First of all: Thank you Katherine and Lawrence for speaking truth on this topic. What a delightful, insightful chat. Second: Please know, what you say and think is perfectly reasonable, normal, empathetic and also free of delusion. Third: That many people seem to be in need of a north star like this podcast is baffling at best.
For some people - being cancelled might actually improve their lives. Life before the proliferastion of social media ... was actually, believe it or not, fine!
We've got the world and his wife 'speaking out', but the trouble is that most of them - of all persuasions - are completely clueless. What we need is more people to stop and _think_ , and for people to stop believing they know everything when in fact they know nothing.
@@jps101574Then the ignorant get what they deserve … and probably would want anyway. An independent is what is needed today. It is quite strange to me that a politician, synonymous with “known liar”, might be considered “honest” by intelligent people. There is nothing odd about a large percentage of free people that don’t want to choose “a lesser of two evils” and stay home on Election Day. When the sheep finally realize they can join the other side and promote an independent (break the paradigm), the misinformation thing will be a non-issue in the face of free speech. Till then, business as usual.
@@jps101574 That politician/dictator most likely controls the controlled speech laws. eg Brazil and many parts of the west aiming to be like brazil right now. You're better off with total free speech. top down control always ends in authoritarianism.
Transparency and integrity are very important in a free civilized society. Can integrity be taught? If so, why is it not more prevalent? People aren’t the problem, the system is. If capitalism survives, humanity won’t.
reality + history has it that capitalism is the ONLY ideoligy that is capable of even producing transparancy ,. please let me know what ideoligy can provide transparancy beside the only proven one ?
1:56:00 - I do think vaccine mandate was based on science. Scientifically less people would have died if more people were vaccinated as quickly as possible. Politically it's a different question.
Ultimately it wasn't based on science. Turns out in court that the vaccines were never tested to stop transmission, which is the logical basis for mandates. You cant mandate something that only acts as a therapeutic to stop severity which is all the trials showed they were. Politicians actually lied when they said it stops transmission and infection. So Can you explain then how they were backed by science?
Before any drug is admitted to the market, it must go through clinical testing. We know that clinical testing not always is catching all problems with a new drug, and we know that new drug is really safe after few years on the market after millions of people took it. And on top of that clinical tests of Cov vaccines were rushed. This statement "Scientifically less people would have died if more people were vaccinated as quickly as possible" is dumb.
@@_DarkEmperor Vaccine technology is a old & well tested technology. Covid vaccine was not the first ever vaccine. Have you ever copy & pasted a file on your computer. It basically copying & pasting the covid file as a new file using copy & pasting technology. In fact, the reason why new vaccine takes so long is because of bureaucracy. Plus, a new medicine is not same as a new vaccine. A new medicine can be completely a new technology & should be tested for longer & more people.
I agree with Lawrence’s general conclusion. This Is an insightful discussion. I the end critical evidence based thinking, the scientific method for understanding reality is the best tool in humanity’s arsenal. This Is an insightful discussion. I the end critical evidence based thinking, the scientific method for understanding reality is the best tool in humanity’s arsenal.
Why can't semi-anonymous surveys capture real stats about supporters versus opponents? Her website could have asked everyone to give their opinion where only she as moderator would know results and match them to already established email subscribers to avoid bots and ensure single entries per email subscriber.
I am all for free speech, but words are actually more damaging than physical injury in most circumstances. Think about the most painul experiences that haunt you and it is more often things said to you by people you love or respect. Your stupid or worthless or ugly. Those words can cause people a lifetime of depression and even suicide. Having a baby or broken bone is pain that is barely remembered.
If you guys are afraid of your audience, imagine what will happen when the truth comes out, you have all your life recorded and available to does who was harmed by your making a good living.
The speech does not trigger you. Neither speech or words themselves have any power over you. Only your thoughts about the speech can disturb you, and that's your problem.
slander can damage reputation which in turn affect career. words from authority has power. which is a contradiction to your claim. hence it is not true in the broadest sense.
@@goodlearnerbadstudent756 In your haste to contradict me, you completely missed my point. But that's OK. Most people are incapable of looking for, much less seeing, anything beyond appearances.
@@alextinsley9117 "your point" is no excuse for your poor phrasing. Lawrence Krauss is a physicist. And physics strives to be rigourous. The wordings of theorems and law(while might not be "rigourous" in hindsight) strives to be rigourous as far as possible. You could have said for example: speech or words from persons can only affect the subject if and only if it translates to any physical, legal action etc (could probably make it tighter, maybe) > Most people are incapable of looking for, much less seeing, anything beyond appearances. But that's OK. Just because you perceive yourself in the majority doesn't mean you are right. Majority opinion isn't necessarily fact
im confused. if elected officials don't do what we want, why should they remain in power? that's the whole reason they're elected? the government grants specific provisions for allowing the general public to revolt if or when that government becomes tyrannical. why is the fact that 70% of Americans agree with the constitution shocking? This video is full of nothing, no substance behind the arguments it makes to the point where I'm not even sure if you guys know or believe the things you're saying. Really weird stuff!
