Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. +Burg Skeletal In a two sentence post contradicts his first sentence with his second. "Earth Smythe The thing about morals is that everyone has a different view." Thus morality is relative and there is no absolute "right" or "wrong" "The Muslims in The Middle East are a perfect example of why your way of thinking is flawed." Except the Muslims in the Middle East are absolutely wrong? "Entertainment is boring when it emulates real life" Claiming that the media elites are just giving the people what they want. Box office receipts disagree. Wholesome fare outsells garbage, but they keep churning out and promoting garbage. Tons of cynical anti-military movies are made and promoted at great expense depicting the war effort as evil and soldiers as monsters, they all bomb at the box office. Clint Eastwood makes American Sniper, and it kills at the box office. War Room beat out the much more heavily promoted Straight Outta Compton. They are so determined to cram propaganda down our throats that they knowingly loose money to do so. +Captain Beefheart "Ben doesn't believe this. He's forming weak minds." He wrote a book documenting it. +MountainDew7 "Some morals are objective, like murder and theft being wrong." By what standard? Much is made of the differences between the moral standards of different cultures. But if you look at them objectively, what strikes you is how much they are alike. (Read the appendix on the Tao in C. S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man".) Christianity really didn't invent a new morality, Christianity just claims to help you to live up to the same morality that most people at most times have endorsed. It also grounds morality objectively in the Ground of Being, a standard both inside and outside not this or that "local" standard, but all alike. All "new moralities" are made by taking what a particular biased self-appointed "authority" happens to want or like from the actual Tao. But any moral validity his truncated "morality" has, it borrows from the Tao which also says the things the self-appointed "authority" does not like.
    1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23.  @CadetGriffin  Are you trying to make my case? That's a pretty impressive list! Or do you mean to imply that PragerU is not a legitimate political voice, or that they did, in sober fact rather than fancy, violate YT's written policies? In the interest of full factual disclosure James Damore is not a conservative, but was fired for challenging identity politics dogma with statistics, and I am not aware of the IRS audits having anything to do with the SPLC. That was an Obama administration scandal. These social media sites are using the SPLC as arbiter of what constitutes hate speech. Twitter is the worst offender in this regard. Suspensions or bans: Laura Loomer - for calling out Ilhan Omar's antisemitism. Peter D’Abrosca - for protesting Laura Loomer's suspension Tommy Robinson - recent UK political prisoner for exposing crimes of Islamic immigrants and the UK government's collusion with them. Jesse Kelly - No specific reason has been cited, but he has been predicting that he would be banned, “They just knew [Alex] Jones was the weak member of the herd. They could pick him off as a test run,” wrote Kelly in The Federalist. “Next they’re coming for you.” feminist Meghan Murphy for saying "Men aren't women" and using the masculine with a proscribed referent. actor James Wood for a mild Democrat joke. "Activist Mommy" Christian tweeter banned for calling out Teen Vogue magazine for teaching kids sodomy. ex-Muslim "Apostate Prophet" for calling out Muhammed for anti-black racism in the Koran and correctly referencing violence and hate in the Islamic scripture.
    1
  24. " Once the reserve runs out " There is no reserve. It is an accounting gimmick. It has government IOUs in it. "You are supposed to have pension and savings with social security. " Is there an echo in here. That's what he just advocated, except that pension plans per se are gone, you get 401Ks. "Once you survived childhood you could expect to live to a much older age than 65." As my grandmother used to say "No, not so much." Here is a quote from a Social Security website trying (and obviously failing) to make the point you are making: Life Expectancy for Social Security "If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood. "As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21" https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html 54%! Gee whiz! And they go on to admit that it was worse for women. A current life expectancy FROM BIRTH of 75 for men and 80 for women (the adult life expectancy is , of course, higher), means that there has been significant change in this demographic, which is a significant contributing factor. Probably at least as significant is the decrease in family size. Anyway, what is your point? We used to have many payers supporting few retirees, now we have few. That's all he needs to make his central point. Are you denying that?
    1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. Here is a quote from a Social Security website trying (and obviously failing) to make the point you are making: Life Expectancy for Social Security "If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood. "As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21" https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html 54%! Gee whiz! And they go on to admit that it was worse for women. A current life expectancy FROM BIRTH of 75 for men and 80 for women (the adult life expectancy is , of course, higher), means that there has been significant change in this demographic, which is a significant contributing factor. Probably at least as significant is the decrease in family size.
    1
  39. 1
  40.  @Techgunius  Giving moral advice is not the same as trying to police. If you don't have the gumption to try to preserve society while it exists, you won't have the gumption for the much harder task of rebuilding it after it falls. Trying to awaken the moral sense of those who mock unselfishness is a waste of time. What is morality but unselfishness? Morality begins where self interest leaves off. Calling gentlemen feminists is just slander. Feminism depends on chivalry, it is true, and if ever as they are trying to do they kill chivalry (as they have done in you, which makes YOU their conquest, not us), then feminism will die as well. But chivalry is not feminism any more than a host is its parasite. And a physician who kills a patient to kill his tapeworm is a quack. Chivalry is mental hygiene. I have some sympathy for those who have been led to MGTOW by crushing personal experiences with evil women. They were once men, and have been broken. But those who embrace it themselves unassailed are beneath contempt. They seek and find an excuse to behave the way they always wanted to behave in the first place. Such creatures never were men to begin with. The meme known as "Men Going Their Own Way" is misnamed. It implies making a personal choice and respecting the different choices of others. Instead, you attack folk for choosing another way, because the chivalrous alternative SHOWS YOU UP. "Mgtow; go fall on your own sword." We are defending life, you are surrendering to death.
    1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1