mr_engineer

Every individual is free to make up their mind about the conclusion of the debate. That's the beauty of my solution!

Yes, they should. If it's that false, people will use their better judgement, decide for themselves whether it was debunked or not and take their call. If you're hinting at me, I'm not a pro at this. I'm not peddling anything, honestly. I don't gain a dime convincing you of anything. There are better people than me doing this work.

It's debate-worthy because people believe it and act on it. And, you're not going to change their mind by banning them in one place. They're going to go elsewhere and act in racist ways. And, they have insane rationalizations for believing that. This shit has to be debunked, right?! And, it has to be given air-time for the debunking to be given air-time. I agree that racism is a problem. I disagree with the solution-technique, though.

If that's true, I'm very sorry that happened to you. It is an offensive idea and the offence should be acknowledged. Having said that, it is obvious disinformation and it should be up for debate, just for the purposes of debunking it. It's kind of a chicken-move, to ban someone for stating their false opinion. It emboldens them more. You have to resolve this by debate. The issue with not doing this and banning people left, right and center, is that when the truth is not so clear, power gets abused. What I gave you is a very extreme example, where the truth is very clear. But, when it's up for debate, the platforms should allow that debate to happen. Otherwise, it comes across as a chicken-move, like they have something to hide.

Don't make this personal.

Oh, you'd be surprised.

'Dog' is a slur, isn't it?! So is 'monkey'. But, when you say 'we want to change the name of the monkeypox virus cuz that name is racist', that's being a snowflake. Here's my solution to this - The first thing we have to do is that we have to stop demonizing hate as an emotion. Everyone feels it. The next thing is to be able to look at whether someone who feels hate, is acting out of that hate or not. Whether they're being rational in their action or not. Don't ask me how this will get done. I'm just putting out a solution that I think is better than what exists, and I do think this can be done. I'm not sure about how, yet. That'll depend on other factors.

And these behaviors do come out of hate. So, hate-speech includes but is not limited to these behaviors. But, when you limit the definition of hate-speech to these behaviors and then when you see someone actively engaging in a debate about whether white people are intellectually superior to black people or not, actively working on their racism, that can also be classed as 'hate-speech' by black people listening. Because it can evoke a feeling of 'unfairness' or 'being hated' or 'offence' on the part of black people listening. Because, the racist is coming from a place of being biased against black people. They are prejudiced to begin with. But, they're not being an a-hole about it. And, when something like this is reported, the authority-figures have a choice - do we look at the reality of whether it is hate-speech (offensive, or ban-worthy hate-speech) or not, or do we care about our reputation? Cuz there is a danger of getting smeared if we don't 'do something' about this 'hate-speech', because people are offended! The line between actually behaving fairly and making people happy gets blurred and people err on the side of their best-interests. This is the root-cause of this idea that 'ideas are dangerous'. I think we're really wrong as a collective on what 'hate-speech' means. And, there is a lot of disagreement on this issue, for sure. This was an enlightening discussion. Thanks!

This is where I disagree with you. 'Hate' is an emotion. So, 'hate speech', is supposed to have come out of hate. Now, this implies that the elite/authority-figure is empathetic enough towards the person uttering the hate-speech to be able to see that it is coming out of hate, right?! My claim is, that turns out to not be the case. Do you agree with me on that or not?! I agree with you that in this example, it really is about public decency. But, should political correctness be mandated in social gatherings? Isn't that being a snowflake? This makes it so you can't even disagree with the collective. I mean, I can understand that it's an unwritten rule that you should be nice to each other, and that's what political correctness is about. But, on a huge platform, you know what happens. You know the flame-wars. And these are civil, ideological debates. This is the reality. If your goal is to mandate political correctness, are we really ready for that?!

When you say that 'some ideas are dangerous', the ultimate long-term consequence of that is the formation of an echo-chamber. Of, say, woke ideology. My problem isn't with woke ideology. It's with the echo-chamber. And this is a band-aid on the very real wounds of racism, sexism, homophobia, disagreements on war, on the scientific-method, etc.

