Youtube comments of (@derekeliopoulos2670).
-
437
-
393
-
70
-
52
-
49
-
45
-
44
-
41
-
34
-
33
-
29
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
There isn't an established Canadian population there, nor are there many Canadians migrating there, nor is there as much of an established "Canadian" culture that could be displayed as a festival.
Theirs is a culture that's more festive, so it works. We have a lot of Carribeans to celebrate it, and we all get to enjoy, so it's a win-win, it's not complicated.
Also, the Caribbean is part of the Western hemisphere, so your statement doesn't make sense, but it shows that you're not from this side of the globe.
Maybe try reading up on our histories before trying to comment. They're pretty brief, so it shouldn't take too long.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
No, none of the babies will remember any of this. Not CONSCIOUSLY, no.
The argument I've been hearing is, "they're not making memories, so it's fine", or "they did that to me, and I'm ok".
That doesn't validate it. I'm sure there are some baptismals with far less torque, and as someone earlier said better than me, the sudden torque, as shown in the video, is dangerous with how underdeveloped an infant's neck is. Does nobody remember those PSAs saying "Don't shake the baby?" It's the same thing. You might have been lucky enough to turn out okay yourself, but SIDS or "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" is a real thing. Unknown how much have been a result, but I'll admit I have nothing to back that.
I'm no doctor so take any physiologic assumptions made here with a grain of salt.
However, the psychological aspects are worth discussion.
If your memories aren't as strong in infancy, does that just give anyone free reign to do whatever they want to you at that stage? Is it ok to do whatever you want to a baby, just because it wont remember?
Any sane person would say "no". Religious rituals don't get an exception, especially when they're done as shown in the video without regard for the being subjected to it.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@xcalibur1986 That's not a factor in what adds up to trade deficits, which is the number he stated to be 200 Billion. It also has nothing to do with that. You're conflating his use of the word "subsidies" which he uses interchangeably with deficit, to cause exactly this confusion. At some point he actually referred to the true deficit that I quoted, but every time since then has said "it might be higher, actually" and gave bigger numbers, based on nothing. The only "formulas" that could make up his numbers are wrong, just like how he said "unemployment is said to be 6%, but it might be 10%, 20%, or even 50%". I shouldn't have to explain how wrong those figures are.
He's not working on some enigmatic figures, he's just an old man being very liberal with how he "rounds up" numbers, then forgets he fudged the figures and does it again.
Whatever investments you're referring to (which I wouldn't mind some sources on) do not feed into trade figures, and anyone that does include that is misleading you.
Edit: accidentally said inflation instead of unemployment, and was fixed.
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
-
@kompatybilijny9348 Btw, I don't mean to shoot down your point or anything. It's not entirely clear what limits the Butlerian Jihad put on tech, but digital is my interpretation. Another question is if they could find a way to make radio piloted drones, how would they be able to transmit a feedback to the pilot without automation? Also, it wouldn't have much range without relays, and would that be considered automation and against the rules? Or maybe they did manage to find a way to make remote controlled drones with spinning blades and shields without breaking the rules, but the fremen still managed to find a counter with pole arms, traps, shooting nets over them, or jamming whatever remote signal controls them. Without having computers to encrypt/decrypt messages, wireless tech is pretty insecure, especially radio.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@angeldreams2307 Soy milk? Safe words?
You're being a silly memer, I'd hardly call this "the adults having a conversation".
You condemn him for his use of a word, which even if you dont want to believe it, still has relevance, and at the same time you use memey buzzwords intended only to be divisive, belittle, declare and minimize a group as "the other" and remove the possibility of discussion. That's hardly an "adult discussion".
Anyway, back to the original topic, there's actually a lot of nuance involved that you might be leaving out. If you agree to be receptive, we can talk about it. You know, have "a conversation" like you wanted. Please, no memes though.
3
-
When production is involved, it is a factor, but in no way is it politically driven. If you can make an androgynous model, you have a single base model to produce. If the client has more specific requests, the changes would be minor.
Alternative would be to produce two distinctly separate models and release them in parallel.
To know how many of which to produce would take market research, you'd also have to branch out testing and market testing for two separate builds.
With every build, you'd have to run double the tests.
Not to mention the plethora of other departments you'd need to double: aesthetics, physical articulation, software, hardware, distribution, etc.
Sorry Tony. As fun as it might be to lump this into a political narrative, there's actually a lot moreover moving parts than you know. In the future I hope you take the time to understand different industries, and why they make the decisions they make.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@donnieblanko Actually I'm doing my darnedest to guide you to understanding what I initially meant, which is what I'd think you were looking for, but I guess the Socratic method never considered the factor of angst.
I wanted to assume better of you, but you're really forcing me to take out the kid gloves on this one:
Look at the cost of... anything these days. What cost little currency then, costs more of that same currency now! This is what we call "inflation". A dollar then meant more, while a dollar now means less.
The difference between those different values is partly how we measure inflation.
If now has more inflation, and then had less, what does NONE mean?
