Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
|
I'm re-listening to this discussion between Chris Williamson and Eric Weinstein because it has too much depth to absorb in a single pass. He's got a similar character trait as freebeard where he'll make an obscure reference without explanation, as if most people had deep quantum mechanics knowledge or otherwise experienced things from quite some time ago. That's another reason why multiple listening are required. If he'd just go into more detail assuming we don't know what a word nobody uses in conversation means, then it would be easier for the listener.
Eric has an interesting explanation for why Trump was opposed by institutions, including global ones, from the get-go. While he never implies who his vote will go to, the environment of political discourse we're in assumes a favorable opinion of Trump whenever any negative take of him is rejected.
For instance, on another forum, I point out the corruption of legacy news with the example of them lying to their constituents with the "inject bleach" hoax. By rejecting a blatant, provable lie, that earns the MAGA Republican reputation by people who are uninterested in truth.
Another interesting thing to me is Eric's contempt of string theory and those pushing it. I've never had it explained in a way that makes any sense and was therefore skeptical of its ability to further our understanding of the nature of reality. If someone can't explain something in lay terms that I can understand, it probably means they either don't understand it well themselves, or they're just wrong.