but if you keep declaring a time clock every decade only to reset it for the past 50 years, does it not weaken the point of it ? we should've had an apocalypse by now, we haven't and unlikely to so for quite some time.
why are we so eager and unquestioning of the published narratives going to the length of censoring counter theories?
Yeah the clock turned out to be silly, but if you interpret it as risk level instead of time, it makes sense. Since the 70s we have been at a near-100% chance this would happen.
but if you keep declaring a time clock every decade only to reset it for the past 50 years, does it not weaken the point of it ? we should've had an apocalypse by now, we haven't and unlikely to so for quite some time.
why are we so eager and unquestioning of the published narratives going to the length of censoring counter theories?
Yeah the clock turned out to be silly, but if you interpret it as risk level instead of time, it makes sense. Since the 70s we have been at a near-100% chance this would happen.
so the probability approaches 0% every 10 years and then goes back up to 99% the following year and repeats 5 times ?
that makes little sense to me
4 replies →
Like an alcoholic saying drinking isn’t bad because he’s been drinking since his twenties and still hasn’t got cirrhosis
By the time it’s an issue it’s too late.
thats a silly take, this is totally different from some pending apocalypse that is repeatedly pushed back when it doesn't happen.
6 replies →