Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Naval Ravikant explains why "the meaning of life" is the wrong question: "It's a 'why' question. You can keep asking 'why' forever. Any answer I give you, you just ask 'why' again." Naval explains where every "why" question ends: "There's a thing called Agrippa's Trilemma. It says that any... questioning like this will always end in one of three places. First is infinite regress: 'why?' 'because of this,' 'why?' and you just keep playing it. Second is circular reasoning: 'why A?' 'because of B,' 'why B?' 'because of A.' Third is an axiom. The most popular axiom is God. But it could be anything: math, science, the Big Bang, the simulation. These are all just stopping points. Saying 'we're in a simulation' or 'it's the Big Bang' is just another way of saying God. It's just that God's a dirty word now." He shares what this means: "So there is no answer. The real answer is 'because.' You get to make up your own answers. The beauty is, if there was a single answer, we would not be free. We would be trapped. We'd be Borg-like robots competing with each other to fulfill that single meaning. But luckily there is no answer. So you just do whatever you want." Naval addresses the fear of being insignificant: "All the great questions are paradoxes. You're asking, 'Do I matter?' On one hand, you're completely separate. No one will have your thoughts, your emotions, your experience. Your life is a single-player game. You're trapped inside your head. On the other hand, I cannot say the words 'Joe Rogan' without invoking the entire universe. What's Joe Rogan? A human. What's a human? A bipedal ape. What's an ape? On earth. What's earth? A planet. Where was the carbon made? Inside stars. I have to create the entire universe just to say the words 'Joe Rogan.'" He concludes: "So the answer to 'Do I matter?' is: I am nothing and I am everything. The answers to all great questions are paradoxes. It's pointless to pursue them for a trite answer, but the act of pursuing them brings a level of peace."show more

Jaynit

57,996 subscribers

155,364 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Eğitim Sağlık & İyilik Bilim & Teknoloji

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

.Elon Musk (worth $250B) answers why he’s still working: I think it's a good question you asked, because it goes to, like, at a foundational level, what is my philosophy, and why does it lead to this conclusion? So the reason is that when I was a teenager, I had, like, an existential crisis to try to figure out what's the meaning of life. There doesn't seem to be any meaning. For me, at least the religious texts, and I read all of them that I could get my hands on did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. Be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression. So reading Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, as an adult, it's much more manageable. But as a kid, you're like, “Whoa.” So then I was like, “Man, I'm just struggling to find meaning in life here.” And then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And basically what Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The question is not, “What's the meaning of life?” In The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Earth it turns out is a big computer, and its goal is to answer the question, “What's the meaning of life?” And Earth comes up with the answer “42”. This is where the 42 number comes from. And 420 is just ten times 42. In that book, which is really sort of a book about, it's an existential philosophy book disguised as humor. They come to the conclusion that, no, the real problem is trying to formulate the question. And to really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth. And so maybe one way, I think, of characterizing this would be to say, “The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?” The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multistellar species… we have a chance of figuring out what the hell is going on. And so this is why I think we should have more humans and both biological and digital consciousness. And why we should become a multi-planet species and a multistellar species is so that we can understand the nature of the universe. And then in order for that to occur, then we have to make sure that things are good on Earth. We don't want Earth to disappear, so sustainable energy is important.

.Elon Musk (worth $250B) answers why he’s still working: I think it's a good question you asked, because it goes to, like, at a foundational level, what is my philosophy, and why does it lead to this conclusion? So the reason is that when I was a teenager, I had, like, an existential crisis to try to figure out what's the meaning of life. There doesn't seem to be any meaning. For me, at least the religious texts, and I read all of them that I could get my hands on did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. Be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression. So reading Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, as an adult, it's much more manageable. But as a kid, you're like, “Whoa.” So then I was like, “Man, I'm just struggling to find meaning in life here.” And then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And basically what Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The question is not, “What's the meaning of life?” In The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Earth it turns out is a big computer, and its goal is to answer the question, “What's the meaning of life?” And Earth comes up with the answer “42”. This is where the 42 number comes from. And 420 is just ten times 42. In that book, which is really sort of a book about, it's an existential philosophy book disguised as humor. They come to the conclusion that, no, the real problem is trying to formulate the question. And to really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth. And so maybe one way, I think, of characterizing this would be to say, “The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?” The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multistellar species… we have a chance of figuring out what the hell is going on. And so this is why I think we should have more humans and both biological and digital consciousness. And why we should become a multi-planet species and a multistellar species is so that we can understand the nature of the universe. And then in order for that to occur, then we have to make sure that things are good on Earth. We don't want Earth to disappear, so sustainable energy is important.

