I want to start by saying that I appreciate the work you put into questioning narratives and exploring media literacy. Your content has some strong points, and I even agree with you on certain ideas, especially the need for skepticism and critical thinking about the news. However, even though I called 3 times and have call logs showing it and waiting for you to pick up, I won't say you didn't want to hear the challenge. Likely a glitch.
One thing that stood out to me was being labeled as having "mind AIDS" for challenging your framework. Let’s unpack that. This was not only just an ad hominem attack but also a revealing reaction, not to mention not true. It seemed less about addressing my actual points and more about projecting your frustration at being confronted with an opposing perspective.
When you often talk about being an objectivist, it feels like the term is being misapplied. Objectivism is rooted in the idea of objective reality, that reality exists independently of our beliefs or perceptions. It also emphasizes reason and evidence-based thinking. To claim objectivity, you have to apply it across the board. For example, if you insist that the media has the burden of proof (which I agree it does), then the same standard must apply when you claim an event is fake. Saying something is probably staged or a hoax isn’t skepticism; it’s an assertion that needs evidence. Otherwise, this makes your framework more about dismissing evidence than analyzing it objectively.
Your belief system seems to rely heavily on unfalsifiable claims. For instance, the healthcare shooter being an actor was stated as fact, even after a caller mentioned knowing the family. Instead of engaging with the possibility that the event might have been real, by inquiring about what she knew of the family as the shooter, the response was to double down on it being fake. That’s not objectivity; that’s starting with a conclusion and working backward to fit the conclusions. This approach undermines your claim to being an objectivist since true objectivity would involve weighing all available evidence and acknowledging when something isn’t certain.
Merely calling something a hoax does not align with skepticism. Skepticism is not simply doubting a claim or asserting that something is a hoax. Genuine skepticism is critical inquiry. It involves evaluating evidence, questioning assumptions, and withholding judgment until sufficient evidence supports a claim. Even though I don't necessarily disagree usually I can acknowledge that right now, blankedly asserting this or that is a hoax is logically falacious for a number of reasons:
1. Lack of Neutrality:
Skepticism requires an open-minded, neutral stance. Declaring something a hoax from the outset assumes a conclusion without thoroughly examining the evidence. This is the opposite of skepticism, as it introduces bias.
2. Burden of Proof:
When someone claims that an event is a hoax, they are making a positive assertion that requires evidence. A skeptic would recognize that all claims, whether affirming or denying an event, bear the burden of proof.
3. Appeal to Personal Improbability:
Finding something personally incredible or unlikely does not inherently make it false. Skepticism requires distinguishing between personal incredulity ("I can’t believe this would really happen..." "thats too convenient...") and actual evidence-based reasoning.
4. Cherry-Picking Evidence
Declaring an event a hoax often involves ignoring evidence that supports the event’s occurrence while amplifying contradictory or anomalous details. True skepticism evaluates all evidence in context.
5. Confirmation Bias:
If someone starts with the belief that something is a hoax, they are likely to look for evidence that supports this belief while disregarding evidence to the contrary. Skepticism demands vigilance against this bias.
6. Mistaking Cynicism for Skepticism:
Cynicism assumes bad faith or falsehood, while skepticism is about critical, reasoned inquiry. Calling an event a hoax without investigation is closer to cynicism than skepticism.
Another area where your argument weakens is the reliance on predictive programming as a catch-all explanation. While some connections like the Trump shooting imagery are genuinely intriguing, many others feel like a stretch. They sound like me suggesting that the movie Project X was predictive programming for Elon Musk taking over Twitter because of chaos in a leaderless system, being an example of what happens when the parents are away and the chaos that ensues. That the Joker is somehow tied to the healthcare shooter, comes across as cherry-picking patterns that only make sense if you’re already predisposed to see them. This kind of reasoning risks losing credibility because it relies on apophenia, the human tendency to perceive connections or patterns where none objectively exist. It’s the same logic that could link any movie to any event if one looks hard enough. For example, does The Matrix predict simulation theory, or is it just a popular metaphor? Does Space Oddity by David Bowie predict Tom Cruise space ambitions, as I've heard it stated? These connections feel forced to the extreme and often lack grounding in reality.
