Comments by "André" (@Andre-qo5ek) on "Warren Smith - Secret Scholar Society" channel.

it is interesting to say "they are revealing ... the nasty side" that is a heavy "civility politics" nonsense. i would think a critical thinker would pivot to the collection data side of this when large groups of people start engaging. a nerve was hit. it is time to pull out the tool kit and figure it out. pull out the psychology, sociology, economics, really dig in to what people are saying. what their definitions are, what their critical thinking is NOT being a "skeptic". it is gathering the pieces of the puzzles. modelling the picture that is out there.. not crafting your picture from the pieces you choose. it is MOSTLY describing the world, with a healthy dose of hypothesis and the smallest dose or prescription.
2
oh boy... you got all the WORSE endorsements... geeze. getting a preliminary measure based on the company you keep... eekk.... going to go through your catalogue and make a selection to peruse . so far... a subscribe is not looking likely...... you remind me of the " just asking questions, brah" people... just enough smarts and public appeal to spread dangerous ideas to others that do not have the ability to control themselves.
2
the idea of bots is possible ... but the justice system needs evidence ... right now from this video... it sounds like you had some bad takes and the public, on this public platform, that your chose to be subjected to... has spoken... stupid games stupid prizes and all that jazz. from the sounds of it , next you'll be recruited by the alt-right; that's your prize indoctrination. hope you don't succumb to the alt-right they are insidious in their recruitment. ( the contra point rabbit hole is next on my list to watch , so i'll get a better idea of the entire scope then.)
2
a bullshit sexist claim that didn't even take all of your 2 brain cells to pull out your ass.
2
1) the act of invoking a fact , can absolutely be transphobic... 2) we also have to define if the "fact" is actually a FACT. personally declaring something as a "fact " does not make it a fact. 3) and facts as in , The Facts of the case, are "A real occurrence; an event." ... and those events can absilutly be transphobic. you are denying context to the declaration of a statements as if language is a mathematical language... you demo here is NOT of critical thinking...
1
diversity of human experience seems pretty important... otherwise we would have people with the same experiences... and what does that kind of uniformity generate? sure there is time and place for specialization of "experience"; but that is more "experience" in terms of skill, not the human experience which is the kind of experience that is meant by "diversity" in the education discussion. -- so much of this conversation is a matter of people using the same words with different definitions of those words. people weigh the words differently as well. we need conversations on a MUCH more FUNDEMENTAL level. one person might be talking spiritually, the other mathematically, the next philosophically, the next as a humanist.
1
i am gathering that your role in the political landscape is of the wedge. you are peaking into the alt-right. letting people peak in with you. gathering a crowd at the door. your not TELLING them to go in, your jsut the wedge holding it open. your not DIRECTLY supporting the alt-right, but you are not AGAISNT their "right" to say it. ( but seem to not voice YOUR stance on the positions) you really are the " just asking questions, brah" guy that disconnects what you are ultimately doing ( legitimizing harmful opinions)
1
"wanting to discuss something" is not what makes them a bigot... it is there position that makes them a bigot.
1
@Y-two-K more like a dozen but yeah a few comments. wtf is with your sexist bullshit one?
1
come one.. contra did not say buying one shirt from a store means you are responsible for every other shirt in that store..... but supporting a business, that is known to associate with nazi's... with a political statement on it that supports the statements of that Nazi party .... the promoting that message to the public...... at the LEAST hints at a personal support for that position... why are you playing this game? ( it is unfortunate that my comments in turn support your channel, which aids in your youtube numbers to reach more people... but it seems my combined opinion so far is negative of your stances. and i am voicing my vehement disagreement with you. )
1
just using the short hand "free speech" does not help in this conversation without a detailed explanation as to what that means.
1
pure evidence might be close to "objective" {this is a knife with blood, it was found at this location at this time by this person. the blood tested under xyz method compared to xyz database has data that is listed as xyz person} even THOSE "facts" man.. we have to rely on the person making the report... and we all know how many unreliable narrators there are. the narrative, the presentation, the context is ALL subjective. even just deciding what IS "objective" is subjective. your example of court: yes... we need to define terms... that is what is CONSISTENTLY missed in all the void vomit. we are in the adolescence of the internet... nah, the terrible 2's where the internet just learnt o say no and throw tantrum. we are NOT anywhere NEAR intellectual debate. we have a husk of a democracy, and a zeitgeist of consumerism by all means for profit. the subset of people that care about progress is MINUSCULE. we do not have platforms for transparent factual debate. "debate" is a leisure when you are not the targets group of the "debate". it is life or death at times for the actual groups effected by the debate. we are in the ACTION phase for many of these things that you want to "debate". trans rights .. are not something to play with. anyone's human rights ... are not a play thing when they are in mists of lynch mobs.
1
@adrianlopez3373 had to re read my comment and re watch the video....ah yes... bro doesn't understand subjectivity or objectivity. he even got the court thing wrong.
1
9:30 - 10:33 ... that didn't resonate with what you are doing? 10:34 - 11:24 your response is naive.... you think a nazi would be honest?!?!?! and have "debate" in good faith!?!?!?! 😂 come one... you have to know what that sounds like... you do you keep assuming bigots would act in good faith? we have evidence of them acting in bad faith time and time again.
1
punishing for intent is ABSOLUTELY a part of the judicial system... intent can play a HUGE part between manslaughter , murder, and murder in the first you can't really be saying there is no weight in someone's intent!!?!? are you?
1
i think it is fair that all members of a group are activists for that group... soooo ... im not sure you are correct on that point in defending rowling. but i can see where you are trying to come from on that... i just think you are missing the subtext of what rowling is saying.
