Youtube comments of Kristopher Driver (@paxdriver).
-
258
-
215
-
66
-
61
-
56
-
46
-
41
-
40
-
37
-
37
-
34
-
31
-
14:16 allow me to clarify before I even finish listening - I'm a guy who loves cuisine, loves exercise to cope with ADHD and insomnia. I was born diabetic and suffered several hospitalizations and crippling side effects of undiagnosed diabetes until finally at 27 I started getting insulin. My savings, my businesses, the career changes, my social life, everything suffered from the crippling conditions of diabetes and autoimmune disorders my free healthcare failed to diagnose and treat my whole life.
Scott's comments are not offensive even to diabetics who have endured tremendous suffering. Don't be wanker. Just because a photon lands here and not there doesn't mean God's trying to snipe you from another dimension. It's just part of a world that exists because of the forces of entropy as a function of time.
When a policy is enacted to exploit a population, that's victimhood, like capital gains income annual social security contributions (cpp/ei/qpip here in Canada), that creates victims. Being diabetic or not diabetic is not offensive just like short tall black white young or female or gay are not offensive.
In life if you can't find a laugh then you're definitely missing something, no matter how much or little you're suffering there's no justification to be offended by stating a fact like "type II diabetes is genetic and preventable", "type I diabetes is genetic", or "borderline type I can be delayed but can also cause colitis, psoriasis, optic neuritis, fibromyalgia, arthritis and mental illness if unchecked, so keep an eye on things"
If you can't afford a vacation and marginal cost of larger orders is greater in higher quantities then I'm gonna eat more for more enjoyment. All humans think like that, it's not just fat people even skinny men like me love food for the same reason. We are evolved to seek sugar and variety, of course à surge in wealth worldwide and synergy of population growth this century would induce pathological nutrition issues in a portion of the species.
That's not shaming its compassion!
29
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
22
-
20
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
You've missed out on a crucial detail, I'm afraid: with excess energy and short supply of production goods, we're encouraging Russia to build itself into the most self sustained economic powerhouse the world has ever seen.
Highest costs to building factories to produce the screws (and moulds, and trinkets or whatever other generic parts get used as standards in production factories) which would normally have been imported are: land for factories (abundant in Russia) , ores for construction/production materials (abundant), mined with energy and metal machines (abundant), plastics for knobs, moulds and fasteners etc (from oil), and cement (energy/mining so abundant), and the pharmaceuticals, pesticides, fertilizers for feeding construction workers (oil), and high tech mfg from rare earth's, electricity, robotics and China is next door with stale factories for those.
You see the problem we're creating for ourselves here?
Once the painful process of building a factory for every little modular tool and bit is finished being built in Russia with its excess resources not being sold to the West, and with the motivation forced by sanctions, Russia will be the most independently powerful nation in the world by having a local economy slightly less capable than a global one, but fully immune to foreign exploitation or influence by it. Globalized economies are subject to differing interests and shifting policies of parties and neighbours and treaties, but a despotic Russia's localized economy would be agile with expenses not leaving the country in bad years but recirculating from the good years of its own adjacent industries.
From a long term perspective (the sort we in the west fail horribly at factoring in), we're helping write Putin's legend and we'll be proving the benefits of strengths of the opposing regime in the long run as compared to diplomatic democracies. This is not at all helping us achieve our goals, it is only pushing our enemies to leave us lagging behind them stunted by our shortages while they become strengthened by theirs.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
It's amazing how rare we hear context in the regular news. I wish tv and radio had more of this. My news station is in too much of a rush to show video of a cat saved from a fire, and asking residents if they ever imagined their houses would burn down unexpectedly... Our news tells us nothing of statistical analysis during years of covid hourly updates and poorly represented data - again, without ever shedding any context on how to read or interpret the studies / charts.
It's no wonder everyone is so dumb they elect Boris or Trump, right down from state to county to city government wins by appealing to idiots because our news and universities are so bad at informing the public to a basic adult standard if competency and literacy. Of course we'll have wars, and recessions, and deficits, shootings, income disparity, radical identity noise, and corruption.
Of course that's the result of an uneducated democracy, what else would it possibly look like to have a majority stupid population in the information age???
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, the host.
By contrast, Connor knows what he's talking about, but his bias is entirely skewed to the unlikely worst case imaginable and suggests that since he's wealthy and comfortable and doesn't need AI to substantially improve the education of his kids or his own prosperity / productivity, that we should be scared enough to all stay suffering to ensure his protection from algebraic lambda functions.
I don't think either men realize how little sense they are making when real people are at stake, not just their own comfortable lives being threatened by people who fear destitution and opportunity more than they fear poor people competing economically with their luxurious selves.
Not differentiating real from fake would benefit everyone. We'd be forced to all apply critical thinking by default instead of trusting talking heads. It would force people to be informed by logic, cross referencing, consensus, and by reading well vetted authors. It wouldn't force everyone to never believe anything ever again as this whole panel suggests, it's far more likely to do the opposite when common knowledge is to be suspicious and critical of everything. That's healthy, that's not "thinking based on feelings" it's thinking based on thinking - which we're not doing.
The singularity is not a thing unless you're taking about either end of the universe. Computers are not doing "2 years of thinking per day", they don't think they associate tokens in matrices. Humans have agency by way of the senses coalescing, and we're fragile because we die when some of those senses stop working by consequence. If a machine developed agency but couldn't die from impaired senses then it wouldn't really be conscious or self aware without ever having any appreciation for its own death.
