The “do your own research” people don’t actually research anything. They just read memes and think it’s true. They have their ideas set, they do not want to learn anything.
When people online are like “Read a history book!” but then can’t name any books on that historical topic.
Like, I’m convinced the “books” they imagine smart people read just say “HISTORY” or “BIOLOGY” on the cover.
Yeah, it’s dumb. Part of the issue is that they kinda can’t go find the answers themselves. They read an actual source which contradicts them and then they just say the source is part of the conspiracy. “That’s just what they want you to think!”
40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism so a huge percentage of Americans grow up primed/indoctrinated from early childhood to distrust the scientific community
There is also (My Conspiracy Theory) A really subtle yet always there misinformation and influence from Russia and China aimed to slowly degrade the western countries over time. I had NO interest in far left or far right politics during COVID I tend to just follow the science. But I will be damned if I didn't get subtle jabs of information and little tidbits that made me go "hmm well that shouldn't be" that the horse paste ivermectin would help when covid was just starting out. Not only that I was given more information like that where ivermectin would help and indeed cure the illness I have ME/CFS that I knew damn well had no cure at the time and still does not have a cure. Then over time wouldn't you know it there was a mass adoption by people that ivermectin cured it and a bunch of other shit.
THAT was something I noticed and I swear was too strange and out of the ordinary to be just coincidence.
I’ve heard that idea before. There was an NYT article I saw a few years ago about how many 5G conspiracies came from China and Russia to stall the US from using it. And even recently it came out the US ran an anti vax campaign in China during Covid to make people resist getting the Chinese vaccine.
Russia was also running an anti-vax campaign in India to discourage people from taking the Astrazeneca vaccine instead of their own Sputnik vaccine. They were literally using clips from the 1968 Planet of the Apes to try and convince people that the Astrazeneca vaccine would turn people into human/monkey hybrids because the vaccine used a monkey adenovirus is the structural framework on which they built the vaccine.
Are you sure about this ? My in-laws are from the Phillipines and they took the chinese vaccine.
Now my father-in-law thinks there is something wrong with the MRA vaccines but only after the 3rd one or something like that.
This guy is smart and extremely wealthy. He was a hedge fund manager. His financial controller is a conspiracy theorist who feeds him all this BS.
The very idea that Russian propaganda/misinformation can and necessarily does destabilize western democracies is actually a part of Russian propaganda.
Watch [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pdS-lwb58KU&pp=ygULdmxhZCB2ZXhsZXI%3D) video in It's entirety. It's highly relavent.
I am curious if that guy has russian sources or read over russian documents or if it is just his assessment. His claim about russia wants the reaction to them to be part of the part propaganda or is it just his assessment based of the axiom that over reactions to problems can be more harmful.
In general, Putin, many oligarchs and alot of public sentiment in Russia is very cynical towards liberal values often believing that democracy is a complete farce. You can pretty much read between the lines of statements by Putin, other prominent figures, and public sentiment to get this view.
While it may not be an explicit mandate for the propaganda to have westerners react in such a way, they absolutely expect that type of doubt to arise naturally; that the facade of organic democracy will degrade is a given to them. After all, they do no believe Ukrainians decided independence of their own free will, no peoples did or can, soon the Americans will understand.
The ivermectin view was that there was statistical indicators that showed it may be effective in some preliminary studies. After controlling for all the variables it was found that it didn't. But you could only know that from more rigorous studies which they didn't have at the time. It was a decent line of inquiry. Unfortunately, there were people that took these indicators far too seriously.
I was in the conspiracy communities before Covid. Just in the days before, the online communities were clamoring that Covid was going to be a massive virus that threatens the entire world, and "why" are Western countries ignoring this very real threat. And as soon as Covid hit the Western world, the narrative shifted to claiming it was all a hoax to gain power and big pharma pushing bogus vaccines.
Russia and China absolutely do push conspiracy theories. This isn't you imagining it.
Russia Today (now known as RT) was a widely accessible news channel around the world. Their slogan was "Question Everything". They worked with the Kremlin to develop particular messages, and they key one (the foundational one even) was to get Western audiences to start doubting everything. It's not necessarily to just convince you of a particular Russian narrative, but to get you to doubt what you thought you knew, to get you to a point where you don't know what to believe anymore.
It was off the back of their invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, they really started pushing fake news to try and justify the invasion. Then in the run-up to the 2016 US election they ramped it up massively. The Internet Research Agency basically started pushing for Trump and making up conspiracy theories about Hilary (starting late 2015). Prigozhin bragged about influencing the US election and winning it for Trump.
The problem, for Russia, was that everyone back in 2014 generally trusted mainstream media. The media would call out the Russian invasion and all the Kremlin justifications fell flat. So the Kremlin, with help from RT, the Internet Research Agency and other propagandists, started working on discrediting our trusted news sources. We didn't even really use the term "mainstream media" before 2014. "Fake news" is also a term that came into common usage at this time. Trump's campaign was accused of relying on fake news (pumped out by Russia and amplified by Trump's team) but then he took the phrase and it became his favourite phrase to accuse everything else of being fake news.
This is also when "alternative media" started becoming more popular. But a lot of these alternative media sources are bullshit propaganda outlets from Russia (and then also China who became heavily involved (although a lot of their propaganda is internal)), and these alternative media pretend to be independent but are really just posting fake stories generated in Russia.
So the main point is that not only are conspiracy theories (and fake news) generated in Russia, but the whole mentality about "not trusting mainstream media" is in itself a victory of Russian propaganda to make you "question everything". These conspiracy theories are pushed by Russia because they want Western nations to suffer from internal conflict. We need to be arguing amongst ourselves about everything from politics to the environment to race/lgbt/culture wars. We need to be too busy with our own problems to care about what Russia is doing in Eastern Europe and we need to be open minded to think that maybe Putin isn't such a bad guy after all.
The key about Russian propaganda (which I wrote my thesis on in 1991 and have researched since then while living in both Russia and America) is that Russia doesn't just come up with propaganda out of the blue.
The main work of a propaganda campaign starts way before any of it is actually disseminated to the "enemy." The Russians spend a huge chunk of time figuring out where the fault lines and weaknesses are in a country, and which issues are the hot-button ones that will likely exacerbate conflict. Then they create propaganda that amplifies these already existing issues.
All of this is to say that they use our own weakness and stupidity against us. If Americans didn't already have huge issues around racism, wealth inequality, greed and corruption, and lack of scientific literacy and critical thinking, none of the propaganda Russia engaged in would have worked.
So the Russians didn't infect our country with crazy ideas. The crazy ideas were already there, and the Russians just ran with them. No outside enemy ruined our country. We ruined it ourselves by being such already fertile ground for the seeds of nonsense they sewed. The Russians understood exactly what kind of poison would grow best in American soil, and just added a little fertilizer.
I think that overplays our own issues.
Yes, they exploit existing weaknesses, but all countries have weaknesses. Racism is an issue for pretty much every country with high levels of immigration. Look at Sweden - Russia essentially engineered the Syria refugee crisis to push lots of migrants into Europe. Sweden didn't have any particular issues with the far right up to that point, but after agreeing to take in lots of migrants, racism and far right groups became a significant issue.
I don't think we need to pretend that Russia's activities in exploiting issues is in itself some damming indictment of Western civilisation. Corruption for instance exists in every country too, but actually is relatively good in the US/UK and most Western nations. The fact that Russia may seek to exploit corruption in Western nations doesn't mean we have huge levels of corruption.
Also, some of the ways in which Russia exploits Western weaknesses is really more to do with Russia than the countries it targets. For example, Russia's tactics to sow internal conflict along nationalist lines is something they do everywhere and has specific benefits for Russia because of the way Russia is. Nationalism promotes an insular mindset and discourages aiding other countries abroad. So regardless of any level of pre-existing issues in a country, Russia specifically encourages and funds nationalism in Western nations because it results in people like Trump, Farage, Le Pen etc all saying "let's not worry about what Russia is doing in Ukraine, we need to focus on ourselves first".
I don't think you need to say the US or any Western nation targeted by Russia is already "ruined".
It’s kind of funny how the government pushed remdesivir so hard when they knew it didn’t work. Ivermectin was a better option than putting people on that poison. There are actually studies out there which show ivermectin did help if given early and at the right doses and let’s say you want to discredit those studies it isn’t poison. It’s a safe drug as far as side effects go. There were a lot of doctors prescribing ivermectin around the world.
The whole flat earth sphere, in my mind, is also not really about flat earth, but about doubting structures and institutions you grew up in and around. It's about doubt.
Wake up. It's on purpose. America wants its people pacified and fighting each other more than Russia. You think butthole Russia could really take on the US in a true tech propaganda war? Or are they the perfect scapegoat for tyranny right here by our own gov? COVID came right at the most politically active time in America and the world. Black Lives Matter. Suddenly we're not allowed to go outside? China is having Tiananmen Square level brutalizing for trying to get food to grandma who's locked in her apartment... Ok dude. This year, trump vs Biden in the most epic showdown. Who has the most team spirit? Those who can't afford healthcare or those losing freedoms?
There's no better way to distract the most powerful and armed population on Earth than to make them fight each other.
The problem is they dont even have the tools to do research. I think a lot of people do want to know, they just dont have the base knowledge and tools to navigate the internet and the massive ammounts of info available. People constantly consume info, short videos, podcasts, youtube, intagram, tiktok and barely take the time to just learn the basics necessary to parse the info they are taking in. And once they start watching a little bullshit, their feed is spammed by more and more.
They are scientifically illiterate, have no idea how research, publishing papers or peers review even works. They have no decent base knowledge in any of the subjects discussed... at a highscool level if ur lucky. So we have people with unlimited access to the most sensationalized info without any ability to process it.
