"Saturday Night Live - Cut for Time: Dianne Feinstein Message - SNL" Canadians aren't allowed to see this. Americans, please repost on PeerTube or something.

submitted by JasonCarswell from (youtube.com)

all 37 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (34 children)

Man made climate change is a h0@×.

Edit:
Behold: wizzwizz the one-man forum slider.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

So you keep saying.

Please don't provide evidence of people faking evidence; that's irrelevant. Find non-faked evidence, and then use that to show that it's a hoax. ☺ I'll listen to you, promise!

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

Here ya go.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0).

Edit: wizzwizz chickened out on reviewing the evidence, and data.
This is a reoccurring trend with wizzwizz.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Maybe later; I haven't got 2% of a day to spend watching a video where people talk at 20% of reading speed.

I kind of meant data and stuff, that you're actually making conclusions based off. The rules for what you're allowed to do with data are clear, so you'd be able to spot my mistakes / invalid conclusions and I yours.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

You did this when the best 9/11 evidence was handed to you. "I'm not busy enough to doubt you but I'm too busy to look at your evidence."

I watch all my YouTubes at 2x or more. Get the "Enhancer for YouTube" browser addon for great extra features, like going 2.1x, 2.2x, etc. Listen while you do your dishes or whatevs.

That's not a long video and it's not the greatest but it's not remotely bad. It's not proof, but it's much closer with great foundational ideas and as he lays out, it's not really provable but the premise clearly tips the other way.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

"I'm not busy enough to doubt you but I'm too busy to look at your evidence."

Isn't this the essence of the modern web? :-p I can spend time reading, but not watching videos. If videos are really the best evidence, then I doubt it's good evidence. I could understand videos being the best presentation of the evidence, but it's easier to convince people of anything when it's being spoken to them instead of read by them. I like controlling the flow of information into my brain.

I'll doubt, but until I've seen your evidence I'm not going to go brigading onto threads saying "'9/11 was a hoax' was a hoax!"

More relevantly, I asked for evidence. Somebody trying to convince me isn't evidence. Quite frankly, the only evidence for something like climate change is a good set of observational measurements. I don't want to watch a video where somebody interprets stuff for me; give me the raw data and I can:

  • analyse it
  • determine which hypothesis it supports (climate change v.s. null hypothesis)
  • explain why I determined that
  • be told why I am wrong
  • re-examine my analysis
  • goto step 2

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It's good enough for me. I don't need to please your standards. Refute the evidence and present your own to discuss.

Otherwise you are just trolling for argument sake.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Refute the evidence and present your own to discuss.

Does that include questioning the validity of the evidence in the first place? If that counts as a valid argument, I'm willing to put in the effort to properly engage (as opposed to the relatively low-effort posting I've been doing up until now).

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Define questioning.

Define validity.

Define evidence.

Define first place.

Define properly engage.

Define relatively low-effort posting.

Define annoying.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

  • Suggesting that something does not fall within a particular set.
  • The property of being able to be used for its purpose (i.e. as evidence).
  • Information that can be used to produce a true statement.
  • "in the first place" is a turn of phrase, in this case placing the assumption that the evidence is valid as one of the pieces of evidence used to produce the prior.
  • The standard that a reasonable person would consider the minimum required for interaction on this site.
  • A comment taking less than 30 minutes to produce, which does not meet the standard given above.
  • I get it, I get it. I'll try harder in future. (And, by the way, the alternative to "willing to put in the effort to properly engage" will now be "not engage at all", since otherwise it's just noise that wastes everybody's time.)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

K

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (21 children)

"The Crisis of Science" by corbettreport (2019-02-22) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfHEuWaPh9Q

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Everyone knows that the data you have before the hypothesis is bogus. *sound of optimism slowly dying* I've got my hypothesis, and it's supported by the data I've seen (but I'm not putting too much weight on that right now) and I'd like to see the data that doesn't support it.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

The same crisis of science applies to the Climate Change based science. Same as Big Pharma. Same as all the corrupt "authority" systems. Those so called authorities are lying to get us into more and more wars. They like about fat being more unhealthy than sugar. They lie about 5G radiation. They lie about the surveillance state. They lie about terrorism and 9/11. They lie about healthcare and college not being affordable while they have money to bomb and murder millions. They lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie.

Start with the premise that they lie, and try prove them to be truthful. I dare you.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Well stated.

The media has lost all credibility; for all of these stated reasons and more.

They should not be trusted until proven otherwise.

That is the only practical approach.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They should not be trusted until proven otherwise.

Better: they should be completely ignored. Believing the opposite of what they say is still giving them power to control your beliefs.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's not better. That is foolish.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not better.

Ignore the MSM and you don't have the "official" narrative and their manipulative contexts.

Simply believing the opposite of the MSM is too vast a contrarian position to hold, and its also self-defeating when the MSM doesn't lie or only lies by omission - so simple contrarianism is foolish too.

You need to take in all sources and weigh the evidence yourself and triangulate in on your own truths that may evolve as your information base develops.

Half of everyone is stupider than average, and the bell curve is fat in the middle so most of the the smarter half is remarkably close to the stupider-than-average folks. It's safe to say most folks aren't clever.

The MSM is not aiming to fool the clever people. They just need to control the majority of the masses. That's why they use propaganda, lies, deception, manipulation, and omission to effectively shape the minds of the sheeple.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Contrarian to a fault.

