recent image
Immigration: Vox Populi, Vox Diaboli - Food...
Kaizen Androck
 April 25 2024 at 05:54 pm
more_horiz
post image
Many citizens in Western countries consider "immigration" to be the biggest problem their countries are facing. Former Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy reiterated this several times during his closed campaign. Donald Trump has spoken about this for years, too. For the past several days, I have seen many articles here on ThinkSpot about politics and the culture wars (degeneracy and intersexual dynamics). Then today, I read John Pepin's scintillating post about immigration titled Free Ride (do check it out; it's thought-provoking). That's when the idea of the following synthesis occurred to me or rather, when the exigence of this post compelled me. [Author's Confession—I have chosen to write this piece in an atypical conversational format instead of the typical expositional piece.] So, is immigration the biggest problem for the countries of the West? My answer is No! A big blatant no. Now that we have that out of the way, let's examine some facts about the issue. There are many "Wokies"/Regressives who have been harping on about the racial wage gap. There are many conservatives who profess vociferously that the racial wage gap is a myth. Interestingly, there are many Regressives (especially African-Americans) out there who also hate immigrants, claiming that they steal low-skilled jobs, which many Regressives consider their sacred birthright. Meanwhile, a lot of the recent discussions on ThinkSpot about issues between men and women also indicated the cultural change pervading the American consciousness today. Multiculturalism has certainly eroded American culture and continues to do so. However, is that the sole or even main contributor to the decline of the West? Additionally, an oft-quoted line in anti-immigrant rhetoric is about "getting these people here who hate our culture". Is this accurate? This brings me to my synthesis of this existential issue. The Racial Wage Gap is REAL! Yes, it is undeniable! There is a Racial Wage Gap in the United States. But, there is no Racist Wage Gap in the US. That's right! A Racial Wage Gap is not a Racist Wage Gap, regardless of how the Regressive vermin try to equate the latter with the former by using the first label. Words are the be-all and end-all of all human discourse. Our thoughts and ability to conceptualize things are completely dependent on the words we know and use. Everybody knows this or they ought to. So, what does that actually mean? And what does this have to do with the behemoth issue of immigration? Simple! Immigration is not the issue; Illegal immigration is. Many Americans sadly suffer from limited perspectives warping their comprehension, including several of us conservatives. Nonetheless, it is a fact that for the last several decades, many underdeveloped countries have been lamenting helplessly about the "Brain Drain" issue plaguing them. This, of course, refers to the fact that the best and brightest of their workforce were migrating abroad (mainly to the US) for greener pastures. What does this mean for the US? Well, when Regressives holler about how there is a racist wage gap in the US, they constantly cite how the African American earns around 70 cents for every dollar a White American makes or something around that number. Well, they conveniently ignore the fact that Asian Americans make more than White Americans, or they demean the Asians with derogatory pejoratives like "model minorities". They do this to try and refuse the logical implications of this fact. White Americans can't be racist en masse if they allow Asians to proceed while hindering only blacks and Hispanics. That's contradictory. Admittance of this error will force Regressives to admit the TRUTH about the racial wage gap and Illegal Immigration. Here is a look at the median US household income separated by ethnicity from 2021. Okay, so Asian American households are doing better than everyone else, especially blacks and Hispanics. But most Asian immigrants come legally while the Southern border spews out illegal immigrants who are mainly Hispanics and a few blacks. However, there are a few Asians who come here illegally too, through the Pacific human smuggling route, entering the US in the West. These illegals usually come from China. This is why the next set of statistics will be illuminating. That's right! The imbecilic habit of many Americans to misuse the word, Asian, to refer to only Oriental Americans/East Asians (who have epicanthic folds, or have the "Mongoloid" look as archaic and ignorant people used to call it) forget that Asia is the largest continent on earth, filled with several countries and ethnicities. This list puts Indians as the most financially successful ethnic group in the US with household incomes around 4 times more than the average African American household, 3 times the Hispanic household, and twice the White American household. Even when looking at the best-performing ethnicities, here is a list looking at the top twenty across the board. Do note how many Eastern European ethnicities feature in there. These are people from countries who were oppressed under the Iron Curtain while the pustulent Soviet Union was still alive and festering. Now, as significant as these stats are, no comprehension of culture or immigration would ever be whole and accurate without looking at per capita income as well. That's right! This was a look at average household income. Many homes have both parents working. Ergo, here we can take a glance at single income, albeit from 2018. These numbers show a more closer distribution between White Americans and Asian Americans while Hispanics and blacks still linger at the bottom. If we were to continue behaving logically, and look into the details of Asian Americans, the numbers look as follows. So, yes, not all Asian ethnicities are the same. Shocking, I know! There are low-performing ethnicities among Asians, just as there are in the US (Hispanics and African Americans mainly). Anyway, what does this all mean? Well, for starters, Indians are getting richer, as seen from the stats of 2018 and 2021. Well, Indians also have a 2% divorce rate, while black women have a 40% divorce rate. White Americans have a divorce rate of around 25%, while Asian Americans have a 12% divorce rate as a whole. The economy runs downstream from culture, after all. Finally, why are Regressives and Libtards (Never Progressives and Liberals: That's word theft) always hiding illegal immigration under the blanket term immigration? It's simple. Socialists hate legal migrants. Most of the legal migrants vote for capitalism, liberty, and meritocracy because Indians, Taiwanese, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, etc., have fled tyrannical socialist regimes. They build themselves up and, like the Cuban Americans of Florida, know first-hand how malevolent communism is. Therefore, no attempt by Democrats/Socialists/Regressives/Leftists to inflict demographic shift on the US will work with legal migrants in the fray. They need to swarm the area with illegal aliens, who will be beholden to the state, and when American women run around, refusing to have children and families, in a few years, it is quite likely that the demographics of the US will change. The voice of the people will no longer be the divine inspiration that created the greatest nation to ever exist. No, it will be a more diabolical voice. A voice of entitlement instead of enlightenment.