The major platforms are banning the application/embodiment of intelligent spiritual ideas. Which requires people to open their mind to other perspectives than the one the platforms are pushing. They are creating echo-chambers. Do you agree with me on that or not? Echo-chambers are anti-spiritual, by definition.

Or, when you have an elite pushing for closed-mindedness, doing the work to access infinite intelligence becomes very hard. And it's disincentivized. Why?! Because people won't do it, so why bother leaving the door open for them?! This is a catch-22. This is my main issue with the promotion of echo-chambers that happens when you ban people.

I'm not debating the existence of the problem. I'm debating the choice of solution-technique. This is a collective issue. But, banning individuals is not the solution to this problem. It may have been, in the past. But, in today's democracies, it's not going to cut it. Especially with the internet, where when you ban one person, everyone else is informed about your decision to ban them. It's no longer something you can do in secret anymore. We need more innovation in conflict-resolution techniques. And, we need to treat a collective issue in a collective way. I.e. we need to address them at the root-level. And yeah, some of these decisions will be questioned by the people who put these authority-figures in power.

Fine, these were a few idiots who got triggered into doing bad things. But, do keep in mind that these ideological positions are triggers. They're not the actual root-cause of these crimes. If you deplatform the triggers, they will find other ways of cropping up. They are able to effectively trigger people because they are meeting a legitimate psychological need for people. And no, it's not just a 'channel for their violent tendencies', as some psycho-analyst on Vice or Reuters will tell you. They're giving people answers to questions. Questions towards the authorities that the authorities aren't answering. This is a symptom of hundreds of years of ineffective governance. Nowadays, people are just finding ways to act on the negativity that's created. And the elite is going to have to solve this problem at the root, or they're in trouble. Democracy, ironically, does not have an effective way of cracking down on the elites when they do these huge scams, killing and scamming millions of people. But, they're able to crack down on people just raising their hand and asking a question. Just wow. This is what I mean when I say 'ineffective governance'. It's not disinfo just because it's anti-vaxx. I could very easy call pro-vaxx information pro-vaxx 'disinfo'. That just benefits the vaccine-companies. Good luck getting through that one! It's very simple - pro-vaxx information is for people who want the vax, anti-vaxx information is for people who don't want it. Why can't we just get along, without censoring each other?! Why can't we agree to disagree on this one?! And, most importantly - why are the vaccinated people so scared of getting COVID from the unvaccinated?! Isn't that the job of the vax - to protect you?! This kinda contradicts your point about Infinite Intelligence that you can access whenever you want.

These are ideas about a group of people that are just triggering to everyone else. The people cancelling him should self-reflect on why they're getting triggered over this. Ideas about a group of people are very different from personally attacking people. If someone shares a study of how white people are intellectually superior to black people, it is racist, sure, but it's not personally attacking a black person or calling them a nig***. The latter should be moderated, the former should be a legitimate point of discussion. That is the solution to racism, really. Your issue with QAnon is only that it supports Trump, really. And if you hate Trump, that's your problem. The point of science is that it's meant to be questioned. Science should be able to integrate differing points of view, not censor it. I agree with deplatforming Trump for tweeting for a rally to storm the Capitol. But, if he thinks that his opponents cheated in the elections, he should be able to discuss that in a democracy. Do you really have such little respect for common people, that they don't have a brain to think for themselves as to what they want to believe, or they don't have legitimate reasons to believe what they believe?! All the information that people could possibly want is out there. Now, if this is what people choose to believe, that's their choice. In a democracy, at least. Now, if we're not living in a democracy, then yeah. In that case, the law of the land is that the elite gets to decide what the people believe. Edit - On this point, I know you're going to make a point about percentage of college-educated people. Then, the solution to that is to lower the cost of education. Not to repress the uneducated!

For example? This is more of a problem for the elite than it is for the people. The part about 'discord' threatens their position, the part about 'misinformation' threatens their power to hand down 'the absolute truth' without question. These are personal issues that get in the way of doing their job with integrity and it corrupts them in this way.

