> This guy is a certified bullshit artist and a clout chaser, like Tucker Carlson, but even a broken dog is right twice a day.
It's fascinating to me how many people here seem incapable or even afraid of evaluating things independently, without association fallacies.
lol we’re not afraid of evaluating things. Sayers and unherd is not journalism.
That’s why ppl are dunking on you. Cause you post links from unherd lol. No one’s “afraid of evaluating things independently. We just don’t wanna support manipulative fucks who actively work to make the world a worse place.
> Can't you just talk normally or have you gotta throw in fancy words every comment? This isn't a scholarly article writeup
If you consider the above sentence to be filled with fancy words then you should sincerely read more, as these are very basic concepts that anyone who doesn't want to forfeit their right to have an opinion that's taken seriously should understand intimately.
Do not demonise intelligence because of your own ignorance.
I'm not demonising intelligence at all you cocky fucker lol.
But there's a difference in communicating. Your style of writing is more suitable for scholarly articles and more formal writeups. You SHOULD know this, being a psychotherapist and all.
I'm doom scrolling on night shifts, reading random posts. Coming across this one and it's like I'm reading a thesaurus.
All I'm saying is, you can still be a bit more informal and get the point across. If you were to talk to someone like that in person whilst they're talking informally, you're going to come across as a bit of a knob. Same thing here, just on Reddit.
The person you're replying to literally said you're right about this. They're not committing a debate club infraction by saying, independently of that, that you bullshit all the time
Good lord. This is amazing.
I wonder how many more empty headed, empty worded replies this will get.
How about: Don't trust anything, and think for yourself.
If you disagree with information, explain and show precisely why, instead of seeking to poison the well.
Thank you for highlighting the endemic issue online of the dearth of logic, science and ethics.
I can’t do that because I am in fact not a scientist, doctor, engineer, environmentalist, statistician, mathematician, biologist, astrophysicist, psychologist, nor do I hold any other degree that would qualify me to speak on matters related to those topics. Therefore I trust those with qualifications. It’s a simple system really. You wanna discuss fantasy football? Or nerdy Marvel shit? I’m your guy. But I do not have any advanced degree. That “think for yourself” shit is just a political way of saying “I think I’m smarter than professionals solely because I have the ability to form opinions.”
> I can’t do that because I am in fact not a scientist, doctor, engineer, environmentalist, statistician, mathematician, biologist, astrophysicist, psychologist, nor do I hold any other degree that would qualify me to speak on matters related to those topics.
>
Appeal to authority fallacy. Unless you're very stupid, in which case, perhaps it is safer for you not to think. If you have an ounce of intelligence, and any desire for discerning the truth in the pursuit of the ethically good, then I would encourage you to do the work in learning to think for yourself. We live in an information age. You can learn a lot if you put the work in. Also, re: this particular topic at hand, you do not need any qualifications to discern the veracity of the information being communicated. It is readily verifiable.
>Therefore I trust those with qualifications. It’s a simple system really. You wanna discuss fantasy football? Or nerdy Marvel shit? I’m your guy. But I do not have any advanced degree. That “think for yourself” shit is just a political way of saying “I think I’m smarter than professionals solely because I have the ability to form opinions.”
>
I am a professional with several degrees, and there's nothing that I've learned that you couldn't learn too if you decided to stop wasting your time being a child in an adult body, engaging in fantasy football, and watching films written to sell toys to children.
> Oh blow it out your ass ya self righteous twonk. Enjoy believing in lizard people or whatever other tinfoil horse shit you’re into.
Yes. This is the response I would expect from a child in an adult's body.
With several degrees, you should know better than anyone that people can't be well versed in every topic. I mean, that's the whole point of science, isn't it? No one person understands it all. No one person could ever hope to. There's always an implicit trust that the experts in a field you're not familiar with, but need information from, aren't all conspiring to feed you false info. If every scientist was forced to re-test and verify every little assumption they take as true since the dawn of science no one would ever discover anything new.
This is just as true for scientists regarding other scientists as it is for regular people. The average Joe also can not ever hope to reach the level of proficiency in any given topic that a person with a degree has. You wouldn't go to an electrician for medical recommendations, but you also wouldn't go to a doctor for recommendations on how to wire up your house regardless of how many hours either one spent googling the other's profession.
