Remember to open-mindedly comment on subs with differing narratives!

submitted by happysmash27 from self.SaidIt

It is devisive to have different ideas of reality, and one can often learn from a different perspective.

This is why I have decided to view and comment in places like /r/climateskeptics as someone who is heavily on board the /s/collapse climate change narrative; it allows me to see another perspective I may have missed, and helps, well, bring narratives closer together.

When groups are seperated, and refuse to talk to each other, it draws narratives further and further apart, making them more and more distrustful of each other, creating conflicting stories increasingly antagonistic to ideas of the other, reducing the ability for people to learn from each other. Pretty much any group will have both good and bad ideas, so one should learn from every group. When groups are not distrustful, it is easier for them to learn from each other, and find good ideas that they may have dismissed just from being in a different group. When outsiders discuss with a group, it is also easier to find bad arguments, as has often been seen on /r/libertarian, when innefective propaganda images will usually have someone debate them in the comments.

SaidIt is particularly receptive to differing groups interacting, due to the inherent nature of the system, where there are no downvotes, people see all subs by default, and people tend to be able to debate without being banned, unlike other communities. As SaidIt gets larger, however, it may get harder to debate without getting overwhelmed with bad arguments, so I suggest that we foster a culture of open-mindness and reconiling narratives especially while it is so easy to do so.

all 62 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JasonCarswell 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (23 children)

I used to believe in Climate Change. I love the environment, greens, sustainability, etc. Hate pollution, toxins, etc. It was my hardest conspiracy to come to terms with. Really hard.

If you already know the government and media lie to you then you're half way there.

There's a lot of stupid shit the right believes. There's also a lot of stupid shit the left believes. Russiagate is clearly stupid. (There's actually a much deeper real Russiagate that is VERY different than the bullshit on MSM.)

Just as Russiagate is nonsense for the left so is Climate Change. Science is never settled. Scientism is a blind faith in whatever authorities tell you and it has taken over this planet. Science needs to be an open process or it's all just proprietary secrets in good faith by corrupt corporations.

I used to believe everyone who didn't buy into Climate Change was stupid or worked for Big Oil. That may be the case sometimes but there is a third non-partisan way. Once you realize the whole think is a politically loaded weapon you can step back and actually look at the pros and cons.

Same thing with vaccines and 5G radiation. Or all this sexism, racism, SJW-ness, and censorship crap.

We're being played. If we let them.

How Big Oil Conquered the World - a 2015 documentary, is a contextual history and critical analysis of the petroleum and banking monopolies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnk-f2ThpE

Why Big Oil Conquered the World - a 2017 documentary, is a contextual history and critical analysis of the petroleum and banking monopolies, their development of eugenics, the overpopulation myth, and the manufactured climate change scare, in order to dominate and control every aspect of our lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wlNey9t7hQ

/s/science/comments/dsy/the_crisis_of_science_the_corbett_report_20190222/

/s/science/comments/f9t/dissecting_the_crisis_of_science_andrea_saltelli/

/s/science/comments/gzh/solutions_open_science_corbett_report/

/s/technology/comments/ii7/the_hard_road_to_technocratic_world_order_corbett/

Every time they mention the failures of modern science, the lack of a valid testing method, or vaccines, often if you substitute with "Climate Change" you'll find that it fits too an the "science" is very much faith-based. And because it's flimsy and because they have ulterior motives, they need to shut all skepticism down ASAP. And this time it's worse than lying about tobacco.

/s/Health/comments/ik1/vaxxed_axed_as_adam_schiff_tries_to_control_your/

/s/Documentaries/comments/16m/vaxxed_from_cover_up_to_catastrophe_full_movie/

/s/Health/comments/ifr/del_bigtree_vaccine_deception_big_pharma_what_the/

/s/science/comments/g5d/free_speech_and_shutting_down_the_vaccine_debate/

[–]zyxzevn 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

I care a lot about the Environment. The "science is settled" led me to study the sceptic side of the climate change discussion. Nothing is settled, but you can both agree on things that you can directly observe.
I was protesting against nuclear waste and pesticides. Now suddenly out of nothing the earth is warming, we have only 15 years, but we can hardly notice it? What is going on? There is clearly a political agenda going on.

*1 The consensus was manufactured. They hand-picked the papers, and left out all other papers. The many (50%) other climate specialists that were not picked mostly disagree.

*2 The climate models are very inaccurate and need to be improved in every way. Not just by manipulating parameters, as they do now.

*3 The variations of the sun were not linked to the models. They forgot the sun. Well, in better words: they did not understand how the small variations of the sun can cause large changes on earth. While they can indeed find a correlation. The solution is simple: the small variations are only on small part of the spectrum. The larger energy variations are on the full spectrum, so there is that.

