Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Big Think" channel.

@deadgheist you're not into it, because it challenges your misconceptions. Yet here you engaging in the conversation you said you weren't into. Which proves you're the type of person who's word can't be trusted on a typical day. "Capitalism is bad for working class people and there aren't enough regulations on what cooperations can do to their workers or in politics anymore." Wrong, it's good for the working class and did very well in teh US until the 1970s when teh gov upended capitalism. The problem is Not lack of regulation, it is Over regulation. Large corporations push excessive regulations as barriers to entry against smaller start up companies "stealing" their market share by delivering a better product at a lower price. These large corporations can afford the lawyers and fees to do business, the small mom and pop businesses cannot. You've been brainwashed by corporations and politicians to believe they are the solution, when in reality they are the problems. You clearly don't know what capitalism is nor how it works. "It also has nothing to do with the original topic" it has EVERYTHING to do with it. "I don't care to be scolded by some dude on the internet about politics that I don't care to listen to an opinion for." If you feel you're being scolded, that's on you. But it speaks to who's winning the argument when you admit defeat like that. I have considered your opinion, both your original comment and now this one. Just because you're wrong and i point that out, doesn't mean I am not listening. Truth is not whatever You happen to believe at the moment. "I can do my own research on candidates (and also what cooperations are doing) and do so please spare me and give it a rest." you're the one who is behaving like a child. if you didn't want to continue, then why are you? Note: you can't even spell "corporations" correctly, you keep typing "cooperations". might want to see to that. Typos happen, but that's a big one.
3
Survival of the fittest and constant struggle for survival is 100% true, and applies even to your example. Your perception of the "struggle" and how it plays out is what is wrong.
3
My understanding of "alpha male" merely meant, the guy in charge.
2
correct. we only tend to recognize Math/Physics geniuses, but there have been many other geniuses that people like to ignore. Art genius Military Genius Engineering genius (most overlooked) Economic Genius Business Genius etc...
2
@deadgheist Capitalism isn't the issue. Corporatism (a form of socialism) is the problem. Gov subsidies, bailouts, welfare, and laws that favor big business and that are anti-competition in nature are the true problem. Yes, wages overall were depressed for decades, but this sudden spike in low end wages is driving automation and pricing unskilled workers out of jobs. There are solutions to all of this, very easy solutions in fact, but the problem is that the true solutions aren't always the obvious one, and the knee jerk reactions are almost always the wrong solution and just make things worse. The real obstacle to implementing actual solutions though is a combination of citizen stupidity and ignorance of reality, combined with the Corporations and Politicians conspiring to benefit themselves. To change things you have to stop voting for career politicians, even if you like them, and you have to force politicians to stop acting in their own Personal best interests and act instead in the best interest of the nation as a whole. But power corrupts, and people become politicians and feel they can't change anything, and so succumb to the massive bribes corporations give them instead.
2
small community based societies do work better. but the same rules and systems don't work so well at larger scales.
2
and yet the women still screech "patriarchy" and "wage gap" and make false rape and sexual harassment accusations, continue to raise 73% of the nation's criminals, etc.
2
@janicebeams2389 you cannot wake a person who is pretending to be asleep
2
What Einstein meant, is that yes, you CAN make contributions post-30, many have, but not if you haven't already developed and demonstrated that creative thinking ability by the time you are 30. if you made it to 30 and you're still not creative, your brain isn't going to magically develop further.
1
was just coming here to comment that.
1
@joaosoares7446 It literally does. if you don't experience it, it's becasue you lack out of the box thinking.
1
@joaosoares7446 hundreds of replies to this thread, I have no clue what my original comment was, hence why it is so important to give context, quote me, etc. I don't know what my reasoning is, as I don't know what comment you're asking about.
1
@joaosoares7446 because I have experienced it at every turn. Not only that, but it has been documented many times in human history for thousands of years by poets, philosophers, scientists, and more. There are entire memes and posters highlighting this problem. The nail that sticks out gets hammered. People push an idea, such as in Physics, or Egyptology, theory of human evolution, etc., and if anyone upsets the apple cart that many famous people have built their careers and reputations upon and prove them all wrong, they will fight tooth and nail to stop you. People claim to want thinkers, but when thinkers show up and share their good ideas, or warn of impending disaster, no one listens until it's too late. This is a frustratingly common thing in Engineering, and my coworkers and I discuss it frequently. Corporations claim to care, claim to want fresh new ideas, but are dogmatic in reality. People don't like change, don't like risk, etc. I've been a top performer in the military in combat, as a professional pilot in aviation, as an instructor including at the college level, and an engineer. Every time I came up with a good idea, people rejected it. They liked that I was personally getting results, but there was no way in hell they were going to implement my ideas themselves. They continually refuse new and better ideas, even when I demonstrated those ideas to be superior repeatedly, even when people above me were getting promoted for the success I was creating for them. If you're not aware of these issues, then you're not creative enough for them to apply to you. This is a well known and documented problem throughout human history. People hated on Nickola Tesla, Michael Faraday, Einstein, and many more for years. Many great minds were not even appreciated until after they died. Cases like Isaac Newton, where people treated every idea he had as gold, are extremely rare and uncommon. Many great minds in history were even Killed for their ideas.