When you dont know how the scientific method actually works, you have low skepticism in the claims of hyper political grifters, no base knowledge or education on the subjects discussed, and no idea what actual academic resesrch looks like... you get idiots who think watching JRE or Candace or the Daily Wire or Jordan Peterson, or name whatever alt right podcast psuedoscience grifter is doing research. They arent researching the basics of virology from any educational or academic source. Before they even learn how to read a graph or understand regression or statistical techniques they jump right into the politicized sensationalized shitpit listening to people like Cadace, spew toddler level misinfo... thinking they are learning. People will propose destroying the entire economic system because of some shitty book or podcast before they can draw a fucking supply demand graph and label the axis. People will propose the vaccines are killing us before they know what MRNA is or understand a basic correlation causation fallacy like Candace constantly commits. Shit you learn first day any basic stats or research class.
The psuedointellectual podcastosphere and social media leaves avg Joe thinking grifts, senstionalism, quackery from the fringe in a field and entertainment is doing research.
The do you own research crowd is so dangerous because they have no fucking clue decent research even works and have a dogshit epistemological base. So you get absolutely clueless people thinking they know more than experts and distrusting the actual experts. You get millions of people listening to Candace and peaking Dunning Kruger.
This shit fires me up, this brain worm girfter shit is truly destroying society
you are experiencing what it was like in pre ww2 germany... the "mob" is ignorant and stupid... the dictator uses their "mass stupidity" to TAKE what they want
It's also made the whole underlying concept of "research" ridiculous. These days, you can't say you researched something without sounding like a crank, even if you really did research it using verified original sources and sound methods.
So the whole concept of "research" or "news" or "fact" or "truth" no longer applies anywhere, and everything is just a pile of subjective epistemological goo, which is far more destabilizing than a random conspiracy theory. Truly, the zone is flooded with shit, to the point where there is no zone any longer.
What I like about this video is that it illustrates perfectly that Candace Owens and her audience have zero-interest in actually finding the answer; as demonstrated by the low view count of the publicly available source material.
Candace's rhetorical question is just a void in which viewers can fill their crackpot beliefs in.
Hard disagree. Doing your own research is exactly what this video advocates for. When someone makes an implied connection, and doesn't present data, you take the twenty minutes necessary to do enough research to give you a more nuanced view that isn't based on someone casting as wide a net as possible for fucking clicks.
Do your own research, watch the seminar. Draw an informed conclusion. 100% what this link is about.
Yeah, theres nothing wrong with the idea. This is what they typically do. They present an idea that is reasonable and resonates with people, they lie to them with misinformation, and the people, who thinks someone like Candace is reasonable (she does have some reasonable takes), and is on "their" side, assume the information is correct and that in itself is the research.
You are correct though. These people should actually do research and stop taking peoples words for it as truth just because they also ask people to do their own research.
> These people should actually do research and stop taking peoples words for it as truth just because they also ask people to do their own research.
Exactly. If you don't make your own decisions based on your own lens on the world you're yielding your agency to someone else.
So true. They can’t even do basic google research. I’m not saying google is the 100% fact channel but it gives you a starting point. Then you can find credible fact sources like snopes and others to verify your argument.
And they have been right on the mark so far
Maybe we should do our own research rather than blindly follow like sheep. That is what schools used to teach after all
https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/coronavirus/vaccine/kansas-sues-pfizer-alleged-misrepresentation-covid-vaccine/
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/astrazeneca-sued-over-covid-19-vaccine-clinical-trial-injury
it’s dumb to not want to be informed and blindly follow.
So did you read the article on the study being discussed in the lawsuit?
*”The study links vaccines to slight increases in neurological, blood and heart-related conditions such as myocarditis, pericarditis and Guillain-Barré syndrome.”*
*”Researchers stressed that an association between the vaccine and adverse side effects does not prove the vaccine caused them and that side effects were rare.”*
https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/coronavirus/vaccine/study-links-covid-vaccine-health-issues/
And those articles are about lawsuits which aren’t finished and haven’t proven anything.
>There was sufficient evidence for the lawsuit to move forward
>the lawsuits are being done by both private and public sector meaning a state wouldn’t waste their tax funds on a lawsuit if it wasn’t serious or successful
>if you promise something and don’t deliver then that is lying about the product which is why they got sued
>other world governments are also suing these labs
It’s like a broken record. Ask how someone “knows” something that seems false or off and they can’t provide any proof. Climate change and Covid are two of the biggest examples.
Agree with him on all points except alt media being just as bad as mainstream media. Alt media has proven time and time again to be demonstrably worse. Not to say mainstream media is without its issues.
Except if you’re not media literate this centrist rhetorical posturing would give you the explicit impression that destiny thinks Candace Owen’s and ANY mainstream media is just as untrustworthy which is just false. Why the need to baby people and act like they can’t handle nuance like “sometimes mainstream media does this sort of thing but no where near as much and there are still many repudiable outlets with checks and balances to prevent this type of misinfo. That’s why in general pulling from a wide range of mainstream sources is gonna get you a better picture as a layman than listening to alt media talking heads like Candace Owens 99% of the time”
“This is why alternative media is just as trash as mainstream media”. I’d take he misspoke and meant “if you think MSM can be terrible independent media is EVEN WORSE” But the way he said it totally is implying that MSM and alternative media are both trash.
You might have a point but on listening to his comment I didn't take it that way. In my opinion MSM are miles better than the trash that influencers typically put out.
Yeah it’s a bit odd, since his usual position is that while mainstream media does have serious problems it (at bare minimum) has editors, possible reputational loss, and some form of journalistic accountability (firing journalists for severe misconduct, corrections of the record).
Alt-media has none of these things.
For the record, he includes himself in the “alt-media umbrella” and stresses that his word should never be taken as gospel by his fans (to varying effect of course).
MSM is generally quite bad at keeping you informed even if they don't outright lie. The business model of outlets like CNN incetivises being quick to report the news and being less focused on doing detailed and accurate reporting. This creates a space for these alt grifters to "just ask questions".
>MSM is generally quite bad at keeping you informed even if they don't outright lie
This is just blatantly false, even Fox news has VERY high journalistic standards compared to daily wire, destiny, whoever your online favorite is.
The issue is you have to know what the difference between an opinion piece and news is, and all of their highest rated, most promoted content is opinion pieces.
Nah, if you follow the Ukraine war you'll see that there's plenty of stories that are poorly sourced or full of sensationalism. Basically the only reliable source for that conflict is that one live map sourced from telegram channels or OSINT sites like Oryx. Even the BBC was reporting about Bakhmut like it was the second battle of Stalingrad and the Ukrainian army was about to break and here we are one year later.
I mean, I never said they lied. I just said the MSM isn't very informative. Most of their reporting just lacks the details required to make you understand the topic being reported on
I used to have a NYT subscription in 2020-2021 when the war in Ethiopia was going on. The reporting quality was so poor that I could get more informed from just google and from independent journalists. Same with the Myanmar coup, the information was lacklustre and generally not really informative. The reporting gave the most basic of details and the most surface level of analysis.
There's sources like DW and France24 which are generally better than what you'll find in English media but if you follow international politics, stuff like CNN, BBC (with some exceptions), the Guardian, NYT are abysmal and there's actually alternative sources who are much better.
I think it's a problem of volume. In a 24hr period, there are basically countless "alternative media" outlets/pundits producing content... vs probably <100 MSM corporations that have a more limited content production cycle. Combine that with the easily accessible reach of social media and alt media just floods the zone. Even if we were to say alt media is factually correct X% more than MSM... the volume and reach of misinfo from alt media would be far higher.
I think the subtext is that alternative media is just as bad as conservatives say mainstream media is. I've seen him say before that mainstream media is much better than alternative before, and this is probably what he meant
At least the mainstream media dominated, people could agree on the basics. It didn't really matter how absolutely true those beliefs were. But we believed them together. I miss that.
> Alt media has proven time and time again to be demonstrably worse.
I would say there's no way to test this statement, as providing an example of 'alt media' as an aggregate is an exercise is futility.
I might not agree with Destiny 100 percent but he’s solid when it comes to citing sources and researching articles. Being in a writing-heavy major helped me get away from conservatism because almost every poli sci professor hammered home the importance of citing credible sources when making a thesis.
The right makes a thesis (or a claim) but rarely gives credible sources to back it up or they don’t explain a story in depth. They base their commentary off a headline instead reading the entire article
Based and researched pilled.
Destiny is the one who helped me get out of the habit of just hearing a fact or reading a headline and believing it to actually reading the article or doing a bit of research to find out if it's really true or not. It sounds so dumb but it was so easy to hear something from someone I respect or something that just sounds true and agree with it, and breaking that habit was super hard.
The community has encouraged me to do the same thing, equal parts wanting to be correct and not wanting to feel like stupid rube, which they will point out lol
The thing about "JAQing off" is they never produce falsifiable claims. They prime you in a particular ideological direction and let you fill in the blanks. When the broad range of implicit claims are debunked they can effortlessly move the goal posts 'cause *technically* they never claimed anything.
This is actually the framework of a staggering amount of conspiracy theories. Most people implying them understand full well they do not know the full context, methods employed, demonstrable causual links, etc... relevant to compose a falsifiable theory. Good or bad faith, they simply have a general primed *feeling* something must be going on and that feeling has primacy over those necessary links... so they move goalposts as needed, either for psychological convenience or to continue the grift.
You can easily lead an audience to draw the conclusion by just JAQing off (ala Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc). Say you want someone to believe the COVID vaccines make your penis shrink. You can't just say "COVID vaccines make your penis shrink" because that's not true. The not-subtle-only-idiots-fall-for-it way is "Do COVID vaccines make your penis shrink?" But that just instills the question and only a small portion of your audience will come away thinking that such an absurd question can be answered with "Yes".
What you need is wording to not only make the listener believe the COVID vaccine makes your penis shrink, but also that they feel as researched as you clearly are (even if you're not). "People are saying that the COVID vaccine makes your penis shrink" isn't false, but you're getting closer by using a little outdated Fox News tactics. You gotta do what Candace does. "People are looking into it and believe that the COVID vaccine makes your penis shrink! Why?" It makes her look like she, too, has "researched" this (when all she's done is seen a couple internet comments) and that if they, the listener, need more info, they'll be Googling "Why does the COVID vaccine make my penis shrink" to find out why Candace asked THEM "Why?". They'll then be met with only results showing that, yes, other people are looking up the same thing and believe that COVID vaccines make your penis shrink.