(By now I'm guessing you might have meant to have tried to "correct" me about relative inflation. (For example, that means when 2 becomes 4. That's inflation. While relatively if 2 continues to be 2, it has not inflated, relatively.)) However, that's clearly not what was articulated in the video. Even if we were to assume he meant relative, that's still not zero, and even a braindead econo-bro would recognize that government subsidies within a pandemic are intended and in practice a buffer for the inflation that inevitably comes after.
Is this not thorough enough?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RustyWalker You have a point, and I agree completely. I think it's entirely valid in principle, and most cases in practice. Misinformation is contagious. It can act like a cancer. I've been seeing plenty of this cancer in the comment section on this specific channel.
I used to to the same as you, act sort of like a "logic cop" against disinformation or flawed logic, sometimes still do now and then. So many fallacies in erroneous "arguments", but from engaging with them enough, I've realized they're not actually people like you and I.
It's strange, because it's not even that popular of a channel either. I remember it used to get maybe 2, 3, or maybe comments in the 10s before it got swamped with the activity you see here now. It seems like a coordinated effort has gone underway.
I think this channel was targeted just because of that, and I hope to believe that of their genuine viewers, most haven't looked into the comments just like how it was before.
I didn't mean to tell you to stop though, just wanted to say what I think you're up against.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey Woodford, any thoughts on this Rocksteady guy^, or as you might remember him as the bot YouTubeMusic, HairyDude, JackSprat, etc. Which both you and your other friend of spammers frequently changing names (currently "Wouldntyouliketoknow-") were so close with, then as if it were coordinated, suddenly turned on, finally calling out for bot behaviour so frequently pointed out by everyone, all within hours of them deleting their account?
Strange, especially how this keeps happening with each of their iterations. Waiting to see it when it happens again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@derekwoodford9955 Video title: "Utter Hypocracy"
You said Ukraine needs to lay down its arms and "do the right thing"
You then went on about Ukraine's history but turned out to be mistaken when a commenter corrected you, and we also pointed out the flawed logic of your "territory" argument.
Clearly you dont value truth, because you ignored what was made clear in that thread and then hopped to others to try to repeat the cycle again.
One that values truth wants moments like what happened in that thread, they want to be challenged and have their false ideas purged, but you ran away from it because you want conflict, not resolution.
It started with a comment you made only 2 days ago, and have even returned to today and made several edits, so could you stop pretending not to know?
There's that, and the "money laundering scheme" you dropped, and refused to elaborate on?
That's what I mean by the "running away". It's like you're doing hit and run commentary.
You spam these vague comments, and when people ask and try to figure out what you were even trying to say you're already either too distracted or too busy doing it again somewhere else about some other oddball theory and forgot about the last one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, your humility is appreciated. Far too undervalued a trait, especially now.
But the thing about conjecture is that it is just as valid as any other. Makes "someone dug up the dormant virus" or "fell from a meteor". Granted, yours sounds better than those two, but if it were an ancient, previously unexposed frozen virus, we might have been able to see signs of it within the genome, and there might be archaeological evidence of it from previous periods, maybe from some extinction event (however major/minor), and it would be missing genetic markers that modern versions of the flu has because it would have been frozen when those adaptations were made. Also, the odds to have such virus so contagious have it's entire unique strain that makes it superior to modern strains be frozen entirely and isolated are slim, unless the entire infected population was somehow flash frozen.
I dont mean to say your theory is absurd, it's at least 1000x more viable than the 5G stuff lol, and hey, that's just science, few things can be ruled out objectively.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@derekwoodford9955 I never said that I thought you weren't human that's absurd. I'm not even on here daily, unlike you. You can't let any opinions be stated without throwing in your confused interpretations of them, so sometimes when I see one of your silly takes I point some things out about them.
Yes, I used to think that anyone spending this much time spamming the same generic phrases every day must have something nefarious behind it. I didn't think it possible for somebody to be so passionate about topics they don't seem to have actually reflected on, nor with any self awareness to see how many contradictions exist in their entire framework.
I've seen enough to be corrected on that, and you've taught me that such a person can actually exist.
Since then I've taken a step back.
One of the main things that threw me off had to do with your inconsistencies. This didnt apply to your spam though. You stuck to a very limited amount of phrases. That threw me off especially, because it read as somebody unwilling to have themselves engage at all with the subject matter. Unwilling to explore it or give it any thought, only to condemn it.
There's also your homophobia, which clearly stems from unaddressed issues within your own family.
Posting your own trauma online is not the best way to process it, but it shows you're yearning for something for it. It would be best if you deal with this privately with a professional.
Also, I was joking when I said that last reply by the way, I just thought his comment was funny and went along with it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@firstandforemost87 I don't understand why folks like you just put "@" instead of directly responding to me, but anyway...
No, he's not unique for doing this. Plenty of other questionable politicians do this as well. Sometimes in the face of loaded questions, but the ones he faced were not that. They were intentionally straightforward, in contrast to those kinds of questions.
There's plenty of footage of it, which you can find for yourself, unedited.
