I'm telling you man, the role of so called experts in today's world is just to grift money out of a dying world. They're fracking the cult of personality Globalism has become.
Experts with any formal training are probably carrying debt, how else will they pay it off?
A four-year-old being taught to talk about shooting Jews is disturbing. Nobody needs to minimize that. But you're still treating "I saw a disturbing example" and "I have established the cause and extent of this phenomenon" as the same thing.
Okay I am pages behind and underperforming lately, but for fucks sake are you really going to assume this is not a common sentiment among children in general?
Ignore that that specific one was four years old, what do you figure six year olds are thinking?
If you want to call that particular program indoctrination, that's reasonable if the evidence shows the children were deliberately being taught those ideas. But the 93% figure doesn't establish that the 93% were "brainwashed." It measures antisemitic attitudes according to a particular survey methodology. It doesn't tell you what caused those attitudes, whether they were acquired in childhood, or what percentage came from schools, family, media, religious institutions, war, or other factors.
...do you expect that division of origin points to be optimistic?
What is a good reason for them to have?
And "all things are brainwashing" actually makes your argument weaker, not stronger. If you're using "brainwashing" to mean any powerful influence on someone's beliefs, then the term doesn't distinguish deliberate indoctrination from ordinary socialization, propaganda, family influence, political rhetoric, or experiences of violence. You need to establish the specific mechanism rather than treating the label itself as an explanation.
No no you see, there is healthy and unhealthy brainwashing depending on who you ask.
Call it education, call it grooming, call it abuse, call it culture, it's all the same and some byproducts work out better than others when they focus on peace rather than subverting it through a pillar of violence.
The real problem is when one uses another's violence to justify their own, as that works both directions.
The important point is that I don't need to deny antisemitic indoctrination to reject your broader conclusion. It can be real, serious, and worth condemning while still not making Gaza synonymous with Hamas or Palestinians synonymous with antisemitism. That's the distinction you've repeatedly tried to erase.
While there are MORE than enough examples of people who ascribe to such faiths peacefully, how many of them are the exception to the norm who often found a reason to leave their own country?
A video of children being taught antisemitic ideas would be evidence that that particular program or environment is teaching antisemitism. It doesn't establish that this is what the entire Gaza Strip believes.
So because of that you're dismissing their hate curriculums as a non issue.
I see.
.
.
.
What I say remains. They brainwash children to hate Jews.
I almost feel like such cultures are easier to ignore, as other cultures witnessing them, because of how much harder they are to appeal to. If they were raised to hate someone for the majority of their lives why the fuck would they listen to some nobody like me? It's beyond uphill it's nearly impossible short of appealing to people one at a time.
That being said, there are often exceptions even culturally where people within their nation can flee somewhere and be protected. Even Texas has Austin.
lol the structure of this:
Dragoonback: Here's the structure of what you just said, and the implications, with the aid of AI to make me sound smarter.
Spatial Mind: Nuh uh, and here's yours according to popular talking points!
So basically it's AI Slop vs News Slop.
Turncoat, I think you're missing the more basic problem here. You're treating this primarily as a question of what is wrong with Palestinian culture and then asking why these people have those attitudes, while largely abstracting away the fact that they're living through an extremely destructive war. That's a pretty convenient way of turning a population experiencing mass death, displacement, and destruction into a cultural problem to be analyzed from a distance.
None of that makes antisemitism justified. A child being taught to hate Jews is still wrong. But asking "what's a good reason for them to have those attitudes?" as though we're examining some ordinary peaceful society is a strange standard to apply to people living through generations of conflict and, currently, catastrophic destruction. Trauma, propaganda, family socialization, religious ideology, and experiences of violence can all interact. You don't get to simply observe the resulting hatred and treat it as evidence of some inherent cultural defect.
And the "how many of them are exceptions who leave their own country?" framing is even more revealing. That turns the discussion into judging whether an entire population is sufficiently civilized to be worth sympathizing with. That's basically the "why can't everyone just behave normally and get along?" liberal response to a political conflict. The existence of bad beliefs among civilians doesn't make their destruction less significant or make them collectively responsible for the organization governing them.