recent image
Locked up without a trial
Bettina Arndt
 April 25 2024 at 05:24 am
more_horiz
post image
They are treated like animals. Life in jail is appalling. It is awful in ways that most people could never imagine.” This is an experienced criminal lawyer talking about the men, the increasing proportion of our prison population, who find themselves imprisoned without a trial. On remand and locked up in vile conditions with violent, dangerous people. They are being locked up because of changes to our bail legislation which are resulting in more and more men being refused bail – shut away for months, sometimes even years before their cases are determined. Yet as I write this our media is inflamed, demanding fewer men should be let out on bail. This is the result of the death of a young NSW mum, Molly Ticehurst, apparently at the hands of her ex-partner who was out on bail facing various domestic and sexual violence allegations. “This has to stop” – demanded the Daily Telegraph, calling for changes to the state’s “failing bail laws.” During an interview with the Shadow NSW Police Minister Paul Toole, Chris Kenny on Sky News was quick to blame the magistrate for allowing bail to the alleged offender. Toole called for a complete overhaul of bail laws to ensure that even fewer accused men are given bail. The NSW government has already caved in and announced a review. Every time a crime is committed by someone on bail, we see similar demands for tightening of the laws to ensure that everyone accused of any serious crime, particularly domestic violence, is safely locked away – even before there is any attempt to examine the evidence supporting the accusation at trial. It’s easy to see why public sentiment is behind the demand to do more to protect vulnerable women in these circumstances. But the price we pay for knee-jerk responses to a very complex issue is that thousands of, both legally and factually innocent, men are locked up in jails across the country. It is very easy to argue that there will never be an offence committed by a person on bail if nobody is ever granted bail. But the true cost of such a position needs to be understood. Sure, we can reduce the risk of offending by removing bail as an option. And we can increase the likelihood of convictions by implementing a reverse onus in what we perceive to be ‘problem’ areas of crime. In fact, we can absolutely ensure that all persons suspected of committing a crime are summarily convicted, just by removing the right to a trial. But do we want to live in such a place? Right now, across this country more than a third of men in Australian prisons haven’t had their case determined by a court. In national trends, the number of unsentenced people in custody almost doubled, reaching 16,000 in the past decade. The proportion continues to go up – with a 15.5% increase in the last five years. In NSW, 42% of prisoners are now on remand – which means that they are legally innocent. Yet they are behind bars. “They are presumed to be innocent and a lot of these offences are not offences where, if they were convicted, they would necessarily go to jail,” comments Lorana Bartels, a professor of criminology at ANU, a feminist who mainly advocates on behalf of female and indigenous prisoners. Her focus is ironic given that most of the recent astonishing increase in presumed innocent people being locked up is due to what we might call “feminist offences” - offences allegedly committed mainly by males which the women’s lobby has worked hard to ensure are punished severely. That means, ideally, putting the alleged perpetrator behind bars. This feminist campaign has been a great success with a record number of prisoners on remand. In NSW, the overall remand prisoner population has increased by 74% in last 10 years and is now 92% male. Naturally our biased media plays down the fact that mainly men are being impacted. The Sydney Morning Herald falsely claims that the changes which resulted in this increase “disproportionately affect Indigenous Australians, the homeless and women.” Yet the crimes the feminists have targeted - sexual assault, domestic violence, intimidation/stalking and the like – make up 98 per cent of the increase in remand prisoners in the last 4 years, according to data provided to us by BOSCAR. Domestic violence and sexual assault account for 83% of the increase. Of course, there are shocking cases of women on remand - like Maree Mavis Crabtree, the Queensland woman who was recently released after six years behind bars. Bail had been refused after she was accused of killing her son with a poisoned fruit smoothie. But these cases are rare compared to the huge number of men finding themselves in this situation. For instance, we never hear about the men now routinely imprisoned without a trial after accusations of domestic violence. For every two men in prison who have been convicted of domestic violence, there are three who have been charged but not tried. As we know, no actual evidence is required to make a domestic violence accusation and have a man charged. A mere allegation by an angry ex-spouse is often sufficient to have her partner given an apprehended violence order and then, by setting up a few breaches of that order, put into jail. The same applies to sexual assault, as we have seen from five judges’ comments in NSW which led to the audit of current rape cases. Two years ago, I wrote about a man – I called him “Peter” - who achieved a substantial malicious prosecution payout from NSW police and prosecutors after he was arrested at the airport and taken straight to prison on the basis of his ex-wife’s false rape allegation – an allegation eventually disproved when he produced video evidence of her very obviously enjoying shagging him. I’ve seen that amazing video and described her “sitting on top of him, bouncing cheerfully.” Peter spent a terrifying month in prison on remand, surrounded by frightening men: “You are permanently on edge.” He was initially put into a cell where the toilet was full of vomit, overflowing onto the floor. Even when moved to better accommodation he learnt to stand in the filthy shower on the plastic plate used for his meals. Hideous food, sadistic guards. He lost 15 kilos in the month he was imprisoned. Another lawyer explains how the humiliations for these men pile up: “For low level offences, the police should issue notices to attend court but instead they are arresting men wherever they can find them, i.e. at home or at work. Handcuffing them and transporting them to police stations where they can then be questioned for many hours before charging them. This is all done in the traumatic cell environment where they will be ultimately searched and fingerprinted and formally charged.” “Depending on the time of the day they will then be sent to a remand facility. These facilities are horrendous, with full strip searches, three men to large concrete cells, free standing toilets in full view, 24-hour lights on, thinnest mattresses on concrete slabs, atrocious food and no entertainment of any sort.” The cells were like “hosed-out dog kennels”, an ex-remand prisoner told me, describing the damp, freezing cells. Last December I spent hour after hour trying to get through to Parklea private prison, trying to confirm they had a Chinese PhD student locked up there – I wrote about his story here. The phone was simply never answered, there was no response to the online system for trying to contact prisoners. “That’s par for the course,” his criminal lawyer told me. “These places have no interest in facilitating contact for prisoners with friends or family. Contact