Arjun Khemani

15,599,354 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:

ScottAdamsVids

104,969 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

116,060 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

ELON'S POV ON THE MEANING OF LIFE: "IT'S ABOUT THE QUESTION, NOT THE ANSWER" Elon is literally saying the entire purpose of human existence, and everything he's building, from Neuralink and Starship to Grok and Optimus, is aimed at one goal. What's the goal, you ask? To turn humanity into a massive superintelligence that can finally figure out the right questions to ask reality itself. "Humans are 30~40 trillion cells, trillions of synapses… but the why of it is just so we can increase our understanding of the universe. I came to the conclusion, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy style, that the answer is 42, but the real problem is we don't even know what the question is. The hard part is the question, not the answer. And for that you need a much bigger computer than Earth. So by expanding the scope and scale of consciousness, we can better understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe." He's literally saying the entire purpose of human existence, and everything he's building (Neuralink, Starship, Grok, Optimus), is to turn humanity into a massive superintelligence that can finally figure out the right questions to ask reality itself. Not to get the answer. To learn how to ask the question that makes the answer meaningful. This is why he doesn't give a damn about money, politics, or fame anymore. He's playing the longest game in history: Turning consciousness into a galaxy-scale instrument so we can finally understand why anything exists at all. Source: Nikhil Kamath, Elon Musk

ELON'S POV ON THE MEANING OF LIFE: "IT'S ABOUT THE QUESTION, NOT THE ANSWER" Elon is literally saying the entire purpose of human existence, and everything he's building, from Neuralink and Starship to Grok and Optimus, is aimed at one goal. What's the goal, you ask? To turn humanity into a massive superintelligence that can finally figure out the right questions to ask reality itself. "Humans are 30~40 trillion cells, trillions of synapses… but the why of it is just so we can increase our understanding of the universe. I came to the conclusion, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy style, that the answer is 42, but the real problem is we don't even know what the question is. The hard part is the question, not the answer. And for that you need a much bigger computer than Earth. So by expanding the scope and scale of consciousness, we can better understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe." He's literally saying the entire purpose of human existence, and everything he's building (Neuralink, Starship, Grok, Optimus), is to turn humanity into a massive superintelligence that can finally figure out the right questions to ask reality itself. Not to get the answer. To learn how to ask the question that makes the answer meaningful. This is why he doesn't give a damn about money, politics, or fame anymore. He's playing the longest game in history: Turning consciousness into a galaxy-scale instrument so we can finally understand why anything exists at all. Source: Nikhil Kamath, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

825,664 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Alex Hormozi reveals the most profound answer to "what's the meaning of life" "The reason you don't kill yourself is the meaning of your life. Someone says I don't know what the meaning of my life is. You ask well why don't you kill yourself. Sounds dark but it cuts to the absolute point." "They say well my mom, my family. Great. That's the meaning of your life. And your answer to that question can change. It doesn't have to be one thing for your entire life."

Alex Hormozi reveals the most profound answer to "what's the meaning of life" "The reason you don't kill yourself is the meaning of your life. Someone says I don't know what the meaning of my life is. You ask well why don't you kill yourself. Sounds dark but it cuts to the absolute point." "They say well my mom, my family. Great. That's the meaning of your life. And your answer to that question can change. It doesn't have to be one thing for your entire life."

Kai

254,437 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Elon Musk reveals the single idea that explains why he keeps working despite being worth $800 billion "When I was a teenager, I had an existential crisis trying to figure out what's the meaning of life. It doesn't seem to be any meaning" "For me at least, the religious texts that I read did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. You have to be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression" "Reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as a kid you're like, whoa" "Then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The real problem is trying to formulate the question. To really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth" "The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?" "The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe" "The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multi-stellar species, we have a chance of figuring out what the hell's going on" "This is why I think we should have more humans and more digital, both biological and digital consciousness"

Elon Musk reveals the single idea that explains why he keeps working despite being worth $800 billion "When I was a teenager, I had an existential crisis trying to figure out what's the meaning of life. It doesn't seem to be any meaning" "For me at least, the religious texts that I read did not seem convincing. Then I started reading the philosophers. You have to be careful of reading German philosophers as a teenager. It's definitely not going to help with your depression" "Reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as a kid you're like, whoa" "Then I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What Douglas Adams was saying is that we don't really know what the right questions are to ask. The real problem is trying to formulate the question. To really have the right question, you need a much bigger computer than Earth" "The universe is the answer. What is the question? Or what are the questions?" "The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe" "The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multi-stellar species, we have a chance of figuring out what the hell's going on" "This is why I think we should have more humans and more digital, both biological and digital consciousness"