It doesn't even matter that he can't answer directly, because the answers he would give, if he was truthful, are already easy to find, including his rejection of the scientific method, rejection of vaccines, rejection of several modern medicines, and preferences for unproven, dangerous pseudosciences. All easily found just by looking into his words, business dealings and actions outside of hearings. But the nutrition stuff is fine, I agree with that, but jeeze, is one right worth all that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@(WatchingTheEndUnfold) Ok, you're not wrong that machines don't have sentience, but your conduct is so juvenile it raises doubts about yours.
Also dropping all these mistruths along the way about "secret computers".
I dont know what odd article you might have read, but for those of us actually in the field, your claims are especially nothing.
And lashing out at everyone about their accounts and history?
Please tell me you're not just baiting to have that done to you, because it seems so much like it, and you've demonstrated inconsistent values and interests so often, been consistent only in toxicity, while also claiming to have contradictory values at times.
Tbh, yeah you must be baiting me, there's just no way someone would lack that much self-awareness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AntonioRivera28 I never meant to imply it was solely a democratic system, I was just talking about the democratic elements that it has compared to ours.
And sure, that's a common complaint about democracy. It's not perfect, but for the systems that operate by it, isn't it better to have more than just a binary choice?
That's all I was saying about that.
And yes, I know they technically can't turn you away, but in some situations when it means financially destroying a family isn't really an option. It puts a price tag on human life that isn't affordable by everyone, and if you don't care about that, it's fine, but personally I'm not. Also I'm someone that CURRENTLY lives in Canada, and my experience with our system is completely different from your take, which sounds a lot like the popular defense from American media. But what do I know, I just live here- also, wait, if you don't what are you doing on a Canadian news channel?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StopListenThink
To the reply that isn't here anymore:
Anti-war is a good reason, I believe the same. No new war has been joined since though, which is a nice overlap for the last few terms.
He hasn't not gotten his hands dirty in relations with the middle east, with the MOAB.
You also might want to look into his relations with the Kurds.
You assumed I'm a "democrat", which is a term that doesn't apply where I live, but I'll just see it as you calling me "left leaning"(?)
I actually put a lot of value in objectivity, or at least trying my darn'dest not to carry a bias.
So yes, I've seen the page you're referring to. I'm not the torch and pitchfork type. I was genuinely just asking out of curiosity.
He might not be a career politician, but being a politician seems to have become a new chapter in his career.
From what I've read, one of your former presidents, Jimmy Carter had a peanut farm before he ran. (Not that I think the side matters, it's just whatever the opposition is, but-) the right scrutinized him for owning private enterprise during his term, as it was a conflict of interest. Without much of a fuss, he closed the whole thing down.
I think something like that happened with Clinton at some point too, but whatever.
Trump is still selling merch. He's still been monetizing his position, wether in or out of power.
There's just so many questionable things...
When I heard for the first time he was running all I thought was "well, let's see what he can do".
Yes, he's done some things, as shown by that page, but there's a page like that for every president (not to diminish the value it has).
I wonder if his brashness is one of the main draws for some. I'm genuinely trying to find out, that's why I asked.
I also wonder if some things are overlooked in favor of keeping that vision of an ideal leader.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Too busy defunding the police" You know, when it comes to government structure, there are a lot of factors beyond what has been immediately been brought to the attention of the public eye. There are several departments, all with plenty of staff involved. "Defunding the police" had nothing to do with this, and it didn't distract all the government legal officials and offices. An easy thing to point to, but there's far more to point to that are far more viable that are not currently "trending".
Options have been proposed that might lessen the factor causing shootings, but all or most have been tossed aside. Even after all that, so many stick their heads in the sand and say "THEY DIDNT READ THE MINDS OF ALL POSSIBLE SHOOTERS THAT WE BARELY SCREEN AND GIVE HIGH POWERED WEAPONS, AND ALSO BARELY RECOGNIZE MENTAL HEALTH ON AN OFFICIAL LEVEL AND STILL THIS HAPPENS! SMH SMH!!!" Keep shaking your head, it's not a solution. What do you want, a fully militarized state with armed troops/officers on every corner in case one of ANYBODY pulls a legally owned firearm and starts firing?
Maybe try asking why it happens so often there and less elsewhere. I'm sure there's some nuance I may not have addressed, but it seems you definitely haven't even started.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How does one go about "dying for their own sins"?
I see you're using your alt account, Brian. Contrary to your name, your methods are hardly friendly. You're rushing to these videos documenting real life horror and you're treating it like an opportunity.
You've shown that you don't value truth,
you don't value life,
you don't value souls.
You describe a hateful, vengeful God, but you're just using the name to extend your own wishes.
Grow up Brian. It's you that needs to redeem yourself in the temple of reality.
You don't need to die for anyone, swear fealty or damnation to anyone.
You just have to have love in your heart.
Be good, bring people up. Help them, don't bring them down.
Everyone can see right through your intent when you post your copy-paste lectures for this kind of content specifically.
