Youtube comments of Jason Dashney (@jasondashney).
-
578
-
561
-
545
-
514
-
338
-
316
-
306
-
303
-
273
-
212
-
189
-
189
-
175
-
144
-
136
-
Such a fascinating interview, because I really like both of these guys even though I disagree with quite a bit of what they say. I think it's because they both seem genuine. They both seem like they are actually saying things they believe and I have a lot of respect for that. Listening to Piers Morgan talk about January 6 was hilarious and made me roll my eyes, and listening to Andrew claim that tears running down your face isn't crying and that he's able to feed himself even though he has zero money because "God provides" cracked me up.
Edit: Piers Morgan is absolutely out of his mind with the Covid stuff. He's acting like it's 2021 and we don't have the data. He completely ignores Andrews correct fact that the vaccine isn't really a vaccine if you can still get and transmit the disease with it, and he totally ignores the fact that overall mortality is actually up. We have the data now. Yes, the "vaccine" saved the lives of people who were very vulnerable, people with comorbidities, but it actually harmed everybody else in aggregate because again, all-cause mortality is up, and the vaccine injury rate was a number that would've had any other vaccine in history refused from the market without question. If you weren't 70 and obese, the vaccine had a greater chance or hurting you than harming you. Blows my mind that Piers is still going with the old talking points as if we don't have hindsight data now. It's absolutely unequivocally undeniable that masking does little to nothing, and that lockdowns cause more harm than benefit. That used to be speculation, but now there is ample evidence from all of the studies done by prestigious institutions. And I damn near threw my laptop out the window when he brought out the "Nobody made you take the vaccine". I cannot express to you the rage I have when I hear rich people say that. I took the vaccine because if I didn't, I would've been out of a job. My ability to pay my bills required it. I get violently angry in my heart when people who could easily take the next decade, or the rest of their life off of work, and not be hurt by it. Us peasants didn't have that option Piers, you prick. Andrew says a lot of silly things, but I can't imagine him ever making a statement quite as ridiculous as that.
122
-
122
-
114
-
110
-
103
-
98
-
96
-
96
-
94
-
91
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
83
-
81
-
76
-
75
-
72
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
I'm Scandinavian but live in a Canadian city that is 80% Indian, 10%, Asian, and 10% everybody else. In my day-to-day life, I am extraordinarily outnumbered, and there are many shopping centers, where you will never ever see a white person, because they are very clearly not the target audience for the businesses. That means most of the businesses in my area are Indian, and most of the women are Indian, and most of the rental units are owned by Indians. Somehow I'm still the oppressor. I did a renovation in a high school here and they had charts on the wall showing privilege, and, of course white males were at the top. I absolutely promise you that my skin colour does not help me where I live in any capacity whatsoever.
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
1:11. She was on shaky ground by immediately talking about two things that are associated almost exclusively with the right, then lost me completely when she equated believing in climate change with believing in the Paris Accord. You can fully be in agreement that manmade climate change is a thing, yet disagree that the Paris Accord is a good thing in so far as the ROI on that particular approach to tackling the problem.
This is ironic to see in a video titled "How to cut through confirmation bias". If I could tell with a high degree of probability which side of the political aisle she most likely identifies with in the first 10 seconds, she is not the right person to be giving this talk.
Jesus, this talk is getting worse and worse. She says "we said the scientists re-evaluated the data and now conclude things are now actually much worse than we thought before", then says another group was told the opposite. Any rational person would think: "Re-evaluate? You mean they looked at the same data and look it completely differently now? Why should I trust that this interpretation is right and the other was wrong, and what about the last few years when you guys were pounding the table and we believed you?" type deal. We should also think "Why am I only being told one side of this story?". I never, ever 100% buy in to anything I only hear one side of. Beyond that, climate change is a bad example to use, since it's so grey. Drop a thumble full of water on me vs a barrel full. Both technically get me wet but are markedly different. Climate change is a massive umbrella that we like to break down, as she ironically does here, in terms of a simple binary. It's much more nuanced than that. Flat earth would be a much better example than climate change. Flat earth is a definitive yes/no issue. Gun control is not either. On a societal level or personal level? Walking down a dangerous dark alley it's better to have a gun than not, but on a mass level it's less safe. Nuance, people!
As a truly politically homeless person, stuff like this is frustrating beyond belief. In a talk like this I should not be able to figure out which side of the political spectrum you are on in the first few seconds.
The point she makes about more intelligent people being able to interpret data in a way that supports their already held position is interesting, and probably spot on. This is more like what the rest of the talk should've been about because she's saying it in a non partisan way. It's not so much that what she's saying is "wrong" in any of it, but more about how you shouldn't tip your political beliefs in a sub 5 minute talk about bias.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
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
-
I wish I could be as zen as you. As a fellow Canadian, I'm livid I had to get the jab in order to be employed. I guess where I'm at is I'm down to forgive anyone who comes to their senses and owns up to what they did. Until then, I hate them. I'm sorry. To me it's like running red lights all day long because "I just didn't know any better". It doesn't take combing through research papers to figure out that what you are seeing with your own eyes is insane. Literally day one I thought our response was nuts. 2 weeks to flatten the curve? I laughed my ass off at the time, because obviously in two weeks, we would be exactly in the same position and that wouldn't solve anything. I simply can't believe that the majority of humanity is so stupid that they can't see the unbelievably illogical and hypocritical things that were coming from every single authority. This has all actually helped me because I've always been a cynical person, but I held onto some semblance that the world was somewhat logical but now I understand the true depths of how corrupt the world is and I'm better off for it. And I mean, corrupt all the way down to the busy family member who doesn't have time to look into the news. This stuff was so blatantly obviously wrong that it didn't require anything but looking around you when you went to Walmart. I think humanity isn't ready for our brain power yet. We are still essentially idiotically, lizards. There's not a single quote, busy parent" out there who didn't see at least a few things that didn't add up. If that happens and you ignore it.(by the billions), and it hurts the world, then to hell with you. You're part of the problem. If there were more trucker protest, I would go to them too.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@brittybee6615 Because Victim Card. These days on job postings, even with the government, you see "We especially encourage women, Native Americans, and POC to apply". That literally means "white man only if we have to". It's not the end of the world, but to say that white people can't understand what it's like to be discriminated against is nuts. I'm trying to find a basement suite where I live and as soon as I started replying to ads with my full name, my responses dropped by at least half. 95% of the units are in Indian households and I've been specifically turned down because of my race. I've had Indian girls say their dad would lose it if they brought a white boy home. Again, not the end of the world, but I'm so sick and tired of hearing that white people don't know what discrimination feels like (when I've received it, in no uncertain terms, with my access to a partner, a place to live, and a place to work).
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@aolson1111 move where? It's almost impossible for most Canadians to get into America (I can give you countless stories, including myself, of Canadians that get rejected for American work, visas, despite qualifications, jobs, already lined up, no criminal record, blah blah blah), and the only other options are to go very far away to a completely different culture and language. So again, be specific. Where is it realistic to move?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
I watched a CBC documentary that was painting this evil, grim picture, and laughing, because they had absolutely no footage to back it up. They were literally showing people smiling and being happy and bouncy castles, and all of that, while the narrator was talking about how it was a potential fire storm, and how it was so dangerous and needed to be curtailed. Weeks, and thousands of people, and not one single incident for the media to latch onto. If anything at all would've happened, that was doggy, they would've been all over it. There are not words to express what pathetic empty shells of human beings I think the Canadian media is. And every single person who cast a vote for Trudeau, is an empty vessel of a human being from here on out, because it's absolutely undeniable after what we've seen.
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
-
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
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I like comment sections because if you read enough, you get different intelligent perspectives. A few people in the comments have talked about the percentages, and whether the effects of CO2 are logarithmic and blah blah blah. My main take away is that this is a complicated subject and nobody in that room had a really good grasp of it, ha ha. It's incredible to me that after decades of hearing about climate change, the absolute basics are known by so very few. On one hand, you have the alarmists who keep making dire predictions that don't even come close to coming true. Giant red flag. And on the other hand, you have people fighting those alarmists who also don't have a very good grasp of things.
Are plants die at 0.2, and we have gone to 0.4. But how much activity does it take to move that needle? You hear answers that are all over the map. The experts, don't agree on how much of an impact humans have. At all. Different experts, have estimates that vary from double to triple and more. That's not a consensus.
Even worse is you will see people citing some Scientific paper, yet someone else can do a deep dive into that paper, and expose how the sentiment given about that paper was the complete opposite of what it said in the paper. It's so unbelievably hard to find out about this stuff. I hear incredibly compelling evidence on both sides and it's really frustrating.
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
-
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
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@cleverusername1894 "In reality, Canada is doing quite well."
You clearly don't live in a big city. Either that or you make really good money. By what metric is Canada doing well? By any International ranking of countries with socialized medicine, we are last or close to it in nearly every category, including wait times, people dying on waitlist, doctors, per capita, amount of time it takes to get a diagnosis, etc. plus we pay the most per capita to get the least results. In the bigger cities like Vancouver, even if you make $100,000 a year you cannot afford the rent on a one bedroom apartment if you use the traditional metric that says the roof over your head should be less than 1/3 of your net pay. Crime and homelessness is way up. By what metric is Canada doing well? GDP per capita has been falling since 2015. Again, by what metric is Canada doing well?
