Consept

So how do you propose Naziism should be taught? Did you want to learn about the good they they did or the bad that the Jews did, what do you mean by one sided?

@Ferretab Race and racism has played a massive part in the history of the US and in a lot of western countries up until today, which has resulted in unfair treatment for certain minorities. This is historical fact, if you go to museums in Washington you will see that pretty much every immigrant community was greeted with discrimination and real life policies that stunted their progress. Now what your suggesting as in, we are all one etc, would work in post-racial society, in which case there most likely would be no problem with teaching crt, an equivalent would be how the holocaust is taught in schools in Germany, in which Germany take pains to to teach how wrong the Nazi party were and damaging effects caused. This teaching means that Germany most likely will never go down that road again, which is played out in how they handle politics today. The other alternative is that the US is not a post-racial society, in which case something like crt is also essential in terms of becoming a post-racial society. In either case hiding the historical and current significance of race would in fact itself be an ideology.

@Parththakkar12 @DrewNows Here's the reality, you can have your completely free world if everyone has transcended survival and has gone on their journey and is basically enlightened or at least at yellow or above on the spiral. Until then 'freedom' is just a belief and paradoxical ideology, covering up for survival. Apart from the fact corporations would fully take control of the world without any market regulation, which by the way they'd love so I'm sure they're all for your freedom. But there would just be complete chaos, which is fine but we've already evolved from chaos, so we'd just come back to where we are now. You could make the argument that maybe there's too much control right now, but there's actually less control and more freedom than there ever has been in any human society. So I really rack my brain to think what this idea of freedom is that people have. I think maybe you're thinking of a utopia where everyone is enlightened and understands the universe and consciousness and their own bias' and whatnot, but what you don't see is that this is the path to that, we are on the right path it just takes a very long time. Going off that path just slows things down, it's the same way a dictatorship is on that path and when the people are ready democracy comes in, look at what happened to Iraq when saddam was taken out, did it get better or worse? Its the same with the Western world, when we're ready we will move up

Its interesting, but you could also flip it and say that theres an insatiable (which im sure he mispronounces) need for 'freedom' from the anti-vaxxers. In the times of the Native tribes you did what was best for the community, most likely you wouldnt even question it, because there was a certain trust that was necessary for survival. So now its like we want complete individual freedom regardless of how it affects the community, which in itself is a paradox and literally impossible, how can i have 100% freedom in a society of millions and everyone else simultaneously have freedom as well? Now there isnt really sufficient trust and in a lot of cases this mistrust is justified, it will always be an issue of top down power in a society, so i do empathise with people that want to go against the government, but i think what we need to realise is that if you get rid of this government and you take over it will most likely be worse than what it was before. I dont think people appreciate the delicate balance of society and in fact its probably the most progressive society in human history, however it loses a lot just for the size of it. We need to find some way to bring back purpose and true community, but i feel that will come as humans go up the spiral dynamics ladder, but one thing is that we have to really understand and rework our expectations for 'freedom'.

What about Astra-Zeneca and J&J who have pledged not to make a profit until the pandemic is over. The A-Z shot is only $2.15 each in europe, so even if they were making a profit its very minimal. Pfizer are making a profit on it of course, estimates will be around $3.6 billion for the year in profit but when you consider the pharma industry in the US is worth $1.2 trillion it is really a drop in the ocean. Vaccines arent in general big money spinners, they cost a lot to develop and usually are only taken once in a lifetime, or at most once a year

Yes definitely, the illustrations make it seem like it's about the plandemic stuff. But it goes to show how easy it is co-opt information about something else and make everything seem to revolve around whatever narrative you want, in this case its just a matter of adding masks to the images. It's just the irony of convincing people they're in a totalitarian regime through a video warning about totalitarian tactics ??

So wait youre posting a video about mass psychosis likening it to whats happening now by comparing a vaccination program to totalitarianism? That is such an insult to all the tyrant dictators currently and of the past (Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc). We are no where near being in a totalitarian society, if you really think that then that is mass psychosis. The government now isnt perfect by any means and has a long way to go and a lot of improvements needed but to say its totalitarian is such a reach. If you live in America or most of the western world then go and live in Russia or China or North Korea and then complain to them about living in totalitarian state, see how far you get. Do you ever consider that balancing everyones freedom is actually a difficult task and that working out everyones rights is still a work in progress? I actually like the video btw but i dont think its talking about what you think it is, thats the beauty of having fixed positions, you can attribute anything as evidence of them.