In times like these people need support, not condemnation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Picklemedia I hope you can understand, I've seen nearly the exact same series of replies starting with yours referring to dark horse clips, which I've already seen long ago, leading to (what should be only rhetorical, because the implication is obvious within the question, "those numbers are far more difficult to find". If you know the answer already, you're asking a rhetorical question.)
To which I responded with my own rhetorical question.
I know you already decided I was trying to make an argument about test sampling and reducing all of truth to a case of semantics that then reduces all knowns into oblivion.
I don't blame you for how upset that made you, but just like how I misread your intent, you misread mine.
At this point, as I've seen so many times before, the other person would then conclude some kind of theory about global genocide, often class based, and either by the elite or some special interest groups. So many times when I answered that question, or even didn't, it always led to that.
My mistake was assuming you were one of them. Maybe it was the "I'm redpilled, you're not! You're still in the matrix lol" type of attitude.
You spoke of truth in your last message.
Honest question: if I actually was the knuckle dragging truth-aphobe you were describing, would your delivery be optimal in delivering that truth to such a person? Was everything that was said, said with intent of "enlightening" said person? Or are there emotional elements involved?
If so, truth was not the focal point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Make your own form of news media.
These days anybody can do it, and the means are even in your hands. Why not just do that and build your own following, covering the things you think need more attention?
It would be more productive than saying "media is our enemy" every day.
You have the power and means to add to public discourse right at your fingertips. With effort, you could be a member of that discourse and have some hand in the direction it goes in.
If you want to tell your version of the story, well, you already have an account set up, so now you can make your own stuff.
Wouldnt that be better than calling all of media "our enemy" (which is so vague, and memey, it kind of makes me wonder how genuine you are).
All I'm saying is, you have the means to shape "media" (only adjacently the right definition [kind of like what would come from an online translator for what you're trying to say...] but let's skip the semantics)
Yet you keep saying it as if it makes a difference.
(Another reason why I find your motives hard to believe, but hey, I'm still open to persuasion!)
You can make a difference, but that's not the way.
Now surprise me and actually read that, (one of your few responses lately, I think you have time to)
and give me your take on 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
-
1
-
@Cryharder-k2d Ah, so being "deplorable" is why. Brilliant take from the valor theif.
As for the "not Russia, soviet" argument, has this not been explained enough times for you?
Tell me this, if apparently only a regime change is enough to shed a nation of their pasts, this has to be applied universally. Based on your logic, the US didn't fail! *It was another administration that did*. Not the current one.
This is what your logic implies. Why not extend it to accolades as well? In that case, geeze, Russia really hasn't done anything ever, right? Being a nation born around 1991, and never existing before that. They also have no claim on Ukraine either in that case.
Why do you care so much about this new, underachieving state?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derekwoodford9955 Well, in response to your last comment (the one that didn't make it past censors. I can explain to you how that works later if you'd like).
You're still sidestepping again, and trying to distract by making easily refutable claims. Dude, it's just us here, and you're only convincing me further by using these methods. I know you're just going by the book, but it doesn't work here. So many instances you've completely forgotten our talks only days prior, it made me wonder if your account is just being passed around the office with other colleagues, so yeah, naturally I'd be a bit skeptical, especially if "iron mind Woodford" can't recall what I'm referring to in that same thread.
While you're pretending you can't "recall", you were unable to make a single point aside from your scripted "Ukraine used to be in the USSR..." to a flood of points that actually had validity, compared to yours which still doesn't justify the invasion, and that was made clear to you but as a stubborn "idealogue" you stuck to it (even though we know why you really did 😉)
And then the weird homophobic stuff, which I explained very clearly why it was misled and misleading, and the really messed up stuff you say to tragedies every time.
I'll give you time to check the logs I mean "remember" that. And you're going to keep posting it to meet some quota.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rocksteady246 Also, as my namesake there stated, "memory of a goldfish", regarding you, I have to agree. How many times have you broken into unprompted lectures about "the mefloquine affair"? Probably around 10. You seem to have no issue finding me for it.
How many times have you opened with: "I bet you know nothing of the mefloquine affair...............(piss poor use of the ellipsis also included)" to which I would always respond "I am familiar. You already told me about it. Did you already forget?" I must have said that 9 times at most.
So yes, of course everyone you encounter in this way is going to notice how odd your behaviour is. It clearly seems like you've made this account for a singular purpose (and all the ones you made before) but whatever that purpose is, it doesn't seem like you know how to actualize it. Maybe you don't even know what the goal is either, but you're definitely trying to apply some kind of method and it's clearly not thought out. Look, you don't have to love the west, you can even hate it for all I care, but at least have some original arguments.
Oh, oops! I replied! I guess that means I'm upset and therefore lost!!!
You also need to lose that angle. Middleschool psychology doesn't work on most people and it just makes you look silly for trying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You pretend you would know better.
You don't know if any of those people had any information of the guest before they were presented.
Actually, it's a guarantee none of them knew ahead of time except for the speaker. This whole thing has been awful for all MP careers just for how it appears to laymen, you definitely included, as you've already proved.
Nobody in their right mind would clap for that guy if they knew his history (I also guarantee you that Pierre was one of those clapping).