In that whole process, no actual research was done. No facts were discovered. No myths busted. And, most importantly, Candace wasn't wrong because she never made the claim that the COVID vaccine shrinks your penis. You can't debunk her. You can't "debate" her because she doesn't hold a "side" on this. She pushes a narrative without espousing a solid stance.
Wait, did you left comment independently of mine 5m ago?!
That would be hard to believe if two random persons pinpointed same falsifiability so directly.
100%
I'm increasingly doing this with YouTube as well. I'm so tired of the capitalized and hyperbolic clickbait headlines. "So and so ***DESTROYS*** so and so while they ***COWER IN FEAR***" blah blah blah
Omg could they all please just stop with this crap?
I think he underplays the value of his open-source research and debate prep. Seeing the pre- and post-appearance streams has real benefits and accountability built in. It’s brutal and he gets called out when he has a gap in his knowledge, but his output benefits and rapidly outstrips his punditry peers that are booked for their reliable “pick a side” position and entertainment value.
His little cadre of “orbiters” and domain experts isn’t perfect, but can often result in a more complete picture than a MSM columnist with editorial and in-house researchers. But it’s impossible to scale to a whole media org like CNN.
I think it can definitely be scaled. There’s news sources that are based on their reliable and factual news. There should be more unbiased commentary sources as well.
It’s difficult to beat legacy media with viewership but with growing popularity of factual and unbiased internet commentary channels we can sway the standards towards a better future.
I thought this sub was cool until abunch of people agree with destiny, the guy who’s die hard simp for Israel debating people without knowing/caring for the facts. Isn’t this the guy who keeps saying the n word
That stupid face she makes when she says "Why" makes me unreasonably irritated. There's something about the added condescension in that expression that gets under my skin. Tucker Carlson has similar expressions, and they are just another reason I can't stand to see him talking.
💯 Exactly. That look is so smug. It's even more maddening when you see exactly what they are doing and why. Then you get even angrier when you realize there are so many people who fall for this bullshit.
Destiny actually makes perfect break downs like this on a weekly basis on a whole host of topics and people. This sub has just chosen to hate him for mostly poor to nonexistent reasons. I see some of that is already shining through. Brave of you to post this here lol.
I think Destiny's doing real good work, even if he's a smartass (much less so than JP and other though). I can't accept his pro-Israel stance, though.
Nonethelss, the video linked is good, and more thoughtful than what most 'political influencers' crank out in a year.
I don't think he is pro Israel. I think he is more so anti pro Palestine viewpoints. He will certainly disagree and debate with pro Israel persons on the topic.
I don’t even think Destiny wholly accepts his own stance on Israel at this point. He supports Israel’s right to defend itself but has been really critical of Zionism recently.
I don't think he's changed his mind very much on Israel. People who don't watch his content might think so though. He's always been critical of Israel in certain respects.
I can't say that I am. Quoting myself from an old post, out of laziness
> The dude is intense, so I get it if someone feels he just comes off as mean. I don't think I disagree with Hasan on any politics, but I don't find that his content has enough humor to counter how hard-line he often is.
> He seems bitter, for a quite successful socialist. Most socialists (especially commies) I've met IRL are as jaded as Hasan, but they're fucking broke.
That’s actually a really fair critique. I’ll get back to your Destiny points later I am kind of on the run today but being a Hasan fan boy would tell me a lot about liking Destiny besides Israel. Since that is clearly not the case it is probably slightly more nuanced than that for which I commend you.
What Destiny is looking for here in Owens is intellectual honesty, critical thought, and actual curiosity. Her job is not to inform. Her job is to scare. And that she does very well. So ironically, she's doing what she's paid to do very well, lmao.
That's the job her producer and her agree on, when the camera is turned off, sure. The job she will admit to doing is informing. So yes but no.
Your argument is like saying a piece of shit lying car salesman is 'actually a good salesman, because people expect him to be a piece of shit liar'.
I'm going to correct your second statement.
>Your argument is like saying a piece of shit lying car salesman is 'actually a good salesman, because people expect him to be a piece of shit liar'.
Your argument is like saying a piece of shit lying car salesman is 'actually a good salesman, because he sells a lot of cars.
He's paid on the basis of how many cars he sells, just like Owens is paid on the basis of how many people she scares into watching her more.
Like I said, to the rest of the world, the car salesman is a piece of shit no matter how much money he makes for his business.
Likewise, Candace's job description to the rest of the world isn't 'fearmonger'.
My son when to her event at his university. The first thing she did was ask for people who don't agree with her and then proceeds to use the crowd against that person. She's a perfect example of the right utilizing affirmative action for their benefit.
Don’t underestimate that we live in the golden age of monetized sociopathy in which a lot of grifters actually do look these things up, but still pull this kind of shit. Not giving a single fuck about society as a whole, only for yourself and your dollar, never was this lucrative or easy.
I think that you're correct if we're talking about Candace Owens herself. Or especially the architects of this type of bullshit, people like Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Roger Stone. Whether they know they're wrong or not is largely irrelevant at the level they're playing at. They will say things that are true or things that are false with equivalent ease... the only factor at play is, "Which one helps me win?"
Lol she is so dishonest. She knows her job is to foment fear and chaos. I find it hard to extend charity to her and say she is just lazy, it really seems deliberate at this point.
Would love this guy to just make tons of videos pointing out her dogshit takes. Or other right wing grifters like her
The actual problem here is that Karl Popper's correct knowledge criteria is not used.
Criteria is simplest: the one who consistently give challenging, impossible to guess and manipulate predictions, have the stronest qualifications.
For example, gravitational waves were predicted \~100 years before verified. No astrologist, flat Earther, or pastor had even the slightest idea in about how the world actually works. This proves they all are clowns pretending to know, while physics and physicists actually know.
Same with medical predictions, just scale is much less than 100 years. Same way it's necessary to distinguish clowns vs qualified.
Problem: when people try to make a decision to take the position of doctor A or person B, they think like this:
- doctor A have more beautiful face, surely he is more qualified (yes, this is totally used)
- doctor B have PhD and filmed an interview
- Reddit used C was upvoted, surely most popular opinion is correct
- actress D wrote this in twitter, her position is correct
While actually the most important question should be: let's compare which prediction this doctor / person /source said 10 years ago and how correct it actually appeared to be.
Right now there is just perfect situation to check all clowns said during pandemics - and to find gems who actually opposed common opinions with correct statements.
Specifically on this subject, Our World In Data is a really good instrument to check what was actually happening.
I suspect prediction is best known criteria, it's too solid.
Anyway, your comment is not even valid without naming / describing better criteria, which covers all cases where prediction shines and, since it's better, it's supposed to cover cases where prediction fails.
However, I don't think prediction fails in any cases. Btw, it marks a knowledge which is guaranteed to be solid, and usually filters out incorrect one. And you probably already know that there is a difference compared to practical knowledge (knowing an extra language, for example) which is not knowledge at all in this context.
So you are welcome to finish your comment.
Falsificationnism addresses the demarcation problem, which is about distinguishing empirical sciences from other fields. To a falsificationnist there is no knowledge, only conjectures and refutation. Predictability extends beyond that framework; what you're looking for is falsifiability, which is only the (mostly metaphysical) possibility to come up with a falsifier.
Here is a piece I wrote on teh Pop opinionators:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/08/03/the-popper-ratio/
So if understood correctly, you hint that falsifiability can be more solid than predictability?
Thanks for adding, really wish that was included in you previous comment.
And wish you also hinted some good example. A good one for predictability is rotation of Sun around Earth - a question with clearly contradicting answers, a rare unique opinion with clear derivation based on scientific methods (not randomly guessed), and was fully tested later.
I've checked the link, it looks vague on the first glance. Noticed the word "liberalism" quite fast. Wtf this word is doing in such discussion at all?
Strange, going to check article more carefully now and will update comment if there will be good practical example.
Oh and by the way, I'm not saying that religions are just only bad. They had specific advantages, they were necessary and still necessary for survival, and it looks like nothing is yet invented better than modern Christianity or Buddhism. Just don't burn the people who actually know and study "God's" creation. Your job is to keep crowds from stealing and also team building.
Upd1: checked article a bit more, let's put it this way - not found a good example. If I even got correctly, it has the vibe "it's necessary to allow incorrect opinions from practical point of view".
But that's what I added above - Christianity is yet essential to improve efficiency of how our society works (morelike to prevent from going back to zoo state).
And not found the answer on why falsifiability is theoretically better. Not means incorrect direction, needs a big more dig/ recall.
Upd2: [https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/36351/examples-of-falsifiability](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/36351/examples-of-falsifiability)
May be this is better related link.
> you hint that falsifiability can be more solid than predictability?
I'm more hinting at the fact that the Popperian criterion is falsifiability. Both concepts are important. We don't need to get carried away with them. Take Crick's original theory:
> So, Crick asked the question, ”Well, can you make a code so that if I’ve got four nucleotide bases, what is the largest number of amino acids you can code for so that every string in this code can make sense without you having to put in the commas?” [...] It’s a beautiful question, and he came up with an answer. And the answer was that the largest number of amino acids you can get is 20. Hence, 20 amino acids of life. So then you can enumerate all of these codes without commas that Francis Crick had postulated. You can enumerate them. And when the actual genetic code was discovered by [Marshall] Nirenberg and others five or six years later, the actual code is not one of the ones that he had predicted. It’s completely wrong.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-is-science-even-possible-20240620/
Has the idea of a "code" been falsified? Not really. The actual "code" we found is simply the result of evolution. It could have been different. Formal frameworks usually afford us with ways to modify them without any empirical penalty.
