Comments by "" (@sirtra) on "Tom Nicholas" channel.

@davemccombs memes existed before the internet. The word was coined by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976) as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. Not everything came from the internet, bro.
5
"If it wasn't for the unrelenting disruptions and inconvenience inflicted upon the general public that was caused by the brave men and women in <insert group name here>, none of this would have been possible!" - said no one ever.
4
Is anyone wondering how he ended up there tho?
2
@Praisethesunson don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Did you know that there used to be a time when cigarettes weren't required to have a filter, they now do in most countries. Why? Because whilst it doesn't eliminate all the nasty stuff being inhaled it does reduce it significantly, ie harm reduction. Nobody likes a goodie two shoes, which is what you are doing here.
2
 @Praisethesunson don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Do you know why cigarettes are now required to have filters in most countries? I'll give you a hint with two words... harm reduction.
2
@Praisethesunson got some scientific evidence to support your claim, Mr goodie two shoes?
2
@Praisethesunson "WHO calls on policy-makers to treat cigarette filters, as what they are, single use plastics, and consider banning cigarette filters to protect public health and the environment." This is your supporting evidence that cigarette filters offer absolutely zero health benefits or reduction in harm? To be clear, cigarette filters by no means eliminate the risks or impacts from smoking cigarettes - just as vapes don't. It's harm reduction, not harm elimination. I'm no advocate for tobacco, just as i'm no advocate for firearms.. but banning vapes whilst still allowing cigarettes is like banning handguns whilst still allowing rifles.
2
 @deeznoots6241 The US Constitution is way more over hyped.. i thought i had the right to bear arms, the bear disagreed and tore me a new one 😭 So much for God given rights...
2
@infinitivez What you're failing to recognise is whom is being harmed and for what purpose - those are not contrary at all, you just don't understand cause and effect properly which is highlighted by the troublemakers argument. In all 3 examples but picking the easiest to illustrate is union strikes. Who is being harmed? Well in most cases, lets say railway strike or even the writers strike where the public harmed? Yes to a degree, they were certainly collateral damage that's for sure but the main harm was not aimed at them but rather those in control with the power to meet their demands - the 'oppressors' so to speak, so railway bosses, studio executives, and for the other 2 would be 'white people' and 'men'. Then we have for what purpose? Well the ones you so kindly labelled as 'troublemakers' had demands that weren't being met and so to remedy this they decided that enough was enough and refused to do anything, the purpose was ultimately to get what they wanted but more directly it was an action that was intended to display the under appreciation of the role they play in society and that they are deserving of the things they are demanding. The purpose was not to cause trouble nor gain the image of being troublemakers - that's a pretty demented mentality to be frank. cause disruptions to tv broadcasts, movie goers or chain themselves to bridges either did they? They simply took no action. The general public for the most part don't view taking no action or 'refusing to do something' in the same light as specifically taking action 'intending to cause trouble', especially when those actions are not causing any trouble for those in control and whom the demands are being sought from but merely trouble for the general public. I mean sure, there was Bob who got angry about the re-runs, but talk about being tone deaf and immature brandishing them all as heroic troublemakers doing what had to be done. But hey, what would i know.. maybe the times have changed and women burning their own bras is exactly the same as vandalising valuable and irreplaceable art? Besides, i bet that de-railed train had it coming....they didn't want to but had to.. it was the only way to get what they want... friggen oppressors amirite?!?
2
@Praisethesunson i did exactly as suggested and it appears WHO, without any scientific evidence or supporting sources, assert there is no evidence of harm reduction are purely worried about the environmental impacts of the plastics. The thing is, there is scientific evidence for the benefits of filters. Just Google cigarette filters and Wikipedia. Oh the irony of thinking you're above propaganda and referencing the World Health Organization, thanks for the laugh 😂
1
@kaitlyn__L you don't seem to comprehend what symbolic means. If you are harming someone not involved or damaging something which does not belong to you that is not symbolic. Nor does it send the right message to pursuade the law abiding and good citizens of society into supporting the cause. Damaging art and blocking traffic to cause maximum impact whilst flagrantly having little to no regard for the well being of others is what selfish spoilt children do when they get their own way. Perhaps purchase the art before damaging it, rather than burning down victoria's secret in lieu of your own bra 🤷
1
@kaitlyn__L if you understood what symbolic meant you would realize i have in fact responded directly to the point you were trying to raise. Perhaps this will help you see why bra burning is indeed a near perfect example of a symbolic gesture: --- symbolic (also symbolical) representing something else: The skull at the bottom of the picture is symbolic of death. used to refer to an action that expresses or seems to express an intention or feeling, but has little practical influence on a situation: Five hundred troops were sent in, more as a symbolic gesture than as a real threat.
1