And if you're an MP? He might as well be radioactive.
There isn't a chance in hell those people knew.
If anyone, you should be upset with the speaker. That's the only reasonable avenue if you want to be upset.
He bears responsibility for vetting the guest, and clearly left everyone in the dark. The MPs expect the speaker to not make a blunder like this, so the MPs clapped, assuming the speaker had reason for it, and assuming the speaker knew the guest he was presenting.
If you want to disparage the speaker, that would be fair. It is fairly odd that he let this slip by.
That way you can have your "bad guy", and it would make sense.
Rather than having a childlike answer like "get rid of all clappers".
I hope now that you've had the critical thought done for you this time, it inspires you to invest some time into some more effective thought processes for yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianhale3678 Self awareness and intelligence are the greatest gifts bestowed to us. It's our most unique feature among all other life. It sets us apart from all other forms. Could it not be argued that it is our most defining attribute? If so, you could argue it is the defining element bestowed to us from God that he granted us from his own image.
To be aware of the universe and capable of perceiving it.
Nothing else possesses this out of anything we know.
But you squander it.
You should be fully capable of reading through the replies in this thread and understanding what I'm saying, but you refuse to.
Not only to me though, but in so many other instances unrelated to myself. You dismiss and deny what has been deduced from the great mystery all due to utilizing the divine faculties given to us by YHWH himself.
During the Alexandrian period, there was an age when faith and science had no conflict. Even all the Abrahamic faiths were able to act in unity, all in the pursuit of truth. All for the sake of understanding the grand design.
Then came the crusades, and the dark ages with it, and all that progress (heliocentrism, and early germ theory, theories of gravity and evolution, as well as plenty of maths that had to be rediscovered) were lost when it was all burned in the name of the new knowledge and progress hating version of God was brought to the forefront.
This version was completely different than what came before it, which was much more inclusive.
At the time of the start of the dark ages though, church and military became more and more intertwined.
With these new militaristic powers, the leading figures used those powers to further and ensure their positions.
They denounced all scientific progress as heresy, and campaigned to promote anti-intellectual values, treating curiosity and critical thought as evil, and ignorance as virtue.
They also burned The Library of Alexandria, setting human progress centuries back.
Astronomy, physics, mathematics, biological and chemical sciences as well as lifesaving medical breakthroughs were all reduced to ash.
That period of progress that came before is proof that faith and science don't need to be in conflict.
(I can guarantee you that the Alexandrian scientists weren't trying to push a pro-dirt agenda either, same as anyone by the way. I still don't understand what you mean by that, and it seems like you don't either.)
They can exist at the same time. You can have your God cake and acknowledge evolution too. However, is seems like you're following the anti-intellectual God instead. Just try to really think it over and consider if that version makes sense. Intelligence is our species' strongest asset, what kind of deranged God would give that and then expect us to act like the animals without it?
The God of the Alexandrian period makes far more sense.
Also, if you haven't been (I know you haven't been), please try actually reading what's been said here. It's not going to jump up and bite you, I promise. They're just words. Give them a fair shot and let me know what it makes you think.
Btw, I'll know if you try lying again ;)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davinparker3614 You'll probably dismiss this criticism immediately, without even seeing the irony of how quickly you probably accepted both a "nonhuman being" from someone clearly having a temporary break from reality (which was confirmed, by herself), and whatever rumor you chose to either invent or pass on, which was also false and even addressed in this thread. You so easily accepted those things because they're distant enough from you, while also being "fun" in a weird way, as if it validated some strange "hidden world" type fantasies. In all cases here, what's certain is that no critical thought was applied or even considered.
I expect the same from your reaction to my assessment too, and that it will be far more negative because unlike the plane scenario, this one does say something real. It also doesn't have any intriguing "secret fake people" element either.
I mean come on, think for yourself. What even would be a "fake person" and what would their tells be? How did nobody else notice if it was so apparent to garner such a reaction?
Also, if you've never seen a breakdown before, that's what it looks like. It's not pretty, and it seems like everyone else on the plane recognized it too. The comments here are just unhinged and don't represent reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frosty848 Jesus, I never even implied he ever called anyone that, and my point was never about what he called them. I was bringing attention to the fact that he considers those that think unlike him and cited petty reasons to divide himself from them even further, and said that "unity" can only happen if they cross over to his side of the fence.
He's clearly basing them on something, probably the left, but for his sake, I just said "the other", becaue it's clearly a group he considers himself separate from. Call them X, Y, the left, whatever you want, because that was never the point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@metanomena Jesus, reading back on this, with the amount of mental gymnastics you ought to be in the Olympics.
You're conflating every point and keep misunderstanding when I'm addressing your reasoning.
When I'm making reference to your logic, it's not the same as agreeing to it.
You looked up the word semantics. Great, but you're not seeing how it applies to arguments and how semantic arguments, such as "what defines a canadian" are subject to context. I was referring to citizenship. Immigrants are Canadian. We don't practice jus sanguinis. Jus solis grants citizenship, yes, but so does immigration.