with the outside is heavily restricted, calls are absurdly expensive. Inmates are routinely moved to locations hundreds of kilometres from their families – and from legal support.” Imprisoned men simply disappear into the system, and it can be a mighty task even for their lawyers to find out where they are. And they are certainly not safe. “People in jail live in the midst of violence. People are arbitrarily attacked and often severely injured,” the criminal lawyer explained. There’s a young Sydney man who certainly can vouch for that. The 22-year-old had been in a sexual relationship with an older (27), very sexually experienced woman who had a porn business, and persuaded him to appear with her in porno videos. When they fell out, she accused him of rape and choking her, and trying to suffocate their baby. The appeal case was handled by the high-profile criminal barrister Peter Lavac, and ultimately thrown out. “Her lies were exposed after 55 minutes of cross-examination,” Lavac explained. When she refused to come back and resume cross examination, the crown was forced to withdraw all ten charges. But this guy had initially been represented by legal aid, had his bail refused and spent 18 months in prison on remand. During that time, he was savagely beaten, and gang raped several times. The strangulation allegation would have guaranteed he had no hope of bail. A Queensland police officer explained that in that state the criminal code was recently amended to include a specific offence of strangulation. “Once this was law, the rate of women reporting strangulation increased dramatically. This is a strong ground for police to oppose or object to bail. What I saw was the courts immediately started to remand men if charged with strangulation as part of a dv. Women’s groups soon learned that to get a man locked up was as simple as mentioning strangulation. Most police even ask if it occurred to avoid missing it.” A similar pattern has emerged in other states. Then there’s the other feminist favourite, stalking – 57% of those imprisoned for intimidation or stalking are merely accused, not convicted. Think about that – most people jailed for stalking are there solely based only on an accusation. They haven’t even received a trial. Our state governments had better start building more prisons fast given the expected tsunami of men likely to be charged with the new criminal offence of coercive control, due in the next year or so. That one is a dead certanity for denial of bail, given how hard the feminists have worked to claim coercive control is linked to domestic homicide – no matter how strong the evidence showing that is not the case – see here. So, what was it that triggered this big shift towards locking people up without a trial? Following demands from the media similar to those occurring today, bail laws were reformed in 2013 and 2021 so that the presumption of bail was revoked for some offences, requiring that courts assess bail risk and a “show cause” test that puts the onus on people charged with the most serious offences to justify why they should be given bail. Only sexual offences involving minors are on the current list but the default position is already refusal of bail for most sexual assault offences. Now the push is now on for all sexual assault offences to be included in the “show cause” list, including allegations involving lack of consent. Can you imagine the consequences if all young men being accused of such crimes were immediately locked up without a trial? When it comes to domestic violence, the reality is that in the current culture most magistrates will err on the side of caution - “in case something happens”. They will rarely give bail if they perceive that there is any risk of violence. Even with less serious offences involving domestic violence breaches, risk-averse magistrates are (understandably) readily convinced to take the easy way out. The consequence of these changes to bail laws is that the rate of bail refusals has increased by 47.3% over last 9 years according to BOCSAR. This means more and more remand prisoners even though crime rates have been on a dramatic decline. NSW Greens MLC David Shoebridge commented that this change “undermines the presumption of innocence for every citizen in NSW, and is an attack on this fundamental principle in our criminal justice system.” In 2019 an ACT man, Atem Deng had a family violence order placed on him for damaging some property. On 30 August 2019, Deng was convicted, fined and “all related charges were finalised”. Nevertheless, in October he was arrested for being at the home he and his partner had shared, despite the fact he had not had contact with his ex. Bail was refused and he was held on remand for 58 days. The experience was horrendous, including a full-body cavity search, and having his life threatened by a cell-mate. The ACT Supreme Court found that there was no basis for the charge against him because there was no order preventing him from being there. Yet when Deng sought damages for false imprisonment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, saying that locking up people who were not guilty was “not uncommon.” The absolutely gobsmacking conclusion from the three court of Appeal judges was that locking up this innocent guy was “the system working, not failing.” The writing is on the wall, and it is very, very scary.
recent image
The New Question: Part 1
liberty5300
 May 09 2024 at 06:32 pm
more_horiz
In my town, we have a well-known “question.” If you visit this mid-western city (or nearby suburbs), it’s not difficult to pick up on the question after only a few encounters with the locals. They call it the *insert-my-town-name* question. If my city has a “thing,” this is probably it. Transplants get a free pass. I assume the underlying rationale for even having a “question” is because my mid-western city is relatively small. And when you say *insert-my-town-name,” you’re not actually referring to the city itself. No one actually goes to the city anymore (it’s too dangerous). I haven’t routinely visited the city since I was in my *invincible* teens, and even then, it wasn’t very safe. Last time I went to the city was to see Jordan Peterson, to give you some context, and that was months ago. So the suburbs and the smaller urban areas are saturated, and everyone knows everybody. You can’t get away with anything here. And it’s only human that this comes with various cliques and their associated stereotypes. I, myself, unfortunately occasionally “use” this question as a diagnostic tool. I can’t help it. It’s like muscle memory. “I need some context now! Who is this person?” I’m inclined to package them up with a label before I ever consider listening to what they have to say. It’s shallow, but it’s the reality here. I have to fight myself not to even go there. But this is “the” question. And it’s been around much longer than I have been alive. My grandpa first told me this about my town. The well-known *insert-my-town-name* question automatically categorizes an individual. It’s a mental shortcut. It tells superficial people if you’re worth talking to. Your answer may or may not have some “prestige” to it. Or, your answer may divulge your “hoosier” status, a choice mid-western word we use for “redneck” or “low-class.” The question also gives some insight to your location, especially, growing up. It can also tell quite a bit about your religious and/or cultural upbringing. Most of all, the question tells people who you know. And in my town, as I said, everybody knows everyone, and “who-you-know,” like anywhere else, matters. So what’s this question?
recent image
A Guide for Social Justice Paradox - Part 7
Robert "RSnake" Hansen
 April 26 2024 at 01:33 am
more_horiz
post image
On today's journey through the seemingly endless abyss of social justice paradoxes we will once again touch on race. I don't find much personal satisfaction in writing about race because growing up, I never felt any sense of groups being less than, or meaningfully different. Some of my best friends were Hispanic, Asian or Black growing up - one of the virtues of a boarding school where parents of wealthy families around the world could dispose of their children, and combine with the largely Caucasian and Hispanics of central California. Every morning, I'd talk with the black girl who would come in and as her job at the school she'd replace newspapers in the library. Every afternoon I'd hang out with my black buddy who I played lacrosse with. My asian friends taught me how to flip pencils and how to write my name with kanji. My hispanic crush and I would have long talks about her family life, and how she just wanted to move to a bigger town. Another hispanic friend and I spent hours talking about our auto-shop class and drafting class and what he wanted to do after he was out of school. That's a Gen-X life riddled with possibilities and where race conflict was a distant and terribly unimportant idea. Yet, despite my personal distaste for the topic, here we are. Before we jump in, I wanted to address a valid criticism of these articles: whataboutism. A brief aside. Whataboutism, is criticized as a diversionary tactic in arguments, but can also highlight inconsistencies and hypocrisy. It forces discussion to consider alternative contexts but similar situations, challenging the selective outrage or selective standards applied during dialectics. Whataboutisms are about consistent application of principles. Dialogues should never be selectively blind or cherry picked but coherent and genuine. I cannot apologize for this series, in the examples chosen, because they are of great utility. So with that... Here is today's Hilbert Problems for Social Justice: Listen to minority parents AND minority parents having school choice is racist.Minorities to schools: Listen to us: https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0821/p1s1-usgn.htmlRacist history of school choice: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/27/school-choice-developed-way-protect-segregation-abolish-public-schools/ Minority communities have long advocated for a more significant voice in how their children are educated, urging educational systems to be more responsive to their unique cultural and community needs. The call to "Listen to minority parents" stems from a history where these communities have felt marginalized or ignored by predominantly white educational policy makers and systems. This plea emphasizes the necessity for inclusive dialogue and tailored educational approaches that respect and integrate the values and expectations of minority families. Who could blame them given the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the Tuskegee experiments. Yet, conversely, the assertion that "school choice is racist" connects to a contentious history where policies like school vouchers were initially proposed as mechanisms to avoid desegregation, serving to perpetuate segregation under the guise of choice. This perspective views school choice not as an empowerment tool but as a continuation of segregationist policies, subtly repackaged. Critics argue that rather than offering genuine opportunities, school choice enables a select few to escape under-resourced public schools, which further deprives these institutions of necessary support and perpetuates educational inequity, and ultimately causes those underfunded schools to shutter. If a school is in shambles, and kids are unsafe or are unable to learn due to the school itself, or because if where it is located, why would we deprive families the opportunity to send their children elsewhere? Shouldn't we allow them to do whatever they feel is best for their situation? Yes, some schools will fold because of this, but these were schools with bad scores that were likely not redeemable. This is not about depriving children an education but by allowing market forces to dictate the best places for learning. I don't personally know a single parent who wants their children to go to a dangerous school or one where the scores are abysmal. Do you? When schools fail to provide a safe and effective learning environment, it raises a critical question: why should families be barred from seeking better educational opportunities for their children? The concept of school choice is not an indictment of public education; rather, it empowers parents to make informed decisions that align with their children's educational needs. This approach does not abandon struggling schools but introduces a competitive dynamic that encourages all schools to elevate their standards of performance and safety. Allowing families this choice is particularly imperative for minority communities, who may otherwise be constrained to underperforming schools. By fostering an environment where schools must compete for students, we promote a merit-based system that prioritizes student success and well-being. This isn't about dismantling public education but about ensuring that every child has access to quality education, free from the constraints of zip codes or governmental overreach. Such a system naturally drives improvements across the board, ensuring that no child is left in a failing school simply because of geographics or socioeconomics. If too many people try to get into the good school, the next school down will get the second best students, and so on - leaning on grades to make tie-breaker decisions. A capitalist meritocracy, free of racist decisions made by a government intent on meddling in family choice. And with that, I hope you found this article interesting. This is a series of posts that will address many of these conflated social justice issues - there will be more, God willing. So please subscribe, and drop a comment, if you want more of the same. That is the only way I will have any sense of how this is landing with you, dear reader. Also, if you want to know about me or my show,The RSnake Show, please visit https://rsnake.com for details.
recent image
A Guide for Social Justice Paradox - Part 9
Robert "RSnake" Hansen
 May 09 2024 at 03:02 pm
more_horiz
post image
Thank you for joining me again on this journey down the social activist rabbit hole. I find it essential to confront the contradictions that arise from applying simple logical principles to gender and social justice discussions. Today, we'll further challenge assumptions typically taken as gospel by many on the left. Something that people often say is that people should believe all women, and then the left will accuse women of lying when the accusation suits their narrative. So today's disagreeing couplet is: Believe Women AND women can lie.Believe women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_womenWomen can lie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey The phrase "believe women" has become a rallying cry for advocates of social justice, emphasizing the importance of trust and credibility in situations where victims' voices are often silenced or dismissed. The whole idea stemmed from the #metoo movement, which, although perhaps a useful critical backlash against a culture of abuse by those in power, especially in Hollywood, ended up expanding into all sorts of other areas including bad dates or how someone felt regret about an event long after consenting. Without arguing the merits of the #metoo moment, this mantra, that women should be believed in their accusations, is usefully juxtaposed with the reality that women, like all humans, can lie. One of my favorite ways to explain this is to ask someone I'm talking to if spies can lie. They naturally say yes. I then ask if women have ever acted as spies. They say yes. So... logically women can and do lie. To think otherwise is naiveté on a level that is virtually incomprehensible. They will then change the conversation to being about women's right and reproductive rights - moving the goal post of the aforementioned slogan to only address a slice of a woman's life, and not the woman's life in it's entirety. To that, I have a similar thought experiment. Norma McCorvey, known colloquially as "Jane Roe," is a notable example. She was the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade (1973), which temporarily legalized abortion in the United States. However, it's now widely acknowledged that McCorvey later became an anti-abortion activist, widely and loudly contradicting her initial claims. Should we believe her that she regretted the abortion? Sure, why not? Believe all women! But this is where the second half of the belief comes in, where Norma was chastised by the left for