Thunderf00t has lost last of his marbles and remaining bits of credibility

[zilp]

And how do you actually know that your understanding is correct?

Well, the same way you do about anything else? (Yes, that means that you could be mistaken ... but that does not mean that you have no clue.)

More than half of the country having opposite opinion should give you some hint it's not so white and black.

That doesn't follow logically? It is perfectly logically consistent for half of the country to be wrong and the other half to be right about something.

[zilp]

Well, that depends on how accurate your understanding of the policies actually is, doesn't it? If you are in fact just mistaken about it, then it might well not be worth it. But if your understanding is in fact correct, and they do in fact want to put you in prison for showing your hands in public ... then maybe you really don't want to have them as your friend, do you?

So you are so sure you are correct?

No. But how is that a relevant? Have you ever made a decision who to have relationships with or not? If so, were you ever certain that your judgement of them was correct?

[zilp]

Why? It was an agnostic response. Demonstrably, both sides indulged in the behaviour. There’s nothing “defensive” about it. It’s a statement of fact.

Because it was besides the point. What I wrote wasn't even about the US or parties in the US in particular. It was just generally about how people behave.

[coppice]

The latest one I've seen was Jeri Ellsworth who has moved to Bluesky after Trump won and she deleted her X account. Now she has stated she wants nothing to do anyone who voted for Trump.

Wow, what a what a pity. I really don't understand really smart people completely rejecting others (in this case 1/4 of the country) over some political views. And in this case it's not like Trump was not a president already, everyone survived, no death camps were build.

Read any book on cults and you'll figure it out. You have clearly never had to deal with someone close to you that is easily drawn into cults if you haven't figured it out already.... or are YOU someone easily drawn into cults?

[tszaboo]

Good points. This is getting highly political but what I'm seeing is that 'opposing' politicians are undermining eachother's authority which in turn undermines the authority of the government as a whole. Unfortunately this is also happening in the Netherlands at the moment; I hope the NL politicians stay sensible and keep in mind they serve the public.

Europe seems to be in a state where they do everything in their power to keep right wing out of governing coalitions (because they are, of course, evil, like you said). And this leads to coalition partners that have no common ground and cannot govern effectively. Only for it to fall apart, like Germany now. Same is happening in France. People clearly had enough of this entire rhetoric, and it's likely only going to get worse, the more pissed off everyone gets. The only solution I see is to distance themselves from the woke, create new political parties for those radicals, accept the loss of those votes, and take more centrist views.
This is clearly the winning strategy, IDK why no party does this.

[coppice]

The guy's just jealous that he'll never achieve in his whole life what Elon has done in a few years

I don't think you want to achieve that. IMHO Elon is suffering from a severe burn-out, sleep deprivation and probably other mental health issues caused by the stress he must be under constantly. There is a documentary about Robbie Williams on Netflix. Being under relentless pressure to keep performing sucks massively.

Most people may not be happy if they achieved that, but that doesn't reduce anyone's jealousy over someone achieving it. Humans want lots of things they would hate to have. Think of the old adage that the two happiest days in a boat owner's life are the day they got the boat and the day they got rid of it.

[coppice]

When they say he learned to code at ten, its important to remember these people had a family computer in 1981 and it was expendable enough to let a ten year old use it.

Rubbish. I learned to write Fortran when I was 12 or 13 in the 1960s. I had no computer, but I learned from a book and then got a little access to a mini-computer at a local college.

[Zero999]

Well, that depends on how accurate your understanding of the policies actually is, doesn't it? If you are in fact just mistaken about it, then it might well not be worth it. But if your understanding is in fact correct, and they do in fact want to put you in prison for showing your hands in public ... then maybe you really don't want to have them as your friend, do you?

So you are so sure you are correct?

I mean, at some point I believed the story that those who oppose COVID regulations and lockdowns are wrong and should be shot. I am glad I was able to suppress myself from expressing that opinion and still regret it when later more information, and more correct information became available, for me to form a more correct understanding. I was sure I was being right, but I was wrong.

Identity politics is dangerous.

Be very careful every time you think you know the truth.

I didn't go as far as wanting anyone shot, but I admit I did swallow the mainstream narrative quite well, so don't blame you.

I blame the mainstream media for the COVID-19 hysteria, as well as Trump derangement.

I expect politicians such as Trump, Harris, Keir Starmer etc. to lie, but we shouldn't tolerate it from the mainstream media.