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
97% of climate scientists....don't want to lose their funding. Scientist after scientist who leaves academia, including Ivy League schools, talk about how corrupt their system was and how you got pushed out and defunded the minute your results didn't match the ones they wanted. To say the alarmists are afraid is nuts. And then you say "climate deniers" and thus perpetuating the notion that climate science is settled and that there's a common consensus and that their climate models are even remotely accurate or trustworthy given the amount of assumptions required. You can't talk about needed the scientific method and how criticism is good, then say "climate deniers". C'mon, you're better than this. Also, multiple people in that "97%" paper are on record saying they were misrepresented.
I'm amazed you did this as a topic and didn't mention the replicability crisis. If that doesn't convince people science is corrupted, then nothing will.
7:07. You're out of your damn mind. For 40 years I've heard prediction after prediction of doom and gloom and warming and melting and they simply aren't coming true. The catastrophe is always 10 years away. The same beachfront properties from 1980 are still highly sought after. They aren't underwater. And SO much climate data is cherry picked. Look up what happened before the dates you're given as the start of a timeline. Often those are very strategically picked to make sometime appear worse than it is. Picture a stock market chart where the stock goes from $150 to $100 to $150, then to $100. If you only show the $150 to $100 drop, the sky is falling. If you only show the $100 to $150, it looks like the sky is also falling, but if you look at it as a whole you'll see a repeating pattern within a range. Depending on the time you choose to start you can have the same data show things going up, down, or staying in a range.
8:43
Data? Again, climate models require SO many assumptions as to be almost meaningless. You can alter the assumptions in many different but equally plausible ways to get any result you want and still call it scientific data. Temperatures recorded in the sticks is not measurable decades later for comparison when the suburbs grow and those areas are now in the city where it's warmer due to all the human activity. There's a reason temps are growing over cities and not over the ocean where the readings have been more consistent because their locations and havent been altered. This is just one of many many ways data isn't gospel and always needs to be objectively scrutinized. To say the data is all correct is just dead wrong, especially since climate scientists themselves constantly come up with results that are different enough to be statistically significant.
I don't have a concrete opinion on climate change because both sides make very good points. The fact that one is undeniable corrupt gives me serious pause though. Nobody is making the big bucks by being a "denier" and in fact is destroys careers. They are incentivized to go along with the crowd so when they don't, I trust them more. That doesn't in and of itself mean they are correct, but boy does it help their case. I've been lied to way too many times by The Narrative, and people like world leaders and celebrities who pound the table about a climate crisis, yet don't act like it's a crisis in their real lives. Big yaughts, thousands of fights to COP meetings etc. When people start walking the walk, maybe I'll pay attention.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2:20. I love ya Dave, but this is your most off-base video I've seen by far. Don't get me wrong, I hate Bill Gates with a passion. I think he's evil, but in this clip he's trying to decrease mortality rates. When you do that, people have less kids. When they know that both of their kids will probably live to be adults, they don't have 4 or 5 just in case. That's how it's been all over the world. He's correct in everything he says there. Dude, seriously, chill out. Bill is a lizard person, but in this particular clip he's advocating for the exact opposite of what you're saying. He's saying that these countries already have a hard time feeding the kids, so if people have less of them there's more food to go around and there are more resources to educate them etc. I never thought I'd be on the side of Bill Gates vs Dave Rubin but in this case I'm 100% will Bill because he is empirically correct.
Also, I've been a Mac guy for 25 years now but saying everyone left Windows is nuts. They have 75% of the market, Mac has about 15%.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gregg6398 It's basically impossible to avoid all the companies doing this shit. Coke, Walmart, Disney, B of A, Phizer, Lowe's, Nike, Patagonia, Adidas, Reebok, Pepsi/Frito-Lay, Facebook, PayPal, and let's not forget they very platform you are on. Google/YouTube are some of the worst offenders at all. Believe me I hate what these companies do but it's basically impossible to avoid all of them, and there are many, many more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'll quote a comment below since my answer wouldn't be nearly as eloquent:
Matt Kingman
8 months ago
To address the concerns of people worried about that vegetarian dog--as a vet student I can say that dogs are not obligate carnivores the same way cats are. Dogs are perfectly capable of getting all of their necessary nutrients, amino acids, fats, etc. from plant-based sources. Cats are not able to do this as they're not capable of producing their own arachidonic acid, and thus must obtain it from their diet (and the only direct dietary source is meat). That being said, most homemade diets, even those that include meat, tend to struggle to consistently meet the nutritional standards that AAFCO sets for commercial diets. All of this is to say that even if it's a dubious proposition, there's still a distinct possibility that the dog is getting everything it needs to live a perfectly happy, healthy life on a vegetarian diet. Obviously I can't say if that's true or not for this individual animal, and I'm certainly not recommending that everyone switch their animals to homemade vegetarian diets; I'm just trying to propagate relevant information in regards to all of this. To be clear, if the animal was a cat, in the long run this would be a death sentence.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"we knew, our communism was one big lie, but my parents made it clear to me, I shouldn't talk about it in school,"
I've heard this about so many authoritarian countries. Turns out it's infecting the West now too. I'm Canadian and I don't believe a damn thing Canadian media says. It's now funded by the State so you'll read things you can see with your own eyes are bullshit (the recent Canadian trucker Freedom Convoy is a great example. It was extremely orderly, peaceful, joyful, lawful, and was made up largely of middle/upper middle class 45-60yr olds who were well dressed and more women than men yet the government and media lied their asses off about it and the government invoked a war measures act to seize bank accounts and vehicles and even compel private companies to tow the trucks away. They literally conscripted people to do it and arrested the leaders who were peaceful. I told people to go see a protest for themselves and to not take anyone's word for it). Then you see how big pharma literally has their top people on the boards of Facebook and big media and how guys like Bill Gates spend hundreds of millions "donating" to major media outlets and you no longer wonder why there's no scrutiny. I never, ever thought I'd see the day when my country was not to be trusted and everyone knows it. You don't really meet anybody at who's all for what's being told to us. We just roll our eyes and move on, yet don't dare speak up about it in a formal work setting lest your funding get cut off. It's infected the universities as well. Objectivity went right out the door.
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
-
Then you're just not paying attention. There are plenty of patriots in politics, but these days they are mostly on the right, and the ones that are on the left get pilloried by their own side, like Tulsi Gabard. The people at the top who control everything are just uniparty. It doesn't matter who you vote for, the outcome is roughly the same, but there absolutely are people just one or two steps below that that keep bringing up these issues in congressional meetings and trying to tackle the serious stuff but they can't get past the barrier of the establishment. Go on the Forbes, breaking news, YouTube channel and you'll see politician after politician, making very salient points and trying to hold people to a couch, but nothing ever happens. They get scolded and then go about their lives and nothing happens to them. It's like how absolutely nobody was punished for the 2008 financial crisis. In fact, Obama hired those same people and now the problem is even worse, and Trump did nothing to stop it either. The people at the top are all garbage.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
jj is right. Do not lie. You don't necessarily have to tell the whole truth (that can get you fired etc) but do not lie. Do not tow the party line if it doesn't align with what's in your heart. Do not pretend you agree with things you don't. Be kind, be diplomatic, be empathetic, but be honest. It's unreal how many people I talk to that think what's going on is totally fucked. I make little comments in public all the time and I've never ever had someone push back. Ever, and I'm small and unassuming so it's not like they're afraid of me. Some stay silent, and perhaps they disagree or maybe they're just not talkative, most verbally totally agree and seem happy to have a kindred spirit. Most people are not on board with this shit. Again, be nice to everyone, and you don't need to make waves, but don't lie. It's okay to say you have some reservations about what's going on. If you are in a room full of people and you question things, even a tiny bit, I GUARANTEE there are others who feel the same. That's what we need to embolden people to speak their truth. This goes both ways. If you disagree with some of the things the other side says, that's okay too. Don't lie to either side because that's lying to yourself. Lying is lying to yourself and that'll make you feel worse than being yelled at, I assure you. You can't shower off the gross feeling of when you tell someone what they want to hear, even if you think it's actually harmful.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
I don’t understand what the complaint is. He’s not saying that he’s pro or anti teenagers getting pregnant, at least not in this clip. He just says that historically it was unbelievably common for girls to get pregnant at those ages. I’m not sure I understand what the controversy is. Then you guys go off and make up a narrative about what he probably meant by that. He was literally just stating facts.
Is he denying that women didn’t have much agency historically? If he did, then I missed it. This is why people can’t stand modern leftist. They absolutely couldn’t care less about anything but narrative. It’s so gross. And then half the comments here are about the “mental gymnastics“ he had to go through. The guy literally just stated facts.
The craziest part is that you guys even agreed with his facts. Going into whether or not girls had agency is irrelevant to the audio clip you posted. I see this all the time. Leftists will actually agree with the facts of what was said, but then get really angry about it and paint the person as evil for some reason. It’s intellectually bankrupt and it’s really unfortunate. It’s absolutely pathetic how much you guys have to interpret and read between the lines and come up with your own narratives. The worst recipient of that by far is Jordan Peterson. It’s absolutely unbelievable that you mean hard and savages try to take everybody down and almost always have nothing concrete on them. Jordan has dozens of hours of freely available video, and millions selling books yet somehow he’s the villain even though nobody ever actually has anything on him. It’s so common. I came to this video genuinely curious if Matt had said something truly reprehensible. If he did, then he should be condemned totally but he didn’t, and he just stated facts, and he repeated that over and over it somehow you guys wanna bury him and that’s cruel and mean and you guys are the absolute worst. There’s nobody with more hatred in their heart than those into cancel culture. You guys are disgusting parasites.
