Jimmy Dore at PBD Podcast

[Epikur]

He made actually a better job than Packman and Kulinsky. Though I saw 30 per cent yet.

[Tanz]

Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand are the most fairest voices out there. They call bs on both sides while Kyle and especially Dave still want to believe the democratic party is salvagable.

[Ulax]

@Tanz Imo, studying the works and lectures of political scientists will make one magnitudes more informed than these kind of guys.

[Epikur]

 

[Epikur]

3 hours ago, Tanz said:

Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand are the most fairest voices out there. They call bs on both sides while Kyle and especially Dave still want to believe the democratic party is salvagable.

They call out 0-5 per cent of the right. Does not sound so balanced.

[Matt23]

1 hour ago, Epikur said:

They call out 0-5 per cent of the right. Does not sound so balanced.

Balance doesn't necessarily mean equal amounts.  

I think words like "fair" or "just" are better words in politics as opposed to "balanced" or "equal" since the latter two tend to imply a sense of things being of the same amount, which usually doesn't allow for actual, legit critiques to be made and thus choose wisely which side/arguments are better and worse.  Thus succumbing to an egalitarianism that demolishes any ability to create hierarchies of better-worse, thus not allowing one to make those better-worse decisions.  

I'm not saying you're wrong or w/e, I don't follow politics much and didn't watch the video, but what I'm making a point on isn't a political one but rather a philosophic, epistemic, or logical point in how we think about things.  A "meta-point" if you will.

Something to consider.

[Tanz]

10 hours ago, Ulax said:

@Tanz Imo, studying the works and lectures of political scientists will make one magnitudes more informed than these kind of guys.

Such as?

[Epikur]

8 hours ago, Matt23 said:

Balance doesn't necessarily mean equal amounts.  

I think words like "fair" or "just" are better words in politics as opposed to "balanced" or "equal" since the latter two tend to imply a sense of things being of the same amount, which usually doesn't allow for actual, legit critiques to be made and thus choose wisely which side/arguments are better and worse.  Thus succumbing to an egalitarianism that demolishes any ability to create hierarchies of better-worse, thus not allowing one to make those better-worse decisions.  

I'm not saying you're wrong or w/e, I don't follow politics much and didn't watch the video, but what I'm making a point on isn't a political one but rather a philosophic, epistemic, or logical point in how we think about things.  A "meta-point" if you will.

Something to consider.

I am ok with the words 'just' and 'fair' but it does not work with B

 

8 hours ago, Matt23 said:

Balance doesn't necessarily mean equal amounts.  

I think words like "fair" or "just" are better words in politics as opposed to "balanced" or "equal" since the latter two tend to imply a sense of things being of the same amount, which usually doesn't allow for actual, legit critiques to be made and thus choose wisely which side/arguments are better and worse.  Thus succumbing to an egalitarianism that demolishes any ability to create hierarchies of better-worse, thus not allowing one to make those better-worse decisions.  

I'm not saying you're wrong or w/e, I don't follow politics much and didn't watch the video, but what I'm making a point on isn't a political one but rather a philosophic, epistemic, or logical point in how we think about things.  A "meta-point" if you will.

Something to consider.

Balanced does not mean you can not create hierarchies. Balanced does not imply 'equal'.

[aurum]

16 hours ago, Tanz said:

Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand are the most fairest voices out there. They call bs on both sides while Kyle and especially Dave still want to believe the democratic party is salvagable.

Brand is entertaining and has some decent takes. But he is badly stuck in stage Green populism. Which has dragged him down the route of anti-government / anti-vaxx / anti-elite nonsense. He is essentially a conspiracy theorist at this point.

[Ulax]

@Tanz Ian Shapiro is one. He has two yale courses on youtube

[Tanz]

@Ulax thanks I'll check him out

[Tanz]

@aurum brand is not anti vax he's pro choice and freedom. His stance on legalizing drug and offering treatment makes his stance on giving people a choice to vaccine consistant with his idiology. 