*4 All "solutions" were either more taxes and more nuclear waste. Which are not solutions at all.

*5 Clouds and water were not related to climate-change. Forests were even negative, while it is always colder in a forest (due to biochemistry etc, I believe).

*6 The Climate "collapse" that is pushed everywhere is almost never agreed on by all specialists. It is the sudden rise of the temperature when it reaches just a bit too high. It will kill all life on earth. And this is what became the essential part of the political push.

*7 A lot of scare is pushed in the media, which is totally fake. Often they publish temperature rises that do not exist.

This is all independent of the state of the earth's climate.

In the mean time, the sea levels are not rising. Some land-masses with large buildings are sinking instead. That is according to our best satellite ENVISAT. That is the only one with a very accurate device. So accurate, it can tell the difference between warm and cold water.

Addition: The solar flares that are usually 10 times bigger than earth, can sometimes hit the earth's atmosphere. This can cause very strong hurricanes and other disasters.

Conclusion: there is no need for panic and we need far better climate models and better global measurements.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

You deserve SaidIt Platinum!!!

*3 The variations of the sun were not linked to the models. They forgot the sun. Well, in better words: they did not understand how the small variations of the sun can cause large changes on earth.

IMO: They accepted easily debunkable science as fact, in an effort to ignore the sun's effect.

[–]HopeThatHalps 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

TBH, I care more about the fact that we're pigging out on a non renewable energy resource, burning up the product of fossils just to get from here to there. The proponents say we will have developed an alternative by the time it's all gone, but that's bullshit, the alternatives are on hand, and they're slow to uptake. People care more about what is cheap right now than what will become expensive later. Oil is also used to make a lot of other things, such as producing plastics, so it's not just a question of how we will get around, but presumably the many other things oil is used for will be endangered as well.

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

i tend to agree. people have always had trouble looking past the immediate present. it's logical to want to move toward renewable energy without the need for a looming catastrophe. and while i think it's likely that global warming is occurring, i think there is a lot of dishonesty that has come with it.

additionally, even though i believe that it's happening, i'm always willing to listen to and consider thoughtful discussion about it. but climate change is just another stage for the play of completely closing your mind to anyone who doesn't espouse what you believe to the letter. our knowledge of our surroundings is constantly evolving, and the climate is very complex, so i don't understand the thought that anyone could know exactly how and why the climate is changing. more study and discussion is important.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I care more about the fact that we're pigging out on a non renewable energy resource, burning up the product of fossils just to get from here to there.

If Climate change is a hoax, then what else is a possible hoax?

What if petroleum is renewable? What if the fossil fuel story is scarcity hoax designed to control the market for maximum profit???

It's a resource cartel exactly like diamond market...

[–]HopeThatHalps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The fact that it's non renewable is self evident. Alternatives such as ethonol are not adequate replacements for crude oil. Even if there is more crude underground than we know, it's still a non renewable resource, it will be depleted sooner or later. The crude that remains might be innaccessible, or we might cause a lot of damage in the process of getting to it.

If welathier people choose to spend more on those alternatives now, we get more volume, which leads to cheaper costs per unit, and ultimately the alternatives become affordable for everybody. It's just a question of how much non renewable crude oil we will have pissed away before that time comes. Pure capitalism dictates that we should soak up every drop of crude and burn it first, and then let someone else deal with whatever negative side effects come from that, and so I don't consider pure capitalism to be pragmatic.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know why they ignore the ocean currents as a perpetual source of energy.

Oh, right. Practically free energy isn't profitable.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

The fact that it's non renewable is self evident.

Please explain how this is self-evident.

The deepest fossil that has ever been discovered was at the 16,000 ft level.

The deepest oil well is 40,000 feet deep. How did the "fossil fuel" get 25,000 feet below the fossils?

Again, please explain how this is self-evident?

[–]HopeThatHalps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is an argument from ignorance. "Since I don't know something, I will just assume something else is true", in this case "I don't know how fossil fuel ended up in a certain place, therefore I will assume we can produce more fossile fuel." You're just trading one seemingly implausible premise with another of your choosing.

But maybe I'm the one who is ignorant, what can you tell me about the feasability or reproducing crude oil from scratch? I understand there is a product called "synthetic crude", but that involves taking other depletable resources and converting them into something similar to crude oil, and so that's non-renewable also.

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

Is this your self-evident argument?

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

How is it not self evident? To say the notion that crude oil can be wholly sythesized in a renewable fashon is highly novel, the burden falls on you to explain how this is feasible.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm beginning to doubt that you understand what self-evident actually means...