I know I shouldn’t get this angry, but it’s the hypocrisy that absolutely kills me. The people on the far left are the most vicious, angry, hypocritical people ever. You guys literally try to destroy peoples lives and it’s reprehensible. It’s the only subject that gets me this angry. There’s nothing blacker in someone’s heart than wanting to ruin people. I would never advocate for the host of the show to be canceled, I would leave it at voicing my opinion and leaving it at that because I can’t stand illogical hypocrisy but that also means I can’t turn into the thing that I hate lest be a hypocrite. I just really hope that one day you guys come to your senses. It’s such a shame that what often has to happen is for the mob to come after you before you realize how insane that it is and how much damage you’ve been doing to people and how malicious you’ve been.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Anti vaxxers" who question Pfizer? If this video was maybe mid 2021 I can possibly forgive that, but there's no excuse for saying something like that in mid 2023. They didn't do any studies at all about transmissibility love the vaccine. Nobody did, yet false claims went out about how it stops transmission. That's fraud! Even the term vaccine in and of itself is a type of fraud because they literally aren't vaccines. They are gene therapy. This type of thing was controversial to say in mid 2021, but it is not controversial to say now. It blows my mind how a select group of ideologues still call anybody who does not like this specific "vaccine" an anti-vaxxer. It's literally beyond belief to me. There are countless people who are publicly, stating that they think vaccines are one of the greatest things mankind has ever developed, but this one specific one was absolutely tainted and fraudulent and reprehensible, and somehow, that means they are against them as a whole. I came to your channel and I liked it, and I subscribed, but the last couple of videos you were very clearly inserted, political bias, and in this one you are calling out people who called out nine cents and I just don't get it. I think I'm going to unsubscribe because this is three videos in a row. Dad either show something kind of silly or show, definite political bias. I do appreciate that this one lady being fraudulent has nothing to do with vaccine research at all and that is obviously correct, but it was the term anti-VAX her that got me because that's where you showed your hand. And of course the next thing you mentioned was climate change, as if none of that can be questioned either. Basically, everything you used as an example was one of the stereotype, main stream, narratives, and it blows my mind that we have so many of those crashing down yet so many people still adhering to all of them without question. What this indicates is that this channel is not going to be full of interesting and objective data. It is going to parrot mainstream, ideas and mainstream ideas only. I will bet my entire net worth that I know exactly how you vote and when people are that easy to spot, you know that what they're talking about is coming from a place of bias, and in the sciences, I think that's unacceptable. The sad part is I guarantee that you'll read this and think I'm just some right wing contrarian or something, even though I haven't even hinted in the very least about where my beliefs lay.
Unsubscribed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"legally protest"? I hate him with the fire of 10000 suns. He revoked the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to MAKE it illegal. I can't believe Canadians voted for this garbage stain 3 times. I no longer care about my country. If it breaks up, so be it. I have a hard time respecting anybody who voted for this guy. How he can talk about free speech and misinformation, then mention the truckers is breathtaking. He literally pays off the media to be nice to him. He's as close to a dictator as you can get in a democracy. He controls the media which is how most people get their news. He's got his foot on the scale, that's for sure. I wish Canada had term limits. And now he's in bed with Jagmeet Singh and the NDP and they are the only two Canadian politicians who I wouldn't care if they got hit by a truck. I normally would feel sadness if anybody had that happen no matter how much I hated them, but not those two. I feel they are truly evil, evil people and I do not say that lightly. I'm very tolerant with almost all views. I like a lot of people who are very different from me politically, but those two are absolute scumbags. If you listen to him and like what he says, you can go to hell. He's the first person I can think of who I'd lose friends over, just for their opinion.
I hope he gets his way, then another party gets in power and silences him and demonizes him into the ground. Now let me be clear: I don't actually want anyone to do any of that stuff, but if it happened to him I would find it beautiful and poetic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FFS, Joe's favourite therapy device is something you strap yourself into and it swings your body to manipulate your goddamn spine. It's robot chiro, yet he thinks Cairo is a scam because it was started by a nutcase. I never knew anything about the history of chiropractic care could give a rats ass because it's the reason I'm living a relative the pain free existence. Somebody literally may as well tell me the Earth is flat if they're gonna tell me that chiropractic care is pseudoscience. What are used to back that up are usually arguments nobody is making. Of course, there's the odds charlatan out there, but that exist in every discipline. I've never in my life had any chiropractor, even the crappy ones, tell me that it cures this or that or that it solves all my problems. Joe happen to go to a bad chiropractor, and now he thinks the whole thing is nonsense. But Joe's take his nonsense. The first chiropractor I ever went to was the one who assumed I had this bulges and it's through him that I got an MRI that showed this. Originally, I went to a regular doctor, who just told me to take a couple painkillers and take it easy for a couple of days even though I was 21 years old, athletic, and literally couldn't take more than a 6 inch step because I had severe back pain after richest "snapped" in the middle of the street. Joe's take is NO different from the woman who was abused and says "Men ain't sheet". He saw a lunatic who lied to him but that guy represents a small fraction of scammers. Those exist in jujutsu too Joe. Is jujutsu nonsense too? Literally the same argument. Alan being incredulous chiros still exist at all makes him a clown to me. I'm pretty open minded to differences in opinion, but every once in a while someone will say something that makes me think they are an idiot, full stop. This is one of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:07 "excuse me, it's now my turn to speak". Buddy, she was dead quiet the whle time you were talking then as soon as she started talking you interrupted her constantly so you didn't earn the right to say it's your turn to speak in the most arrogant tone imaginable. IDGAF who's right or wrong, you're being a douche.
Then this woman refused to address his point. He says life expectancy has gone up and she retorts with "(they are) behind hundreds of years". That's got zero to do with the argument, and it's also silly because their culture wasn't advancing, in the western sense. In hundreds of years they still would've had early mortality, end of story.
FFS, this has devolved into Fox or MSNBC nonsense. Children, all of them. Petulant children who refuse to address what the other is saying, and they are constantly talking over each other. Both of these people are clowns. The guy actually annoys me more because he's so condescending. She has a different opinion and she's an annoying firebrand SJW, but his demeanour bugs me more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:40. "The chaos of the Trump years". Yeah, because people with TDS lost it at everything he said and did. 98% of all Trump complaints are about what a jerk face he is. IDGAF about anything but policy and people have very few complaints about his actual policies, and the economy certainly did well under him. I don't get where the boogeyman is. Things were objectively good under him, worse now, and people don't want to go back to the good times because they don't like him? I think it is exceedingly pathetic that people literally use elections as a popularity contest, as far as how they like the person, not how they like those person's policies when looked at objectively.