@Seed Just to clarify it is majority of experts that are for the vaccine as a route out, something like 98%, which is a scientific consensus. This doesn't mean that the vaccine is infallible there will be some issues as with any medication or drug but the efficacy is agreed upon by experts and there is currently no other plan or solution, if a better one did come up, in theory that would be the one they'd agree on. As I understand what you're saying people should have a choice of whether to take the vaccine. The issue is that a certain amount of people need to take it for it to be effective and for us to relax social distancing, reduce hospitalisations etc. So by not taking it what people are saying is that the route presented by science is not the right one. Maybe this is true but then you would have to present a feasible alternative. What science has presented is a vaccine with around 95% efficacy and let's say 1% short term side effects. Keep in mind there are no drugs without side effects. So if the vaccine is not good enough, I'm assuming people want more than 95% efficacy and basically no side effects, they also want it developed quickly but with long term testing. Which makes me think that essentially nothing science comes up with will suffice. So I would ask is in an ideal world, what would a way out even look like? Or is it just a case of letting nature take its course and decimating everyone?

@Seed I don't expect you to have a virologist knowledge or know anything about the ingredients, the reason I pointed you to the list is because you stated - "Not one car safety law involves forcing citizens to put a shot into their body, that is not sufficiently tested, have no idea what is in it, whether it even works or what the side effects are." Part of your argument for not taking the vaccine is based on this, but all this information is available. I appreciate you don't want to insult the doctors by saying you know the words on the list, but is it not more insulting to have a strong opinion that disagrees with the doctors without even knowing the words on the list, whilst also complaining that you don't know what's on the vaccine? Regarding your solution, which reading between the lines is to just let nature take its course and not doing anything about the pandemic, I don't want to misquote you but that's what I'm getting from what you said. Where do you draw the line with this, should we stop all drug research and let people just deal with whatever conditions they have for any illness, or is this specific just to covid? If we were to roll out your strategy of do nothing there would be millions more dead, not just from covid but over crowded hospitals where people will find it hard to get treatment. From an overall perspective maybe less humans would be better, it's basically thanos' argument, but would you really want to advocate for culling humans?

@Seed you can actually find out what's in the vaccine, it's all open to the public https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/Covid-19-Knowledge-Base/Vaccine-Ingredients But what I wanted to ask is if the vaccine is the right route out what do you think is the right way out of the pandemic? Keep in mind the numbers are what they are even with all the social distancing. Also healthy eating and lifestyle are great to do but are a preventative measure and wouldn't have had too much effect on the pandemic if people only started during the pandemic.

OK but this is separate issue, personally i would call it a consciousness problem in that majority of society is in certain states of consciousness that are not good for the planet. If everyone was at say yellow and above consciousness levels there wouldnt really be the same issues or messes that we have now. But i also dont think youd find many people at yellow or turquoise whos solution would be to cull people as in not develop ways to save people if its possible, their solution would be to raise consciousness, especially turquoise people. My point was more that the reasoning given by @BadHippie was an egocentric perspective as in for him not to suffer and give his gift to the world, hes willing to not take it. You seem to be saying there shouldnt be any special treatment given to humans, which is fine but its a different argument.

These are things you want and want to do, this reasoning by definition is egocentric. Also the vaccine will not probably make you sick, at most you might not feel great for a couple days, but it is extremely unlikely you will have any sever adverse reactions, in fact you would be more likely to have bad effects from covid for a longer period, so even on an egocentric viewpoint that reasoning doesnt really work. I do understand your concerns and these are issues that are constantly being worked on and learnt about. I also respect youre decision as an egocentric one and you have a right to make that but not taking the vaccine because of a worry that it might make you sick and if it does you wont be able to share your gift with the world is not really looking outside of yourself.

Its not an either or situation, you can have compassion for both humans and animals. What i was talking about was going from a circle of compassion that only includes yourself to other people. Youre taking it a step further and saying it should also include all living beings, which is fine but you cant paint the egocentric view as caring about every living thing and then conveniently make decisions that only appear to benefit them.

I'm willing to be corrected, could you break down how asking the question - Is from a world centric view? Again im not judging or arguing im interested in how you see this as not an egocentric position