You made the claim.

By the way petroleum has been lab synthesised.

There's a tremendous energy source beneath the crust that could supply the required energy, and catalytic materials, as well.

It's not outside or the realm of possibility.
The point is that the cartels control the land and the extraction.

Experiments have been performed on empty wells too see if they refilled.

Spoiler: They refilled...

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

Actually James Corbett has covered how the idea the oil is "fossils" was a Rockefeller myth to make people think it was more "natural".

Also, strange things happen to molecules in high velocity impacts. IMHO all those carbon fluids may be in part the result of eons of asteroids, like the water collected in our oceans.

Lastly, this is old news from about a decade ago, there are folks in Nevada or California that have developed some small scale tests to make gasoline from the air and focused solar power. I'd show you, but that hard drive died. AND it was a mainstream docu science show like BBC or Horizons or NOVA or Discovery or something. It was also about removing carbon from the air.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

B E S T SUMMARY BY FAR !!!

Mind if I copy paste to my Truther Top 20s lists?: https://infogalactic.com/info/Truther_Top_20s

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Feel free.

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

On top of this the poles are shifting at an accelerating rate. And they are converging (roughly toward Indonesia).

This is resulting is a significant weakening of the magnetosphere that is shielding the Earth.
Stack a CME onto this weakened shield and real disaster is looming in the coming decades.

Disaster is looming and we're completely unaware of it...

Edit:. Evidence.

North Pole

South Pole

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

Excellent post!

[–]sawboss 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Scientism is a blind faith it whatever authorities tell you and it has taken over this planet.

Right along with other fascist ideas such as frenology and eugenics. It's especially easy to buy into lies when they appear to confirm your own internal biases. If the degree holding elitists in media would only understand that, maybe they'd be capable of empathy for ordinary people.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They fully understand this. That is the very reason that they use lies that prey on internal biases.

This has been worked out into various sciences: sociology, public relations, psychology, etc. There is a reason that these social sciences continue to receive funding.

[–]Zombi 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

I agree 100%. I actually JUST posted in a conspiracy thread. I myself am very skeptical of conspiracies and I find myself very opposed to most of them (mostly due to logical flaws and giving speculation waaaay too much merit). One fear I had while making the post was the possibility for being banned. I will most likely make more contrarian posts on that sub and my fear is that I will be seen as "An MSM shill" and thus banned from posting. It's the most worrying with conspiracy theorists as they tend to easily shut out and completely disregard anyone who agrees with any kind of MSM narrative, no matter how justified/backed up it is.

I hope we can all just realize we're all people with our own lives. We all are just trying to speak our minds and converse. We aren't some stereotype or some strawman. People rarely do things in malice and on the contrary most people disagree because they think what they believe will be best for other people and themselves; they just have different routes towards the same goal.

I hope we can all understand those simple facts and learn from each other. I hope others have the critical thinking the prove when they are right and the strength to admit when they are wrong.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I'm seen as a MSM shill by some users of the site (despite not even knowing what MSM meant when I joined the site – turns out it means "mainstream media" which is a nebulous term meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean). This, however, doesn't matter; others, like /u/JasonCarswell, have got a more accurate idea of who I am and what my motives are (which actually conflicted with my own self-image, leading to introspection and hopefully self-improvement). It turned out to be a net-positive, in the end.

I say go ahead. Don't care who calls you a shill; they're just trying to push you out and shut you up just the same as when they're calling people SWJs or "from the_donald" or "brainwashed by religion". You are, in other words, not blindly accepting what they say, and they don't know how to deal with such an unexpected phenomenon (or, worse, know exactly how to deal with an expected one).

If they don't like what you're saying, and you're higher up than them on the pyramid of debate, they're free to leave. But don't listen to them when they tell you to.

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

I'm not so worried about being seen as a shill as some sort of insult, I'm more worried by the logic that would follow if I was deemed a shill. It would make sense that if you see someone as a puppet designed to spout malicious rhetoric that you'd just want to ban them because what they're saying is lies regardless of if their logic is based on facts or not. I'm being a bit paranoid, I know, but I'd be lying if it didn't cross my mind when I comment over there. It will most likely be fine and there's no way it would actually stop me from speaking my mind, but I guess I'm mainly worried that people won't even give me the time of day because of the label and even worse: ban me because of it.

Like I said, most likely me being overly cautious, but I can't help feeling that way either.

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

Them calling you a shill is merely a self-defence mechanism against thinking too hard. When you start making good points, they start to stop calling you a shill. (I learned that the hard way; I had to actually make good points instead of just bad points about Correct Things™.)