Edit: F'ing hell. The lady on the left came right out and confirmed my suspicion. "I'd put policy aside and choose democracy", ironically on the guy who peddled his influence to make money with his son, and whose party right now are trying to insist that the guy who literally told his followers to stay peaceful, and go home with trying to stage an insurrection, and they're trying to bar him from even running. Anybody who buys that is unfit to vote. If you cannot see the extreme irony and hypocrisy in that, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not telling you to vote for Donald Trump, I'm just saying that you better look at both of their policies and decide who makes the most sense to you. Thinking this is a threat to democracy and then it will be saved by voting for the party trying legal shenanigans to bar the person who's gonna beat the pants off them in the election is just gross and dishonest..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s interesting you read your comments, because as a Lehman, all I know is that scientists are apparently been shouting about doom and gloom for decades absolutely none of their predictions of come true. You can still buy the same beachfront in Miami, you can go outside with the old SPS 100, the polar bears aren’t about to go extinct, the glaciers weren’t gone by 2000 etc etc. I think climate science has been absolutely captured by ideology. You never ever ever hear about any of the positive aspects of climate change. That should be red flag number one. Only hearing about one side of something means you should take it with a bag of salt. You only hear about desertification, but they never talk about how the train line is moving north, and we actually have more trees now. They only talk about what animals are harmed, but never which ones are helped unless the ones that are helped or seen as a bad thing like a giant jellyfish swarm. We keep getting told that it’s literally an existential crisis. Obviously that’s complete nonsense. The fact that your career is basically over if you go against the narrative and should also be a gargantuan red flag. It’s easy to have a “consensus“ when everyone’s career is at stake. Until we have a modicum of sanity and balance brought into the discussion, I will continue to not have an opinion on it. Nobody wants to be objective about it on either side and it’s gross. As someone who is painfully objective, I’m absolutely disgusted by both sides. Even the term “consensus“ is complete nonsense, because if you ask even the most basic questions about what there is a consensus on, it breaks down quickly. The talk gets completely unscientific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bonniegaither3994 but is the answer to go the other way and have people who go into the trades and work hard and borrow money to start their own business have to subsidize people who want degrees in non-practical fields? personally, I think you should have to pay for your school entirely, and then, if your degree lands, you a real world job in that field, then, each year you are in that field you should have a percentage of your debt wiped out. I don’t think anybody has a problem with helping people out to varying degrees if they’re going to school for something practical, but you have to understand how this feels to people who didn’t go to college. Again, if you’re a plumber and you wanna start your own business, so you borrow money and go into debt to buy more equipment and vehicles, nobody cares. No one‘s gonna help you with your expenses, even though they were done to try and make a better life for yourself. Why does nobody want to help out that guy but it’s expected that we help out people going to college? It’s a tough one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Likewise, is it right to tax same money twice?". Hmmm. You mean because it just sits there and doesn't appreciate or do anything, but then gets taxed again? I see your point because it's not like it was invested in anything, but I guess I'd have to say that from the perspective of the dead person, they've already paid taxes on it so it's free and clear for them, but the recipient just gets a windfall, so for them it's a new windfall gain so it's technically "new" money to them so it's not really being paid twice on the same money. (and for reference, I think gov'ts suck balls and are money grubbing cocksuckers, haha)
Speaking of taxing the same money twice, I'm Canadian and here if you buy a brand new car you pay tax on the full value, then you sell it 2 yrs later and that person pays tax on the new depreciated value, and so on down the line. The gov't may get tax money 5 different times on something that's already had the tax paid on it, plus you pay extra fees when transferring ownership so it's for damn sure not meant to cover actual costs. Strictly a money grab. You don't pay taxes on a used air compressor, so why a car?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This will never happen again. That's because it doesn't have to. There are very easy ways to control people now. Cut off someone's phone and bank account and what can they do? Governments are getting rid of cash as well. You are being tracked. Technology means they can get way, WAY more authoritarian than in WWII. They can literally know your every movement now. The trucker Freedom Convoy in Canada ended in some very chilling, authoritarian stuff that looks menacingly like the very early days of the Nazi's, before they went batshit crazy. Peaceful protesters were arrested and had their bank accounts seized and the insurance on their trucks cancelled and the PM called them terrorists and told a Jewish MP (and ancestor of holocaust survivers) to her face that she "stands with Nazi's". It was straight up lying propaganda. They enacted an emergency act meant for times of war to halt the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to clear out the protest of people the PM refused to even talk to. So in summary, a PM falsely demonized people with lies said through government funded media outlets, then seized assets and arrested peaceful protesters after denying them their rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He talked about people who were hesitant to get the covid vaccine: "Should we tolerate them?". Chilling. He said they were racist misogynists and islamophobic and homophobic...without a shred of evidence. That's straight out of the authoritarian handbook. More and more laws are coming in like compelled speech laws etc. It's very, very frightening. They don't need to kill people any more to "eliminate" them. Social credit scores can make people irrelevant in a hurry and they are working towards it. It's awful. So yes, yes I can see people falsely demonizing people in order to erase them. It just won't be with executions. It will be by ruining their lives and often locking them up.
I know it sounds extremely hyperbolic to compare what a western leader dead to what the Nazis did, but if people knew their history they would know that everything started out slowly and ramped up little by little. That's why the Jews didn't flee immediately. They thought it was just minor government overreach...until it wasn't. I heard Canadian politicians say that people who weren't vaccinated should be denied medical care. Again, there won't be mass graves but it will be extreme authoritarianism where there are cameras and trackers everywhere and they will be able to have their thumb on you like never before in a way you can't subvert. There are even devices now that are learning to detect your individual heartbeat because it's like a fingerprint. That means you can cover your face and have no electronics on you and walk into a place and they can still find out who you are. Did I mention that it's a laser that works from 200 m away? The Pentagon already has this in America. A simple Google search will show it. If this stuff doesn't scare the shit out of you, then you aren't paying attention. This is how it starts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:25 "the point is pretending that it matters" is 95% of ALL new networks. It's also completely bananas for Vox of all channels to be crying about journalistic partisanship. Show me one single pro conservative video Vox has ever done. It's literally 100% pro liberal which means democrat (in America) so pot, meet kettle.
4:38 "there's no equivalent to this on the left" um....it's called the entire rest of the media. Look at it this way: about 1/2 the country votes conservative each federal election so about 1/2 the country supports that side of the spectrum, yet it's alarmingly rare to see a pro conservative story outside of blatantly right wing outlets, which are few and far between. That's undeniably proof of bias. Go ahead and be biased all you want, but please keep the hypocrisy out of it. Again, this is Vox, which is the Fox of the left. And the premise of this video is ridiculous. "Oh, it's not our fault the left wing media talks about Fox all the time. It's Fox's fault!". What?! This sounds a lot like "Cover the women up because we men can't control ourselves".
6:27 explicitly states a presidential candidate violated multiple laws, yet somehow people are stupid for drawing attention to it? Explain it to me slowly please because I'm just not getting it. If a conservative lied about doing what she did the media would go nuts.
7:32 the unsecured phones don't spark the outrage because that's just stupid blundering, not deliberate moves to circumvent anything. They are not at all the same.
7:56 "by mainstream journalists who are too afraid of looking biased against conservatives..". One, FFS their bias is overwhelming and two, if they truly did feel that way they could just ignore the goddamn story. There are millions of newsworthy events that happen constantly. Just talk about something else.
Vox makes such great non-news videos that it's astounding the same organization can produce cringeworthy virtue signalling hypocrisy like this garbage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:51 I'm on board with a lot of Jordan's fights, but go fuck yourself on this one. You are saying that if they were left to their own devices that the industry would have improved itself dramatically on its environmental impacts? Show me the evidence. All around the world, almost all environmental improvements have come due to government regulation. That forces companies to innovate. I like small government and all that, but when it comes to the environment, capitalism has consistently shown it desperately needs environmental regulation. The innovations don't come out of nowhere. The odd time something new will come out that was borne of a better, more efficient way of doing something that is better environmentally, but on the whole it's because of regulation. I'm so sick and fucking tired of people spouting off about how they hate regulation when in fact they rely on it constantly. Free-market capitalist are the worst for this. They bitch about the government bitch about the government bitch about the government, but then assemble a giant team of lawyers to protect their intellectual property, their patents, to protect themselves from slander and libel, to use contracts to force outlets into exclusivity deals etc. I just hate the disingenuous nature underpinning the arguments about regulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I like what Bria is saying, but medical bankruptcy does happen in Canada. All the time. It's not the same as in America by any stretch, but here it can be incredibly expensive to get therapy and medication's and we have some of the longest wait list in the world for important surgeries so people will go into debt to go somewhere else to get it. Personally I few to a private clinic in Canada to get a colonoscopy because I had a cancer scare, and the reason I did that is because under the public system I would've had to wait for at least six months to get it through the public system and I wasn't prepared to wait because I didn't want six more months of cancer growing inside me. You absolutely can dig a deep, deep hole if you need certain drugs or therapy in Canada. Are you will never get an $80,000 bill simply because he had a child, and I'm not saying it's worse than America, I'm just saying that in Canada absolutely for sure can go medically bankrupt. The government by no stretch of the imagination funds everything. Tons of practitioners are simply too expensive for people to afford unless they get help through perhaps a workplace insurance plan or something. I can't tell you how many people I know forgo therapy that could really help them, whether drugs, or otherwise, because of the cost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"controversial" podcast host? He's the #1 host on planet earth and he's only controversial to a minority of people (again, #1 most popular on planet earth). And you guys wonder why nobody trusts the media anymore. Joe has fuck-you money so he can afford to straight up tell Sanjay that the network lies about medical issues, and that it happens under Sanjay's watch.
Fuck me, the first 2 things you say are GARBAGE. He's not a skeptic of the vaccines. He said he didn't see a need to take it since he's already had covid, and has said before that he originally was scheduled to take it. He has never, ever told people who were worried about covid that they should not take the vaccine. What a fucking clown show this network is.
Holy shit, I'm watching this and now it's the second clip and Sanjay is so gross. He says "we're allowed to have a nuanced conversation about this" while absolutely ignoring Joe's nuanced point. Joe just said that kids fare really well when they come down with Covid. Sanjays says "you mean they don't die?". Fuck you. That is so disingenuous that it's disgusting. Technically what Joe is talking about does include the fact the kids don't die, but you know goddamn well that's not the crux of the point and you're trying to shift the focus because he has you stammering which means he has you dead to rights. Then the next guy says it's like trying to herd cats. You kidding me?!?! He could not have been sticking more to the point. I cannot express to you how little respect I have for anyone involved with CNN. There's zero objectivity here. You guys also happened to ignore the most famous part of this interview which is Joe ripping CNN for blatantly lying. I get your motivation, obviously, but it's still slimy. If I touched CNN I imagine it to smell bad and be sticky.
5:59 Joe was talking specifically about children and healthy younger people. Your data, is it age dependent? And you guys talking about mental gymnastics? C'mon.
The very last thing that pencil neck geek on the left says is that it doesn't matter if Joe is joking because the millions of people who watch him may not now. THIS hits the nail on the head of why I hate the mainstream narrative. It's so condescending. You guys act like everybody else is too fucking stupid to understand the things that you understand. Fuck each and every one of you.
