Discussion how do you keep being open-minded with social media?

So... for climate, reconciling subreddits such as /r/nocauseforalarm /r/climate /r/collapse is hard on my brain. A lot of opinion seems to contradict each other. That is about climate. Then on Covid-19, between vaccine and anti-vaccine (ignoring the conspiracy theorists), I don't know if the evidence is cherry picked, the data is fabricated or not, or maybe the methodology is flawed.

I try to ask for data, but even then, the data is hard to understand and I think I need training to understand and process the data first.

Because of that, honestly I don't have any stance between anti-covid-19 vaccine (not anti vaccine in general) and pro-vaccine. I don't know if we are actually doomed or if it is reversible. the number of biodiversity is decreasing though. Maybe it's not really a problem, greenhouse gases? or maybe the world will be destroyed before 2030?

One thing that people agree though, is just blame the 1%, the rich, the oligarch who hold the political power and economic means to stay rich while polluting the world.

this is reddit. when you change to twitter, today I'm not productive, replying to people about the issue I am concerned about. I mean, uncosciously disparaging others, and realizing it only now. Keeping my own opinion, even though I know intelectually that it may be wrong.

Why is social media so tiring? How do you do it? to me, It's necessary to challenge your own views, test it if it is flawed or not. But it's tiring. NUF is my respite from all those conflicting news out there. here, I can just dream, that everything is alright. I just want to be a silent reader, damn it.

 

For starters, don’t get facts from random people on the internet

If you really want to know who you should trust, take a look at the thousands of scientific reports that are published. For recent information on the climate, you could read the National Climate Assessment (NCA4, pretty sure the 5th one is still underway) because it’s designed for the general public to read. It’s not scientific jargon, and it’s not good news either . Yes, it’s centered around the US, but it’s still applicable to most of the world.

For the vaccine, I’m not even gonna touch this one. Just look at the proven research thats been peer reviewed and published. I can guarantee you’ll find your answer there.

 

For anything you eat, drink, or inject in your body, preservatives are bad.
Fast foods and preserved Foods and drinks have Sodium based salt as preservative, leading to Salt poisoning (Hypernatremia) which is commonly known as "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome".

Back to the topic of Vaccines...

1. Vaccines also have preservatives. Single person (1 dose) Vaccine vials have the minimum required preservatives, to sustain until vial is opened.
   
2. Multi-dose Vaccine vials have much more preservatives. This type of vial is usually used during mass immunization programs.
   
3. The most infamous Vaccine preservative is Mercury-based Thiomersal/Thimerosal, known to cause Aspergers/Autism condition in babies.
4. There is also the neurotoxic Aluminum based preservatives in vaccines. Aluminum kills brain cells leading to early Alzheimers.
   
5. A more commonly used Vaccine preservative is Nagalase (α-N-acetylgalactosaminidase), known to cause immune system deficiency by stopping Vitamin D production and/or absorption in the body.
6. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of vaccine trials causing hospitalization/Sterilization/death, in 2nd & 3rd world countries, by International organizations like Bill Gate's Gates Foundation, leading to paranoia worldwide.
   
7. This is paranoia is boosted by Bill Gate's statement of 'reducing the world's population through healthcare'.

A statement by CDC on Single Dose Vials / Multi Dose Vials:

On the topic of Climate change / Global warming:

Yes, the Climate is changing and our Earth is warming, but half of the reasons cooked up in the media are absolute bogus excuses.

A good example of bogus excuse is Ocean Acidification being caused by Carbon Dioxide; while the truth is Ocean Acidification is the result of plastic decomposing in sea water. (search great Garbage patch)

Real reasons for Climate change

1. Industrial Agriculture contributes to climate change (oceanic dead zones, land degradation)
2. petroleum products
   1. Fossil fuel pollutes the atmosphere
   2. plastic, thermocol/Styrofoam, nylon: pollutes the land and oceans
3. Paper: almost very physical Book, newspaper, magazine, tissue paper, etc. that's sold, is made from cutting down forests, which destroys the ecosystem + heats up the planet. (There are some sustainable initiatives like Bamboo, Hemp, etc., but not nearly enough)
4. Hydrogen fuel & bio-powerplants: uses wood from cutting down forests, which destroys the ecosystem + heats up the planet
   
5. Aluminum: Aluminum is a neurotoxin, and it's production releases neurotoxic sludge which destroys the ecosystem
   
6. Microwave: WiFi, Bluetooth, 4G, 5G, microwave body scanners, microwave weaponry, etc. is slowly heating up the planet. (Microwave is usually filtered by the ionosphere keeping Earth cool) 5G may also be killing ecosystems.

In my personal opinion, National Security initiatives maybe the biggest contributors to Global warming/Climate change

1. Nuclear weapons tests: nuclear weapons heats up the environment and destroys the ecosystem, wherever it is exploded - air, underground, underwater, etc.
   
2. "Owning the Weather in 2025" initiatives like HAARP: using weather as a weapon
3. Wars: launching missiles, dropping bombs, shooting artillery shells, exploding grenades, etc. will destroy the ecosystem and literally change the landscape.
   • the biggest example of Wars destroying the ecosystem is US dropping Agent orange in Vietnam war, causing harmful effects to all life in the area. Even now, human & animal children are born there with unimaginable birth defects, due to Agent Orange.

 

I get my facts and beliefs outside of social media, which is almost never a good place to do any kind of research/look for facts. My suggestiom would just be to take everything with a grain of salt and not question everything you see. Sometimes ignoring it might do you some good.

 

learn to distinct people who open to discussion for sake of improvement together, problem solving or stuff like that compare with people who discuss for sake winning on argument

it relatively simple concept but hard to implement~ more so if you still cannot control your emotion~
discussion mindset not debate mindset mind you~
debate imo incline toward win or lose while discussion is trying to search middle ground~

of course there always bottom line, if you think it cross it then you may keep full force argument or retreat to calm yourself~ after all, ask yourself why even bother?

its not something new concept, if you somehow involve on organization that have plenty of discussion and debate over thing around, social media is just like that~

 

As a general point about trusting facts from random people on the Web/'Net, I do agree with that. However, say it is some some obscure fact about something obscure that is hard to find verifiable info about. I personally might be willing to accept that person's claims depending on the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the claim.

 

I suggest you pin down one topic you want to research and then head over to google scholar and search it up.. there are some articles that need some prior knowledge but most of them have a simple compact context at the very first page briefing on what it talks about.

Some might say it's hectic but I see it as a fun pass time, I do it every other weekend when I've burnt through my novels and manga.

 

It's never too late to crawl out of the rabbit hole called "social media". If you haven't gone in yet, great! You can linger around the periphery but don't ever stick a foot in.

 

Sure, if it’s anecdotal evidence I don’t see why not. But even if it’s something obscure, it’s pretty difficult not to find information about it when you’re looking in the right place. Also, who’s to say that that person is who they claim to be? Lots of people maliciously fake their identities/ experiences online to push a conspiracy or agenda, and unless that person is able to be completely verified as the person they say they are, I wouldn’t trust their information one bit.

 

My solution is to never use it.