NewKidOnTheBlock

So using graphically enhanced pictures of food is lying? Then literaly most of marketing is lying. Since I'm guessing that this is your stance anyway lol, then I guess yeah, we can label it as lying

Okay, but like... it’s not the same as selling cigarettes, alcohol, and stuff like that, it’s food. It’s not going to harm you that much if you keep things under control. You can tell the difference, right? Also, it’s not that easy to make healthy food quickly on a mass industrial scale, and even if it were, maybe not enough people would buy it to sustain the business. The food might not be tasty enough, and not enough people are truly health-conscious to reap the benefits, etc. So fast food chains fill that niche, for now at least. Right? Care to engage with any substance? Lmao, if it were disgusting, logically people wouldn’t be eating it. And yeah, those two items are the healthiest options at McDonald’s, and they’re fine to eat as long as they’re not the only things you eat LOL

You can be aware that this food is not the pinnacle of health and still run a business selling it. Also, if it were gross, people wouldn’t eat it. Just like you said about sugar, it’s all about the quantities you eat, not just the quality. And McDonald’s, for example, isn’t all that bad if you mostly stick to salads and breakfast menus

Seems like it is a completely different thing altogether, neutral to the concept of truth. For example, what does running a fast food chain have to do with valuing or not valuing truth? You’d simply be focused on providing a particular value in the form of fast food. Nobody is pretending it’s super healthy, so no lies are being spread. It says nothing about your integrity or your understanding of reality.

If you used Google, I'm sure you'd find many news options with bias-check metrics, even if AI-powered

Maybe we are all just a bunch of bored aristocrats from the year 2150 and these are the lives we chose to live out in the simulation lol

Lucid dream tripping😂 you do seem like the type that could pioneer that

I feel the same as you often. It can make you feel like you're losing your sanity, the more opinions you are exposed to, and counter counter arguments to counter arguments, the more things feel unstable, I can definitely relate if that's of any help lol

Let me guess, you are one of the two categories and therefore not exempt from bias?

I suspect that the "feminine" way (whatever that's really meant to mean in this context) would probably be a way of eternal stagnation and zero risk taking. Probably slow extinction as well, as a consequence. I see zero legit evidence that could point to the opposite

You said observe nature, so I'm simply making an observation lmao And yes, we are actually omnivores so we are partly like those creatures, as evidenced by the way our teeth and digestive system evolved. Gotta keep coping tho I guess lol

Nature is also about carnivorous predators eating their prey, unless you wanna make the case that tigers and bears aren't part of nature lmao

@LordFallThis definitely made me rethink some of my stances. The rest of the videos were an interesting watch too. Makes me wonder how humanity governing itself would fit into this picture, maybe it goes decentralized, maybe even anarcho‑capitalism, which most people treat like the flat earth of political theory. But honestly, most of our problems seem to come down to scarcity. If those scarcities get eliminated, you could imagine crime basically disappearing, no need for a state or for governing ourselves, etc. And if there would be a need for some sort of judicial system, prison system for example, it might be fulfilled by a couple of affordable companies that could do the job

53 kilograms is my Auschwitz weight

The first one is interesting and I can now see your vision and why you’re so optimistic. The rest of them are kind of no-brainers, but the first one would really set us up for a utopic future if it'd indeed come to fruition, basically an extreme version of the trickle-down effect promised so many times by capitalism, but this time actually carried out by AI run companies in the most ultimate and final way possible, since that would be the most logical conclusion of game theory. At the same time, a proof-of-personhood decentralized blockchain system would serve to differentiate human identities from bots, while still keeping our identities relatively anonymous. You could say this puts us at the complete mercy of AI whims, but since that kind of future is probably unavoidable anyway, that critique is void. So yeah, I can see it as a possibility

Dagestan seems pretty progressive to me, we all saw those bathtub pics

I would like to identify as a boomer

All responses I'm seeing here are just a bunch of copes. Would take too long to disect. However, I would say that if doomerism completely rejects any prospects of self improvement then I'm not a doomer. But I'd say that if one identifies as a realist you'd see things in a more negative light as a consequence, you can then choose to ignore it and establish positive bias but reality is going to slap you every once in a while to remind you, very rarely with positivity

Only priviliged people in here are encoraging anti doomerism stance. And a real G knows who and why. If you know, you know

Show me a retard and you've most likely shown me a rose-coloured glassed normie lmao

I roughly know which ones you are alluding to, I find them strange and not very interesting or entertaining to me, since they feel like an attempt at societal satire by a permanently online autist, yet I can acknowledge that they do contain some elements of truth despite their oversimplified ridiculousness and reliance on these made up internet archetypes

I wonder what one could love about it, perhaps a certain sense of comfort in the inevitability, perhaps the smug sense of intelectual superiority (however delulu it might be), either way it's not necesarilly correct to look at things throught the lenses of doomerism, it's not even about the assesment that if one were to look at how life - and society at large - function unbiasedly (which is impossible) that you'd come to the doomerish conclusions (because it's impossible to be unbiased); rather, doomerish conclusions are simply the logical culmination of examination of your life experiences - and life experiences of other people - so far, with a bias, yes, but nevertheless the conclusions are very likely to be true

Essentially me, but I don't love it lmfao

Not just ears, but entire countries apparently

How do you know that, you think that for example people writing the Bible had a mystical experience, I highly doubt that, each interpretation of the Bible reflected the bias of that historical era, maybe Jesus was a tripper but the rest were just on some BS