My God is everything about this video dreadful. Also, to hell with the girl who says Joe is not a doctor. Joe has doctors that agree with him and those who don't, and she isn't a doctor either so that same argument goes both ways. I lost braincells watching this shit show. There's a reason I don't watch any MSM outlet. They are all gross.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dougbelford4565 "Anyone who watch the video of Joe Rogan & Matt Walsh and try to emphasize with Matt, clearly has an agenda."
Yes I have an agenda. Objectivity. I call out things that are illogical and irrational on all sides equally. I get called a communist, alt right, a bootlicker, I get called everything under the sun by all ideologues.
The fact that you believe that anyone who would come to Matt's defence for any reason whatsoever has to be a terrible person is a fantastic example of why we are so polarized in this country. Nobody gives a rats ass about logic and reason anymore. Evidence no longer matters. All people hear is "You didn't lambaste the person I don't like so you must believe everything that person believes and you are the enemy no matter what".
How are people ever supposed to have a reasonable conversation when that's the starting vantage point?
Fine for the record I'll actually state my opinions. I disagree very much with Matt's version of what marriage is for. I think marriage was originally about a combination of fidelity, family, and often about keeping power and wealth. In many circles, especially royalty back in the day, marriage was very strategic. These days marriage is more about the commitment to the person, as well as legal advantages like taxes and rights when it comes to medical care etc. I don't give a damn if a trans man marries a man or rutabaga. I'm indifferent if they adopt 10 children. It doesn't positively nor negatively affect my life in any capacity. I'm also not religious in the very least, and I'm as politically homeless as it gets. I very, very seldom support any political party, but I've supported both sides of the aisle.
I like long moonlit walks on the beach and I enjoy tacos.
Is that clear enough for you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
49:25 "that's not compassion". That's the exact same wording I use all the time. I work construction in Vancouver Canada, and right outside my job site. There are absolute cracked out zombies all day every day. I'm not talking functioning people that do drugs, I mean the ones that are bent right over and can't even stand up straight anymore because they're spinal fluid is gone, and they've got marks all over them, and they sleep with their face pressed into the ground with her leg up behind themselves in some position a cat should only be able to get into. These people are enabled by welfare and cheap rent. The government gives them enough money for a roof over their heads, and they give them free food and asked nothing of them. So you're horribly addicted to drugs, and you have money and zero responsibilities. What the f@#k do you think is going to happen? The policies make my blood boil, especially since those clowns think they're doing a good thing and being kind and tolerant. They are not. They are helping it get way, way, way worse as time goes on. We call them zombies because they don't even seem human anymore they're so far gone. There's so far gone you often don't have any sympathy for them at all. It's like they are stray animals or something. Whatever it is, that makes you human, many of them lost it sometime ago. It's awful. I hate the government so very much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:57. Did the Fir "receive" the nutrients, or did it "take" the nutrients. This whole "cooperation" thing is a bit too anthropomorphized for my tastes. I'd prefer the term "transferred" because that can be voluntary or involuntary. Same with the word "share". If my and my neighbour both steal each other's lawn fertilizer depending on who has more, are we really sharing? Maybe their roots are similar enough that if they touch, they join. Later on you say "direct" resources. Again, that denotes both coordinated intent and benevolence. If a hungry worker steals from the lunches of coworkers, is that any different? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe lots of what this video is talking about is a byproduct as opposed to a feature. Same with the defence mechanisms. If you hear your neighbours stream because someone is beating them up, you might lock your doors to protect you from the hooligans. Do you have to pick up on the fact that your neighbour was distressed as opposed to your neighbour signalling you on purpose. I'm sorry but I'm down vote in this video because it's not just one or two things, you make a theme throughout this video that you absolutely cannot prove which is very unscientific. Do trees "help" their neighbours as you claim? Resource exchange is not necessarily a synonym for help. Do I feel like the government is getting help from me if they tax me to pay for something I don't like? No but I feel like they've taken from me but there's nothing I can do about it.
FYI, I really like the message at the end about preserving more of the mother trees. Clear cutting is awful. I'm not sure I'm with you on the HelloFresh though. I don't see how it's better for the environment to have everything come in it's on plastic packaging. You reduce your waste by buying less, or buying the normal amount but using it all up, as opposed to getting tiny little packages that are all individually wrapped.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The comments are below is correct. If you took away the metropolitan Toronto area votes Trudeau got, he wouldn't have come within a country mile of getting elected. And even then, our voter turnout isn't the best so literally only one in five adults you see walking down the street actually voted for him. He keeps getting reelected even though he has lost the popular vote. Notice how in America they lose it that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost the election, but you don't hear a peep about how the same thing happened in Canada and nobody on the right was crying foul about it. They just accepted that that's our rules and it is what it is.
I live in Vancouver which is pretty far left, and Victoria, which is our provincial capital, is insanely far left. I mean ridiculously. No blue collar area comes anywhere close to voting for him. He gets annihilated everywhere outside the white collar major urban centres. I truly believe that after how he treated the trucker convoy he would've gotten destroyed in an election, but I fear that people will have forgotten about that by the time the next election rolls around. You can call an election whenever you want in Canada so two years into his four year mandate they called a snap election in the middle of a pandemic and won. I think every single person that voted for him isn't absolute scumbag. If you didn't research him, then you shouldn't have voted, and if you did research him and still voted, then I think you are a terrible person. I never ever ever thought I'd say that about somebody just based on their vote, but this guy is literally an insane authoritarian. He suspended our charter of rights and freedoms to combat a peaceful protest that he literally refused to engage in any capacity. The government never once met with anyone. How does that happen in a democracy? Imagine an American president suspending the bill of rights because of unbelievably peaceful protesters? The truckers very deliberately went out of their way to not leave garbage, to clean the streets of ice, and to be good to the neighbourhood other than honking their horns. They want to protest vaccine mandates and the Prime Minister called them racist and misogynist. Even if that was 100% true, but still has nothing to do with their message. The fact Canadians went along with it discussed me and I do not care anymore if this country breaks up. I never thought I would say something like that. I've always been a proud Canadian. Not anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dis_Dis on what do you base your absolute claim that private companies could not have come up with the smart phone technologies? Has no private company ever come up with an equivalent level technology?
You are holding up Cuba as a good example? Perhaps it is better off than it had been in the past, but people still literally risk their lives to leave it. They are risking their lives from their own government, not the sea. If you have to face the wrath of your own government simply for trying to leave, then your country is not a good one.
"This is the greatest time to be alive indeed. If you live in the Imperial core (America and Europe) and directly benefit from the suffering of other people on the rest of this rock we call Earth. "
OK I'm not even gonna be nice about this one. This is pure nonsense. The worldwide Numbers of people in extreme poverty has absolutely plummeted in the last 30 years, way faster than United Nations wildest expectations. This has happened as markets have opened up. On this one you are absolutely out of your mind. Greed completely saved these people. Corrupt government institutions are what keep people in poverty. Go to any nation that is not wealthy and check out their government institutions. They are never on the up and up. Africa is poor because of poor government institutions. It's impossible to run a capitalist country with terrible institutions.
Tesla died in a hotel room cause he wasted all of his money. He was rich at one point and then spent it. That's the fault of capitalism?
How is Tesla the car company stealing resources? Those resources are being sold to them. The only thing that's being stolen are good working conditions, and that's because of poor government institutions. Not because of capitalism.
Tesla itself is absolutely built on the back of government subsidies. I think it's ridiculous.
You still never answered my question from long ago about why communist countries (or socialist or whatever) never came up with even a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the innovations that capitalist countries did. Seriously, explain that to me if the government is the Almighty high and powerful that produces all innovation of meaning. And this includes medicine. Greed is a fantastic motivator. Now I have massive problems with the pharmaceutical industry and a company taking over insulin that was supposed to be free to the world is absolutely disgusting. If somebody invent something and declares that free to everyone, then I think it's morally reprehensible to take it for yourself and make obscene profits on it. That still doesn't change the overall point though. Explain to me why almost all of the innovations in science and medicine and technology and living standards come from capitalist nations.
The reason capitalism is superior to communism and socialism and all those sorts of things is because it has humility. Even the most ardent capitalist will agree that there are some massive problems with it but we've never seen anything that comes even close to it for elevating living standards. You do not find that same humility on the other side. And for the record, I own the communist manifesto and my big takeaway was that it was ridiculous that people were flying the flag of Marx when the manifesto is a tiny little pamphlet written by a whiny young man that had absolutely no solutions. I thought I was going to see a blueprint of how to create utopia but there were no answers whatsoever. Just ignorant childish petulance of someone claiming that you could take everything from people who had more than you, using violence if you darn well feel like it. And when I say countries went communist, while simultaneously saying it's impossible doesn't mean I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. I mean that all over the world people have honestly tried to make it happen. They even call the regimes communism. It just doesn't work, and never will, four the same reasons that group projects in high school or frustrating. Some people don't want to contribute yet claim the spoils, and some spend all their time trying to run things, and it just turns into something where half the people contribute and the other half just drag it down.
Do you believe that people who take their own money and risk it on starting up a small business should be compensated more than people who risk absolutely nothing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Right Minded - I disagree that "wealth is created through productive work". I don't care how productive people are, if they are chasing money that their own country has created out of thin air, then "getting" more money is just inflation. That's different from increased wealth. Each new dollar makes the existing ones worth less and less. A dozen eggs equals a loaf of bread. It does today, and it did 50 years ago. The food didn't become any more valuable, we just hand over more dollars to buy it now. I just don't see how going into debt increases wealth the same as bringing in foreign assets, debt free, does. Plus, the paying off of debts with increased amounts of dollars (each having decreased values) isn't a sound strategy, it's a borderline ponzi scheme.