My question was rhetorical, in response to when you were claiming immigrants are not Canadian.
Even if you were trying to answer, you didn't, because it didn't even apply.
So who's really acting reactionary?
I wasn't when I used the term xenophobia, because your upset with the presence of other cultures is emotionally based. There's no real logical justification for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@metanomena It's because I'm familiar with how it's trained on inputs.
I see all the familiar patterns.
Sure, if what you were saying was true, it wouldn't matter how it was generated, but it's not.
The fact that it blatantly is says plenty about your intent, and it's not good.
These instruments might be fun and new, but they're not instant argument winners.
If you actually read back on what it generated, you might notice the heavy use of circular reasoning, and also the amount of points that are barely even remotely relevant.
Not to mention most of the especially paranoid points are backed only by "dude, if you didn't know, you're dumb".
Which brings me to the ad homenim (which was really ironic how it was brought up. It tends to be unintentionally ironic, which isn't unexpected, since it obviously isn't self aware, and sometimes picks up on cues from prompts or otherwise and directs them at the wrong subject. This has been rife with that.)
All that considered, the main issue is that your argument was already flawed from the start. Xenophobia is inherently irrational. No tools or gimmicks can generate a rational argument in favor of it.
Just take this as a cue to quit pursuing whatever venture it is that you're doing this for. Find something a bit more honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@metanomena You're lucky I'm bored and curious enough for this meaningless exercise :)
So:
"Equivalent of entire provences" what do you even mean by that?
The total is equivalent to the population of a province? Which one? Every 365 days? You could just day daily, but even if that's what you meant, those numbers are absolute nonsense and based on nothing.
For the next question, I haven't answered it because it's stated rhetorically. Not unlike my first question which started this domino effect of misunderstanding.
That's how it's presented, but it's also based on such a slippery definition of what colonization is.
When you misunderstood my mention of Canada's first European colonization and why it's condemned, much of the reason why is because of the violence that came with it.
You then claimed that immigration is the same thing, or at least that when it reaches a certain frequency it then falls under the same definition as colonization.
I'm still yet to hear what that special number is that turns immigrants into colonists. Does every immigrant become suddenly aware that they are colonizing once they hit that number? Do they lose their individuality and become part of some grand conspiracy all the sudden?(<- again, both rhetorical, so you're not confused again (although even while confused, you still royally messed up in responding to my initial comment. Just strange how this sudden arrogance came from you even considering that))
Also, the odd claims of upcoming conspiratorial violent plans you mentioned. They came out of nowhere, without relevance, and were dropped. It's like you don't even know what point you're trying to make, other than that I'm wrong in some way.
And that, as well as many other reasons is why this reeks of a confused AI.
It's vaguely coherent, but still aimless, drawing in vaguely relevant information, and fixating on the wrong things.
I'm just wondering what model you're using. I think I've almost got it. Hit me with another one.
Even make another silly lie about me, I don't care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derekwoodford9955 You misunderstand the use of the protein in the vaccine. Proteins are in every cell and every vaccine. There's been a spin on the whole thing but if you look at the process it's actually much safer and more streamlined than previous methods which would always have a disabled strand of the virus so that T-Cells can be exposed to it without risk of infection so that T-Cells can manually extract spike proteins from those disabled viruses and add it's mRNA to the immune system, equipping antibodies with a better response to the real thing. The spike protein was always there, but now we have methods to streamline the process and people react as if the spike-protein was a new addition.
Also you misunderstood what I meant about what a vaccine is capable of. I even said that at this point it's effectiveness is not going to be anywhere near where it's potential could have been. Lack of cooperation, conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine and misinformation campaigns have convinced too many to act in ways that prolonged the lifespan of this virus and given it opportunities to even generate variants that are a bit further than vaccines can keep up. You can't blame the medicine for not working if you don't even take it, and too many pockets have refused it letting the virus thrive.
I don't know why you're so adamant that I'm not genuine, or even that I don't hear you out. I do hear you out, and I respond accordingly. I think I'm assuming way less about who you are than you think I do as well, as I never claimed to think you're uneducated. I'm only responding to your words, they're all I know here, not your character, history or anything. I'm not trying to make this nearly as personal as you.
1
-
1
-
@derekwoodford9955 Not sure how discrimination plays a role in this. I've heard the initial animal tests as well but those are initial. That's how tests tend to start unfortunately.
Do you see my point about what the difference is in the vaccine?
Excuse my terrible analogy but it's all I can think of right now: let's say you needed a Jack of Spades to heighten your immune system. Before they would give you the whole deck, but shuffle it in a way so that can't win against you. This method would draw the card you want, but that's a lot of bloat too. Now we've found methods to just give you that Jack of Spades more or less directly.
The card (or, protein) was always there. It was even the purpose the whole time. This is just a new method, but all it does is minimize the presence of the virus in the shot (even if it's disabled anyway).
