??? Sorry I don’t get how that follows, and I’m not. I’m not even sure how my personal political philosophy would matter in this case.

I thought the same thing, and tried to find the 2 replies. In the grand scheme of things, it does not matter though, because all three of these ghouls would say whatever gets more attention because they are amorphous blobs of shite.

Thanks for the correction, you’re right, crazy conspiracy theories do affect reality in that way. I meant affecting reality in a way where, no matter how many people say vaccines cause autism, it won’t make it reality. So by that example, no matter how much the right was ‘projecting’ about cannibalism and other stuff, that by itself is not proof, or proof of the contrary.

I’m no shill, just a skeptic. I get the righteous anger, I hate everything about the people involved too, we just disagree on what, in the grand scheme of things, are insignificant details.

I don’t think I’ve defended billionaires, their existence is inherently immoral, regardless of whether they are cannibals or not. Also, I don’t appreciate the ad hominem remark. I was just engaging in the discourse, as I am interested in how misinformation and conspiratorial ideas develop and propagate.

I don’t think that’s correct, maybe I’m wrong but the files released so far at least don’t include that. Regardless, I’m not disputing that he and his friends did horrific things, might as well have blamed them on others. I am just saying that extrapolating that to a large scale conspiracy with the active participation of the number of people suggested is super unlikely. This is in no way meant to defend anyone involved with Epstein, they are despicable ghouls who should suffer the consequences of their actions.

Why would the right’s crazy conspiracy theories influence reality? I get the projection narrative, but just mirroring what a crazy person says does not necessarily make it not crazy.

I just don’t believe there was a large, organized group of people doing cannibalism and such. It is extremely unlikely that such a conspiracy would exist for a sustained period of time.

The DOJ does suck, and Epstein (and Maxwell) were horrific rapists and sex trafficers. However, the files don’t prove a widespread conspiracy, they instead prove what we already knew, that people in power are shitty people, who look the other way, and readily associate with deeply immoral criminals, just to gain influence and network. All this shit about a widespread cannibal cabal makes you look disturbed and conspiratorial, instead of facing the much less crazy, but arguably just as sad facts.

Moon+ Reader Pro, unfortunately haven’t found any better than this one. The settings menus are not super intuitive, but once you set it up how you want, it is perfect.

Relevant Iran Conflict Cost Monitor

Not a programmer, so can’t comment on API tools, but I have to be annoying and urge you to use alternative ‘change my mind’ templates, as the original creates exposure for a ghoulish bigot. Here are some alternatives: https://rimgo.vern.cc/gallery/sko7Q9W

As most things about the human body, it actually is more complicated. Caloric restriction also causes biological responses in our bodies, influencing hormones such as ghrelin and leptin which physiologically alter hunger and satiety. Some people can even be resistant to leptin for example, meaning that they struggle with a lack of satiety. Our bodies have also been shown to reduce their energy requirements by about 200 calories per day when intake is restricted.

So even if we disregard the problems the claim it’s just a matter of willpower, there are other, biological things to consider.

All this to say, it is undoubtedly good to have more fiber, around 1.2-1.6g protein per kg of bodyweight, 120minutes of excercise a week and strength training, or just whatever we can implement into our routines.

Oh, and one more thing, fatness isn’t a ubiquitous measure of healthiness or virtue, and thinness isn’t either. We have to challenge our assumptions and biases, a lot of which come from our cultures and media.

I agree with his message too for the most part, and fully with you on your last statement. I just don’t think watching Gary and subscribing to his patreon and all that is the right step in making a change. Especially because for some people he might be dissuading from actually delving into the topic deeper or seeking other sources of information and ways to better the situation. When he says stuff along the lines of ‘All graphs are bullshit.’, ‘I know how the sausage is made, all economists are incompetent/liars.’, ‘There’s gonna be total collapse unless you listen to me specifically.’ might end up being harmful in the long run unfortunately. I feel like actual research groups, NGOs and activist groups probably have a lot better chance at influencing policies on this issue than an youtube personality. And if getting a ton of subscribers really was equal to political change, we’s already be fucked, because a ton of people who want the opposite or way worse have heaps more followers than Gary ever will.

You’re right, apologies, I should have just said a wealth tax, I was also thinking about increased income taxes for high brackets too, so got the two mixed up.

Some good government trackers to refer to from time to time:

https://www.economist.com/interactive/2025-british-politics/starmer-tracker

https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/

https://pledgeprogress.co.uk/

Some proof, or more accurately some valuable critique of Gary Stevenson’s output:

Fact check video: Economist fact-checks Gary’s Economics

Interview with Gary: Despolariza #89 GARY STEVENSON

Podcast on analysing Gary as a secular guru: Decoding the Gurus: Gary Stevenson: The People’s Economist

I’m all for an increased wealth tax, and raising awareness is good, but saying that it would be the simple, complete solution as he implies is misleading. Gary also refuses to engage with the research, talk about specifics, show graphs and explain how wealth inequality is a complex issue in his videos. He simplifies things to the extreme and defines society in terms of he and his audience as the pure, non-elite people on one side and all economists and the corrupt elite on the other. This, along with the way he presents himself is why I believe that unfortunately his style is somewhat similar to that of populists on the right, even if their aims are very very different. I’ll provide some sources for high quality critique on Gary’s work as a reply to the other comment.

Gary Stevenson is a populist grifter, who mainly just wants attention so that he can boast about how he went to the best unis, how he’s a genius at investing and complain about how tired he is. It’s a shame, because some of the problems he brings up are very real, but he’s not the way to solve them. Maybe he should just be sipping on pina coladas and rest a bit as he always keeps saying he could be doing instead.