Connor Leahy knows how these systems work, he knows the code and the math right down to the assembly, probably. His fear is that 0.000001% chance of catastrophe isn't worth the risk to his great life, so everyone else should just suck it up and stop being so loose with our models. Poor people could leverage those models and lift the world to a new minimum standard but that tiny % risk isn't worth it to him and 10% of the rest of the world if it means not only AI threatens his comfortable life, but lifting the poor to compete for his wealth is the even greater threat.
Don't get me wrong, I lime the guy, he's not evil, he's not crazy, he's a father. He's a guy who sincerely wants good in the world but clearly doesn't even recognize how little sense he makes when he speaks about the risks. He's been on mlst a tonne of times and I listen to every episode because there's a lot to learn from him, lots of insight and perspective, and most importantly he sets a great example for discourse with differing views; it seems pretty clear over the years his strongest argument is a preference to preserve the status quo, and not many people on earth would think that's an acceptable reason to keep them trapped in exploited labour their entire lives.
A lot of people suffer and can't defend themselves for lack of education or tutoring, adequate language skill or stimulating dialog by virtue of the world they inherited through no fault of their own. It's not our fault either, except it is if there's a tool that would certainly help a healthy percentage of that population and compounding over time. If we withhold access to AI then it is our fault because suddenly we decided for them it wasn't worth the risk. They ought to just sacrifice themselves for the West (the least in need and most capable of defending themselves again an Ai-mageddon.
Indeed far more people are not well off than who are, so to suggested his fear of protecting his civilized life merits closing that door to the many millions of times more people who would at least have the option to work hard to catch up with him is patently selfish and logically asinine for a man of his dignified belief systems - unless he's just a man blinded by love. That would be completely understandable but not in the least bit justified.
TLDR, this whole conversation is a red herring to distract from license agreements, patent farming, privacy, rentseeking enterprise, and corruption of politics. This is the Houdini act, misdirection and pearl-clutching, while the bank robbers keep an unbroken congo-line strong carrying the future's wealth out the door in broad daylight.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
For context, working at Safeway used to be union, and the lifers could save up for and buy houses and drive used cars on that salary. Even the poorest shopped for groceries at Safeway if it was closest or saved them bus fare.
If prices were high but the neighbourhood grocery lifer was also watching the kids play, babysitting, and just being a good neighbour because she wasn't afraid of being attacked outside her home, that's a benefit. It's fewer defaults, fewer senior citizen poverty thanks to the pension plan, and motivated workers who got to know their neighbours at work over decades of consistency.
We've lost a lot to be asked to accept food prices to rise in lock step with everything else considering tax subsidize them too, we've already given up a lot, and we're more pinched than ever somehow while they are the highest paid rent-seekers this country has, as far as executives and businessmen/leaders they presume to be to be worth their weight in salt...
Just think cost benefit compared to 20 years ago - it doesn't even compare relative to the average budget for groceries these days.
That's why I'm launching an app soon, because I have grocery prices in Canada over time, and I've built a platform to help people save money on their groceries in Canada.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
40:59 what Israel should have done:
Humility and accountability. "we'll put Netanyahu on trial with your judge, you put Hamas on trial with our judge. Drop the blockade, give equal rights to all people of the region, and both parties collaborate in taking down terrorist from both sides without civilian casualties. None except one-off incidentals like a stray bullet or ricochet, not bombing an apartment to get a militant, you stalk the militant and snipe them. You acknowledge injustice and establish universal accountability and both sides work together to prosecute those who commit atrocities. In the meantime civilians live their lives with equal rights."
It's that simple, it would be ugly but not nearly as ugly as slaughtering 30,000 people thusly inspiring a new generation of terrorists.
This isn't about anything other than the facts, and the facts are universal accountability and universal justice is the answer. You have to submit your war criminals, we'll submit ours, and in the meantime everyone else is equal in society. Gaza was never equal. They had no ability to trade, to expand, to leave without checkpoints, to earn, to learn, to receive and contribute to the national prosperity.
Everyone needs to be equally responsible for the harms they commit. And it's done in one generation with a fraction of the casualties.
There simply is no justification for civilian casualties I think Gaza, or Israel, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other country. All you have to do is treat people equally, prosecute equally, and that's it. Hamas would have no support without oppression. Why would I become a suicide bomber except by my family and friends being murdered for nothing without consequence. If I have a life to live and when murderers kill they are jailed, then eventually next generation it's over. A few thousand radicals kill a dozen each over 20 years in the process, but that's nothing compared tk killing 30,000 in 6 months and worsening the issue without end.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
R Ski I appreciate your passion but your knowledge of Venezuela is only partial. America is a huge reason for their struggles, not their political model. Also, the continent is very different, so their trade opportunities and infrastructure were also underdeveloped for decades, and their neighbors were plagued by militia insurgents and civil unrest. It's not even closely related to America in that regard, and they didn't have the industrial history to build a foundation on like America did.
Secondly, socialism is cheaper. Don't try to get me to shed a tear for a 44% tax on people who can own several homes they leave vacant most of the year. If you want a stable society and economy you can't have homeless or project dwellers segregated to protect the rich people. You need to lift the standard of living for all people to encourage security or they will take, or vote to take, from the wealthy and it'll be a lot more painful than a tax. It's just not feasible to allow people to bleed out while a certain few acquire wealth without being productive contributors to the society they want to enjoy. It's not complicated, it's humanity. $1,000 goes a lot farther for a poor family than someone who earns that and more in a day at the beach while an algorithm trades pennies to earn them their leisurely life. It's just absurd. You've clearly never seen abject poverty if you want to protect the income of non-working folk in the 44% tax bracket. They don't produce any tangible goods, and the ones that do are that wealthy because of trade agreements and tax havens that undermine the earning potential and opportunity for the working class.