Then, there are the numerous double-standards. Trump lying about Haitians eating cats and dogs is bad*, but then they go on to lie about Trump. Oh and when Trump says something that seems a bit racist, then that's bad, but when Biden does the same, it's no big deal. Those who made false claims about the vaccine causing importance were conspiracy nuts, but it's fine to lie about it preventing transmission, when it was never proven to do so.

If they told us the unfettered truth, about everything, including what is unknown or uncertain, without the spin, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

* The claim about eating cats and dogs didn't originate from Trump. I believe that started with someone posting a picture of a person, who appeared to be black, eating a dog on social media, and assumed they're Haitian, when they're American.

[nctnico]

* The claim about eating cats and dogs didn't originate from Trump. I believe that started with someone posting a picture of a person, who appeared to be black, eating a dog on social media, and assumed they're Haitian, when they're American.

At least it inspired some people to create hilarious content: 

[coppice]

I expect politicians such as Trump, Harris, Keir Starmer etc. to lie, but we shouldn't tolerate it from the mainstream media.

The media has always lied. Its their standard operating mode. They'll lie about something completely neutral, like a traffic accident. If you've actually witnessed an incident big enough to get into the national news you will have probably seen this for yourself. I assume this is so the joins between truth and lies don't show. Its probably also that the reporters is just too lazy to find out simple facts they could get on the spot from some bystanders who observed the incident. They used to lie in subtle ways, especially on TV news. The old plan for effective presentations "tell them what you are going to tell them, tell it to them, then tell them what you told them" was spun to allow broadcasting of controversial figures, like radical union leaders, so people walked away with the impression the figure said something very different from what they really said. The announcer would say "X said Y today", then they would play video of X saying something very different from Y. Then they would summarise "so, you heard X saying Y". It sounds dumb that this could work, but its amazingly effective. I've been in sessions where it was demonstrated to us. These days they just edit snippets out of context so they achieve a distorted perception of what was said, and don't need the announcer's framing to prompt listeners as to what they should hear. It has become so common and so blatant that people in podcasts and other talks now frequently say they need to be careful of how they express the next bit so it doesn't get chopped up and put out on social media to make them look bad.

It was interesting in the 1980s to see a couple of documentaries on UK TV showing the ways in which UK TV news lies in subtle ways like this, that didn't quite get them caught out. Then the news realised if they blatantly lie they can get away with a tiny retraction buried somewhere few people see or read, and the craftsmanship of subtlety in lying was redundant. I wonder if a simple regulation that all retractions have to be placed boldly on the front page would have a positive effect, or if it would merely change how the game is played.

[Zero999]

I expect politicians such as Trump, Harris, Keir Starmer etc. to lie, but we shouldn't tolerate it from the mainstream media.

The media has always lied. Its their standard operating mode. They'll lie about something completely neutral, like a traffic accident. If you've actually witnessed an incident big enough to get into the national news you will have probably seen this for yourself. I assume this is so the joins between truth and lies don't show. Its probably also that the reporters is just too lazy to find out simple facts they could get on the spot from some bystanders who observed the incident. They used to lie in subtle ways, especially on TV news. The old plan for effective presentations "tell them what you are going to tell them, tell it to them, then tell them what you told them" was spun to allow broadcasting of controversial figures, like radical union leaders, so people walked away with the impression the figure said something very different from what they really said. The announcer would say "X said Y today", then they would play video of X saying something very different from Y. Then they would summarise "so, you heard X saying Y". It sounds dumb that this could work, but its amazingly effective. I've been in sessions where it was demonstrated to us. These days they just edit snippets out of context so they achieve a distorted perception of what was said, and don't need the announcer's framing to prompt listeners as to what they should hear. It has become so common and so blatant that people in podcasts and other talks now frequently say they need to be careful of how they express the next bit so it doesn't get chopped up and put out on social media to make them look bad.

It was interesting in the 1980s to see a couple of documentaries on UK TV showing the ways in which UK TV news lies in subtle ways like this, that didn't quite get them caught out. Then the news realised if they blatantly lie they can get away with a tiny retraction buried somewhere few people see or read, and the craftsmanship of subtlety in lying was redundant. I wonder if a simple regulation that all retractions have to be placed boldly on the front page would have a positive effect, or if it would merely change how the game is played.

I have seen videos about this before. Spin and omission are the main tactics, rather than outright lies, then they cherry pick experts as they did about COVID-19.

