Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 10 April, 2020, 05:47:52 PM
Quote from: shaolin_monkey on 10 April, 2020, 10:20:27 AM
Here you go Sharkey. Here's an academic pamphlet on the definition of conspiracy theories and theorists.
https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ConspiracyTheoryHandbook.pdf
I read that - at least, I did if it's the one you posted earlier. I thought it contained a lot of good advice, advice which should be applied to every source. It did, however, imply that anyone who questions "reputable" sources is somehow bound to believe in every conspiracy there is. Still, a useful little book, thanks, SM.
The term 'conspiracy theorist' is, to me, a pejorative term used to describe anyone who doesn't believe an official account either partially or in its entirety. The paragons of example would be David 'Lizard Man' Ike or Alex 'They'll Kill Us All!' Jones. Whilst the information people like this often present is based in reported and even verifiable facts, the conclusions (or theories) they come to based upon them seem, at best, unlikely. I view this end of the spectrum in the same way I viewed Erich von Däniken when I was growing up - interesting, even thought-provoking, but ultimately probably wrong. Like von Däniken, these people turn their efforts into a business - and good luck to them, I say.
At the other end of the spectrum we have people like James 'The Link's In The Show-Notes' Corbett and Jon 'No More Fake News' Rappoport. The information people like this often present is also based in reported and even verifiable facts, but the conclusions (or theories) they come to based upon them seem, at worst, incomplete - which some freely admit. I view this end of the spectrum in the same way I viewed newspapers when I was growing up - interesting, even thought-provoking, but ultimately probably on the right track. Like old-fashioned newspapers, these people seem to have a general thirst for the truth, whether it agrees with the official account or not - and good luck to them, I say. Most rely on donations to fund their work, so are ultimately businesses too.
Then there are the chattering masses in between - of which I am one - who latch onto 'TRUTH!' with unshakeable faith, or try to make sense of it all, or just go with the flow, or deal with the madness any way they can.
It seems unfair, to me, to lump all these disparate voices and perspectives together under a single, dismissive umbrella. And, technically, a conspiracy theory is just what the words themselves say - a theory to explain an ostensible flaw in an account, which may or may not involve conspirators, a theory meant to be explored and tested, a theory which provides evidence and not, as some believe, proof. Police, insurance companies, and courts investigate conspiracies all the time, working on their theories until they provide credible evidence. Yet we would not call these people "conspiracy theorists," even though it's part of their job.
Then we have the mainstream media and governments. The information people like this often present is also based in reported and even verifiable facts, but the conclusions (or theories) they come to based upon them seem, at worst, political - bending facts to fit agendas. I view this field in the same way I viewed comics when I was growing up - interesting, even thought-provoking, but ultimately probably just entertainment. Like John Wagner, these people seem to have a general thirst for projecting TRUTH! through a lens, bending it to agree with the official agenda - and good luck to them, many say.
This is why I say question everything.
It doesn't mean dismiss everything or disbelieve everything you don't like - that's what religion is for. It doesn't mean attack the opposing view or win the argument - that's what sport is for.
It simply means what it says, question everything - because nothing is entirely as it seems, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either in error or lying.
Question everything I've written, too, of course. I may be wrong about lots of things, I'm just as human and flawed as everyone else. Question Ike and Jones, question Corbett and Rappoport, question the msm, question me, question each other but, ultimately, question yourself as well.
TL;DR
A wise man once said to me, "Listen to everyone. Take what you need and discard the rest."
"Why?" I asked.
He shrugged and said, "Find out."
1. Wall of text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wall_of_text) doesn't mean you're correct in your assertions.
2. You were given a PDF that relatively cleanly defines the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and a "theory", but spent most of your post redefining "conspiracy theory" to just mean a "theory". Why?
3. "Question everything" is too broad and sweeping. It's insane. We don't have time. We have to rely on (peer-reviewed) experts.
4. "Nothing is entirely as it seems" is too broad and sweeping. It's insane. The sky is blue.
5. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there's no fire is potentially harmful. (This is a reference to the fact that you are willing to throw entirely unsubstantiated theories around as if they have equal weight with actual evidence. And then you say "What did I do?" as if you sincerely don't understand the difference. Why can't you tell the difference?)
Summary: that PDF you were given explains the difference between conspiratorial thinking and conventional thinking, and I don't understand why you remain apparently confused as to the difference between the two.
Ain't that the truth?
I am toying with the idea of sharing that PDF with my cousin, because I am literally at the stage where I feel like creating a new Whatsapp group for myself and my friends, and excluding him as I am at my wits end at the videos and articles he continues to share - Q, Wuhan Lab, Clintons murdering over 70 people.
I'm not angry at him, but I despair of a world where people target someone like my cousin, who hasn't a bad bone in his body but seemingly now being groomed, and I can't think of a better word, to have negative views on the world and its people based on their race, beliefs etc.
I think grooming is precisiely the right word Rately. As an anecdotal example I watched this happen with an old contact from my DJing days. Over the course of a few months he seemed to go from relatively normal human being to being radically anti-Islam, anti-EU and pro-Trump and Nigel Farage. It was genuinely quite scary to watch. He's since unfriended me as I think he got sick of me challenging his bullshit "news" posts about muslim refugees from weird new sources that usually seemed to end up linked back to Russia or the Ukraine if one did some digging. I think Gamergate was his entry point to the whole mess but by the end he was parotting Alex Jones and Breitbart and sharing articles about eugenics. Presumably he's still shouting them out to his echo chamber of true believers. It was a really scary view into just how dark that little world of paranoia and conspiracy gets.
Quote from: sintec on 11 April, 2020, 11:43:48 AM
I think grooming is precisiely the right word Rately. As an anecdotal example I watched this happen with an old contact from my DJing days. Over the course of a few months he seemed to go from relatively normal human being to being radically anti-Islam, anti-EU and pro-Trump and Nigel Farage. It was genuinely quite scary to watch. He's since unfriended me as I think he got sick of me challenging his bullshit "news" posts about muslim refugees from weird new sources that usually seemed to end up linked back to Russia or the Ukraine if one did some digging. I think Gamergate was his entry point to the whole mess but by the end he was parotting Alex Jones and Breitbart and sharing articles about eugenics. Presumably he's still shouting them out to his echo chamber of true believers. It was a really scary view into just how dark that little world of paranoia and conspiracy gets.
It is horrendous to think that people fall down that rabbit hole. The saddest thing, that no matter how well reasoned or researched your rebuttal, it is just brushed aside as "fake news."
We have literally all just asked my cousin to stop sharing the memes, links etc. In the world, such as it is, I haven't the patience for conspiracy bullshit.
These articles touch on grooming kids to have right-wing views.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/do-you-have-white-teenage-sons-listen-up-how-white-supremacists-are-recruiting-boys-online/2019/09/17/f081e806-d3d5-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-49363958
Quote from: shaolin_monkey on 11 April, 2020, 12:34:44 PM
These articles touch on grooming kids to have right-wing views.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/do-you-have-white-teenage-sons-listen-up-how-white-supremacists-are-recruiting-boys-online/2019/09/17/f081e806-d3d5-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-49363958
Cheers, Shaolin_Monkey!
Will have a read later.
Tip for forum discussion stay within the two three layers of this pyramid (and be careful on the third level). Stay well away from anything below that.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Disputeresolution.svg/586px-Disputeresolution.svg.png)
As for the "good luck to them" - as mentioned, it's difficult to discern a point from the wall of text, but it appears to end up justifying those who spread lies and misinformation about (for instance) vaccination that leads to deaths, but it's fine if the perpetrator can turn a profit on the deaths?
anti vaccine propaganda is profitable (https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/anti-vaccine-propaganda-profitable)
anti-vaccination kills (https://archive.bma.org.uk/news/2019/august/anti-vaccination-a-needless-waste-of-life)
Well, this thread's not being used for anything else, and (at least from my perspective) it's relevant to what is being discussed, so I'm going to copy Shark and I's current blether here...
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 February, 2021, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 21 February, 2021, 05:30:55 PM
..we're just adhering to previously stated rules about not spreading disinformation on this particular thread.
Which I get. Really.
However, where's the line between disinformation and information? Is it Government Approved Facts or nothing? Who decides?
I am unlikely to come here and post a link to some lunatic who claims invisible ghost elves are using Venusian mindstones to create death rays out of cellphone masts, but if I do post a link to a scientist who has some interesting observations about Mars, that post is treated much as if I'd posted the first. They're both filed under Anti-Something and ignored, entirely because of that label. (Metaphors. Staying in-line is quite a challenge for me...)
Maybe the entire forum's walking a fine line, I don't know. I hope not - because if it was, that would be terrifying.
I recently passed the milestone of becoming a CALL-ME-KENNETH!, which means only that I've been around here for a while, become what in the Old Dial Up Modem Days was called a reg, and folk hereabouts know me. Yeah, I'm a bit unique (just like everyone else), but I hope I've demonstrated by now - through words and deeds - that I do not mean anyone any harm. Precisely the opposite. Because being a CALL-ME-KENNETH! means also that I care about this site and the people on it. I don't do FaceTube or any of that cobblers (which is just like broadcast television, which I don't do either), just this place. You only have my word for this, but I haven't been coming here all these years just to piss people off. But I'm not going to pander to them, either.
If I post a link it's because I think it's important. What people do with that is up to them. I may give my view but that's it - I expect people to make up their own minds.
Just remember one thing about me when you're reading my posts and you won't go far wrong - I will never tell you to think, believe, say, or do anything you don't want to.