Open your eyes, socialism is already an gladly accepted American ideal. Socialism isn't communism. The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and tens of billions protecting the wealth of the privileged, but spends minute percentages offering low income families unhealthy meals like KD at the food banks or with food stamps.
2
-
2
-
***** TPP would make corporations more powerful, first of all. Secondly, Bernie doesn't mention it because the people's court will do it. He's wanting voters to vote on issues, like real democracy. Thirdly, there's a difference between wishful thinking and outright lying, which conservatives notoriously do (ie: trump, ted cruz, carson, fiorina, christie and rubio) about each other. Lastly, who said niceties make a candidate unwinnable? That's just what conservatives say and do. It's not necessary if you have an educated population. If America is so great then the least you could expect from its people is that they are educated. Pandering to childishness is a really sad course of action for such a "powerful" and "advanced" society. Nothing you said makes sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1:44:56 don't forget Jeff sessions, and bill Barr, and mark meadows's intern who testified, and FBI chair Jim Comey? ... The list of people Trump extorted with his positions if authority range from sexual assault (which à judge agreed with, btw, not slander), all the way to fraud and abetting insurrection. The perfect call quid pro quo, the Georgia call, the private Putin meetings and Kim Jun ung love letters? The bathroom to secret files, the tax fraud, the non-payment to contractors, lawyers and fixes - which part of this wouldn't worry a competent and informed voter? You'll sacrifice your life to defend the national core values of democracy and commerce, but extortion by the commander in chief doesn't even phase you, Ben? That kind if incoherence is way beneath him but he's doubling down on an embarrassing narrative he knows full well is bs. He's either ignorant, dumb or corrupted. There isn't a subjective way to read the facts in this case, it's not at all nebulous.
2
-
When a person steps on your toe you try to keep calm, but when a drunk driver hits your dog you scream curses an nobody wonders why. For some reason, though, you seem to act like Donald Trump is just a subjective preference despite mountains of evidence too ridiculous in volume and scope to have even made credible Hollywood sensationalism.
You absolutely need to look into things when you research, at least 5 minutes. Please, if you're going to ask a challenging question have a rebuttal ready because nothing he said is new here.
Verifiable things can be anticipated, checked, and followed up with a sincere question. Not a gotcha, just a common sense question:
He fired the FBI director investigating him and admitted he did it for a reason which was illegal. Legally liable and confessed to sexual assault. He refused an election and didn't stop the certification of election results. Filed over a dozen lie lawsuits about elections, they had to admit in court that they had no evidence to bring to the judges after lying to the courts about the filing and the evidence. We saw him intimidate a witness live in public. We heard him call a Governor to defraud voters. We heard him extort a NATO ally for political gain using aide funds for the "stick" he giggled about with you.
Clinton messed up with a mail server after serving 8 years as first lady and decades as a senator before secretary of state in the Whitehouse. She wasn't laughed at by the whole world at summit meetings. She didn't defend Putin's invasion of neighbours. Trump said he'd put up a wall and even took money for it which just went missing in another fraud, so any border crisis left for Biden which he admits he campaigned on and beat Hilary because of (in his own admission during this interview), his wall was never built or it was built but never worked? We paid for it though, despite him also promising that wouldn't happen.
How does any sane pers legit believe they are being rational by comparing Biden or Harris with Trump as if it's the same as comparing two normal people?
You say he makes great deals, why are there no examples of this? Why can't he write essays or speak eloquently about specifics if that were true? Why do you act like it's totally normal for a person to be like Trump but still you can't imagine how someone might get frustrated by you acting high and mighty about being more tolerant or less divisive or less hyperbolic when the botanist is confusing the pot and the toilet? It's not about taking sides or being in a flame war or trolling or whatever, it's very literally obvious to anyone who thinks about it.
It seems to the rest of the world you can't even be bothered to pretend to look something up 2 hrs before a show you're claiming on camera you did "research" for and "prepared"... I'm sorry, with all due respect, it is mind boggling how little we value critical thinking, even on a show founded on the want and appreciation for learning, we never learned elementary level critical thinking comparing one thing to another, or at least having a follow up question you already know the answers to.
For eg, he thinks it's wrong Kamala got selected over Biden at the convention. Easy follow up "that's how the system's rules are set, you could've changed your nominee before the convention too." Or how about: "why does it matter to you, it's not your party." since when has it ever been to a campaign's advantage to switch nominees without needing to? Is that some kind of strategy that we ought follow or is name recognition for a returning candidate still the prevailing poli-sci? He's smart right? Why can't he quote a book, or exsin a theory? He's a businessman, right? So either he knew nothing about his own fraud accounting or he himself can't count, either way, I've never heard of a good business man who lies to judges or runs real estate development but confuses his own home floor space by orders of magnitude.
Just make an effort, man. You could have just watched one person's YouTube video for one hour and come up with better questions and at least follow up with the absolute smallest amount of effort.
I have so much respect for you and how you run your show over the years; I've had a hundred plus hours of enjoyment from your content, please do keep at it because so much of what you do is so so good, but I'd be betraying you not to call out this woeful indignity to the channel. This has been as poor as JBP with Netanyahu, and I'm a lover not a hater. Real talk is real talk. I'm not some PhD wagging a finger either, I do React web dev, study AI in my spare time projects, highschool grad from public school. I've done 50+ hrs of my own podcast long form content and I did the rendering, marketing, prep and hosting of the thing too so I'm not some "elitist" turning his nose up at you for not knowing what I know. I'm giving you heck because someone in your industry, with at least some of the same exposures, with zero benefit of higher education, a date with a former president intended for broadcasting, nor a team to help, even I could tell you with my thumbs off the top of my head where to go to spend 20 minutes preparing that would have saved you the length of this pointless infomercial.