Jaynit

1,266,653 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

The CDC Doesn't Want You to Hear This Conversation Between Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson TUCKER: Is your average Amish teenager happier than your average conventional American teenager on Instagram? ROGAN: Well, they certainly have less instances of autism, which is really fascinating. It's very, very fascinating. CARLSON: The Amish have less autism? ROGAN: Yeah, there's almost none. TUCKER: Well, I'm not surprised. ROGAN: It's extremely rare. TUCKER: Why do we think that is? ROGAN: I wonder. I really do. TUCKER: Well, I can think of a couple — Yeah, I don't want to go Bobby Kennedy on you. ROGAN: But that's the problem. If you go Bobby Kennedy, they'll come for you. But the question is why? TUCKER: Look, and I don't know the answer, but... ROGAN: How is that not in the debate? How is that not in the conversation? TUCKER: Well, it's not only not in the conversation, you're punished for adding it to the conversation. And so, like... ROGAN: We are dancing around anti-vax conspiracy theories right now. TUCKER: Why be on the defensive? It's like, if you purport to represent science, and you're mad about a question. ROGAN: And you're ignoring data. TUCKER: Yeah, but even in the absence of data, science is a process. Yes. It's not a result. It's a way of doing things. And at the core of science is asking questions, including unlikely questions. That's what science is. And if you don't allow that, then you may be doing something, but what you're not doing is science. We can say that conclusively. So, for people to wrap themselves in the mantle of science and attack you for asking a question, they're frauds.

The CDC Doesn't Want You to Hear This Conversation Between Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson TUCKER: Is your average Amish teenager happier than your average conventional American teenager on Instagram? ROGAN: Well, they certainly have less instances of autism, which is really fascinating. It's very, very fascinating. CARLSON: The Amish have less autism? ROGAN: Yeah, there's almost none. TUCKER: Well, I'm not surprised. ROGAN: It's extremely rare. TUCKER: Why do we think that is? ROGAN: I wonder. I really do. TUCKER: Well, I can think of a couple — Yeah, I don't want to go Bobby Kennedy on you. ROGAN: But that's the problem. If you go Bobby Kennedy, they'll come for you. But the question is why? TUCKER: Look, and I don't know the answer, but... ROGAN: How is that not in the debate? How is that not in the conversation? TUCKER: Well, it's not only not in the conversation, you're punished for adding it to the conversation. And so, like... ROGAN: We are dancing around anti-vax conspiracy theories right now. TUCKER: Why be on the defensive? It's like, if you purport to represent science, and you're mad about a question. ROGAN: And you're ignoring data. TUCKER: Yeah, but even in the absence of data, science is a process. Yes. It's not a result. It's a way of doing things. And at the core of science is asking questions, including unlikely questions. That's what science is. And if you don't allow that, then you may be doing something, but what you're not doing is science. We can say that conclusively. So, for people to wrap themselves in the mantle of science and attack you for asking a question, they're frauds.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

13,619,876 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Engineers and salespeople think in completely different ways. - Engineers: "If you ask them a question, a hundred percent of them will try and think of what is the correct answer to that question." - Salespeople: "If you're a salesperson, your first thought isn't: what's the answer? It's: why are you asking me that question?" "And so if you have an engineer talking to a good sales guy, it's going to upset them. Because they're often not gonna answer the question." "The guys who are good at the job get rejected, because you don't like them. And then the people who are terrible at it, those are the ones that ended up getting hired." "These CEOs just wanna take a guy who failed the engineering test, put a clean shirt on him and make him the head of sales." benahorowitz.eth with Brian Halligan

