Dunno. Icke is mostly a harmless loon. Rand's been dead for some time, yet still presents a real and present danger.
I do not understand what you're saying.TBH, I glazed. Three times I've tried to pick my way through it, and I can only conclude that the Crackpot index needs some updating for the modern age.
And now Rand...
Yes. It's rambling and incoherent. Too much extraneous waffle to see what, if any, worthwhile content there is.Are you saying that you can not watch/read my project?
You don't get to rock up in an existing space, attempt to police the tone while talking about fucking civility. How incredibly narcissistic and rude.Please, let's try to keep a civil discussion without using childish attacks, like those manchildren do on twitter.
The video is not rambling, maybe the problem is your attention span.Yes. It's rambling and incoherent. Too much extraneous waffle to see what, if any, worthwhile content there is.
You don't get to rock up in an existing space, attempt to police the tone while talking about fucking civility. How incredibly narcissistic and rude.
The video is not rambling, maybe the problem is your attention span.
This is the introduction of my project in which I will try to construct the most accurate model of reality regarding humanity and politics up to date.
In this project I will takle many subjects, too many to list them here. Don't worry, I am part of neither the left or the right, the only thing that I care about is the truth, so I can say this with certanty: you won't like this project.
No matter with whom I talked to in my life, the majority of people just oppose me with no good grounds. Yes, I have been wrong many times in my life because, obviously, I am not omniscient; but usually I was less wrong than the people that I were talking with. I don't care if you believe some of your ideas are sacred, be them attached to a wooden cross, or a rubber boot, or to an indian symbol that got misused or, to some funny pointy hats or to whatever it is, because the march towards the truth is as blind as justice.
In this project I'll try as hard as possible to be as objective as possible, but since I'm human I may fail somewhere and since you're human you may find it impossible not to apply your current bias to what I'll be presenting you.
Listen to this, because it's important: when we are born we are in the default position of ignorance.
When we grow up we, obviously, learn things, and some of them, obviously, may turn out to be wrong.
To make an example let's say that when you don't know something important,like the specifics of a business, you shouldn't accept some info about it as gospel just because a person you trusth was the one that told you it, because it's not a trivial thing, it has the possibility to seriously ruin your life! the business could be a pyramid scheme and you may wouldn't come to know it until it's too late, meaning that your wallet became lighter than before.
In other words you must not relay on faith.
When important things are in the matter you should always find a good source for your knowledge. This sounds good and all but I have said it in such an informal and subjective way that it actually means nothing at all.
By "important things" I mean those things that, may, damage other things, things that affect the freedom of other people and the overall health of every living thing.
By "good source" I don't mean your friendly neighborhood youtuber, with its warped views of things expressed with an eloquent and/or emotionally charge way, but by a study in a scientific paper or something similar.
We as humans are more easily moved by people who say things that we want to hear instead of something true.
Now I'll make a synthesis of my current position and beliefs, and I will tell you what I plan to talk about
I am currently an ANCAP (Note: ANCAP means mainly ANarco CAPitalism, but can also mean ANarco CAPitalist if used to describe a person, while ANCAPs means the plural of ANarco CAPitalist.), both because it was my position before starting to make this project and because I don't know either if there's a position where I may currently fit and because I need to finish this project to complete my thoughts, thus don't know what to think.
I have my natural biases and all the other biases that everyone has because we are all humans, and as humans we evolved bias as a favorable trait, among others that I will discuss. In this work I'll try to fight my bias, as I have always done, to better understand the world as it truly is.
Since I am only a single human I will never be able to take on everything in a limited time, be it an arbitrary amount or my entire natural life, since I will lack either the right experience, the data or just the ability to process such information.
My strenght is, my really good ability to connect different informations in the fields that I have familiarity in, because of the habilities and knowledge that I have, so I'll not even tap in fields that I know I could not easily navigate in, like marriage, sexuality, or that funny country that everyone is angry about, because I don't have enough data to work with.
Here I will talk about human evolution, the formation of groups and birth of societies, culture, economics in nature, individuality and individuals, and the way everyone actually interfaces with reality, and thus the world's structure overall.
I COULD have made 50 mini videos with separated topics in them so that people may "not get confused" (however that could happen), but instead both for the sake of editing and because it's not rambling, just a lot of things said in a small amount of time, I did it all in one go.Not really the best way to approach feedback.
If someone tells you that they don't find your presentation useful because of X reason, the conclusion shouldn't be that there's something wrong with them. If you're looking to present an idea, then regardless of how good the idea is, if it's presented in a manner that doesn't aid the audience, then the presentation needs refining.