I had to each the whole thing at 1.5x for the first time in over 10 years on YouTube just to carry the beginning of a sentence to the end of it. How does a person say "that would be very bad" and the interviewer just assume "bad" means something about anything? How is it ok that Trump knows how to save the lives of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers but chooses not to end the war just because he wants to win an election? Where's your heart, all of a sudden that type of depravity doesn't so much as make you flinch??? Since when is the caring Lex who preaches love and truth silent about enabling mass murder, especially given what your grandfather went through.
This is just absolutely unbelievable coming from this channel, I really hope you all get your act together because this right here was shameful, man.
Peace, love and respect, for real. Please smarten up though. If I meant this comment to be mean rather than constructive I would've just said "it was bad, very very bad" like your guest and I know nobody would even question it. You'd all just believe it if I repeated it often enough... I'm writing all this because I believe in you, not because I get my rocks off hating on strangers on the internet. My track record on here, twitter, podcast and published books/music over the past 10 years will vouched for me there <-- "evidence supporting a subject e claim"... <-- me showing you how it's done by example by way of a serious lack of charm lol
It's in you to be so much better than this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It drives me crazy you keep parroting the argument that it's unclear of what a security is. SEC has clearly defined it.
"The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment ... "
When you receive money for a stake in a crypto held by a broker that broker is issuing a security for that crypto / blockchain-registry / whatever you call it.
That's why eth and bitcoin aren't securities, but custodial wallets for hedged coins are because they're swaps for registered securities. It's defined clearly, their argument is just playing dumb. It's not a legitimate argument at all to anyone who checks what is and isn't a security and the process for registering with the SEC is also clear as even Robin hood could do it - but the reason for caymen hq and us subsidiaries is they know they're doing something illegal and they're actively trying to sideskirt known legislation. The fact they set up the business that way shows they are acutely aware of the limits and restrictions but they're prepared to risk part of the business for the arbitrage opportunity. It's disingenuous to pretend they don't know what is a security, it's very very clear what is, it's just not clear what the first full service security crypto brokerage would look like because they're all playing dumb and waiting to be told how to build a business rather than leading the charge.
The difference between bros and CEOs is effort and competence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Moving Froward you completely misunderstand me. let me try again: gender identity is a human condition because genders vary between humans. it is a psychological and/or emotional relationship between a person and how they behave or relate. A human saying she thinks she is a cat in a human body is full of shit because she is CHOOSING to walk on all fours which a real cat in a human's body wouldn't. A real cat isn't self conscious enough to act like anything other than its nature. Cats do walk on all fours because their bodies make that the easiest way to move, not because they see other cats walking and want to fit in or identify with them. I don't understand what you're struggling to grasp here. She's acting like a human by mimicking another animal. She's inherently proving that she's lying. Just like a toy doll that talks when you pull a string is not a real child, it's mimicking one, so too a person not acting like a cat would instinctively while stilling saying she's a cat is mimicking one. I'm not saying it's bad or wrong, but nobody should be entertaining her behavior as a condition just like being gay or bi or trans isn't a condition, it's a preference. She wants to be a cat, fine, lock her in a cage at the SPCA and don't give her human rights if she wants to go the whole nine yards and see if she changes her mind. A gender bias wouldn't change no matter what situation you put them in, they will still be who they are.
Your idea of gay/trans/whatever is flawed. It doesn't actually matter what gender a person is because it's just a simple set of classification that has no intrinsic value other than social / psychological relativity. It doesn't change a person's species (DNA) to be transgender, it's an identity like a person's name, culture or belief system for example.
So gender is a valid choice, sexual preference and orientation doesn't change the person into anything else, it's an option that's already available inherently to our species; in contrast, where trans-speciation is concerned, this woman in the video is just an idiot looking for attention and playing pretend.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ignorant of the costs we all pay for corruption, for kangaroo justice, a war machine, appointed half of all sitting life appointed judges, murdered heads of state, overthrows governments to install puppet dictators, tariffes on his own people's trade, held nafta hostage just to rename it, poisoned the EPA, etc etc
This is all bas for economics. Strong is not a number, it's purchasing power and access to goods / services - which Trump has actively destroyed never mind his actions having no net positive result from his action.
Sorry dude, but you really don't understand intrinsic value or future value concepts at all based on this video conjectures..
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It would certainly help them understand why it's a ridiculous statement to say "for argument sake let's presume atrocities occurred before Oct 7, but still..."
There is no "but still...". Desperate people with nothing to lose get radicalized. You can't just perpetrate a lifetime of oppression then say "let's put that aside for now", that's the entire reason for Hamas. That's the reason for hate and violence. That is the only reason for Oct 7, nobody hated Jews before the oppression, they lived side by side and shared religious venues weekly. It was the oppression that led to Oct 7, and a lifetime of it that led to the recruiting of terrorists.
Iran's support of terrorism is also the result of many generations feeling the sting of western oppression for the heinous crime of not wanting to be exploited or have their own democratic government overthrown by Americans who felt entitled to profiteer. It's absolutely insane to not consider recent history, that is literally the only motivation for a suicide bomber, having nothing to lose and hating the people who benefited from your suffering.
It's completely baffling to me so many of these commets act like they don't even understand English or common sense. It doesn't take a scholar to relate to Palestinians, look at how USA citizens today justify Iraq: that wasn't me, I was a kid when that happened. That wasn't me, my government lied tk me. We were attacked, we had to respond to defend our freedom. They renegged on a resource exploitation arrangement, they deserve to be sanctioned even though we coerced a completely unfair deal because the corrupt leader we installed signed on the dotted line.
