That is a strange question. If you use any service to consume media, the service has a huge influence on what information you receive. It is a common complaint over media. Using a service which is under control of someone who doesn’t have your best interest in mind, is giving power over your media consumption to that actor. Which is bad. That is why you should care about who e.h. owns and controls the Washington Post.

Now, about TikTok… Well think about it.

For those horrible enough to like this.

Sometimes each other too if my information is correct. So even if you are a bad person and want to harass innocent people, kiwi farms isn’t the place to be.

Bad people are bad people towards you too if you give them the chance. Just don’t be bad, much better. Don’t hate!

I know an easy fix. Just don’t do ai.

Not really. It is the tolerance paradox.

Banning slavery might be authoritarian but it is less authoritarian than allowing it. So on the political scale, banning slavery is anti-authoritarian and allowing it is authoritarian.

I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.

it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case…

Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people… So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but… I think we know better than trying that with slavery)

I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.

Vanilla might not be good in a lot of things… Ice cream… Se… But here it is pretty nice!

E.g. it is a reality that there is currently some correlations between race and e.g. poverty. Even we don’t consider those correlations when enacting laws, we create unjust laws that impact some races more than others, which would feedback into those correlations.

Extremely stupid example for. CT (critical theory in general), if your government would enact a law that would state that the government would build you your dream house for 5 millions. Even if it is more expensive than 5 million. Then “everyone” can get their dream house on paper, but in reality only the rich can get it and they get additional wealth that the general public would have to cover. Impoverishing the poor more and enrich the wealthiest more. So an unjust law.

Well, I would love if that concept could be retired and forgotten sooner than later. But as things are right now, e.g. CRT is required to get there and CRT requires the concept of race :/

I can’t test it right now but I would love to know. Is it true?

You could easily create that meme for the tolerance paradox. Just saying

I read it here before but the best way is deconstructing a specific case of the person in question choosing. The problem is that replacing one influencer with another one won’t change the understanding issue of misplaced trust in media/people.

I think that these things should be voluntary by the way. Both for success chances and pure respect for your sibling.

Ask him if they would be interested. Then make them choose an episode. Prepare yourself. Ask them to prepare a little document in which they express their understanding and lesson that they learned from the episode. Ask them if they are willing to investigate how true these things are. Look for evidence together or alone. When done, get together and talk about the truthfulness of the ideas.

Alternatively ask yourself if they have some kind of expertise in something and look if there is a Joe Rogan episode about and suggest them to watch it. The deconstruction would happen automatically. You can help by ask them questions about it. Having to vocalize criticism towards something is an amazing reflection exercise.

Signal is like WhatsApp but you don’t even need to share your phone number for it anymore. You can have an username and share that with people.

Being against, doesn’t make you hateful anyway.

I am “against” religion as I think it does more harm than good but I am pro religious freedom for everyone and a peaceful cooperative global society. So I think that makes me hardly hateful towards religions or the believers. Well tbh I have a hard time accepting religious extremist positions in societies, but everything comes with a price… I take religious freedom for everyone if that means someone thinks a book with instructions on how to abort a baby is against abortion and that it should be law.

Honestly I had too many people insist that Tedx has any value

That man is onto something. God bless!

What communities do you like? I am looking for more

I didn’t exclude them. And I want to make clear that I strongly believe women to be equal to men. Ofc there are men who want to be dominated.

But I was giving a critic to the idea that women wouldn’t be able to freely consent due to some vague sense of possible abuse from a man. Because that would imply that e.g. if a man chains himself on a board and give a woman a cat o’ nine tails, the woman couldn’t freely choose to hit him as the man is still a source of some vague sense of possible abuse in the future as a consequence of her decision. Which isn’t completely wrong, of course there are women to are in such a situation, but as a general condition, it heavily implies that women can’t consent to anything, even to anything that would less the threat of abuse. Which is simply insulting to women, and invalidating any woman’s opinion on these things, especially those who prefer something that it viewed as possibly abusive.

Like take people seriously, and support the creation of supportive structures for those who need them to get out of a situation where leaving is difficult.

Yeah it does and you couldn’t really change it. As women would act based on internalized sexism and even if a man wants to respect the wish of a woman and give her 100% control, she would act in the sexist norms, which would signal to the men that women want those sexist norms. So men would continue to “enforce” those norms as women would fear to stop the men.

So sexism can’t be solved; and then we can ask why bother trying to change it then?

Stupid line of thinking that is insulting to both, women and men. No means no, my friends. No means no. Respect your fellow humans.

Jk rolling made some really strange decisions. Some of it really makes you wonder if maybe she was being a little too honest or just too unaware to see the implications.

I just did and some of the stuff is wild. Not gonna quote or reference anything for my account safety, don’t ask.