Alyx Hinata 🇹🇩🚫💀 @alyx@gameliberty.club

@Beef
Holly shit, you're an actual moron, aren't you. Next up you're gonna argue that immigrants aren't illegal.

@Beef
Now if only I would have been more clear, and written "SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS" all over the place, to make it clear over and over again that we're not talking about the common parlance understanding of "consensus=opinion". "Scientific consensus" is a completely different thing to "consensus", just like "scientific theory" is a different term than just "theory".

English must be a harder language than I thought.

Imagine searching for "Chris-chan real name" and you have to scroll down to find Christian and not Christine.

@lewdthewides
Is his name Christian by any chance?

@Terry
That's not a happiness smile. That's a "I'm taking a selfie, so I need to smile" smile.

@PinochetsCommieCopter
One of the cars is kinda violet, the other is mostly white. The white car has a door open and is in a city, while the other is in a park. The angles from which the photos are taken are different. I mean, I think I've made my case quite clear that the pictures are easy to distinguish.

@Terry
"Christian Nationalism" is an atheist psy-op. My theory is that it was created to use the fear mongering towards nationalism (that itself was derived from fear mongering towards white nationalism/supremacy) to vilify Christianity in America.

The reason I say this, is because until not that long ago, the term that was used in the atheist community has been "theocracy" to attack any attempt at a religious driven political system, including a Christian one. But now suddenly I got inundated with the buzz term "Christian Nationalism" even though the most powerful, widespread and dangerous theocratic system in the world is Islam, not Christianity.

The fact that Andrew Torba wrote such garbage speaks volumes.

Speaking of intuition... I don't get it how a conspiracy theorist can look at the most dodgy and poorly made websites, with some really poorly written articles, and not have his gut instinct scream at him: "this is not the work of someone I should immediately trust!".

I immediately get that feeling any time I end up on some dodgy blog. It's partly why I never understood the "fake news" fear mongering, because I knew exactly the types of half-assed blogs the hysteria was initially targeting (right before mainstream conservative publications started being brandished with the label by borderline communists), and I thought one doesn't need more than 2 brain cells to get that gut feeling that a "news" website is just click bait farm, and not a reliable source of knowledge.

@Alex
Can't remember for sure, but I think it was Sargon that argued that what gut instinct or intuition is, is basically your brain processing in the background the information you pick you in your life, and constructing some rough models of the world that can guide you unconsciously. An instance of a gut instinct being your brain telling you if something conforms or not with it's currently constructed model.

By this reasoning, of course the models won't be perfect, but they'll be more than adequate for making quick decisions on things.

@Alex
You're fundamentally right about intuition being important, but what I've learned over the years is that you need a decent basic scientific understanding to slowly extend the area of things on which intuition can work. The more you learn, the better your intuition becomes at figuring out if a new piece of information fits with what you know (and thus could potentially increase your understanding of things via intuition) or if there's something amiss (and the information can't be trusted).

But if can't grasp some really basic things, your intuition will be crap, and there's not enough foundation on which to build a better understanding of the world. If your intuition tells you that 2+2=5, there really isn't anywhere you can go from there.

Also, unfortunately, intuition does have it's limits. You really can't rely on intuition for quantum physics.

Are you gonna listen to a trans faggot when they try to inject hormones into your kids just because they say "I did my own research"? Of course you fucking won't, because you know the "research" consists of a bunch of echo chamber blog posts, that is indistinguishable in structure from the "research" of your favorite conspiracy man. Same type of echo chamber that won't ever see something opposing their opinion.

The "he did his own research" is such a stupid non-argument. A blue haired, trans faggot feminist activist does it's own research too. Doesn't mean it's good for anything.

And that's not even mentioning that "did his own research" just means he read one or two conspiracy theory blogs.

@xianc78
Except you're wrong about pretty much everything you've wrote. I already gave you a link to a Youtube channel that has more than enough content to disprove any opinion you can hold on this matter, and he actually posts sources to proper research, not hacks.

As for "most scientists can't even repeat their own experiments", that's the sociology field you're thinking about. You know, the same "science" field that is full of humanities degrees having hacks, like your dear James Corbett.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQph_5eZsGs&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=36

@sam @critical
Everything is gay.

Except you. You're the straightest motherfucker to have ever existed. You're so straight NASA use you to calibrate their navigation instruments.

There is a difference between scientific consensus and common parlance consensus that people don't seem to be able to grasp.
Similar to how there's a vastly different meaning between how scientists use the word "theory" and how a normie does.

@Beef
And this my friend is you proving to not understand what scientific consensus is. Scientific consensus is not opinion. Scientific consensus in this context is measuring a pile of 2 apples, measuring another pile of 2 apples, putting the piles together, measuring the result and discovering you have a pile of 4 apples; and then doing this experiment over and over again, and discovering over and over again through experimentation that 2+2=4.

@CatLord @Awoo
I'd be more concerned that those clothes look like they were pulled straight out of Mass Effect, and the architecture doesn't look that far off too.

2+2=4 is a scientific consensus.
If you can't wrap your brain around that, and if you insist that "science doesn't work by consensus!" then you don't understand the scientific process.

@xianc78
>That's not how science works.
Except it kinda does. Scientist A comes up with an hypothesis. He tests it, perfects it, constructs a theory, tests it some more, publishes it. Other scientists peer review the theory, test it some more, over and over again. If their tests fail, the theory is disqualified. At which point scientist A can try to mend the theory or abandon it. And if the theory is at a point where experiments and tests pass successfully, it is now a valid theory by which "science" understands the workings of a particular subject, and it remains the prevailing theory until it fails to pass certain tests or until scientist B constructs a theory that is better in some form (usually is able to create more accurate predictions) and then the process starts all over again.
But you constantly deal with scientific consensus in the form of peer review.

Consensus here isn't a matter of personal opinion. It's a matter of does the theory withstand the attempts to falsify it, in what areas does the theory hold, where doesn't it hold. For instance the consensus regarding Einstein's theory of general relativity has withstood over and over again the attempts to test the space-time warping effect that gravity has. Every year or so you'll find another group of scientists trying to measure more and more precisely the warping of space-time caused by gravity, and each and every time the measurements comply perfectly with the predictions from the theory. That's where the consensus is formed, in the data from actual measurements.

But then you're gonna argue that 3% found the theory to be wrong. You can have 2 possibilities here:
1) the 3% did some very specific experiments for some very specific conditions, where the theory might break down. For example who know very well that Einstein's theory simply doesn't work inside singularities, like black holes. You don't even need proper measurements or experiments, cause the thing doesn't even work mathematically. In such cases, the 97% will peer review the findings, redo tests for these very specific conditions, will be able to certify the findings and a new consensus eventually forms that states: theory A works for most conditions, but doesn't work for these specific condition, where the theory breaks down, and we need to search for something else to explain it. This is why science has been looking for a quantum theory of gravity because Einstein's theories can't explain what's inside a black hole.
2) the 3% are just plain wrong. They're testing the exact same thing everyone else is testing, but because something in their methodology is wrong, they get faulty results. And when the rest of the 97% try to peer review they simply can't replicate the results, because the 3% did "bad science". Instead the 97% keep getting results consistent with the established consensus.

>How many of those "reputable sources" are funded by organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
Probably much less than you think. Also who the fuck is James Corbett and why should I even waste a second on a nobody who's highest credentials is a humanities degree and the proud owner of a blog page?

@xianc78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTRlSGKddJE