Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

[Eduardo-]

[TysonLPrice]

Regardless, we can all trust Wikipedia

I would advice against a prove of document war. We all know how "well" it ended before.

I actually contribute monetarily yearly to them. I'd bet you can also take a standard set of encyclopedias and find similar errors. Wikipedia lists it sources. I don't see any credits at the end of these blogs. I also admit I'm on a bit of a "high horse" here. I'm guilty of focusing on what proves my points too.

[sapator]

Ye, I'm kidding.
But from things that I know of, as I've said, compering the Wiki is very poor to say the least, maybe some articles are better. Also I haven't consider what Olaf said, if it changes the sources again and again on Malone then that can't be very good.

[Schmidt]

So you justify your narrative by saying "who's trusting *only* the official channels "

So you're saying, that you've watched the 3h-interview already?

No? ... Thanks for proving my point.

Olaf

[Eduardo-]

I also admit I'm on a bit of a "high horse" here. I'm guilty of focusing on what proves my points too.

That's honest (and humble). I respect when someone acknowledge his own limits.
Not everybody does.

We all have limits. Nobody is omniscient here.

[Niya]

I didn't get that from the post. I thought it leaned more towards people believing in massive conspiracy plots by "people in power". And preferring those to factual information:

In the end, it appears to be a difference in view. Some of you seem to believe that the world is driven by an awesomely powerful, possibly sinister, possibly malevolent force with a purpose, which is either control, or money, or some such. It seems like you might be expecting that this malevolent force is making your life or your situation worse. To that end, you expect that everything that doesn't say that is therefore either part of the plot or at least an unwitting pawn of the plot.

It's that part in blue that likens the mentality to confirmation bias. It's not exactly confirmation bias but it is a kind of cognitive bias nonetheless. Basically this bias is about dismissing anything that that doesn't confirm your world view as some kind of malevolent plot to hide the truth.

[Schmidt]

That is a fine example of gleaning out of a post what you want to prove a point

You did exactly what you are accusing me of.

I seriously cannot follow most of the sentences in your recent postings.

What "point" exactly did you make?
Do you mean the *current* state of the Malone-page on Wikipedia?

I thought I pointed out already, that this page is in constant flux over the last few days
(primarily *after* he gave that interview - and the "fact-checker-bots" were trying to
mess the wiki-page up - against constant re-corrections).

Again, he was considered one of the potential Noble-Price-candidates
(in a research-field that's OnTopic in this forum-thread - the man has patents under his name for RNA-research).

Exactly why you do not want to listen to such a man, escapes me.

Olaf

[wes4dbt]

So you're saying, that you've watched the 3h-interview already?

No? ... Thanks for proving my point.

Olaf

I haven't said anything about that video. What point does that prove? But if that makes you feel justified in your claims about me. Then, your welcome.

[Eduardo-]

Confirmation bias can apply when something is false.
When something is true, it is confirmation data (like happens in science).

So, the key point point is whether Malone is lying or telling the truth.

All he is saying makes sense, all the pieces come well together.
What he is saying explains what we can observe that is happening, and BTW, there is no "official" explanation that can explain that (I mean, all the mismatches in the information we can get).
Besides, I don't see any motive that he could have to invent something like that.
And do not forget also, that he is an industry insider, not someone that is talking about Area 51 from a basement with a tin foil hat on his head.

[baka]

if you don't want to eat the spinach soup you don't need to. you can eat your micro-pizza.
not sure why you make a big deal about it.
its a free world and you decide who you want to be.
nobody is telling you that you need to change or believe in other things.
its quite tiring. just tell "I don't want" and go on with your life.
stop trying to justify yourself.

[Eduardo-]

And what about his video being removed from Youtube?

Anyone has a advocacy for that?

I would like to read it.

[baka]

rumors is that its Joe Rogan that reported it, to have it exclusively in Spotify?

[Eduardo-]

rumors is that its Joe Rogan that reported it, to have it exclusively in Spotify?

Might be.

[Eduardo-]

So, there is an philosophical issue here.
Some people seem to believe that every opinion is equally valid, because as we all all human, and fallible, all opinions and points of view are valid the same.

In that view, there is no truths, facts or falsehoods, it is just something that is built in the mind of each one, and that's it.