Engineers and salespeople think in completely different ways. - Engineers: "If you ask them a question, a hundred percent of them will try and think of what is the correct answer to that question." - Salespeople: "If you're a salesperson, your first thought isn't: what's the answer? It's: why are you asking me that question?" "And so if you have an engineer talking to a good sales guy, it's going to upset them. Because they're often not gonna answer the question." "The guys who are good at the job get rejected, because you don't like them. And then the people who are terrible at it, those are the ones that ended up getting hired." "These CEOs just wanna take a guy who failed the engineering test, put a clean shirt on him and make him the head of sales." benahorowitz.eth with Brian Halligan

a16z

173,173 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Clavicular explains why he thinks talking at bars is pointless and says it’s better to get straight to the point “I see people having these conversations back and forth at a bar and it’ll be like an interview process where the guy’s just asking all these stupid questions” “But really after all that’s said and done, is that gonna change the answer to the key question of ‘is this girl sexually attracted to me?’ And the answer is no” “So I just like to skip straight to the point and just ask if a girl wants to have sex” “How many of them are instantly down?” “A lot”

Sensitive content

Clavicular explains why he thinks talking at bars is pointless and says it’s better to get straight to the point “I see people having these conversations back and forth at a bar and it’ll be like an interview process where the guy’s just asking all these stupid questions” “But really after all that’s said and done, is that gonna change the answer to the key question of ‘is this girl sexually attracted to me?’ And the answer is no” “So I just like to skip straight to the point and just ask if a girl wants to have sex” “How many of them are instantly down?” “A lot”

Mikli

64,389 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

MrBeast reveals the mental reframe he uses every time he feels like quitting "You just got to control your thoughts. Be like, this is the life I chose. You want success, you want to change the world, this is the price you have to pay. You should actually see this as a good thing" "This is why no one else will do what you will do. What you are feeling right now is your moat. You're lucky. It's hard. Push through it and you'll be happy you did" "There are times where I'm like, I really want to play this strategy board game, I want to do this thing. And I look at the schedule and I'm like, maybe I could do that in four days. It's very easy in moments like that to go I'm like a zoo animal. I don't have free will. I'm like a little robot to my businesses" "No, the average person does not want to live the life I live or be in my head. They would be miserable because you're just working all the time. They would just ask themselves why am I working all the time? Why don't I do literally anything else?" "Most people would be like oh, let's just grab a couple million dollars and be happy"

MrBeast reveals the mental reframe he uses every time he feels like quitting "You just got to control your thoughts. Be like, this is the life I chose. You want success, you want to change the world, this is the price you have to pay. You should actually see this as a good thing" "This is why no one else will do what you will do. What you are feeling right now is your moat. You're lucky. It's hard. Push through it and you'll be happy you did" "There are times where I'm like, I really want to play this strategy board game, I want to do this thing. And I look at the schedule and I'm like, maybe I could do that in four days. It's very easy in moments like that to go I'm like a zoo animal. I don't have free will. I'm like a little robot to my businesses" "No, the average person does not want to live the life I live or be in my head. They would be miserable because you're just working all the time. They would just ask themselves why am I working all the time? Why don't I do literally anything else?" "Most people would be like oh, let's just grab a couple million dollars and be happy"

Jaynit

65,156 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Gill: "Yes or no question. Are you a racist?" Yentel: "I'm, I'm not a racist." Gill. "You're not a racist? Particularly interesting because according to one of your affiliate charities under your nonprofit umbrella, 'Denial of racism constitutes covert white supremacy.' Are you a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "Uh, sir, I'm here to talk about the essential work that nonprofits..."- Gill: "Are you a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "Can I talk about the work that nonprofits do in district?" Gill: "No, I'm asking you if you're a covert- Because think white supremacist, which according to one of your own organizations, again, 'Denial of racism constitutes covert white supremacy.' Would you like to answer the question?" Yentel: "I don't know what the question is." Gill: "So you refuse to answer whether you are a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "I am here to talk about the essential work that nonprofits do. If you'd like to ask me a question nonprofits..."- Gill: "I am utterly dumbfounded... You are on record right now and you will not say that you are not a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "I don't have a definition in front of me. I haven't looked at the definition. I'm not gonna answer a question about my personal views. I'm here to talk about the work..."- Gill: "I wanna give you one more chance to do this. Are you a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "Why are we so off track from the topic here?" Gill: "No, I'm asking you - I'm asking you a very straightforward question." Yentel: "I've heard your question. Thank you, sir." Gill: And you're not gonna answer whether you are a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "I would like to answer questions about the work- This is- of nonprofit organizations Thank you." Gill: "That is really, really astounding. I can answer very directly that I am not a covert white supremacist and I imagine all of my colleagues can as well. I think you ought to reevaluate what you're doing in the nonprofit sector, uh, if you can't answer that in a straightforward way. That is astounding." Rep Gill is going to be the president one day imo.

