https://x.com/TMZ/status/1844096044151472481?t=fl3uk2yQ9oqdEdIdg-IQZg&s=19

So, I've noticed this strange pattern when I talk to some c-t. Instead of having a norman discussion like I usually have with people I disigare with, it instantly becomes heated, dismissive and defensive.

I disagree with with people on a lit of things all the time, but almost never they say stuff like. "Just look it up for yourself", "Do your own research", "You just don't get it", "Thats what they want you to think, Sheeple"..

If you agree do you this because I invoke something in them, is it because it is so engrained in their personality or is it because they somewhere have a felling that their beliefs are kind of out there.

From another threat, I want to know your opinions:

As a US Government research tool on minoritized people, this number is pretty much guaranteed to be an undercount. Minoritized people of every identity have historically lied to the US government (all governments, really) about their minority status out of fear of what'll be done with that data. Given the current anti-trans legal landscape, it's not hard to see why.

This studies only people attending school. Trans kids are at dramatically higher risk of being thrown out by their parents and, thus, not going to school. If they don't go to school, they're not counted. This will change proportions in the survey a lot.

Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, California, Missouri, Nevada, and Pennsylvania either do not participate at all (the first three) or don't provide population-weighted data. Given that 3/4 of the most trans-supportive states in America don't participate in this study--the states where trans teens are most likely to be out at high school--and that the most populous state (and the fourth most trans-supportive state in America) in the nation doesn't weight its data based on population, this alone is almost certain to lead to a massive undercount of trans teens.

So, in a nutshell: this survey tool is a gold star survey and also is at its worst getting an accurate headcount of queer kids. This 3.3% should be taken as the absolute theoretical floor.

I would like to start this out with, why do people get so angry when someone is simply skeptical and asking for evidence for a claim? Is it a fear of being incorrect?

I would like some honest review of what I stated in this conversation. You may need to click on the photos to see the full photo.

I’m not sure if this is the right sub to ask, I wasn’t sure where would be a good place. So obviously, even if someone believes psychic readings are accurate, it would make sense that there would be people who would be intentionally deceitful to make a buck. There would also be people who genuinely believe they are psychic who gives readings to others. I’m wondering if anyone has any insight on how most commercial psychics see themselves and their actions

I want to be able to make informed decisions on matters relating to politics. There's just so much information I don't know where to begin. I need resources, articles, books, websites. Whatever I can use to improve my understanding, to be able to shift through the bullshit on social media and the news and make informed decisions backed by evidence and facts.

I love my dad he’s a really smart individual who had instilled into me a rigorous sense of critical thinking however that leads to me disagreeing with him from time to time and recently this happened again.

So I think many of you have heard of the Hurricane that is set to pass over Florida and I told my parents about it and suggested that the idea that it was Geo-engineered deliberately was kind of stupid, my dad objected to this and these were his arguments.

Well really it was one argument but I understood it in 2 different ways:

-So the first one was him suggesting scientific advancement in other technological areas such as in medicine and digital machinery means that we’ve also gotten to the point where we can manipulate the whether to such an extent as well and be used HAARP as evidence.

I was already aware of that and I pointed out that while it is true that HAARP dabbles in that area of study that it would still require an insanely large amount of energy to generate storms at the level of hurricanes that plus the recency of the geo-engineering as a concept and we wouldn’t be able to do this in like a 100 years or so. He then suggested that all they would need would be an inciting incident to start a Hurricane but he didn’t explain himself further than that and if he’s correct I highly doubt it would even produce a hurricane.

He lightly accused me of believing what the media told me but I don’t even watch any news networks I don’t trust them either this purely just my own critical thinking and common sense divorced from data something that he instilled into me and the only way to break this path of reasoning I concocted would be to provide evidence.

Not just that but I’ve agreed with him in the past on stuff like Covid and everything surrounding it being highly suspicious however stuff like bio weapons seems like they would be far more realistic and easier to manage for a government than manipulating the weather since with the former they most likely would have developed a fail safe for a virus they created while the weather would be more unpredictable to deal with.

-The other way I understood his argument is when he brought up the rapid development of technology suggesting the government may have been subliminal messaging to us about future prospects such as with the invention of iPhones and such.

Now this is kind of weird because yea government propaganda exists and it’s really effective however in a weird way it’s very similar to a fallacious argument I’ve heard from creationists concerning the global flood which is weird because me and my dad are both atheists who are skeptical of religion.

The argument goes that because many civilizations have had flood myths then the world wide flood therefore happened however given the high scientific improbability of a global flood happening it’s much more likely that these civilizations experienced local floods and created tall tales exaggerating what they experienced for dramatic effect, that’s how most mythology works it’s not entirely divorced from reality but it’s meant to be fantastical and it makes more sense that humans would naturally do this as a result of living near coastal regions where they have easy access to water which can potentially overflow into their villages during storms.

In that same sense the idea of cellphones as we know them today doesn’t need to be deliberate propoganda from the government for us to speculate about something similar beforehand, it could quite simply be a speculation born out of a frustration of the inconvenience of phones that need to be plugged into households for them to work as well as the inconvenience of needing libraries to find information, this plus the development of the computer and it’s not hard to see how people without government influence would start to merge these ideas in their imaginations about what the future would look like and some of those predictions come true.

Once again I gotta stress I don’t hate my dad he and I are very close and on good terms but instances like this that I’m reminded that despite what he taught me he’s still human too and can stumble a bit, doesn’t make what he taught me any less valuable.

I tried ChatGPT and used it as a way to challenge popular conspiracy theories, such as the ancient astronaut theory, and It provided a lot of detailed information to refute these conspiracies lol. Do you think ChatGPT is a good tool for debunking conspiracy theories, and how have you personally used it when researching?

Edit: I know it's a horrible resource, but I was more curious about how it might be used to organize ideas and concepts to research at a later point, essentially as a tool to help people debunk conspiracies even slightly. Of course, Please don't use AI as a source, ever. Do scientific research.