Years ago, I watched zeitgeist. They presented a very compelling argument for 9/11 being an inside job - why did the safeguards fail? What about building 7? Etc. I was like, damn. This is extremely convincing. But the second section was about the bible, and the bible is probably-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'd go with fluid dynamics, but your point stands!
End of conversation
-
-
-
So based on your disagreement with one subject, you’re dismissive of all the others? I hope you realize that could come across as pretty close-minded.
-
Not inherently! I'm still open to 9/11 being an inside job, for example - but that example demonstrated that being skeptical of even things that sound like good arguments can still be really important.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
youre among the most lucid mids of my twitter feed
-
and im not just simping
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
over and over. If an information source covers something I understand well without the nuance that is required when considering complex subject matter, I stop listening to them altogether.
-
I had this with Sapiens; I was about halfway through when he made some arguments about capitalism that seemed very elementary, and after that I just couldn't finish it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is exactly how I feel about the counter-counter-narratives=they exhibit the exact qualities they are criticizing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.