[–]SundogsPlace 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

wizzwizz People will take you more seriously when you stop posting untrue things that you make up. For example, you post > "mainstream media" which is a nebulous term meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean." <-

This is untrue, it does not mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. As per the Oxford living dictionary, mainstream media means

"treated as singular or plural Traditional forms of mass communication, such as newspapers, television, and radio (as opposed to the Internet) regarded collectively." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/msm

So you see, the statement you made above put you pretty low on the pyramid of debate you've just bragged about your position on because you made it up. In my experiance people who post untruths that they make up to make their point are often shills.

Also, you mention you have a motive for being here. Would you care to enlighten the rest of us, or is it a secret motive only yourself and Jason are privy too?

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

As per the Oxford living dictionary, mainstream media means

And yet many people would say that articles posted on the CNN website are part of the mainstream media. I find that people generally use it to mean "the big scary entity that's out to get me" and that depends on what their opinions are. Some things count as mainstream and others don't depending on whether they agree or disagree with them. I'm not saying you use it like that, but it's probably a term to either avoid or clarify each time you use it.

So you see, the statement you made above put you pretty low on the pyramid of debate

Being wrong doesn't put you further down the pyramid of debate. That's just silly. Otherwise I could argue that you're low down on the pyramid of debate, because I think you're wrong, and then it becomes a useless measure of anything.

you've just bragged about your position on

Where? I said "if". And anyway, I myself don't have a position on the pyramid. Only my words do. That was shorthand, aka sloppy writing, on my part.

In my experiance people who post untruths that they make up to make their point are often shills.

That's a dangerous road. I don't think this is true → this person is a shill → what they have written is not true after all. This can amplify any feelings of distrust you have into an outright rejection of everything they say. If I were a shill, I could use this to slowly back you further and further away from certain beliefs simply by slowly growing to espouse them.

Also, you mention you have a motive for being here.

As do we all.

Would you care to enlighten the rest of us,

I would if I could. Unfortunately, I'm under a Non-Disclosure Agreement. This is a bad joke.

[–]SundogsPlace 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Some things count as mainstream and others don't depending on whether they agree or disagree with them. I'm not saying you use it like that, but it's probably a term to either avoid or clarify each time you use it.

That is again false information. Your definition is just a definition that you made up. It is not the true definition of mainstream media as per the dictionary so why would anyone need to clarify each time they use it? You are the one using a made-up definition so I can see where you may need to clarify.

As for the pyramid of debate. You posted an untrue made up definition of mainstream media. Therefore YOU are wrong. You can THINK I'm wrong all day long, that doesn't change the fact that you indeed are wrong and posted made up information. If I am wrong, please, by all means, link the dictionary source of your definition to prove your position is correct. Oh, wait.. you can't do that because you made it up.

As for shills, you said you have a motive here and don't care to enlighten us because you signed a nondisclosure agreement.

Please see the below definition of a shill

-> A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

So by definition, you just admitted you are a shill. I have a screenshot of this entire conversation for the world to see. You can make up whatever you want this to mean, but it will never change what it is.

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

I'd say that he's either a retard or a retarded shill but I can't because of the Debate Pyramid, so I won't. But I'll be thinking it every time he spouts nonsense and utterly terrible nonsense logic and wastes our time. Too bad there isn't a good filter to keep his good ideas.

Maybe if /u/wizzwizz4 would just re-read all his comments 2 or 3 times before submitting them tediously unfiltered.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That NDA comment was a joke… If I were under a NDA, then surely that fact would also be under the NDA? Unless I'm misunderstanding what an NDA is.

[–]SundogsPlace 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Many NDA's allow a person to disclose they've signed an NDA. It's a little late for "It was a joke."

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Huh. I didn't know that. Of course, it's obvious _now_… Retracted.

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

Doesn't work that way.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Noted.

Ok, you want to know my real motives? Well… honestly, my motives when I first came here were along the lines of "oh look; people are Wrong™, and I can show how clever I am by telling them they're wrong." This technique, of course, only works if you're surrounded by similarly-thinking people who are similarly sheep-like, and I completely understand why the people I was shitposting at were not graciously accepting my "words of wisdom".

(He told me not to bring him into it, but) JasonCarswell very kindly pointed out to me that I was doing this, and I have resolved not to do this again. (I've also continued doing it, but that's besides the point; at least I'm doing it less and stopping more quickly.) As such, I am now wandering around fairly aimlessly, trying not to be too obnoxious, and waiting quite a bit before I definitively decide that I've found an area where I can contribute, because I try to make new mistakes instead of repeating the old ones.

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

What's this NDA about? I don't believe you.