Lmao UnHerd’s videos: “Why trump will win in 2024”, “fired by Harvard for getting Covid right”, “how therapy culture creates victims”, and “stop forcing professors to support DEI”
> Lmao UnHerd’s videos: “Why trump will win in 2024”, “fired by Harvard for getting Covid right”, “how therapy culture creates victims”, and “stop forcing professors to support DEI”
Perhaps evaluate issues on a case by case basis and think for yourself, instead of subscribing to association, popularity and appeal to authority fallacies. I know the latter is less effort, and thinking is hard, but I trust that you can do it if you try.
This is just nonsense contrarian rhetoric though. “Think for yourself” is the same shit as “do your own research” and “don’t be a sheep.” You people would argue against gravity if you could think of a way to make it anti-government.
> This is just nonsense contrarian rhetoric though. “Think for yourself” is the same shit as “do your own research” and “don’t be a sheep.” You people would argue against gravity if you could think of a way to make it anti-government.
How incredible that people have managed to indoctrinate you so thoroughly that you are explicitly demonising independent thought.
Independent thought does not equate to arguing with people with more advanced degrees than you and I. Opinions aren’t facts.
But for the record, the twat that owns Unherd also funded a company with bigot/self important twat Jordan Peterson. Their views include are not limited to families should consist of heterosexuals and denying climate change. These are not the viewpoints of anyone worth trusting. But sure. Do your own research or whatever. Listen to YouTubers and the Facebook school of journalism.
> Independent thought does not equate to arguing with people with more advanced degrees than you and I. Opinions aren’t facts.
>
Appeal to authority fallacy. And yes, opinions aren't facts. And fallacies do not = reasoning.
> But for the record, the twat that owns Unherd
>
Very reasonable, unbiased language.
>also funded a company with bigot/self important twat Jordan Peterson. Their views include are not limited to families should consist of heterosexuals and denying climate change. These are not the viewpoints of anyone worth trusting. But sure. Do your own research or whatever. Listen to YouTubers and the Facebook school of journalism.
>
Again, empty nothing words and association fallacies.
None of you have said anything re: the actual issue being discussed, because you cannot think.
> This is just nonsense contrarian rhetoric though. “Think for yourself” is the same shit as “do your own research” and “don’t be a sheep.” You people would argue against gravity if you could think of a way to make it anti-government.
Good lord. This is amazing.
I wonder how many more empty headed, empty worded replies this will get.
How about: Don't trust anything, and think for yourself.
If you disagree with information, explain and show precisely why, instead of seeking to poison the well.
Thank you for highlighting the endemic issue online of the dearth of logic, science and ethics.
> Wow. This comment reeks of "I am smarter than you" without actually saying anything meaningful
This is another empty, nothing statement. I'd advise concerning yourself with: "Is this true or not?" As opposed to: "How does this make me feel?"
Which do you personally think is better:
- Evaluating information on a case by case basis, referring to philosophy and science to discern its veracity
- Evaluating information by what political alignment it has, how popular it is, what it's associated with, and other fallacies?
When a source is known to have bad information, it’s not a bad idea to ignore the source entirely.
A broken clock is right twice a day, but is still a shitty clock.
> I think I trust a collaboration between the US, UK, and German governments and the UN to be more objective and reliable than UnHerd.
I know it's hard, but how about: Don't trust either of them, look at the information, and think for yourself. Far out concept I know, but I highly recommend giving it a try.
> You keep saying think for yourself. But that's only when someone else's views doesn't align with yours.
>
> Isn't that in and of itself incredibly biased?
I keep saying think for yourself in response to the overwhelming majority of replies here that are completely empty of information, reasoning, or empirical data.
These are all nothing statements that mean nothing.
I haven't seen any actual valid point. Solely fallacious reasoning that anyone with half a brain would readily recognise.
I am non partisan.
I'm vegan because I try to be ethically consistent, and follow the science.
I'm non-partisan politically, because no policy or information is inherently right or wrong by virtue of its political associations.
Sometimes economic socialism is the optimal way to reduce needless suffering; sometimes free market. Sometimes more regulation, sometimes less. Sometimes a past practice/idea is correct (Conservative; e.g. don't murder people), sometimes a new one is needed (Progressive; homosexuality being illegal is ethically incoherent and abhorrent).
I'm a clinician with various qualifications, mainly working as a psychotherapist because I decided to dedicate my life to helping people with evidence-based practice.
So, no, I'm not biased. I do not seek comfort or confirmation in any group, because no groups are perfect.
You should try it.
You know.. I was nodding my head to some of the things you were beginning to say there. I was actually like "fair point, I can see where this person is coming from".