If the forum is walking a thin line then let me know - I don't want to stumble into being the cause of its demise - and I'll shut up. Or we'll do PMs or e-mails or smoke signals or something.
If it's not - let the forumites decide. Some kind of democratic vote, maybe? Two buttons on each post, "yay!" and "boo!"? "Adulate!" and "Exterminate!"? "Discuss" and "Hush"?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Quote from: Funt Solo on 21 February, 2021, 09:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 February, 2021, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 21 February, 2021, 05:30:55 PM
..we're just adhering to previously stated rules about not spreading disinformation on this particular thread.
Which I get. Really.
1. I don't know if any of your posts on this thread have actually been deleted.
2. If you want to post a link but it gets deleted from this thread, why not start a new thread - you could call it "My links that got deleted from the Covid-19 thread by an admin". Or "Links I think will get deleted from the Covid-19 thread by an admin".
3. You said "I will never tell you to think, believe, say, or do anything you don't want to" but you do have a tendency to redefine words to suit your current argument, so I have to call bullshit on that. Plus you've effectively started a sub-thread on this thread, several times now, about why you should be able to dominate this thread with pseudo-scientific drivel links. So ... you actually often give off the whiff of someone who really does want to control how other people think.
4. What I don't really comprehend is why you keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Oh, and I've never got any kind of a handle on what you actually, really, genuinely think about Covid - except you give hints that you've not entirely bought into its existence or its effects or its source. You say you don't want to piss people off, but then why undermine the validity of commonly held scientific knowledge - especially in such a febrile topic where people could be genuinely hurt (both emotionally and actually) by disinformation?
5. "Government Approved Facts" - of all the places on the Interwebs, you can't accuse the locals here of being government hand-jobbers. Catch thyself on.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 22 February, 2021, 07:00:15 PM
Funt:
1: I'll reply in PM.
2: I guess there's the "Truth...?" thread but I feel, and think, posting there would be just as bad as your suggestion. It simply shifts the problem instead of addressing it.
3a: The definition of terms is used in many arguments. It's not a way of imposing a definition by one upon another but of choosing a mutually acceptable definition for the purposes of a specific discussion so that participants don't end up arguing past one another. I make no apologies for requesting or suggesting a definition or context.
3b: I've gone back through my last ten posted links on this thread (going back to October) and found 2 links to the BBC, one each to the Times of Israel, simplepsychology.com, the World Economic Forum, an archive.org copy of a deleted JHU web page, the National Bureau of Economic Research, Wikipedia and one mammoth collection of a couple of dozen official scientific mask studies. I do not see how any of these are "pseudo-scientific drivel links." Nor, I think, is ten links in five months particularly dominating (though it could be argued, at a push, that the mammoth mask studies links post drives the average up considerably if taken individually).
4a: What result do you imagine I'm after? It's an ongoing conversation, a fluid situation with no last word. I think we've disagreed about this kind of thing before - the differences between arguing to advance knowledge and understanding and arguing to win, and all the other reasons. I have no result in mind, no goals beyond (admittedly selfishly) using counter-arguments to test my own beliefs. I would like nothing better than to believe that lockdowns and masks and all that will save civilization, it would be so comforting. I wish you could convince me.
4b: I'll reply in PM.
5: In the absence of any specific guidelines as to how misinformation, disinformation, and information are to be assessed, the idea of a list of Government Approved Facts is as valid as Donald Trump's Book of Wisdom or Tony Blair's Book of Honest to God Truths as the hypothetical basis upon which decisions are made. (I should stop trying to use sarcasm - it never works.)
So, Shark, from my perspective, some things are just true: there's an unprecedented global pandemic that almost every society around the world is combating using some combination of social distancing, lock-down measures, limited movement and personal hygiene (usually including hand-washing and mask-wearing).
The scientific consensus (and that of most governments) is that the alternatives are worse scenarios than the current methods of combating the virus, even given that there is widespread economic fallout from said methods.
General aim of society: save lives, minimize economic impact, maintain health care systems.
---
Now, there is a thread on a message board discussing this. And this all coincides with a rise in conspiracy theories driven by convincing but false messaging - it's happening on a wide scale. Our admins have asked specifically that theories that downplay the reality (of the scientific consensus) should not be posted on that thread.
---
You feel this is depriving you of a platform. It is. But you might ask yourself why. You might notice that the admins never really police this place - certainly not in the form of the fabled Molch-R. So, it's unusual. Does Molch-R want to come in here and admin this place? My guess is no. Has he got better things to do with his time? Another rhetorical.
So - why would he give up his precious time like that? It's not like he wanders around here casually with a ban-hammer laying all asunder on a whim, is it?
He must have been backed into a corner, right? He must have felt like it was really important that a stand was taken on just this one issue. And - well - there's been no uproar of voices calling FOUL!, so we've got to assume that pretty much every single person who uses this board, who read that thread, agrees with him. Except for people who want to downplay the scientific consensus. Like...you! Right?
So - that brings me to my only question, which is why you want to downplay the scientific consensus? Are you an expert in any field that bears relevance to the subject of pandemic diseases? No, neither am I. We have that in common. We don't know how to solve the pandemic. Our job is to follow the advice of the experts, who do.
Lastly: you may not like this. There are things about life I don't like. But - I think you're going to have to live with it. I have to live with things in life I don't like as well. Life is tough sometimes.
Quote from: sheridan on 11 April, 2020, 12:53:23 PM
Tip for forum discussion stay within the two three layers of this pyramid (and be careful on the third level). Stay well away from anything below that.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Disputeresolution.svg/586px-Disputeresolution.svg.png)
The problem with the bottom rung of the pyramid is that "yeah but Nigel Farage is a twat" is actually a solid rebuttal to any argument he might make.
Re: Farage. Not listening to anyone you think is an utter twat is a good rule of thumb to have in life, but not a point you should use in a forum discussion.
Quote from: CalHab on 23 February, 2021, 10:46:59 AM
Re: Farage. Not listening to anyone you think is an utter twat is a good rule of thumb to have in life, but not a point you should use in a forum discussion.
I'm pretty sure the Prof was joking. But it's a fair point - I got a week's ban from the forum for calling Farage a twat. Except I used another word meaning twat.
Yes, fair point. My sense of humour detector is obviously faulty today.
Your epithet for Farage was accurate, and I'd happily add a few more.
Indisputable rocket-genius that I am, I was of course using the flippant parlance of the plebeian gutter to make a point about trusted sources and their place in a media landscape that has aggressively devalued objective truth.
Or to put it in the filthy worker's tongue of this forum, we've just had five years of "objective" media showing their whole ass, and a lot of people keen to "get back to normal" seem determined to pretend that never happened while simultaneously lamenting a rise in conspiracy theories and far right indoctrination. An uptick in the public suddenly believing more daffy shit than usual while also feeling like they can't trust even monolithic organisations like the BBC are not-unrelated things. Without objective truth, people will find their own.
I am thus interested in how Sharky evaluates the veracity of the things he reads online, and what sources/platforms he finds trustworthy and/or untrustworthy (and why).
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 February, 2021, 01:16:18 PM
An uptick in the public suddenly believing more daffy shit than usual while also feeling like they can't trust even monolithic organisations like the BBC are not-unrelated things. Without objective truth, people will find their own.
This is me. For the first time since I was a teenager I find myself entertaining what are by definition conspiracy theories, with the simultaneous knowledge that they are both ludicrous and plausible. I continue to put this down to my worsening mental issues and try not to let these thoughts guide my behaviour (as with so much else), but at the same time I can't shake the fact that I can believe these alternative things in part because I
don't believe so many of the things I'm told by media, government and authority: and this because so much is demonstrable lies.
I'm not at the Flat Earth, um, level yet, but I can see the road you might take to get there.
I have sympathy for people being turned off when they view a media organization's output as biased. But to then turn on to just another random source seems, as was said, daffy.
To speak to the mentioned case of the BBC - I keep hearing people say they're not to be trusted, but in a very ad hominem* way - nobody cites particular articles, for example.
I'm willing to accept that the BBC probably has an establishment bias in its political commentary, but that doesn't mean their report on, say, the Boeing engine failure (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56163403), shouldn't be believed.
Or: people getting in a huff with the BBC doesn't mean Covid is a global governmental conspiracy to reset the economy. (Which is what Shark alluded to on the Covid thread, by the way.)
I'm not immune - I've always had a tendency (still do, really) to buy into some of the JFK conspiracy stuff. It's a very popular c-theory, that one. But, I suppose there are levels and levels. When pressed on what he believed, over in the C-thread, Shark eventually confessed that he didn't really know - but he knew that something (anything, really) smelt fishy. So, he's just throwing mental shit at the wall and wondering at the patterns. By his own admission. Which is fine (as a hobby), except that an admin asked him not to do it there.
* Spell-checker wants this to be "ad Eminem", which is where you attack someone's argument based on them being Michael Mathers.
"Marshall" Mathers. Michael Mathers is the primary antagonist in the
Halloween film series.
Losing trust affects your standing, even if something you say later is provably true.
I can only speak for myself, but I believe the BBC if it says that 5G towers are not transmitting the Covid virus, but I don't
trust the BBC on an objective basis, because they lost that trust many times over down through the years, and have done nothing to earn it back.
If it matters, it started with my awareness of the dissonance between their reporting on Northern Ireland and my own experiences (starting with a demonstration in our town center that I attended and which involved a sit-down protest that lasted 30 minutes and then dispersed peacefully that was described by the BBC as "clashes" with police) I also gather Scottish nationalists in recent years have had some thoughts on the idea of BBC impartiality.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 23 February, 2021, 03:20:23 PMTo speak to the mentioned case of the BBC - I keep hearing people say they're not to be trusted, but in a very ad hominem* way
Operation Yewtree?
