Hey everyone we kevin here, our society is aft in this video. I'm going to provide you as a loyal subscriber a resource that you could use. This video is not sponsored by that resource. It is simply a website that i think you're really going to like and am doing it for the good of, hopefully preventing our society from getting effed with bad, miss or disinformation see in the world of the internet.

We can all lash out our frustrations at anyone and comment on whatever we want most of the time for the goal of popularity. Consider this in politics. If you want to be a leftist superstar, all you have to do is tweet regularly that student debt should be canceled very popular, that we should defund the police and that we should raise the minimum wage. If you want to be a right-wing superstar tweet about how much you hate, looters and sometimes even blm, or how much you demand freedom to choose and the freedom to throw your mask away, because in today's world the middle doesn't get you anything but hate from both Sides you can't actually take the things on both the right and the left and say wait a minute.

There are good things from both sides and there's actually a truth in the middle. So you remember, there are always three versions of every story. There's one person's story. There's the other person's story and then there's the truth.

Talking about the truth can be very, very difficult because unless you are echoing the chamber, talk of the left or echoing the chamber talk of the right, everyone hates you and it sucks look at what elon musk just said on twitter, which is really interesting because elon Musk is echoing one of the issues that we have wikipedia is an organization that seems to be heavily influenced by left-leaning editors, and this is where elon musk writes. History is written by the victors, except on wikipedia, as your enemies are still alive and have lots of time on their hands. A laughing emoji this by the way is something that i retweeted, because guess what i had the same issue during my campaign when i ran against the california governor, where verified wikipedia editors took out of context. Information that i was suggesting would be a fantastic policy, a policy and used it to slander me, which unfortunately gave a lot of folks a bad first impression of me, uh in in the campaign, because they would google, my name wikipedia article would come up.

People would read one or two lines: that's it game over nasty world out there, but wait a minute. This is not just a video to complain. This is a video to make sure that i can actually help provide you value. So we've got to understand a couple things.

First, there are two major issues that we have in our world today and then i'm going to provide you this solution. Remember this video by the way is not sponsored by the solution. This video is sponsored by my programs on building your wealth, which has a coupon code expiring tomorrow, which means the price goes up. After that you get lifetime access, and if you check out the stocks and psychology of money group, you will get all of my buy.

Sell alerts for anything that i buy check that out down below, but here's the thing we've got two major issues, number one censorship and believe me. I know a lot about censorship. I was censored by twitter, instagram, facebook cnn. I even had to send a cease and desist letter to cnn for censoring my campaign and and then they finally u-turned, which was clearly a sign that they're like oh yeah, okay, we were kind of censoring you and now you're, exposing us anyway, uh and number two There's a major lack of understanding in our society about how to actually make an argument see when we hear the word argument.

Usually we believe that just means shouting the loudest thing or saying the most popular thing, therefore whoever's the most popular is obviously winning the argument. However, this is actually not what arguing is arguing follows a very simple formula. You state a claim, and then you state a fact with citations, and then you make a conclusion. That is how you make an argument.

So, for example, if somebody made an argument that hey, i believe that kevin was born in germany. I believe that, because here is a link that shows in an interview he says he was born in germany. Therefore, kevin was born in germany. That is a very well structured argument, because now somebody understands the claim i think kevin was born in germany and number two, the citation.

Oh okay. I can fact check that citation and see if that is an accurate claim, and therefore conclusion that is good, solid argumentation versus something that's bad argumentation would be something like kevin's born in germany. Therefore, he's a nazi okay, we're not even gon na go down that rabbit hole; obviously i'm not, but this video is not about that. It just shows you the difference between good argumentation and not argumentation.

Just it's not even bad argumentation. It's just not argumentation. It's just shouting: it's just claiming it's it's being kind of an internet troll. Basically now, why am i making this video and then what is the resource that i want to give to you? So i made a video yesterday providing my research and my thoughts on a doctor who went on a joe rogan episode, whom, in my opinion, was giving somewhat exaggerated claims.