Unfortunately this has resulted in many unintended consequences. They pushed *COVID vaccines so extensively on those who arguably didn't need them, it's created a backlash, resulting in greater anti-vax sentiment and lower vaccine uptake, which will ultimately cost lives.

I don't think anthropogenic climate change is a scam. It's definitely real, but I can see why many are increasingly sceptical. Scientists* lied to them about COVID, so why should they believe them when it comes to global warming?

One thing which has changed is we now have the Internet and people have the freedom to post whatever they like. This is a double edge sword. In one hand the truth surfaces faster than before, but it also means falsehoods spread more quickly.

I can see why many would like the Internet to be regulated, but who should be trusted to be the arbiter of truth? I say no one. Anyone given that power will abuse it.

*Not all scientists lied about COVID, but those who contradicted the mainstream media were demonised by the mainstream media.

*COVID vaccines undoubtedly saved the lives of the vulnerable, but the evidence they have a positive risk vs benefit in the least vulnerable i.e. healthy children is weak. This is why not all countries offered them to children.

[coppice]

I can see why many would like the Internet to be regulated, but who should be trusted to be the arbiter of truth? I say no one. Anyone given that power will abuse it.

I think anyone who wants the internet to be regulated is a theist, and a believer in a benign form of deity to boot, even if they don't realise it. Who can be trusted to regulate the internet, other than some benign deity? Even if you get some good people on day one, its the kind of role that attracts the worst people in society, and they'll soon be in control. In practice most of the people being given roles as misinformation checkers have been the worst of the misinformation spreaders on day one, keen to censor anything they disagree with, regardless of its veracity. Its a playground for scumbags.

[tszaboo]

* The claim about eating cats and dogs didn't originate from Trump. I believe that started with someone posting a picture of a person, who appeared to be black, eating a dog on social media, and assumed they're Haitian, when they're American.

At least it inspired some people to create hilarious content: 

That comment was clearly made for this. It's genius. It got simultaneously:
1) got the media constantly talk about it because it's outlandish
2) controlled the narrative
3) was a great meme potential
4) moved the Overtron window. The conversations went like this: "They dont do that, but..."
5) and it was just on the verge of believability
6) put the other side on the defensive

[Howardlong]

Why? It was an agnostic response. Demonstrably, both sides indulged in the behaviour. There’s nothing “defensive” about it. It’s a statement of fact.

Because it was besides the point. What I wrote wasn't even about the US or parties in the US in particular. It was just generally about how people behave.

Of course it was.

[m k]

Here COVID mask thing started so that one timer surgical mask was a must.
It ended somewhere where cotton cloth was fine after several washes.
That's from local authorities.
Avoiding panic was obviously one of the primary issues.

[coppice]

Here COVID mask thing started so that one timer surgical mask was a must.
It ended somewhere where cotton cloth was fine after several washes.
That's from local authorities.
Avoiding panic was obviously one of the primary issues.

Huh? Most governments did everything they could to terrify people. How is that supposed to avoid panic?

[langwadt]

* The claim about eating cats and dogs didn't originate from Trump. I believe that started with someone posting a picture of a person, who appeared to be black, eating a dog on social media, and assumed they're Haitian, when they're American.

At least it inspired some people to create hilarious content: 

illegal alien eating a cat,

[tggzzz]

Why? It was an agnostic response. Demonstrably, both sides indulged in the behaviour. There’s nothing “defensive” about it. It’s a statement of fact.

Because it was besides the point. What I wrote wasn't even about the US or parties in the US in particular. It was just generally about how people behave.

Of course it was.

It was an agnostic comment.
It also clearly applied to the recent US disaster.
It also applies elsewhere.

Some people are fixated on the second of those.

[m k]

Here COVID mask thing started so that one timer surgical mask was a must.
It ended somewhere where cotton cloth was fine after several washes.
That's from local authorities.
Avoiding panic was obviously one of the primary issues.

Huh? Most governments did everything they could to terrify people. How is that supposed to avoid panic?

Cover is available for all, no money issues.

[EEVblog]

And right on cue he releases a new video, titled "MUSK TRUMP!!! Welcome to Idiocracy America!!"

I'm not going to bother to watch it, but the Patreon description is all about how Musk claimed X was going to become an everything app and especially do finances, and how X has lost 80% of it's value, and we haven't heard a peep out of the X bank thing again.
And he implies that the same fate is in store for the US now that Elon is involved in the same.