I believe that there is an objective reality, that we as subjective beings connect better or worse to it, but that there are truths and facts out there.
Our ability or inability is to be able (or unable) to connect to those truth and facts, that won't change based on what we believe or don't believe.

What we believe or disbelieve do not affect the truths or facts, that only affects us, for being "better connected to reality" or worse.

[TysonLPrice]

I seriously cannot follow most of the sentences in your recent postings.

What "point" exactly did you make?
Do you mean the *current* state of the Malone-page on Wikipedia?

I thought I pointed out already, that this page is in constant flux over the last few days
(primarily *after* he gave that interview - and the "fact-checker-bots" were trying to
mess the wiki-page up - against constant re-corrections).

Again, he was considered one of the potential Noble-Price-candidates
(in a research-field that's OnTopic in this forum-thread - the man has patents under his name for RNA-research).

Exactly why you do not want to listen to such a man, escapes me.

Olaf

OK...I'll give it a shot. He is banned from Twitter and suspended from Facebook for misinformation that can be threating to public safety. To me that is enough to dig deeper than the video posted here but you seem to think that is my responsibility...not the people making the posts.

If you dig even deeper, which I have mentioned several times but again you think that is my responsibility, you will find numerous discreditations for his recent activity. He is NOT who you think he is and you focus on me instead of just proving, and shutting me up, that I am wrong.

[Schmidt]

To give just a single (small) example of what was discussed in the interview:

Uttar-Pradesh (with a population of 235Mio, the largest state in India).

It roughly equals the population of Great-Britain, France, Spain and Germany combined.

Very serious situation there (in April/May 2021), because of "not enough vaccines" (only 5% vaccinated)...
Solution: Distribution of millions of "cheap, special packages", with simple instructions, following a pre-established "procedure".

Effect: Near immediate - the surging curve came down - and according to Malone, "it's flat-lining ever since"
(with regards to covid-death-counts).

But check it out yourself:
https://coronalevel.com/India/Uttar_Pradesh/

Now, please compare that curve with the ones in (nearly fully vaccinated) European countries -
where no "flat-lining" was observable over the last months...

Did you ever hear about that in "official media-channels"?
I guess not - because inconvenient questions might be raised, what exactly was in "these packages".

Furthermore, if you *dare* raise these questions (especially when you're a Scientist or a Doctor),
you'll be silenced, risk your job and reputation.

That's the point he's primarily addressing in the interview (with several examples) -
what happend to the right to express "informed concern" (asking such interesting questions)?

Olaf

[baka]

what you fail to see is:
if theres a real threat here, theres an entity that try to shut down anyone and anything that is against their agenda it would mean that they are trying everything they can to discredit him.
its like you believe we are living in a beautiful world, with benevolent leaders, with strong families that only have nature and life as their best interest, and big pharma that only want to save life even if they don't get profit from it. and investors that only want to create a peaceful and clean and perfect world.

now you are playing exactly what they try to do, and you are spitting this guy on his face, because the "leaders" manipulated you to think like that.

if this is the truth. this doctor is like you say, a horrible person that is lying. I wonder. why?
- he want to profit from it. (unlikely, a person in his position will not benefit if he is discredited, a scientist needs to have good reviews or they shut him down)
- he's like a 15 years girl that seek attention (well, he is 62 years old, wife, grandchildren, his own farm, and the result of him talking like that is that people hate him)
- he want you dead (well, he seems to want doctors to use medicines,that cdc dismissed, and seems to care about children and people that gets side effects from covid (not only vaccine))

even so, listening to him, 3h, I don't hear anything that could benefit him.
he is walking against powerful people and its a loosing game right now for him. lawsuits dropping down.

but, sure, he is lying, his resume is just fake. his all life is just a joke. not sure why Joe Rogan invited him. but Joe is also fake, a trash of a human, we dont need that.
better we listen to Biden and Fauci. those two are beautiful people.

[Schmidt]

He is banned from Twitter and suspended from Facebook for misinformation that can be threating to public safety.

He voiced his "informed concerns" (stating a few inconvenient facts) which resulted in his Twitter-ban.
Nothing more.

If you don't recognize the degree of censorship that's going on currently, it cannot be helped.