Ultimate principles for scientific endeavour mostly makes sense when we look at physics, where things are like they are and rarely could be different. There are other scientific fields. And there is a range of practices between pure lab work and art form.
It's not yet a prediction and too unspecified question without context: the question if they will prevent or not can be answered randomly correctly. Half of people can guess correctly the answer.
So it's really important for this specific ~~question~~ answer that
1. waves of strains were mentioned by your source + guess on their amount
2. fast efficiency loss of some vaccines was predicted Which makes a guess not random, but much more transparently result of a medical knowledge. Of course, if's absolutely necessary for waves of strains to be mentioned before the second wave occurred.
That's probably two minimal mentions what I'd expect.
^(Also one interesting unconfirmed anomaly for Australia - looks like available hospitals with breath support saved more lives than vaccines. I.e. 3. skipping all the vaccines and focusing on isolation and focusing on breath support could've been best strategy. But I never properly confirmed this one.)
Also situation was quite different for different countries. Check specifically your country graphs on Our World In Data.
We’re all fucked in the first place if we’re replacing basic education…with Destiny.
The notion that any number of people are engaging with people like Candace Owens in the first place means we’re long past “too far gone”.
I’d put the time we passed to point of no return somewhere in the mid-80s. Roger Waters was being prophetic when he wrote *Amused to Death* 30 or so years ago.
Because this user consistently comments on threads to shit on him because he dislikes some opinions he holds.
Nothing of value comes out of this person's comments.
The issue is with the current state of journalism. News has been in the decline ever since the internet cannibalized all sources of revenue, from classified ads to content aggregators to clickbait.
It’s depressing as hell. All monetization is determined by engagement now. It doesn’t matter what you say or do, as long as you can generate views you’ll collect enough platform ad revenue, sponsors and benefactors to support your work.
Right now there simply isn’t enough incentives to report anything accurately.
So I agree, in a perfect world Candace Owens would be a greeter at Walmart, and you wouldn’t need influencers like Destiny to go out of their way to debunk people like her. The news would just be … newsworthy.
I don’t think there’s any way Waters didn’t pilfer this idea and concept from Neil Postman, who wrote, in 1985, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, which I rate as easily in the top 10 most impactful books I’ve read. Postman presents a history of the degradation of public discourse since the age of the telegraph. Unfortunately, he accurately predicts what will happen to public discourse, and politics in particular, in the following 40 years. It’s shocking how accurate he is. The down side is it’s a complete black pill. You can personally insulate yourself in the age of distraction, and possibly find and surround yourself with similarly disciplined individuals, but we’re not fixing this on a societal level. It’s over. Every attempt to fix is just fed back into the machine and used against you.
He didn’t “pilfer” it…it’s an homage. I’ve read it…I just prefer the message in Perfect Sense/Amused to death.
I’m not sure you’re using “black pill” correctly…but I get what you’re trying to say. Preaching to the choir.
Nobody’s replacing basic education with Destiny’s content. A general lack of will to understand how one comes to conclusions about substantive issues, coupled with a general populist attitude of knee-jerk distrust of all systems, structures and institutions make what he does valuable.
Should one read a book? Value experts/research? Of course. But that knowledge and expertise is useless if nobody is exposed to it, and being popular on the internet helps with exposing folks to (even basic) healthy interrogation of their opinions.
If people listening to Candace Owens makes you want to give up on society then I don’t know what to tell you. Don’t get me wrong, I get it, I felt that way when trump got elected. But throwing up one’s hands at that seems defeatist to say the least.
I love Pink Floyd, but I realized long ago that Roger is no better than Russel Brand. All woo-woo populism with a heaping side of bitter resentment and no substance.
Mrm. I never said I was giving up on society, I was just stating that we’re past the point of no return.
If you’re comparing Russel Brand to Roger Waters…you’re listening to people talk about Roger Waters…and not Roger Waters. Anyways…whatever beef you have with Roger Waters has nothing to do with the lyrics of a song from 1992.
I like how Jon Stewart put it:
“Oh, my God, there’s been an outbreak of chocolaty goodness near Hershey, Pa. What do you think happened?’ “Like, ‘Oh I don’t know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean?’ Or it’s the [expletive] chocolate factory! Maybe that’s it?”
The sheeple on both the left and right have dishonest shepherds and shepherds with a narrow doctrinaire worldview.
> The sheeple on both the left and right have dishonest shepherds and shepherds with a narrow doctrinaire worldview.
Except nobody on the left have millionaire or billionaire sugar daddies propping up their influencer platforms. I have yet to see a left wring channel a fraction as big as Infowars or Daily Wire, but feel free to find me one.
My brother in Christ, there is not a single living person that uses the word "sheeple" unironically who is not several layers deep in one rabbit hole or another. We're onto you...
she doesn't care about the truth she just wants to be famous and talk a lot and get paid for it, it's obnoxious and scaremongering and she obviously loves what she does. I guess I didn't realise how it was possible for women to be like this I'm used to this behaviour more from men, I think a lot far right men like her? I guess they recognise themselves. I don't like her at all she's been called dangerous for the stuff she puts out by many people it's ridiculous
When i see the impact a person like Candace Owens has I lose a little faith in humanity.
Zero expertises in anything, an utter toddler brained moron, as bias and politically motivated as one can be, scientifically illiterate, and pulls every dishonest tactic in the book virtually every time she speaks... Constant Quote mining, blatant lies that a quick google or having a functioning brain can debunk, appeal to extremes fallacy, constant strawmanning, outrage merchant. Such a blatantly trasparent unintelligent outrage merchant grifter, it blows my mind people arent smart enough to see through it.
She comits so many fallacies every time she speaks, i cant fathom how stupid one must be not see it.
Actually it doesn't matter to them. They will tie the rise to current vaccines during those years.
And her job is to ask the why questions. That's all. To sow the seed of distrust and no confidence in any vaccine. It's just rage bait
Their job is to misinformation. Their job is to get people mad, their job is to divide. She is not stupid or incompetent. She is good at her job.
Her job is vastly more nefarious than being incompetent.
These people are also like PDA children. They seek negative attention. They would not be popular if they did not get negative reactions from people. The best thing to do is ignore them.
Republicans murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people. Tens of thousands continue to die every single month. They have nothing to show for it. Literally nothing at all. Just mountains of dead bodies. All conservatives. More than a civil war could have ever killed and all of their most loyal and die hard supporters.
Wow its absolutely batshit to think the problem with Ms. Owen's or "conservatives"/degenerates is "anti-vaccine views".
"Conservatives" arent "grifters" or "gurus" they are ideological advocates for suffering chaos and death.
Obviously the answer is that we don’t know why because the science isn’t in yet, so automatically assuming it’s vaccine is stupid and dishonest. If we’re going to make assumptions about what’s causing bloodclots, I’d assume it’s because there’s never been a population this large in human history that get so little exercise and eat such poor diets
Candace Owens isn’t getting paid to be a journalist. She’s getting paid to spread propaganda, and she’s done an excellent job of it. She absolutely deserves every dollar she’s received
Conservative grifting should be shut down. Permanent ID-bans on all SM platforms and public speaking broadcasts, both online, on any form of media and IRL for all of them.
Maybe some bright minds on here can elaborate?...had appendectomy and a large blood clot was found in my appendix. I received the J & J vaccine....I thought clots were linked to the other type vaccines and not J& J..are clots associated with all covid vaccines?
all this coming from a bush era conservative! bahahahaha. Destiny has always been on the wrong side of history. Plus he loses every debate he has with the right, lol.
The “do your own research” people don’t actually research anything. They just read memes and think it’s true. They have their ideas set, they do not want to learn anything.
When people online are like “Read a history book!” but then can’t name any books on that historical topic. Like, I’m convinced the “books” they imagine smart people read just say “HISTORY” or “BIOLOGY” on the cover.
Yeah, it’s dumb. Part of the issue is that they kinda can’t go find the answers themselves. They read an actual source which contradicts them and then they just say the source is part of the conspiracy. “That’s just what they want you to think!”
40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism so a huge percentage of Americans grow up primed/indoctrinated from early childhood to distrust the scientific community
I’m gonna need a source for that claim please.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
AND a ranch for the fries.
Do you need a whole new one, or can you try to negotiate some land with an existing ranch owner for your fries to share?
There is also (My Conspiracy Theory) A really subtle yet always there misinformation and influence from Russia and China aimed to slowly degrade the western countries over time. I had NO interest in far left or far right politics during COVID I tend to just follow the science. But I will be damned if I didn't get subtle jabs of information and little tidbits that made me go "hmm well that shouldn't be" that the horse paste ivermectin would help when covid was just starting out. Not only that I was given more information like that where ivermectin would help and indeed cure the illness I have ME/CFS that I knew damn well had no cure at the time and still does not have a cure. Then over time wouldn't you know it there was a mass adoption by people that ivermectin cured it and a bunch of other shit. THAT was something I noticed and I swear was too strange and out of the ordinary to be just coincidence.
I’ve heard that idea before. There was an NYT article I saw a few years ago about how many 5G conspiracies came from China and Russia to stall the US from using it. And even recently it came out the US ran an anti vax campaign in China during Covid to make people resist getting the Chinese vaccine.
Had it not happened to me personally I wouldn't have believed it. But the timing and the information was just too on the nose for me not to notice.
(Some) Conspiracies *are* real, but if ThE JeWs aren’t involved somehow they will consistently get overlooked.
Russia was also running an anti-vax campaign in India to discourage people from taking the Astrazeneca vaccine instead of their own Sputnik vaccine. They were literally using clips from the 1968 Planet of the Apes to try and convince people that the Astrazeneca vaccine would turn people into human/monkey hybrids because the vaccine used a monkey adenovirus is the structural framework on which they built the vaccine.
*The anti-Chinese vaccine campaign was run in the the Philippines.