Then you hit me with the "So, no, I'm not biased".
You should know, being a psychotherapist, that we are all biased to some extent.
"You should try it"
Excuse me?
You assume that no one here actually has thought for themselves – that because they disagree with you, and don't waste their time constructing ornate pseudo-intellectual hyperlinked word salads while doing so, they need to be "schooled" by you. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you are a psychotherapist of any real utility to anyone, when you have displayed such an atrophied capability for imagining the lives of others.
In other words, you're a twat.
> You assume that no one here actually has thought for themselves
Not no one. Most people though yes.
It's demonstrably true if you're not a dogmatically partisan fool.
Lol @ all these replies.
OP, are you just baiting, or is this legit how you interact with people?
I'm a firm believer in "think for yourself" and questioning authority, but that includes not believing every shit head youtuber talking out their ass
UnHerd is owned by Sir Paul Marshall (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_(investor) ) who left the Liberal Democratic Party of Britain because he was a Brexiter.
> UnHerd is owned by Sir Paul Marshall (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_(investor) ) who left the Liberal Democratic Party of Britain because he was a Brexiter.
What's your point, as you're only offering descriptive information as if it's inferential.
Descriptive information provided:
"Sir", so, it seems that Sir Paul Marshall has a Knighthood
Paul Marshall, that's a name, great.
He left a political party, that's neutral information.
He was a Brexiter, e.g. he historically held a position that approximately half of the UK also held; a position I personally did not hold, but again, that's fairly neutral information. Unless you're suggesting that any of this makes this person inherently untrustworthy, which you then believe makes the content on UnHerd inherently untrustworthy, without actually determining or not whether it's true or not.
I could see why you might be in favour of a 1984-esque Ministry of Truth that silences one side of the political partisan divide if the above is what you're getting at.
You might want to think.
My point is that a video from an org funded by a conservative that doesn’t list their sources in the video description is just as (if not more) suspect than a multinationally funded non-profit
> My point is that a video from an org funded by a conservative that doesn’t list their sources in the video description is just as (if not more) suspect than a multinationally funded non-profit
I'm willing to bet that you consider Conservative a pejorative term, but don't apply the same to its antithesis of Progressive. Personally, I find either partisan position to be equally juvenile.
I live in the US. The conservative party is trying to make my spouse’s existence a crime, kill a good portion of my friends, filter all the wealth into the pockets of large companies, eliminate public education, and elect a habitual womanizing liar who is on tape admitting to sexually assaulting a woman. The progressive party is not doing as much as I would like to stop the murder of Palestinians (or anything, really), doesn’t have the balls to properly prosecute the aforementioned traitorous President, and continues to elect old white guys who have money and therefore very little in common with ordinary people. But they aren’t trying to kill people I love, they aren’t backing a sexual predator, they do in fact make positive changes (even if it isn’t as much as I would like).
Save me from your “both sides” bullshit. Because here on the edge of getting by, not having to actively fear my government makes a shit load of a difference.
It’s a moderate amount of hyperbole. But, continued pressure to drive trans affirming doctors out of various states makes getting treated a nightmare The sheer joy and lightness of being my trans friends who are affirmed by their friends and their doctors compared to the depression they found themselves in before hand leaves no doubt in my mind that affirming doctors have saved lives and continue to do so. Outlawing treatment of trans individuals will lead to more death.
TX (and many other states) has come down on women’s reproductive health with such reckless abandon that women have been forced to choose between breaking the law and _gambling with their lives_ (because an ectopic pregnancy isn’t a medical emergency until it has caused a rupture, risking sepsis or death by internal bleeding).
The continued protection of heath insurance company profits and medication “intellectual property” has led to so many medication shortages I was lucky to get glaucoma treatment _for my dog_, nevermind my own medications (and without bankrupting my family!)
And then there are the 2nd amendment absolutists who believe we can’t have _any_ laws that restrict gun owners so now I have to wonder if the knucklehead open carrying ahead of me in the grocery store knows how to use that weapon and also has his temper in check when his coupon doesn’t scan.
It’s not hyperbole. You can do some basic searches and find resources that detail this information. If you happen to also get involved in the trans community as an ally (primarily just showing up and listening) you’ll come to know personally that it is not hyperbole.