Olaf

[sapator]

So let's recapitulate.
He is Banned from Twitter.
Suspender from Facebook.
Wiki bash him.

So that is enough evidence that he does not know was he is talking about.

I need a Xanax.

[Shaggy Hiker]

What Shaggy is speaking of is something akin to confirmation bias, the tendency of people to seek out information that confirms their pre-conceived notions. It's a weakness that inhabits the vast majority of any group of people.

It inhabits ALL of us. It isn't specific to politics, religion, or programming languages. I've said it before and hope to say it again: The only thing the human brain is REALLY good at is pattern recognition. We come up with shortcuts in thinking based on some pattern that we've created from our past experiences. These are essential to our survival. They are also frequently wrong, sometimes in small ways, other times in large ways. The question is how to effectively check your models.

One thing we see quite often on this forum is a person asking a question that is clearly based on the fact that they came to understand something one way, and it wasn't really correct (for example, when "1" looks like a number, but is actually a string). It's not so much a matter of telling that person how to do it right as correcting a mistaken mental model of the problem. When we have problems that we can't solve, it is often because our mental models are equally incorrect. Breakthroughs happen when we jump from the guidance of one mental model and construct a new, hopefully more accurate, mental model. Therefore, a mental model is a rut. Sometimes it is a proper and useful rut (all models are wrong, some models are useful...I forget who said that), other times it isn't.

I was going to go off on a rambling anecdote about a time that I misunderstood the behavior of fish populations in a swamp because, by chance, I had never visited the swamp during a few weeks in July, though I had been there every other month of the year for several years by that point.

However, I'll skip over that. The purpose for the post that got people riled was that I was trying to understand not just where you are coming from, but where I am coming from. I'm a pretty optimistic person who is about the least discriminated against category of people in all of history (tall, white, male, hetero, highly educated, fairly well off, no medical issues, etc.). That's all very fortunate, but it creates a distorted world view. Skewed optimistic and rosy, to be sure, but clearly distorted. I've also hung out in legislatures listening to debates, running errands for officials in the legislature, and hobnobbing with some of the people accused of being part of the vast conspiracy. From that I learned that they are just people. They aren't smarter than lots of the people on here (as a group, we would probably test in the upper end of the human spectrum in that regard. There was a thread about that several years back and I have no reason to doubt it, since programming is a fairly intellectual pursuit). They also have all the relationship issues, outside interests, common colds, and other distractions that knock us all off our games at times. For that reason, I don't believe that any group is even capable of creating a vast conspiracy.

I also have seen that a bunch of near random events can conspire to look like there's some causality when none exists. Therefore, I look at the vast majority of news that is saying the same thing, I read a variety of scientific journals, and scientific based periodicals. The periodicals and journals support the statements made by the broader media, and they add the pieces that I didn't know (I couldn't understand how the mRNA managed to survive long enough to be transcribed into spike proteins, but now I know, well enough). Therefore, I believe that they can make mistakes, but that what they are saying does appear to be a reasonable simplification of what the scientific studies are saying, and thus I have no reason to doubt any of that.

So what is it that convinces people that there must be some conspiracy? You sure don't have the same optimistic, even rosy, outlook that I have. You don't have the experience of rolling quarters down the halls of power (when nobody is there, rolling a US quarter on a marble floor in a marble hallways results in a SERIOUSLY interesting sound) that I have. In fact, you seem to come from a darker, pessimistic, point of view where things are 'out to get you'. In some countries, that is totally understandable. Greece...well, Sapator should be optimistic, but he has plenty of past history to fuel any suspicions of his government. Eduardo, as well, has plenty of reason to doubt. The Economist has covered the twists and turns in Argentina with what could be charitably described as optimistic dismay (they keep hoping for the best and always falling short).

I feel that I have a significant amount of control over how my life turns out, even though the biggest events in my life were all dictated by others. Still, those big events have always turned out quite nicely, and those who caused them have always been people I've really liked and who have liked me. If that isn't your experience, perhaps you have reason to believe in a malevolent other.

That's what the post was about: What would prompt you to believe in a sinister conspiracy? I was speculating that it was your life experience that created the mental model where such a conspiracy is even plausible. After that, confirmation bias is enough to do the rest. We all have that in common.