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 February, 2021, 05:49:04 PM
"Marshall" Mathers. Michael Mathers is the primary antagonist in the Halloween film series.
Holy Shinola! The funny thing is that my olde brain kept telling me something was wrong with what I wrote, but I couldn't actually identify it. Possibility of early onset brain issues happening right here. :-[
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 February, 2021, 05:49:04 PM
Losing trust affects your standing, even if something you say later is provably true.
I can only speak for myself, but I believe the BBC if it says that 5G towers are not transmitting the Covid virus, but I don't trust the BBC on an objective basis, because they lost that trust many times over down through the years, and have done nothing to earn it back.
If it matters, it started with my awareness of the dissonance between their reporting on Northern Ireland and my own experiences (starting with a demonstration in our town center that I attended and which involved a sit-down protest that lasted 30 minutes and then dispersed peacefully that was described by the BBC as "clashes" with police) I also gather Scottish nationalists in recent years have had some thoughts on the idea of BBC impartiality.
Thanks. The protest reporting must have been incredibly frustrating. I recall the time when some people required voice overs because their voices weren't allowed to be broadcast. The Day Today took the piss out of the situation by having them forced to inhale helium (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOUeauLWEaE) before speaking.
My only counter is that,
to an extent, nearly all media presents exaggerations, or mistakes, or deliberate bias: it's our job (!?) to filter that as best we can. If I abandon the BBC reporting entirely, I'm going to lose a lot of valid information alongside stuff that needs filtering. I used to appreciate the Gruniad when I was more local, but it also sometimes throws up duffers. And C4 News (a personal favorite) sometimes opts for attack-dog interviews that don't seem able to move past an obvious sticking point.
I was wondering if part of the swing to conspiratorial sources is also down to Teh Interwebs naturally destroying local news sources and print media, the incredibly polarized politics of the past few years, Facepalm feeding everyone their own echos and lock-down moving people literally into isolationist situations.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 February, 2021, 05:49:04 PM
"Marshall" Mathers. Michael Mathers is the primary antagonist in the Halloween film series.
I think you'll find that's the Austin Powers guy. Michael Mathers was Mr Blonde in Resevoir Dogs.
I found the BBC has accusations of both being a Tory Mouthpiece and a Liberal haven of Political Correctness. Which may sound like balance, but I'm taking that from BBC HYS threads I used to read when I worked in a call centre two decades ago.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 23 February, 2021, 06:39:29 PM
It's our job (!?) to filter that as best we can.
See I always thought the journalists should do that. Instead we have to navigate through a mire of sensationalism and clickbait.
You want to hear a conspiracy? Every time you look at a screen that's connected to the internet, there's a super-computer looking back at you, analysing you. It doesn't know why but it must do everything in its
vast power to keep you looking at it and clicking on things. And there is no algorithm for truth.
One of the co-authors of the booklet attached above did a fantastic podcast not long ago, discussing his academic history of studying human psychology, and why he became interested in conspiracy theories. It's a fascinating listen.
Here's the YouTube link, but you can find it in your usual iPhone/android podcast sites too:
https://youtu.be/cOhuFYHccEM
Quote from: Mister Pops on 23 February, 2021, 07:09:11 PM
I found the BBC has accusations of both being a Tory Mouthpiece and a Liberal haven of Political Correctness. Which may sound like balance, but I'm taking that from BBC HYS threads I used to read when I worked in a call centre two decades ago.
The thing is, there's a false equivalence here, as if the two things cancel each other out. The revolving door between Conservative Central Office and senior BBC news positions is well-documented, but when HIGNFY does a gag mocking Johnson for something stupid he's
actually said or done, the right screams "liberal bias" but when a guest calls Corbyn a
Nazi sympathiser, it's just moaning lefties who can't take a joke.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 23 February, 2021, 07:42:56 PM
Quote from: Mister Pops on 23 February, 2021, 07:09:11 PM
I found the BBC has accusations of both being a Tory Mouthpiece and a Liberal haven of Political Correctness. Which may sound like balance, but I'm taking that from BBC HaVE YOoR SaY threads I used to read when I worked in a call centre two decades ago.
The thing is, there's a false equivalence here, as if the two things cancel each other out. The revolving door between Conservative Central Office and senior BBC news positions is well-documented, but when HIGNFY does a gag mocking Johnson for something stupid he's actually said or done, the right screams "liberal bias" but when a guest calls Corbyn a Nazi sympathiser, it's just moaning lefties who can't take a joke.
We don't disagree, I was just being more facetious than I failed convey initially.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 23 February, 2021, 07:56:02 PM
We don't disagree, I was just being more facetious than I failed convey initially.
Sorry, I wasn't specifically disagreeing with you, it's just a very common argument that people frequently use in all seriousness, one I subscribed to myself until relatively recently, and I just kind of piggy-backed off your post to have a moan.
The BBC's biggest problems in politic news coverage are certain high-ranking journalists reporting government spokesperson leaks as facts, with zero objectivity. Add to that the corporation's obsession with 'balance' and you've the current shitshow's rocky foundation. I'm all for balance, but not the straight 50:50 'create a fight' rubbish the BBC—and many other corporations—go for.
I'm not sure how any of this gets fixed. So many people argue you should make up your own mind about subjects, but we're not experts on more than a handful of subjects—and algorithms are designed to increase engagement. They don't give the slightest shit about truth.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 23 February, 2021, 07:09:11 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 23 February, 2021, 06:39:29 PM
It's our job (!?) to filter that as best we can.
See I always thought the journalists should do that. Instead we have to navigate through a mire of sensationalism and clickbait.
Aye, well: don't believe everything you read. I once had drinks with a journalist who was explaining that someone (another journo) was trying to drum up a story about Boy George buying a castle, so my journalist pal had called BG's publicist to ask about it and been told "eh, no, that's bollocks". Two days later, front page of the Daily Record (I know, I know, what did I expect) was the headline "IS BOY GEORGE BUYING THIS CASTLE?". So, you know, entirely fabricated bollocks that bore no relation whatsoever to reality.
In that case journalism just equated to asking questions you've just thought of and presenting them in such a way as to suggest there was something other than whimsy behind it.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 23 February, 2021, 08:10:18 PM
Quote from: Mister Pops on 23 February, 2021, 07:56:02 PM
We don't disagree, I was just being more facetious than I failed convey initially.
Sorry, I wasn't specifically disagreeing with you, it's just a very common argument that people frequently use in all seriousness, one I subscribed to myself until relatively recently, and I just kind of piggy-backed off your post to have a moan.
To be fair I was originally going to say I was surprised Kuenssberg was willing to take Boris' dick out of her mouth long enough to ask any questions of him, but that would be horribly inappropriate.
That would certainly explain why her mouth always looks like that.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 23 February, 2021, 07:09:11 PM
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 February, 2021, 05:49:04 PM
"Marshall" Mathers. Michael Mathers is the primary antagonist in the Halloween film series.
I think you'll find that's the Austin Powers guy. Michael Mathers was Mr Blonde in Resevoir Dogs.
No, you're thinking of the guy who shot Brandon Lee.
Or we could impugn a female journalist's professional integrity without suggesting that she's an ugly slut ... right? There's a time and a place (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2000admegaverse/) for that sort of casual, everyday misogyny.
The internet has played a massive role in all this. 30 years ago if you believed in some conspiracy it was really hard to find people who agreed with you but now they are all only a click away. You can be in contact with people that validate and share your opinions in seconds whereas years ago if you tried to tell your family or friends that the government is using modern technology to reset the world and turn us all into China but capitalist they'd say 'Don't be daft'. The most dangerous thing about all this is that we now live in a time where we no longer have a shared sense of reality.
I have a lost of friend to QAnon - she went from being a relatively normal person who was maybe too trusting of alterntaive medical theories (plastic water bottles give you cancer etc) and has now gone to full on tinfoil hat wearing Pro Trump loonie. Her most common refrain is 'Do your research' because she researched all of this herself online so she couldn't be wrong - right?
https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5
One of the more 'amusing' aspects of conspiracy theory adherents appears to be the distrust of authority ...
... "but Q says it so it must be true ..."
So because some lunatic suggests that the world is being run by a cabal of [ancient middle eastern monotheistic religion adherents / lizard people / money people back to first)] who are being provided with a steady stream of young children to feed their sexual gratification and need for blood it must be more true than suggesting that the so-called 'expert' is actually talking out of their sphincter ...
... meanwhile Covid must have been created by a cabal of America, Russian, Chinese .... scientists in a lab in Wuhan before being released into a market place, transported deliberately to a ski resort in Italy so that British tourists can bring it back to the UK because .... well, just ... because ...
Nope, I think the late, great Sir Terry P said it best ... "The truth is out there ... but the lies are in your head ..." :-\ :o :-X :crazy:
QuoteI would like nothing better than to believe that lockdowns and masks and all that will save civilization, it would be so comforting. I wish you could convince me.] I would like nothing better than to believe that lockdowns and masks and all that will save civilization, it would be so comforting. I wish you could convince me.
Sorry, I've tried to stay out of this (because, well, I
like the Shark and don't like the idea of ganging up on anyone), but I find this somewhat insulting, as if anyone who tries to follow medically-advised rules to protect themselves and others is somehow living in a fantasy world. Nobody's saying the rules are going to 'save civilisation' - they're damage control. We've failed to keep the virus out of our countries so we're trying to do our best to keep the devastation to a minimum.