Gill: "Yes or no question. Are you a racist?" Yentel: "I'm, I'm not a racist." Gill. "You're not a racist? Particularly interesting because according to one of your affiliate charities under your nonprofit umbrella, 'Denial of racism constitutes covert white supremacy.' Are you a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "Uh, sir, I'm here to talk about the essential work that nonprofits..."- Gill: "Are you a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "Can I talk about the work that nonprofits do in district?" Gill: "No, I'm asking you if you're a covert- Because think white supremacist, which according to one of your own organizations, again, 'Denial of racism constitutes covert white supremacy.' Would you like to answer the question?" Yentel: "I don't know what the question is." Gill: "So you refuse to answer whether you are a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "I am here to talk about the essential work that nonprofits do. If you'd like to ask me a question nonprofits..."- Gill: "I am utterly dumbfounded... You are on record right now and you will not say that you are not a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "I don't have a definition in front of me. I haven't looked at the definition. I'm not gonna answer a question about my personal views. I'm here to talk about the work..."- Gill: "I wanna give you one more chance to do this. Are you a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "Why are we so off track from the topic here?" Gill: "No, I'm asking you - I'm asking you a very straightforward question." Yentel: "I've heard your question. Thank you, sir." Gill: And you're not gonna answer whether you are a covert white supremacist?" Yentel: "I would like to answer questions about the work- This is- of nonprofit organizations Thank you." Gill: "That is really, really astounding. I can answer very directly that I am not a covert white supremacist and I imagine all of my colleagues can as well. I think you ought to reevaluate what you're doing in the nonprofit sector, uh, if you can't answer that in a straightforward way. That is astounding." Rep Gill is going to be the president one day imo.

Kathleen Winchell ❤️🤍💙🇺🇸🇺🇸

626,624 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

334,691 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Attention traditional astrologers, Joe Rogan is seeking to book one of you: “I actually just reached out to my booking guy to try to get a real astrologer on. Like someone who really understands the ancient art of astrology, the real old stuff. Because I'm not completely discounting it. I think newspaper horoscope is nonsense. I think there's a lot of people that are just like reading your tarot cards that are just ripping you off. But I always wonder, like astrology is so specific. Why did they write that down? Why did they have this understanding of how the stars are aligned to the time of your birth?“

Attention traditional astrologers, Joe Rogan is seeking to book one of you: “I actually just reached out to my booking guy to try to get a real astrologer on. Like someone who really understands the ancient art of astrology, the real old stuff. Because I'm not completely discounting it. I think newspaper horoscope is nonsense. I think there's a lot of people that are just like reading your tarot cards that are just ripping you off. But I always wonder, like astrology is so specific. Why did they write that down? Why did they have this understanding of how the stars are aligned to the time of your birth?“

Space Answered 🪐

113,889 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Naval Ravikant: "You're going to die. It's all going to zero. What's there to stress about?" "Stress is when your mind has two conflicting desires at once. You want to be liked, but you want to do something selfish. You don't want to go to work, but you want to make money. You have two conflicting desires, and that's stress." Naval explains the difference between stress and anxiety: "Anxiety is this pervasive, unidentifiable stress where you're stressed out all the time and you're not even sure why. The reason is you have so many unresolved problems that have piled up in your life, you can no longer identify what the problems are. There's this mountain of garbage in your mind. A little bit is poking out the top like an iceberg; that's anxiety. But underneath, there's a lot of unresolved things." He shares his personal anxiety resolver: "One big anxiety resolver for me is just ruminating on death. You're going to die. It's all going to zero. You cannot take anything with you. If you can keep that idea in front of you at all times, what's there to stress about?" Naval reframes what "wasted time" really means: "What is wasted time? Everything is wasted time in a sense because nothing matters in the ultimate. But in each moment, it's the only thing that matters. So if you're doing something you want to do and you're fully there for it it's not wasted time. If your mind is running away, wishing you were somewhere else, anticipating the future, regretting the past, that's wasted time. That's time you're not present for." He concludes: "People get worried about dying and no longer being here. But they don't realize that so much of their life is spent not being here in any case."