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Oh yeah. Also the media lies. And the government. And corporations.

    [–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    They lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie.

    Well, we can agree on that much at least. The reasons are less certain, but the fact they're telling the not-truth on many, many things is fairly certain.

    Start with the premise that they lie,

    No. I don't give a monkey's what they're saying. What the media says has no bearing on the truth. Give me the data, and I can determine for myself whether that supports my hypothesis.

    Once I'm confident of the truth, I can compare it to what the media's saying and hence determine whether the media is correct. But I need to know whether the media's correct first.

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Are you going to single handedly solve climate change the way you solved 9/11 two decades later using the same faulty logic premise, though countless truthers and anti-climate-hoaxers have been doing so for ages?

    Come on. I don't give a monkey's what your determination is. Either accept the videos and documents or don't but to demand the proof and ignore the video makes you a shit disturber not a debater. Find your own data and prove or disprove it for yourself. You're right not to believe everything anyone tells you and to think for yourself, but that includes doing the research yourself.

    When has the media ever not lied to you?

    [–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Are you going to single handedly solve climate change the way you solved 9/11 two decades later using the same faulty logic premise

    No. The method doesn't apply to historical events. You can't science that, and I was deluding myself in that respect. The method does, however, apply to science. And this is science.

    Countless anti-climate-hoaxers are delusional, misinformed or mistaken. I'm probably one of them. There are almost certainly a small few who are doing it right, but I haven't found them yet. That video looks promising.

    Find your own data and prove or disprove it for yourself.

    So far I haven't found any that disproves my hypothesis. But I don't know where to look to find the "non-manipulated data" that everyone's going on about but never providing. I was wondering whether anyone could at least point me in that direction.

    But yes. Coming in here and acting all high and mighty whilst not actually doing anything is a pretty shitty thing to do. I forget that this is interaction with real humans.

    When has the media ever not lied to you?

    First article on BBC News at time of writing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47457477 This doesn't seem to be a lie. This article on chlorine-washed chicken seems fairly informative too.

    The media has not lied to me lots. It's said that the sky is usually blue during the daytime when not occluded by clouds.

    This, however, is an exercise in pedantry. Just because there exist incidents of the media not lying doesn't even mean that the media doesn't usually lie. For all you know, these could be the only three instances of non-lying media… ever! (It's not; there exists at least one more.)

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    You're deluding yourself if you think science is separate from history, politics, and economics.

    The scientific method is not infallible.

    If no peers review or refute your claims, if the hypothesis is stupid, if the data is selected or rejected... It's all corruptible.

    There is no such thing as "non-manipulated data" for climate science. Canada recently just tipped weather measurements from the 1940s lower, claiming they were making the measurements more accurate. What? Of course then it looks like we've been warming. It's all bullshit to create a Carbon Tax Scam.

    All taxes are theft. There is no such thing as a free-market.

    You don't KNOW that the media has not lied to you lots. Yet.

    [–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    There is no such thing as "non-manipulated data" for climate science.

    Really. Interesting…

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Everyone knows that the data you have before the hypothesis is bogus.

    Is this true? Aren't most hypotheses' experience based? Hypotheses are guesses about the possible cause of data results.

    The hypotheses is documented and formalized, so you can't change the theory based on the results. Run the experiment. Analyse the findings, etc.

    BTW: 99% of historical hypotheses are incorrect, as the experiment must be designed to disprove the theory.

    [–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Hypotheses are guesses about the possible cause of data results.

    Yup. The hypothesis is "oh, look, we've observed X. I predict that X will continue in future". As such, you can't say "X happened loads in the past, therefore it will continue in future" using the data that you used to determine your hypothesis, because you only have your hypothesis because your data said it in the first place.

    Supporting your hypothesis with the data that you used to determine your hypothesis is a form of selection bias, but one with the legitimacy of being "scientifically backed". At least, it's marketed that way; it's not supported by science in reality. That study with the chocolate and slimming is a brilliant example of this.

    the experiment must be designed to disprove the theory

    I think we are in agreement.

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Your argumentative word circles are annoying and alienating people.

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    He likes to disagree to undermine the argument. There's an assumption that a reader won't finish long text. Then circle back to agree in the end to placate the criticized persons.

    Shill tactics.

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Or maybe he's thinking out loud, processing it, and coming to a conclusion.

    I'm not a fan of that kind of content but I'm not calling him a shill.

    [–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Or maybe he's thinking out loud,

    Yes, that's usually what's happening. But, in this case, I was elaborating. I think that /u/Tom_Bombadil and I are actually in a rare agreement.

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    /u/d3rr

    Any chance you can post this on PeerTube?

    And: /s/comedy/comments/e1s/the_foodroom_inside_amy_schumer_parody_of_aaron/

    I don't know if they are good, bad, or a waste or y/our time because in Canada we're not allowed to see them.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I'll post them but only temporarily... I can't have SNL watering down my PT conspiracy magic. Unless it is truly valuable.

    They'll be here shortly: https://tube.4aem.com/video-channels/trl/videos

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    AWESOME!!!

    Thanks

    The SNL was okay, but nothing groundbreaking or edgy. As bland as expected.

    But Schumer made it worth it. I liked the Newsroom. This was funny too. Her series was good, though I drifted away. I don't even know if she's still doing it.

    Delete them as you see fit. One is political parody and the other is media/fast food parody.