3 ms·

> As the person holding the money, it's my job to look at what is effective and what the act ingredients are in any given product. I wish the industry, our hea

by mannanj 3mo ago

> As the person holding the money, it's my job to look at what is effective and what the act ingredients are in any given product. I wish the industry, our health organizations, and most people in general acted as though this were true. The environment we live in in general is increasingly hostile to people who ask those questions, do their own research, and take responsibility for their health in this way. I have first hand experience having reversed chronic health conditions myself by doing my own research. What have and do others say about it? Everything: every person on the sidelines watching who have formed opinions about how things are supposed to be, and how doctors and nurses and pharmacists are supposed to know better, attack and ridicule me and others like me and when we "look at what is effective and what the active ingredients are" we are gaslit and told we can't possible understand and know that and to leave it to the experts. Of course the definition of expert is only ever tribal and is a moving trojan horse for whatever best allows the agenda of an industry to establish its control over you.

triceratops 3mo ago
"hostile" how?
- mannanj 3mo ago
  Let me first get our agreement on the word hostility: > a state of unfriendliness, antagonism, or ill will Do you agree on this definition? Assuming so, I hear you asking how can asking particular questions get you this? I'll assume you have good will and are willing to engage with friendliness. Simply asking specific questions about health, about diseases, about diet, about social media addiction, about controversial topics like politics, etc release hostility from a handful of people. These people engage with ill will and not friendliness. And it is assumed by them that the asker (me usually) meant unwell - this hostility represents my intentions and assumptions as ill will assumptions. Oddly enough this usually is strongest from people with strong identity attachment to a particular belief or set of beliefs that when questioned releases so much dissonance their nervous system gets hijacked and without the emotional intellgience or mindfulness skills to pause before they engage what comes out is a slop of hostility and aggression most commonly being Ad Hominem or Straw Man attacks as I've mentioned. All when all I did was asked questions. When someone demonstrates this without actually inquiring into ones assumptions or why they asked, thats a clear demonstration of hostility. Do you need more examples?
  - AlexeyBelov 3mo ago
    Are you anti-vax?
  - triceratops 3mo ago
    > Do you need more examples? Hopefully I don't come off as hostile but there were no examples in your post. What were your questions? Did you also show an open mind and willingness to engage?
    - mannanj 3mo ago
      I thought these were examples > Simply asking specific questions about health, about diseases, about diet, about social media addiction, about controversial topics like politics, etc release hostility from a handful of people. These people engage with ill will and not friendliness. And it is assumed by them that the asker (me usually) meant unwell Specific instantiation: during COVID after vaccines had rolled out, I asked my social network on Facebook who had experience with Ivermectin. I have used it successfully myself, and even my vaccinated parents used it successfully when their recommended treatments and advice was not successful for managing pain and symptoms. I got a lot of hostile and ridicule and mockery along with being called a murderer, by people I knew, simply by asking questions. I wasn't recommending to take it. I received people making lots of assumptions about my vaccine status simply because I was asking questions, people lumping me in with conspiracy theorists and being anti-science and more. Edit: I showed lots of curiosity and inquiry into what was said, though there wasn't an opportunity to engage in what was an agenda of prejudice and hostility that wasn't open in return and not willing to deviate from what the engager believes to be true.
      - triceratops 3mo ago
        > I have used it successfully myself To de-worm yourself? Awesome, always good to be worm free. > I got a lot of hostile and ridicule and mockery I don't condone hostility. But if you were a friend of mine and you claimed you cured Covid using ivermectin I would definitely mock you. Sorry bro. > what was an agenda of prejudice [against ivermectin for Covid] Why do you think it was prejudice and not, y'know, post-judice? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-y... What's a simpler explanation? "Ivermectin is really effective against Covid but the drug companies just want to make money so they're suppressing the truth" OR "Ivermectin is really effective against worms. Being worm-free is helpful in fighting Covid. If you don't already have worms it won't help you with Covid" Did you have an open mind to both these explanations? Do they both seem plausible to you? If you reject explanation 2 outright, maybe you're the one who's close-minded and hostile to new ideas? If you agree both are plausible explanations, what was your framework to decide which one was true?

by mannanj 3mo ago

triceratops 3mo ago

"hostile" how?

mannanj 3mo ago
Let me first get our agreement on the word hostility: > a state of unfriendliness, antagonism, or ill will Do you agree on this definition? Assuming so, I hear you asking how can asking particular questions get you this? I'll assume you have good will and are willing to engage with friendliness. Simply asking specific questions about health, about diseases, about diet, about social media addiction, about controversial topics like politics, etc release hostility from a handful of people. These people engage with ill will and not friendliness. And it is assumed by them that the asker (me usually) meant unwell - this hostility represents my intentions and assumptions as ill will assumptions. Oddly enough this usually is strongest from people with strong identity attachment to a particular belief or set of beliefs that when questioned releases so much dissonance their nervous system gets hijacked and without the emotional intellgience or mindfulness skills to pause before they engage what comes out is a slop of hostility and aggression most commonly being Ad Hominem or Straw Man attacks as I've mentioned. All when all I did was asked questions. When someone demonstrates this without actually inquiring into ones assumptions or why they asked, thats a clear demonstration of hostility. Do you need more examples?
- AlexeyBelov 3mo ago
  Are you anti-vax?
- triceratops 3mo ago
  > Do you need more examples? Hopefully I don't come off as hostile but there were no examples in your post. What were your questions? Did you also show an open mind and willingness to engage?
  - mannanj 3mo ago
    I thought these were examples > Simply asking specific questions about health, about diseases, about diet, about social media addiction, about controversial topics like politics, etc release hostility from a handful of people. These people engage with ill will and not friendliness. And it is assumed by them that the asker (me usually) meant unwell Specific instantiation: during COVID after vaccines had rolled out, I asked my social network on Facebook who had experience with Ivermectin. I have used it successfully myself, and even my vaccinated parents used it successfully when their recommended treatments and advice was not successful for managing pain and symptoms. I got a lot of hostile and ridicule and mockery along with being called a murderer, by people I knew, simply by asking questions. I wasn't recommending to take it. I received people making lots of assumptions about my vaccine status simply because I was asking questions, people lumping me in with conspiracy theorists and being anti-science and more. Edit: I showed lots of curiosity and inquiry into what was said, though there wasn't an opportunity to engage in what was an agenda of prejudice and hostility that wasn't open in return and not willing to deviate from what the engager believes to be true.
    - triceratops 3mo ago
      > I have used it successfully myself To de-worm yourself? Awesome, always good to be worm free. > I got a lot of hostile and ridicule and mockery I don't condone hostility. But if you were a friend of mine and you claimed you cured Covid using ivermectin I would definitely mock you. Sorry bro. > what was an agenda of prejudice [against ivermectin for Covid] Why do you think it was prejudice and not, y'know, post-judice? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-y... What's a simpler explanation? "Ivermectin is really effective against Covid but the drug companies just want to make money so they're suppressing the truth" OR "Ivermectin is really effective against worms. Being worm-free is helpful in fighting Covid. If you don't already have worms it won't help you with Covid" Did you have an open mind to both these explanations? Do they both seem plausible to you? If you reject explanation 2 outright, maybe you're the one who's close-minded and hostile to new ideas? If you agree both are plausible explanations, what was your framework to decide which one was true?