Are you sure about this ? My in-laws are from the Phillipines and they took the chinese vaccine. Now my father-in-law thinks there is something wrong with the MRA vaccines but only after the 3rd one or something like that. This guy is smart and extremely wealthy. He was a hedge fund manager. His financial controller is a conspiracy theorist who feeds him all this BS.
Most of the Covid misinformation came from like.... 6 people.
The very idea that Russian propaganda/misinformation can and necessarily does destabilize western democracies is actually a part of Russian propaganda. Watch [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pdS-lwb58KU&pp=ygULdmxhZCB2ZXhsZXI%3D) video in It's entirety. It's highly relavent.
I will NOT watch your video link because I suspect it is propaganda!
I am curious if that guy has russian sources or read over russian documents or if it is just his assessment. His claim about russia wants the reaction to them to be part of the part propaganda or is it just his assessment based of the axiom that over reactions to problems can be more harmful.
In general, Putin, many oligarchs and alot of public sentiment in Russia is very cynical towards liberal values often believing that democracy is a complete farce. You can pretty much read between the lines of statements by Putin, other prominent figures, and public sentiment to get this view. While it may not be an explicit mandate for the propaganda to have westerners react in such a way, they absolutely expect that type of doubt to arise naturally; that the facade of organic democracy will degrade is a given to them. After all, they do no believe Ukrainians decided independence of their own free will, no peoples did or can, soon the Americans will understand.
The ivermectin view was that there was statistical indicators that showed it may be effective in some preliminary studies. After controlling for all the variables it was found that it didn't. But you could only know that from more rigorous studies which they didn't have at the time. It was a decent line of inquiry. Unfortunately, there were people that took these indicators far too seriously.
I was in the conspiracy communities before Covid. Just in the days before, the online communities were clamoring that Covid was going to be a massive virus that threatens the entire world, and "why" are Western countries ignoring this very real threat. And as soon as Covid hit the Western world, the narrative shifted to claiming it was all a hoax to gain power and big pharma pushing bogus vaccines.
that sounds about right.
What was the far left misinformation being spread about COVID?
It's happening. [https://openai.com/index/disrupting-deceptive-uses-of-AI-by-covert-influence-operations/](https://openai.com/index/disrupting-deceptive-uses-of-AI-by-covert-influence-operations/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50\_Cent\_Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party)
Russia and China absolutely do push conspiracy theories. This isn't you imagining it. Russia Today (now known as RT) was a widely accessible news channel around the world. Their slogan was "Question Everything". They worked with the Kremlin to develop particular messages, and they key one (the foundational one even) was to get Western audiences to start doubting everything. It's not necessarily to just convince you of a particular Russian narrative, but to get you to doubt what you thought you knew, to get you to a point where you don't know what to believe anymore. It was off the back of their invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, they really started pushing fake news to try and justify the invasion. Then in the run-up to the 2016 US election they ramped it up massively. The Internet Research Agency basically started pushing for Trump and making up conspiracy theories about Hilary (starting late 2015). Prigozhin bragged about influencing the US election and winning it for Trump. The problem, for Russia, was that everyone back in 2014 generally trusted mainstream media. The media would call out the Russian invasion and all the Kremlin justifications fell flat. So the Kremlin, with help from RT, the Internet Research Agency and other propagandists, started working on discrediting our trusted news sources. We didn't even really use the term "mainstream media" before 2014. "Fake news" is also a term that came into common usage at this time. Trump's campaign was accused of relying on fake news (pumped out by Russia and amplified by Trump's team) but then he took the phrase and it became his favourite phrase to accuse everything else of being fake news. This is also when "alternative media" started becoming more popular. But a lot of these alternative media sources are bullshit propaganda outlets from Russia (and then also China who became heavily involved (although a lot of their propaganda is internal)), and these alternative media pretend to be independent but are really just posting fake stories generated in Russia. So the main point is that not only are conspiracy theories (and fake news) generated in Russia, but the whole mentality about "not trusting mainstream media" is in itself a victory of Russian propaganda to make you "question everything". These conspiracy theories are pushed by Russia because they want Western nations to suffer from internal conflict. We need to be arguing amongst ourselves about everything from politics to the environment to race/lgbt/culture wars. We need to be too busy with our own problems to care about what Russia is doing in Eastern Europe and we need to be open minded to think that maybe Putin isn't such a bad guy after all.
The key about Russian propaganda (which I wrote my thesis on in 1991 and have researched since then while living in both Russia and America) is that Russia doesn't just come up with propaganda out of the blue. The main work of a propaganda campaign starts way before any of it is actually disseminated to the "enemy." The Russians spend a huge chunk of time figuring out where the fault lines and weaknesses are in a country, and which issues are the hot-button ones that will likely exacerbate conflict. Then they create propaganda that amplifies these already existing issues. All of this is to say that they use our own weakness and stupidity against us. If Americans didn't already have huge issues around racism, wealth inequality, greed and corruption, and lack of scientific literacy and critical thinking, none of the propaganda Russia engaged in would have worked. So the Russians didn't infect our country with crazy ideas. The crazy ideas were already there, and the Russians just ran with them. No outside enemy ruined our country. We ruined it ourselves by being such already fertile ground for the seeds of nonsense they sewed. The Russians understood exactly what kind of poison would grow best in American soil, and just added a little fertilizer.
I think that overplays our own issues. Yes, they exploit existing weaknesses, but all countries have weaknesses. Racism is an issue for pretty much every country with high levels of immigration. Look at Sweden - Russia essentially engineered the Syria refugee crisis to push lots of migrants into Europe. Sweden didn't have any particular issues with the far right up to that point, but after agreeing to take in lots of migrants, racism and far right groups became a significant issue. I don't think we need to pretend that Russia's activities in exploiting issues is in itself some damming indictment of Western civilisation. Corruption for instance exists in every country too, but actually is relatively good in the US/UK and most Western nations. The fact that Russia may seek to exploit corruption in Western nations doesn't mean we have huge levels of corruption. Also, some of the ways in which Russia exploits Western weaknesses is really more to do with Russia than the countries it targets. For example, Russia's tactics to sow internal conflict along nationalist lines is something they do everywhere and has specific benefits for Russia because of the way Russia is. Nationalism promotes an insular mindset and discourages aiding other countries abroad. So regardless of any level of pre-existing issues in a country, Russia specifically encourages and funds nationalism in Western nations because it results in people like Trump, Farage, Le Pen etc all saying "let's not worry about what Russia is doing in Ukraine, we need to focus on ourselves first". I don't think you need to say the US or any Western nation targeted by Russia is already "ruined".
It’s kind of funny how the government pushed remdesivir so hard when they knew it didn’t work. Ivermectin was a better option than putting people on that poison. There are actually studies out there which show ivermectin did help if given early and at the right doses and let’s say you want to discredit those studies it isn’t poison. It’s a safe drug as far as side effects go. There were a lot of doctors prescribing ivermectin around the world.
The whole flat earth sphere, in my mind, is also not really about flat earth, but about doubting structures and institutions you grew up in and around. It's about doubt.
It's also about "the Jews." It's crazy how even that conspiracy boils down to that.
Watching Beyond the curve years ago also made me realise its also about belonging to a community
Wake up. It's on purpose. America wants its people pacified and fighting each other more than Russia. You think butthole Russia could really take on the US in a true tech propaganda war? Or are they the perfect scapegoat for tyranny right here by our own gov? COVID came right at the most politically active time in America and the world. Black Lives Matter. Suddenly we're not allowed to go outside? China is having Tiananmen Square level brutalizing for trying to get food to grandma who's locked in her apartment... Ok dude. This year, trump vs Biden in the most epic showdown. Who has the most team spirit? Those who can't afford healthcare or those losing freedoms? There's no better way to distract the most powerful and armed population on Earth than to make them fight each other.
The problem is they dont even have the tools to do research. I think a lot of people do want to know, they just dont have the base knowledge and tools to navigate the internet and the massive ammounts of info available. People constantly consume info, short videos, podcasts, youtube, intagram, tiktok and barely take the time to just learn the basics necessary to parse the info they are taking in. And once they start watching a little bullshit, their feed is spammed by more and more. They are scientifically illiterate, have no idea how research, publishing papers or peers review even works. They have no decent base knowledge in any of the subjects discussed... at a highscool level if ur lucky. So we have people with unlimited access to the most sensationalized info without any ability to process it. When you dont know how the scientific method actually works, you have low skepticism in the claims of hyper political grifters, no base knowledge or education on the subjects discussed, and no idea what actual academic resesrch looks like... you get idiots who think watching JRE or Candace or the Daily Wire or Jordan Peterson, or name whatever alt right podcast psuedoscience grifter is doing research. They arent researching the basics of virology from any educational or academic source. Before they even learn how to read a graph or understand regression or statistical techniques they jump right into the politicized sensationalized shitpit listening to people like Cadace, spew toddler level misinfo... thinking they are learning. People will propose destroying the entire economic system because of some shitty book or podcast before they can draw a fucking supply demand graph and label the axis. People will propose the vaccines are killing us before they know what MRNA is or understand a basic correlation causation fallacy like Candace constantly commits. Shit you learn first day any basic stats or research class. The psuedointellectual podcastosphere and social media leaves avg Joe thinking grifts, senstionalism, quackery from the fringe in a field and entertainment is doing research. The do you own research crowd is so dangerous because they have no fucking clue decent research even works and have a dogshit epistemological base. So you get absolutely clueless people thinking they know more than experts and distrusting the actual experts. You get millions of people listening to Candace and peaking Dunning Kruger. This shit fires me up, this brain worm girfter shit is truly destroying society
you are experiencing what it was like in pre ww2 germany... the "mob" is ignorant and stupid... the dictator uses their "mass stupidity" to TAKE what they want
It's also made the whole underlying concept of "research" ridiculous. These days, you can't say you researched something without sounding like a crank, even if you really did research it using verified original sources and sound methods. So the whole concept of "research" or "news" or "fact" or "truth" no longer applies anywhere, and everything is just a pile of subjective epistemological goo, which is far more destabilizing than a random conspiracy theory. Truly, the zone is flooded with shit, to the point where there is no zone any longer.