I appreciate that the hostility seems to have dropped between us. Also appreciate that you're not against others from taking it, but it raises the question of what your intent is with your comments. I'm not saying that your words are harmful, I'm just asking, and also while you're free to consider what you will about how ample testing has been and what results have come from them. With it in my veins, as well as in the systems of most folk I know, I promise I won't shy from saying if I experience anything, or hear anything from those I love. You have my word on that. I take it your concern is about truth. That's mine too, and I value it over any "sides", "camps", "ideologies", or what have you. So far, nothing to report, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdmanThunder I think you got maybe 15%-30% of the point I initially tried to make, but seemed to get distracted by the word "sexual". Words lose meaning when misused, and it happens to be trendy to go maximum hyperbole. It's not exclusive to the term here, but it's the term in question, and I didn't expect to be queried so much on my reaction but here we are and I'm only responding.
I also did give the alternative you asked for already. I even wrapped it up nicely in quotes for you.
I'm not hung up on the word in question, but if you saw a pamphlet saying "rape Survivor support group" would you think "Well, that could be about paying taxes, being vaccinated, picking apples, obeying any federal law..."
People (especially here in the comments) always refer to 1984 with directing change in language to be intentionally ambiguous for means of control. I'm not saying there is intent in this case, but the effect could be no less harmful.
As for how you "decided my opinions", I was referring to the fact that you inferred out of thin air that I was in support of "forced vaccinations" even though I stated no position of the sort. Then your friend assumed even further, also inferred from nothing, and you agreed with it and continued to try to insult my intelligence. That's not a good way to turn hearts and minds to your cause, friend.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdmanThunder Also, after everything, you'd think you'd get it, but you pulled the "you only want safe space".
Wowwie, you really didn't get it when I said you're picking my opinions for me.
I don't know what to chalk it up to. Either the tales of designated trolls, shills, and/or political instigators have some credence to them, or I keep running into people that are so obtuse on this channel that it seems intentional.
Edgy inflammatory language, seemingly never elevate the discussion but merely repeat stated talking points/buzzwords/phrases, often spamming (not you, but the guy that first replied plastered his message everywhere).
I don't want to believe it but things are a bit off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angeldreams2307 Angela... you keep talking about "parroting narratives and msm", but there's nothing unique about your perspective either. Not only that, but you have the same catchy gotcha buzzwords in every message, which are chanted by those of similar persuasion. Anyway, with that aside, let's get into the meat of it:
Unfortunately a lot of people choose not to be vaccinated. This is what validates concern for these kinds of gatherings. To continue to exist, all the virus needs are hosts, and without vaccination you're giving it what it needs. It's continued existence allows it to improve through mutations, allowing it to create more potent variants, which could increase lethality, rate of infection, and might even have a chance of breaching the immunities many of us gained through vaccination. This is not a factor to blame vaccines on. Given the chance, biology will always adapt, and without vaccination you are giving it the chance to do that.
P.S. this isn't some borrowed opinion from MSM. I'm just one of those weirdos that enjoyed reading up on science since way before 2020, and these are things that have been true long before it's been politicized to draw the attention of contrarians
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 hear you, brother. I hope to believe it doesn't bear too much influence, but I know it can.
A decade and a half ago, there were hardly any comments.
Low viewership, or just classic Canadian "trying not to impose"-ship, I dunno. But then out of nowhere the comments blew up, and it was all toxic.
Us Canadians are not like this. From all I know living here I know we're definitely not racists, classists, bigots, or the emotionally stunted reactionists that we keep seeing portrayed here.
Sure, we have some bad eggs that might fit those descriptions, but goddamn, not enough to make a majority!!!
I've seen too few users here demonstrating sense. I'm glad to have found another.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tao31416 Crazy how it's come to this, but yes. He's treating nations like businesses; putting out rumors, giving baseless grievances and ultimatums, but he doesn't want those ultimatums met, nor would he acknowledge if they were, by whatever nebulous measure that is. Fortunately, as he continues to strain relationships with our allies, and even NATO, our relationships grow stronger. Through them I believe we can weather this storm, either until his term is up and someone rational comes in, or we take that time to invest in our own refineries while trading with allies to fill that buffer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derekwoodford9955 Oh, sorry I responded to the thing you deleted, so now I'll respond to the new stuff.
I never claimed to be a superior human being, nor have I ever even used that kind of language. All I did was address your misuse of the term algorithm, which let's be honest, you only tried to bring that up for a reason, and it wasn't because you're familiar with it. As someone that actually works with and writes algorithms for a living, I guess I might've been a bit short with you about it, I'm sorry about that.
Regarding the actual post, yeah what Hamas did was bad. That's actually pretty non-controvertial.
I'm actually pretty surprised that you haven't said anything too silly regarding this conflict, as far as I've seen (compared to some previous world events).
I won't make the mistake of assuming which "side" you're on, because being anti-Hamas doesn't have to denote anything, and I think it's OK to not be taking a hard stance about it. Personally I think the whole situation is messed up in more ways than just the situation itself, where people treat it as if opinions had to be binary. Israel has been showing far too much zeal (pun not intended) in their "self defense", while what hamas has done was obviously heinous, but it leaves so many innocent Palestinians to get caught in the crossfire. Way too many.