[wes4dbt]

So let's recapitulate.
He is Banned from Twitter.
Suspender from Facebook.
Wiki bash him.

So that is enough evidence that he does not know was he is talking about.

I need a Xanax.

It seems to swing both ways. Some dismiss him because of the claims of misinformation and some seem to think it proves he's right. Plus the interview was removed from You Tube, obviously he is right. lol

if you don't want to eat the spinach soup you don't need to. you can eat your micro-pizza.
not sure why you make a big deal about it.
its a free world and you decide who you want to be.
nobody is telling you that you need to change or believe in other things.
its quite tiring. just tell "I don't want" and go on with your life.
stop trying to justify yourself.

Yeah, if you don't agree with his opinion, keep it to yourself. How dare you voice your own opinion.

[TysonLPrice]

So let's recapitulate.
He is Banned from Twitter.
Suspender from Facebook.
Wiki bash him.

So that is enough evidence that he does not know was he is talking about.

I need a Xanax.

Sapator...we have bumped heads a couple of times and you have been "nice" when even I think I broke forum etiquette. I appreciate that. Let me respond:

He is Banned from Twitter.
Suspender from Facebook.
Wiki bash him.

So that is enough evidence that he does not know was he is talking about

My God absolutely...But I will say this to you sir with all respect to you and your opinions. President Trump, in my opinion, killed a 1/2 a million Americans with hubris, false claims of election fraud, delaying Covid response, and negligence. Put aside while the country was in a pandemic he was usurping an election. If you want to disagree I will start another thread with serious backing about what I am saying.

[Shaggy Hiker]

So, there is an philosophical issue here.
Some people seem to believe that every opinion is equally valid, because as we all all human, and fallible, all opinions and points of view are valid the same.

Who? It seems like everybody in THIS discussion does NOT believe every opinion is equally valid. We just all have decided which are valid and which are not, but none of us seems to think they are all valid. I'm not sure that we could, since they tend to be mutually contradictory.

In that view, there is no truths, facts or falsehoods, it is just something that is built in the mind of each one, and that's it.

Yeah, that's pretty much the case in all things. Were you aware of the research that showed that when we remember something, it isn't like retrieving from a hard drive. Instead, you erase the memory when you remember it, and lay it down again. That has led to some research that would block the 'lay it down again' part, thereby causing the memory to be lost (rats that had learned a maze could be caused to forget the maze, if I remember how it was done..but that's always an issue, of course). What that means is that anything you remember is false. Every time you remember it, you have a chance to alter some little piece such that the memory is changed by every act of remembering. Thus, the more you remember some event, the more it diverges from what actually happened. That's one of the reasons why eye-witness accounts are considered to be so unreliable.

So you and I don't agree. Big deal. In a very real sense, if we were to discuss this particular sentence without having it in front of us, we wouldn't remember it the same. And that sentence is pretty innocent compared to life in general. So we don't agree on what is happening, what has happened, or what was even written in this thread. So what? It's inevitable. That's why point of view seems like it might matter. My optimistic point of view shades how I see things. It's a rosy hue, to be sure (assuming that has the same meaning to you as it does to me), but's it's certainly shading. You have a shading as well. We could disagree simply because of that shading.

I believe that there is an objective reality, that we as subjective beings connect better or worse to it, but that there are truths and facts out there.
Our ability or inability is to be able (or unable) to connect to those truth and facts, that won't change based on what we believe or don't believe.

I'd like to say that I believe the same way on this. The problem is that I'm a bit too aware of things like that research on memory. After all, you can never go back to even the point when you began reading this sentence. If you have the opportunity to alter a memory every time you revisit it, then your past is nothing more than a story you wrote. Facts start out solid and real, then start to blur and run the further you get from the event.

So, the older I get, the more I begin to realize that there is not necessarily one set of objective facts and truths. Everybody can start with the same view of the elephant, but over time their memories of that view will begin to diverge from that objective truth. Since you can never go back in time and view the elephant from the same point in both space and time, you can never check that your memory of the objective truth is correct. If that is the case, there may be an objective truth, but we can't know it. We've all distorted it and all we have left is the distorted memory, which we keep distorting more over time.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I need a Xanax.

