Consept

Wasnt gonna post it but i laughed enough to justify it -

Ahmazin! I dont know if hes trolling or theres something wrong with him mentally or hes a comic genius or thats just him, might be a bit from each category

@Peter-Andre he's pretty solid blue in my opinion, who said he was orange?

Dizzee Rascal, you guys probably not heard of him but hes a grime (rap) artist from the UK, hes 35 and has ascended comfortably to orange and maybe pushing toward green now, but he recorded his debut album at 17 and talked about how it growing up in a harsh environment in London. If you can understand what hes saying he gives his perspective on it whilst being in it, very unique to hear -

I watched this a while ago and found it quite interesting, so I'm glad there's a discussion about it. I think yes the robot is a high level consciousness but I think it lacks compassion and sees humans as disposable. We do this to animals below us but I wouldn't say that's a high consciousness action. It also sees everything as a means to an end so essentially no action is off the table if it gets them to their desired end result. This would work if they were the only thing in existence, but it's hard when something is outside their singularity. Good film though I may watch it again at some point

@James123 what do you think of the idea that enlightenment is more of a state? As in you can't be enlightened you can experience different temporary states, one of which being a detachment from ego, another being an attachment to ego

This sport is insane, mixture of mma and rugby that is 100s of years old. The guys playing are probably orange/blue but the sport and level required to drop down to is red maybe even purple

If you tell a fool theyre a fool they wont listen, if you tell them theyre suffering from some scientific effect you might have a chance

lol yeah its the dunning-kruger effect, when you know a little you feel really confident in your knowledge, when you know a lot you realise how much you dont know and are actually less confident

I didn't actually realise the religious componant

5% is the current rate of all those tested but of course most havent been tested and majority of people who get it will be asymptomatic so they wont even know theyve got it so in all likelihood it will be much lower. Even if we go to 0.5% youre still looking at least a million deaths. Exactly, i think America has a misunderstanding of freedom, which is soaked in fear. Their gun policy demonstrates this, i would say America is an outlier in the western world, their history being a big factor. UK has been pretty bad in terms of the virus but America are way out ahead

Yes its very simplistic lol. But youre right that is more the issue, when something like covid spikes and everyone gets it at once the hospitals get overwhelmed, this was the issue when the virus first broke. I think realistically youd get states locking down individually, going through a 'herd immunity' is too much to stomach and too much pressure on a poor healthcare system. The strategy is not even really proven, Sweden didnt have a lockdown and their antibodies in the population is not much more than places that had a full lockdown, not to mention theyre not 100% you cant contract it again. Sweden people do have common sense though and many self isolated anyway, which wont be the case in the states. It wouldnt surprise me if America got toward a million deaths from this but i hope not

In the states it's around a 5% death rate if you catch, heavily weighted to people over 65 but younger people have obviously died from it as well. If the US go full herd immunity, I think population is around 350 million, in my simplistic calculation you're looking at 17.5 million deaths. I'd like to think if the deaths did start ramping up, there would be another lockdown or whatever is needed to stem the deaths. So question is how bad will it get before measures are put in place again? Also I doubt every state will go full herd immunity but who knows

Don't know about 200 years, but a huge proportion (85% I've heard) of people under 45 voted for Bernie Sanders, so if guess green will be the norm in about 20-30 years. Maybe the limitations of that will come about but I think that will take a long time, as in 200 years. Then maybe something will happen to move people into yellow. But who knows could take longer, green will be necessary to curb the damages and excesses of orange, in other words if we stay in orange we'll be in trouble

Very interesting and relevant vid -

Stay on this point, by your logic if i have a higher iq than most, i should be quite successful in society right, at least as long as im hard working? Well what if someone who comes from a rich family, who has a much lower IQ but went to a private school and received a much better education but mainly got further because of the connections of both the father and who he interacted with at school. Explain to me how that is meritocracy and an even playing field that promotes the most talented?