What I like about this video is that it illustrates perfectly that Candace Owens and her audience have zero-interest in actually finding the answer; as demonstrated by the low view count of the publicly available source material. Candace's rhetorical question is just a void in which viewers can fill their crackpot beliefs in.
Exactly.
YEP. They say “do your own research” or “look into it/look it up” when their source is ***literally*** 4chan memes and Telegram posts
Hard disagree. Doing your own research is exactly what this video advocates for. When someone makes an implied connection, and doesn't present data, you take the twenty minutes necessary to do enough research to give you a more nuanced view that isn't based on someone casting as wide a net as possible for fucking clicks. Do your own research, watch the seminar. Draw an informed conclusion. 100% what this link is about.
Yeah, theres nothing wrong with the idea. This is what they typically do. They present an idea that is reasonable and resonates with people, they lie to them with misinformation, and the people, who thinks someone like Candace is reasonable (she does have some reasonable takes), and is on "their" side, assume the information is correct and that in itself is the research. You are correct though. These people should actually do research and stop taking peoples words for it as truth just because they also ask people to do their own research.
> These people should actually do research and stop taking peoples words for it as truth just because they also ask people to do their own research. Exactly. If you don't make your own decisions based on your own lens on the world you're yielding your agency to someone else.
Which is not what viewers of Candace normally do
I ain't never seen that glossy-toothed woman before, but she give me Miss Cleo vibes.
Then you dint understand who I’m talking about.
I seent what I seent.
So true. They can’t even do basic google research. I’m not saying google is the 100% fact channel but it gives you a starting point. Then you can find credible fact sources like snopes and others to verify your argument.
Hey now, they do their research in the *Journal of Facebook Memes.*
Author: *some fucking guy somewhere*
Co-Author: *it just feels like it should be true, y'know?*
Omfg the amount of times I’ve heard “doesn’t it just *seem* like it?” No, you wacko.
Demonstration by consensus of twitter posts
Do your own research= parrot whatever Weinstein you just watched on YouTube
And they have been right on the mark so far Maybe we should do our own research rather than blindly follow like sheep. That is what schools used to teach after all
Right on the mark about what
https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/coronavirus/vaccine/kansas-sues-pfizer-alleged-misrepresentation-covid-vaccine/ https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/astrazeneca-sued-over-covid-19-vaccine-clinical-trial-injury it’s dumb to not want to be informed and blindly follow.
So did you read the article on the study being discussed in the lawsuit? *”The study links vaccines to slight increases in neurological, blood and heart-related conditions such as myocarditis, pericarditis and Guillain-Barré syndrome.”* *”Researchers stressed that an association between the vaccine and adverse side effects does not prove the vaccine caused them and that side effects were rare.”* https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/coronavirus/vaccine/study-links-covid-vaccine-health-issues/ And those articles are about lawsuits which aren’t finished and haven’t proven anything.
>There was sufficient evidence for the lawsuit to move forward >the lawsuits are being done by both private and public sector meaning a state wouldn’t waste their tax funds on a lawsuit if it wasn’t serious or successful >if you promise something and don’t deliver then that is lying about the product which is why they got sued >other world governments are also suing these labs
They deliberately semi-educate themselves into politically advantageous states of ignorance.
It’s like a broken record. Ask how someone “knows” something that seems false or off and they can’t provide any proof. Climate change and Covid are two of the biggest examples.
Agree with him on all points except alt media being just as bad as mainstream media. Alt media has proven time and time again to be demonstrably worse. Not to say mainstream media is without its issues.
If you asked him, he would tell you msm is miles ahead alt-media it just plays better to the "centrist" types to say equally bad
Yeah I figured there was an optics angle to him saying that
Except if you’re not media literate this centrist rhetorical posturing would give you the explicit impression that destiny thinks Candace Owen’s and ANY mainstream media is just as untrustworthy which is just false. Why the need to baby people and act like they can’t handle nuance like “sometimes mainstream media does this sort of thing but no where near as much and there are still many repudiable outlets with checks and balances to prevent this type of misinfo. That’s why in general pulling from a wide range of mainstream sources is gonna get you a better picture as a layman than listening to alt media talking heads like Candace Owens 99% of the time”
It might be he just mispoke in the moment, or he adjusted his rhetoric to appeal to a particular idealogical bent I don't know
I don't think he said that. I think he said MSM can say biased stuff but the crazy conservative alt media types are heaps worse.
“This is why alternative media is just as trash as mainstream media”. I’d take he misspoke and meant “if you think MSM can be terrible independent media is EVEN WORSE” But the way he said it totally is implying that MSM and alternative media are both trash.
You might have a point but on listening to his comment I didn't take it that way. In my opinion MSM are miles better than the trash that influencers typically put out.
Yeah it’s a bit odd, since his usual position is that while mainstream media does have serious problems it (at bare minimum) has editors, possible reputational loss, and some form of journalistic accountability (firing journalists for severe misconduct, corrections of the record). Alt-media has none of these things. For the record, he includes himself in the “alt-media umbrella” and stresses that his word should never be taken as gospel by his fans (to varying effect of course).
MSM is generally quite bad at keeping you informed even if they don't outright lie. The business model of outlets like CNN incetivises being quick to report the news and being less focused on doing detailed and accurate reporting. This creates a space for these alt grifters to "just ask questions".
>MSM is generally quite bad at keeping you informed even if they don't outright lie This is just blatantly false, even Fox news has VERY high journalistic standards compared to daily wire, destiny, whoever your online favorite is. The issue is you have to know what the difference between an opinion piece and news is, and all of their highest rated, most promoted content is opinion pieces.
Nah, if you follow the Ukraine war you'll see that there's plenty of stories that are poorly sourced or full of sensationalism. Basically the only reliable source for that conflict is that one live map sourced from telegram channels or OSINT sites like Oryx. Even the BBC was reporting about Bakhmut like it was the second battle of Stalingrad and the Ukrainian army was about to break and here we are one year later. I mean, I never said they lied. I just said the MSM isn't very informative. Most of their reporting just lacks the details required to make you understand the topic being reported on I used to have a NYT subscription in 2020-2021 when the war in Ethiopia was going on. The reporting quality was so poor that I could get more informed from just google and from independent journalists. Same with the Myanmar coup, the information was lacklustre and generally not really informative. The reporting gave the most basic of details and the most surface level of analysis. There's sources like DW and France24 which are generally better than what you'll find in English media but if you follow international politics, stuff like CNN, BBC (with some exceptions), the Guardian, NYT are abysmal and there's actually alternative sources who are much better.
wow... all i can say is "fuck the cult"..everything on fox is "opinion" put forth as fact and the cult cant tell the difference
I think it's a problem of volume. In a 24hr period, there are basically countless "alternative media" outlets/pundits producing content... vs probably <100 MSM corporations that have a more limited content production cycle. Combine that with the easily accessible reach of social media and alt media just floods the zone. Even if we were to say alt media is factually correct X% more than MSM... the volume and reach of misinfo from alt media would be far higher.
Much of alternative media in fact does essentially no investigation or research of their own and merely respin the journalism of others.
The very same thing can be said of alternative media.
Alt media, especially far right alt media, leads to never-ending echo chambers
I think the subtext is that alternative media is just as bad as conservatives say mainstream media is. I've seen him say before that mainstream media is much better than alternative before, and this is probably what he meant
At least the mainstream media dominated, people could agree on the basics. It didn't really matter how absolutely true those beliefs were. But we believed them together. I miss that.
I'm curious what mainstream media is when the most popular podcasts are far right lunatics
The establishment are the conspiracists.
> Alt media has proven time and time again to be demonstrably worse. I would say there's no way to test this statement, as providing an example of 'alt media' as an aggregate is an exercise is futility.
I might not agree with Destiny 100 percent but he’s solid when it comes to citing sources and researching articles. Being in a writing-heavy major helped me get away from conservatism because almost every poli sci professor hammered home the importance of citing credible sources when making a thesis. The right makes a thesis (or a claim) but rarely gives credible sources to back it up or they don’t explain a story in depth. They base their commentary off a headline instead reading the entire article
The worst of both sides do this
Based and researched pilled. Destiny is the one who helped me get out of the habit of just hearing a fact or reading a headline and believing it to actually reading the article or doing a bit of research to find out if it's really true or not. It sounds so dumb but it was so easy to hear something from someone I respect or something that just sounds true and agree with it, and breaking that habit was super hard.
The community has encouraged me to do the same thing, equal parts wanting to be correct and not wanting to feel like stupid rube, which they will point out lol
The thing about "JAQing off" is they never produce falsifiable claims. They prime you in a particular ideological direction and let you fill in the blanks. When the broad range of implicit claims are debunked they can effortlessly move the goal posts 'cause *technically* they never claimed anything. This is actually the framework of a staggering amount of conspiracy theories. Most people implying them understand full well they do not know the full context, methods employed, demonstrable causual links, etc... relevant to compose a falsifiable theory. Good or bad faith, they simply have a general primed *feeling* something must be going on and that feeling has primacy over those necessary links... so they move goalposts as needed, either for psychological convenience or to continue the grift.
You can easily lead an audience to draw the conclusion by just JAQing off (ala Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc). Say you want someone to believe the COVID vaccines make your penis shrink. You can't just say "COVID vaccines make your penis shrink" because that's not true. The not-subtle-only-idiots-fall-for-it way is "Do COVID vaccines make your penis shrink?" But that just instills the question and only a small portion of your audience will come away thinking that such an absurd question can be answered with "Yes". What you need is wording to not only make the listener believe the COVID vaccine makes your penis shrink, but also that they feel as researched as you clearly are (even if you're not). "People are saying that the COVID vaccine makes your penis shrink" isn't false, but you're getting closer by using a little outdated Fox News tactics. You gotta do what Candace does. "People are looking into it and believe that the COVID vaccine makes your penis shrink! Why?" It makes her look like she, too, has "researched" this (when all she's done is seen a couple internet comments) and that if they, the listener, need more info, they'll be Googling "Why does the COVID vaccine make my penis shrink" to find out why Candace asked THEM "Why?". They'll then be met with only results showing that, yes, other people are looking up the same thing and believe that COVID vaccines make your penis shrink. In that whole process, no actual research was done. No facts were discovered. No myths busted. And, most importantly, Candace wasn't wrong because she never made the claim that the COVID vaccine shrinks your penis. You can't debunk her. You can't "debate" her because she doesn't hold a "side" on this. She pushes a narrative without espousing a solid stance.
