Consept

OK so youre dismissing the death rate, do you think that has no bearing on assessing how effective a treatment is? So if there were 100 people and 90 wore seatbelts but 10 didnt and out of the 10, 5 died and out of the 90, 10 died, you would say, following your logic that theres no way to know what wouldve happened to the 90 if they didnt wear seatbelts, therefore seatbelts are not effective because more people died wearing them? Does this make sense to you?

This is so intellectually lazy, the death rate is definitely the most important metric. If there are 100 people and 90 get vaccinated, let's say 10 of the vaccinated people die but only 5 of the unvaccinated die, that means 50% of unvaccinated people are going to die, whereas only 9% vaccinated people will die, obviously you will have a better chance of you're vaccinated. Do you see how you claim others are doing what you're actually doing, you've changed how you look at the numbers to give make your point of view correct, whilst also claiming other people are doing that. You claim to be one of the 'smarter' people that can discern information for himself but you seem to have very strong bias' that I would not associate with an open mind. Based

So if we cant trust them and they have no regulations and are clearly biased by their own admission, how will that help us get closer to the truth, if anything it will make the truth more murky. But even you seem to have trouble discerning what is true and whats not judging by the examples youve provided, so obviously alt-media is not really helping here.

Also this take is just wrong, more deaths will be of vaccinated people because more people are vaccinated but the death rate between unvaccinated and vaccinated is very different. Unvaccinated peoples death rate is much higher, you can find out more about that here - https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Bro, this is ridiculous, the first one is just a random article from the India TV news website, thats not a fact check site. Just to make sure you understand, youre supposed to present an article from a fact check site, snopes or full fact something like that and show where they proved something wrong and it was later revealed they were wrong and most likely paid off by the government. All these links are just proving how necessary fact checking actually is. Also notice your double standard where fact check sites need to be right 100% of the time, if theyre not then we cant trust them but alt-media can be biased, wrong a lot of the time etc but we can trust them

Read the fact check you provided, its about a post that was proved to be quite clearly false, linked to a false website etc. Theyre not talking about the idea that an organisation can exist that talks about sustainability, its literally about the facebook post. So if the fact checkers are claiming a whole bunch of false information, then just link one, this is the crux of your whole argument so i dont know why you sent me such a terrible example

BASED

No i asked for something that was proved wrong and then turned out to be right, you are essentially presenting a facebook post that talks about depopulating the earth from the UN. That post was definitely false, the UN didnt put out a manifesto talking about depopulating the earth if you want to take something else theyve said and make that claim then you can but its not proof of anything its just your speculation. Ill ask again have you got something that was proved wrong by fact checkers that you can prove they were wrong about and it was some government agenda?

The first link disproves a social media (alt-media) post that claims it has hard evidence and website for the objectives the UN is claiming for the a new world order. But first of all that website was proved not to be linked to the UN, it was a one page website with no links working, it also wouldnt make sense for them to put that out if that was their intention. So it is literally provably false. The other link for the World government summit makes no claims to do what was in this nwo manifesto, theyre more talking about sustainability and things like that. If you are a smart person you can clearly see this, I dont see how you can read that first link and not see that the facebook post was nonsense. This actually makes more of a point that fact checking is needed.

Can you give an example of something that was fact checked and proved wrong which wasnt actually wrong and was paid off by the mainstream to say that it was wrong?

I understand your point, but what im saying is that its more likely that some 'smart' people are engaging with alt-media in a healthy way, but I'm sure you can see that most people are not engaging with it in this way. Your point is focusing on the best case scenario to justify something, but this can be used to justify literally anything, 'smart' people wouldnt need any laws because they would make the right decision for example but most people do need laws. The alt-media talks about what the mainstream said that doesnt agree with their point of view, if they agreed they wouldnt cover it. This can be necessary to give different point of views but its not done from a perspective of keeping the mainstream honest and accountable, its usually done to further whatever view theyve got. Flat earth people will probably claim the mainstream omits information about flat earth

What percentage of people consuming alt-media would you class as 'smarter'? Ive never seen alt-media talk about something that they didnt talk about, that literally makes no sense. Ben Shapiro isnt going to talk about things he doesnt want brought up about palestine for example. Just on a practical level they cant cover everything and then the things they dont dont cover they say that they didnt cover lol

They do specifically have to answer for it, they can and do get sued quite often if they report any factually wrong information, defame people etc. They are held to a much higher level of scrutiny than alternative, as in its not even close. People who consume alt-media are usually much more radical and ideolgical than mainstream viewers, usually they are in an echo chamber because that is the nature of social media, hence the rise of things like qanon and incel culture. If you ask these groups whether alt-media is biased, I can bet you whatever you want theyll tell you its not biased or at least whatever they consume is not and it is the absolute truth, I know this from first hand experience. Yes the people that consume alt-media's needs are hearing what they want to hear from their favourite alt-media sources Your claim was that mainstream is a mouth piece for the government, CNN was definitely not a mouth piece for Trumps government so what youre saying doesnt really work. Do you ever concede a point btw? just need to check otherwise this is completely pointless

Bro one of your main points is that the alternative media doesnt claim to be unbiased. So to confirm youre saying the alternative media doesnt have to say theyre biased or unbiased and they have no responsibility to do either but then they are also more clearly defined as biased to people that consume that media than mainstream? How can it be the mouthpiece of the government when different mainstream sources can be for or against the current government?

