It does beg the question, what other pressures is he facing and why would he bow to them?

Bringing back strong 1990s Pizza Hut memories. Sure they are the same still today, but I have not stepped into one since the 1990s as I value my health. Ahahahaha

It is indeed an effective strategy to distract the masses unfortunately. There is a real growth opportunity here for humanity if we are able to see it as clearly the established pattern is not serving society.

It is unfortunate that the very small % of people that choose violence tend to only make things worse not better.

I read a number of their comments and they do raise a number of valid points, but perhaps have inaccurately pinpointed the issue as men and testosterone versus some people’s brain development/chemistry. They are not entirely wrong, just a little off the mark which is making their words easy to dismiss for most. There is an oz of truth here. I am replying with some of the facts and studies on the matter as clearly they are passionate about the subject and wish to learn.

Violent crimes yes I would agree. It is mostly men around the world who are committing them. If all men decided to not commit violent acts all at once, including refusing to join the army or participate in war, the world would be a better place instantly. Maybe that is where things will go as we start to alter our DNA as unfortunately evolution is way too slow and many of us are still behaving like wee are tribes in the jungle.

In terms of enabling, there is some phycology here. Not saying all violent crimes committed by men were solely enabled by women but there is a weird dynamic going on. Here is one example but there are many many studies on this matter and the overall trend is violence is attractive for some. Hence the enabling. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=jj_etds

I would caution broad stroke statements though aimed at men as the majority of men are not violent. It is a small percentage who cause most of the violence. When we look at their brains, we have noticed patterns in their formation and chemistry. Some of these exist in women to a much lesser degree as I recall reading in papers in the past. Perhaps it is these people we need to focus on helping as they are causing a lot of suffering for themselves and others.

It may seem that way and perhaps it is accurate, but if women support bad men, are they any better? Lots of enablers of bad behaviour. I too “feel” it is mostly men though.

Would be even hard to detect now that AI can write the same message in different ways. I question every comment I read, especially the ones appealing to one’s emotions.

Some humans really are monsters.

Is a good question. I asked ChatGPT and it said “ Town criers were often paid by the local government or the community they served. Their compensation varied depending on the time period and location. In some cases, town criers received a regular salary, while in others, they might be paid per message delivered. Additionally, they sometimes received extra benefits, such as clothing or housing, as part of their compensation. The job of a town crier was considered important for public communication, especially before the widespread availability of printed media, so communities ensured they were reasonably compensated to keep the information flowing.” Seems like a reasonable answer that other sources seem to corroborate.

Probably paid by the wealthy class and I am sure they would stay on message if they wanted to keep their job.

It was the same in the past though too. Some audiences would be targeted by this newspaper or that one, others radio, some snuck into their favourite TV drama. Nothing new here just a new medium. We can only change ourselves through education as we are susceptible to misinformation and until that changes, we are are the mercy of whatever medium of the day reaches us.

There is no evidence that it is worse than past communication mediums unless you have a link to a paper that shows this. The real point I am making is that misinformation has been something humans have been susceptible to since before recorded time regardless of the medium. Many are focusing on the Internet as the issue, but the focus should be on us…the people as misinformation is nothing new. Time we really address it, starting with education.

There really is no evidence that the current mediums of misinformation are any worse than previous mediums. It has been an issue for a long time and while I agree that algorithms and such can amply, previous mediums has their amplifiers too, but we never really acknowledged. There is however lots of evidence that humans are susceptible to misinformation so while we cannot control misinformation, we can better educate on how to manage better.

I really cannot agree as misinformation was prevalent in newspapers and magazines before the Internet and before that you better believe the town crier was spreading the word of those in power too, many of the same people you described. Echo chambers in person versus online are still just echo chambers.

I too have be alive before and after the Internet and it just seems like misinformation just moved mediums. Not like newspapers and magazines were not spreading misinformation before. I feel the more we point the finger a the Internet as the cause the more we are not recognizing it has always been with us back to town criers and word of mouth into the deep past. It is always been here and is not going anywhere. How we deal with it is what changes.

People read magazines and newspapers before the Internet and before that it was town criers and word of mouth that spread misinformation. I really sense that misinformation has really not changed…just how it is consumed has.

Misinformation has been around before the written word and while many are pointing the finger at the Internet for making it worse, I am not convinced it has. I mean all bought trickle down economics before the Internet for example.

$13B would be better spent preventing Doomsday. Building a plane needed as all other bases are gone seems like a fools errand for sure. What are they commanding at this point as humanity has lost.

Yet missing the point of the text entirely.

Can the same be used to make cannabis legal as many many groups have been asking too? Feels like a double standard especially given the low health risk of cannabis.