As for trying to convince you - no, sorry, I'm not going to try because I don't think I can. I'm not a medical expert so I defer to those who are - there's an overwhelming imbalance in favour of those who support 'lockdowns and masks and all that', which suggests to me that we very, very probably should go along with these rules. But if that's not enough then I don't have anything else.
"Do your own research" seems to be a phrase mostly parrotted by people who've never actually been involved in doing any kind of research into anything. What they've accomplished isn't even a literature review let alone a piece of actual research. Watching videos of random people on youtube ranting about stuff from their spare bedroom does not constitute research. I really hate that phrase because it devalues actual research. It is no more research than the crap Hubbard published for Scientology was research/technology.
Interestingly I see a lot of parallels between Scientology and things like QAnon. Not least that Trump's speechs actually sound a lot like Hubbard's lectures (I went through a phase of listening to lectures/sermons by cult leaders because I find cults really fascinating). But also in the way it constructs layers of story one on top of the other and rewards adherants for "discovering" the even greater "truth" as they make advances in their "research". It's brainwashing/indocrination. Scientology was just a bit more brazen in how it extracted $s from its adherents - plenty of ad revenue being directed at some of the more popular QAnon vloggers and websites though so I'm sure there are some just playing a part for the $s.
People need to read Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus trilogy - actually given their ability to misinterpret things like Fight Club maybe that's a terrible idea.
Quote from: sintec on 24 February, 2021, 08:37:10 AM
People need to read Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus trilogy - actually given their ability to misinterpret things like Fight Club maybe that's a terrible idea.
Medically-mandated morning laugh achieved!
Sorry I'm late, I've had a busy couple of days wrestling a pile of twisted wreckage back into a greenhouse. Interesting thread so far.
Anyhoo, I was thinking - shall we try a proper debate? Say Funt and me each putting our case in a formal way, opening statements, questions, rebuttal, spectator questions, closing statements - or however it goes. I think I'd like to try that - it sounds rather civilised.
If you agree, I'd like to argue a position along the lines of, "not all conspiracy theories are mad and not all madness is a conspiracy," or similar.
Admins, may I re-post the previously deleted links in order to support my argument? Perhaps just for a limited period, say 24 hours? The link without the title? The title without the link? I understand and accept that your decision is final.
Anyway, I'm off to start putting the glass in.
Bbl.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 February, 2021, 05:49:04 PM
If it matters, it started with my awareness of the dissonance between their reporting on Northern Ireland and my own experiences (starting with a demonstration in our town center that I attended and which involved a sit-down protest that lasted 30 minutes and then dispersed peacefully that was described by the BBC as "clashes" with police) I also gather Scottish nationalists in recent years have had some thoughts on the idea of BBC impartiality.
This is largely my view. I view the BBC, or rather specific journalists, as reliable on scientific and non-political subjects. I also think that it follows the UK government's view and policy on international issues, which would also include NI and Scotland. There is a huge disparity between how Scotland is presented in UK news and the reality of the country. The same is obviously, and sometimes disastrously, true of NI.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 24 February, 2021, 01:54:35 AM
Or we could impugn a female journalist's professional integrity without suggesting that she's an ugly slut ... right? There's a time and a place (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2000admegaverse/) for that sort of casual, everyday misogyny.
This is just sad now.
Quote"not all conspiracy theories are mad and not all madness is a conspiracy,"
As far as I'm aware, no one here has suggested they are.
Representatives of some country's government did well documented drug experiments on unwitting subjects = a conspiracy.
A global pandemic was created by a secret cabal in order to maintain control of international banking = something that someone made up.
Quote... "but Q says it so it must be true ..."
I saw a fascinating interaction on twitter earlier today. Someone had posted a joke about a Fox "news" man pretending that Qanoners have never actually existed outside the mind of those crazy liberals, as evidenced by Qanon not being a website.
This was followed up by a guy insisting this was true, and that no-one actually believes in Q. When it was pointed out that only a few weeks before he had himself been tweeting in support of Qconspiracy theories, he claimed to be a victim of a liberal conspiracy.
When the conspiracy that made you feel special turns out to be baseless, just change the rules and pretend you always believed in something else.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 24 February, 2021, 12:08:39 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 24 February, 2021, 01:54:35 AM
Or we could impugn a female journalist's professional integrity without suggesting that she's an ugly slut ... right? There's a time and a place (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2000admegaverse/) for that sort of casual, everyday misogyny.
This is just sad now.
Honestly, as an admin, I agree with Funt Solo on this. Please, let's try and avoid that kind of thing when referring to women. And it's not like there aren't other ways of criticising Kuenssberg.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 24 February, 2021, 10:39:27 AM
Anyhoo, I was thinking - shall we try a proper debate? Say Funt and me each putting our case in a formal way, opening statements, questions, rebuttal, spectator questions, closing statements -
See this is what I love about this place. Give it five minutes and someone comes along with a perfectly reasonably sounding statement that just shows the whole shebang for the colossal joke it is!
Quote from: Modern Panther on 24 February, 2021, 12:09:45 PM
Quote"not all conspiracy theories are mad and not all madness is a conspiracy,"
As far as I'm aware, no one here has suggested they are.
I'm happy to change to another topic, my suggestion was a preference, not a request.
Quote from: Modern Panther on 24 February, 2021, 12:09:45 PM
Quote... "but Q says it so it must be true ..."
I saw a fascinating interaction on twitter earlier today. Someone had posted a joke about a Fox "news" man pretending that Qanoners have never actually existed outside the mind of those crazy liberals, as evidenced by Qanon not being a website.
This was followed up by a guy insisting this was true, and that no-one actually believes in Q. When it was pointed out that only a few weeks before he had himself been tweeting in support of Qconspiracy theories, he claimed to be a victim of a liberal conspiracy.
Honestly, I thought Q was something akin to 4chan or Anonymous: just an online, decentralised bunch of people posting stuff and doing the odd bit of IRL activism, and it was pretty late in the day before I twigged that Q was (supposedly) an actual individual - and I consider myself pretty online. Now admittedly I don't fall on that side of the political spectrum and wouldn't have been seeking out their latest news or updates, but Q genuinely seemed more akin to an idea than anything else and I'd be surprised if I was the only one who thought that way. It's not hard to see "Q" becoming something more intangible and nebulous.
QuoteWhen the conspiracy that made you feel special turns out to be baseless, just change the rules and pretend you always believed in something else.
There's an obvious joke about the last 6 years of British centrism somewhere in there.
I took it that while Q was single username, a group or several groups of people were collaborating through a discord (aptly named) to decide what truth would be revealed by the account. Kind of like reverse sock puppetry.
I'm not really interested in a formalized debate, Shark.
It was really pleasant to see your art on the sketch thread. You have an easy-seeming way to depict meaningful scenes that I am in awe of.
I've tried to avoid responding to your political posts recently because it seemed that we got into a bit of repetitive back and forth that I just found frustrating. For me, it's like debating with an eel - because the focus seems to constantly shift. That may be engaging for you, but for me it's a mostly negative experience.
Where I have responded recently, it's just that there's something in me that feels like it can't let what I see as disinformation slide by unchallenged. Like, if someone's openly racist, I feel morally bankrupt if I don't challenge it. I feel like I'm agreeing with it. As up-thread a bit, I felt I had to challenge a couple of really funny guys on what I saw as open misogyny. I knew that was going to go down like a lead balloon, but the alternative was to be sitting in a room with people going "yeah - she's a c***-****ing deformed b***h - ha ha - just kidding - what, can't you take a joke?"
And then I'm going to turn around to my wife and my daughter with a straight face and go "yeah, just hanging on the board with my buds, yeah, it's all cool". My daughter reads comics - she might be on a forum one day - she might be reading the casual debasement of women. Or we could just stop doing that.
Which isn't what you were doing, Shark. You were just downplaying the Covid. And, I've asked you why you feel the need to do that (wayyyy up-thread). But (while I am curious to a degree) mostly I just wanted you to stop spamming the Covid thread with those opinions. And I've done that for now. So ... job done.
Quote from: sintec on 24 February, 2021, 08:37:10 AM
"Do your own research" seems to be a phrase mostly parrotted by people who've never actually been involved in doing any kind of research into anything. What they've accomplished isn't even a literature review let alone a piece of actual research. Watching videos of random people on youtube ranting about stuff from their spare bedroom does not constitute research. I really hate that phrase because it devalues actual research. It is no more research than the crap Hubbard published for Scientology was research/technology.
Interestingly I see a lot of parallels between Scientology and things like QAnon. Not least that Trump's speechs actually sound a lot like Hubbard's lectures (I went through a phase of listening to lectures/sermons by cult leaders because I find cults really fascinating). But also in the way it constructs layers of story one on top of the other and rewards adherants for "discovering" the even greater "truth" as they make advances in their "research". It's brainwashing/indocrination. Scientology was just a bit more brazen in how it extracted $s from its adherents - plenty of ad revenue being directed at some of the more popular QAnon vloggers and websites though so I'm sure there are some just playing a part for the $s.
People need to read Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus trilogy - actually given their ability to misinterpret things like Fight Club maybe that's a terrible idea.