You’ve also claimed that your worldview is built on subtraction and atheism, but that doesn’t make much sense when applied to your content. Subtracting belief is not the same as outright rejecting evidence or imposing an alternate narrative. By automatically labeling events as fake, you’re not 'subtracting' so much as inserting your own interpretation without concrete proof. That’s just as dogmatic as the belief systems you criticize.
The bigger issue is that your framework offers no tangible endgame. You often speak about 'mind control' and 'mediated minds,' but you don’t seem to address the real-world implications. If everything in the news that's a major event is fake, what’s the purpose? Is it simply to manipulate people into conformity? What about the actual geopolitical struggles, the fight over resources, the policies, and the displacement of real people? Dismissing wars as fake, for instance, ignores the tangible consequences, such as refugees fleeing Syria and resettling in other countries. Or Gaza. Are we to believe all of them are actors, too? The constant framing of everything as hoaxes without addressing the real-world stakes makes the analysis feel incomplete. Secret societies, if they exist, likely have goals tied to power, resources, and control, not just staging history for its own sake.
You often speak as though you and your audience are the ones who 'know,' while everyone else 'believes.' The problem is you offer no concrete proof to substantiate the claim that you "know" instead of believe, when you have no objective evidence that's literally what you're doing though.
Lastly, while I respect your critical approach to media, the repetitive focus on predictive programming becomes tiresome. It’s not that the idea is completely baseless, I agree that there are moments worth examining, but it shouldn’t dominate every discussion, especially when they're tenuous connections. The content would be stronger if it included broader critical analysis of geopolitics, history, and the real mechanisms of power. Does the secret that elites are keeping really boil down to 'everything is a hoax'? That seems unlikely. There’s likely a much bigger picture involving control over resources, surveillance, and other tangible goals.
Again, I appreciate the effort you put into demystifying the media. But to truly move forward, it would help to admit that no one, including you, has 100% truth.
I want to start by saying that I appreciate the work you put into questioning narratives and exploring media literacy. Your content has some strong points, and I even agree with you on certain ideas, especially the need for skepticism and critical thinking about the news. However, even though I called 3 times and have call logs showing it and waiting for you to pick up, I won't say you didn't want to hear the challenge. Likely a glitch.
One thing that stood out to me was being labeled as having "mind AIDS" for challenging your framework. Let’s unpack that. This was not only just an ad hominem attack but also a revealing reaction, not to mention not true. It seemed less about addressing my actual points and more about projecting your frustration at being confronted with an opposing perspective.
When you often talk about being an objectivist, it feels like the term is being misapplied. Objectivism is rooted in the idea of objective reality, that reality exists independently of our beliefs or perceptions. It also emphasizes reason and evidence-based thinking. To claim objectivity, you have to apply it across the board. For example, if you insist that the media has the burden of proof (which I agree it does), then the same standard must apply when you claim an event is fake. Saying something is probably staged or a hoax isn’t skepticism; it’s an assertion that needs evidence. Otherwise, this makes your framework more about dismissing evidence than analyzing it objectively.
Your belief system seems to rely heavily on unfalsifiable claims. For instance, the healthcare shooter being an actor was stated as fact, even after a caller mentioned knowing the family. Instead of engaging with the possibility that the event might have been real, by inquiring about what she knew of the family as the shooter, the response was to double down on it being fake. That’s not objectivity; that’s starting with a conclusion and working backward to fit the conclusions. This approach undermines your claim to being an objectivist since true objectivity would involve weighing all available evidence and acknowledging when something isn’t certain.
Merely calling something a hoax does not align with skepticism. Skepticism is not simply doubting a claim or asserting that something is a hoax. Genuine skepticism is critical inquiry. It involves evaluating evidence, questioning assumptions, and withholding judgment until sufficient evidence supports a claim. Even though I don't necessarily disagree usually I can acknowledge that right now, blankedly asserting this or that is a hoax is logically falacious for a number of reasons:
1. Lack of Neutrality:
Skepticism requires an open-minded, neutral stance. Declaring something a hoax from the outset assumes a conclusion without thoroughly examining the evidence. This is the opposite of skepticism, as it introduces bias.
