Originally Posted by
Letters
Can't he be both? Those two things aren't a contradiction. He's been very successful in business and with investments, he's used some of that success to help others. He didn't have to do that, he could have dicked around putting stuff in space like Musk has (not that I think that is a terrible thing to be doing either).
The point of the video is to question Gates' motives for giving money away.
Is it to make money? That doesn't really check out, he'd be worth a lot more had he not.
Is it because he's into Eugenics? The only real basis is that his dad and some of his associates were, there's some quote about end of life support from Gates but that's a complicated area where difficult decisions must be made. Certainly not an indication that he believes that certain people are "less worthy" of life. His work with poorer nations rather undermines the idea that he believes himself and his ilk to be superior.
So is it about control then? Well, not much evidence is presented but it's certainly true that Gates has fingers in lots of pies - I'd agree, probably too many but when you have that amount of money to invest it's going to be spread all over the place. And some of his practices have been questionable, trying to make it so everyone had to use IE, buying up companies who they saw as potential competitors. But these are also factors in being a company that big and powerful, every company that big wants to have a monopoly. Facebook now do the same - they bought WhatsApp for example. Ironic that Microsoft made a couple of attempts to by Facebook in its early days.
When you're head of an organisation that big you're going to have a lot of power and influence. I think it's fine to be concerned about that, where it becomes a conspiracy theory is to assert with no real evidence that his motive is to control. Maybe he just wants to help people. You can debate whether he's going about things the right way or doing the right things, but you have an underlying cynicism about pretty much everyone's motives. I don't know how you square that with a recently expressed belief that people are generally decent.
Genuinely can't believe you said that I "can't simply say [I] disagree but instead seek to discredit those who have a different opinion". Are you just trolling? That is literally your go to tactic with anyone and every person or organisation you disagree with. I didn't "seek" to discredit Corbett by the way, I've already dealt with that. You accused me of searching out what you called a "hit piece" on him. Actually all I did was click on the first link I found which wasn't his own site. And what did you do, other than call it a "hit piece"? You tried to discredit the site it was from. Irony, much?
I'm not imprisoned and nor are you, there are no bars. You're the one freely doing what you want but declaring yourself to be in jail. You declare the lockdown dead and witness people going about doing as they please while you wring your hands about how controlled we are. In some countries I could get locked up for going to church or even owning a Bible, in some countries I'd have far less freedom than I do here. Obviously I can't literally do anything I want, there are some rules, that is the price of living in a society. But in exchange we have infrastructure and comfort. To me it's a fair exchange. If the argument is that control is coming, well, people have been saying that for decades.
I don't know why Ferguson has the ear of the politicians but working with and in the Civil Service for as long as I have I know there is a lot of incompetence around. Bad decisions have been made at my place based on bad advice by people who don't know what they're doing. Neither the people giving the advice nor the people taking it are doing so with any malicious intent, they're just idiots. I'm more inclined to think it's idiocy than part of some master-plan. And yes, it's absolutely the politician's fault if they act on bad advice. It is literally their job to make decisions and policy. Ferguson's paper is publicly available, as is all his previous work. If his models are as bad as you suggest then it's not hard to find that out - you did - and take that into account when taking advice and making decisions. Yes, of course money buys influence but ultimately the buck stops with the people making the decisions.
What "game" do you think I'm playing with the covid league tables? I've been fairly consistently looking at the deaths per million stats, calling out the US and the UK as doing poorly based on the data. You have been looking at the same data but then saying how well the US has been doing by declaring the data fake when it doesn't show that.
I have no contempt for Corbett, automated or otherwise. I have no "conditioned response" - any more than you have when you see what he has to say, see it fits in with your world view and you wag your tail. It didn't hurt me to listen, I did listen. I watched the videos you posted, found them full of contradictions, twisted facts, out of context quotes and conjecture. Are they being removed from public? He's still there. As Ricky Gervais lamented, it used to be "my opinion is as good as your opinion", now it's "my opinion is as good as your fact". You can have an opinion about anything but if your opinion is "5G is spreading coronavirus" which has no basis in reality, you spout that opinion across the internet and people attack 5G towers (or towers which aren't 5G because they're idiots and don't know which is which) then yeah, that's a bad thing. "They" are not trying to suppress views which aren't the mainstream, if they were then Corbett would be long gone. But removing things which are demonstrably bullshit and could cause people to come to harm if they believe it - or at least warning people it's bullshit. Seems fairly reasonable.
No, there will never be one opinion, never has been. This dystopia you imagine isn't happening. If anything it's going the other way - we are now in an era when anyone can spout anything across the internet with no oversight or consequence. The old adage that a lie travels twice around the world before the truth has got its boots on is truer than ever. It's no coincidence that belief in FE is proliferating in an era when the loonies who used to shout on street corners can now shout across the internet and reach a large audience. (Not the first time I've mentioned them, they are a little obsession of mine, my mind is boggled that people could believe that sort of claptrap). Belief in FE is fairly benign, as these things go. It's slightly depressing how scientifically illiterate people are but whatever, doesn't really matter. But believing that vaccines are linked to autism is less benign. That entire belief, which is worryingly widespread, is based on one since discredited study which the press plastered all over their front pages to much hand wringing.
You are increasingly sounding like Harry Enfield's "Is that what you want? 'Cos that's what'll 'appen" character. But it won't happen. It won't happen because "they" aren't trying to control you. They aren't trying to help you either, particularly, I don't think they really care about you either way.