Naval Ravikant: "You're going to die. It's all going to zero. What's there to stress about?" "Stress is when your mind has two conflicting desires at once. You want to be liked, but you want to do something selfish. You don't want to go to work, but you want to make money. You have two conflicting desires, and that's stress." Naval explains the difference between stress and anxiety: "Anxiety is this pervasive, unidentifiable stress where you're stressed out all the time and you're not even sure why. The reason is you have so many unresolved problems that have piled up in your life, you can no longer identify what the problems are. There's this mountain of garbage in your mind. A little bit is poking out the top like an iceberg; that's anxiety. But underneath, there's a lot of unresolved things." He shares his personal anxiety resolver: "One big anxiety resolver for me is just ruminating on death. You're going to die. It's all going to zero. You cannot take anything with you. If you can keep that idea in front of you at all times, what's there to stress about?" Naval reframes what "wasted time" really means: "What is wasted time? Everything is wasted time in a sense because nothing matters in the ultimate. But in each moment, it's the only thing that matters. So if you're doing something you want to do and you're fully there for it it's not wasted time. If your mind is running away, wishing you were somewhere else, anticipating the future, regretting the past, that's wasted time. That's time you're not present for." He concludes: "People get worried about dying and no longer being here. But they don't realize that so much of their life is spent not being here in any case."

Jaynit

671,748 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

Stefan.

2,703,211 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

KRISTAN HAWKINS: Gen Z is losing faith in America. The broader problem is they've lost faith. They don't have faith. They don't know who made them and why they were made. And if you don't know why your life is valuable, why who made you that? The author of the universe made you and spoke your life into existence for a reason, you're never gonna be able to answer the question of why. A temporarily inconvenient human that you can't see inside of your womb is worthy of sacrifice for maybe nine months.

KRISTAN HAWKINS: Gen Z is losing faith in America. The broader problem is they've lost faith. They don't have faith. They don't know who made them and why they were made. And if you don't know why your life is valuable, why who made you that? The author of the universe made you and spoke your life into existence for a reason, you're never gonna be able to answer the question of why. A temporarily inconvenient human that you can't see inside of your womb is worthy of sacrifice for maybe nine months.

Bannon’s WarRoom

26,817 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Queer theorist Judith Butler attempts a response to Matt Walsh's "What Is a Woman?" and it's just "You're angry and you hate Socrates" "I can't help noting that the people who pound the table like, 'It's a simple fact, we should have a simple answer.' They're angry. They're insistent. They're frustrated. I mean, just look at what the emotional aura is of that claim. 'We need a simple truth.' And like, whoa, why are we so angry about that?" "I ask the same question. What is a woman? Freud asked the question: what does a woman want? But you could also say, what is a woman? My own sensibilities say it's a great question, but it's wondrous. It's wonderful. Let's keep that question open, because you know what? There are going to be a lot of different ways of answering and will give us access to human complexity. And then we'll know more about the world and we'll be able to affirm the human in its complexity rather than putting it into fixed boxes and smashing in those nails. So for me, 'What is a woman' is a great question, but I would just keep it open." "This is a movement that seeks to control knowledge, to suppress knowledge, to stop us from questioning -- even to attack Socrates, who taught us the absolute importance of open inquiry." "The anti-gender ideology movement is an attack on knowledge and an attack on open inquiry."

Queer theorist Judith Butler attempts a response to Matt Walsh's "What Is a Woman?" and it's just "You're angry and you hate Socrates" "I can't help noting that the people who pound the table like, 'It's a simple fact, we should have a simple answer.' They're angry. They're insistent. They're frustrated. I mean, just look at what the emotional aura is of that claim. 'We need a simple truth.' And like, whoa, why are we so angry about that?" "I ask the same question. What is a woman? Freud asked the question: what does a woman want? But you could also say, what is a woman? My own sensibilities say it's a great question, but it's wondrous. It's wonderful. Let's keep that question open, because you know what? There are going to be a lot of different ways of answering and will give us access to human complexity. And then we'll know more about the world and we'll be able to affirm the human in its complexity rather than putting it into fixed boxes and smashing in those nails. So for me, 'What is a woman' is a great question, but I would just keep it open." "This is a movement that seeks to control knowledge, to suppress knowledge, to stop us from questioning -- even to attack Socrates, who taught us the absolute importance of open inquiry." "The anti-gender ideology movement is an attack on knowledge and an attack on open inquiry."

Breitbart News

221,924 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Elon Musk about the meaning of life and the trap of wishful thinking : “When I was a kid, I was wondering what's the meaning of life? Like, why are we here? What's it all about? And I came to the conclusion that what really matters is trying to understand the right questions to ask. And the more that we can increase the scope and scale of human consciousness, the better we are able to ask these questions. And so I think that there are certain things that are necessary to ensure that the future is good. One of the biggest mistakes people generally make, and I'm guilty of it too, is wishful thinking. You know, like, you want something to be true even if it isn't true. And so you ignore the things that you ignore the real truth because of what you want to be true. This is a very difficult trap to avoid.”