saying she lied. They accused her of lying as she tried to overturn Roe vs Wade! However, later Norma McCorvey, in the last year of her life, stated that she never believed anything she was saying and was only doing it for money, and still believed in reproductive rights for women. Okay, but I was supposed to believe all women, and now, here is a woman who is saying she lied. To make matters worse, according to Abby Johnson, who worked for Planned Parenthood before joining the anti-abortion movement, said that McCorvey expressed remorse for abortion on her deathbed. But she lie the first time when she recanted her stance on abortion, or in the last year of her life, or did she lie on her deathbed confession? Either way, here is a single person, the very lightning rod for reproductive rights legislation in the United States, openly admitting to lying about reproductive rights... three times. Norma's life was very complicated and I don't necessarily blame her for lying, whichever time or times she did - because perhaps she actually did believe what she was saying when she said it and her lies were only in her mis-remembering how she had always felt another way. Suffice it to say, she is not a credible witness for the left. This paradox questions the idea of any one gender owns truth, trust, and credibility. Can we truly believe women without acknowledging the possibility or even probability of a certain amount of deception? Or do we need to develop a more sophisticated framework for evaluating testimony and evidence? On a personal note, I had a short-lived romantic relationship with a woman who later, long after a breakup, claimed I had impregnated her. I was very suspicious because the timing didn't quite make sense and her story sounded made up. When I flatly refused to get back together with her, she suddenly was no longer pregnant - the entire pregnancy was a fabrication. Her plan, later revealed, was that she intended to get pregnant upon me taking her back. She only confessed when I made it clear our relationship had finished and reconciliation would not commence just because of an accidental pregnancy. This, I suspect, is a common situation, where women, like anyone, who have an objective, lie to get what they want. Women are human and humans lie. To say woman cannot lie is a different form of sexism - why can't they - is there something wrong with them that they lack that ability? This inconsistency highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of human behavior. Should we prioritize women over men? If so, what does society gain when we enable systemic sexism? Or do we need to develop a more comprehensive non-idealistic way of looking at human behaviors, taking each accusation at it's own merits, letting the courts deal with scrutinizing the case on it's evidence, and keeping our nose out of the business of complex situations until they have been fully litigated? I'd rather let a few perceived injustices through than hang the wrong man. To the core of why this topic is something we need to be careful about - what motives would the left have for shutting out the ability for men to defend themselves against any allegations? Perhaps it is simply a grab for the hearts and minds of activists and to create more power for the activist women on the left. Even in the face of exonerating evidence to the contrary, activists can wave off any evidence as an example of obvious bigotry that one would ever question the validity of their cause, rather than looking at the failure of the logic in their ill conceived slogans. The inherit sexism of the activist left shines brightly during these conversations. How many people will suffer because we choose to use sexual organs as a barometer of merit over truth itself? It is essential to develop a more sophisticated framework for evaluating evidence and testimony. We must prioritize fairness, equity, and transparency in all domains, while simultaneously acknowledging the potential for deception. Thank you for engaging with me on this thought-provoking topic. Please share your thoughts and insights in the comments below. Also, as always, if you want to know about me or my show, The RSnake Show, please visit https://rsnake.com for details.
recent image
There's Free Cheese In A Mouse Trap
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 May 16 2024 at 01:55 pm
more_horiz
post image
In our society, there’s a prevalent push toward convenient, low-hanging fruit solutions that, while offering immediate relief or benefits, can lead to increased dependency. This trend is evident across various aspects of life, from health to financial stability. For instance, the widespread availability of prescription medications and supplements pushed as quick health fixes, such as weight loss, often discourages deeper lifestyle changes that are more sustainable and empowering. Similarly, easy access to credit cards and government assistance programs can provide immediate financial relief but might also discourage the pursuit of financial self-sufficiency. These easy solutions, while beneficial in certain situations, can perpetuate a cycle of dependence that benefits those in power who thrive on a reliant populace. By recognizing these patterns and opting for more autonomous choices, individuals can challenge these dynamics and foster a sense of personal empowerment. The power dynamics inherent in these systems reveal a stark truth: independence is perceived as a threat by those who benefit from a dependent populace. By cultivating self-reliance, individuals can undermine these dynamics, challenging the status quo. Beyond individual actions, fostering community support systems like local farmers' markets or neighborhood exchanges can further reduce reliance on large, impersonal systems that benefit from consumer dependency. This shift towards localism not only empowers individuals but also strengthens community bonds, presenting a tangible resistance to overarching power structures. The discussion around power dynamics and self-reliance is vast, extending into various aspects of life. What are your thoughts and experiences with navigating these power dynamics? How do you pursue independence in your daily life? Let's open up the conversation and share our journeys towards a more autonomous existence. Full website - 🔗 mikevera.com Healthy & Awake Podcast: 🔗 Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 🔗 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM 🔗 Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V 🔗 YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn 🔗 Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw 🔗 X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.
recent image
A Guide for Social Justice Paradox - Part 8
Robert "RSnake" Hansen
 May 02 2024 at 01:01 pm
more_horiz
post image
In today's exploration of the Hilbert Problems for Social Justice, we delve into a contradiction that encapsulates the complex interplay between economics, societal values, and perceived injustices within the realms of sports and modeling and... pay gaps. This issue presents a challenge to conventional narratives surrounding wage disparities—a favorite battleground for discussions on fairness and equity. I appreciate your engagement with these topics, which often lie at the intersection of social justice and economic reality. As always, your insights and reflections are invaluable as we navigate these convoluted waters together. For instance, I did get feedback on the whataboutisms comment I made last week - that it is a logical fallacy. True - and yet, it gives us a useful tool to crack open other logical fallacies. I still won't apologize for their use. Another side note, I have a great deal to say about gender pay gap, having worked on a system that measured such things within privately held companies. When we measured people with equal jobs with equal schooling, working in the same office, with the same years of experience, the pay gap was either non-existent or wildly in favor of the women - by many percentage points. The rationale we heard from employers was that if they didn't overpay the women they'd leave because women are in such high demand. That was a bit of a shock, but it also forced me to do more analysis, some of which lead me to talking to lawyers about how they perceived women in the workplace, and the stats they gave were too incredible to share, and too ghastly. Since I can't prove them and these were only anecdotal stories and without giving the numbers outright, women on staff were many times more likely to sue the company and win or far more often settle, which is why so few cases of lawsuits are recorded - they don't make it to court. So companies have a great deal of incentives to make sure women are treated more than fairly, and still end up getting sued at an incredible rate regardless. Companies knowingly risks EEOC lawsuits from men for sexual discrimination, but according to these