1
why do you think that's what it means? have you looked at what it means? because it sounds like you're just making things up.... if you can define, and explain DEI from the supports side, then you have earned the right to disagree.... you can hold a position of ignorance ... but that's just a useless opinion.... if you would like to contract a meaningful, educated, and constructive critique ... please share it.
1
@Torquemada70 so that is your and their HONEST definitions..? your either lying to yourself , to me, or both. but that it definitely not the definition. hey, maybe you believe being dishonest or ignorant is a virtue.. sorry to burst your bubble but its not buddy.
1
@Torquemada70 what am i projecting exactly?
1
@Torquemada70 you're one of those people that's uses lots of words buy SAYS nothing. you can't answer easy questions... my only guess is that you have a mental deficiency... go get some help for that buddy...
1
to insinuate the musk is "perusing free speech to the best of his ability" is disingenuous. musk is a free speech absolutist from what i understand... so.. yeah he is a hypocrite if he is censoring anything that is within the scope of the law.... if musk doesn't care about being a hypocrite , that's fine...... but he should be known to have inconsistent ideas on this. nuance is of course a thing... and if musk wants to put out a nuanced document on his position, that might clear things up. but he cant claim to be an free speech absolutists AND censor people anything past the law. he holds an all or nothing mentality on this issue. the issue is not the critiques... it is musk's beliefs vs actions.
1
to be clear... "transparency" nearly always necessitates a sacrifice of privacy. are you calling for that sacrifice? and to what limit?
1
terms of serves can totally have social etiquette built into it ... what's illegal or wrong with that?
1
ok.. I've seen 9 videos... i get the idea of your channel. from what i see.. yeah i get you people are against your platform. you are in a fight you shouldn't be in. you are legitimizing positions by supporting the idea that bigots operate in good faith. is this your intention... i don't get that impression... i think you're just inept to the topic, ignorant. if you really wanted to do a critical break down... you need to do 4 times the work than the videos you are talking about. you need to steelman the arguments and frame them from the speakers position use the definitions they are using, explaining your definition. lay everything out point by point, with citations and fact checking and fact checking of the sources source. your video's are lazy with a guise of "intellectual". you're even being used as a pawn my the media wing of the alt-right.
1
there is a HUGE difference between "social "media and main stream media. musk is fighting being labeled mainstream because the STANDARDS that have to be followed. "social "media can skirt responsibility for the content because they are NOT mainstream media. musk holds that as a benefit because he can get the users that are spreading misinformation. it becomes a misinformed opinion platform and not media at all. it becomes a platform for the cacophony of noise being shouted opinion by the ignorant into the void, NOT transparent information. the LOUDEST on these platforms get more sway, it is NOT a democracy.
1
you mutter such nonsense... you clearly have more words in your head... but the words that come out of your mouth do not connect.
1
orrrr... maybe... reflect on what set someone off and consider their position... with ... IDK... empathy? work on reconciliation..... "NEVER" apologize to "these" people.... wow... that is both an absolutist statement and an othering statement... it's like you are the opposite of a critical thinker at all... - additionally... please define a "cancel mob" ... because i have a feeling you are ok with "your" people doing the exact behavior to "those" people....
1
😂🤣 who are you... Holden?!!?! whose a phony whose not.... come on...
1
what is your definition of "debate" ? you seem to use this VERY colloquially..... because the online "debates" you reference are in no way formal, not judicial or legislative. they are opinions based in facts to rally people to take action.... not debates.
1
@qiajenaehamilton6397 i have not seen fact from him just yet, ( i am 6 videos in) . you are correct that i have not yet seen emotion i have seen conjecture. i have seen rejection of others position with no position of his own that answers that fills the same hole in full. i have seen "just asking questions , brah" can you point me to one of his better videos? to i can get the best ""responds" in fact.". i have yet to be impressed please and thank you
1
universal education, opening up MORE libraries, digitizing ALL books and making them open access.... THAT will democratize information. a cesspool of an echo chamber where noone is accountable for their words... is not helping.
1
do you not believe in euphemisms , subtext, dog whistles, statements made between the lines, the mere fact that bad people gasp conceal their language and lie??!?!?!? do you not understand when people infer something without saying the thing?!?!? are you playing dumb for clout or something? what is your angle here? this is jsut a gossip let's watch... not the promised " a critical thinking DEMONSTRATION" if THIS is what you are demonstrating as "critical thinking" ... i understand the criticism you have been receiving.
1
um .... laws CAN be done sport by sport... laws can be anything we make them to be.... um... laws are NOT "universally applied" .... what is your degree in? what is your teaching field? BFA in Film Producing and a Master in Fine arts? is that correct? if that is... where do you get any authoritative voice on law? (haha when looking up yur credentials i say that the gamergate community like you... owe man... the parties that associate with you... really demonstrate what you are putting out in the world. i really do hope your real operation here is to get a fandom, and turn them AWAY from the alt-right.... but its not looking that way so far. )
1
eek.. a lesson in: using corporate computers for ANYTHING personal ... thinking coworkers are friends... holding a job as anything more than a money source...
1
um... the "logic" does not follow here..... "lowering standards" leading to "people dying" "because of DEI" you would have to have evidence that the lowering of standards DOES cause death and that DEI is the CAUSE of the "lowering of standards" you would have to evaluate the "standards" for their CAUSE of death the reduction of the topic has made position untenable. logic is only self evidence if you have all the pieces to the argument. "logic IS the evidence" ... um .. .nooo... that is not correct.... what's your field? is it philosophy or legal procedure... what is your definition of "evidence" is my question here.
1