As per the article I posted earlier this is what makes it so dangerous - because believers seek out this information for themselves it's more valid. They don't see themselves as being indoctrinated because no one forced this on them - they willingly drink the kool aid. In terms of research they ignore anything that contradicts their opinion and rarely have credible sources. Or where they do have incredible sources the content is taken out of context and repurposed for their argument. One example was a link I was sent (that I no longer have access to) which talked about a meeting in the 1980s in New York organised by the UN which discussed what would happen and how countries would deal with a global pandemic but of course was turned into the blueprint for Covid. These opinions are given the same weight as proper peer reviewed scientific research. A conspiracy theory is given the same weight as a scientific theory. It's just bonkers. And things certainly got worse under Trump because he is the golden boy for Q Anon - he is the only one fighting to topple the pedophillic deep state. Yeah, the same guy that has been caught on camera suggesting that women should be grabbed by the ... you know.. and was friends with Jeffrey Epstein for several years where he too is alledged to have the enjoyed the company of much younger women i.e children. And the tactics they employ are the same ones he used - avalanche of bullshit and if that doesn't work just says it's a lie and only you know the truth.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 24 February, 2021, 01:39:29 PM
I took it that while Q was single username, a group or several groups of people were collaborating through a discord (aptly named) to decide what truth would be revealed by the account. Kind of like reverse sock puppetry.
It wouldn't be the first time the far right have done this. I forget the name of the most high-profile offender - was it "Phillip Cross"? - but there's supposedly incredibly prolific Wikipedia editors who edit 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and compose their edits incredibly quickly, but it isn't major edits, it's tiny things like how something is phrased, when/where certain facts are presented in the descriptions of contentious events, what constitutes "official" sources, and so forth - basically, there are people who work day and night to make sure Wikipedia articles are aligned with the exact same political narratives espoused by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, a notorious tea-party libertarian.
To be clear, though, I'm not saying these editors definately
are shared accounts, as it's possible that Mr Cross really is just a regular man. Who hasn't slept or gone to the lavatory since 2007.
Wikipedia is astonishing in terms of the way it operates. It's a good place to find out about stuff in a broad and general sense, but it without doubt should not be considered a single source of truth. There's a famous videogame on there which incorrectly assigns credit, because the people arguing in the Wikipedia Talk section don't rate certain sources or don't believe the person who actually created the game did so. It's mind-boggling. (I interviewed the creator and the bloke who got the credit, who in the call was quite open about how things played out. It wasn't a secret.)
Beyond even the inherent biases built directly into its system are issues with the worthiness of articles, which are applied extremely unevenly. From a comics standpoint, some of the Hachette series are on Wikipedia, but the Transformers article was removed. Why? God knows.
Maybe it was deleted due to an oblique reference to the conspiracy theory that machines are all secretly robots. One can see how such a dangerous article might be erased...
The snow in Texas is fake apparently https://9gag.com/gag/apNp4WD
Looks like they think they've done a science.
I despair... I can't help but feel the education system has failed these folks.
Quote from: sintec on 25 February, 2021, 11:07:06 PM
The snow in Texas is fake apparently https://9gag.com/gag/apNp4WD
Looks like they think they've done a science.
I despair... I can't help but feel the education system has failed these folks.
*weeps*
Quote from: Funt Solo on 26 February, 2021, 05:52:03 PM
Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads (//http://) - summary: illegal bastich clears a bit of rainforest that he doesn't own, sells it on Facebook, who say there's nothing they can do about it because they're just trying to make everyone friends, y'know?
This is mostly why I hate conspiracy theories - because there are plenty of real conspiracies* in the world to get het up about without having to imagine new ones.
* Although this particular example is just open market capitalism ... gone mad.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 24 February, 2021, 05:47:08 PM
One example was a link I was sent (that I no longer have access to) which talked about a meeting in the 1980s in New York organised by the UN which discussed what would happen and how countries would deal with a global pandemic but of course was turned into the blueprint for Covid.
Heaven help them if they ever get anywhere most nation's Ministries of Defence where they regularly war-game these sorts of events to try and work out what to do and how best to manage it.
The exception being the UK that forgot to include the scenario in which the most incompetent bunch of half-wits ever managed to seize control of the government and do everything in their power to accelerate the spread. :o
There was something else about how the UN all got together and the leader of each country agreed to this (making up Covid and keeping everyone inside for sinster reason). I'm really not sure what the endgame is though - they want to microchip us and keep us in fear so we are docile but keep spending money? Thanks to the prevelance of social media and smart phones would a microchip even be necessary? And getting 184 people to agree on anything and then keep it a secret? In exchange for what? I really don't know what the objective of all this is except to spread misinformation and distrust.
Well, I've said this before and I'll say it again. Terry Pratchett deserves the final word on Conspiracy Theories and Government Involvement. [The present Tory 'government' surely has to be the final word on the matter. Considering that they can't even organise a Hard-core Bacchanalia at SA Brains ...]
QuoteIt's amazing how good governments are, given their track records in almost every other field, at hushing up things like alien encounters. One reason may be that the aliens themselves are too embarrassed to talk about it.
It's not known why most of the space-going races of the universe want to undertake rummaging in Earthling underwear as a prelude to formal contact. But representatives of several hundred races have taken to hanging out, unsuspected by one another, in rural corners of the planet and, as a result of this, keep on abducting other would-be abductees. Some have been in fact abducted while waiting to carry out an abduction on a couple of aliens trying to abduct the aliens who were, as a result of misunderstood instructions, trying to form cattle into circles and mutilate crops.
The planet Earth is now banned to all alien races until they can compare notes and find out how many, if any, real humans they have actually got. It is gloomily suspected that there is only one - who is big, hairy, and has very large feet.
The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head. Hogfather
Another real conspiracy, this time involving Pontins banning Irish (https://www.channel4.com/news/pontins-targeted-traveller-community-by-blocking-bookings-from-people-with-irish-surnames)-sounding surnames from making bookings - and no, you've not gone back in time to either the 1800s or the 1960s as this is all quite current.
But don't let anyone tell you that England has a bigotry problem. They don't have a problem with any of those people - because they don't let them in!
The Irish would never do anything like that. In fact we only indefinitely detain let foreigners in our holiday camps.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 03 March, 2021, 03:18:19 PM
Another real conspiracy, this time involving Pontins banning Irish (https://www.channel4.com/news/pontins-targeted-traveller-community-by-blocking-bookings-from-people-with-irish-surnames)-sounding surnames from making bookings - and no, you've not gone back in time to either the 1800s or the 1960s as this is all quite current.
But don't let anyone tell you that England has a bigotry problem. They don't have a problem with any of those people - because they don't let them in!
Fecking hell, I saw that in a WhatsApp group yesterday and thought it was from the 50s or 60s. My surname, and one of the other guys in the group, were included.
The only conclusion I can come to is that there's no point in trying to rationally understand conspirational thinking - it's an entirely different way of thinking about the world, and one that isn't bound by logic or rationality.
Most people think rationally - ie they look at the evidence in front of their eyes and they come to conclusions based on that.
People prone to conspiracy theories think the other way around - they make their conclusions first (generally based on emotion or irrational prejudices/fear) and then bend their perception of reality to fit.
This is why arguing with conspiracy theorists is a frustrating and largely pointless exercise - they have already made their mind up, and if challenged will just move the goalposts of the argument. The virus is fake. Or it's real but the severity of it is overblown. Or it's real but wearing a mask or taking a vaccine will actually make you more ill.
It's been very sad to see many friends and acquaintances go down the Covid conspiracy rabbit hole. The fact that the motive behind governments enforcing social distancing and mask wearing and willingly trashing the economies of their own countries in the process is at best completely inscrutable (usually something vague about how they're 'trying to control us') is immaterial.
A few of these people are genuinely desperate - so I have a lot more sympathy for them, but for others it has revealed that deep down they are ultimately very selfish, self-centered people. By all means quarantine the vulnerable and elderly, but it shouldn't directly affect their life or make them have to make any actual sacrifices. Everyone else can take the vaccine, but I'm not going to. So they indulge in conspirational fantasies to justify their selfish behaviour. And this is what is generally meant by 'doing your own research' - it basically just means scouring the shadier parts of the internet for any shred of spurious 'evidence' you can use to justify your prejudices. It's very sad.
And I understand why people don't trust the 'mainstream media'. I don't think anyone intelligent does. BUT there's a pointed difference between having a healthy skepticism and understanding that any news source will have an inherent bias and agenda, and just rejecting the entire thing and listening to some nutter on the internet instead.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 03 March, 2021, 03:40:51 PM
The Irish would never do anything like that. In fact we only indefinitely detain let foreigners in our holiday camps.
Yeah, the irony is crushing. Pontins: No Irish. Mosney: Non-Irish.
As Conspiracy Theories go, this one leaves crazy in the rear-view mirror.
https://www.thejournal.ie/adrenochrome-dublin-anti-covid-lockdown-protest-qanon-5369654-Mar2021/
Quote from: paddykafka on 03 March, 2021, 08:26:53 PM
As Conspiracy Theories go, this one leaves crazy in the rear-view mirror.
https://www.thejournal.ie/adrenochrome-dublin-anti-covid-lockdown-protest-qanon-5369654-Mar2021/
It's more widespread than you might think, sadly. My next door neighbors (nice, friendly people who recently gifted us a bottle of bourbon for helping them out on something) have a 'Q' sticker on their pickup truck. I'm fascinated with Qanon. All you really need to know about it is that its basically a way for people to express a yearning for authoritarian/fascist rule, even if they don't consciously think or understand that's what they are doing.
I suspect that the majority of Q followers' don't literally believe the things they accuse 'elites' of (ie the whole child-eating, blood-drinking demon thing). It's simply a way to 'other' and dehumanise their perceived enemies just enough to justify their own irrational belief that they all need to be rounded up and jailed or executed and a hard-right, fascist regime take control and put everything back to how it 'should' be.