When we the west are threatened we respond with force even when we caused it, but when Hamad is born after decades of injustice they never caused in the first place, we demand they had a cooler head.
If you want Hamas prosecuted and stopped the water put Bush on trial. If the people "should hand over Hamas" then why isn't America handing over Bush and Biden? The double standard here is astonishingly obvious and all YouTubers have to say is "word salad".
Incompetence is so infuriating in situations like these because it doesn't take a scholar to parse the facts. There's very little nuance if you out in the effort to read or listen. Nobody who spent a single day going over the timeline and statistics would have any difficulty figuring out why this happened or how Israel could prevent it in the past and future by e a universal endowment of equal rights. We celebrate when we act like Hamas, and then celebrate when we act like Israel. We're just as insane as ISIS and almost everyonr here js clueless of that fact because knowing things appears to take less effort than promulgation thjngs we never learned but assume we already know.
It takes less energy to comment on YouTube in ignorant support of atrocity than it does to just be informed in the first place. Over tijmr it takes less energy to learn than it does to argue ignorantly. Just check norm's citations, and ICJ references, and speak to Palestinians they have group chats on twitter you can just talk to them and ask them anything at all. Make an effort or stop disinforming people, it's more important to get it right than feel an unearned ego boost. These are real people.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Despite all the ignorant replies, the truth is western influence destabilized the government, then sanctions limited economic progress, then the unpopular regime that filled the power vacuum focused its efforts on a religious police state rather than getting with the times.
Iran used to be doing well in all regards before the west plotted coups and sparked decades of hatred of western influence and distrust. It made them want nukes in the first place, and without nuclear power as an option they can't develop past oil as would be the natural progression of a mature economy.
Iran is what it is today because of the selfishness and greed of foreign "leadership", much like South and Central America, and Africa as a whole.
The world has suffered for our progress but we're too self absorbed to even acknowledge slave labour from China as a benefit too. It's not just Iran, Afganistan, Iraq, Congo, Egypt, Somalia, all kinds of places fell victim to the same western meddling. That's the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cndres9119 and by consequence it effects every country borrowing from, lending to, supplying from, and supplying to, China will be gravely affected too.
So like, it's isolated to China if we ignore energy, food, textiles, electronics, infrastructure, pollution and human rights. Other than that the world is insulated from China's real estate market lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:04:01 - no Destiny, people will say they support Hamas because their lives have been ruined by oppression, not because they want to actively submit their children to commit and / or succumb to violent murder over politics. No parent wants that for their kids, but all angry humans will say they support the pain of their oppressors.
Like you said 5 mins earlier, you can't look at regional political contention through the lens of American comforts. Watching murder from afar is not the same as volunteering your family to condone guerilla warfare in your home neighborhood. That's insane. Go travel and meet people if you believe humans anywhere on earth are cool with their kids going to war.
Even when culture demands a warrior spirit and the parents say the right things, that's a coping mechanism for their sorrow. I can't imagine a human who is true to themselves being truly endorsing sending their kids to war and risking their lives, homes, and futures for racism or politics unless they are a minority of mentally disabled adults. Our genes are not wired to sacrifice our families gleefully. It's just not biologically possible for that to be the case so you're both wrong. War is not inevitable or genuinely condoned by the people of Palestine or Israel, it's manipulated, ignorant, racist and/or malevolent politics that make this terrorism-turned-genocide happen.
Words have meanings, looks up the definitions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I suffer from colitis, diabetes, fibromyalgia, etc, etc. You think I want to deprive the world of harmless shock humour just because I'm touchy? Hell no. Context is not just part of it it's most of it. South park laughs at diabetes, it doesn't mock my suffering as a diabetic, it makes me laugh despite being diabetic. What people are confusing these days is feelings and intention. There's malice and there's colour, you can't just decide universally swearing is ok but not that swearing because you feel more strongly, somebody could feel strongly about damn or diarrhea. It's language, if everyone could speak however they want to represent themselves and people could say "hey, I found that offensive" without ever saying "you can't say that" we'd all be better off. If we all learned to put up with the insane things other people say and feel confident in calling them out on it and communicating our disapproval without it being a personal judgment of character over language we'd all be better off.
How about a person with a speaking disability where they can't censor themselves as well, not just Tourette's but ADHD, stroke, or brain fog from medications treating other issues. You don't know my linguistic capability at the time I misspoke, so why is it ok to judge a person's poor choice if words for being inconsiderate while not considering the person may have a culturally motivated provocative way if speaking? Maybe it's PTSD or trauma or bipolarity that puts that chip on their shoulder and taints their mood enough to make word choice poor?
That's not to say it's ok to say anything, or justify it, but it does speak to the severity of which we react to taboo words. It's not ok to say it but it is also not ok to demand the compelled speech if others. You're causing an equally serious problem in retaliation to a serious problem. You're perpetrating an ignorant slight by trying to knee-jerk back away from someone else's ignorant slight. It's not just hipocrisy it's counter productive in the bigger picture.
Don't forget, the internet from the 90's didn't have tracking or persistent usernames, no verification and no moderators. You don't like something you leave, or mute, or rally haters against the abusive person. It was just shock value humour like half of all humour out there from stand-up to family guy and everything in between. Harassment is the joke, crass is what makes it funny. Not everywhere, not at work, but between consenting friends where people voluntarily drop in to watch - why not streaming games, it's not church or a funeral.