By the way which alternative media makes a big thing of saying they're bias? Most of them will say this is the truth because of my research, ob both sides as well from vaush to candace owens. You can say that everyone knows which way they lean but that's the same for mainstream, everyone knows cnn is more democratic leaning and fox is republican leaning, like its not a secret.

@mr_engineer Alternative media is attempting to give an absolute truth, thats exactly what they claim to do. Mainstream specifically can not claim that. I'm from the UK and on TV they can't even say one political party is better than another, in fact they can't even say one car brand is better than another. So no mainstream doesn't claim to be an absolute truth. The reason why alternative gets banned is specifically because they claim truth. During covid for example when some alternative claimed that it wasn't real, they were claiming truth they weren't just criticising mainstream. If you have a platform and you want to inform people there is a huge responsibility and a lot of alternative media, probably most, does not live up to that responsibility. This is not to say mainstream doesn't have issues btw, it's just that bias with little regulations is obviously going to be worse than bias with a lot of regulations.

Something like 51% of people use it as their main news source so it is used as a source of information. But I think your reluctance to say it is more reliable is because you know it isn't, if it is more reliable to you then you can still make the claim. If the mainstream is over stepping or over claiming or being highly biased then of course they should be called out. In general they're highly regulated and will get sued if they put out any provably false information. These restrictions are not put on alternative media in the same way. Everyone is biased in some way the only thing that really stops this is regulation, I'm sure you'd agree that you would want mainstream to have these regulations as it will keep them less biased. But then on the flip you would complain if alternative media is regulated, so if that's the case, what is there to stop alternative media from being biased?

@mr_engineer OK so to confirm are you saying that alternative media is a more reliable source of information than mainstream media? Just to be clear we are mainly talking about social media as alternative media as that's what most people consume

So is it a better source of information then? As in more accurate, closer to the truth

@rnd would you say information from alternative sources is generally more reliable than mainstream sources? As in better researched, less biased etc

In my experience, what can make depression worse is when the person just focuses on themselves. If you say to them don't worry you don't have to do anything just heal yourself, that can actually make it worse as they can wallow in the depression and build a habit of not doing anything. If they at the very least have habits like working out, playing sports, going for walks, helping others etc, it's very hard for the depression to affect them as much. Healing itself can be done on a deeper more intentional way, maybe with a therapist. But building good habits in the mean time is a big factor.

OK that makes sense, I think the best course of action for you is to work towards not being dependent on your brothers. Sometimes it's better just to throw yourself into a more difficult (but beneficial long term) situation, for example get a job you don't mind that can cover your expenses and move out. Don't wait for the moment to be perfect just get it done, once you start taking responsibility for these things you will feel completely different. As well make sure you handle the basics of good sleep, diet and exercise.

The issue today is not so much censorship but the fact that there's so much information and people haven't learnt how to discern what's real and what's not. In terms of mainstream v alternative media, mainstream actually has a lot more limitations on what can be said, there's regulations, they may get sued for false information, defamation etc. Alternative media has some restrictions but no where near close to mainstream. Because of the lack of restrictions it means they can post opinions, poorly researched stories or just straight factually wrong information, in fact its more than likely going to be one of these things just because they don't have to research anything. The idea that just because something is censored it's probably true is nonsense and if I was trying to pump out misinformation, I would probably say that because it would be a win/ win for me, I could say anything false and if it gets censored I could say the mainstream knows its true that's why they censored me. To answer the initial point from op, flat earth theory isn't really dangerous to the public, if people want to believe it literally would make no difference to anyone. You can believe whatever you want, but it's when those beliefs cause damage to society or individuals that you have a problem ie believing covid isn't real. It's like if you have a son and they believe Harry Potter is real, it doesn't really matter but then if he starts believing he can jump off the roof with a broom you may want to stop him watching Harry Potter until he realises its not real.

The problem is if someone goes to the doctor and says my arm is hurting and then the doctor says spend a few years studying the muscular and skeletal systems, although that is more advanced and will give you a better understanding of your body it doesn't actually help you practically. Inner work is very important, essential even but if people haven't sorted their traumas and haven't built up self sufficiency I notice that inner work can and is often used as a way to avoid that stuff. In reality everything could and should be done in tandem but if you think people don't have to do the basic grow up and clean up stuff and can just have realisations while the parents fund their life, I don't think that amounts to an actualized person.

Are you dependent on anyone at the moment? Family, parents, girlfriend etc