Elon Musk about the meaning of life and the trap of wishful thinking : “When I was a kid, I was wondering what's the meaning of life? Like, why are we here? What's it all about? And I came to the conclusion that what really matters is trying to understand the right questions to ask. And the more that we can increase the scope and scale of human consciousness, the better we are able to ask these questions. And so I think that there are certain things that are necessary to ensure that the future is good. One of the biggest mistakes people generally make, and I'm guilty of it too, is wishful thinking. You know, like, you want something to be true even if it isn't true. And so you ignore the things that you ignore the real truth because of what you want to be true. This is a very difficult trap to avoid.”

Eva Fo𝕏 🦊 Claudius Nero's Legion

75,023 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

"What [Grusch is] saying is credible." ~Lacatski Did Lacatski See the Craft? Is the Crash Retrieval Program Illegal? Also, Lying for National Security...and Darkness (One of the most important books you can buy is, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" by Lacatski, Kelleher, and George Knapp. This interview (which includes L, K & GK) is one of my favs.) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "What are your thoughts on David Grusch and what he said at that hearing?" Dr. James Lacatski: "I don't know Mr. Grusch. Never met him. I was asked, almost verbatim, the same question by a congressional office to me. A telephone conversation. And I said, 'I don't have a comment. What he's saying is credible.' Now, let me do say one thing that I never witnessed, and I don't know if Colm ever witnessed this. But I never saw any of what I would consider illegal activities. I saw security procedures that are paramount, but not illegal activities. So, I don't concur with that. But, it's reasonable what he's saying, and that's what I told them." Corbell: "Okay, it's reasonable, that we have UFOs we're reverse engineering, that there are biologicals associated with those craft." Lacatski: "Well, we didn't cover biologicals because I can't say anything about that. Uh." Corbell: "Why can't you say, you don't know, or?" Lacatski: "Uh. I can't say anything about that, Jeremy (laughs)." Corbell: "Okay, no, that's great, that's great. So just another question about that, right?" Lacatski: "Well, let me tell you. These books are loaded with questions because someone criticized me, gave me a three rating on 'Skinwalkers at the Pentagon.' Wait 'til they read this one. They said, 'It's textbook-like.' Well, in a sense, they are. They're a learning instrument. And one thing, and I don't know if I discussed this with you, Colm, but I was gonna put, like a textbook, questions in the back of each chapter. What do you think and what do you... Just for the... Now, I wasn't going to give an answer sheet to them. But basically, I think that people really need to delve deeper into the books they have." Corbell: "The big question with David Grusch was there like, well, he didn't see a UFO. Now you're in a meeting in the Capitol Hill, and you're telling them, 'We have a UFO, we've gotten inside of it.' Did you see it yourself?" Lacatski: "Can't answer that." Corbell: "Okay, but if the answer was no, you could answer that, right?" (This is a really important answer. 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼) Lacatski: "No, that comes...goes back to something that occurred, a similar question, very similar to your question. It wasn't asked by you, but it was asked to Colm, and he said, 'We found no smoking gun.' That is the standard answer we're to give. So I could say 'No,' and it still not be the truth. So the thing is, security is paramount, we followed the rules, and there's a good reason to follow them." (In other words, they can lie to protect national security. And THAT is why Admiral Wilson will say stuff like, Eric Davis? Never met him. When, in fact, Davis met and interviewed Wilson in October of 2002. But the crash retrieval program they discussed is one of the most sensitive programs on the planet. And thus, the lies from Wilson. Corbell really tried his best to push Lacatski. What's the reason for not being able to talk about some of this stuff?) Corbell: "Yeah, you can't tell me that good reason. We've talked about that. You can't give me that good reason, but you're alluding to a really good reason why you can't tell me more about biologics, UFOs, exploitation. You can only say what you said. I get that. I wish you could give me a good reason, because it makes me very suspicious. It makes people like me very suspicious. But what is it? Is the reason so dark, is it so disturbing?" Lacatski: "Oh, I see. If you want my opinion on that, I see no darkness at all here."