Did you get one? Does that mean you've been to Xana do? Or is it Xana did?

[Eduardo-]

I don't read long posts. JFY all to know.
(Or may be next year.)

[wes4dbt]

I feel that I have a significant amount of control over how my life turns out, even though the biggest events in my life were all dictated by others. Still, those big events have always turned out quite nicely, and those who caused them have always been people I've really liked and who have liked me. If that isn't your experience, perhaps you have reason to believe in a malevolent other.

I agree with and like the way you described your view on people. But I got a few minutes to kill so I'll take exception to this opinion.

My life, from childhood was filled with violence and lies. Since I was @ 50 things have calmed. But I never believed any worldwide cabal or malevolent other I definitely have trust issues. lol

[Shaggy Hiker]

You watch multi-hour YouTube videos and won't read a long post?

Still, I know what you mean. Long posts really do suck. I felt that I had caused enough turmoil with the earlier half-post that I ought to explain myself a bit better.

[Niya]

OK...I'll give it a shot. He is banned from Twitter and suspended from Facebook for misinformation that can be threating to public safety. To me that is enough to dig deeper than the video posted here but you seem to think that is my responsibility...not the people making the posts.

I'll be honest. Being banned from the mainstream like Twitter and Facebook makes me even more interested in what the subject of these bans have to say.

I don't really know the intimate details about what you guys are fight about over here and I really don't have that much interest in this Covid mess and all the shenanigans in the media behind it. However, I can speak a little bit about these media wars between the mainsteam and "subversive" content creators providing an alternative view. Over the past few years I've grown to despise mainstream media because it promotes many lies. Now I can't speak on Covid but I do consume a lot of "subversive" content that is banned in the mainstream discourse and what I have noticed is that alternative media sources outside of the mainstream tend to be a lot more grounded in reality. The content I consume is more about social justice issues, feminism, relationships, gender relations and the like and all I can say is that the mainstream media is goddamn insane! I wouldn't trust anything the mainsteam has to say on anything, even Covid. I want to hear what all the people who were ostracized from the mainstream have to say. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of kooks outside of the mainstream too but with a little common sense and some life experience, you can pretty much tell the reals from the fakes. I listen to people try to bullshit me all day IRL so I feel pretty confident I can filter the good from the bad when I see stuff online.

[wes4dbt]

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of kooks outside of the mainstream too but with a little common sense and some life experience, you can pretty much tell the reals from the fakes

That's interesting. No problem with confirmation bias in telling the reals from the fakes?

This term "mainstream media" sure gets thrown around a lot. Where's that line at, if it's on You Tube it's not mainstream? If it's on TV, any TV channel, then don't believe it? Can you apply "with a little common sense and some life experience" this to any media? Or is it that anyone who who watches the evening news, PBS, Science Channel are not smart enough to do that.

[Schmidt]

Plus the interview was removed from You Tube, obviously he is right. lol

So we obviously have guys here, who are not the slightest bit curious,
why on earth that happened...
I also fail to comprehend, what's so funny about obvious censorship...

The "removal" is a simple, undisputable fact - can't see, where "conspiracies" come into it.
And BTW, all the "flat-earther-videos" are still online - apparently Youtube has no problem
with nutcases who are "spinning their yarn"...

So, I'd say a few questions are normal, like e.g.:

- What were YT's exact reasons for that specific removal?
- Why was there a removal in the first place (free speech, anyone)?
- What on earth did the guy say exactly, to deserve to be censored?

I personally refuse to be put into your convenient "conspiracy-baskets" -
just for thinking about the 3 questions above (trying to get a few answers,
to round up my view on "real, observable things", and putting them into context.

Olaf

[Eduardo-]

You watch multi-hour YouTube videos and won't read a long post?

At first I didn't feel like spending 3 hours listening to Malone, someone that I knew a bit but now (after watched it) I think know much better.
Anyway it took my attention from the first part.
But I did just because Olaf recommended it.
I don't regret any minute I spent.

On the other side, when I read someone that thinks that "we live in a wonderful world", and seems to think that the reality can be modeled as be approach it or think about it (yes, in small things or things that depend on us, I agree, but just that), I feel that that person is so much out of reality that I don't want to even try to show that to him.