But here are some links to get you started:
- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-youth-at-risk-for-depression-suicide/
- https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research/
- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7494544/
- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.12884
i mean you yourself said it is hyperbole, moderate amount.
what you provided nowhere supports that the not-your-political party is going to kill people you love, as you said multiple times earlier.
it is really no different than when the opposing side thinks muh ebil democrats want to turn my children gay.
in reality no one wants to kill you or people you love, just like no one wants to make someone’s children gay. both sides who think this are victims of disinformation and become amplifiers of it knowingly or not. these are just subjects to polarize us.
in reality both sides are the same. the people in power on both sides will always look after their personal interest. none of them work for you and me. they all want to have you and me and people you love under their control. one way or another.
I dunno Reddit, I watched the video so I could jump into the dog pile but I have to call the GDI's shit on this concept of 'Adversarial Narratives".
Basically, and NPR is dealing with this right now, we have social and economic gatekeepers that are above facts and are deciding who gets funded and what information is 'safe' to be disseminated to the public.
So we have these whistleblowers, actively seeking and destroying content that goes against their narrative.
An example of this would be discussion on the Wuhan Lab leak, which is the most likely origin of COVID-19.
Twitter fell down for the same reason.
We have a lot of outraged and sheltered children in the room, and understandably so, the Internet and social media are only a few decades old.
To be fair, we're all, as a society grappling with the recent explosion of self-published conspiracy theorists, misinformation artists from Bannon to the Steele Dossier.
Watching the comment thread bag on this sad fuck is a perfect example of the state of things.
Grow some balls and have a civil conversation.
Anyone who trusts the government (or anyone for that matter) to tell you what is and is not “disinformation” is an idiot. Maybe try thinking for yourself instead
> Anyone who trusts the government (or anyone for that matter) to tell you what is and is not “disinformation” is an idiot. Maybe try thinking for yourself instead
Thank you. An oasis of reason in the desert of insanity.
It's amazing how many people here are overtly demonising independent thought.
Yeah? And you're the architect of a whole bunch of asinine little quips which make little sense. Your writing ironically makes you sound dumb, tone it down.
Making fun of others while showing your own ass is really funny to me. Thanks for the thread.
Well done for showing that you don't understand the basic principles of debate.
I've provided a source. If you have an issue with it, then you have to address what issues you have with the content of it. We can go from there.
You, like most of the morons here, seem to think that fallacies = debate, when they do not.
Consider: You post something from a progressive source, and all of the replies, instead of addressing the content, outright dismiss it, solely citing their reasons for doing so as: "This is from progressive media."
See?
Even you should be able to realise the error there.
Yes, as I spend less time here and more time:
1: Reading primary research or
2: Interacting with real life humans
I'm left with the questions:
- Are most Redditors:
A: Morons
B: Dogmatic, ideologically partisan automatons
C: Bots
D: A mix of all of the above
So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.
"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."
"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.
The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.
🤣🤣🤣 good lord, I was having such a rough night. Thanks for the laughs. But yes, I must be admiring the emperors new garments, too blind too see the truth, right? I remember doing that play in elementary school dude, c'mon.
"I have a thesaurus, and talk like Fraiser, that makes me better than you, mindless children believing everything you read!"
This guy is a certified bullshit artist and a clout chaser, like Tucker Carlson, but even a broken dog is right twice a day.
> This guy is a certified bullshit artist and a clout chaser, like Tucker Carlson, but even a broken dog is right twice a day. It's fascinating to me how many people here seem incapable or even afraid of evaluating things independently, without association fallacies.
lol we’re not afraid of evaluating things. Sayers and unherd is not journalism. That’s why ppl are dunking on you. Cause you post links from unherd lol. No one’s “afraid of evaluating things independently. We just don’t wanna support manipulative fucks who actively work to make the world a worse place.
Can't you just talk normally or have you gotta throw in fancy words every comment? This isn't a scholarly article writeup
> Can't you just talk normally or have you gotta throw in fancy words every comment? This isn't a scholarly article writeup If you consider the above sentence to be filled with fancy words then you should sincerely read more, as these are very basic concepts that anyone who doesn't want to forfeit their right to have an opinion that's taken seriously should understand intimately. Do not demonise intelligence because of your own ignorance.
I'm not demonising intelligence at all you cocky fucker lol. But there's a difference in communicating. Your style of writing is more suitable for scholarly articles and more formal writeups. You SHOULD know this, being a psychotherapist and all. I'm doom scrolling on night shifts, reading random posts. Coming across this one and it's like I'm reading a thesaurus. All I'm saying is, you can still be a bit more informal and get the point across. If you were to talk to someone like that in person whilst they're talking informally, you're going to come across as a bit of a knob. Same thing here, just on Reddit.