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

Good; it was a joke.

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

Keep me out of it.

FYI This week we tediously argued as /u/wizzwizz4 said "elite" is a misunderstood term too. MSM is not misunderstood, though maybe only if you use the initials.

I have been kind to wizz explaining why he comes across wrong sometimes. He's certainly annoyed the fuck out of me too. But we all have weaknesses and limits. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks he's not a shill because I suspect he's autistic. His "motives" are fucking annoying sometimes trying to reinvent the wheel to drill down with some flawed logic.

As annoying as he is, I deal with him case by case, and he often offers good insights too.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

What was your conspiracy post?

If you ever want some insight on conspiracies give me a shout. I'll give my honest take on it and don't mind explaining it to newbies. Everyone didn't know stuff until they learned about it. And SOOOOO much they won't teach in school, intentionally. "They" want a good worker class distracted by trivial television, not an educated mass that realize how shafted we all are rise up and establish a fair system.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

https://saidit.net/s/DepopulationWatch/comments/ig6/due_to_health_concerns_brussels_stops_5g/w2j

For context we were talking about whether 5G is bad for you and the environment. I'm making the case that we don't really know and not knowing doesn't mean it's going to cause mass genocide like this user is saying.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think one of the greatest problems with the 5G thing is that we don't know because they WON'T do the proper testing, like with vaccines, and that automatically raises a LOT of red flags.

How can we say yes if we don't know and they won't let us know?

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

This is the real question. Great point.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Can you think of a legit reason to deploy 5G on a global scale; without evaluating the risks, or asking for input from the public?

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

Faster data speeds, really. As far as evaluating the risks goes, I completely agree testing must be done. If you read my post my issue is with needless speculation and fear mongering, not whether the technology should be tested before implementation.

Public opinion can be a tricky thing. Like I said in my post, people jump to conclusions and spout conspiracies with little to no actual evidence. I feel the public should be informed, but sometimes the public has no fucking clue what they're talking about as well.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My question has nothing to do with data transfer rates.

Can you think of a legit reason to avoid testing, and avoid providing testing methods and test results to the public?
Note: Any reasonable answer should include some theorized rationale, which could justify avoiding safety testing.

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

No I cannot which is why I've said repeatedly that testing is certainly something we should do. Who knows why they don't want to test it, it could be for some mundane reason or it could be to cover something up, my point is that we do not know yet here people are acting as if they do.

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

i don't know the answer to this and it's too late for me to go down a research hole, but did they do this kind of safety testing for telephone lines, internet lines, 4G, etc?

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

Don’t Hold Your iPhone Too Close to Your Head, Apple Says So.

Most (all) cell phone manuals indicate that you shouldn't hold your phone next to your head.

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

Can you think of a legit reason to deploy 5G on a global scale; without evaluating the risks

They never publically evaluate the risks when they know there are risks to be found.

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

That's it man, straight out of the Monsanto playbook. If they refuse to do studies, they can say we have no evidence that X happens.

[–]zyxzevn 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The distrust is part of the propaganda. If there are only 2 sides, both sides are wrong. Sometimes there are even more sides. By creating distrust each party tries to be good, by making the other look bad. It gives a black/white view of the world. Usually we only hear one side, so it seems that we are on the good side.

It is successful propaganda when you are pushed towards violence and think that the other group are all enemies.

The interesting things come from friendly and intelligent people that are pushed away by either side. They are usually telling about some real problems that are occurring. With "friendly" I do not mean "political correct".

[–]HeyImSancho 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Web Warriors united!

This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.~T.S. Elliot

[–]thegreatmighty 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree pretty much. However I don't think that means going and subbing to every other sub that has opposing views to mine. The nature of this kind of site, and how Reddit used to be, is that such discussion between opposing views will naturally come about. Certain groups will have their own subs but there will inevitably be a central sub where the two discuss (/s/republican and /s/democrat with a central /s/politics sub). Then there's the fact that there will be subs like /s/news where the subscribers are people of all different viewpoints and the subject spark discussions of many different issues.

What we need to worry about is not falling in the trap Reddit is of silencing opposing and controversial viewpoints. Allowing both sides to coexist on the site is what will spark insightful discussion. Site-wide censorship is what will turn the place into a site-wide echo chamber.

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

What we need to worry about is not falling in the trap Reddit is of silencing opposing and controversial viewpoints. Allowing both sides to coexist on the site is what will spark insightful discussion.

This! Hopefully, Saidit will remember this.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great post! You really understand what saidit is about, tbh. Couldn't have said it better myself.

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

tho if someone insults me, instant block

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

(block = blazing rock hard cock)