He's always been suspicious with power even 10 or 15 yrs ago if you watch his interviews

Edited February 23, 2023 by Tanz

[aurum]

57 minutes ago, Tanz said:

brand is not anti vax he's pro choice and freedom

People are always pro choice and freedom when they have to do something they don’t want to do.

57 minutes ago, Tanz said:

His stance on legalizing drug and offering treatment makes his stance on giving people a choice to vaccine consistant with his idiology

It is internally consistent. But internal consistency doesn’t mean you aren’t making errors.

At the end of the day, did Brand get the vaccine or not? My assumption is he did not. And that’s because he is subscribed to and proliferating a bunch of anti-vaxx memes. Fundamentally he does not believe in the covid vaccine efficacy. 

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

He's always been suspicious with power even 10 or 15 yrs ago if you watch his interviews

Again, consistency doesn’t mean you aren’t making errors. It just means you are consistently making errors.

That he has been suspicious of power for so long shows where his bias lies. As much as he talks about “the system”, he actually deeply lacks Tier 2 systems thinking.

People in power can be corrupt. But in systems thinking, you cannot just be suspicious of people in power. You must view situations as a whole with complex feedback loops.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

He's always been suspicious with power even 10 or 15 yrs ago if you watch his interviews

Russell Brand is one of the most fairest voice out there.

He is not being "suspicious", he is using selective scepticism and selective critical thinking. He is not being "fair" , he is giving a bunch of conspiracy talking points and he is giving a lot of anti-government takes without any sign that he could actually steelman and defend any pro-government talking points.

Edited February 23, 2023 by zurew

[Tanz]

6 hours ago, aurum said:

It is internally consistent. But internal consistency doesn’t mean you aren’t making errors.

At the end of the day, did Brand get the vaccine or not? My assumption is he did not. And that’s because he is subscribed to and proliferating a bunch of anti-vaxx memes. Fundamentally he does not believe in the covid vaccine efficacy. 

Bill Gates recently admitted the vaccine was a failure against the new strands.  

You don't have to agree with everything Brand says and thinks.  You will never meet a person with the same values as you.  My point is Brand is not a grifter.  The way he thinks and does is consistent.  People like AOC who create New York policies and break them by partying in Florida aren't consistent.  Even though you don't like Brand's stance on vaccines, most likely, you would get along with him better than any democratic politician because he probably has more values that are similar to yours and than anyone in this forum. 

Because of online culture and optics, people easily judge each other based on ideology, but in reality, if you spend physical time with most people, you would find out that you probably like them.  

Plenty of hippies out there do not believe in taking any medicine, including tried and tested through time vaccines, so their default is not even to take a new vaccine.  I also know Buddhists that do not take any medication because of the way drugs are made at tested on animals.  

One person's singular view does not encompass the entirety of that person.  We should not continue to live this way society will never move forward and work towards higher shared interest.  

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Tanz

[Tanz]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

He is not being "suspicious", he is using selective scepticism and selective critical thinking. He is not being "fair" , he is giving a bunch of conspiracy talking points and he is giving a lot of anti-government takes without any sign that he could actually steelman and defend any pro-government talking points

They have fabricated a war in Iraq and it cost so many people's lives including the soldiers that defend the United States.  While Americans are suffering the government that is meant to serve them spends 100 billion dollars in a foreign country.  Politicians around the world have done enough for people to be suspicious even if those suspicions are not true.    

Just like you have every right to be suspicious of Russell Brand, he has the right to be suspicious of people in power.  We are living in a world where it is harder to know what is true and what people's intentions are and it cost too much money and time to find truth from direct experience.  

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

My point is Brand is not a grifter.  The way he thinks and does is consistent.

 

You're not understanding my perspective. I don't think Brand is a grifter.

I believe Brand sincerely believes the things he is saying. I am not suggesting some conspiracy narrative where Brand actually doesn't believe the things he is saying, but is just faking it for the cameras to make money.

It's not that simple.

Brand is sincere. Sincerely caught up in ignorance and stage Green ideology.