That's also why Spatial's constant comparison is misleading. He takes Hamas's worst characteristics and Palestinian social problems, then takes Israel's most favorable characteristics, particularly LGBT rights, and presents those as though they settle the entire question. Meanwhile, Israel's treatment of Palestinians and the conditions Palestinians are actually living under become background noise. I don't need to pretend Hamas is harmless or antisemitism doesn't exist to reject that framing. Understanding why people develop destructive beliefs is not the same as excusing those beliefs, and recognizing Palestinian suffering is not the same as endorsing Hamas.
Turncoat said:So basically it's AI Slop vs News Slop.
So basically it's AI Slop vs. News Slop vs. "Why can't we all just go back to brunch?" liberalism.
And I think this gets into a broader difference between us, Turncoat. You seem to put a lot of stock in authenticity, staying true to yourself, and preserving some recognizable social equilibrium. I don't. Being "true to yourself" doesn't make a position rational, and being established doesn't make something worth preserving.
That's also why I don't care whether AI makes my arguments less "organic." If it helps me cut pointless hostility, catch bad inferences, and express what I actually mean more clearly, then it's useful. I'm not interested in preserving an old way of arguing just because it's familiar.
I think your "dying world" comment fits the same pattern. You seem to have a preservationist instinct toward existing social arrangements, whereas I don't treat the status quo as inherently valuable. If new technology or new ways of communicating give people better conditions to pursue moksha more freely and equally, I'll take the improvement over authenticity for its own sake.
You've also seemed to associate my confidence with how willing I was to insult people and engage on their terms. I don't consider that confidence anymore. That style made my arguments easier to dismiss and left me fighting people like Spatial on the terrain of personal hostility. More broadly, I find it strange to emphasize authenticity and "staying true to yourself" while being relatively accepting of other people's vulnerability when it serves the existing social dynamic, whether that's my own conflicts or the vulnerability of people you're discussing in Gaza. I don't see much value in preserving suffering, conflict, or social weakness merely because they are familiar.
In that sense, I actually think my old way of interacting was closer to samsara than what I'm doing now. It kept reproducing the same attachments, conflicts, reactions, and social games instead of trying to get out of them. If AI helps me recognize those patterns and communicate without reproducing them, I don't see that as becoming less authentic. I see it as refusing to preserve a cycle simply because other people have become accustomed to it.
So if that's "AI Slop," fine. I'd rather change a dysfunctional pattern than stay true to it.
lol the structure of this:
Dragoonback: Here's the structure of what you just said, and the implications, with the aid of AI to make me sound smarter.
Spatial Mind: Nuh uh, and here's yours according to popular talking points!So basically it's AI Slop vs News Slop.
For the record, I post facts, not popular talking points.
Sometimes I tell him myself, so he'll complain it doesn't prove anything, so I send Gemini and he'll squirm off into some other talking point.
I think Joe Rogan has managed it with some of his guests. He's had real experts in countless areas and he made the conversations really interesting. Honestly I admire him for that aspect of his work, I don't know how he does it. Its a difficult job not least of all because people are so used to assuming so much common knowledge within the field.I have a massive respect for the people who do it, but Ive only seen it done right by a few people.Rogan is probably best understood as entertainment that happens to contain experts, rather than an expert information source. The problem is that he also promotes a lot of misinformation and speculative narratives, and that can affect people subconsciously even if they think they're listening critically.
My point was more that he has managed to break complex topics by experts down to something the layperson finds engaging and can understand, not that I think he's the ultimate arbiter of reliable information.
I'm telling you man, the role of so called experts in today's world is just to grift money out of a dying world. They're fracking the cult of personality Globalism has become.
Experts with any formal training are probably carrying debt, how else will they pay it off?
You think they're by and large all grifters? Im talking about policemen, firefighters, physicists, criminal lawyers, etc. We talking about the same thing here?
Okay I am pages behind and underperforming lately
You could ask AI to write your posts for you. Imagine how many posts you could write.