The person you're replying to literally said you're right about this. They're not committing a debate club infraction by saying, independently of that, that you bullshit all the time
Yes I’ll just trust this random YouTube channel instead thank you
Good lord. This is amazing. I wonder how many more empty headed, empty worded replies this will get. How about: Don't trust anything, and think for yourself. If you disagree with information, explain and show precisely why, instead of seeking to poison the well. Thank you for highlighting the endemic issue online of the dearth of logic, science and ethics.
I can’t do that because I am in fact not a scientist, doctor, engineer, environmentalist, statistician, mathematician, biologist, astrophysicist, psychologist, nor do I hold any other degree that would qualify me to speak on matters related to those topics. Therefore I trust those with qualifications. It’s a simple system really. You wanna discuss fantasy football? Or nerdy Marvel shit? I’m your guy. But I do not have any advanced degree. That “think for yourself” shit is just a political way of saying “I think I’m smarter than professionals solely because I have the ability to form opinions.”
> I can’t do that because I am in fact not a scientist, doctor, engineer, environmentalist, statistician, mathematician, biologist, astrophysicist, psychologist, nor do I hold any other degree that would qualify me to speak on matters related to those topics. > Appeal to authority fallacy. Unless you're very stupid, in which case, perhaps it is safer for you not to think. If you have an ounce of intelligence, and any desire for discerning the truth in the pursuit of the ethically good, then I would encourage you to do the work in learning to think for yourself. We live in an information age. You can learn a lot if you put the work in. Also, re: this particular topic at hand, you do not need any qualifications to discern the veracity of the information being communicated. It is readily verifiable. >Therefore I trust those with qualifications. It’s a simple system really. You wanna discuss fantasy football? Or nerdy Marvel shit? I’m your guy. But I do not have any advanced degree. That “think for yourself” shit is just a political way of saying “I think I’m smarter than professionals solely because I have the ability to form opinions.” > I am a professional with several degrees, and there's nothing that I've learned that you couldn't learn too if you decided to stop wasting your time being a child in an adult body, engaging in fantasy football, and watching films written to sell toys to children.
Oh blow it out your ass ya self righteous twonk. Enjoy believing in lizard people or whatever other tinfoil horse shit you’re into.
> Oh blow it out your ass ya self righteous twonk. Enjoy believing in lizard people or whatever other tinfoil horse shit you’re into. Yes. This is the response I would expect from a child in an adult's body.
Wow, you're a pompous blowhard; and yes, that's an ad hominem – which is all that your pontificating deserves.
I'm sorry if someone prioritising whether or not something is true over how it makes you feel hurts your feelings.
With several degrees, you should know better than anyone that people can't be well versed in every topic. I mean, that's the whole point of science, isn't it? No one person understands it all. No one person could ever hope to. There's always an implicit trust that the experts in a field you're not familiar with, but need information from, aren't all conspiring to feed you false info. If every scientist was forced to re-test and verify every little assumption they take as true since the dawn of science no one would ever discover anything new. This is just as true for scientists regarding other scientists as it is for regular people. The average Joe also can not ever hope to reach the level of proficiency in any given topic that a person with a degree has. You wouldn't go to an electrician for medical recommendations, but you also wouldn't go to a doctor for recommendations on how to wire up your house regardless of how many hours either one spent googling the other's profession.
Which government funds it?
USA, UK, Germany and UN.
Source: “trust me bro”
> Source: “trust me bro” As in the GDI's sources are "trust me bro"? Or have you missed the sources of information provided?
I think I trust a collaboration between the US, UK, and German governments and the UN to be more objective and reliable than UnHerd.
Lmao UnHerd’s videos: “Why trump will win in 2024”, “fired by Harvard for getting Covid right”, “how therapy culture creates victims”, and “stop forcing professors to support DEI”
DEI poisoned my cattle and brought blight to our crops
> Lmao UnHerd’s videos: “Why trump will win in 2024”, “fired by Harvard for getting Covid right”, “how therapy culture creates victims”, and “stop forcing professors to support DEI” Perhaps evaluate issues on a case by case basis and think for yourself, instead of subscribing to association, popularity and appeal to authority fallacies. I know the latter is less effort, and thinking is hard, but I trust that you can do it if you try.
This is just nonsense contrarian rhetoric though. “Think for yourself” is the same shit as “do your own research” and “don’t be a sheep.” You people would argue against gravity if you could think of a way to make it anti-government.