lawyers, men are far less likely to complain and sue over unfair compensation. Companies feel safer being unfair to men, despite the popular narrative. So with that in mind, onto today's logical fallacy: Wage gaps in the WNBA vs NBA are a problem AND economics explains why male models are paid less.Wage Gaps in the WNBA vs NBA are a Problem: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en/SB-Blogs/COVID19-OpEds/2022/08/22-LeeMale models are paid less: https://us.fashionnetwork.com/news/The-other-side-of-the-pay-gap-male-models-paid-significantly-less-than-female-counterparts,736553.html This statement that wage gaps from the same sports played by different genders is a problem, posits that the significant pay disparity between athletes in the WNBA and the NBA is inherently unjust, suggesting that female athletes are undervalued and deserve equitable remuneration irrespective of other economic factors. I think it is worth pointing out the statistics - not that it actually matters for the fallacy itself. According to various sources the highest paid female athletes are making around $235k annually with an average of $102k compared to the males making at the highest around $50M with an average salary of around $9.8M. The WNBA in 2023 made around $60M whereas the NBA made $10 billion. The NBA generates significantly higher revenues compared to the WNBA, mirrored in the viewership numbers and commercial deals. That averages out to the every average female taking in .204% of the total revenue for the WNBA and the average male taking in .098% of the total revenue for the NBA. The average WNBA player makes double the percentage of how much their respective leagues actually earn. I still hear the argument a lot that it is a problem, presumably because the net earnings are smaller, even if women make more than the males as a percentage of what the WNBA nets. Conversely, in the fashion industry, female models command higher wages due to greater demand and revenue potential, a fact accepted even by advocates of pay equity in other domains. There is notably less pearl clutching. Here, the argument accepts that market dynamics—such as demand and revenue generation—justify lower earnings for male models compared to their female counterparts, highlighting an acceptance of economic rationale when explaining disparities in certain professions. So which is it? Do market dynamics matter, or don't they? Should everyone get paid the same amount for the same work? What then, if two employees have the same title, even if they provide significantly less income to their employer because their skill/talent/observable traits are provably different/better? These two countervailing statements illustrate a selective application of economic principles based on the field and gender. The critique against the NBA-WNBA pay gap regularly overlooks viewership, revenue, and profitability—factors readily acknowledged in the modeling industry, where market forces justify wage disparities. This selective invocation of economic principles in gender discussions reveals an underlying inconsistency and likely latent sexism. Those advocating for equal pay in sports often aim to highlight and rectify perceived gender inequalities, pushing for societal and structural changes that support women's sports. However, when similar economic explanations are applied to the modeling industry, there is a readiness to accept market-driven outcomes. This may suggest a deeper, perhaps ideological commitment to highlighting gender disparities selectively, where it supports broader narratives of systemic gender bias. Thank you for your attention to this unsavory issue. The dual standards in applying economic rationale reveal significant challenges in forming consistent, principled stances across different sectors. We will continue to unravel these social justice paradoxes in our ongoing series. Please comment and follow, so that I know this is still of interest to you - it is my barometer. Also, as always, if you want to know about me or my show, The RSnake Show, please visit https://rsnake.com for details.
recent image
Do You Trust The Mainstream Media?
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 May 15 2024 at 12:46 pm
more_horiz
post image
It’s almost comedic when criticism of corporate media’s dishonesty is met with demands for proof from the very sources being questioned. It’s like asking for a band-aid from the company that made the knife you just got cut with—a clear disconnect from critical thinking and evaluation. Despite numerous instances of 'misinformation', it’s surprising that there’s still a significant trust in these traditional media outlets. However, a notable shift is underway. Independent voices are rising, capable of spreading information much more rapidly than legacy media, and this is reshaping the landscape. These traditional outlets are feeling the pressure as they face declining viewership and diminishing trust, which undoubtedly unsettles them. For decades, they've held significant influence over public opinion, and losing that power is not something they can easily accept. But change is inevitable. With the rise of independent media, the question now is: What does the future of staying informed look like? Will legacy media adapt to new demands and regain public trust, or will their influence wane until it fades away? And what about independent media—will it continue to grow, or will it face its own set of challenges? Additionally, what role will AI play in shaping our media consumption? I’m curious to hear your thoughts on these developments. What do you foresee for the future of media? How will we navigate the evolving landscape to stay informed? Full website - 🔗 mikevera.com Healthy & Awake Podcast: 🔗 Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 🔗 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM 🔗 Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V 🔗 YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn 🔗 Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw 🔗 X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.
recent image
The Fight to Choose the Words We Use
Natalie Hanemann
 May 03 2024 at 02:11 pm
more_horiz
post image
When Language Gets Hijacked Photo Credit:wildpixel When someone with authority over us restricts the words we use, they are attempting to control the way we think. We see this played out in George Orwell’s classic novel1984 where the ruling power “Big Brother” divests its citizens of personal choice and establishes an ideology which eliminates variety of thought, creativity, and even “superfluous” words from the vernacular. In the novel, the new language, “Newspeak,” strips down modern English to its barest form. Words are rigidly defined and synonyms are removed. Throw out the word “warm” because now we say “uncold.” A car isn’t “fast” but “speedful.” This same kind of restriction of words get applied when we pass laws requiring the use of a person’s selected gender pronoun. If a person of one gender identifies as the other gender, we must use the new pronouns or risk a lawsuit for infringing on their civil rights. Said simply, using the pronoun “he” when referring to a man could get you arrested. “Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism…The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.” — George Orwell,1984 This new language ban rode in stealthily on the tide of the “woke” movement, but I worry those in support of forcing people to use a particular gender pronoun don’t realize they’re participating in this latest form of censorship. Society has long put the written word in the crosshairs of the censorship battle. Banning books puts the microscope on how those in authority attempt to control language. Banning a title because it contains violence or shares a worldview that is contrary to the accepted norm is a form of control. On the flip side, forcing people to use language that accepts an ideology or risk getting mobbed in the modern version of a public square, social media, is equally deplorable. This is not a situation of using a racial slur, as was often the reason books got banned. This is banning our ability to refer to a man as a “he.” You’ll find 1984 on the banned list, along with many other beloved classics by authors such as John Steinbeck, Toni Morrison, and J.D. Salinger. The concern the banners have regards how the content may influence a minor. As a parent of four, we should know what our kids are reading and either shelve a book if we feel our child is too young for the content, or have a conversation with them about the book (meaning, you should read it too). When I was 12, the art book Imagine came out and I couldn’t wait to purchase it and see John Lennon’s drawings. In my preteen years, I was (and still am) a huge Beatles fan — John was my favorite. But my mom wouldn’t let me purchase the book because of the sexually explicit nature of the drawings. I remember how angry I was, and then two years later, how vindicating it felt to hold the “contraband” in my arms. For decades, America has banned books for showing the truth of slavery…for using colloquialisms with racial slurs... And new on the literary scene, queer lit. Fortunately, reading a book where the character is gay doesn’t turn the reader gay, any more than reading Alice Walker will make you African-American or reading Anne Frank will make you Jewish. If Walker Percy or Mark Twain use the “N-word,” the reader won’t instantly add that to their lexicon. The words the author chose to write reflected the sign of the times. We choose the words we use, books don’t force us to use them. Books expose us to the wider world to bygone times when modern sensibilities were still developing. I love watching old episodes of Twilight Zone or Outer Limits to remember a time before computers and iPhones, when the idea of robots taking over the world entertained and literally horrified viewers. 