Kaizen Asiedu

Because as I mentioned earlier, trust is why people believe things that they do, not verification. So why do I believe trust? that the vaccine schedule maybe is generally good for kids because that's what scientists and scientific institutions have told me, not because I verified this myself.

However, if we now have a default skepticism about everything the government says, everything institutions say, everything scientific bodies say, then we can't coordinate anymore. And if you don't have trust, then you need a bunch of rules or you need conflict every single time you're trying to make something happen. And you simply can't make progress that way.

However, if we now have a default skepticism about everything the government says, everything institutions say, everything scientific bodies say, then we can't coordinate anymore. And if you don't have trust, then you need a bunch of rules or you need conflict every single time you're trying to make something happen. And you simply can't make progress that way.

However, if we now have a default skepticism about everything the government says, everything institutions say, everything scientific bodies say, then we can't coordinate anymore. And if you don't have trust, then you need a bunch of rules or you need conflict every single time you're trying to make something happen. And you simply can't make progress that way.

And what it'll do is it'll actually, rather than correcting the system, it'll just cause a system to come to a screeching halt. So that is what I would say is like the steel man argument against RFK. He's spreading a level of skepticism that is just as dangerous, if not more, than dogmatism. He is not a scientist and not in a position to evaluate scientific claims on a first principles basis.

And what it'll do is it'll actually, rather than correcting the system, it'll just cause a system to come to a screeching halt. So that is what I would say is like the steel man argument against RFK. He's spreading a level of skepticism that is just as dangerous, if not more, than dogmatism. He is not a scientist and not in a position to evaluate scientific claims on a first principles basis.

And what it'll do is it'll actually, rather than correcting the system, it'll just cause a system to come to a screeching halt. So that is what I would say is like the steel man argument against RFK. He's spreading a level of skepticism that is just as dangerous, if not more, than dogmatism. He is not a scientist and not in a position to evaluate scientific claims on a first principles basis.

And he's eroding trust in society most generally. And that's getting in the way of coordination and it's contributing to polarization.

And he's eroding trust in society most generally. And that's getting in the way of coordination and it's contributing to polarization.

And he's eroding trust in society most generally. And that's getting in the way of coordination and it's contributing to polarization.

Absolutely. I mean, the most uncomfortable topics are the ones that are most important to talk about. And what's been happening is over the last, I don't know, decade, maybe two decades, this anti-free speech culture has been developing. And Maybe it's because we're like nearly 250 years from the founding of this country.

Absolutely. I mean, the most uncomfortable topics are the ones that are most important to talk about. And what's been happening is over the last, I don't know, decade, maybe two decades, this anti-free speech culture has been developing. And Maybe it's because we're like nearly 250 years from the founding of this country.

Absolutely. I mean, the most uncomfortable topics are the ones that are most important to talk about. And what's been happening is over the last, I don't know, decade, maybe two decades, this anti-free speech culture has been developing. And Maybe it's because we're like nearly 250 years from the founding of this country.

I don't know why, but people have seemed to lose touch with the real value of free speech. The value of free speech is not demonstrated when everyone is saying things that are true. The value of free speech is demonstrated when people are saying things that are false and other people can counter those false things in public. So you counter bad speech with good speech.

I don't know why, but people have seemed to lose touch with the real value of free speech. The value of free speech is not demonstrated when everyone is saying things that are true. The value of free speech is demonstrated when people are saying things that are false and other people can counter those false things in public. So you counter bad speech with good speech.

I don't know why, but people have seemed to lose touch with the real value of free speech. The value of free speech is not demonstrated when everyone is saying things that are true. The value of free speech is demonstrated when people are saying things that are false and other people can counter those false things in public. So you counter bad speech with good speech.

You counter hate speech with loving speech. You counter misinformation with real information. But instead, what's been happening is people have been saying, hey, don't talk to this person. How dare you platform them? How dare you talk to them? How dare you entertain their views? How dare you be associated with them? Which is silly, right?

You counter hate speech with loving speech. You counter misinformation with real information. But instead, what's been happening is people have been saying, hey, don't talk to this person. How dare you platform them? How dare you talk to them? How dare you entertain their views? How dare you be associated with them? Which is silly, right?

You counter hate speech with loving speech. You counter misinformation with real information. But instead, what's been happening is people have been saying, hey, don't talk to this person. How dare you platform them? How dare you talk to them? How dare you entertain their views? How dare you be associated with them? Which is silly, right?

Because you can't have a good faith dialogue if you're not curious about the other side of that dialogue. How do you know that you believe what you believe is true if you're not talking to people who believe what you believe is false? So we just need to believe that the truth is good and the truth always wins.