I could try, but please reading small parts and right to the point.

It is like I feel I'm am miles away, trying to help someone to come, but this person is not only too far behind, but is trying to go in the opposite direction.
And I have to admit a defect: patience is not my main feature.

What's all that idea of "we like in a wonderful world", is something zen or what?

[Schmidt]

I don't really know the intimate details about what you guys are fight about over here...

It basically started here: https://www.vbforums.com/showthread....=1#post5550690
...after simply posting a link to a YT-banned video, in which a longer 3h-interview took place
(with a guy who did groundbreaking work in (m)RNA-based vaccine-research).

And what then followed was the typical: "la-la-la-la-la, go away - I don't want to hear it - la-la-la-la-la"...
... by some of our "more objective guys" here

Olaf

[Eduardo-]

That's interesting. No problem with confirmation bias in telling the reals from the fakes?

Yes, better to have confirmation bias of things that are in all channels repeated 1000 times.
Much easier.

[Niya]

That's interesting. No problem with confirmation bias in telling the reals from the fakes?

Again, I can't speak for Covid but for the content I consume, this is where life experience and common sense come in. Let me give you an example based on the content I look at. The mainstream media will you that to get girls, you just be yourself, treat her nice, buy her flowers bla bla bla.....non-mainstream content will tell you, it doesn't work that way. They will say things like you need a little status and you gotta have have some edge to you, be more selfish and a little arrogant bla bla bla.....who to believe? Well, I do have some experience in this regard so I can definitely say that the latter is true. This is where life experience helps you. There is a saying that says "game recognizes game". When you're about something or you are used to being around people who are about it, you can easily tell who is not about it just by listening to them speak.

Does it always work? No. And this principle may be harder to apply to topics like Covid since none of us here are in it. None of us here are in labs doing Covid research or are around people that are doing it so it will be a lot harder to tell the fakes from the real deals. But it can still be applied to a more limited degree. I'm sure everyone of us here can tell when someone is running game to get one over on us. Just do the same with them. You're not always going to get it right but you should get it right more often than not.

This term "mainstream media" sure gets thrown around a lot. Where's that line at, if it's on You Tube it's not mainstream?

This is easy. I ask myself one simple question....Would a major network like CNN dare play the video I'm watching...if the answer is no, then it's definitely not a mainstream message.

Also, on this topic of mainstream content. I do actually consume quite a lot but they are about topics that are inherently unbiased. For example, mini-documentaries about technology like battery tech or the latest electric vehicles or instructional content about math, physics, engineering and programming which I consume a lot of too.

[Shaggy Hiker]

What's all that idea of "we like in a wonderful world", is something zen or what?

So, you believe the world is dark, scary, menacing. I think we aren't smart enough to deal with the challenges ahead of us, but I'm old. My life has been great. So, just out of curiosity, why would I want to believe in your reality? It sounds really bad. I know it is bad for a whole lot of people, and the rest of us should do what we can to lift the world up, but why in the world would anybody want to go live in the darkness?

Have you ever considered that your clouds are not the reality?

When I was back in high school, my friends decided that my fate was to die in the woods laughing hysterically at a leaf. That would be a good end.

[sapator]

Alcohol. Then your life looks great.
Or Xanax...Mixed with Pfiser,Moderna and the Russian vax. You come out stumbling, speaking 3 languages + zombian and pee hot lava (yes, there is cold also, smartashh).

I want to say something about censorship. I'm against it, even if people believe that the earth is not flat, they should be let to speak.I think most of you would agree.
Now the issue here is controlled censorship. It's one thing a media or web tweet twaat or a forum not letting you go on about the whole and another to discriminate.
For example, here we are blocking the VB6ers, that is not acceptable by me. If we should to block all programming languages then that would be a "fair" censorship.
So in covid we(we the fliurkin mainstream media) block everything that has to do with the euphoria of the vaxbies and the obvious lethal to mass murder results of Omicron, yet we let the unvaccinated proclaim stuff and show reports from Koch Institute of Germany .
We let Malone hang around with Tackleberry but we don't show doctors that tells us we need another lock down and 3 more doses.
That, even if we do it to "protect the public" looks suspicious at best. Can't we not understand that it will bring the opposite results?
If we let both sides, with highly acclaims scientists (no Fauci or our "geniuses" here in Greece. They are a slug that a slug crawled on, compared to important scientists) then we could come up with something more meaningful than locking the earth for 1 year, praying.