1
or society is actively fighting to keep them from success.
1
@mrseriousv1 Why?
1
it's only hard for society as a whole, and women, to talk about it. Because they are guilty and they don't want to accept responsibility. It's shameful how men/boys are treated in the US. A literal human rights violation.
1
@deadgheist "Nobody really gets anywhere from just blaming someone else and calling it a day" tell the women that "Also the lack of equal pay or respect for people in female dominated fields to begin with is absolutely contributing to that problem among other things." that's not it at all. Jobs pay what they are worth, and people gravitate to the jobs that they prefer. You're looking in all the wrong places for answers. It's people like you with your false notions that go us in this mess. The core problems are bias towards women, gov welfare, lack of support for men/boys, divorce court laws, child custody laws, alimony, "war on poverty", "war on drugs", and more. Everything went off the rails starting in the 1970s. Look long, deep, and hard at what changed in teh 1970s and since and you'll find your answers.
1
@evacookie2194 "began the movement for gender equality", but it's gone FAR beyond equality and is now all about supremacy. "We are not to blame for men's issues", you are if you caused them. "we are not trying to steal any rights from anyone", yet took men's children from them, took away a man's authority over his children, stripped men of any perks they had in society for being "disposable", endlessly attack men and tear down men's spaces and prevent anyone from forming men's advocacy programs or men's help centers. Women today raise 73% of the US prison population. Children raised by feminist single moms also comprise the greatest rates of depression, teen pregnancies, etc. They've eviscerated men in colleges. They attack boys for having energy and put them on drugs and physically/chemically castrate them to turn them into trans girls. You do know what a feminist's Kryptonite is, right? Accountability, and you're proving it.
1
I wish you the best. It's shameful how men/boys are treated in the US. A literal human rights violation.
1
I wish you the best. It's shameful how men/boys are treated in the US. A literal human rights violation.
1
@pillmuncher67 another one who doesn't get it. the struggle doesn't mean, "endless hardship and suffering".
1
@pillmuncher67 figuring out how to game nature. Nature rewards efficiency. Those who find ways to survive efficiently will be able to prosper, and also have free time. Keep in mind these hunter gatherers survived this way for thousands of years. They were living like this during the medieval period, the Egyptian period, Sumerians, Greeks, Persians, etc. If they were doing something wrong they'd have died out thousands of years ago. Think of life as a game, the rules are simple: stay alive, reproduce. | They still have to work to survive, but they found ways to be efficient at it, as did many other cultures. When new challenges present themselves, they must adapt and overcome. But they also can fall victim to disease, illness, and other factors. They are still going to be less efficient at surviving overall than some other cultures, but well enough to continue to endure. We used to be less efficient. Most people used to be farmers, until industrialization helped more people seek other work. And this drive to ever greater efficiency enables people to succeed in the game of life more an more as efficiency increases. their overall prosperity and leisure increases too. But even my grandfather who started farming with horses, said everyone got it wrong about farming. There were tough times, but they didn't have to work endlessly either. the busy periods were planting and harvest, but between then was periods with less to do, and he said they were able to kick back and relax much of the year. Still hard work, but he didn't feel it was as hard as people made it out to be. Sharks don't spend 100% of their time hunting and eating. Dolphins have time to play.
1
@coolioso808 "Market capitalism is socially, environmentally and economically unsustainable." This one is objectively false, the problem is that unregulated and unenforced capitalism leads to Corporatism, which is what we have today. We used to be a Capitalist system, but it was hijacked. Can be proven, but this is not a conversation or debate that can be done effectively in the comments section of YouTube. "Poverty is the worst form of violence. Capitalism mathematically guarantees large numbers of people in debt and poverty." Multiple fallacies in this one. Poverty is relative, and often times a choice. so you need to elaborate on that, and account for personal choice. If another person is in poverty, no violence has been taken against them. Violence is a very specific thing, like hitting someone, or cutting them, or hitting them with a car, etc. Violence involves physical and intentional harm. Stop conflating and misusing the word "violence". Capitalism is objectively THE most successful system in recorded human history at raising people Out of poverty. literally no other economic system tried to date has ever done as good a job, period. The second most successful system doesn't even come close.
1
@puddintame7794 teaching people to think for themselves is "fascist"?
1
@puddintame7794 I gotcha. hard to recognize typed sarcasm in a single word.
1
@LunarOverdrive "Capitalism isn't the most successful system." simply stating something doesn't make it so. back that up with evidence. More people have been brought out of poverty with capitalism than any other method in history (both total number and percentage of population). "Almost nobody willingly chooses to go into poverty. There's exceptions, but they're usually religious." yes, religious people like monks and such do. Also, homeless people in western countries often choose it for a variety of reasons. Others do it as a form of self reliance or to achieve a higher level of freedom. Others choose it indirectly by their poor choices, lazy attitudes, and their lack of purpose and meaning in life (they don't care about anything enough to lift a finger to better themselves). Tons of people choose poverty.
