If you really want to help people, buy media, buy politicans and get REAL change that will actually last.

Did he stutter?

Can we do top 1% so that I don’t feel included?

Why should the call for removal not be a smokescreen?

What is the thing that the upper class does that doesn’t receive any attention but should make us worried?

You may be right. Then please explain to me how history is needed for science.

You are not wrong that I should read a book on epistemology. But why do you ask me how science can create knowledge? If you have read those books yourself, you should know.

As you noted, I rephrased your words. We are not talking about my axioms. It doesn’t make sense to define tainted if that is not what you mean.

Still, your point seems to be that definition of words require history. You can have that form of history. The context is just that history is rewritten and I argue that that can be compensated with science.

Enlighten me. Science can always be recreated. Which knowledge is needed from history that cannot be created in a scientific way?

Science was created for a time when knowledge was insecure because it was tainted with superstition.

How does science know if something is true, with experiments.

So we need software that enhances the voices of those who we want to hear.

The past doesn’t tell you what to do, especially not when your recordings of history are wrong. If you cannot trust your history, how are you going to make decisions?

I was arguing that history is not needed when we have access to all experiences so we can ignore history if it is tainted.

You say that relying on wrong history is dangerous and in the original comment, you say that well cited information is essential.

There is no real contradiction but you have shown how access to information can be changed, or framed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

You are welcome.

What’s your opinion if you don’t mind me asking?

That’s the challenge. I still believe that it is possible.

Why does it have to be dictated? People can freely organize in a democratic way.

The problem is that people may join just because it is better, without fully supporting the respect towards others that is needed in such a system.

I agree, for the way our societies are structured.

My point is that we could organize us in a way that history could provide additional depth but that the essential decisions could be made as well without the knowlege of history.

Does it matter? History only matters if actions in the now are justified by interpretations of the past.

Thanks to the internet, we have instant access to the experience of billions of people. All human experience is already there and doesn’t have to be approximated by history.

Just don’t do any crimes.

\s

Yes, let’s normalize censorship.

If the majority of people cannot handle information on their own, how can we maintain democracy?

Are senior cititzens more stupid? Otherwise how do we know that we believe the right things, and not just what is acceptable by the mainstream which will change for the next generation?

What are anarchists? They are no tankies but also not center-left.

To rise 11 children with the profits from a quarter of a hectare, that’s remarkable.