Unfortunately US Billionaires have a lot of societal impact outside of the US. They don’t care about the arbitrary borders that bound us plebians, they have enough money that the borders functionally don’t exist.

The video is an explanation, none of us want to regurgitate multiple 30-45 minute videos that already explain exactly what your asking.

The thing with intelligence agencies isn’t about the information they collect or apread but the means and methods of they collect or spread information.

If ABC intelligence agency knows someone is a double agent feeding state secrets to XYZ foreign agency, that double agent can go be unknowingly molded into an asset for ABC by feeding them inaccurate information, or their patterns can be used to uncover other undiscovered agents and gain insights into other potential security holes.

Yeah that’s been the joke since the Witness was first revealed in With Queen just over 2 years ago.

Nobody’s hating him, we’re pointing out his arguments are untrue and pushing harmful rhetoric. People who hate him would be calling for his banning, not trying to argue against his rhetoric.

Citation needed.

At least the president in Idocracy had the humility and self awareness let the smartest guy in the room advise him on policy.

but we already have more than enough people and no realistic places left to expand.

…in the current economic model. Currently we have enough built housing and grow enough food globally and produce enough consumer goods that ever single person can be fed, clothed and shelter. But the wealthiest few would rather crops rot in fields, hoard houses to extract rent and burn unsold clothing instead of slightly lowering ther profit margins.

I always figured it was because metal is harder than rock.

Maybe like an indie game publishing coop sort of thing. Sort of like what Nebula does where the content creators also have ownership in the company.

There’s a few Neil DeGrasse Tyson clips I remember seeing around about various scientific and religious interactions.

Like he calls nonsense on the BCE/CE vs BC/AD change because scientists, and really most of scociety, operates on the Gregorian Calendar which was created by the Catholic Church under Pope Gregory XIII and is the most accurate calendar we’ve ever made to account for leap years. Why deny the creators of a fantastic calendar their due respect just because they were religious in a time when everyone was religious?

And in a different he also talked about the Baghdad House of Wisdom and how throughout the Middle Ages of Europe, Baghdad was a center of intellectual thought and culture, until the Fundamentalists got into power and declared manipulating numbers was witchcraft, and ended up being a huge brain drain in Baghdad for centuries.

To an extent it depends how that religion interacts with science. There’s quite a few major foundational discoveries that came from priests and ordained clergy from the Catholic Church: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

Within the Catholic Church there are a few orders of clergy dedicated to scientific discovery, especially the Jesuits.

Granted a lot of them conducted science under the broad philosophy of better understanding the universe God created, but if the end result eventually improves the lives of people, I don’t see how that’s an inherently bad thing.

If we wanted to be a bit more accurate to the hustoru of the real world, religious fundamentalism is opposed to science.

You’re right that performi g agreement and disagreement are certainly not equal on Twitter, but there is also the concept of ratio-ing where tons of quote tweets and replies compared to few likes is usually a good indicator that people are disagreeing.

Some advice I got about how to deal with people who like to use euphemisms and bad faith argument to hide their racism/sexism/XYZ-phobia (but it works even when it’s not the xenophobia stuff) is to just play dumb. Be like Socrates and keep poking at their underlying arguments and assumptions.

An uncle of mine will talk about “people wearing hoodies” as a euphemism for “thuggish black people” and I’ll just play dumb, and ask stuff like “I wear hoddies, does that make me a criminal?” or “What is it about hoddies that makes people criminals?” “It’s a piece of cotton, I don’t get what it is about hoodies that makes someone a criminal” And just keep asking dumb questions, they’ll get to a point that they’ll either say the quiet part out loud or just won’t say their veiled racist stuff around you.

It’s a bit of initial work but after a while people leave you alone because it’s just a pain in the ass trying to argue with you.

Bad argument techniques are not necessarily bad faith arguments.

For example saying “broccoli is bad because I don’t like it” isn’t necessarily bad faith, it’s just poorly reasoned and doesn’t consider other perspectives and ideas. If the arguer is willing to listen to other perspectives and ideas and is willing to revise their statement to better reflect reality to something like “broccoli is not for me, because I don’t like broccoli but other people do.”

Bad faith argumentation doesn’t try to consider other ideas and perspectives and will do everything they can to avoid conceding anything to the opposing arguments, and will continue to adhere to the original despite evidence to the contrary.

Both can use bad argumentation, but good faith argumentation reflects a willingness to adapt to new information, and bad faith will only double down on their argument despite evidence to the contrary.

Sort of. If you’re doing burgers, you don’t usually need to pat it dry, but you also don’t salt it until just before you put it on the pan/grill. Salt still draws out moisture and changes the protein structure especially in ground beef.

I’m not saying you’re wrong because yes those are real problems your discussing and absolutely worthy of discussion. Mishandling how AI fits into society is going to be a major problem, the pandemic was a huge disruption globally, and devices designed to extract as much dopamine as possible are definitely targeting kids. These are valid problems of our day.

But (I’m assuming you are a teen), many people have experienced similar pervading fears in the past, in my lifetime I’ve gone through multiple economic crises, watched planes crash into multiple buildings on live TV in 3rd grade and watched our country split itself apart politically in real time recall the Y2K bug hysteria, and yeah even flip phones in my time were decried as addictive.

My parents lived through the looming threat of global nuclear conflict and the fear that commies have already secretly invaded and body snatched your neighbors and that “thuggish drug dealers” are on every corner waiting to give you drugs and get you addicted while the real drug dealers (tobacco companies) testified in front of congress that they weren’t marketing to kids with their cool and edgy cartoon characters and that nicotine wasn’t addictive.

Adults might not seem phased because most of us have been through global scale crises before. For some, yeah that stoicism is just callousness of a lifetime of unnecessary crisis. For others, it’s a call to action to tackle a problem none of us can solve ourselves. Most parents, if they had the choice and power, wouldn’t want their children to go through this kind of stuff, but we aren’t the ones who hole the keys to power, that belongs to our “heavily sponsored” politicians. All we can do is just figure out the next few steps as they happen.

I’m not saying this to invalidate your fears, there is truth to them, but don’t give up because of that fear. Learn about what causes that fear, understand it, and then fight to make sure others don’t have to go through it. You’re young, you have a good starting baseline of understanding about the world, far more than I did when I was a teen, you have a lot of time to expand that understanding, keep learning, and fight the good fight.