bebotalk

So because things are imperfect this means there should be no curbs.

It's still a social norm that people don't need to to. it's not in our DNA to do such, and it's not like Jesus in the Gospels or Allah in the Quran said we should. this proves my point that not all social norms or "indoctrination" is necessarily harmful. We can't get away from societal or communal influence.

Of the popular social networks, it is the most trash, however not all content there is such. I believe though the short-form nature of it lends to that. It is a negative influence on younger people though.

spiritual people hate interpersonal freedom or basic social engagement? do you tell that to others? or just people whose faces you like? it should be to ALL, no? i didn't even ask for guidance, so it's a comical inference. i guess you think like Hitler and want to keep people down. or don't get social precepts all abide by.

The rich earn the most. they take the most out of society. Rich people are such due to hard work, luck, or structural/inherited wealth. They had the opportunities, good fortune, or inheritance that others didn't have. So in theory and practice, they should pay more tax.

With respect, you dont read contexts well. You said a while back that you don't believe corruption differs between countries and there could be differences in perceived corruption based on cultural differences. When this is accepted worldwide. You state then how you'd respond if your country was snooped on.

Capitalism isn't unlimited. Not when national security is an issue. You tell me whether capitalism is unlimited in the USA. if you think health and safety laws are immoral, then lobby your Congressperson to repeal them to get unlimited capitalism.

I just posted a question, and didn't ask for spiritual guidance. Don't presume I asked for such. The desire or need to protect from bad influences is common to nearly all life.

I posted the video above. Granted, it's long but he definitely admitted to being a socialist grfiter in the past.

People's views and attitudes are invariably shaped by their environment. That's just being human. It's just naive edgelords and teenagers who think they "know it all" that say we're not influenced by society. And what is brainwashing? Not all social norms are harmful and not all social influences are malign. Celebrating birthdays is a social norm, but few say it's harmful. is that brainwashing?

When I hit my late teens I decided consciously to understand the world better as I thought I needed to as an adult. I started to watch current affairs programmes, took a course at local college, and even joined a political party for a while. I tried to read objective sources before I develop my own views. I didn't want to be clouded in others' biases before I developed my own views.

It's mostly on shitty companies. Firms should look at their culture and operations. If it's a shitty culture, then people are less inclined to go off sick.

Moreover, Hasan is a wasteman who has bad logic, shit points, and only has a profile due to his familial connections, familial upbringing, and his looks. If he were female, then the accusation of him getting where he is due to looks would be way more prominent, which is wrong and misogynistic. A "mental heavyweight" like him wouldn't say that racism is wrong but then. justifying calling white people cracker. It's like saying theft is wrong but then justifying stealing clothes off people's washing lines.

So your judgment is always correct in any discussion? there is no spiritualism. there are many different conceptions of spiritualism. Spiritualism isn't reality. human nature is complex. and I believe there is a human nature, since to deny it is false. to deny it would mean ignoring the purpose and existence of DNA, and basic anecdotal observation. Humans value the same things universally and we all have art, culture, and at the least familial bonds. So as people are complex, then we can arrange and be born in an infinite capacity. We also know that we're not blank slates. congenital conditions affect behaviour, reasoning, perceptions, etc. it's a stretch to say that if every person had no bad influences or effects at all in life that there would be no bad acts or people. this inherently assumes that everybody is some pure blank slate. to be honest, i deem such spiritual people who believe this as frauds and dishonest. they accept medically that sociopaths exist, or that people can have congenital neurology lending to more aggression. but then believe we're all blank slates. people also have the right and need to distance themselves from negative influences. if spiritual people deny this, then they're not decent human beings.

individualism is natural somewhat, but it's also cringe when taken to an extreme. humans are atoms and we rely on social networks and structures as much as being individuals. It can be strongly argued that nobody can survive without social networks or structures. one argument for this therefore is that one should give back to things one takes from. Is it a duty? That depends. I can see why a person possibly should fight for one's country, and that without a country one literally wouldn't exist.

He himself admitted he is. Do you know better than him, or can read his soul? So a person on a video says he had a socialist grift, but you disbelieve him.

He himself says he was a socialist grifter. He openly says as such here.

With respect, you miss the point, and quite widely. With a big platform, one has influence. if one is doing it just for clout, and forging a community of like-minded people, then this is dishonest. Said advocacy also has real-world effects. Hasan has been on huge media platforms like Piers Morgan, debating a pro-Palestinian position alongside his uncle Cenk Uygur. Whether he is breaking Youtube or Twitch TOS is immaterial. It's about the effects of streamers who grift, and the real-world implications of such. If Hasan actually believed i what he advocates, then who gives a shit? We all have our beliefs and worldviews. But if he doesn't, that's dangerous.

Biden signed it. Whilst Trump started it, Biden continued it. As I understand both Democrat and GOP Congresspeople agreed to it. And as. understand the US Constitution, Presidents don't have to sign bills. It appears to be a bipartisan thing based off national security information not in the public domain. IF the info is false, then yes, America IMHO would be in the wrong .

If China is using it to snoop on America as suspected or purported, they cannot complain.

But then actual biological males don't turn on most trans-attracted men. therefore it's straight.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/14/24156778/tiktok-creators-sue-us-divest-or-ban-law National security trumps livelihoods.

Freedom of speech isn't absolute right. It doesn't exist on private platforms. We often deem necessary limitations to such in light of the public good. Grifters are not aligned with the public good. Maybe read up on what freedom of speech is. Google/Youtube aren't the state.

And these agreements have been violated, or were in part signed in bad faith. Yes, they were a path to peace, but then their effects have been minimal.

Being "pro" for either side just makes the conflict last eternally. I believe most people who self-describe as such don't truly want peace. They want perpetual war. They're too arrogant to step down and move towards peace.