2. Burden of Proof:
When someone claims that an event is a hoax, they are making a positive assertion that requires evidence. A skeptic would recognize that all claims, whether affirming or denying an event, bear the burden of proof.
3. Appeal to Personal Improbability:
Finding something personally incredible or unlikely does not inherently make it false. Skepticism requires distinguishing between personal incredulity ("I can’t believe this would really happen..." "thats too convenient...") and actual evidence-based reasoning.
4. Cherry-Picking Evidence
Declaring an event a hoax often involves ignoring evidence that supports the event’s occurrence while amplifying contradictory or anomalous details. True skepticism evaluates all evidence in context.
5. Confirmation Bias:
If someone starts with the belief that something is a hoax, they are likely to look for evidence that supports this belief while disregarding evidence to the contrary. Skepticism demands vigilance against this bias.
6. Mistaking Cynicism for Skepticism:
Cynicism assumes bad faith or falsehood, while skepticism is about critical, reasoned inquiry. Calling an event a hoax without investigation is closer to cynicism than skepticism.
Another area where your argument weakens is the reliance on predictive programming as a catch-all explanation. While some connections like the Trump shooting imagery are genuinely intriguing, many others feel like a stretch. They sound like me suggesting that the movie Project X was predictive programming for Elon Musk taking over Twitter because of chaos in a leaderless system, being an example of what happens when the parents are away and the chaos that ensues. That the Joker is somehow tied to the healthcare shooter, comes across as cherry-picking patterns that only make sense if you’re already predisposed to see them. This kind of reasoning risks losing credibility because it relies on apophenia, the human tendency to perceive connections or patterns where none objectively exist. It’s the same logic that could link any movie to any event if one looks hard enough. For example, does The Matrix predict simulation theory, or is it just a popular metaphor? Does Space Oddity by David Bowie predict Tom Cruise space ambitions, as I've heard it stated? These connections feel forced to the extreme and often lack grounding in reality.
You’ve also claimed that your worldview is built on subtraction and atheism, but that doesn’t make much sense when applied to your content. Subtracting belief is not the same as outright rejecting evidence or imposing an alternate narrative. By automatically labeling events as fake, you’re not 'subtracting' so much as inserting your own interpretation without concrete proof. That’s just as dogmatic as the belief systems you criticize.
The bigger issue is that your framework offers no tangible endgame. You often speak about 'mind control' and 'mediated minds,' but you don’t seem to address the real-world implications. If everything in the news that's a major event is fake, what’s the purpose? Is it simply to manipulate people into conformity? What about the actual geopolitical struggles, the fight over resources, the policies, and the displacement of real people? Dismissing wars as fake, for instance, ignores the tangible consequences, such as refugees fleeing Syria and resettling in other countries. Or Gaza. Are we to believe all of them are actors, too? The constant framing of everything as hoaxes without addressing the real-world stakes makes the analysis feel incomplete. Secret societies, if they exist, likely have goals tied to power, resources, and control, not just staging history for its own sake.
You often speak as though you and your audience are the ones who 'know,' while everyone else 'believes.' The problem is you offer no concrete proof to substantiate the claim that you "know" instead of believe, when you have no objective evidence that's literally what you're doing though.
Lastly, while I respect your critical approach to media, the repetitive focus on predictive programming becomes tiresome. It’s not that the idea is completely baseless, I agree that there are moments worth examining, but it shouldn’t dominate every discussion, especially when they're tenuous connections. The content would be stronger if it included broader critical analysis of geopolitics, history, and the real mechanisms of power. Does the secret that elites are keeping really boil down to 'everything is a hoax'? That seems unlikely. There’s likely a much bigger picture involving control over resources, surveillance, and other tangible goals.
Again, I appreciate the effort you put into demystifying the media. But to truly move forward, it would help to admit that no one, including you, has 100% truth.