Yeah, but I can’t really fix algorithmic headlines from the short end of a super niche community. I post the actual papers here too. I even change headlines to make them more factual when I can (especially the testimonial videos).

And genuinely, I deeply appreciate the work that you have done to try and rectify the clickbait aspects. It has made the content more approachable for me. I admit I’m kinda of a pain when I get curious cause I wanna fight a little when its challenging to what I know and a lot of this is pretty challenging. You’ve been a wonderful ambassador for this lifestyle of yours.

And genuinely, I don’t know what I want you and your community to do about the algorithm gaming. The examples posted here haven’t been egregious, I’m just annoyingly sensitive to it. They mostly seem to be real scientists with real science to push, but are forced to play the algo game for reach.

Maybe I just wanted y’all to be aware of it? Maybe I wanted to be aware of it? That this is part of this strange conditioning we have thanks to reddit brain to want to immediately get upset about something kinda dumb to be mad about. I don’t really know.

Hopefully you got something out of our interactions because I got a lot.

Still not an ad hominem.

Do you want me to compile examples? I’m trying to explain my miss givings with carnivore content creators and there is employment of these tactics in their promotion of content.

I will admit my use of circle jerk was crass and for that I’m sorry, but I’m genuinely wanting to talk about what I perceive to be a bad mark on your community.

I’ve made no ad hominem attacks so far as I can tell.

I’m criticizing rhetorical style and listing my reasons why.

The closest I can see to ad hominem was putting “Dr.” In quotes, but that was just for emphasis on the title since I didn’t know if asterix would work e.g. Dr.

Also, my apologies for any confusion as I do have 2 accounts. I promise I’m not tying to ban evade or anything. I just forgot I switched at some point.

I did watch the full lecture you linked, but I did notice it was different from the short clip.

Its a good talk and well cited. It also matches sources I had found independently with the help of my fiance who has a degree in chemistry and in nursing (alas, I am just a history fan who likes to argue).

But I’d like to point out I did say

It’s fundamentally a bad line of reasoning that only means something to people deep in the weeds of carnivore food science.

Does my original point make sense?

I do think there’s interesting science here and I honestly and truly don’t want you guys getting caught in grifter style clip farming, rage baiting, circle jerkings. Dr. Mason seems to be a pretty good source, but his newer content is slipping into this sensationalist format of communication.

A lot of his newer stuff has lines like “what mainstream medicine doesn’t want you to know!” “Are you smarter than you’re doctor?” Which I admittedly haven’t seen those videos yet, but that’s a red flag that a lot of carnivore content seems to lean on.

I get it, that’s how the algorithm works, but I think good information can thrive by just being packaged well.

Sorry, you have a scale that can measure your water content?

Do you see how “perhaps” is different from “just asking questions?”

No. Its the same rhetorical move its just different from the more aggressive “just asking questions”

Please don’t misrepresent the content in this community.

I’m trying not to, but this is a short clip without any context or further readings.

I want you guys to have better educational materials.

This guy says a lot of things with coincidental or anecdotal evidence at best and that’s not good evidence when also trying to position oneself as an academic expert e.g. “Dr.” In the name. Dr. Mason should know better if the Dr. Is worth anything.

Take the criticism or don’t, but this is a relatively small push back to the carnivore idea.

If there’s more, better science on these claims, then they should be included, referenced within the talk. Something! Maybe this is just an out of context clip, but that doesn’t make the argument better. It’s fundamentally a bad line of reasoning that only means something to people deep in the weeds of carnivore food science. How was I, an outsider, supposed to know about the paper you’re citing? How can I know he knows about it?

“Perhaps vitamin D synthesis in the skin maybe one of those functions.”

This isn’t a sentence from a place of evidence backed science, this is a string of probably connected things that Dr. Mason should know isn’t the same as a proven idea. In fact he says its anecdotal, but he is presenting it in a way that the listener can come to the conclusion that cholesterol makes vitamin D without having to site anything.

If this were a scientifically backed idea he could have said but didn’t would follow.

1. “The Keys survey showed people with higher vitamin D had lower cholesterol.”

2. “A second study was done and found X and Y”

3. “Thus confirming that cholesterol is used to make vitamin D”

But that isn’t what he said. He only cited part of what sounds like a much larger study and is then extrapolating based vaguely on anecdote.

Could it also be possible that people who spend a lot of time in the sun simply consume food with higher vitamin D content and they’re in the sum all day because they’re mostly agrarian or some sort of labor economy so they’re working out which lowers cholesterol levels with a normal diet? Yes, but we don’t know more than that based on this talk.

If he’s honest, then this is an interesting start point to do science, but as it stands he’s just using human psychology to convince people of his position without needing good evidence.

Removed by mod

How am I supposed to avoid this as an American?

They don’t report what they fed the animals.

Also, are there effects on me if I eat meat from an animal fed this. That’s unclear.

I don’t think any of these before/after pics have been very convincing. They look like they went out of their way to find a deliberately unflattering photo or there almost no difference. In fact they add a weird vibe that makes me not trust anything about the claims made.

This plus the polemics in a lot of these posts

fell for very excellent marketing, lifestyle, vibes

mainstream medicine

Phrases like that feel really weird to me and adds to my distrust. It sets off every alarm bell of a scam.

What’s worse, some of these testimonies you post will be from people who are selling supplements or classes or books all using this apologetic/polemic language as opposed to just normal educational campaign.

We’ve talked before on the effectiveness of carnivore/zerocarb. So you know I’m not a hater for hatings sake.

But this and that other short video I commented on about Vitamin D as sunscreen is incredibly suspect language and rhetoric that makes me not trust the whole idea. Especially if this is the type of content being posted and shared as useful information for beginners.

Rule of thumb. Never listen to someone who uses

“Just asking questions”

Rhetoric. They’re doing it that way to defend themselves in court or to hide their ignorance.

Glad I don’t give Redhat money.

Thanks for the free stuff dic-

Wait

Is there Israeli spyware in Fedora?

My papa

Builds and collects model planes

organizes fishing lures based on effectiveness, has extensive notes on how to catch fish

will leave the room if it gets too loud

frustrated easily in social situations

finds Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang theory so relatable

texture issues and will only eat from 4 restaurants only burgers or fried fish

“What the hell is autism? Sounds like being a brat!”

I thought you said it was “frustrating” seeing some with nuance get upvoted and I appreciated the sarcasm on that and the sincerity in this one

I see clearly now great master.

Truth beyond understanding.

Exists only in the armpit of the soul.

Thank you for wisdom

Thinking of him

I see.

That’s a lot of words that conjur a coherent enough idea of what you believe but does very little convincing.

So back to the question.

God will give us knowledge but with a forked tonuge. What does this mean?

To me this means god is a deceiver of some sort and thus you’ve spoken a contradiction. Is this the intent?

What’s the implications of

God can give you Knowledge, and it’s usually through a forked tongue.

Also how serious is this post because I would love to have this conversation.

Well the second part of his thought is that you’re not allowed to be happy until you’re perfect.

So you figured out the rest of his destructive philosophy

He did say that no body is a perfect 10/10 and that looksmaxxing will have to be a life long struggle.

So hes already in the right mindset to do that.