The CDC specifically says the vaccine reduces risk of spreading the virus - "Individual and community-level prevention measures in addition to vaccination have been shown to help reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2.(163-167) However, there can be individual and societal costs related to physical distancing, quarantine, school and business closures, and other prevention measures.(168-175) Modeling studies suggest that adherence to other prevention measures, such as wearing masks and physical distancing, continues to be important in the context of vaccine implementation.(176-184) In one study, complete relaxation of prevention measures for the entire population prior to adequate vaccination coverage (60-80% depending on the population considered) resulted in essentially no reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections.(178) However, in the context of rapid vaccine implementation, the benefit of non-pharmaceutical interventions decreases: preliminary data from one study found prevention measures in the United States could begin to be relaxed 2-3 months after vaccination began if a rate of 3 million doses administered daily were attained(185). Correspondingly, preliminary data suggest that increasing vaccination rates may allow for the phasing out of some prevention measures as coverage increases.(184) With high vaccine effectiveness and increasing vaccination coverage, preliminary modeling studies conducted prior to emergence of the Delta variant predicted that vaccinated people returning to normal activities will have minimal impact on the course of the pandemic.(185, 186)" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html But looking at a more meta perspective of your question, as i said its an ego-centric question, whats in it for me why should I take it. What im saying is that a world centric view would not look at it in that way. Your research is done to give justification for not taking the vaccine, maybe theres something to it, maybe there a shreds of truth in it but there is also the same and more research on the other side. I imagine you were never for the vaccine from whenever you heard there would be a vaccine therefore your decision was always not to take it and because youre somewhat intelligent, have some kind of scientific argument as to why not. If you had a world centric view your thinking would be more along the lines of 'people are suffering as a result of something, countries are completely locked down, the world is suffering is there some small thing i could do to help the situation? Will this small thing have any negative repercussions for me? most likely not ok let me do it'. All this other research and whatnot is just a justification for an egocentric action, which makes sense because not only are you doing the egocentric thing but you also want everyone to agree with that choice and praise you for being smarter than 99% of experts, which is why you spend so much time on research and explaining yourself. Im not saying this as a judgement and you are of course free to make an egocentric decision, i probably make loads myself, but at least be honest about it.

The thing with the conservatives is that they only care about power, its really a game for them that theyre trying to win, Johnson, Cameron etc have all been groomed from a young age at schools like Eton to play this game, they dont really have an understanding of the average person passed how to manipulate them to vote. Now this can be considered a good and bad thing, bad for obvious reasons but good in the sense that they can be swayed if theres enough support for a cause. The green targets for example are quite forward thinking, there have also been a ton of u-turns on things like free meals for school kids in poverty. So in reality its terrible leadership because theyre just trying to cling on to power but at least they can be pressured into doing what the people want, this is cool when you get want you want but then they can also be pressured into disasters like Brexit. Labour is just more of the same, theyve gone more centrist with the new leader but he could be a tory and no one would notice. There needs to be a realistic alternative and there needs to be strong leaders who actually care about the people. A lot of the population has been whipped up into a nationalistic rage because of the fear-creating marketing that was used for Brexit, this unfortunately has created a divide in the UK. So there is a lot to be done, question will be how bad will it have to get before a radical change happens.

Depends on your outlook, if youre looking at it from an egocentric view as in how what is the cost and benefits to you personally, then potentially theres a slight benefit in that if you do catch it you wont affect you as much, the cost is time and getting a needle, theres also the fear that the vaccine could damage you in some way, although being in the top 0.1% of healthy people Germany that most likely wont be the case for you. We can even level it and say theres no benefit to you and a slight risk. Now if we flip it to a world centric view or even a community view then theres the same cost to you as before but the benefit is that youre less likely to catch it and spread it, meaning that potentially less people will die or get sick. The reduce in hospitalisations also mean the healthcare system isnt stretched and so has a positive knock on effect. You maybe healthy but healthy people have been to hospital for this, taking the vaccine reduces the possibility of this happening which means hospitals arent over worked. Another thing is that governments are more than likely to keep other measures and restrictions in place if the vaccine take up isnt where it needs to be so that more lives arent at risk, so not taking it will also prolong these restrictions. So its basically what view you take ego or world centric, from the framing of your question it would sound like youre looking for an egocentric reason for taking it and although there is to some extent i dont think its the best reason to take it.

There are always many narratives on everything, but if you want to go down the scientific route, what is the scientific consensus for this vaccine?

Anti-vaxxers will be proved wrong by history, you can have all the debate you want but it will 100% be the case. The epistemology is just all over the place and the lack of awareness that the position is entirely fear based shows the where people are at. I know there will be strong negative reactions to this but that is how it is when ideological positions are challenged, I hold a lot of compassion regardless of the position but it will play out that youll be on the wrong side of history on this one unfortunately

Bang on, this is the key and i guess where freedom eats its own tail. Is true freedom being able to dismantle the structure that gives you freedom in the first place?