1984 opens with the protagonist, Winston, desperate to write his rebellious thoughts in a journal. Teetering on the edge of madness, he simply cannot reconcile the laws of Big Brother with what he knows about the world. Vague memories of his childhood live in the mist of his mind. A time when children played games. He knows black is not white, but even thinking that makes him guilty of thoughtcrime. Big Brother indoctrinates individuals with the goal of eliminating from memory all the “Old” ways, when people had freedom of expression. Now, citizens must believe black is white and freedom is slavery. What about reality? “Reality is inside the skull…You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.” Big Brother’s purpose in overhauling language usage is to “make all other modes of thought impossible.” When we self-select how others must refer to us, aren’t we removing the other person’s right to speak their truth? I’ve personally been called hateful names for not using someone’s identifying pronoun. But what is at stake here is much greater than hurting someone’s feelings or not respecting how they identify. Forcing me under threat of criminal charge to use language that supports an ideology I don’t agree with makes one thing clear: Big Brother is alive and well among us. In the novel, Winston feels utterly helpless to argue against this tide of Party thought. He is tortured by electric shocks that gradually and painfully lead him toward a lobotomy. All the pain would stop if he’d simply say: 2 + 2 = 5 And not just say it, but believe it. Setting aside personal opinion on social issues, math may be the most honest truth that exists. Winston spends the length of the book unable to accept this “new math.” Forcing a person to say “black is white” or “freedom is slavery” is coercion. To be clear, we stand at the crossroads, deciding which crime we are more willing to commit. The one that offends a person who desires to be referred to as a gender different than they were born with…or the one that states an ontological falsehood. If we choose the latter, which I find much more egregious, the consequence makes us radically counter-cultural and puts us at risk of bearing the full force of those with the loudest voices, those who won’t hesitate to come down hard with the snap of a gavel, the slice of a guillotine, or the click of a post to annihilate you. When I knowingly state a falsehood, I put myself at risk of others finding me untrustworthy. More than that, it undermines reality. It injures my moral integrity. Research shows that the country is fairly divided on their comfort level of using self-selected gender pronouns. But the coverage of this divide is not equal. We live in a time where individualism and creativity are paramount to one’s happiness. American culture spent the entire 20th century fighting for people-groups to gain freedom. Historically, though, the pendulum can swing too far in reaction and generate a dangerous hypocrisy. Are we seeing today what happens when the momentum of freedom for all gains such speed, it is in danger of becoming as restrictive as the very thing it fights against? Controlling someone’s language is an act of authoritarianism, where the ruler maintains absolute power. When our thoughts, words, and views don’t align with what the masses believe, we stand out. We become a target and get labeled pejorative words. Don’t we watch in disgust as our politicians do this same thing? They turn a disagreement on a topic to a personal attack and they manipulate the population with out-of-context soundbites and double-speak against their opponents. Literature offers us the chance to ask bigger questions, about ourselves and about the world, in the pursuit of deeper meaning. It can make the reader uncomfortable, some may say it isn’t literature if it doesn’t! We don’t all have to grow in the same way, but we all have to grow, and that begins by asking challenging questions and letting intelligent people disagree respectfully. What’s at stake here? Only the integrity of our word. “It is intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”
recent image
Offended = Unhealthy and Weak
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 May 09 2024 at 05:44 pm
more_horiz
post image
Looking at the health of our society, there's a noticeable trend that may reflect our collective wellness—or lack thereof. The ease with which people are offended these days is observable not just on college campuses or under strict legal climates like Canada's hate speech laws, but also in everyday interactions online and in the increasingly polarized responses to censorship efforts. This widespread sensitivity can be seen as evidence of a societal malaise. Why are so many quick to take offense? It could be likened to having a thorn in one's paw—existing pain makes one reactive and sensitive. This discomfort might stem from various sources: financial insecurity, mental health challenges, or poor physical health, all exacerbated by a media landscape that often capitalizes on stirring controversy and framing public discourse in divisive ways. The theory goes that those who are in a more stable, healthy state—free of these metaphorical thorns—are less likely to feel threatened or attacked by differing viewpoints. Building societal health, therefore, involves strengthening ourselves not just physically, but also financially, emotionally, and mentally. It's about developing resilience so that we're not easily destabilized by minor provocations or differing opinions. This leads to a broader discussion: How can we as individuals cultivate this strength? Where should we focus our efforts first to heal and fortify ourselves? And specifically, how can we build mental resilience that allows us to engage with challenging ideas without feeling personally attacked? Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.
recent image
Ozempic Culture
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 May 09 2024 at 05:48 pm
more_horiz
post image
It's alarming to witness the trend of substituting essential dietary and lifestyle changes with medication. This is highlighted by finance articles that narrowly critique intermittent fasting while praising Ozempic, reflecting a concerning direction in society. Ozempic's prevalence and its aggressive marketing towards those eager for weight loss solutions exemplify a deeper problem. The cycle of pharmaceuticals causing harm, leading to the prescription of more drugs to address these side effects, enriches the industry at the expense of public health. This business model, profitable yet detrimental to well-being, exemplifies the pharmaceutical industry's vested interest in maintaining, not curing, illness. In Episode 25 of my podcast, I discussed the cultural factors contributing to the widespread use of Ozempic with a respected medical professional, Dr. Amy Tiffany. While I don't judge those who choose medication, I advocate for caution and a healthy skepticism towards the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare providers who prescribe these medications without discussing potential risks or the importance of lifestyle modifications. This leads me to question the ethics of pharmaceutical advertising and its impact on individuals who may lack the full picture of what they're engaging with. Do you believe there should be stricter regulations on pharmaceutical advertising? How can we better educate individuals on the importance of lifestyle changes over seeking quick pharmaceutical solutions? As a Board Certified Health Coach, I've guided many towards achieving weight loss and improving their health to the extent that they no longer need pharmaceuticals. If you're ready to explore sustainable health changes, I invite you to take advantage of a special offer: your first session with me is available for just $1. Reach out by commenting on this post or sending a direct message to start your journey. Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.