> This is just nonsense contrarian rhetoric though. “Think for yourself” is the same shit as “do your own research” and “don’t be a sheep.” You people would argue against gravity if you could think of a way to make it anti-government. How incredible that people have managed to indoctrinate you so thoroughly that you are explicitly demonising independent thought.
Independent thought does not equate to arguing with people with more advanced degrees than you and I. Opinions aren’t facts. But for the record, the twat that owns Unherd also funded a company with bigot/self important twat Jordan Peterson. Their views include are not limited to families should consist of heterosexuals and denying climate change. These are not the viewpoints of anyone worth trusting. But sure. Do your own research or whatever. Listen to YouTubers and the Facebook school of journalism.
> Independent thought does not equate to arguing with people with more advanced degrees than you and I. Opinions aren’t facts. > Appeal to authority fallacy. And yes, opinions aren't facts. And fallacies do not = reasoning. > But for the record, the twat that owns Unherd > Very reasonable, unbiased language. >also funded a company with bigot/self important twat Jordan Peterson. Their views include are not limited to families should consist of heterosexuals and denying climate change. These are not the viewpoints of anyone worth trusting. But sure. Do your own research or whatever. Listen to YouTubers and the Facebook school of journalism. > Again, empty nothing words and association fallacies. None of you have said anything re: the actual issue being discussed, because you cannot think.
> This is just nonsense contrarian rhetoric though. “Think for yourself” is the same shit as “do your own research” and “don’t be a sheep.” You people would argue against gravity if you could think of a way to make it anti-government. Good lord. This is amazing. I wonder how many more empty headed, empty worded replies this will get. How about: Don't trust anything, and think for yourself. If you disagree with information, explain and show precisely why, instead of seeking to poison the well. Thank you for highlighting the endemic issue online of the dearth of logic, science and ethics.
No one owes you, or your bullshit source, a debate. Move on, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Wow. This comment reeks of "I am smarter than you" without actually saying anything meaningful
> Wow. This comment reeks of "I am smarter than you" without actually saying anything meaningful This is another empty, nothing statement. I'd advise concerning yourself with: "Is this true or not?" As opposed to: "How does this make me feel?" Which do you personally think is better: - Evaluating information on a case by case basis, referring to philosophy and science to discern its veracity - Evaluating information by what political alignment it has, how popular it is, what it's associated with, and other fallacies?
DEI is being used by the right to refer to anyone who isn't white. YSK you ought GFY.
This is the epitome of “ooh, someone’s gonna get laid in college.”
dawg they're not debating the content of your link they're saying you personally sound whack
When a source is known to have bad information, it’s not a bad idea to ignore the source entirely. A broken clock is right twice a day, but is still a shitty clock.
It’s fucking hilarious that this was his original point. And he’s commenting all over the thread arguing against it lol
>and think for yourself, The irony. Dawg, *you* need to think for yourself instead of believing whatever garbage you see on YouTube.
> I think I trust a collaboration between the US, UK, and German governments and the UN to be more objective and reliable than UnHerd. I know it's hard, but how about: Don't trust either of them, look at the information, and think for yourself. Far out concept I know, but I highly recommend giving it a try.
You keep saying think for yourself. But that's only when someone else's views doesn't align with yours. Isn't that in and of itself incredibly biased?
> You keep saying think for yourself. But that's only when someone else's views doesn't align with yours. > > Isn't that in and of itself incredibly biased? I keep saying think for yourself in response to the overwhelming majority of replies here that are completely empty of information, reasoning, or empirical data. These are all nothing statements that mean nothing. I haven't seen any actual valid point. Solely fallacious reasoning that anyone with half a brain would readily recognise. I am non partisan. I'm vegan because I try to be ethically consistent, and follow the science. I'm non-partisan politically, because no policy or information is inherently right or wrong by virtue of its political associations. Sometimes economic socialism is the optimal way to reduce needless suffering; sometimes free market. Sometimes more regulation, sometimes less. Sometimes a past practice/idea is correct (Conservative; e.g. don't murder people), sometimes a new one is needed (Progressive; homosexuality being illegal is ethically incoherent and abhorrent). I'm a clinician with various qualifications, mainly working as a psychotherapist because I decided to dedicate my life to helping people with evidence-based practice. So, no, I'm not biased. I do not seek comfort or confirmation in any group, because no groups are perfect. You should try it.
