I'm not surprised; they don't like promoting serious content.

Thank you. We all need to dig deeper to uncover the truth. As for Trump voters, they are able to understand these realities, they just prefer not to.

Gravity is one likely cause of observed redshift. I suspect it is one of multiple causes producing the phenomena that cosmologist groupthink assumed was due to motion alone. You may be interested in Glenn Borchardt's learned blog on this issue, thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/search?q=redshift&max-results=20&by-date=true. He's a proponent of the infinite universe theory, with which I am in agreement. I'll watch your video too, thanks for mentioning it.

It's hard wired into Western culture, definitely. There's no room for conceptions of infinite space and time.

Glad it can be helpful! We do need to hold the line and demand clear thinking about science.

It must have been the first election you ever watched, because in every single election later in the evening the largest urban precincts report their vote totals. That's because it takes longer to count a larger amount of votes. For good or for ill, large urban precincts trend more for Democratic Party candidates. As for "letter" voters (you mean mail-in ballots which are always counted last and also trend Democratic) that Trump talking point has been debunked, including in findings of facts by judges, many of whom has been appointed by Trump. I didn't vote for Biden, and wouldn't if he ran this year, but Biden did win the 2020 election beyond all doubt.

@@InsertPhilosophyHere Thats a lot of Philosophy...beyond all doubt.

Just being honest and truthful.

Listening to the video is free; you should try it.

Dealing with diversity and accepting pluralism is the key to an enduring freedom. That's rue regardless of the cultures involved. Another key is accepting that to have broader freedom, we must be willing to at times curtail our own narrow freedoms--for example, giving up the right to do whatever you want and accept that others have their own space in order to have a more peaceful and cooperative society.

​@@InsertPhilosophyHere That appeals very much to my Japanese sensibilities, which prioritize sacrificing personal freedoms and benefits in favor of a more cooperative and harmonious collective. Where I see great difficulty in a society as pluralistic as the US is in agreeing upon the general rules and social customs to optimize collective harmony. Take driving as an example. In Japan, we uniformly abide by certain rules -- not dictated by law -- to favor collective harmony. As one of numerous examples, whenever Japanese are in heavy traffic, we uniformly follow a social custom to let one person merge into a lane, then pass. The driver behind us does the same, allowing one person to merge into traffic, then pass. The result is a very smooth, safe, and steady flow of traffic -- even in the most congested scenarios. In contrast, I was so culture shocked when I attempted to drive in places like Los Angeles. It seemed so chaotic in comparison since people didn't seem to be abiding by rules to optimize collective harmony in any way resembling uniformity, and many even pushing the boundaries of what's legal vs. illegal (ex: almost everyone driving some threshold over the speed limit, and treating it more like a "speed recommendation" than a maximum limit). When I tried to optimize collective harmony in ways we do here in Japan by operating by the custom of letting one person merge ahead of me and then passing, I had people often honking and me and shouting, "WTH are you doing?" On top of that, the person behind the ones I allowed to merge into my lane would often not wait for me to pass and try to muscle their way into my lane as well, causing two or more drivers to merge into my lane instead of just one before I was able to pass. 😅 So I had to learn to become a much more aggressive and seemingly self-centered driver in such places while embracing a much higher degree of chaos above order (and learning to navigate this chaos), and not for my sole benefit. It seemed often necessary -- given the lack of uniformity -- to prioritize in this seemingly selfish respect since my general attempts at doing otherwise often became more counter-productive for the collective good. It is through examples like these in which I perceive a conflict between pluralism of a particular type and optimizing collective harmony. If the collective isn't largely agreed on what customs they uniformly abide by to optimize such harmony, then the end result might be more chaos than order. As another example, I'm a software developer and I've worked in 3 different broad types of teams with respect to standards: A) Teams that established clear coding standards and programmers uniformly abided by them. B) Teams that established no coding standards and every programmer coded things as they saw fit. C) Teams that attempted to establish coding standards but over half the team ignored them. A was, by far, the most productive I've seen. I now refuse to work in any other type of team as I've seen A consistently lead to the smoothest operation, the fewest number of conflicts, and just overall superior teamwork and net productivity. That's in spite of the fact that A requires maximum sacrifices for us individually; for example, most coding standards prevent me from coding things as optimally as I could (should I be free to code things as I see fit), but the exchange is that it allows us to more smoothly operate as a team which I find more than a worthwhile exchange. Nevertheless, B was the second best in my experience (no standard). My first programming job was in a very diverse team where the programmers were situated across the world, didn't even speak the same natural language, and used a diverse range of tools and paradigms. In that case, we were able to collaboratively work with having no standard whatsoever, get used to each other's way of doing things, and navigate the inevitable chaos in this respect as best we could. In this B scenario, we prioritized individual responsibility in exchange for collective responsibility. For example, if a programmer caused an error (bug, e.g.), we expected that same programmer to fix it since his/her code was too difficult for the rest of us to understand. There was far less teamwork but we navigated reasonably this way, expecting each individual to be maximally responsible for their individual actions. C was, by far, the worst in my experience, because it prepares the team to expect the order of everyone operating by the same standards (the expectations of A) but with too many people ignoring them. It's like my driving experience when I first set foot in the US expecting people to uniformly drive as Japanese do, only to find so many don't. It also tends to lead to maximal corruption since it becomes tempting for many to half-abide by the rules they see fit and ignore the ones they don't, resulting in much hypocrisy, double standards, and conflicts about what people should and shouldn't do in the context of standards half-ignored. A concern I have is that trying to achieve something like A in the US might frequently lead people towards the worst-case C scenario.