recent image
A Guide for Social Justice Paradox - Part 10
Robert "RSnake" Hansen
 May 16 2024 at 01:00 pm
more_horiz
post image
In this latest entry in our series on the Hilbert Problems for Social Justice, we tackle a contentious paradox that has surfaced prominently during the COVID-19 pandemic. If you are anything like me you feel duped by the medical industry, but rather than talk about all of the shenanigans that went into why vaccines that were barely tested and didn't perfectly prevent diseases were deemed mandatory by the US government, I'd rather talk about one of the unsavory Dawkins memetics that came from it - trusting science. Once again, I'd like to express my gratitude to you, the reader, for engaging with this complex discourse. Your insights and challenges enrich our collective exploration of these paradoxes. With that... Trust the science AND the COVID vaccine didn't actually prevent infection or transmission.Trust the science: https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1465003501541597191The COVID vaccine fails to prevents transmission: https://www.audacy.com/kmox/news/national/cdc-director-says-vaccines-are-not-preventing-transmission Believing science is often heralded as a cornerstone of rational thought and public policy. It is a club upon which socialites use to bludgeon the ocean of deplorable idiocracy who clearly didn't bother to read the research, even though the intelligentsia didn't read it very well themselves. It implies a belief in the scientific method as a systematic approach to understanding natural phenomena—objective, self-correcting, and evidence-based, and most importantly, never, ever, wrong. Meanwhile we were all told that the vaccines were 100% safe (not any other number than perfectly safe) and prevented infection (as opposed to reduce the likelihood of infection) and prevented re-transmission (despite the CDC's recanting of that). While perhaps highly effective at preventing severe disease and death, the vaccines do not completely stop the virus from being transmitted among people. So... which is it? Am I supposed to believe the CDC that it works 100% of the time, or am I supposed to believe the CDC that it doesn't work 100% of the time. If I am to trust science, I am now left in a lurch. These statements appear contradictory because trusting in science seems to necessitate faith in the efficacy of vaccines as a public health measure, or whatever scientific weapon is devised by groups that have unknown intentions for our public health and wellbeing. Acknowledging that vaccines do not halt transmission might seem to undermine the very scientific assurances that bolster public trust. This dichotomy presents a significant philosophical and practical challenge: how can one simultaneously uphold the integrity of scientific advocacy while recognizing the limitations of what science can currently achieve? The dialogue surrounding vaccines often becomes polarized—either seen as an unequivocal public good or as a flawed measure that fails to deliver on its promises. This polarization is evident in public debates and policy-making, where the nuance of "partial efficacy" can be lost amidst binary arguments. The media's role in shaping these discussions is profound, often amplifying the divide. The truth is... complicated. And the public hates complicated answers. Each side holds a piece of the truth: vaccines are both a monumental scientific achievement and yet not a panacea. Those who propagate the "trust the science" narrative may be motivated by a desire to promote public health and protect communities. Conversely, those emphasizing the vaccines' inability to prevent transmission often want to demonstrate the limits of current scientific solutions and advocate for continued caution and additional measures. There are many examples of where this sort of fallacy shows up. However it dies down in the face where it has a counter-narrative conclusion. Or worse, when the scientific community itself is proven to be bigoted by it's own measuring stick. For instance, when the DSM removed homosexuality as a mental disorder on the order of a paraphilia along with pedophilia. Which was it - was homosexuality a mental disorder or was it normative behavior? Which science am I to trust? Masks yes and masks no. Do I trust Fauci - the very man who exclaimed he himself was science embodied, who said that masks didn't work very well at the beginning of the pandemic, or do I trust Fauci - the man who shamed anyone who didn't wear two of them? Pluto is a planet, no, an exoplanet. Milk is a food group according to the food pyramid... twice. Science is often proven wrong and that is what makes it interesting and useful – we can continue to test and push its boundaries. One should never take science on face value unless it is both well studied and replicated by dis-interested parties. The only party we know for sure that cannot be trusted, is the press - and they are starting to admit it openly.Replication crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisisHow NPR lost America's trust: https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust As we continue to navigate these turbulent waters, made worse by the people who claim to be working for the public, it behooves us to remember that science is a dynamic and evolving field, filled with people who make mistakes both accidentally and intentionally. It provides us with the best tools we have, even as it confronts its own boundaries and limitations. This paradox, like many others in the realm of social justice, invites us to engage critically with complex issues, resisting oversimplified narratives. Thank you for joining me in this continued exploration. The journey through the Hilbert Problems for Social Justice will persist, aiming to unravel more of these intricate and often controversial issues. For further thoughts and discussions, I invite you to tune into The RSnake Show or visit my website at https://rsnake.com. Your thoughts and comments are invaluable as we continue to seek clarity in a world replete with all these paradoxes.
recent image
WEF: A Force For Good Or Bad?
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 May 09 2024 at 05:39 pm
more_horiz
post image
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is at the center of starkly contrasting views. On one side, critics label it a conspiratorial force aiming to reshape global society through unprecedented control. On the other, some see it as a harbinger of a utopian future, benevolently guided by advanced technologies like artificial intelligence. One statement from the WEF that sparks debate is the concept that "you will own nothing and be happy." Additionally, there are discussions about eliminating elections, with AI predicting voting outcomes, and significant investments in promoting alternative diets, like replacing meat with insect-based proteins—despite minimal public demand. These points raise valid concerns, especially considering that the individuals driving these initiatives are not elected officials. This fact alone warrants a healthy dose of skepticism towards their proposals and the potential global impact of their policies. It's crucial to question and critically assess such powerful entities, rather than accepting their agendas at face value. Why trust unchecked, unelected powers? What might be the real agenda behind their glossy presentations of a futuristic world? I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the WEF. Do you view these concerns as merely conspiracy theories, or do you find them reasonable? What have you observed from the WEF that supports or contradicts these points? And importantly, how should we respond to any potential overreaches by such influential groups? Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

[143287, 153593, 148356, 60675, 1835, 132224, 2, 153914, 17088, 112609, 150682, 2314, 134402, 1822, 153889, 125038, 153381, 33581, 154184, 148910, 153807, 36134, 154181, 154169, 154149, 154180, 133841, 58659, 154179, 154176, 92022, 154137, 146843, 154147, 154175, 154157, 154173, 49133, 154163, 614, 154091, 154072, 147825, 48117, 101422, 47054, 154143, 154099, 90996, 154124]

Recently Active Thinkers