This is the absolute best explanation I've heard of phenomenon: https://youtu.be/JTfhYyTuT44
Video starts with a discussion of Flat Earth theory, but then makes a hard turn into Qanon around the 38min mark.
Thanks, Radiator! I'll certainly check that out.
Quote from: radiator on 03 March, 2021, 08:45:53 PM
This is the absolute best explanation I've heard of phenomenon: https://youtu.be/JTfhYyTuT44
Video starts with a discussion of Flat Earth theory, but then makes a hard turn into Qanon around the 38min mark.
Love that video. (Y'know, and fear approximately 50% of humanity.)
Straight up, I believe that conspiracies do exist, but much less than people are making it out to be. I mean, I don't think you can fool majority of global population that Earth is flat, right? To me, people who create conspiracies are those who try to make something sensible with their lives, rationalizing events around them, that don't seem instantly aligned. You hear that Epstein was a sex predator. Then, it transpires to every celebrity person. I believe however in what Alan Moore says. I'll paraphrase:"The truth is that the world is anarchic and rudderless".
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 05:15:50 PM
Straight up, I believe that conspiracies do exist, but much less than people are making it out to be. I mean, I don't think you can fool majority of global population that Earth is flat, right? To me, people who create conspiracies are those who try to make something sensible with their lives, rationalizing events around them, that don't seem instantly aligned. You hear that Epstein was a sex predator. Then, it transpires to every celebrity person. I believe however in what Alan Moore says. I'll paraphrase:"The truth is that the world is anarchic and rudderless".
What conspiracies do you believe exist
Quote from: judgeurko on 05 March, 2021, 05:29:58 PM
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 05:15:50 PM
Straight up, I believe that conspiracies do exist, but much less than people are making it out to be. I mean, I don't think you can fool majority of global population that Earth is flat, right? To me, people who create conspiracies are those who try to make something sensible with their lives, rationalizing events around them, that don't seem instantly aligned. You hear that Epstein was a sex predator. Then, it transpires to every celebrity person. I believe however in what Alan Moore says. I'll paraphrase:"The truth is that the world is anarchic and rudderless".
What conspiracies do you believe exist
Now that you ask me that, I'd say the conflict in Middle East is all for oil (perhaps some shadier motives) and nothing for the benefit of citizens there. I also believe that, at least in Europe, football matches (not all, but some of them) are fixed in all major leagues, because both FIFA and UEFA are deeply corrupted organizations. Also, I don't believe in official interpretation of the JFK murder. Whatever is the alternative, I don't care, but I bet there is more than a simple Lee Harvey Oswald shot. Oh and this. That HIV/AIDS virus is created in a lab. I mean, such perfect virus gotta be.
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 05:15:50 PM
Straight up, I believe that conspiracies do exist, but much less than people are making it out to be. I mean, I don't think you can fool majority of global population that Earth is flat, right? To me, people who create conspiracies are those who try to make something sensible with their lives, rationalizing events around them, that don't seem instantly aligned. You hear that Epstein was a sex predator. Then, it transpires to every celebrity person. I believe however in what Alan Moore says. I'll paraphrase:"The truth is that the world is anarchic and rudderless".
...and thats the ultimate irony of conspiracy theorists, endlessly imploring everyone else to 'wake up' and see the evil cabal controlling everything, because deep down they're too scared to 'wake up' themselves and realise that the world is chaotic, no one is really in control, and everyone is just making it up as they go.
Also 100% agree that
some conspiracies are real, its just that they are generally quite mundane sounding and are usually motivated by greed and/or people in power trying to cover up their own incompetence.
QuoteI'd say the conflict in Middle East is all for oil
Is this even a conspiracy theory at this point? It was clear even prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that the US led coalition clearly had their own motives for getting involved in that region.
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 05:45:34 PM
That HIV/AIDS virus is created in a lab. I mean, such perfect virus gotta be.
... or just a perfect example of random mutation.
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 05:45:34 PM
That HIV/AIDS virus is created in a lab. I mean, such perfect virus gotta be.
Its got to be? Are you a virologist?
Quote from: Tjm86 on 05 March, 2021, 05:56:29 PM
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 05:45:34 PM
That HIV/AIDS virus is created in a lab. I mean, such perfect virus gotta be.
... or just a perfect example of random mutation.
What's so 'perfect' about it anyway? Extraordinary claims, as they say, need extraordinary evidence - if you have any that definitively trumps all the evidence that it evolved naturally like every other virus then I might be halfway convinced.
I heard on a podcast once that no conspiracy theory has ever been proven to be true, though I'm prepared to stand corrected.
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 05:45:34 PM
Quote from: judgeurko on 05 March, 2021, 05:29:58 PM
What conspiracies do you believe exist
Now that you ask me that, I'd say the conflict in Middle East is all for oil (perhaps some shadier motives) and nothing for the benefit of citizens there. I also believe that, at least in Europe, football matches (not all, but some of them) are fixed in all major leagues, because both FIFA and UEFA are deeply corrupted organizations. Also, I don't believe in official interpretation of the JFK murder. Whatever is the alternative, I don't care, but I bet there is more than a simple Lee Harvey Oswald shot. Oh and this. That HIV/AIDS virus is created in a lab. I mean, such perfect virus gotta be.
The low-hanging fruit of counterpoint is definitely the virus one - I don't know of any evidence that points to that conclusion.
For the JFK thing, I'd be surprised if most people didn't believe there was more to it than a lone shooter - although I think a lot of that is driven by information we're exposed to - not least in the form of a very popular movie (itself driven by rumor and wonder). But, there's strictly no evidence beyond that of the lone shooter. I struggle with this one because it's so popular I find myself falling into the fiction and wondering if it may be real. I'm only human.
I've seen stories in the news that outline definite corruption within sports organizations - so it wouldn't surprise me either to find that there's more as yet undiscovered.
And oil is definitely a motivator in foreign policy. Everyone's perturbed by the Saudi state openly murdering its critics, but nobody wants to stop dealing with them financially. See also: China's human rights record. Then look at where those plastic toys your kids are playing with were made. Oops!
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 March, 2021, 06:07:41 PM
I heard on a podcast once that no conspiracy theory has ever been proven to be true, though I'm prepared to stand corrected.
On his 1999 single "Got Your Money" American rapper and Wu Tang Clan member Ol' Dirty Bastard sang:
"I'm the O-D-B as you can see
F.B.I., don't you be watching me"
It turned out that the FBI was indeed watching him:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/11/fbi-wu-tang-clan-ol-dirty-bastard
Does this count?
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 March, 2021, 06:07:41 PM
I heard on a podcast once that no conspiracy theory has ever been proven to be true, though I'm prepared to stand corrected.
How about the Iran-Contra affair - that was a conspiracy and most certainly happend.
Or the MKUltra experiments conducted by the CIA?
[
Quote from: sintec on 05 March, 2021, 06:38:30 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 March, 2021, 06:07:41 PM
I heard on a podcast once that no conspiracy theory has ever been proven to be true, though I'm prepared to stand corrected.
How about the Iran-Contra affair - that was a conspiracy and most certainly happend.
Or the MKUltra experiments conducted by the CIA?
I don't think the skeptic I listened to was saying that no conspiracies ever happened. That would be ridiculous.
I doubt that coup in Myanmar, for instance, happened just because lots of army people happened to turn up on the same day. It was more that conspiracy
theories hadn't been proven. Were the situations you mentioned theorised and the theories spread about before the facts came out? Possibly - this is definitely not a hill I'm prepared to die on. Just wish I could remember the podcast I heard it on.
As for ODB - and without for one minute suggesting that ODB was anything less than a Socrates for our times - well, he didn't actually say they
were watching him, did he? He simply asked them
not to, in the same fashion that he gave verbal consent to a young lady to call him dirty when, and only when, he lifted up her skirt.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 05 March, 2021, 06:15:46 PM
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 05:45:34 PM
Quote from: judgeurko on 05 March, 2021, 05:29:58 PM
What conspiracies do you believe exist
Now that you ask me that, I'd say the conflict in Middle East is all for oil (perhaps some shadier motives) and nothing for the benefit of citizens there. I also believe that, at least in Europe, football matches (not all, but some of them) are fixed in all major leagues, because both FIFA and UEFA are deeply corrupted organizations. Also, I don't believe in official interpretation of the JFK murder. Whatever is the alternative, I don't care, but I bet there is more than a simple Lee Harvey Oswald shot. Oh and this. That HIV/AIDS virus is created in a lab. I mean, such perfect virus gotta be.
The low-hanging fruit of counterpoint is definitely the virus one - I don't know of any evidence that points to that conclusion.
For the JFK thing, I'd be surprised if most people didn't believe there was more to it than a lone shooter - although I think a lot of that is driven by information we're exposed to - not least in the form of a very popular movie (itself driven by rumor and wonder). But, there's strictly no evidence beyond that of the lone shooter. I struggle with this one because it's so popular I find myself falling into the fiction and wondering if it may be real. I'm only human.
I've seen stories in the news that outline definite corruption within sports organizations - so it wouldn't surprise me either to find that there's more as yet undiscovered.
And oil is definitely a motivator in foreign policy. Everyone's perturbed by the Saudi state openly murdering its critics, but nobody wants to stop dealing with them financially. See also: China's human rights record. Then look at where those plastic toys your kids are playing with were made. Oops!
Yeah well, your government is lying to you. What else is knew? About oil issue, I referred to the fact that whole government were thrown off under the pretense of fighting for human rights.