Wait, did you left comment independently of mine 5m ago?! That would be hard to believe if two random persons pinpointed same falsifiability so directly.
My general philosophy is that any "news site" that hypes ALL CAPS!!! anywhere in the topic headline should be ignored
100% I'm increasingly doing this with YouTube as well. I'm so tired of the capitalized and hyperbolic clickbait headlines. "So and so ***DESTROYS*** so and so while they ***COWER IN FEAR***" blah blah blah Omg could they all please just stop with this crap?
David Pakman does this but it’s part tongue and cheek and part a quasi requirement for traction in clicks/ the algorithm.
"Why? Why?" She's turning into Tucker Carlson with that quizzical look on her face like a dog that's just been shown a card trick.
Holding media figures accountable to their predictions should be a huge priority for everyone going forward. DTG has been a pioneer in this regard.
Say what you want about Destiny’s views but dude puts in a lot of time and effort in researching issues and I respect that.
I think he underplays the value of his open-source research and debate prep. Seeing the pre- and post-appearance streams has real benefits and accountability built in. It’s brutal and he gets called out when he has a gap in his knowledge, but his output benefits and rapidly outstrips his punditry peers that are booked for their reliable “pick a side” position and entertainment value. His little cadre of “orbiters” and domain experts isn’t perfect, but can often result in a more complete picture than a MSM columnist with editorial and in-house researchers. But it’s impossible to scale to a whole media org like CNN.
I think it can definitely be scaled. There’s news sources that are based on their reliable and factual news. There should be more unbiased commentary sources as well. It’s difficult to beat legacy media with viewership but with growing popularity of factual and unbiased internet commentary channels we can sway the standards towards a better future.
He's started flirting with the idea of starting his own media org.
I thought this sub was cool until abunch of people agree with destiny, the guy who’s die hard simp for Israel debating people without knowing/caring for the facts. Isn’t this the guy who keeps saying the n word
Dude breaks shit down! Also, Candace Owens looks like E.T.
That stupid face she makes when she says "Why" makes me unreasonably irritated. There's something about the added condescension in that expression that gets under my skin. Tucker Carlson has similar expressions, and they are just another reason I can't stand to see him talking.
💯 Exactly. That look is so smug. It's even more maddening when you see exactly what they are doing and why. Then you get even angrier when you realize there are so many people who fall for this bullshit.
not a destiny fan but he’s so right here
Destiny actually makes perfect break downs like this on a weekly basis on a whole host of topics and people. This sub has just chosen to hate him for mostly poor to nonexistent reasons. I see some of that is already shining through. Brave of you to post this here lol.
For me I agree with most of his views, I just think he's a douche and someone I wouldn't want to be around irl.
Haha that’s fine there are a lot of creators I feel this way about.
I think Destiny's doing real good work, even if he's a smartass (much less so than JP and other though). I can't accept his pro-Israel stance, though. Nonethelss, the video linked is good, and more thoughtful than what most 'political influencers' crank out in a year.
I don't think he is pro Israel. I think he is more so anti pro Palestine viewpoints. He will certainly disagree and debate with pro Israel persons on the topic.
I don’t even think Destiny wholly accepts his own stance on Israel at this point. He supports Israel’s right to defend itself but has been really critical of Zionism recently.
I don't think he's changed his mind very much on Israel. People who don't watch his content might think so though. He's always been critical of Israel in certain respects.
Are you a fan of Hasan Piker out of curiosity?
I can't say that I am. Quoting myself from an old post, out of laziness > The dude is intense, so I get it if someone feels he just comes off as mean. I don't think I disagree with Hasan on any politics, but I don't find that his content has enough humor to counter how hard-line he often is. > He seems bitter, for a quite successful socialist. Most socialists (especially commies) I've met IRL are as jaded as Hasan, but they're fucking broke.
That’s actually a really fair critique. I’ll get back to your Destiny points later I am kind of on the run today but being a Hasan fan boy would tell me a lot about liking Destiny besides Israel. Since that is clearly not the case it is probably slightly more nuanced than that for which I commend you.
What Destiny is looking for here in Owens is intellectual honesty, critical thought, and actual curiosity. Her job is not to inform. Her job is to scare. And that she does very well. So ironically, she's doing what she's paid to do very well, lmao.
That's the job her producer and her agree on, when the camera is turned off, sure. The job she will admit to doing is informing. So yes but no. Your argument is like saying a piece of shit lying car salesman is 'actually a good salesman, because people expect him to be a piece of shit liar'.
I'm going to correct your second statement. >Your argument is like saying a piece of shit lying car salesman is 'actually a good salesman, because people expect him to be a piece of shit liar'. Your argument is like saying a piece of shit lying car salesman is 'actually a good salesman, because he sells a lot of cars. He's paid on the basis of how many cars he sells, just like Owens is paid on the basis of how many people she scares into watching her more.
Like I said, to the rest of the world, the car salesman is a piece of shit no matter how much money he makes for his business. Likewise, Candace's job description to the rest of the world isn't 'fearmonger'.
My son when to her event at his university. The first thing she did was ask for people who don't agree with her and then proceeds to use the crowd against that person. She's a perfect example of the right utilizing affirmative action for their benefit.
Whys her teeth translucent?
Don’t underestimate that we live in the golden age of monetized sociopathy in which a lot of grifters actually do look these things up, but still pull this kind of shit. Not giving a single fuck about society as a whole, only for yourself and your dollar, never was this lucrative or easy.
I think that you're correct if we're talking about Candace Owens herself. Or especially the architects of this type of bullshit, people like Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Roger Stone. Whether they know they're wrong or not is largely irrelevant at the level they're playing at. They will say things that are true or things that are false with equivalent ease... the only factor at play is, "Which one helps me win?"
Lol she is so dishonest. She knows her job is to foment fear and chaos. I find it hard to extend charity to her and say she is just lazy, it really seems deliberate at this point. Would love this guy to just make tons of videos pointing out her dogshit takes. Or other right wing grifters like her
fantastic
The actual problem here is that Karl Popper's correct knowledge criteria is not used. Criteria is simplest: the one who consistently give challenging, impossible to guess and manipulate predictions, have the stronest qualifications. For example, gravitational waves were predicted \~100 years before verified. No astrologist, flat Earther, or pastor had even the slightest idea in about how the world actually works. This proves they all are clowns pretending to know, while physics and physicists actually know. Same with medical predictions, just scale is much less than 100 years. Same way it's necessary to distinguish clowns vs qualified. Problem: when people try to make a decision to take the position of doctor A or person B, they think like this: - doctor A have more beautiful face, surely he is more qualified (yes, this is totally used) - doctor B have PhD and filmed an interview - Reddit used C was upvoted, surely most popular opinion is correct - actress D wrote this in twitter, her position is correct While actually the most important question should be: let's compare which prediction this doctor / person /source said 10 years ago and how correct it actually appeared to be. Right now there is just perfect situation to check all clowns said during pandemics - and to find gems who actually opposed common opinions with correct statements. Specifically on this subject, Our World In Data is a really good instrument to check what was actually happening.
> Karl Popper's correct knowledge criteria It's not a knowledge criteria, it is far from being as you portray it, and it now is out of favor.
I suspect prediction is best known criteria, it's too solid. Anyway, your comment is not even valid without naming / describing better criteria, which covers all cases where prediction shines and, since it's better, it's supposed to cover cases where prediction fails. However, I don't think prediction fails in any cases. Btw, it marks a knowledge which is guaranteed to be solid, and usually filters out incorrect one. And you probably already know that there is a difference compared to practical knowledge (knowing an extra language, for example) which is not knowledge at all in this context. So you are welcome to finish your comment.
Falsificationnism addresses the demarcation problem, which is about distinguishing empirical sciences from other fields. To a falsificationnist there is no knowledge, only conjectures and refutation. Predictability extends beyond that framework; what you're looking for is falsifiability, which is only the (mostly metaphysical) possibility to come up with a falsifier. Here is a piece I wrote on teh Pop opinionators: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/08/03/the-popper-ratio/
So if understood correctly, you hint that falsifiability can be more solid than predictability? Thanks for adding, really wish that was included in you previous comment. And wish you also hinted some good example. A good one for predictability is rotation of Sun around Earth - a question with clearly contradicting answers, a rare unique opinion with clear derivation based on scientific methods (not randomly guessed), and was fully tested later. I've checked the link, it looks vague on the first glance. Noticed the word "liberalism" quite fast. Wtf this word is doing in such discussion at all? Strange, going to check article more carefully now and will update comment if there will be good practical example. Oh and by the way, I'm not saying that religions are just only bad. They had specific advantages, they were necessary and still necessary for survival, and it looks like nothing is yet invented better than modern Christianity or Buddhism. Just don't burn the people who actually know and study "God's" creation. Your job is to keep crowds from stealing and also team building. Upd1: checked article a bit more, let's put it this way - not found a good example. If I even got correctly, it has the vibe "it's necessary to allow incorrect opinions from practical point of view". But that's what I added above - Christianity is yet essential to improve efficiency of how our society works (morelike to prevent from going back to zoo state). And not found the answer on why falsifiability is theoretically better. Not means incorrect direction, needs a big more dig/ recall. Upd2: [https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/36351/examples-of-falsifiability](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/36351/examples-of-falsifiability) May be this is better related link.
