If you think that people use drugs like fentanyl because they are unhappy, rather than because they are not working, then this would fix it: https://pastebin.com/4ukwRxDG
1) If people did a certain thing, it would fix most problems.
2) Certain people knew of this solution but did not share it.
Which of these is the "very big claim"?
I may also be misinterpreting this:
>clear causal connection
Are you saying that if there was evidence that the listed individuals did know of it, that you would share it?
If one of them that's still alive told everyone about that idea, then you would see it as a reason to use that idea?
As for the "doing this would fix most problems", how much explanation would convince you to fix it? If it was (arbitrary units) 3 pages of text, that all made sense, would you share it? What if it was 15 pages of text, that you found to be consistent and logical after reading through it? Would you share it, and expect other people to share it?
As the original link is no longer visible, I’m not going to go into specific details. I advise against reposting something that got flagged in order to try to continue this thread.
However I will say this as a general piece of advice on communication. You seem to presume:
> that all made sense
The problem is that it didn’t make sense to most of the people on here. Communication is not a place of maths-like absolute truth where convincing yourself is sufficient, rather it’s impedance matching of your mind to other people’s minds where the arbiter of success is the people you’re trying to share an idea with. For example, if you’re not familiar with impedance matching, that previous analogy would be a mistake on my part.
> In my profile, what does showdead do?
>If you turn it on, you'll see all the stories and comments that have been killed by software, moderators, or user flags.
Responding to you,
>The problem is that it didn’t make sense to most of the people on here.
>For example, if you’re not familiar with impedance matching, that previous analogy would be a mistake on my part.
I can think of vague things about reflection of signals and gold-plated electrical connectors.
That particular argument deliberately gave only the barest minimum of explanation. To quote it,
The reason this works is that some people want to work more than 24 hours per week, so people would not be able to agree on how much a normal person should work.
Most people would not understand how this lack of agreement would be beneficial. In short, it was an argument where people could say that if they shared it, this action was implying that they were smart. An argument that includes many pages of explanation does not imply that someone who shared it was smart, only that they don't give up easily.
It's the style, especially in social media, to share something that implies you understand something complex. Just look at 'memes' or even 'hashtags'.
As for whether they knew of it, it's impossible to prove without asking them, or maybe talking to their attorneys. There is only circumstantial evidence, some of it having to do with timing of events that there is no point in getting in to, since I know it won't make you share that idea. But consider these questions, which you probably have not asked or did not learn enough about those events to ask:
Why did Adam Lanza completely destroy his hard drive? He had a printed poster that had his "body counts and weapons used by mass shooting perpetrators" stuff, so it wasn't to hide that. I think he also had or used another computer, that he didn't bother to destroy. What would someone who expected to kill a bunch of children want to hide? And why did he kill himself despite having plenty of ammunition left?
Think of what you know of James Holmes. He shot up a movie theater, right? Why didn't he shoot some people he encountered as he was walking out (he answered this to a psychologist: it would be kind of personal to shoot someone you could see). How do any theories about why he shot up the theater fit with him rigging his apartment with various explosive and inflammatory substances, set to go off if someone opened the door in response to loud music, but not set to go off from a timer despite he reportedly even had a remote-control trigger as well and obviously was competent enough to be able to set a timer-based initiation?
At the start of the trial for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, his most famous lawyer, a female, said that, not exact quote, "We know he did it. So why the trial? Because we want to know why." Did we learn why? If so, what was the reason? Does Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Twitter account provide any reasons why?
If you think whether certain people knew of the linked idea is relevant or important, then you should focus on the most likely answer, not enumerate all possible ones.