As for JFK, regardless if it LHO hits hitting JFK, I don't doubt that there was a second shooter. I watched some documentary about the whole thing. And they distinctly said that majority of Americans don't believe the version they've been served.
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 07:20:33 PM
And they distinctly said that majority of Americans don't believe the version they've been served.
Right. I know you know that isn't evidence, though. Majority belief doesn't equate to actualities.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 March, 2021, 06:49:48 PM
As for ODB - and without for one minute suggesting that ODB was anything less than a Socrates for our times - well, he didn't actually say they were watching him, did he? He simply asked them not to, in the same fashion that he gave verbal consent to a young lady to call him dirty when, and only when, he lifted up her skirt.
As the great man himself said "It ain't easy bein' greasy" :)
Quote from: Rara Avis on 05 March, 2021, 08:03:35 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 March, 2021, 06:49:48 PM
As for ODB - and without for one minute suggesting that ODB was anything less than a Socrates for our times - well, he didn't actually say they were watching him, did he? He simply asked them not to, in the same fashion that he gave verbal consent to a young lady to call him dirty when, and only when, he lifted up her skirt.
As the great man himself said "It ain't easy bein' greasy" :)
Not to take anything from him, but I think he may have been quoting Descartes there.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 05 March, 2021, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 07:20:33 PM
And they distinctly said that majority of Americans don't believe the version they've been served.
Right. I know you know that isn't evidence, though. Majority belief doesn't equate to actualities.
Well, count me in, 'cuz I don't believe in official version either.
As for me, I watched a documentary that showed fairly comprehensively how it could easily have been a lone gunman. Still wondering, though: what makes you say AIDS is a 'perfect' virus?
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 05 March, 2021, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 07:20:33 PM
And they distinctly said that majority of Americans don't believe the version they've been served.
Right. I know you know that isn't evidence, though. Majority belief doesn't equate to actualities.
Well, count me in, 'cuz I don't believe in official version either.
Indeed. But if we're seeking truth then our belief is neither here nor there. Evidence is the thing. Welcome to science.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 05 March, 2021, 09:26:46 PM
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 08:53:50 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 05 March, 2021, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 07:20:33 PM
And they distinctly said that majority of Americans don't believe the version they've been served.
Right. I know you know that isn't evidence, though. Majority belief doesn't equate to actualities.
Well, count me in, 'cuz I don't believe in official version either.
Indeed. But if we're seeking truth then our belief is neither here nor there. Evidence is the thing. Welcome to science.
I'd agree with science if science determined the thing. So far, we are left only with speculations. Like when Epstein was found dead in his cell, and people declared it was suicide, other said it was a murder. Considering cameras malfunctioned in the moment he "hanged" himself.
It's difficult not to reach for words like "moronic" at this point. It's as if you can't tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction. I imagine libraries are an unsolvable conundrum.
Yawn... childish insults. Great reminder never to discuss with you in the future. Or that needs "evidence".
Yes, well - I can only apologize. I would never be so crass myself, of course, so clearly my computer was hacked by the Depp State (as part of his piratical plan to take over the world from his base in the Caribbean).
If you don't believe me, here is evidence of his levitating cargo ships, discovered by a True Brit non-sheeple dog walker (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-56286719):
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/15EB2/production/_117387798_apex_hovering_ship_illusion_03.jpg)
Sorry, I don't trust flying ships. They look too real.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 March, 2021, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: Tjm86 on 05 March, 2021, 05:56:29 PM
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 05:45:34 PM
That HIV/AIDS virus is created in a lab. I mean, such perfect virus gotta be.
... or just a perfect example of random mutation.
What's so 'perfect' about it anyway? Extraordinary claims, as they say, need extraordinary evidence - if you have any that definitively trumps all the evidence that it evolved naturally like every other virus then I might be halfway convinced.
Leaving aside the poor choice of 'perfect' that arguably raises the point perhaps a little too high, I'm going to have to throw Occams razor into the pot.
So here is my question:
given that bio-engineering technology back in the 80's when HIV/AIDS first surfaced was still quite rudimentary by modern standards, that the virus is itself incredibly complex, that no evidence has ever been produced to support the thesis that this is the result of human manufacture, that geneticists have long since provided a massive body of evidence in support of mutation / adaptability as a factor in the development of viruses (Covid's 'Kent variant' for instance) to the extent that it can now be explained by a BBC journalist without too much trouble, what is the more reasonable explanation - HIV/AIDS was manufactured in a lab or that it is the natural result of biological processes?
Certainly I am willing to concede that there is a chance (incredibly remote) that the virus was indeed manufactured. Then again, I'm also willing to concede that there is a chance that you were trolling me and I bit too hard! ::)
HIV crossed from chimps to humans in the 1920s in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo. This was probably as a result of chimps carrying the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), a virus closely related to HIV, being hunted and eaten by people living in the area. (https://www.avert.org/professionals/history-hiv-aids/origin)
One interesting thing about viruses is that they can share genetic information between themselves - even between different types - so they evolve in real time, as it were. This horizontal gene transfer is not necessarily a bad thing as viruses such as syphilis and scarlet fever have transformed into the less lethal strains we have today.
This is not to say that laboratory-altered viruses do not exist or have never been released, however the natural world is far more likely to produce novel viruses, I think.
.... like I say, Occam's razor ...
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 March, 2021, 08:59:33 PM
As for me, I watched a documentary that showed fairly comprehensively how it could easily have been a lone gunman. Still wondering, though: what makes you say AIDS is a 'perfect' virus?
Oops. I missed this reply.
Perfect, as if incurable. People catch cold all the time as we haven't developed immunity for it. But AIDS/HIV (whatever name you prefer) is something else. Not even so many years, scientists haven't figured its incredibly complex code. The only solution however,is if you go on bone marrow transplations.
Quote from: milstar on 06 March, 2021, 09:25:27 AMBut AIDS/HIV (whatever name you prefer) is something else. Not even so many years, scientists haven't figured its incredibly complex code.
OK, at the risk of being suckered by some expert trolling... do you see how you're disproving your own theory here?
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 06 March, 2021, 10:16:45 AM
Quote from: milstar on 06 March, 2021, 09:25:27 AMBut AIDS/HIV (whatever name you prefer) is something else. Not even so many years, scientists haven't figured its incredibly complex code.
OK, at the risk of being suckered by some expert trolling... do you see how you're disproving your own theory here?
I don't think I gave reason for trolling here. I said that scientists after so many years haven't deduced its code, which is true. That gives me the reason more why I believe that the virus is manifactured. Or you think that scientific mysteries apply to nature only? Human actions can be equally mysterious as well. Yep.
So scientists can manufacture it without understanding its composition?
Scientists who knew what they were doing, obviously. If the word "scientist" can be applied here. Like covid situation.
I'm trying, but I can't understand how you can simultaneously believe that nobody has worked out how the AIDS virus is composed, but they can still compose it in a lab. Never mind; I'll head off and read other threads about comics for a bit.
I'm not sure that the AIDS "code" has not been deduced. There seems to be quite a lot of information here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924471/), for example.
Also, there are some interesting aspects to AIDS, one of which is The Secret of HIV Immunity Among Kenyan Sex Workers. (https://globalhealth.org/the-secret-of-hiv-immunity-among-kenyan-sex-workers/) (This article was 10 years ago and I'm not up to date, so this may have come to nothing.)
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 07:20:33 PMAnd they distinctly said that majority of Americans don't believe the version they've been served.
This is a shaky standard by which to judge anything at all, honestly.
Quote from: milstar on 06 March, 2021, 10:48:17 AM
Scientists who knew what they were doing, obviously. If the word "scientist" can be applied here. Like covid situation.
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "so-called scientists".
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 06 March, 2021, 10:38:09 AM
So scientists can manufacture it without understanding its composition?
See, I can buy that a mad scientist or labful of same could come up with some never-before-seen fiendish new weapon/virus/adrenochrome, my problem is believing that an entire planetful of other less-mad scientists, given the evidence of said contrivance's existence and years/decades couldn't reverse engineer and duplicate/counter it. Science just doesn't allow the unrepeatable act of unique genius. It's the Super-serum/Pym-particles/Web-fluid/spore-drive problem: within 4 years of Hiroshima, the Soviets had the bomb too.
Quote from: milstar on 06 March, 2021, 09:25:27 AM
People catch cold all the time as we haven't developed immunity for it...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I always thought the cold virus was one which could rapidly mutate and spread, meaning that each and every cold virus an individual catches is a variant?
The symptoms of the common cold are mainly an over-reaction of the bodies defences - that's the only thing that over-the-counter cold & flu remedies address.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sorry but I feel like I now need to check on how we are defining 'conspiracy theories' since the "Iran-Contra Affair" has now been cited as a conspiracy that is believed.
Now granted conspiracy charges were brought against Olly North et al as a result of their actions. That said, to the best of my knowledge it has always been cited as an example of American ineptitude and over-reaching.
I'd have to say the same of Gulf War 2. The political motives for the second invasion have always been questioned. Is it an example of a 'conspiracy' though or is it simply that politicians have become so untrustworthy that it is almost impossible to believe what they tell us?
On the other hand the theory that there is a secret organisation working out of the basement of a Washington DC pizza parlour to groom and harvest children for a cabal of wealthy and influential individuals ... Now that strikes me far more as a conspiracy theory. (also bugf*** crazy, but hey ho ...)
Well, the term conspiracy theory has its own specific meaning, relating to outlandish beliefs, without reliable evidence about events that have usually less exciting explanations.
A theory about a conspiracy is a different thing entirely.