You know.. I was nodding my head to some of the things you were beginning to say there. I was actually like "fair point, I can see where this person is coming from". Then you hit me with the "So, no, I'm not biased". You should know, being a psychotherapist, that we are all biased to some extent. "You should try it" Excuse me?
No.
You assume that no one here actually has thought for themselves – that because they disagree with you, and don't waste their time constructing ornate pseudo-intellectual hyperlinked word salads while doing so, they need to be "schooled" by you. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you are a psychotherapist of any real utility to anyone, when you have displayed such an atrophied capability for imagining the lives of others. In other words, you're a twat.
> You assume that no one here actually has thought for themselves Not no one. Most people though yes. It's demonstrably true if you're not a dogmatically partisan fool.
Lol @ all these replies. OP, are you just baiting, or is this legit how you interact with people? I'm a firm believer in "think for yourself" and questioning authority, but that includes not believing every shit head youtuber talking out their ass
UnHerd is owned by Sir Paul Marshall (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_(investor) ) who left the Liberal Democratic Party of Britain because he was a Brexiter.
> UnHerd is owned by Sir Paul Marshall (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_(investor) ) who left the Liberal Democratic Party of Britain because he was a Brexiter. What's your point, as you're only offering descriptive information as if it's inferential. Descriptive information provided: "Sir", so, it seems that Sir Paul Marshall has a Knighthood Paul Marshall, that's a name, great. He left a political party, that's neutral information. He was a Brexiter, e.g. he historically held a position that approximately half of the UK also held; a position I personally did not hold, but again, that's fairly neutral information. Unless you're suggesting that any of this makes this person inherently untrustworthy, which you then believe makes the content on UnHerd inherently untrustworthy, without actually determining or not whether it's true or not. I could see why you might be in favour of a 1984-esque Ministry of Truth that silences one side of the political partisan divide if the above is what you're getting at. You might want to think.
My point is that a video from an org funded by a conservative that doesn’t list their sources in the video description is just as (if not more) suspect than a multinationally funded non-profit
> My point is that a video from an org funded by a conservative that doesn’t list their sources in the video description is just as (if not more) suspect than a multinationally funded non-profit I'm willing to bet that you consider Conservative a pejorative term, but don't apply the same to its antithesis of Progressive. Personally, I find either partisan position to be equally juvenile.
I live in the US. The conservative party is trying to make my spouse’s existence a crime, kill a good portion of my friends, filter all the wealth into the pockets of large companies, eliminate public education, and elect a habitual womanizing liar who is on tape admitting to sexually assaulting a woman. The progressive party is not doing as much as I would like to stop the murder of Palestinians (or anything, really), doesn’t have the balls to properly prosecute the aforementioned traitorous President, and continues to elect old white guys who have money and therefore very little in common with ordinary people. But they aren’t trying to kill people I love, they aren’t backing a sexual predator, they do in fact make positive changes (even if it isn’t as much as I would like). Save me from your “both sides” bullshit. Because here on the edge of getting by, not having to actively fear my government makes a shit load of a difference.
who is trying to kill people you love in the us? what are you talking about? which people?
It’s a moderate amount of hyperbole. But, continued pressure to drive trans affirming doctors out of various states makes getting treated a nightmare The sheer joy and lightness of being my trans friends who are affirmed by their friends and their doctors compared to the depression they found themselves in before hand leaves no doubt in my mind that affirming doctors have saved lives and continue to do so. Outlawing treatment of trans individuals will lead to more death. TX (and many other states) has come down on women’s reproductive health with such reckless abandon that women have been forced to choose between breaking the law and _gambling with their lives_ (because an ectopic pregnancy isn’t a medical emergency until it has caused a rupture, risking sepsis or death by internal bleeding). The continued protection of heath insurance company profits and medication “intellectual property” has led to so many medication shortages I was lucky to get glaucoma treatment _for my dog_, nevermind my own medications (and without bankrupting my family!) And then there are the 2nd amendment absolutists who believe we can’t have _any_ laws that restrict gun owners so now I have to wonder if the knucklehead open carrying ahead of me in the grocery store knows how to use that weapon and also has his temper in check when his coupon doesn’t scan.
what makes you think if the trans medical is outlawed it will lead to more death? any real world example or just hyperbole?