1
@LunarOverdrive explain what system is better than capitalism, and how capitalism is bad. I never asked for a citation of sources. I want to hear you Explain it without sources. argue the logic of your ideas and reasoning. prove using solely logic to prove capitalism is bad and doesn't work, and doesn't pull people from poverty. And then explain what system is better than capitalism, and how it pulls people out of poverty.
1
@alastorgdl If you think capitalism is bad, then yes, you need to explain which system you think is better. False Equivalency. Capitalism is not a drug and is necessary. Without a system of economics and rule of law, modern civilizations would not exist. Where as drugs are not necessary. and then you resort to Ad Hominems, that's 2 logical fallacies, which means you have no argument. I am not right wing at all.
1
@alastorgdl YOU used multiple logical fallacies, not me. Using logical fallacies makes your argument/s objectively False. People who follow the rules of science (a form of dogma, sure) abide by the rules of debate and avoid using logical fallacies. those who don't believe in science use logical fallacies and wonder why they're always wrong about everything and blame everyone else for their own failures and shortcomings. The rich and powerful can be criminally wrong, and the poor make stupid choices that keep them poor, at the same time. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. A poor person making stupid decisions in their life occurs regardless whether there are obscenely rich and powerful people impacting their lives or not. SO, that's 2 more logical fallacies. Ad Hominem, and False Equivalence.
1
@alastorgdl but you compared capitalism to a drug, and therefore I was proving your logic incorrect, hence False Equivalency. Ad hominem: attacking the person rather than the argument. Once again, I am Not "right wing", never have been. But you like dehumanizing anyone who disagrees with you so you can justify putting them in concentration camps someday.
1
@alastorgdl those were your statements, not mine. you are calling your own questions stupid.......
1
@alastorgdl yes, the statements in question, were both yours, I wasn't addressing my comments in that particular moment. reading comprehension is a skill, you should work on it. your arguments can also fall under Red Herring or Non Sequitur fallacies, as drugs have nothing to do with Capitalism. and when you use a fallacy in science, let alone multiple, your argument is ruled void/false and you lose the argument by default if you fail to remove the fallacies from your reasoning. Also, we are not in a Judicial proceeding, another logical fallacy, we are in a scientific debate if anything. the rules of logic apply, not the rules of law. but the rules of law are loosely inspired by the rules of logic/science. But this is not a judicial proceeding, and it doesn't change the fact your arguments and questions are irrelevant to the issue.
1
@alastorgdl then how about you quote me? instead of making baseless statements with no substance to them? So far you've quoted yourself mostly.
1
@alastorgdl so instead of addressing my question, you pose a Red Herring, consisting of a false equivalency, to justify you ducking the valid question and declaring yourself the victor. you're not supposed to parrot me endlessly, you're supposed to answer the question, prove your idea is right and superior. And you're not supposed to make a comparison to something that is not comparable and has NO relevance to the issue at hand.
1
@alastorgdl "I cannot prove anything to a corrupt stupid who cannot understand an EXAMPLE .." you didn't even try. But here you are with yet Another Ad Hominem fallacy. I can understand an example, but you have to use examples Relevant to the argument for me to consider them as valid. try a Different example. You claim I'm dishonest, so now you're going to have to prove that as well. What have I said that was at any point dishonest?
1
@alastorgdl you're just a bot stuck on repeat. Literally, a legit AI bot is what you are. A human would not argue so poorly. 'explain what system is better than capitalism' 'Explain what drug is better than alcohol' Better at what? 'and how capitalism is bad' 'and how alcohol is bad' Bad for what or who?" this is about the 8th time you've mindlessly repeated this nonsense.
1
@alastorgdl I Just quoted you in my last response. and here you are repeating the Dunning-Kruger Effect nonsense again for like the 3rd or 4th time as well, with no evidence or explanation to back up your claims. just a broken record, or a broken brain.
1
@alastorgdl "Oh yes, broken brain is the peer, not the idiot who cannot understand an EXAMPLE" comparing irrelevant things and not explaining further is not a valid example. but go head and try to prove you're not mentally insane by endlessly repeating yourself. And if you're so smart, and I'm the crazy one, then why do you continue to debate this? You do know what they say the definition of insanity is right? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result...... and your attempts to avoid discussing capitalism is a Red Herring. A logical fallacy. On top of the repeated Ad Hominem fallacies. once again, I'm not right wing, and your opinion on that matter doesn't change it.
1
most geniuses are self-taught in the topics that make them geniuses.
1
3:06 not true. this is a form of survivor bias, like the WW2 study of surviving aircraft. Historically, rural people had less opportunity for upward mobility than those born near cultural centers. Keep in mind the distances people could travel easily without trains, horses, etc, and how far rural areas could be from city centers of excellence, and how much smaller cities were historically than they are today as well (far less sprawl). This meant that many geniuses simply never had the chance to learn things or try things beyond farming, mining, and other jobs that kept them and their families alive. they were too busy working hard to survive and had little to no access to information and others from which to express their genius. But make no mistake, those geniuses still existed, but were never allowed/able to develop.
1