This tik tok had close to $1 million views last night and over 25k retweets and, in 24 hours, was pulled down @JanJekielek Do we still believe this is about a virus? They who want to control don’t want you to make discoveries. I tried to repost it, and it says “ under review” … UNDER review by WHO? I am leading the Microbiome Research clinically. Who else knows what Blautia or Roseburia does or what they are, or is it normal to have them? Please teach me... Here’s my advice; EDUCATE YOURSELF to stay alive. This is NOT about health… If it was... “discovering the loss of Bifidobacteria in severe covid patients would have hit mainstream media.” They would have pushed vitamins, exercise, and gut health for you to survive Covid. This is about control. This is about removing your freedom to speak and freedom to choose. Unite to fight for the truth. Stop the division. Your politician will not save you. @Progenabiome was created to empower you, to #letdrsbedrs, to #Savethebif. This is my life’s mission NOW!! The moment they interfered with my research, they woke me up, and I am a hurricane in research. #WATCHME #ROAR.. No Dr will innovate if this continues... No Dr will try a drug or a treatment if medicine continues to be political. We cannot afford to interfere with research because we all will be patients. Research needs to be pure and unbiased and we MUST be able to challenge the narrative.
@EndWokeness With the amount of understanding that I see from everyday people, I feel as though the idea that compelled speech = controlled speech is much more widespread. The woke ideas are mainly held by people who want to fit in, or control others. I knew a few, met a few; it'll go away.
I went for dinner with a friend in Colombia and he asked how I gauge the honesty of other creators.
How can I be sure that they’re trustworthy, not audience-captured and creating their work for the right reasons?
I ended up describing a series of questions that I go through in my mind when assessing the legitimacy of other creators’ opinions and their work in general.
I think it’s pretty robust and might be of use to you too. So here we go.
1. When was the last time you heard them change their mind?**
If no amount of evidence would change someone’s stance, then they don’t hold a rational opinion, they hold an ideological belief.
All of the thinkers I respect the least never change their minds.
They see adjusting their opinions as tantamount to destruction of their sense of self.
When your ego and your stances have fused so tightly that you can no longer separate them, you will become less and less objective.
If someone doesn’t regularly alter their opinions, they’re either an unserious thinker, or a deity.
2. Do they primarily identify out-groups as a mode of bonding their in-group together?**
Straight out of The Charlatan Playbook.
Leaning into tribal biases is a fast-track to getting people on your side.
Humans are naturally super-tribal, so manifesting an enemy group to galvanise everyone to battle against will be superbly effective at encouraging affiliation.
However bonding together over the mutual distaste of an out-group is inherently fragile because everyone is only bonded because the enemy of their enemy is a friend.
And a Purity Spiral will begin where in order to continue to bond the group together, heretics who don’t conform to the in-group ideology will be identified and shamed.
Check whether you love the work of the people you look up to, or if you just hate the people who they say hate them.
3. How often do they admit mistakes? Genuinely not performatively.**
Openness and vulnerability is a costly signal.
It means that the person you’re following cares more about being accurate than seeming perfect.
They’re prepared to identify their own blindspots in service of being honest.
Performative mistake-porn is a tool that smart charlatans can use to pretend that they’re owning up to a mistake but it’s all a smoke screen so people can’t accuse them of being too hubristic.
4. Do they want to hear alternative points of view for reasons other than mocking them?**
Related to all of the above.
If their entire body of work is an echo chamber where the only divergent voices are ones that they speak to in order to make them feel silly, galvanise out-group hatred or simply for clickbait, they’re not concerned with the truth.
Not only is it important for your, and their learning, to be exposed to different opinions, but it’s also important to show that you can talk to people who you disagree with without turning it into the sort of slanging match that everyone hates about the internet.
I’m sure there’s other common trends I’ve missed but this seems to be a good start for judging thinkers’ work.
@ericweinstein If there was a planet hospitable to Humans, yet somehow unclaimed, I wouldn't object to assistance in the construction of a colony. Who knows what time of wildlife might've developed? I'd presume wood is as common as it is here on Earth to build basic housing.
@ConceptualJames Only thing I'm raising is middle fingers to that shit. Didn't get a say about a single dime of tax money going over to their next forever war.