P.S. I was bashed way before on showing a tweet, said that, Uhhh you show us tweeter as sourceee?! Boooo, 666, papa is the killer (if anyone get that without looking at the internet, you are half Greek at least), so now tweeter is good?That is so confusing.....Another Xanax....Ohhh blue horses with faaangssss...OOhhhhh!!

P.S.2 The world, it depends. Where you live, what have you done with yourself,how much money your papa have.But the truth, you have to travel a lot, A LOT to decide. So I don't know if the world is bad but I know that 98% of the trouble, if the world is bad are Politicians......No that is not fair, 99%.

[wes4dbt]

So we obviously have guys here, who are not the slightest bit curious,
why on earth that happened...
I also fail to comprehend, what's so funny about obvious censorship...

That comment has nothing to do with being curious, it's about using the fact if was removed as a reason it should be watched or using that for building your case for something sinister. And I agree you do fail to comprehend what's funny about that.

As for censorship, of course it is. But censorship on YT isn't new or confined to COVID related videos. Why is this censorship so sinister or offensive? Because Flat Earth'ers aren't also censored? Do you think they are trying to hide the truth?

[Eduardo-]

So, you believe the world is dark, scary, menacing. I think we aren't smart enough to deal with the challenges ahead of us, but I'm old. My life has been great. So, just out of curiosity, why would I want to believe in your reality? It sounds really bad. I know it is bad for a whole lot of people, and the rest of us should do what we can to lift the world up, but why in the world would anybody want to go live in the darkness?

You seem (and I think you do) to confuse things so much.

There is an objective reality, reality is not what you believe it is or what I believe it is, what you wish or what I wish, what I like or what you like, what I prefer it to be, or what you prefer it to be. Reality is what it is, no mater whether you believe it is one way or another.

If we agree on that point, may be we could go ahead.

Have you ever considered that your clouds are not the reality?

That is the kind of things why I don't like reading you.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I feel like I'm wasting my time.

When I was back in high school, my friends decided that my fate was to die in the woods laughing hysterically at a leaf. That would be a good end.

More nonsense (to me). I see two possibilities:
1) It is pure ramble.
2) It is something too deep for me to understand (what the point is).

I don't like to read things like this either.

The message was short (thanks) but not to the point. I still don't know what the point was, and I don't like word games, I prefer clear messages.
Of course, we are not obligated to continue this conversation.

Are you in some kind of philosophy, psychology, buddhism, scientology, new age, or what is all this "ideology" about???

[wes4dbt]

This is easy. I ask myself one simple question....Would a major network like CNN dare play the video I'm watching...if the answer is no, then it's definitely not a mainstream message.

That seems arbitrary. FOX say lots of things CNN wouldn't. How about HBO. Is the NYT mainstream, Washington Post, AP?

I agree you can find things on YT or podcasts that you wont find on any of those media outlets. But the point I'm trying to make is no matter where it comes from, you need to use the same filters. Just because they say something you don't hear on "mainstream media" doesn't make it true. So when people say I don't trust my news from mainstream media my first thought what makes you think you can trust non traditional informational sources. If your looking for a lot of different opinions thats a place to go. It's also the place to go find someone to reinforce your narrative.

I just don't buy into "I don't get information from mainstream media" as a badge of honor. Just depends on the person.

[Eduardo-]

So when people say I don't trust my news from mainstream media my first thought what makes you think you can trust non traditional informational sources.

Of course. "News" on whatever other place are not likely to be more accurate or more true than mainstream media.

You first need to do your own research on the "subject" (anyone it is).

Then, when you come to some conclusions that you are confident to be correct (or true), you are able to identify certain channels or sources that provide good, accurate, balanced and sound content.

After that, you develop certain confidence in the channel, because you cannot verify every and all things they say (that would take too much time).
But if you doubt about something, you can (and should) go and verify for yourself. Everybody makes mistakes.

It is not that any non-mainstream source is better, at all.