So I guess of all my replies, this might've been less warranted, I'll agree with that.
However, I never meant to "school" you about grammar, I just thought you might benefit from being more legible. The ellipsis is often misused, not only by being overextended, but also because it's placement can completely change the tone of what's being said.
To look at how you use it, if I assumed you were using it intentionally I might read the tone as either confused or melancholic, because the placement implies an incomplete thought, which would either be from being so depressed you can't complete it or from being too confused or unable to think what comes next.
I don't think you mean those, but I don't know what else you mean by it.
If you want to be understood, it helps to be intentional with your delivery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ian-ky6di I'm not asking for anyone to search for anything. I'm just stating a common observation of the comments for this specific channel. If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't, but I'll just invite you to observe ANY other comment section for videos covering subjects that don't fit with the right wing agenda (as much as I hate saying that, or adding to the binary "us vs them" identity war, it's the most likely term for someone to understand what I'm getting at).
There's a clear trend. I'm not saying you're a part of it, nor am I saying anything about any groups or persons in real life. Just what I've seen here, which might not reflect real world demographics.
I'll just say this:
Either a half decade ago or more, the comment sections here would be nearly empty. Barely a peep, save for the odd old person saying something benign.
Then all the sudden it was flooded with toxicity, with less than legible English and repetitive patterns.
This channel was once vacant, then suddenly occupied by foreign trolls, playing both sides (but mostly posing as the right) and saying the most vulgar things.
I have a data mining script with sentimental analysis data. It wouldn't be easy to share here though, but it checks out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@firstandforemost87 It sounds like you have a very specific definition of diversity. I took it for everything the word covers, also including sub-cultures, which can always pop up sporadically even within a culture, and even diverse personalities, identities, sexualities, and every other potential differences. Sure, some ideals like those with bigotry obviously have potential for harm and we would be better off without, but most of those differences in culture and identity are benign at worst, and have no conflict with eachother.
Common ground doesn't have to be from culture or background. Canadians of any type can find commonality in plenty of other ways. Coworkers of completely different cultural backgrounds can bond together over a common love of sports for example, because that has no cultural barrier.
I really don't see how you decided that I'm pro-segregation though. Whatever you're saying is a natural progression, that's fine too and I'm not against that. However culture or cultures end up without active interference is fine by me, but I don't think that's what Woodford was advocating for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jack Sprat Ok, you and your cronies had their accounts removed for spam and blatant bot activity, and of course you made new ones in their place, hence why you, for example have existed for a month, but have made nearly 400 comments?!
I'm surprised you'd reprise the name too, since you were already best known most for your use of automated bot responses.
And still, in proper JS fashion, you make some claim and scurry away when asked to elaborate.
Yep, that's the Jack Sprat I know.
Jack is back, I guess
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidW-nx2zs NATO has been an organization that was established as a reaction to the very real existential threat that nuclear arms have posed since they were first demonstrated and owned by several nations. Unlike the ministry of peace, it was actually founded to serve as a collective effort to prevent conflict. Unlike the ministry of peace, being a "spin doctor" isn't the primary objective of the organization. Sure, they might advocate for their interests, but that's true for any organization and isn't exclusive to any of them.
Simplifying it down to saying they're the same based on a superficial observation is an example of a false analogy.
It's similar to Godwin's law, which is that any argument will eventually devolve into a false analogy comparing someone to Hitler or nazis, because they find them authoritarian, and also because they don't like them, but it adds no value to the discussion. The same applies to 1984 because it's often misused as an analogy to basically any subject.
Call [insert any media/news outlet] the ministry of truth, call [insert any civil authority] the ministry of love, call [insert any military/international organization] the ministry of peace. If you can apply this so universally, it's a good sign that it's a false analogy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonk5669 I'll help jog your memory of just a few of his recent accounts:
Troon-Troon, Troon-Troon2 (pretending to be the same account, thinking he can beat the spam filters. Not very clever), Rocksteady, Rocksteady2, Youtubemusic, Youtubemusic2, Hairydude, Jacksprat.
There were more, and some of them he might have deleted on his own out of rage when getting caught red handed in really dumb lies, but otherwise they were banned.
You're not wrong about his silly antics. Such an easy thing to own up to, yet he thinks he can lie about it. What a goofball lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derekwoodford9955 You seem to call everyone that. I cant vouch for this art guy, and honestly I cant even see his comment here, but from what I've seen his delivery does seem a bit odd, but I dunno, yours is too and also very consistently repetitive and spammy. I used to think you seemed pretty suspicious but then I've actually met some people in real life just as odd so I'm not even sure any more.
Anyway, signs of "shills" are usually if they comment every day, and if they have recently made accounts because they tend to make several at once. Also if they tend to be repetitive, antagonistic, spam the same message (low effort, mass spread by copy paste or automated bot software for even more convenience) and tend to be vague or rely on one-liners.
A lot of old people and people with too much time on their hands also follow these trends, so it's tough to be certain.
Just thought this data might be of interest to 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