Maybe we just aren't connecting on what "productive" means. To me it means creating something where nothing was before. A policeman isn't "productive", and they don't contribute to government coffers because their whole paycheque came from those coffers in the first place.
I'm not sure whether we disagree, or just aren't on the same page with the semantics. Text is so cumbersome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "not real socialism" part always gets me. Do these people think that they're just so happens to have never been anybody to try and implement actual Socialism? It's human nature itself that won't allow it to work. It's no accident that it's "never been tried".
And a couple people with obscene amounts of money is a terrible reason to take the legs out of everybody else under them. Socialist movements, don't try to lift everybody else up, they try to drag the top down. I think the amount of money billionaires have is absolutely disgusting. I would definitely be a massive philanthropist, and give away most of my money way before I reached the levels of wealth they have, but I'm not gonna try and tear down the whole system just because a tiny tiny tiny percentage of people get extremely lucky and have more wealth than some small countries. Socialists always seem to focus on tearing the extremely successful down, much more than they are concerned with bringing everybody else up. And lastly, if a socialist system needs another socialist system for it to work, then it doesn't work by definition. You can't blame capitalism for Socialism not working. That absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. It's the same logic, as when people claim they are free-market capitalist, and I always called them out because they are not. Hard-core, free-market capitalist lobby, the government to bring in cheaper labor, and they want patent protections, and all sorts of things that are not part of a truly free market. Socialists can't pound the table about how their system is superior, if it literally relies on capitalism for it to function. @theLetterDoubleYou
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
13:45. I disagree about your assessment of the % of the homeless with "hardcore" addiction. You don't have to actively be a criminal in order to be a part of facilitating it. It's like if you get all your stuff from pawn shops but aren't a thief. Regardless, I've lived in Vancouver and spent years downtown in my youth and I've never met a street person who wasn't addicted. Some homeless are very temporary and they stay in shelters and access services to help them get back on track. The rest are almost exclusively junkies. The overlap in your diagram should've been almost complete, at least in so far as homeless who are addicted. Or maybe a problem stems from the difference between being homeless and on the streets. Those two aren't necessarily the same thing. And define "criminal behaviour". If you mean buying drugs and loitering and vagrancy and living where they aren't technically allowed to, then it's basically 100%.
14:35. Stories like hers break my heart. Same reason I don't hate the homeless directly. When I hate the homeless population, I hate the fact that there IS a homeless "population". I hate that it's more than just a few outliers that can't be reached and refuse help. It's the fault of our leaders who can't see that we need to abandon policies that have led to increased numbers. It's the homeless themselves that are suffering the most and it's painful to watch. Let them suffer, and hurt the rest of us, in the name of kindness.
47:10. That’s literally terrifying. What happened to these people? How could multiple of them flip their positions so drasically in such a short period of time? What insane power structure has them going down this road? One person? Maybe. Multiple? Something’s going on and it’s frightening, especially given the obvious logical need for their former position in light of the continued evidence the new approach is failing. I GUARANTEE that if the councillor who proposed the decriminalization of theft had her purse snatched weekly while walking down the street to work, she'd change her tune. And by tune, if she's like too many examples we've seen thus far, she'd just change her own routine to not have to walk that street anymore, or she'd hire bodyguards or whatever. If her car got broken into multiple times and she was mugged while walking down to the corner store by her house, she'd change her tune back to something within the bounds of rationality.
I would like to hear from people who have escaped the street/drug life who disagree with the two they profile in this video. They both said going to jail helped. They both think that leaving the homeless to deal with these issues in the way it's currently going down is not good. Are there those who've gotten clean who disagree? I'd like to hear their side. I'm not sure they exist though. I want to hear a councillor talk to them face to face, to look them in the eye and tell them they know what's best for these people better than those who lived it. Jail is involuntary, so why can't treatment be? Why can't you take repeat, repeat offenders and "lock them up" in a facility where they can get help? It's not a violation of your civil liberties if you were out committing crimes unless you are kept there indefinitely. So long as you use it instead of whatever maximum jail sentence you might've got, have at it.
Lastly, the Kevin Carter Jr part makes me so fucking angry. His story is absolutely non-partisan. To the left he was a person in need, and to the right he was a person who tried as hard as he could to help himself out of his predicament. How can someone that everybody would agree needed help, be left to jump in front of a train? It hurts my heart so much to know that people like him get left behind. His story alone should be enough to create change. Instead of everyone in this documentary being used as powerful wake up call, they'll likely go down as another "Yeah, that really sucked" story people mention in passing over a Starbucks.
You have to sign into YouTube just to be able to see the documentary, and it doesn't even show anything graphic other than one blurry video. You have to be an adult just to see what's going on in this documentary. That says so much.
The last two sentences of the documentary really say it all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rand Paul is trying to distract from his own failings? THAT'S why he's going after Fauci?! FFS come up with something better than that. So Rand Paul is thinking "Man, people are all mad at me. I better come up with something to deflect that anger. I know, I'll go after Fauci!"? Fuckssakes.
"A really good communicator"? The guy who lied about masks? The guy who has never emphasized how people need to keep up their immune systems to better, ya know, fight pathogens? That's your great communicator?
This guy is having a semantic argument about gain of function but he very carefully avoids addressing the core of the question. Is this because he wanted to but gosh darn he lacks Fauci's incredible communication skills? I'm not saying this guy is wrong or lying. I'm certainly not qualified to say that, but I wish that instead of this podcast he had gone on Darkhorse to argue with Brett. Heather would've probably jumped the table so she can't be there, haha. I just want to see someone ask this guy the tough questions in a way he can't wriggle out of. He's probably not evil, but he's probably not a saint either.
Okay, officially fuck this guy and I'm only 23 minutes in. He says there are no credible attacks you can lay on Fauci. How about the mask statement? I don't care how justified it was in their minds, he still lied about it and he is still supposed to be the top official so of course it's OK to attack him based on that. And he kept insisting in the early days that it was theoretically technically possible for this to be a lab leak but that thinking that it was our insisting that it was probably a lab leak made you some sort of conspiracy nut even though, as this guy admits, three times there have been leaks of coronaviruses. I don't trust anyone who puts anyone else on such a pedestal. Even if Fauci has been unfairly vilified for certain things, he absolutely has also fairly warranted criticism for others. At 25:12 he says Fauci has told the truth at every moment, then a couple minutes later admit Fauci said you don't wear masks partly cuz the hospitals needed them. I can't think of a better example of talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. And Fauci literally chuckled when saying it, as if the suggestion was ridiculous. That was the part that struck me at the time. That he was so dismissive of the concept as to openly mock it. I'm really, really hoping for a sign of hope in this podcast. A sign that I need to put the pitchfork away and admit the complexity of the issue and maybe find some middle ground. I have not found that. All I've found is a guy who seems like he's so steeped in the politics that it's become one with his life and he doesn't even see it anymore. I believe that he believes what he's saying. I don't think he's malevolent or purposefully misleading. I just think he's so far down the rabbit hole that he can't see the forest for the trees.
WTF?! Just as I'm starting to empathize with this guy a little bit when he's talking about trying to get his message out to the vaccine hesitant, he says that there have been dozens of vaccines. Come on man, you know damn well that the issue is the fact that most of the vaccines were created with a brand new technology, and that the ones that weren't, were created at a much faster time scale than anything else in history and that includes longer term studies of their safety and efficacy. Dude you almost had me, but every time I start to move a bit towards your side you say something that drops my jaw. There's no way you can fundamentally misunderstand people's basic, obvious hesitancy like that. You are certainly not a stupid man, so what gives?
Around the 34 minute mark he makes this overtly political. He talks about "misinformation" and is most certainly only calling out media that doesn't support his agenda, cuz CNN etc have also done their fair share of garbage reporting to instil fear, and then he equates this to the 2020 election's legitimacy, especially after 2016 had the exact same problem according to Hillary herself (but we won't mention that, I guess).
The next thing Lex says is about humility and he's absolutely bang on.
OMG, then this guy says Joe was anti-vaccine. He is NOT. He thinks everyone who is vulnerable should absolutely take it, but that he himself is healthy and doesn't need it. He was proven correct with regards to himself. Even this guy is unfairly painting Joe. So fuck this guy. I've made my decision just under 1/2 way in because he's said soooo many questionable things already, starting right at the beginning. Holy fuck. Right after that he goes off about how Ivermectin is not known about yet as far as efficacy and that the information thus far supporting it doesn't come from science. What? Paging Dr Pierre Kory and many others. This guy absolutely lacks any form of humility. It's cool for him to say they are still working on the data, but he makes it seem like anything that goes against the popular narrative can't possibly come from science, even though many people who've been skeptical of things or have stumped for Ivermectin could not be more highly credentialed. Maybe Ivermectin turns out to be a dud, but to dismiss the push as unscientific is infuriating. He won't give the other side and inch. In any way.