Some things i agreed with, and some things were just not very well, founded in fact, the way he was implying they were now. I lost over 200 subscribers in five hours, which means usually i post a video. I gain subscribers, so i, the opportunity cost was probably even greater and 99 of the hateful comments followed the following structure: what at first glance, they argued that i can't trust the guy with pink hair. Okay, this is not an argument.

This is just a random claim that obviously my intellect is somehow affected by the color of my hair. At second glance, they say why trust a youtuber over a doctor, okay, so this uh implies. This makes the the claim that a doctor somebody who's simply a doctor is somehow either more researched, more honest or uh, more more, ultimately truthful in the information and citations they're providing than somebody else which could be anyone else, because i believe that youtubers are just normal People uh now, of course, there are doctors who are also youtubers, but just because you're, not a doctor and somebody else is a doctor - does not mean that that doctor has better information than you. That is a logical fallacy, that's known as an appeal to authority.

Oh well, that person's a doctor, so they must be right. No society doesn't work that way. At third glance, individuals looked at the citations that i put in the uh in the description, rather than actually watching the video. They did a quick look at the citations and they saw a citation like reuters, which is a highly factual, newswire publication, they're they're, pretty good they're, not always right, but at least when you do media fact check, biases, reuters and and uh the associated press they're.

Pretty up there now i know that the new york times has a left, leaning tilt. The wall street journal is kind of a little bit on the right a little bit more, but sometimes they can also lean a little to the left. It just kind of depends on the day, but anyway the newswire service is pretty good, and then there are comments like this folks. Let's break this one down, because this is just insane, but it must be right because it has 73 upvotes.

Oh it's popular with the like button, so obviously it must be right right wrong. This is not how to determine whether something is factual. Listen to this, that's the exact problem with the current state of society says this commentary. People who have no clue about the topic and get all their education from google search end up becoming fact, checkers, okay, interesting, so this person makes three claims in this uh a one quickly thrown together argument.

The first claim they make is kevin must have no clue what evidence did they provide to suggest that i have no clue they didn't provide any evidence. That means they didn't actually make an argument. They just shouted nonsense. Okay, then they made a claim that i get all my information from google search, which is not true.

In fact, i'm about to give you a resource that shows that, but they didn't provide any evidence that i used to google rather than other sources, and on top of that they're making the claim that using google. Oh, my gosh: how dare you do your research on google they're, making the claim that if you do your research on google, you will be wrong. No matter what you find, it will be wrong. Okay, that's interesting! Now! The argument here goes into the censorship world that misinformation maybe gets, gets uh censored on google searches.

Fine now don't use google if you believe that and that's fine and maybe use different web browsers or use the resource that i'm about to show you but again making this claim without evidence that wait a minute where's your citation that google is censoring other than just Anecdotal, well, i think they are where's the citation or where's the citation that i actually use, google and then their conclusion. This is really their conclusion. It's not a third claim. That's the problem with society is their conclusion, so they make these two claims without evidence and then try to suggest that.

Okay, this is the problem with society. Well, no, actually, the real problem with society is not arguing properly. Again, i made this very clear. You make a claim, then you provide a fact or citation.

Then you draw a conclusion that is proper argumentation, but if you make a claim with no evidence and no fact other than just likes you're ruining society, that's basically what you're doing you're ruining society. But it's not just people like this folks, i mean there were hundreds of nonsensical comments again about the color of the hair or look at stuff like this. This is interesting. Citations are pointless when there are no citations for the citations.

Okay. Well, this isn't true, because the point of a citation is that you can go to a source and then evaluate where that person got their source from. Are they a primary source or a secondary source? Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff just wasn't taught in our schools. So i can't blame everyone, but a lot of this is just complete and other nonsense.

Here's another one kevin your argument's reaching and you can feel the emotion in your tone. This isn't non-biased get out of california because it's causing harm to you. Okay, so listen to this, this argumentation that this pseudo-argumentation we have here, one kevin. Your arguments are reaching okay.

So that's a claim claim number one kevin your arguments or research are reaching where's the fact where's, the citation which of my arguments was reaching okay. So the first part is not an argument. It's just spewing, no evidence that my arguments were reaching none at all. Therefore you're spewing.

