Comments by "HomerOJSimpson" (@Homer-OJ-Simpson) on "Adam Ragusea" channel.

  1. 100
  2. 78
  3. 53
  4. 45
  5. 41
  6. 32
  7. 28
  8. 15
  9. 13
  10. 10
  11. 10
  12. 9
  13. 8
  14. 8
  15. 7
  16. 7
  17. 7
  18. 7
  19. 6
  20. 6
  21. 6
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 5
  25. 5
  26. 5
  27. 5
  28. 5
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 4
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147.  @mars7304  I think you 100% hit the nail on the head. I often feel like I really understand a situation but can't put it in writing -- then you wrote exactly what I was trying to convey. There are few things in science that are near 100% true. There are often conditions (under these conditions...) or a probability that isn't 100%. if something is believed to be true with 95% certain, I'm going to with that. But if it weren't for the right wingers going crazy, I would keep in mind that it's 95% certain and not 100% leaving room for some minor doubt. When one side starts acting dishonestly and hunkers down on positions that would be the minority (the 5% instead of the 95% ), it causes the other side to also dig in more than they otherwise would have. It's a whole mess that goes well beyond just science. It affects so much of politics. Just 'facts' about anything. This is where people spreading conspiracy theories come from. It's the idea that the facts don't matter but you will believe what you want to believe. So something non-science related, let's say Trump did X and there is 90% certainty he did it and Biden did Y but only 10% certainty he did that. Many right wingers will assume Trump is innocent of X because of that 10% possibility (they wont' even consider there's a chance he's guilty) and will assume Biden is guilty despite 90% chance he's not. Same is happening with vaccines. There is that tiny chance that something bad might happen and they decide that the tiny change of that bad things means that vaccines don't work and are dangerous. I honestly don't know if things will ever improve. The more that the right goes to the right and becomes ideological, the more the left is doing it as well. I get called right winger by the far left and I get called a socialist by the right wing. In reality, I'm very progressive socially and moderate left fiscally. I use to be very left fiscally but then went and got my MBA and had time in the work environment and started to realize my economic beliefs before we mostly based on wishful thinking. I became moderate to even moderate right on fiscal issues -- but the right went insane in the past 10 years and either I shifted more left as a response or I stayed the same but the moderate right moved to my right. Or both. My point being is that I was more flexible and now I feel I'm hunkering down on positions that should have more flexibility.
    1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1