"The vaccine doesn't care how healthy you are"? Please find better wording because that's just nonsense. FFS the data says otherwise. Outlier cases have healthy people getting fucked up but look at the hospitalizations and deaths and tell me you can't draw conclusions as to who those people are. Then he tries to bolster his claim using anecdotal evidence, the type he purportedly abhors. The longer I listen the less I like this man and that sucks so much. I was really hoping to sympathize with the position he's in but I find my sympathies few and far between. I'll stop ranting now because I'm barely halfway through and look what I've already written.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
13:30. The thing is, one tribe really, truly DOES want to fundamentally undo the foundation of the country. That's not a partisan viewpoint, that's objective reality. They've literally said as such. The leftists in the American federal government, and in many states, are extremely open about wanting to change the entire way society operates, and that the foundation of the country is inherently bad because it is racist and sexist and blah blah blah. It's great in theory to say that both sides are equally culpable but they simply aren't. The right wants some tweaks around the edges but the left has gone off the rails. For the record, I'm not a conservative. I'm completely politically homeless.
Update 22:10 Thanks KK. Then he goes on to correctly say that the far right is simply not a real threat. They aren't predominant in any major corporations, nor political parties, nor universities are media or anywhere. It's good to know that those lunatics exist, but to suggest they are even a remote tiny threat, especially compared to the far left that has infiltrated absolutely everything, is completely bat shit crazy. No rational person can claim that the threats are even in the same ballpark.
31:00 Holy shit, none of you know who Gen X is? I know we're the "forgotten" generation, but I thought that was hyperbole. Boomers, then Gen X, then Millennials, then Gen Z. Maybe in England it was called something different but Bari should know. yeesh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
33:15. This activist is like Karl Marx. She understands the problem, but has a terrible solution. She purposely wants to avoid facts and data and instead go for the heartstrings against people who only care about facts and data. If you're trying to stop a big oil company, the ONLY way you'll get through is to give them facts and data about how they could be best served doing something else. Appealing to their sense of generosity will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever cut it, especially when you're trying to disrupt ALL of them. I'm a very logic person, so the poem tugged at nothing. I rolled my eyes. Feelings will not get you out of this. Only pragmatic logic can help you at this point so you may as well get on with it or you're just wasting your time. International groups do not have much control at all of oil companies. And great, you got countries to say 1.5 instead of 2. I fail to see the impact. If the scientists all said 1.5 was a pipe dream, then it's a pipe dream. Most countries don't even pay their proper dues to the UN, yet you expect these countries to really step up to the plate in a sacrificial way to help this international consortium? Fingers crossed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@plexoduss " Is it an interpretation of data that is subjective in your opinion? "
That's the problem. NOBODY wants to actually look at the real data (without coloring it) and nobody wants to look at the track record. Name me one major prediction that's come through in the last 30 years with regards to climate. One. They never ever come true and then they wonder why people are skeptical. We also hear so much absolute nonsense cause people want to paint a narrative around the data. Look at the frequency and devastation of hurricanes and wildfires, and look at all of it, historically, and it doesn't paint this dystopian picture of people like to make it out to be. I don't have an opinion on climate change, either way, because both sides make very salient points, but I am always extremely suspect of anything that's not honest and open, and literally requires consent.. You absolutely will not get published in a major journal. If you have a study that goes against the climate change narrative. The people who do this for a living literally can't oppose the narrative or they lose their funding. That's a false consensus and it's dishonest and gross and because of it, I'm absolutely skeptical. And again, for decades now there have been all of these predictions about what will happen by the year 2000, 2010, 2020, and none of them ever even come close to coming true.
The worst ones to me are when people talk about heat records. They'll say that it's the warmest. Or warmest temperatures in 100 years or whatever. They actually look at that as proof of climate change and I just don't understand it at all. The fact that it's the warmest it's been in 100 years means that 100 years ago it was even warmer. There are a few things in the world people want to approach with less objectivity than climate change, and it's disgusting. And anything you're not allowed to question get an automatic red flag for me, especially when people stand to make tremendous amounts of money off of it. I'm always gonna be extraordinarily sceptical of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ishanloomba788 "Are mothers not as capable as fathers at raising kids or something? What is the causal relationship between the two?"
The biggest factor is simple economics. If mom is able to stay home, there is always a guiding, nurturing figure around. Next best is two parents working and providing for all the necessities, and in both cases the child gets a balanced understanding of masculinity and femininity etc.
But when you get to a single working mom who doesn't have the resources nor time to give the kids their best possible environment, plus the missing hole of the masculine side of life, it's so tough. And to go through all that and try to be a positive, happy, caring mom would be unbelievably hard. Kids need security and balance, and it's hard to raise a family on a single income these days. Did you grow up in a household where money was tight, or non existent? I did and it NOT a good environment.
Simply put: two parents can provide more resources of time/money/diversity/balance in the household and all 3 of those things are a positive. And it's not a conservative talking point. It's something that's extremely clear when looking at the data. Two parent household provide better outcomes (of course there are plenty of outliers, but they're just that. Outliers).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dubbyx8490 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmJsCaQTXiE
This is the video, and below was my novel length comment that kept getting longer each time he drove me nuts:
I honestly put people that don't believe in chiropractic care in the same realm as flat earthers. You just said chiropractors are based on superstition?! This phenomenon is so crazy to me. For certain conditions, chiropractic care absolutely completely works and has a verifiable A to B that absolutely can't be ignored, yet somehow is. People who don't believe in chiropractors suffer from all the things the doctor here is talking about. They know of people who chiropractic care didn't help and they use that to base their claims that the entire practice is nonsense. That's as pseudoscience as it gets. That's like saying peanuts aren't healthy because some people are allergic to them. I really really want somebody like this guy to explain to me in great detail why he doesn't believe in it, and more importantly, how to get the same level of back improvement via any other method. He goes on about how it's somebody giving you tender care. That is someone who is very clearly never been to a chiropractor. It's quite jarring and uncomfortable but oh boy does it help if you have the right condition. As someone who has used it over the last 25 years to great effect, it blows my mind. It's so weird. It's like being under an umbrella in the rain and having somebody tell you that the umbrella isn't doing anything, that the rain is still hitting you. It's literally one of the strangest things in the world to me. I only need to visit a chiropractor if I don't treat my body well for an extended period of time. I can stiffen up to the point of pain, then I go to the chiropractor and they can immediately tell exactly where in my back is suffering, and then crack it and then I have much more range of motion and it feels more ergonomically proper, and then I spend the next few weeks making sure I maintain that range of motion. Can somebody please explain to me how an unbelievably direct A to B doesn't exist. I don't go for the feely-feels and I certainly don't go to help my wallet. I go because there's an extraordinarily logical explanation to why the things that were bothering me or helped greatly by having my range of motion entry so the body can function the way it's supposed to. And again, anyone wanting to refute this has to explain to me how to achieve the same results another way. It's like somebody telling you that exercise has zero effect on sleep. And you point out that there are tons of studies that show that vigorous exercise greatly improves sleep outcomes but the person says that's all placebo effect. Prove to me that it was actually exercise that caused it. Then you point to neurochemical things that are demonstrable. Then they say that's all placebo and the placebo effect is also demonstrable. It's an endless cycle. This is exactly how it is with chiropractic care. Also, I often hear people say that once you start it you have to be on it forever and I don't know about anybody else, but it's certainly not true for me. I can go many months or years between visits if I take care of myself. It doesn't screw me up in a way that makes me dependent on it. Quite the opposite in fact. Every single thing I've heard to debunk chiropractic care has been completely wrong. And also, I've never had any chiropractor (I moved a lot so I've had many) tell me it does anything other than it allows my back to move a little more correctly. That's it. I've never heard any other claims made yet everyone debunking it makes wild claims.
Oh man, this just gets worse and worse. He lumps homeopathy in with chiropractic care and then says people "often" pay with their lives. This is completely insane. It's also very telling that he takes something that is extremely replicable and easily verifiable and lumps it in with some thing that is the polar opposite, trying to use the unverifiable parts of homeopathist to insinuate that chiropractic care is the same when it couldn't be farther from the truth, and there are millions of people that can attest to its effectiveness. Also, chiropractors don't "call themselves" doctors, they literally are doctors. They have a doctorate from a medical institution. What what's on display here is so smugly arrogant and crazy it's beyond belief. He worships at the altar of "science" but only the science he likes, despite the fact that people who worship that alter often forget about the reproducibility crisis where a tremendous amount of commonly accepted, peer reviewed studies are unable to be reproduced. It's an absolute epidemic, and of course medical science changes constantly so it's not like we have the answers all figured out so the arrogance on display here is stunning and ironic.
Okay this just gets worse and worse. Bret (and you mispronounced his last name) Weinstein goes into great detail when it comes to the studies of ivermectin, digging down into literature and showing that the trials were set up very specifically to prove the hypothesis, not disprove it. That is the exact antithesis of real science. He doesn't just jump on the bandwagon for ivermectin and refuse to entertain any alternative points of view, he painstakingly breaks down exactly why he makes his claims. You can disagree with him and that's fine, but to try and characterize him as just being a cheerleader for some sort of ideology shows that you are part of the medical establishment ideology. If you are going to attack him, at least do it in a way that's robust as opposed to "yeah he has bias because I said so". Until you attack his actual claims, other than the conclusions, you can't say squat. Attack his reasoning, not his conclusions. The reason you can't do that is because if you disagree with someone's conclusion on the outside, then you can always attack them for that. That's intellectually lazy and dishonest. I've been a subscriber for quite a while now and I don't always agree with you but I usually find you pretty decent, but on this video you go absolutely off the rails in so many different directions that I'm forced to unsubscribe. I wouldn't unsubscribe just based on the chiropractor thing, but you put together a whole string of things in here that absolutely can't be overlooked.