Context is everything. If history taught us anything it's that our first response is usually an overreaction just like our prejudices are usually under reactions. We should be able to agree on middle ground where we're still allowed and tolerated to be offensive/offended. There are safe rooms and groups and blocking and subscribing all over the place. There's tons of safe places and generally only people engaged are targeted. We should agree that when a person says "hey that hurt" that everybody should pause immediately to show human concern. Then we can say anything if we take pain seriously and tolerate hurtful speech where possible. That would be ideal if both parties try to bend to the other side rather than hoards telling one group what they can or can't say ir do or laugh at in public. We can agree certain places are more sacred, but game streaming is pretty much football and beer, it's degenerate by design and culture and it's consensual. Just like comedy, there's consent and no malice there. People need to chill out imho.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And yet SCOTUS tries so hard to engineer it out of democracy. Roe, chevron, presidential immunity, nepotism, refusing to denounce racism and then not calling off a violent mob who intended to disrupt democratic processes. Blatantly requesting a Governor defraud the voters, the lawsuits about election fraud without any evidence (no fewer than a dozen of them)... There's nothing genuine about these people.
This isn't just typical politics, this is entirely different level of radicalism. The Republican party is aiming for Putin/Xi/Un style dictatorship - its not even a secret, they admit it and pursued it proudly then bragged about it. It is so incredibly insane to pretend this is normal political feuding, this isn't about policy at all. War crimes, poverty, embezzlement, epic levels of corruption from within the world's largest economy. The stakes are very high but tyranny is objectively the GOP pursuit, it is clear as day to anyone who spends an hour or two reading and listening.
Biden is not trying to fix any of it, he's trying to game it just like everyone else, just with less dire consequence. The best possible result is still not at all good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
cnccarving lol (dictionary comment) sorry, cheap jab, i admit :P
Trade deals only work when a nation specializes in something because they have access to the raw resources. American law makers are career politicians, not economists. And economists are learning from and following deprecated metrics (as evidenced by the FED's complete and total lack of ability to forecast even a week or two down the road).
America makes trade deals to realize the most profit, because they measure wealth and productivity as measured from GDP. They don't account for purchasing power or the labor market's needs when making trade agreements. America doesn't set out to make bad deals, they're just really near sighted. They see the profit and benefit from the top stratum of the market, and neglect the causal effects it has on the public at large.
Example, Canada has lots of trees. If America needs lumber, they can benefit from a trade deal with Canada. What happened? America renegged on the trade deal after they realized how many people they put out of work, and the costs associated with buying from Canada and found that having the jobs locally or imposing a tariff was the only way to look out for their own interests. It's incompetence that makes these trade deals not work for America.
TPP is different in that it exposes taxpayers to corporate lawsuits for environmental protection or other progressive initiatives. Ergo, TPP is not your run of the mill trade deal, and NAFTA didn't work because politicians that set it up didn't look past the clear cost savings to see the impact on the rest of the population.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the world left the dollar as the reserve currency over night, it would lose value, thus the oil futures contracts would massively increase in value, so Americans who held open commodity contracts or foreign stocks everywhere on earth would suddenly surge due to the exchange rate of every currency against the dollar.
So if we go off the dollar overnight we'll make billionaires of oil industry mogols, entertainment, foreign bonds of all kinds, and property in an instant. The wealthy of the country could hugely benefit from this if they're diversified, only the bottom 70% of the population not owning any foreign stuck would suffer from this... In fact wages and everything would plummet relatively, making everything cheaper for the billionaires who quintupled their tax-preferred foreign investments, enabling them to scoop up middle class property as it dropped in value absent buyers at fair market price due to increased costs if personal imports like clothes, food, and now oil.
This would be a huge transfer of wealth if it ever happened, imho. That risk isn't worth the benefit of exporting inflation, rather pay what you owe every year rather than defer under the sword of Damacles in perpetuity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How is that different from a bar, church, legion, bingo, library, pool hall, dîner, kitchen, team, gaming circles, book clubs, bong sesh, etc etc etc. Sorry, but this is all just what humans all do inclining us toward civilization and urbanization.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Computers are more ubiquitous and dynamic than paper and folders, but they're still just tools. Even with ai running the power grid, you don't blindly drive nails your hammer tells you to. The welder of the tool still controls the tool. You never give up control. You have it do tasks that you want done, that's it.
This is why it's important for people to understand instructions and programming before speculating on how software might get away from us. You have it do part of the research, but it doesn't tell human researchers what they have to do, only what it recommends. Competent humans are the researchers, and capable AI is the tool.
AI are just tools, no matter how ubiquitous. They will just as gladly sit and do nothing if never applied to a task, and they'll quit tasks without worrying about finishing because they don't care, humans care. You can program in a sense of care, and you can just as easily interrupt hat care system without any pushback from the AI. It's not real, it's statistical inference. It's math not feeling or wanting or liking or preferring. It's just a tool.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So when nato backs a militant force aimed at destabilizing the world its heroism, but when Gaddafi backs rebels to defend his national sovereignty he's personally responsible for the individual acts of aggression his sponsorship enables.. It's kind of silly how gladly we overlook double standards.
Watch gaddafi's full speech at the United Nations if you want to know the real reason he was considered a threat to the world. He spells it out very clearly and nobody disputes or responds to it at all.