This is the whole problem. Ignorance and the limitations of getting stuck in a narrow perspective.

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

Even though you don't like Brand's stance on vaccines, most likely, you would get along with him better than any democratic politician because he probably has more values that are similar to yours and than anyone in this forum. 

Because of online culture and optics, people easily judge each other based on ideology, but in reality, if you spend physical time with most people, you would find out that you probably like them.  

Why are you assuming I don't think I would like Brand?

This is not a critique of his "like-ability". He is very charismatic, funny and even wise at times. I have a lot of respect for the growth he has made over the years.

I'm simply saying that on some issues, like vaccines, he gets stuck in his Green ideology. And then he spreads that same way of thinking to his followers.

The situation is more tragic and commands compassion than anything else. Ignorance and unconsciousness are the deepest of traps. I have fallen into them many times and will likely continue to do so.

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

Plenty of hippies out there do not believe in taking any medicine, including tried and tested through time vaccines, so their default is not even to take a new vaccine.  I also know Buddhists that do not take any medication because of the way drugs are made at tested on animals.  

I not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here.

Are you saying because lots of hippies and Buddhists aren't taking the vaccine that Brand is justified in doing the same?

In that case, I would also argue those hippies are misguided. They've created a bias against "unnatural" and allopathic medicine. And they are also getting stuck in their narrow perspective, just like Brand.

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

One person's singular view does not encompass the entirety of that person. 

Obviously.

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

If you continue to live this way society will never move forward and work towards higher shared interest.  

I'll take my chances.

Edited February 24, 2023 by aurum

[Tanz]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

In that case, I would also argue those hippies are misguided. They've created a bias against "unnatural" and allopathic medicine. And they are also getting stuck in their narrow perspective, just like Brand.

"Misguided" is assuming that you are absolutely correct?  We live in a society where evolution has created variety, and the fact that people see things differently than others shows that evolution has done a good job of not making us the same. The way people think leads them to make different decisions in life, and perhaps 200 or 300 years from now, the offspring of those people may do something great for humanity. 

Hitler gifted America with Albert Einstein, and another great scientist made America the #1 country because he was freaking nuts.  
There is a higher order to the universe, and when things seem "wrong" "off" or "misguided" there's actually a thread of higher order and intelligence that is actually guiding those things.  

Taking this in mind, I believe we should allow people to be themselves and not inject their views onto others.  
People like Wim Hoff never took the vaccine, and because he has lived the way he has lived, he's been able to inspire people all over the world.  You do gain something when you do not rely on anything but yourself.  Should people overnight just suddenly stop taking medicine and vaccines? Or course not; most of them would not be healthy and evolved enough to do such a thing, and people would be dropping like flies if they decided not to rely on medicine.  

Russell never told anyone not to take the vaccine; he's been leaning more toward giving people a choice.  

I am in the health profession, and I tell people that most people need to take the vaccine, but since the start, I never agreed with making people take it because the long-term price of not allowing people to live their lives is greater.  I also feel that people that spend a lot of time on their health have earned the right not to take the covid vaccine because they would fight off covid if they were to get it without the vaccine in fact, a lot of my long-term clients that did were not severely ill at all.    

 

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

"Misguided" is assuming that you are absolutely correct?  We live in a society where evolution has created variety, and the fact that people see things differently than others shows that evolution has done a good job of not making us the same. The way people think leads them to make different decisions in life, and perhaps 200 or 300 years from now, the offspring of those people may do something great for humanity. 

Hitler gifted America with Albert Einstein, and another great scientist made America the #1 country because he was freaking nuts.  
There is a higher order to the universe, and when things seem "wrong" "off" or "misguided" there's actually a thread of higher order and intelligence that is actually guiding those things.  

Spiritual bypassing.

That there is a higher order intelligence to all things does not mean that anti-vaxx hippies cannot pragmatically be called "misguided".

They are misguided in the sense that they have let their bias against the establishment blind them to what happened with Covid. Whether or not it works out in 300 years is irrelevant to this point.