Rght off the bat, without even watching it, I know that it was only a year ago (Oct 27th 2023, I checked) that Elon said it would take a year to get the financial aspect of X running. It's literally only a few weeks more than a year, and of course you aren't going to say much or show anything until you have a workable system. Given the screen shot at the start of of the video, it seems like the "failed at making it a bank" thing is based on a Verge article from Nov 1.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/1/24285681/x-elon-musk-everything-app-bank-fail
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23934216/x-twitter-bank-elon-musk-2024
Verge and TF are definitely not giving Musk a "fair suck of the sav" as we say here. It's a just a hit piece, practically to the day.

Sure, if he fails in 3 years time and there is no finance app, laught it, but literally a week or two past when he claimed there would be some banking capabability is a bad reason to do a video on the subject IMO.

I know that they are actively working on turning X into a bank service, they even filed for becoming a banking service, it's being actively worked on.

[wilfred]

A lot of people have said they do it for views, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Elon seems to have put a real bee in their bonnet for some reason, and it's shame they can't bring themselves to even play devil's advocate just a bit and at least acknowledge some great things he's done. If not just tone it down a tad, there is penty of other stuff out there to debunk. But each to their own.

Elon (and trump) are now in a very ethically conflicted position. trump is accustomed to it and exploits it readily. Whilst Elon has been seen as creating some impressive things he is now to be seen with suspicion as he has bought access to the levers of power and control, and can exert influence on how they might be used to his direct financial advantage. That dramatically calls into question how much he can be trusted. Which casts a dark shadow over whatever past good he might have done.

trump has been outspoken about electric vehicles and how they are a symptom of "woke" climate crisis thinking. Hence "Drill baby Drill". Now Elon Musk a CEO of an electric vehicle company is in a position to seek favours from trump. Trump is known to do and see every relationship in a very transactional way. Hence the revolving door of those into and out of his circle.

[coppice]

trump has been outspoken about electric vehicles and how they are a symptom of "woke" climate crisis thinking.

I think you got that wrong. I haven't heard him complain about EVs. Its the imposition of EVs he has complained about. That's a very different thing activists like to confuse.

[EEVblog]

trump has been outspoken about electric vehicles and how they are a symptom of "woke" climate crisis thinking.

I think you got that wrong. I haven't heard him complain about EVs. Its the imposition of EVs he has complained about. That's a very different thing activists like to confuse.

Correct, it's the mandates for EV's that is the problem.
But no more Trump stuff please.

[thm_w]

There is a lot of research that intelligent poeple are easier to brainwash than less intelligent people. Hypnotists know this, it's one of the basic tenets.
Once hynotised by brain washing, it's easy for it to intrude into other aspects of your life and work.

Disagree that intelligent people are easier to brainwash, its more that intelligence alone does nothing to protect you. Its almost a separate skillset.
A good education would help protect anyone against this.

Specifically, people who endorse unsubstantiated claims less tend to show better critical thinking skills, possess more relevant knowledge, and are more disposed to think critically. They tend to be more scientifically skeptical and possess a more rational–analytic cognitive style, while those who accept unsubstantiated claims more tend to be more cynical and adopt a more intuitive–experiential cognitive style.

hmm bold part sound familiar to certain posters in this thread?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10672018/

[Andy Chee]

A lot of people have said they do it for views, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Elon seems to have put a real bee in their bonnet for some reason, and it's shame they can't bring themselves to even play devil's advocate just a bit and at least acknowledge some great things he's done. If not just tone it down a tad, there is penty of other stuff out there to debunk. But each to their own.

Elon (and trump) are now in a very ethically conflicted position. trump is accustomed to it and exploits it readily. Whilst Elon has been seen as creating some impressive things he is now to be seen with suspicion as he has bought access to the levers of power and control, and can exert influence on how they might be used to his direct financial advantage. That dramatically calls into question how much he can be trusted. Which casts a dark shadow over whatever past good he might have done.

trump has been outspoken about electric vehicles and how they are a symptom of "woke" climate crisis thinking. Hence "Drill baby Drill". Now Elon Musk a CEO of an electric vehicle company is in a position to seek favours from trump. Trump is known to do and see every relationship in a very transactional way. Hence the revolving door of those into and out of his circle.

I don't necessarily see EVs entirely inconsistent with fossil fuels.  EVs are essentially a new use case for coal fired power generation, where previously such generation was only suitable for predominantly stationary energy applications.  So EV manufacturing has plenty of life in the future.

Of course, fossil fuel energy is bad for the climate, but that's a very different question to EV viability.