mr_engineer

This is a strawman of free speech absolutism. They want the right to share any ideas. And this should not be affecting anyone negatively. (If you're getting triggered over ideas, you're a snowflake and you need to do some shadow-work.) Not the right to personally attack or threaten people! That's off-limits. If you want to know who controls you, look at who you're not allowed to criticize.

It would not be an abuse of power if the regulators were willing to admit to mistakes when they made them. And they could repair the damage they do to people. The problem with irreversible damage is that it disincentivizes regulators to admit to their mistakes. And, they have to keep doubling down on their abuses of power. This is why, rolling back mandates either never happens or is done very, very reluctantly. When you mandate a vaccine, a pharmaceutical, that's developed in a hurry, by people who have paid the largest criminal fine in US history (this is why you need the alt-media, to tell you important stuff like this that the mainstream-media omits), who also get a liability-waiver in their 'emergency-rollout', I'm sorry but you're playing with fire. It's an unacceptable risk. Impossible. It's a false-equivalency. As I said, you can take off a seatbelt you put on whenever you want. It's not the same with vaccines. You can't unvaccinate a vaccinated person.

Yupp. Not perfectly effective, not something to be held dogmatically. If you're going to mandate something, you'd better make it perfect. Or else, it's an abuse of power. Another point is that once you put on a seatbelt, you can remove it. This isn't the case with the vax. It infringes on our body-sovereignty. It's a human rights violation.

@Consept No, it is not a more accurate metric than number of deaths. You can make a claim for vaccination. But, this doesn't change the fact that people died even though vaccination happened. And more people than those unvaccinated. If you want to prove that they're 'safe and effective', unvaccinate a sizeable chunk of the vaccinated and then let's look at the death-rates. Demographics behave differently at different scales.

@Consept If the number of jabbed people dying is greater than the number of unjabbed people dying, it is disingenuous to say that 'it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated'. We see the numbers. And you can't linearly extrapolate that '50% of the unvaccinated died. So, if we magically remove the vaccine from the bodies of the vaccinated, 50% of those people would die'. To prove that, you would have to actually invent a technology to 'unvaccinate' someone who's vaccinated!! You can't do that, so you can't prove your linear extrapolation. There are a lot of other factors at play than just your vaccination-status. But, if you're a vaccine-company, you are self-biased enough to assume God-status, that you have the God-given right to decide whether people live or they die. Which you don't. And, don't forget the real numbers. The number of people who took the vaccine died in greater numbers than those who didn't.

I'm telling people why alt-media has the demand it does. You know what?! Come join my cult!! Which is where I manipulate people to go even more alt-media. You got me. You guys really like to make everything personal, don't you?!

People use different medias for different reasons. You have a perception of what any media's job should be. And, for all I know, you're probably right about that! I'm not denying that. What I am saying, though, is my perception of what the alt-media is doing and why it's working. What their job actually is, what they actually get paid to do, could be very different from your idea of 'what their job should be'. You have a bias towards truth, as you openly admit in your videos. The thing is - most people don't. This is why you think that any media's job should be to be objective and unbiased. Here is my metaphysical question for you - What is 'objective truth'? Is it an absence of bias? Or is it an integration of bias? Because the reality of all worldviews is that they will be biased towards the survival-agenda of the individual holding that worldview. Practically, in my opinion, bias will always exist. What is our best practical chance to get to objective truth, in your opinion?

@Consept I'm not debating whether vaccination was a good idea or not. I'm debating the claim that 'vaccines are safe and effective'. This is the counter-example to the claim. And seatbelts aren't supposed to be a magic pill. Vaccines are. So, there's that. And, they didn't save the lives of those who died. And that's a bigger number than the unjabbed deaths.

No, it's a reductionistic extrapolation of the numbers, assuming that the vaxes do work and are safe and effective. There is no way to know what would've happened if those 90% were not vaccinated!! The real numbers say that the jabbed died in greater numbers than the unjabbed.

The job of the vaccines was to save lives. And they aren't doing that, if the actual number of vaccinated COVID-deaths is greater than the actual number of unvaccinated COVID-deaths. What you're saying is just a talking-point for vaccine-companies. They'll measure whatever number makes them look good. The objective truth is an amalgamation/integration of a lot of biased perspectives. The alt-media highlights the biases of the mainstream-media, which is something the mainstream-media does not do. First of all. Then, it gives its own perspective, it's own data. And finally, it has an explanation for why it's being censored. This is how it integrates everything that's going on and adds to it. Is it biased?! Yes. But, it does take us closer to the objective truth.