"What [Grusch is] saying is credible." ~Lacatski Did Lacatski See the Craft? Is the Crash Retrieval Program Illegal? Also, Lying for National Security...and Darkness (One of the most important books you can buy is, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" by Lacatski, Kelleher, and George Knapp. This interview (which includes L, K & GK) is one of my favs.) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "What are your thoughts on David Grusch and what he said at that hearing?" Dr. James Lacatski: "I don't know Mr. Grusch. Never met him. I was asked, almost verbatim, the same question by a congressional office to me. A telephone conversation. And I said, 'I don't have a comment. What he's saying is credible.' Now, let me do say one thing that I never witnessed, and I don't know if Colm ever witnessed this. But I never saw any of what I would consider illegal activities. I saw security procedures that are paramount, but not illegal activities. So, I don't concur with that. But, it's reasonable what he's saying, and that's what I told them." Corbell: "Okay, it's reasonable, that we have UFOs we're reverse engineering, that there are biologicals associated with those craft." Lacatski: "Well, we didn't cover biologicals because I can't say anything about that. Uh." Corbell: "Why can't you say, you don't know, or?" Lacatski: "Uh. I can't say anything about that, Jeremy (laughs)." Corbell: "Okay, no, that's great, that's great. So just another question about that, right?" Lacatski: "Well, let me tell you. These books are loaded with questions because someone criticized me, gave me a three rating on 'Skinwalkers at the Pentagon.' Wait 'til they read this one. They said, 'It's textbook-like.' Well, in a sense, they are. They're a learning instrument. And one thing, and I don't know if I discussed this with you, Colm, but I was gonna put, like a textbook, questions in the back of each chapter. What do you think and what do you... Just for the... Now, I wasn't going to give an answer sheet to them. But basically, I think that people really need to delve deeper into the books they have." Corbell: "The big question with David Grusch was there like, well, he didn't see a UFO. Now you're in a meeting in the Capitol Hill, and you're telling them, 'We have a UFO, we've gotten inside of it.' Did you see it yourself?" Lacatski: "Can't answer that." Corbell: "Okay, but if the answer was no, you could answer that, right?" (This is a really important answer. 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼) Lacatski: "No, that comes...goes back to something that occurred, a similar question, very similar to your question. It wasn't asked by you, but it was asked to Colm, and he said, 'We found no smoking gun.' That is the standard answer we're to give. So I could say 'No,' and it still not be the truth. So the thing is, security is paramount, we followed the rules, and there's a good reason to follow them." (In other words, they can lie to protect national security. And THAT is why Admiral Wilson will say stuff like, Eric Davis? Never met him. When, in fact, Davis met and interviewed Wilson in October of 2002. But the crash retrieval program they discussed is one of the most sensitive programs on the planet. And thus, the lies from Wilson. Corbell really tried his best to push Lacatski. What's the reason for not being able to talk about some of this stuff?) Corbell: "Yeah, you can't tell me that good reason. We've talked about that. You can't give me that good reason, but you're alluding to a really good reason why you can't tell me more about biologics, UFOs, exploitation. You can only say what you said. I get that. I wish you could give me a good reason, because it makes me very suspicious. It makes people like me very suspicious. But what is it? Is the reason so dark, is it so disturbing?" Lacatski: "Oh, I see. If you want my opinion on that, I see no darkness at all here."

Joe Murgia

29,413 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

What am I watching? Is this real? Why does Trump sound so strange here? Does anyone actually believe that Donald Trump believes any of what he's saying here? In this video Trump apparently says: "You do what God called you to do. You show up. You put one foot in front of the other. You have no idea what God hasssss calling for you. You have no idea where you going, and in some cases you don’t know why. But he needs you. He needs me. He needs all of us. "It is God that is the answer and it is the same turning to God — the ultimate answer to evil — America is a nation strengthened and sustained by God and the prayers of all his children. "Your faith is a force that our enemies can never ever extinguish. Your love of God, family and country is more powerful than any adversaries, hatred, or malice or scorn.”

What am I watching? Is this real? Why does Trump sound so strange here? Does anyone actually believe that Donald Trump believes any of what he's saying here? In this video Trump apparently says: "You do what God called you to do. You show up. You put one foot in front of the other. You have no idea what God hasssss calling for you. You have no idea where you going, and in some cases you don’t know why. But he needs you. He needs me. He needs all of us. "It is God that is the answer and it is the same turning to God — the ultimate answer to evil — America is a nation strengthened and sustained by God and the prayers of all his children. "Your faith is a force that our enemies can never ever extinguish. Your love of God, family and country is more powerful than any adversaries, hatred, or malice or scorn.”

Ed Krassenstein

2,692,336 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce