So, ah, not to be argumentative, but what's the alternative to fact checkers?
Like, what do you do if you want to find out if something is true or not?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
So, ah, not to be argumentative, but what's the alternative to fact checkers?
Like, what do you do if you want to find out if something is true or not?
Uh, you don't, that's kind of the point.
If you want to figure out the truth you have to find people you trust.
You can't trust some random "authority" because they say you should.
So now we are stuck with some bullshit where uncovering the truth is very difficult and takes hours of research and careful consideration... unless you can find someone you can trust to do that work for you.
So essentially normal people stand no chance.
No essentially unless you are awake enough to know a difference. Edicted in his statement above just ran down exactly what the problem is, it's people using information published then gleaning it to fit a narrative. No the insurance company did not say it was high payouts to those 64 retired, he said it's 18 to 64 working age people. So him being on the left they want that to fit in the narrative that it's just old comorbidity filled people dying instead of the right narrative claim that people are dying as the result of an experimental vaccine. So you see how that plays out and why it would be hard to keep up with.
lol correct.
But crypto is changing the game.
Because like I said money talks and bullshit walks.
When people start getting paid by these networks they will listen to the people on the networks.
If the people on the network say mass formation psychosis is a thing people will listen, because listening directly equates to their own salary and livelihood. The trust relationship starts with symbiotic value transfer of decentralized wealth. As it stands now crypto is just a "scam" because there aren't enough jobs being offered to the population. Just gotta build out more infrastructure and gain more trust. It's all about trust.
Which you just did with Malone. Lmao. I was highly skeptical of him from the get go when he said he took the vaccine. That's an instance disqualifier especially coming from someone who said the technology shouldn't have been used. When two plus two doesn't add up right from the get go there is definitely something up with that.
I was right as he was on Laura's show fear mongering to the masses last week advising that everyone was going to get omicron, comparing it to the measles in transmission rate. Then he shows up on Bannon the other day confusing people into believing there's a deadly ebola type virus emerging out of China, which Bannon runs with which he then says he's not sure, it could or maybe couldn't. Most people didn't hear that last part as next thing you know it's making headlines.
The next thing you know your out hoarding up more supplies because it's sometimes hard to distinguish between the truths, half truths and the lies. I mean really you have to ask yourself why he just didn't come right out and tell Bannon in no uncertain terms there is no ebola type virus emerging out of China as Bannn's going about how dishonest the Chinese were with covid, keeping it hidden and in that regard the potential for athletes to carry this new virus across the globe. Right? Don't you think Malone should have spoke up and said clearly that he had no direct knowledge of a ebola type virus about to emerge? Maybe, maybe not doesn't cut it. Sure there were also other underlying political messaging that could have been playing into why he said that but the plain fact of the matter is that you, we, whoever are at a point were we can't underestimate anything being said or not thoroughly examine all the options as to why it was said. That's because it's hard to determine among who are the players and who really aren't. Who's in the know and who's not in the know of how the game is going to be further played out.
I'll go watch his video because, like I said I blew him off from the start. Mainly because someone doesn't talk down a technology but admit to taking a shot using the same technology they are talking down. Second is because there's been a few players in this whole game that have an ax to grind, the mere fact something he initially worked on becoming a useful profitable tool could actually be his ax because he's behind the fold not in the forefront of the fold. Now that he seems to be doing regular appearance on main stream media I will need to get a feel for his body language, gestures and talking points to get a more accurate depiction to help decipher the language.
my own research from non paid sources are almost always better not 100% but they have no incentive. But honestly I simply don't care about any of that stuff because there isn't anything I can do about it. I've found most people get angry and ticket off instead of actully having any form of real discussion anymore so I just focus on things within my space and live a MUCH better life by doing so. Step foot on that ground and try and take it from me and my freedoms however then I'll defend.
Oh cool. When you say 'non paid sources' what do you mean? Like, isn't literally making money off everything they put out these days? I'd love to get to know some trusted sites.
Totally hear you on not worrying about the crazy stuff around us... there's definitely a peace that comes with just tending your own garden (sometimes literally).
Dr David Martin is a good one to listening to because most of what he says is based on filed patents over the years. He could literally be sued into oblivion if defaming someone by lying. His credentials are impeccable. Still though you still have to separate what is known fact he presents with indisputable evidence and those moments of giving personal opinion. Opinions though do boil down to that question of trusting what an individual says, if they gain your trust by sticking their neck out it'll go a bit further than believing people who don't have a shred of evidence to back up anything they say.
Dr Peter McCullough is another one. He does tend to show up on Fox News and be asked his opinion but his face clearly shows he's disgruntled to the fact that his opinion is limited to the scope of what Fox News wants people to hear, it will be the truth...which Fox only wants when it fits their narrative, but like I said it's pretty evident he's not allowed to tell all the truths he'd like to if given an opportunity.
If it makes it all the way through the world court, where the paperwork has already been filed both of them will be testifying before the court if called on the case of crimes against humanity.
Its near impossible at this point to fully trust anything regarding stuff you cant personaly witness or experiment on as the case may be. It is helpful to read actual research, not what the media reports about it or the abstract, the actual data as well as obviously having a critical look at methodology and so on.
While, obviously, academics can not be trusted, at least to some degree the hard sciences you can look into and test on, the social sciences... Well, probably look at data older than 20 years ideally if you want to know anything other than what their narrative is, really. Of course, what we are interested in looking into itself is... Well, theres been a lot of interest in violence against women and rape of women, and there is data to show that the vast majority of not just domestic violence (and thats exclusivly direct physical violence, there are other forms of abuse of course but that is the clearest thus weve got a bit more data on that) but the majority of intimate partner violence is done by the female partner as well as rape by women, espacialy of children, is quite common. Over 90% of sexual abuse of those children by staff in american juvenile facilities is done by female staff for example. Even looking at that requires some stepping back from many of our assumptions.
However, what we do have, what we can allways rely on are ethical principles. The truth of the matter here is irrelevant, the existance of a state and state mandates or restrictions are never justified.