serious in your partisanship, that you destroy democracy in the process. The right is also guilty of this, but you are also guilty of this. And, it would be wise of you to figure this out for yourself before pointing fingers at others.

Social gatherings not allowed, protests not allowed. Peaceful protest is a fundamental right of a citizen of every democracy. When you outlaw that, you're saying 'We will not have a peaceful conversation, we will only talk to you in terms of brute-force'. Authoritarianism 101. Should make anyone suspicious of the narrative.

People who are 'for democracy' should have become suspicious of the narrative when the protests were outlawed. And, from that point on, they should not have become the police foot-soldiers for an authoritarian regime. In terms of censorship, in terms of bureaucracy, in terms of vax-mandates. They should have said 'No, government, we will not do your bidding, because our principles of democracy matter more to us than survival. We will not let you become authoritarian. We will rely on herd-immunity, which also gets destroyed by lockdowns, we will not buy your social-distancing narrative.' If you're genuinely for democracy, that is. This is what the anti-vaxxers did. Through everything, through all of the tyranny and oppression. They fought for democracy while the woke people fought to kill it. By all means, if you want to wear a mask, wear a mask. If you want to social-distance, social-distance. If you want to get the vax, get the vax. But, the government should lose all rights to govern you if they outlaw protests.

Yupp. The woke people went full SJW on people who didn't want to wear masks, who wanted to breathe freely and who wanted to keep their bodily autonomy. The mistake they made is that they thought they were supporting 'democracy', except that the fact that protests were outlawed meant that democracy was thrown out the window. And they ended up supporting an authoritarian regime. It was unconscious behavior in a pattern. But, this is the actual reality of what they did.

Yupp.

Practical reality.

@something_else Then why did they mandate the vax just because their favorite government said so?! Why did they go with the social-credit health-system?! Woke people will do that, if it gets them their way. And, this also translates to economics. The government destroyed small businesses in the pandemic by using lockdowns, and the woke commies supported that!! Because they're commies. And they want the government to have more and more power and 'hold businesses accountable for social justice'. So, when the vax came along, they just followed the same pattern. Because the government is always on your side, right?! Because they're the 'democrats'. And, we also have social-credit freedom of speech now. Pro-vax people get to talk, anti-vax people get censored. And, on the economic side, you don't get to have a job if you're not jabbed. Why does the government get to dictate what you do for a living, if it's ethical?! Break this pattern.

@Devin Everyone follows the West, really. That's how underdeveloped countries work. They just have less developed and more authoritarian ethics. But, the West has more authoritarian systems, because the governments in the West have way better and way more wide-spread tech.