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

Taking this in mind, I believe we should allow people to be themselves and not inject their views onto others.  

And what if my view is that people should be forced to get the vaccine?

If you say "no you can't use force, that's not allowed", why can't I? Who are you to tell me I can't use force? Why are you forcing me to give up force? What if I don't see it as force, what if I just see it as being a good citizen?

Your laissez faire philosophy will eventually eat itself.

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

Russell never told anyone not to take the vaccine; he's been leaning more toward giving people a choice.  

No of course not. He just spread a bunch of nonsense conspiracy about the vaccine, fear mongered about it, and in the process likely stopped thousands of his followers from actually taking it.

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

I never agreed with making people take it because the long-term price of not allowing people to live their lives is greater

For the record, NO ONE ever forced any one to take the vaccine. Not even the government.

What did happen was consequences were put into place. If you didn't want to take the vaccine, fine. But you're not gonna have your government job. You're not gonna travel. You're not gonna get to go to restaurants. People will likely even shame you for it.

This is the way society has ALWAYS worked! 

If you don't want to pay your taxes, fine. But you're going to prison for it.

Don't want to get a pair glasses so you can see while driving? Fine. But you're not gonna get a legal license.

Don't want to go to war when Russia invades your country? Fine. But then see what happens when Russia is now in charge.

"Medical freedom" is not something you've absolutely ever really have had. It only exists to a degree.

The reality is that centralized authorities make certain rules for the WELL-BEING of the society as a whole. And even though there can be corruption, the majority of the time, these decisions are actually very reasonable and necessary.

This is exactly what happened with the vaccines. Vaccines were determined by public health officials to be one of the best courses of action OUR GLOBAL COMMUNITY had to prevent Covid from possibly getting much worse. And they were correct. The risk for the vaccine has proven to be incredibly low, while its efficacy for helping people to be high.

The irony of the stage Green response to COVID is that stage Green loves to talk about the importance of community. Yet when it came time for vaccines, many of them were not willing to endure a slight risk to improve the safety of those around them and themselves. Simply because they were blinded by ideology. Just like Brand was, and continues to be.

[Tanz]

@aurum @aurum

1 hour ago, aurum said:

And what if my view is that people should be forced to get the vaccine?

If you say "no you can't use force, that's not allowed", why can't I? Who are you to tell me I can't use force? Why are you forcing me to give up force? What if I don't see it as force, what if I just see it as being a good citizen?

1 hour ago, aurum said:

And what if my view is that people should be forced to get the vaccine?

If you say "no you can't use force, that's not allowed", why can't I? Who are you to tell me I can't use force? Why are you forcing me to give up force? What if I don't see it as force, what if I just see it as being a good citizen?

4 hours ago, aurum said:

In that case, I would also argue those hippies are misguided. They've created a bias against "unnatural" and allopathic medicine. And they are also getting stuck in their narrow perspective, just like Brand.

Come on man, you are being hysterical now.  It's not about if the government forced people to do anything or not that is the main issue. The issue is people allowed such petty ideas to get them to hate each other so much.  I suppose if you somehow over powered me to take the vaccine that would make you worst than the virus you think is trying to kill me.  

It's very clear the covid vaccine is light years a failure compared to polio, or tuberculosis vaccines which completely sterilizes the person taking it.  The minute it did not sterilize is when they should give people a choice without shaming them or firing them.  I actually live in a place where 95% of the population got vaccinated and the number of infections after the vaccine actually went up. The way I look at it is if someone does not want to get it, they are free to not get it and risk their lives.    

And for your information, I did get it and yet I still believe not everyone has to take it.  If it did sterilize the host, then I would think very differently.  

On the topic of Russia. So far they show no sign of wanting to invade the rest of Europe. For now I rather not have the American government fund them anymore and actually take care of their own people.  It is a pretty reasonable idea.  Your logic with Putin is based on speculation. Are you watching too much Rachel Maddow or something?