This isn't a snapshot of history, it's painting the scene with editorial gratuities. He was a monster, yes. Just as much as Blair, Bush, Harper, Putin, and everyone else. No more, no less. We're not setting the example we think we are. We're not the angels or saviours or the exception to human nature, we're all doing the same things as he did. Gitmo is still open. We ignore childcare, inflate away debt while providing tax cuts to the richest minority while others suffer, starve and their earning potentials paywalled by useless credentials and gatekeepers of intellectual property as if that helps the general public or humanity at large. We endorse cartels, sponsor coups and proxy wars not in 1 or 2 regions but literally all over the world then freak out when those countries retaliate. "how dare they not let us murder and pillage their populations, they're monsters!". We built the state of Israel, all western natiine globally created the world's largest prison camps and continue to celebrate the occupation and oppression while publishing documentaries of the monstrous Libyan dictator as if we're not precisely as culpable if not more...
The record is open, anyone can look at the material facts of reality. This type of documentary is entirely disingenuous and to not even attempt to communicate at least the motivations of the madman. Nobody gets smarter by propaganda. Why are you so afraid of accurately representing the dictator's objectives? You worried people might sympathize if you're honest about history? What does that say about you and me if this is how we choose to be informed? This isn't journalism, it's pathetically insecure. There's no need to sensationalize, the man was brutal and wicked. Being honest might help prevent recurrence, educate the population and enlighten future leaders rather than stoke flames by overt hypocrisy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RichOrElse No, i said i watched it years ago, not since years ago :) and i didn't remember them talking about anything poppy, it was probably OJ, simpson, censorship, israel, south park, juicing, etc you know, entertainment but with a moral dilemma or something thrown in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MRostendway i can see it too lol but being aware of our prejudices is only helpful when we acknowledge them. being that it's impossible to know who's story was true, locking one up and posting bail at a grand (that's a lot of money to me) and letting the others go is pretty damn arbitrary imho, regardless of how probable we think it is. Fact is, nobody was seriously hurt, and nobody was violently threatened. It got out of hand, sure, but that happens at every bar in every city of my country at least once a year. It's pretty common that people disagree over drinks and shit gets heavy, it's not like he went to someone's house and broke in to start fighting with them at random lol both people escalated the argument and it's a 50/50 claim, why was one side locked up and charged a grand and the others not? That's all I'm disputing. If it were white people it wouldn't even make the news, the cops would break them up, write a report and tell everyone to go to denny's and sober up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Moving Froward like i said, choice was a bad word to use. I meant option, as in an option to our species because humans can be varying degrees of gender biologically and socially. Cat is not a valid option to our species. like I said, you missed the context and fixated on semantics when I've already conceded I misspoke.
I didn't promise you anything, my word is irrelevant. I'm putting forward a logical argument and you're attacking my character like Trump. slow clap
Hermaphrodites are born between genders but you say "people can't be born between genders" but you are aware that it is reality (option, as in possible according to natural laws). The likelihood or probability of it occurring doesn't change that gender is a fluid part of our biology and psyche. Logically, if nature can vary to every extreme of the gender spectrum, the mental state of a person can vary too. It's not up to you to impose your will and understanding on others. If it's possible, and they say it is so, then let it be. It's no different from arguing which color is the nicest. What I tell you is my favorite can't be changed by your will or preference. It's personal, how I identify with and see the world, it's my nature and my right to prefer blue over green and it's not a preference that I've changed my entire life. Still, it is possible for another person to like green more than blue, I don't go around like you telling them they're wrong because 99% of people see it otherwise. Liking green is a possible reality so when someone says that's what they prefer, I take their word for it at face value. If someone says they're trans, newly or always, I take their word for it because nobody else could possibly know.
Is that clearer?
1
-
1
-
Moving Froward The easy test is the 1 minute video. She's acting like a human acting like a cat, and describing things that humans see in cats. If she was actually identifying with a cat she'd not be dressed, speaking, clipping on ears, telling us about her aversion to water, she wouldn't be crawling on all fours, fake meowing, or showing interest in telling people about herself. Cats don't do any of those things. Cats don't care if you understand them, they're functions of instinct. She can't be telling the truth, it's that simple. Gender is a variation so slight you'd need fractions to identify the genetic variations in humans even for the greatest possible divide, humans still share an overwhelming 99.99...% of genes with each other because we are a common species. Not so much with her. She has to create a sense of a cat before identifying with it, and that's not the same for gender. She has to be human to identify with a cat. Gender doesn't require knowledge of gender, being a cat requires knowledge that cats exist. She's full of shit.
1
-
Moving Froward 1. nobody goes into a restroom for sexual reasons.. non issue. harassment is harassment whether you're transgender or gay i'd still kick a dude's ass for trying to watch me piss lol. not an issue.
2. if they want to fit between genders then they don't qualify for that gender in sport. the reason for the gender differences in sport is to not give advantage for biological reasons. it's to keep it competitive. so i agree with you there. it would be unfair to have a guy who can't qualify for mens race against women because genetically he'd be at an advantage to the other competitors. fully agree
3. i don't agree with free elective surgery either, you don't need that to identify with a gender, it's superficial. the nature of their transgenderism is proof that physiology isn't a factor.
4. call it what they want, i have sexual preference in women and that doesn't make me heterophobic. I just like latinas, even though i'm dating a german who i'm still attracted to. It's just a sexual preference, not an absolute. once again i agree with you there, it's bullshit.
5. that's right, they're the ones saying they're not a man/woman, nobody else is imposing that judgement. they are real people, real human beings, but nobody has a real gender. gender is just a simplifying category since our brains work by compartmentalizing it's only natural that when 99.9% of people fall into very specific categories that we catalog them as such. i agree with you.