I'll be honest, I started to read and also found it full of unnecessary asides and sentences that had no bearing on whatever idea it was you hoped to present, the result being that it really wasn't clear what the overarching idea was meant to be, or what it was I am meant to take away from it.
You can dismiss this if you like as me having a low attention span, but given that I routinely read lengthy, technical scientific articles without having attention span problems, then I don't really think this would be accurate - nor would it be useful for you to dismiss criticism that you don't want to hear.
I COULD have made 50 mini videos with separated topics in them so that people may "not get confused"
(however that could happen), but instead both for the sake of editing and because it's not rambling, just a lot of things said in a small amount of time, I did it all in one go.
Maybe I find it perfectly understandable both because I myself made it and because I basically listen to everything at 2x times speed (because a lot of people talk as slow as I made the Text To Speech talk, but I can understand perfectly if people talk faster), so from another's POV reading the script directly may be "easier to understand".
1) If I'm describing reality I need to make a model about it.
2) I explain it in the next section.
3) I've both problems communicating (I may be autistic, I'm doing the tests "now" and the results will come around tomorrow) and usually I don't talk in echo chambers or with friends, plus I try to make conversations about politics & Co. with people way different from me, like conservatives, republicans, democrats, socialists, and so on, so I get pushed back a lot more.
3) I don't care.
4) Too bad, because I'm explaining what "a good source" is. My project is directed to anyone, even people that have never heard anything particular about politics or evolution.
5) I show my political position to explain, in broad terms, what "I am like" and because so that people may not waste time trying to figure out from what POV my points are coming from. Both me and whoever would watch my project have biases, different biases, so I exposed mine.
6) Yes, words, that's one way in which humans communicate. Plus Here I was explaining WHY some arguments would not be in the project.
The project, mate, is more than two hours long. This is the opening to it.
I have just made a really condensed opening which explains who I am, what I'm going to explain and how I to know that something is correct.
It is well structured...
and your "This is constructive feedback." amounts to "I have read just the introduction to this 300 pages book, this means that I have read the entire thing. In the introduction not much is explained, so it is not in the entire book neither".
I've already uploaded the script of the first half of the project in this chat // the second half is not scripted because I made it in a different and faster way, plus the visuals are absolutely needed for the context // , so pick any random part and try to see if you may understand more about what I am talking about compared to the almost nothing that you've got from my well structured intro.
This is what I've to say.
If you don't do such I'll learn from your "CoNsTrUcTiVe FeEdBaCk" and read just 5% of anything that you will ever write and then judge/respond just to that.
Big numbers mean nothing to a human mind, because we can't even imagine them. Try to think of a single dot and then add individual dots in your minds' image until you can't anymore, I bet they're not a lot.
If you want real numbers and accurate latin names I invite you to watch Aron Ra's "Systematic Classification of Life": a 50 long playlist of videos talking about the evolution of humanity and other species. He gets just some things wrong, like what actually is the "Hard problem of conciousness". Episode 49 is the one that I am talking about and is pretty relevant to this part of the project.
So: a long time ago there was a homo specie called the heidelbergènsis. Out of this specie evolved , respectively, homo neanderthal and homo sapièns. A small population of homo sapièns reproduced with homo neanderthal and another with an older lineage called homo denisovan. This hybridization let some sapièns acquire some genes that helped living in new environments, but with the passage of the generations just the "advantageous genes" and some "neutral genes" stuck around in our genome. Homo sapièns is just one specie, or race, doesn't matter what word you want to use to describe it because they're arbitrary anyways, like the word "tree". What is a tree? I'm going to tell you what it's not: a single family evolved from a single population.
I'm getting lost here. So, what I was trying to say is that we're all the same, there is nothing that fundamentally separates one population of homo sapièns from another (and for the sake of brevity and arbitration I'm going to refer just and only to homo sapièns as "humans" since every single homo person that I have met and refered to as such so far have been other members of homo sapiéns and because every single word has been arbitrarily created by, someone else)..
1) I posted it here for anyone. You're part of anyone. This means that I did not post this here just and only for you (two/three, whatever you mean with "us"), but for anyone. I don't know you and I don't really care to, I came here to discuss ideas.Not gonna lie, the only thing I'm curious about at this point is why you bothered to engage with us at all, if your response to two people giving you the same criticism of your opening is to assume that they're both just not capable of grasping your genius. Why waste your time on us at all?
1) Yes, that means that you are confused.I indicated that you blathered without content, that you wrote a lot of words but said little, that the noise to signal ratio was too high.
My comments were based on the script, as I said.
Can you try and process what I wrote now?
1) Yes, that means that you are confused.
2) I know you read the script. You took my sentences from there. I just said that some prefer to listen and others to read. Regardless of that you got confused.