​@@InsertPhilosophyHere If you'll forgive an extreme example -- and with an intended pun -- I cannot say for certainty whether it is better or worse for the majority of us to be driving on the left side of the road or the right side of the road. What I can say with near-certainty is that the worst possible likely scenario is for half of us to be driving on the left side of the same road while the other half is driving on the right side side. I can see tremendous room to value ethnic and individual differences, to celebrate them -- to see the arts and our ability to learn from each other and our overall existence enriched by such pluralism. But I cannot see how we can even begin to celebrate such pluralism if we're doing anything remotely resembling driving on opposite sides of the road and constantly finding ourselves killed by head-on collisions with each other -- if we can't at least establish this basic type of uniformity. There is a type of fear I have coming from two different directions in my case. On my Japanese side, I fear we are too used to our homogeneous ways to find ourselves able to adapt quickly enough to a more pluralistic society. We face a declining birth rate which is the source of a lot of political discussion towards loosening our immigration policies, but then that raises the question of how well-adapted we are as society -- given our intricate social customs and rules -- to be able to adapt to even a non-trivial minority of those who may not abide by them. For better or worse, our society seems held together by such delicate strands expecting the vast majority to abide by a intricate set of rules and customs, including but hardly limited to the driving custom of letting one person merge and then passing while all on the road operate the same way. On the side of the US, I fear there's such pluralism already that there might be little to no hope of ever arriving at a set of homogeneous values to guide people down a path that prioritizes a collective good above an individual's. My general experiences align with the idea that the ideal is a standard to which is uniformly adhered (almost any standard is better than no standard), followed by something resembling no standard by which no one else expects any adherence of each other (no standard is better than a standard barely adhered), followed by the very worst case scenario of standards barely adhered. And the general nature of the world seems to be shifting us to standards barely adhered, and that seems the most inherently unstable and counter-productive among them all, like the scenario of half the population driving on the left side of the road and the other half driving on the right.

You're very welcome!

"The channels that you speak of are only doing the same thing that Trump has been doing" Therein lies much of the problem. They aren't talking about the issues, they aren't trying to move forward, they are just mirroring Trump. So, seriously, what do you feel the real problem is? Let's talk about it.

He is bad in other ways. His seriousness masks his deeper unhelpful animosities.

I don't listen to hate-filled BS

No, Trump won in 2016 fair and square and then lost in 2020 fair and square. But you are correct that the whole world is suffering because of the American right wing. We need to coalesce around Harris and Walz.

You can't defeat them, you have to offer the rest of the voting public an alternative they can join. I talk about this strategy in another of my videos: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mmm1dXaNhpZge9U

We may never find 100% consensus on what issues are important, but it's clear that women's reproductive rights, economic security, and immigration are issues the majority of Americans find to be important.

True, he's in it for the money and the attention. A useful tool for the people who benefit from all of this.

Yeah, well, KZbin isn't known for detailed thinking.

Yes, that's the main theme of my book. Trump is a symptom far more than he's a cause -- a mere figurehead.

You ain't kidding!