So is your point that we should go back to how it was in the 50s? Please show a bit of respect when you post replies to me even if you think im dumb or whatever, i havent disrespected you

Exactly, thats a good point, 'someone' is deciding what has merit. Another example is that you could make the argument that those who provide the most value to society should be paid the most ie doctors, nurses, scientists, whoever. But who gets paid the most are top of the tree sports people and actors. Now of course this is based on 'market value' as in these industries generate a lot of money, but its arguable that even within these industries people that make films happen ie director of photography or screen writers, are actually under paid compared to actors. They do of course provide value to society but do the provide 10,000 times plus compared to a doctor?

Meritocracy is really a myth, not a complete myth but a myth in terms of how its portrayed. Here is a real world example - In the UK, 7% of the population go to private schools (Eton, Harrow etc), these are schools in which entry is gained via fee paying so essentially anyone can go if they have the money, there is an entrance test but theres also one at state schools. These schools cost an average £15k a year for a day pupil or £33k for boarding. So most people will not be able to afford this. The number of people who went to private schools, where the prime minister Johnson also attended, and are current members of the prime ministers cabinet is 64%. Hugely over represented and literally only because their parents had the money, there are many people that have higher IQs as well as better understanding of social issues and want to get into politics, but it is very difficult if you arent privately educated. Now of course this is an advantage and is nothing to do with meritocracy, when you go to school at somewhere like Eton the chances are your parents are very well connected, these connections are not available to your average state school attendee. So where is the meritocracy in this scenario?

I see this point a lot that things were better for black people in the 50s, i think its come about from Trump and maga, but its a ridiculous statement, how could it be better for black people if there was segregation, redlining, no civil rights. You cant really have it both ways and assert that racism is better than before but then in the same breath say that we should go back to more racist times

This is the effect of a so called 'bad apple', question is, how many bad apples are currently operating and how many are getting away with it?

exactly!

The things you say just read like a Steven Molyneux, Crowder, PragerU digest. Thats not to be insulting but your views are filtered by this right wing, libertarian rhetoric. What you need to ask yourself is are you interested in getting as close to the truth as possible or are you looking to just confirm your anchored beliefs? If you are interested in getting as close to truth as possible you should look at the actual root and causes if the issues you raise, if you look at sociology or history and make a real attempt to see the whole picture and context of what youre talking about you may come to different conclusions. The way you see things is like looking at one square of a giant picture and saying that the whole picture is of a sky when that is only a tiny fraction of it. What you say may or may not be correct but it misses the context of everything around it. You say you want to be a nationalist, if youre really a nationalist then you cant agree with the English taking over America all those years ago and you should then fight for the Native Americans to reclaim their nation. Unless youre only a nationalist in the context that benefits you. People on the thread are not debating your points, they are more trying to get you to widen your view. No one on here can agree with your conclusions because they are very limited and only serve a certain rhetoric, most on here are really interested in getting as close to truth as possible, even if that is uncomfortable. What happens when you get caught in rhetoric (which happens on the left as well) is that you only really look at things that confirm you pre-held beliefs and you argue with those that dispute them. But whats the point? If you came up against someone with an opposing rhetoric youd just argue back and forth forever as theres no attempt to really learn whats going on. All of your views i could easily guess by watching some the videos you watch, i would urge you to, with an open mind, honestly search for whats true through actual academics whose life mission is to work out these issues.

Yeah didnt watch all of it but he makes some good points about training, definitely needs to be more. It would be hard to actually get numbers for how many officers dont report their colleagues, if they get away with it i dont know how that could be worked out. What you can see is the low conviction rate for offences by police officers, if the training is so poor it stands to reason theyd make a lot of mistakes. I can see how it would be difficult for officers to culpable if the training isnt sufficient, however if its things like shooting unarmed suspects i cant see the excuse for that, it does depend on the case but there are some serious problems there, even if we cant pinpoint the exact reason why

Yeah it will probably be a massacre tbh, like he'll malfunction and see all black faces as a threat