I think the question I would have for Russell is if covid is a serious issue, what would be a reasonable reaction by the goverment to get people to take the vaccine? Let's say the people protesting are just wrong, with normal conspiracy theories previously they would never have been shut down, simply put no one cared because it didn't really affect anyone but them. There were numerous conspiracies about 9/11, marches, protests etc. If we had a heavily authoritarian government that would've never been allowed, even Putin would've shut that shit down. The difference now is that not getting a vaccine or adapting your behavior etc is going to cause real world consequences for many people. This isn't conjecture, we've seen the effects of covid and we've seen how they've been improved by the vaccine so it's not even theoretical anymore. The balancing act the government has to do because its not authoritarian, is to convince those that don't want to take it subtly and its a tough job. It's like a green parent dealing with a rebellious child if they don't want to eat vegetables. Freedom comes with responsibility and I don't think these people are as of yet able to make such choices, especially if they are just anti-government by default

Sorry if i wasnt clear, the death rate as in people who have died after contracting covid over 80 is 7.8%, this declines a couple percent per age group, but either way this is a lot of people when you consider its a pandemic. Another stat (i will leave a link below) - "reported that 0.04% of 10-19 year olds would probably require hospital care—as would 1.0% of people in their 20s, 3.4% of people aged 30-39, 4.3% aged 40-49, 8.2% aged 50-59, 11.8% in their 60s, 16.6% in their 70s, and 18.4% of those over 80". Now even if we bypass the deaths and say we're happy for them to die because they were old or have illnesses, we would still have to deal with this very significant amount of hospital admissions, which will basically cripple already stretched health systems and cause chaos. Meaning that other patients will not be able to be seen. Heres your link on these stats ive mentioned - https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327 Keep in mind im just pointing out what would happen if there was no vaccine or no other solution. Regarding long covid, lets take the example of the UK since im there. There have been around 5.8 million covid cases and 1.1 million have self reported long covid symptoms with 674,000 claiming it has adversely affected their day to day activities. So we're talking about 20% having it and 16% saying its affected them on a daily basis. So i wouldnt say its been exaggerated unless all those people are lying or are creating psycho somatic conditions because of fear. - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1april2021 So just looking objectively at statistics the question would be is taking the vaccine going to make the population better or worse? The vaccine has so far been proven to be around 95% effective against the virus with very low side effects (0.003%) so to take the stand that no vaccine would be the better option doesnt really make sense to me considering the amount of negative consequences. Even if you think it will not be effective to just assume it would be dangerous would either mean the government is actively trying to kill you or make you ill through a vaccine, which if that was the case why not let covid just do its thing? Or you think the development of the vaccine was sub par and will lead to problems in the future, but if that was the case then we might as well give up on the whole medical industry as most drugs are not able to have 20 year test periods.

There are very few experts saying that the vaccine shouldn't be taken. There maybe some disagreememt about the lockdowns or face masks, but there would be a recognition that 'something' has to be done, its not going to go away by itself. I don't think you'd find 5% of experts that are saying the vaccine shouldn't be taken, this doesn't mean that you should just blindly listen to them, but if your argument is based on this or even factors it in, you'd have to throw out the scientific method as the consensus would be against you. Also yes you're right younger people are not dying en masse but there are sever issues with long covid symptoms which a lot of people are getting, we also don't know how this will affect people in years to come. With no vaccine and a strategy of just building up herd immunity a lot of old people will die, something around 7%. Not only that the hospitals will be jam packed, meaning other treatments will be pushed back as we've seen earlier in the pandemic. To go through all that risk or take a vaccine that has a scientific consensus, imo a vaccine would be the way out, unless there's another solution I'm missing

If we accept that the pandemic is real, there would of course naturally be fear. The question would be whether its been exaggerated or if its even real, in which case you could say people are being deceived and the fear is being enhanced. I think what scares people the most is when someone they know or are close to dies or gets ill from it, in which case their fear makes sense in context. Most people I know including myself know of someone that has died from it and definitely many that have got sick from it. Those that have got sick from it, a lot have said its the worse illness they've had. So these are very real things that people are basing their fear on. When it comes to anti-vaxx there isn't the sane concrete happenings to say that the vaccine is dangerous, potentially there could be in the future but even that's doubtful, either way nothing has actually happened to justify the fear, hence why its fear. Also reporting of the pandemic still has restrictions on it, you can't just outright lie about it although they may only show certain facts, this is not so much the case with alternative media. I also don't buy that alternative media doesn't have anything to gain from an alternative narrative, many you tubers have increased the subscriptions by millions since the start of the pandemic. Ultimately most are choosing a side, it's just are you choosing the side with no restrictions and very few experts

Let's say that you're right and your scientific conclusions are more informed and accurate than epidemiologists and virologists that have spent their life studying this topic. Even if you are 100% correct with your alternative view of health, most who are in the same camp as you have not done the same amount of research. You can see that, so if we are looking at that 'normal' anti-vaxx perspective I think fear plays massive role.