Oh boy, now he's going after keto. It's not the same to your body as calorie restriction. It does burn more fat. Yes you lose weight due to caloric restriction, but a higher percentage of the weight that you lose is fat as opposed to lean muscle. That's an extraordinarily important part of it that he ignores completely. Plus, intermittent fasting also helps you recover from injury faster and all of that because your body can use more of its resources towards that instead of constantly diverting them to the digestive process.
Now he's going after Vitamin D, again missing part of the picture. And he ends it by mocking people who take vitamin D supplements but he ignores very big reason people do: energy. It's very effective at helping people's energy levels who live in Northern latitudes in the winter when they experience almost no direct sunshine contact. It's very effective at this. You can't go after everyone who likes vitamin D but then ignore a large percentage of them who take it for a different reason than you are mocking. Also, I noticed you made fun of Joe Rogan for saying Vitamin D is good for immune system function, but offered no explanation. He said immune system and you didn't debunk that and instead talked about bones and then a bunch of other things other than immune system functions. If he's wrong and it doesn't help with immune system function then say why, but be specific or you're just insulting someone without backing it up. Then you say supplements don't work. Vitamin supplements don't work? None of it is bioavailable? That's a pretty bold claim (and a nonsense one at that). It's not as good as the sun, but the sun isn't always available, sir.
For the record, I'm not on any team. I couldn't give a rats ass who says what. If Adolf Hitler said something that was logical and sound, I wouldn't attack it just because he was Hitler. All I care about is accuracy (and evidence). There is absolutely nobody on earth I agree with 100% of the time, but all I ask is that when somebody is attacked for any reason, that you directly refute the claim. Directly, and with evidence.
Lastly, I notice that not once in a video almost an hour long did you mention big pharma and legislators. You sorta, briefly, kinda sorta touched on it with a drug that turned out to not be that effective but that's as close as you came. You only "followed the money" when it came to influencers. Funny that. If that's not the biggest red flag of all then I don't know what to say. The last 3 years have been incredible at showing us just how wrong the authorities (medical, corporate and political) can be, over and over, yet you didn't talk about that factor even once. I guess that's all I needed to know. You fall into the "my team good, other teams bad" approach. Too bad your video didn't have that section.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry man, I'm not with you on this one. What's wrong with her answer about where the money came from? It's a preposterous question. If you're talking about a small amount of cash, then her answer is just fine. If some Starbucks barista suddenly had a briefcase with $150,000 worth of cash, then it becomes a very poignant question. She didn't answer. She said it came from her day job. If her day job to possibly see her with that amount of cash, then I don't see what the lawyer was going for. Also, it would not be weird for someone to not tell a family member that they had a stack of cash. Nothing weird about that whatsoever. I don't see why that subject whatever even come up in conversation with your family. Maybe this triggers me because I once kept cash in a safe deposit box at the bank but then I went to deposit it into my account so I could put it in an investment account and I was getting grilled over its origins. It was money I slowly accumulated through my job, and it was after tax money and I could show that I cashed a number of paycheques that all came from the same employer, but the libertarian in me was like "none of your f'n business". My solution was to slowly take it out, bit by bit and deposit it in amounts that wouldn't raise any alarms after that initial one because I can be stubborn and petulant. And I did notice her comment about keeping campaign funds, and I think it's worth investigating but her statement in and of itself was not an admission of anything unless she's also on record of saying, she didn't use any personal money for her campaign.
Fanni is an idiot and I desperately hope she falls flat on her face, but this particular question I think it's a nothing burger. You even state that you can't really track cash and you can't really determine its origin, so what's the point of this video then? You're actually agreeing with her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ppenmudera4687 "Why do some countries thrive with capitalism? "
ALL countries thrive under it, relatively speaking. As countries shifted to market based economies, people were lifted out of extreme poverty at levels that blew away the United Nations wildest expectations. Obviously, capitalism has all kinds of problems, but it's track record absolutely slaughters anything else that's ever been tried. Nobody is clamoring to go to a socialist country. Migration overwhelmingly goes in one direction for a reason. Capitalist countries have the best institutions. Believe me, I whine and complain all the time about how crappy everything government run is, but at least that somewhat works. Go to a Third World country, their institutions don't. Good luck with customs, good luck with police, good luck with the judicial system, good luck with dealing with business. I would love for someone to come up with something better than capitalism. Until then.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:40
Why are corporations afraid of the mob? I mean that in all seriousness. Name me ONE company that produces hard goods that got killed due to wokeness. One. I'll wait.
It doesn't happen. Chic-Fil-A did just fine after taking a stance on gay marriage or whatever the hell it was. This is the biggest case of "the only thing to fear is fear itself" ever. Netflix told it's employees it prefers Dave Chapelle to Wokesters. Netflix ain't going anywhere. These companies are cowards. A company that relies on ad revenue may, MAY have a slight bit of legitimate worry, but I don't think even then. Certain entertainers or media outlets might lose a little bit at first, but not in the end. Ben Shapiro has ungodly sums of money. He finds advertisers. These leftists have these monster, corporations, convinced that if they get cranky, then every company will abandon. No, they won't. Those companies are pathetic cowards. Again, name me one single hard goods company, or any company for that matter, even media, that went tits up because it said something very middle of the road and reasonable and something the left would have agreed with six years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Atmost11 Asking questions is offensive to you?
" "at some point we decided" that teenage pregnancy is wrong"
This is not accurate? Did we not as a society at some point say that teenage pregnancy is wrong?
"marriages lasted longer".
Yeah, and I addressed that earlier. If you get married as a teenager you have a better chance of making it to the 40, 50, 60 year+ range because you got married when you were younger. That's how math works vs human life expectancy.
"the problem is not teenage pregnancy".
He's saying that for most of human history women got pregnant in their teens. That's how we survived and thrived as a species. He's not saying that it is preferable, he's saying that it's a historical fact and we've survived for hundreds of thousands of years so teenage pregnancy in and of itself isn't an issue.
Also, why are you ending it with the word "conservative"? One, I'm not, and two, being a conservative is absolutely not a pejorative. It's just a set of opinions, just like liberal. (and to make things even more murky, a big chunk of modern-day conservatives are actually old-school liberals).
You can be mad all you want and you can paint whatever narrative you want, but I hope you know it doesn't really affect me. I'm politically homeless and have absolutely no dog in this fight so I don't really care. Have fun "fighting the good fight", or whatever it is that gets you through the day. Must be exhausting though.
Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
adfa -
1. Ethics in the west can change quickly. Gay marriage, anyone?
2. Agreed. I'm blown away that the "where's it coming from?" is almost never asked. You think that would be the #1 question.
3. I wrestle with this one, but I don't think it's true overall. Lazy people will be lazy, but most people give a shit about something and want to do things and see things and are curious.
4. Following your point actually defeats it. Yeah wealth inequality has always existed. Now name me ONE instance where it's gone on indefinitely, unchallenged? There are no kings on a throne anymore for a reason.
5. He didn't say communism. One, redistribution already exists in every single place on earth varying degrees, that's what taxes are, and two, extreme wealth inequality leads to the outcome in point 4. He said "trillionaires" running around. Yeah, if the people are suffering and others have ungodly sums of money it will eventually end poorly. If you asked Sam, I'm sure he's okay with rich people. He just thinks that extreme income inequality on a national level is unsustainable, and history backs him up.
So calm down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To rule out genetics shows a poor understanding of genetics. Look at primates. If you put males in a lot of competition around a lot of females, their testicles swell. The reason for declining birth rate is not declining fertility. That's correlation not causation. As the world has gotten wealthier and healthier and infant mortality has gone down and automation has gone up and urbanization has gone up, people don't need as many kids anymore. They almost all survive, and you don't need a bunch of hands to help out on the farm anymore. And when a species does not need the same amount of sperm or eggs, it stops producing as many. Birth rates are very strongly correlated with economic activity. As countries become wealthier and people have better access to birth control and all their kids live, they stop having as many. To outright dismiss genetics because this didn't take place over 100,000 years is missing the mark entirely. She talks about how many less children we have since 1960s. Well gee, that's about the same time the birth control pill came out. Hmmmm.......
Are chemicals affecting our bodies in a negative way? I'm sure they are. Are lifestyle factors leading to lower testosterone? Probably. But these trends happen independent of those factors, and they are actually a good thing. To be alarmed that the population isn't literally almost doubling every generation is just silly to me. Maybe if you think the trend will continue I can see I need to educate people about the possibility that it goes off the rails, but I think those fears as of now are unfounded. As s of now it's nothing but a positive to have lower birth rates, and it's much more strongly correlated with economic prosperity and automation than genetic factors due to our lifestyles and chemicals. By the way, the states with the most obesity are often the ones in the "south" and they also have the highest birth rates. Just sayin.
1
-
1