I can feel the emotion in your tone. What does that even mean like who cares? So you can't be passionate in a video you're, making a claim that you must be wrong because there's emotion in your tone there's a motion in my tone now because you're an idiot, this isn't non-biased. Okay, where's your fact provide something: hey kevin. You said this.

I disagree with what you said because of this and here's my citation. Therefore, i think you're wrong. That would be an argument. This is a dumb, unfounded claim.

Oh and then this is just the icing on the cake quote: get out of california because it's causing harm to you, okay, so the claim is that california is harming me and that therefore, i'm somehow broken, but again, no evidence that either a i'm being harmed or B, it's california, that's causing that harm. Don't get me wrong. I hate california's government, okay, california's government sucks and california's government sucks for all of the reasons that i outlined with facts and statistics in my campaign, which i'm not going to rehash all of that here. So yeah i'm making a claim without providing all those facts here, because that's really not important for this video and i'm not going to waste your time.

I ran an entire campaign on this stuff, but folks, what can we do to minimize the nonsense? Well, i personally recommend deepdive.com. This is not sponsored. I know this is going to sound like a sponsorship, but i promise you it's not sponsored you sign up here, i'm not even going to put a link down below because i don't want you to think that, like somehow links are being tracked or whatever i'm not Getting paid by them, i don't get any benefit from you using this resource at all. I just use it and i think it's really good, so the cool thing about this website is basically they let you search for really whatever you want uh on here, and so you once you sign up you get to sort of log in here and then you Could learn from phds or resource researchers about a lot of different topics, uh and what they do.

Is they basically give you access to, like hundreds, i think, of different, like publication websites, so you could sign up for a trial on deepdive.com. I think it's a little expensive on an annual basis, it's like 500., but try the free trial and see if it's worth it, sometimes that 50 60 bucks a month could be worth it for you uh. A lot of this is more medical focused, but i've even found some really good pieces on uh, doctoral researchers, uh doing uh pieces on inflation and what countries can do uh to to potentially solve inflation? How bad is inflation really going to be? Let's try another one: we'll try another one here, totally raw, i'm just going to throw in tesla. Here i don't know i've never tried searching for tesla.

I always like typing in or clicking the button here for more recent, so i'll go since uh 2021 here uh. So uh, let's see here uh, let's see so, we've got tesla here. We've got uh competition and valuation for look at that competition and valuation, a case study for tesla motors and so usually you'd have to like buy these sorts of pdfs and research papers. But here you've got research from the university of illinois about the valuation of tesla, the economics of teslas, the batteries, the autonomous driving uh, the valuation of tesla.

I mean this is this is pretty cool? Now you don't necessarily have to agree with it. But the point: is you get access to this higher level kind of content? So if i want to do a medical research, video and somebody's like hey kevin, well, hydroxychloroquine works just look at this piece of this paper here and then i look at it and i'm like okay, it's not peer-reviewed and there are no results of the study published. Yet that's not ideal or somebody's like no. No, no hydroxychloroquine works.

Click on this link and it's like okay. This is a mini review of like 10 different studies, not a study itself. Now, if somebody's like, hey kevin, here's a a review, here's an actual study, rather that's peer, reviewed and shows that hydroxychloric and works when you use it with zinc prior to hospitalization great, then that's freaking awesome. Maybe that is true.

Now we can have an argumentation right now. We can actually have a real debate. A real debate follows hey, i believe, let's just say i'm gon na. Why would i say i because i don't want to get chastised again? Okay, because it's not necessarily, let's just say person a says, hydroxychloroquine doesn't work to prevent coven person two says: well.

I understand that you might think hydroxychloroquine doesn't work to solve covid, but here's a claim. The claim is hydroxychloroquine used in combination with zinc prior to hospitalization. Actually does reduce covet symptoms and covet severity. In fact, here's the citation to a peer-reviewed study with you know hundreds of trial participants or whatever.

That shows that this is indeed the case. Therefore, conclusion is yes. In some cases, hydroxychloroquine may not work, but if you use it in this manner early enough, it could work notice how that is. Like oh logic, oh my gosh, it's so beautiful, but do you think that is actually popular on twitter or in politics or in social media? Hell, no.