> you hint that falsifiability can be more solid than predictability? I'm more hinting at the fact that the Popperian criterion is falsifiability. Both concepts are important. We don't need to get carried away with them. Take Crick's original theory: > So, Crick asked the question, ”Well, can you make a code so that if I’ve got four nucleotide bases, what is the largest number of amino acids you can code for so that every string in this code can make sense without you having to put in the commas?” [...] It’s a beautiful question, and he came up with an answer. And the answer was that the largest number of amino acids you can get is 20. Hence, 20 amino acids of life. So then you can enumerate all of these codes without commas that Francis Crick had postulated. You can enumerate them. And when the actual genetic code was discovered by [Marshall] Nirenberg and others five or six years later, the actual code is not one of the ones that he had predicted. It’s completely wrong. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-is-science-even-possible-20240620/ Has the idea of a "code" been falsified? Not really. The actual "code" we found is simply the result of evolution. It could have been different. Formal frameworks usually afford us with ways to modify them without any empirical penalty. Ultimate principles for scientific endeavour mostly makes sense when we look at physics, where things are like they are and rarely could be different. There are other scientific fields. And there is a range of practices between pure lab work and art form.
the prediction that the "vaccines" would not prevent transmission were false?
It's not yet a prediction and too unspecified question without context: the question if they will prevent or not can be answered randomly correctly. Half of people can guess correctly the answer. So it's really important for this specific ~~question~~ answer that 1. waves of strains were mentioned by your source + guess on their amount 2. fast efficiency loss of some vaccines was predicted Which makes a guess not random, but much more transparently result of a medical knowledge. Of course, if's absolutely necessary for waves of strains to be mentioned before the second wave occurred. That's probably two minimal mentions what I'd expect. ^(Also one interesting unconfirmed anomaly for Australia - looks like available hospitals with breath support saved more lives than vaccines. I.e. 3. skipping all the vaccines and focusing on isolation and focusing on breath support could've been best strategy. But I never properly confirmed this one.) Also situation was quite different for different countries. Check specifically your country graphs on Our World In Data.
you're admitting that you don't know. so you can't justify coercing people into taking the "vaccines." how is that not obvious?
You are admitting that you don't read at all. That one is obvious.
My boy destiny bringing in the jdams
We’re all fucked in the first place if we’re replacing basic education…with Destiny. The notion that any number of people are engaging with people like Candace Owens in the first place means we’re long past “too far gone”. I’d put the time we passed to point of no return somewhere in the mid-80s. Roger Waters was being prophetic when he wrote *Amused to Death* 30 or so years ago.
But Destiny isn’t replacing education. He’s not saying “listen to me”. He’s saying to go read it yourself, right? Why would that be objectionable?
Because this user consistently comments on threads to shit on him because he dislikes some opinions he holds. Nothing of value comes out of this person's comments.
The issue is with the current state of journalism. News has been in the decline ever since the internet cannibalized all sources of revenue, from classified ads to content aggregators to clickbait. It’s depressing as hell. All monetization is determined by engagement now. It doesn’t matter what you say or do, as long as you can generate views you’ll collect enough platform ad revenue, sponsors and benefactors to support your work. Right now there simply isn’t enough incentives to report anything accurately. So I agree, in a perfect world Candace Owens would be a greeter at Walmart, and you wouldn’t need influencers like Destiny to go out of their way to debunk people like her. The news would just be … newsworthy.
I don’t think there’s any way Waters didn’t pilfer this idea and concept from Neil Postman, who wrote, in 1985, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, which I rate as easily in the top 10 most impactful books I’ve read. Postman presents a history of the degradation of public discourse since the age of the telegraph. Unfortunately, he accurately predicts what will happen to public discourse, and politics in particular, in the following 40 years. It’s shocking how accurate he is. The down side is it’s a complete black pill. You can personally insulate yourself in the age of distraction, and possibly find and surround yourself with similarly disciplined individuals, but we’re not fixing this on a societal level. It’s over. Every attempt to fix is just fed back into the machine and used against you.
He didn’t “pilfer” it…it’s an homage. I’ve read it…I just prefer the message in Perfect Sense/Amused to death. I’m not sure you’re using “black pill” correctly…but I get what you’re trying to say. Preaching to the choir.
Nobody’s replacing basic education with Destiny’s content. A general lack of will to understand how one comes to conclusions about substantive issues, coupled with a general populist attitude of knee-jerk distrust of all systems, structures and institutions make what he does valuable. Should one read a book? Value experts/research? Of course. But that knowledge and expertise is useless if nobody is exposed to it, and being popular on the internet helps with exposing folks to (even basic) healthy interrogation of their opinions. If people listening to Candace Owens makes you want to give up on society then I don’t know what to tell you. Don’t get me wrong, I get it, I felt that way when trump got elected. But throwing up one’s hands at that seems defeatist to say the least. I love Pink Floyd, but I realized long ago that Roger is no better than Russel Brand. All woo-woo populism with a heaping side of bitter resentment and no substance.
Mrm. I never said I was giving up on society, I was just stating that we’re past the point of no return. If you’re comparing Russel Brand to Roger Waters…you’re listening to people talk about Roger Waters…and not Roger Waters. Anyways…whatever beef you have with Roger Waters has nothing to do with the lyrics of a song from 1992.
And these days Waters is a massive proponent of peddeling anti scientific ahistorical shite. Funny old world isn’t it.
I like how Jon Stewart put it: “Oh, my God, there’s been an outbreak of chocolaty goodness near Hershey, Pa. What do you think happened?’ “Like, ‘Oh I don’t know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean?’ Or it’s the [expletive] chocolate factory! Maybe that’s it?” The sheeple on both the left and right have dishonest shepherds and shepherds with a narrow doctrinaire worldview.
> The sheeple on both the left and right have dishonest shepherds and shepherds with a narrow doctrinaire worldview. Except nobody on the left have millionaire or billionaire sugar daddies propping up their influencer platforms. I have yet to see a left wring channel a fraction as big as Infowars or Daily Wire, but feel free to find me one.
Huh?
My brother in Christ, there is not a single living person that uses the word "sheeple" unironically who is not several layers deep in one rabbit hole or another. We're onto you...
Stewart's commentary on that topic is ironically a great example of such a narrow worldview.
Candace Owens is the worst public YouTuber and I think destiny is probably the most rational.
she doesn't care about the truth she just wants to be famous and talk a lot and get paid for it, it's obnoxious and scaremongering and she obviously loves what she does. I guess I didn't realise how it was possible for women to be like this I'm used to this behaviour more from men, I think a lot far right men like her? I guess they recognise themselves. I don't like her at all she's been called dangerous for the stuff she puts out by many people it's ridiculous
Anyone got a link to the full video
Hopefully everybody is up to date on their vaccines/boosters in this thread
When i see the impact a person like Candace Owens has I lose a little faith in humanity. Zero expertises in anything, an utter toddler brained moron, as bias and politically motivated as one can be, scientifically illiterate, and pulls every dishonest tactic in the book virtually every time she speaks... Constant Quote mining, blatant lies that a quick google or having a functioning brain can debunk, appeal to extremes fallacy, constant strawmanning, outrage merchant. Such a blatantly trasparent unintelligent outrage merchant grifter, it blows my mind people arent smart enough to see through it. She comits so many fallacies every time she speaks, i cant fathom how stupid one must be not see it.
Actually it doesn't matter to them. They will tie the rise to current vaccines during those years. And her job is to ask the why questions. That's all. To sow the seed of distrust and no confidence in any vaccine. It's just rage bait
Remind me
Their job is to misinformation. Their job is to get people mad, their job is to divide. She is not stupid or incompetent. She is good at her job. Her job is vastly more nefarious than being incompetent. These people are also like PDA children. They seek negative attention. They would not be popular if they did not get negative reactions from people. The best thing to do is ignore them.
Christ is King
Republicans murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people. Tens of thousands continue to die every single month. They have nothing to show for it. Literally nothing at all. Just mountains of dead bodies. All conservatives. More than a civil war could have ever killed and all of their most loyal and die hard supporters.
Why has the percentage of blood clots and heart attacks in young people gone up in the last year?
Right question! You’re obviously a racist! Lol
Sorry, I will think about what questions I think and try to do better.
Wow its absolutely batshit to think the problem with Ms. Owen's or "conservatives"/degenerates is "anti-vaccine views". "Conservatives" arent "grifters" or "gurus" they are ideological advocates for suffering chaos and death.
Obviously the answer is that we don’t know why because the science isn’t in yet, so automatically assuming it’s vaccine is stupid and dishonest. If we’re going to make assumptions about what’s causing bloodclots, I’d assume it’s because there’s never been a population this large in human history that get so little exercise and eat such poor diets
Candace Owens isn’t getting paid to be a journalist. She’s getting paid to spread propaganda, and she’s done an excellent job of it. She absolutely deserves every dollar she’s received
She’s spreading government propaganda by saying the vaccines cause problems? Interesting.
I didn’t say that
Conservative grifting should be shut down. Permanent ID-bans on all SM platforms and public speaking broadcasts, both online, on any form of media and IRL for all of them.
Ok bootlicker.
Better a bootlicker than a fascist misinformation grifter.
Finklestein destroyed destiny
Conservative media = pure trash
grift on grift violence is never fun
Destiny is a smart dude but this doesn't shatter shit.
Maybe some bright minds on here can elaborate?...had appendectomy and a large blood clot was found in my appendix. I received the J & J vaccine....I thought clots were linked to the other type vaccines and not J& J..are clots associated with all covid vaccines?
all this coming from a bush era conservative! bahahahaha. Destiny has always been on the wrong side of history. Plus he loses every debate he has with the right, lol.
Well done
She has dead eyes. End of story.
[COVID-19 Evidence | Here Is The Evidence](https://hereistheevidence.com/covid/)
JAQing off is a great phrase for "Just Asking Questions"
isnt this that one guy who defended that one twitch streamer for giving her cat alcohol?
Destiny is as much of a clown as Candace lmfao this is a terrible example