6. they need to understand that it's not common so misunderstandings should be par for the course. once again i agree with you. we can try to accommodate but we're not at fault for not understanding 0.1% of the population's private orientations. that's bullshit
What i contest is this: gender is a slight variance to our species. Species variation is a creation of a human. That's not a real condition, it's made up by someone that wants attention. This cat lady is wearing clothes and i've never seen a cat feel that need. Nor have I seen a cat with no tail or ears attach one to itself because it's self conscious. This chick is faking and it's so obvious and it's nothing even closely related to gender identification.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not even when it happens to the person promoting said violence by policy, public discourse, and by incitement?
All well and good to try to take the high road and be bigger, but some times there are extreme cases where the individual is responsible at every level, from justices appointed to legislation, to being given leeway in courts, to taking money from gun lobbyists and dictators while praising them openly. He advocates for violence all the time, even protestors standing between him and a photo op with an upside down Bible in front of a church he never attends.
If there were ever a case where we'd say assassination gets an exception we always say "someone should've killed Hitler before the holocaust" as if that was more obvious than Trump's case for such an exception...
Seriously, think about. If ever there were a case for assassination, in a country where a school is shot up every single day every year for a decade, on average. If ever there were a morally reasonable target of gun violence, would it not be this one individual?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:30:30 It's so frustrating that neither of you seem to realize that Jordan B Peterson is in her parody phase, as he goes on about hierarchies, resolution/bandwidth, and sincerity for the eleventh straight year, now dressing like a casino pit boss to appear more officious about his meanderings. Nothing new has come from him since he made that statement about others repeating themselves.
Very smart guy, very articulate, funny, charming, all that; but look at his daily thoughts on twitter. He can't stop reacting to limbic crack on twitter and tv. He's a psychologist and talks about the very thing he engages in 40 times a day lol. He's a scientist but refuses to learn statistics even when it's been pointed out the study (singular, not plural) about rats playfighting drew an absurd conclusion from the data. His only focus is Piaget and Jung, as if he stopped reading 30 years ago and just leans on the Bible for reality and science ever since.
There's much contradiction in his speaking tours which makes it all the funnier both of you keep crediting him with coining a phrase about avoiding it 😂
I know all this about jbp because I loved listening and reading his thoughts and process. I defended him, I'm not a hater. In fact when you love someone it's your duty to call them out when they fail to meet their own standards, that's all I'm doing by criticizing him. It's live, not hate. He has more potential than this pettiness and aversion to updating prior with new information like learning math and stats instead of quoting the inferences made by others. Double checking the soundness of sources and premise when you're challenged about it and self-promoting as a scholar and man of science. His Bibi interview was an infomercial. His ben Shapiro interview was like watching Trump on Fox and friends or hannity. He's bringing his daughter into to fold as she hones her millennial outrage crafted disposition. And on, and on, it's just really sad to see. I hope he gets back to his old self one day, and to do that we need people like you to recognize his regression over the past few years since that nasty drug abuse took over his mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is so frustrating. Mutations aren't one generation or carried forward once. A harmful mutation carried forward 10,000 years can later meet another harmful mutation and become hugely beneficial. You need to carry neutral or harmful mutations for the variety of the species, it's an existential benefit to struggle, carry recessive genes, or have sick people.
As a person with diabetes and autoimmune conditions I'm not saying disabling issues like colitis and blindness are great to live with, but to have competent doctors you need sick people for them to treat. To level out the gene pool under the hubris of knowing what's best for humans for all of time is utterly incompetent and selfish. You can't possibly believe narrowing variation is a good thing when all of logic and science suggest otherwise.
Look up sickle cell, horrible disease. There's a benefit to that mutation though, having just one recessive gene is protective against malaria. Now imagine malaria outbreak résistent to all drugs but the gene pool has completely selected sickle cell out of the population. That's extinction. It's absurd to pretend you can see that far into the future to manually select all unfavourable diseases when you can't know what diseases will exist or be protective tomorrow without knowing how to hand write DNA to generate new species.
It is not a fact that "deliterious mutations accumulate", he's completely made this up based on his feelings. Lower disease this generation says nothing about protecting a species or nation from extinction 10/100/1,000/etc years later. Accumulated mutations like being shorter could easily be beneficial given things like bone density by mass don't scale linearly, hence the limit to human size. Being short and strong could mean less food requirement and short genes could obviously compound.
There are so many reasons not to be tall and lanky like I am and just as many reasons tall and lanky fit for swimming and climbing might also avert extinctions one day, not least being having short and tall people mean both can help each other.
This is so incredibly ill thought and he's so proud and sure that nothing exists beyond his first impression of the greatest complex system in the known universe. These ideas are unbelievably myopic and incoherently simplistic.
What would make more sense is to select for growing organs and developing medications from embryos, to treat the variation that arises because propagating the most variety in the gene pool is actually in everyone's long term best interest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:23:04 let's be real, Nguyen has tried to speak to you, has publsih a profession, mathematical critique of your work, and I keep trying to get you to respond to him.
No malice, no trolling, just a "Streisand squeeze" right back at you.
Nobody would even bother hounding you about responding to critics if you didn't keep going on podcasts for a decade complaining nobody will talk to you.
We're listening, we want you to sincere criticism. Perfectly respectful. Just speak to the person who spent tens of hours reviewing your work to publish a criticsm of it at length.
Ive watched everything Eric has ever published, read almost half of it. Nothing but respect coming from me. I love hearing Eric's perspective. Stop whining that you're not taken seriously and that you take criticism if you're just not. If you're scared of criticism.
Quote Sean Carroll to prove he's "diabolical" or "malicious". Sean has a podcast you're welcome on, just go and talk to Sean if you actually want to, as you say 1:28:57
Stop whining. You're better than this, Eric.
1