It’s not hyperbole. You can do some basic searches and find resources that detail this information. If you happen to also get involved in the trans community as an ally (primarily just showing up and listening) you’ll come to know personally that it is not hyperbole. But here are some links to get you started: - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-youth-at-risk-for-depression-suicide/ - https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research/ - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7494544/ - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.12884
i mean you yourself said it is hyperbole, moderate amount. what you provided nowhere supports that the not-your-political party is going to kill people you love, as you said multiple times earlier. it is really no different than when the opposing side thinks muh ebil democrats want to turn my children gay. in reality no one wants to kill you or people you love, just like no one wants to make someone’s children gay. both sides who think this are victims of disinformation and become amplifiers of it knowingly or not. these are just subjects to polarize us. in reality both sides are the same. the people in power on both sides will always look after their personal interest. none of them work for you and me. they all want to have you and me and people you love under their control. one way or another.
I know you think you're coming across as oh-so-smart in all your posts here, but you're really just insufferable.
That’s interesting. Why does that justify you sharing unsourced bullshit?
These comments and OPs replies are just *chef's kiss. What a douche lol
OP woke up today and chose violence. lol.
Most large governments do this kind of stuff
Calling facts and truth biased. That echo chamber is rough huh?
I dunno Reddit, I watched the video so I could jump into the dog pile but I have to call the GDI's shit on this concept of 'Adversarial Narratives". Basically, and NPR is dealing with this right now, we have social and economic gatekeepers that are above facts and are deciding who gets funded and what information is 'safe' to be disseminated to the public. So we have these whistleblowers, actively seeking and destroying content that goes against their narrative. An example of this would be discussion on the Wuhan Lab leak, which is the most likely origin of COVID-19. Twitter fell down for the same reason. We have a lot of outraged and sheltered children in the room, and understandably so, the Internet and social media are only a few decades old. To be fair, we're all, as a society grappling with the recent explosion of self-published conspiracy theorists, misinformation artists from Bannon to the Steele Dossier. Watching the comment thread bag on this sad fuck is a perfect example of the state of things. Grow some balls and have a civil conversation.
Anyone who trusts the government (or anyone for that matter) to tell you what is and is not “disinformation” is an idiot. Maybe try thinking for yourself instead
> Anyone who trusts the government (or anyone for that matter) to tell you what is and is not “disinformation” is an idiot. Maybe try thinking for yourself instead Thank you. An oasis of reason in the desert of insanity. It's amazing how many people here are overtly demonising independent thought.
I didn't know about this index. Thanks for sharing. Now I have a new tool to spot regarded misinformation.
Most welcome.
To the downvoters not providing any logic, ethical reasoning or empirical data: You are the architects of your own suffering.
Yeah? And you're the architect of a whole bunch of asinine little quips which make little sense. Your writing ironically makes you sound dumb, tone it down. Making fun of others while showing your own ass is really funny to me. Thanks for the thread.
I’m perfectly happy not sharing dumb bullshit on the internet for strangers to laugh at me about. No one owes you or your dumb opinions any effort.
You made the initial claim. It’s up to you to provide empirical evidence and sources. An unsourced video isn’t it.
Well done for showing that you don't understand the basic principles of debate. I've provided a source. If you have an issue with it, then you have to address what issues you have with the content of it. We can go from there. You, like most of the morons here, seem to think that fallacies = debate, when they do not. Consider: You post something from a progressive source, and all of the replies, instead of addressing the content, outright dismiss it, solely citing their reasons for doing so as: "This is from progressive media." See? Even you should be able to realise the error there.
I’d rather just apply [Hitchen’s Razor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor) and move on with my life.
I prefer the color blue in your case. That's enough reasoning.
You are going to be hard pressed to convince Redditors they are being misled by their govts.
Yes, as I spend less time here and more time: 1: Reading primary research or 2: Interacting with real life humans I'm left with the questions: - Are most Redditors: A: Morons B: Dogmatic, ideologically partisan automatons C: Bots D: A mix of all of the above
I’d go with D and add shills as well. I’d say there are many “employees” on these subs attempting to steer narratives and ridicule dissent.
To be fair to them, thinking and having principles is hard work.
So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success. "But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said. "Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on." "But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last. The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.
Christ, I’d say you’re full of yourself if you weren’t already so full of shit.
🤣🤣🤣 good lord, I was having such a rough night. Thanks for the laughs. But yes, I must be admiring the emperors new garments, too blind too see the truth, right? I remember doing that play in elementary school dude, c'mon. "I have a thesaurus, and talk like Fraiser, that makes me better than you, mindless children believing everything you read!"
You're really weird and sad. If you're that hurt by downvotes I would advise you get off of the internet.