If the people in power are corrupt, moderation fails to accomplish this goal. Miserably. Ideas get censored. Discourse becomes impossible. People get emotional over ideas. Echo-chambers form and people become more and more separated, intellectually. Good for low-consciousness, low-brow marketers. As they get to position products to people stuck in certain rabbit-holes. This is the actual reason why they don't want the echo-chambers to integrate and resolve stuff! The 'hate-speech' talk is a smokescreen for it.

This is a strawman of free speech absolutism. They want the right to share any ideas. And this should not be affecting anyone negatively. (If you're getting triggered over ideas, you're a snowflake and you need to do some shadow-work.) Not the right to personally attack or threaten people! That's off-limits. If you want to know who controls you, look at who you're not allowed to criticize.

It would not be an abuse of power if the regulators were willing to admit to mistakes when they made them. And they could repair the damage they do to people. The problem with irreversible damage is that it disincentivizes regulators to admit to their mistakes. And, they have to keep doubling down on their abuses of power. This is why, rolling back mandates either never happens or is done very, very reluctantly. When you mandate a vaccine, a pharmaceutical, that's developed in a hurry, by people who have paid the largest criminal fine in US history (this is why you need the alt-media, to tell you important stuff like this that the mainstream-media omits), who also get a liability-waiver in their 'emergency-rollout', I'm sorry but you're playing with fire. It's an unacceptable risk. Impossible. It's a false-equivalency. As I said, you can take off a seatbelt you put on whenever you want. It's not the same with vaccines. You can't unvaccinate a vaccinated person.

Yupp. Not perfectly effective, not something to be held dogmatically. If you're going to mandate something, you'd better make it perfect. Or else, it's an abuse of power. Another point is that once you put on a seatbelt, you can remove it. This isn't the case with the vax. It infringes on our body-sovereignty. It's a human rights violation.

@Consept No, it is not a more accurate metric than number of deaths. You can make a claim for vaccination. But, this doesn't change the fact that people died even though vaccination happened. And more people than those unvaccinated. If you want to prove that they're 'safe and effective', unvaccinate a sizeable chunk of the vaccinated and then let's look at the death-rates. Demographics behave differently at different scales.

@Consept If the number of jabbed people dying is greater than the number of unjabbed people dying, it is disingenuous to say that 'it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated'. We see the numbers. And you can't linearly extrapolate that '50% of the unvaccinated died. So, if we magically remove the vaccine from the bodies of the vaccinated, 50% of those people would die'. To prove that, you would have to actually invent a technology to 'unvaccinate' someone who's vaccinated!! You can't do that, so you can't prove your linear extrapolation. There are a lot of other factors at play than just your vaccination-status. But, if you're a vaccine-company, you are self-biased enough to assume God-status, that you have the God-given right to decide whether people live or they die. Which you don't. And, don't forget the real numbers. The number of people who took the vaccine died in greater numbers than those who didn't.

I'm telling people why alt-media has the demand it does. You know what?! Come join my cult!! Which is where I manipulate people to go even more alt-media. You got me. You guys really like to make everything personal, don't you?!

People use different medias for different reasons. You have a perception of what any media's job should be. And, for all I know, you're probably right about that! I'm not denying that. What I am saying, though, is my perception of what the alt-media is doing and why it's working. What their job actually is, what they actually get paid to do, could be very different from your idea of 'what their job should be'. You have a bias towards truth, as you openly admit in your videos. The thing is - most people don't. This is why you think that any media's job should be to be objective and unbiased. Here is my metaphysical question for you - What is 'objective truth'? Is it an absence of bias? Or is it an integration of bias? Because the reality of all worldviews is that they will be biased towards the survival-agenda of the individual holding that worldview. Practically, in my opinion, bias will always exist. What is our best practical chance to get to objective truth, in your opinion?

@Consept I'm not debating whether vaccination was a good idea or not. I'm debating the claim that 'vaccines are safe and effective'. This is the counter-example to the claim. And seatbelts aren't supposed to be a magic pill. Vaccines are. So, there's that. And, they didn't save the lives of those who died. And that's a bigger number than the unjabbed deaths.