@Consept Alt-media aren't 'fact-checkers'. They're not on a crusade to prove themselves to be 'absolutely true'. I'm not saying we can trust alt-media. Their job doesn't require them to be trustworthy!! They just have to disprove what the mainstream-media is saying so that the collective gets closer to the truth.

And, about the fact-checkers - I don't think I need to give you a link of the hordes of 'fact-checkers' claiming that 'vaccines are safe and effective'. Maybe they're safe, but they sure as hell aren't effective, if the majority of COVID-deaths are of the vaccinated!!

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/us-vaccinated-people-now-make-majority-of-covid-deaths-united-states-coronavirus-cases-2022-11-24-826210 Here's another one. 'Vaccinated deaths make the majority of COVID deaths'. And, here's Joe Biden calling this a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'. In 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/

@Consept My point is that this idea that governments are going to come together and form a world-government with values of 'sustainability' - this idea itself was said to be 'false'. And now, it's happening. The fact-checkers claimed a whole bunch of stuff. I only need one counter-example to show you a reason you should doubt what they're saying.

@Consept I mean, sure, you can mince words and stuff. But, ultimately, the sustainability-talk is to restrict people's access to resources like power, fuel, space, etc.

The job of the alt-media is to say what the mainstream-media isn't saying. It's not to 'be unbiased' and 'give all the facts'. These expectations only get placed on the mouthpieces of the governments. Why isn't the US-media interviewing people whose lives have been destroyed by lockdowns? Why was there so much repression of the Canadian truckers?! Why do people have to go outside the Parliament and honk their horns so that people have to listen?! And then they get crushed violently. In a true democracy, the media represents the people and holds the government accountable. Not the other way around.

Sure! The New World Order was called a 'conspiracy-theory' and fact-checkers claimed that it's false. This was 'about 2 years ago', as the site says. https://thelogicalindian.com/fact-check/new-world-order-one-government-agenda-21-2030-un-22501 But then, we have a world government forming right now!! This happened in 2022. https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/home

@Leo Gura The 'fact-checkers' are on a huge crusade to prove their 'absolute truth' to people. 'We have the facts, that somehow just fit with our agenda, all the claims that don't fit with them just happen to be false'.

A lot of alt-sources aren't political. (Some are, and I agree with you on the toxicity of those sources) That's a huge appeal for a lot of common people. They may not be able to articulate it in an intellectually honest way. Whatever the agenda of the alt-media may be, the reason people listen is that the bigger alt-media have data to back their claims. Some have credentials, but are censored by the mainstream cuz it didn't fit the mainstream's agenda. The 'fact-checkers' will, of course, deny this data. But, who pays them?! The mainstream!

Maybe you should also have integrity in how you implement those guidelines and rules, right?! Or you're going to practically interpret them in the language of whoever pays you off and you're going to censor all dissent?! It's interesting how these abuses of censorship always seem to have a PC justification. And then you have people telling you why there is censorship. Thank you for telling me what I already knew. My question is - why is it being abused?!

This, I don't know. My point with the 'smarter people' is that they'll be more intellectually honest with their reasons for consuming it. *The alt-media talks about what the mainstream omitted.

They don't have to answer for lying by omission, though. The alt-media talks about what they omitted. Correction - if you ask the smarter people consuming alt-media, they'll say 'It is biased, but it tells me what I need to watch out for from the mainstream'. They are a mouthpiece for Biden's government.

The mainstream caters to people who want to be told what to believe, whereas the alt-media caters to people who have an open mind to thinking about things differently. And in a way that's potentially more beneficial to themselves.

Yeah, which is why when they fail to be unbiased, they don't have to answer for that. That's what I meant. But, if the mainstream claims to be 'unbiased', they should have to answer for that! And they should openly admit to their failures to do their job of 'being unbiased'. If you ask people who consume alt-media whether alt-media is purely unbiased, they probably won't say 'yes'. But, if you ask people who consume mainstream-media whether it's purely unbiased or whether it's 'objective' enough for them, they probably will say 'yes'. These two media-niches meet different needs for different kinds of people. They can definitely be partisan and for their favorite political parties. And, if you're dipping your finger in the pie of politics, that is essentially what you're doing. You're being the mouthpiece of that party.

Now, why does the government care about an image of 'objectivity'?! Because if entity A is more 'objective' than them, then entity A gets more public support than them. And, government is all about public support and power. That's what politics is about. So, they have to maintain this image. Same applies to licensed news-sources. But, the alt-media is purely grassroots. And, the government 'objective' systems are going to have a problem with this. So, they'll censor them.