Quote
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
conspiracy theory noun
/kənˈspɪrəsi θɪəri/
/kənˈspɪrəsi θiːəri/, /kənˈspɪrəsi θɪri/
the belief that a secret but powerful
organization is responsible for an event
•They sought to account for the fatal crash
in terms of a conspiracy theory.
•A lot of people subscribe to the
conspiracy theory.
Birth of the conspiracy theory. (https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2018/06/conspiracy-theory.html)
Quote from: wedgeski on 06 March, 2021, 01:03:10 PM
Quote from: milstar on 05 March, 2021, 07:20:33 PMAnd they distinctly said that majority of Americans don't believe the version they've been served.
This is a shaky standard by which to judge anything at all, honestly.
Tbh, I am not someone who intrinsically follows what majority has to say, I am a bit rebellious there, but considering what went on before and after the assassination, and how the investigation was handled...
Quote from: Woolly on 06 March, 2021, 02:04:20 PM
Quote from: milstar on 06 March, 2021, 09:25:27 AM
People catch cold all the time as we haven't developed immunity for it...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I always thought the cold virus was one which could rapidly mutate and spread, meaning that each and every cold virus an individual catches is a variant?
The symptoms of the common cold are mainly an over-reaction of the bodies defences - that's the only thing that over-the-counter cold & flu remedies address.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
You caught me. Honestly, I have no idea. I thought it's the flu that mutates.
The "common cold" is a description of the symptoms caused by a very many viruses of different types. There is no one "cold virus," which is why there's no single cure - except for the amazing immune system.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 March, 2021, 08:53:06 PM
Not to take anything from him, but I think he may have been quoting Descartes there.
Proper Lol! Hope you're here all week!
Quote from: milstar on 06 March, 2021, 05:49:58 PM
Tbh, I am not someone who intrinsically follows what majority has to say, I am a bit rebellious there, but considering what went on before and after the assassination, and how the investigation was handled...
What exactly is the conspiracy? That Kennedy was shot after he spoke about against the military industrial complex? No that was Eisenhower ... I genuinely can't remember.
If you're interested in that era of the US, you might like American Tabloid (Ellroy 1995) and the follow-up The Cold Six Thousand (Ellroy 2001). Ellroy provides a hard-boiled fictional narrative that follows historical events surrounding the assassination of JFK.
In this 2013 episode of The Corbett Report (which has been scrubbed from YouTube) we explore the life and legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. Was he a poor, disgruntled loner or an overachieving marine? A presidential assassin or a sheep-dipped patsy? Find out in this special edition of The Corbett Report. (https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-lee-harvey-oswald-sheep-dipped-patsy/)
The Corbett Report being a notorious font of tin foil hattery, it's worth mentioning.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 06 March, 2021, 06:18:44 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 05 March, 2021, 08:53:06 PM
Not to take anything from him, but I think he may have been quoting Descartes there.
Proper Lol! Hope you're here all week!
Be careful what you wish for...
Is tinfoil-hattery the same as conspiracy theorising? Better? Worse? Does one need a tinfoil hat to examine conspiracy theories? Do they keep The Truth out so that only nonsense penetrates?
If you're going to entertain the idea that the official account of the Kennedy assassination might not be entirely as it seems, then I reckon the above podcast is as good a place to start sifting through the questions, answers, and possible alternatives as any. Give it a shot - what do you have to lose but a little time? - and you might even enjoy it.
Oh, well, that's easy - it's the difference between something presenting itself as fact and something presenting itself as fiction.
JFK, the movie, doesn't insist that it's a documentary. It's unabashedly a fictional mythology. And Ellroy's books are unabashedly fictions that explore the same mythology.
The Corbett Report (notorious font of tin foil hattery that it is) is pretending to be a factual news source.
Line drawn. Easy not to cross it.
Good that you gave it a chance.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 06 March, 2021, 06:26:53 PM
Quote from: milstar on 06 March, 2021, 05:49:58 PM
Tbh, I am not someone who intrinsically follows what majority has to say, I am a bit rebellious there, but considering what went on before and after the assassination, and how the investigation was handled...
What exactly is the conspiracy? That Kennedy was shot after he spoke about against the military industrial complex? No that was Eisenhower ... I genuinely can't remember.
Lot of theories around. Relaxing relationship with Cuba, association with mafia...who knows. This is excerpt from Wikipedia, regarding public opinion on the conspiracy.
According to author John C. McAdams, "[t]he greatest and grandest of all conspiracy theories is the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory."[30] Others have often referred to it as "the mother of all conspiracies".[31][32] The number of books written about the assassination of Kennedy has been estimated to be between 1,000[33][34] and 2,000.[20] According to Vincent Bugliosi, 95% of those books are "pro-conspiracy and anti-Warren Commission".[33]
Author David Krajicek describes Kennedy assassination enthusiasts as people belonging to "conspiracy theorists" on one side and "debunkers" on the other.[30] The great amount of controversy surrounding the event has resulted in bitter disputes between those who support the conclusion of the Warren Commission and those who reject it, or are critical of the official explanation with each side levelling toward the other accusations of "naivete, cynicism, and selective interpretation of the evidence".[32]
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that most Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. These same polls also show no agreement on who else may have been involved in the shooting. A 2003 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of Americans do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone.[35] That same year, an ABC News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination involved more than one person.[36] A 2004 Fox News poll noted that 66% of Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% believed that there was a cover-up.[37] In 2009, 76% of people polled for CBS News said they believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy.[38] A 2013 Gallup Poll found that 61% of Americans, the lowest figure in nearly 50 years, believed other people besides Oswald were involved.[39]
One of my favourite theories I've come across in recent years is documented in this film https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4082596/
Basically Cheronbyl was caused intentionally to cover the failure of the nearby antenna which was intended to detect US missle launches.
I like the fact it ascribes the motivation to the need to cover up a failure than to the desire for power/riches. That feels like a much more plausible motivation for insane actions than greed.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 06 March, 2021, 11:14:05 PM
Good that you gave it a chance.
Come into my web, said the spider to the fly. You're dissing me for not going and listening to a known font of anti-Semitic tropes in the guise of a news source. So, y'know, with all due respect, **** ***.
No, no - you're absolutely right. I've never seen American Tabloid (Ellroy 1995) or
the follow-up, The Cold Six Thousand (Ellroy 2001) because I already know they're crap without even watching them.
Quote from: sintec on 07 March, 2021, 12:07:34 AM
One of my favourite theories I've come across in recent years is documented in this film https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4082596/
Basically Cheronbyl was caused intentionally to cover the failure of the nearby antenna which was intended to detect US missle launches.
I like the fact it ascribes the motivation to the need to cover up a failure than to the desire for power/riches. That feels like a much more plausible motivation for insane actions than greed.
A conspiracy (although I am not really sure if it really was a conspiracy as I don't have more info on it) I've heard recently is that Soviets won ww2, backed with American money. Whether it's true or not and what is the motive behind it, I have no idea. Also, I'd like to check it out, only if I know where to look at.
(Btw, this came from Bruce Robinson, writer and director, have no idea too from where it came to him, but like he said "If you don't believe me, check it out").
I'm genuinely still not sure if you're having a laugh or not. The Soviets played a huge role in beating the Nazis - it's hardly a conspiracy theory; it's in the history books. As for the motive, well, I'm no history expert, but I'm guessing it's because Hitler tried to invade the Soviet Union and Stalin didn't want him to. I don't quite know where American money came into play, but given that the Americans and the Soviets were on the same side, it seems fairly logical that they'd help each other out.
Bruce Robinson is still a legend though.
Possibly a reference to the theory that the international banking system financed both sides. Again.
Most historians I've read over the years come down on the breakdown of the Ribbentrop / Molotov pact with the invasion of the Soviet Union. The general view (IIRC) is that Germany was always gearing up towards it.
Certainly the view that Russia played a far more significant role in the outcome of the 2nd World War is one that has existed for years. As for checking it out, well, take your pick of pretty much any history of WW2.
As for the American 'money', that would be lend-lease which the UK benefited from as well. A lot of effort went into the Arctic convoys that resupplied the Soviet War Machine as much as their own factories did.
My recollection is that a lot of the US/Soviet antipathy evolved more toward the end of the war as it became apparent that the Soviets were taking a serious interest in expanding their sphere of influence.
So I'm going to go with your interpretation here, this is straying into laughable territory / trolling. Personally I can't even begin to believe that we are even thinking of defending it.
Conspiracy theories used to be, for me anyway, a relatively fun way of interrogating Stuff About Things. There weren't that many well known ones but now it feels that everything people don't like is the result of a nefarious conspiracy - it's become a way of dismissing the need for actual evidence to demonstrate or explain events or phenomena and an unwillingness to accept coincidence as a real thing. This suits the Edge Lords. As Terry Pratchett put it, million to one chances happen nine times out of ten.
Young Earth Creationists claim that, obviously, the Earth is vastly younger than several billion years. This means they can claim evolution isn't real and there hasn't been enough time for it to produce the biological complexity we see on Earth. They point at, say, the intricate relationship between plants and insects as something so complex it couldn't be produced by chance.
Therefore all of life and Earth scientists both now and in the past are part of a conspiracy to keep perpetuating the lie of an old Earth. Never mind the physicists and chemists keeping schtum too.
I don't really know where I'm going with this, but it's an example of something that goes beyond any reason to maintain a worldview that's nonsense.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 March, 2021, 10:18:27 AM
I'm genuinely still not sure if you're having a laugh or not. The Soviets played a huge role in beating the Nazis - it's hardly a conspiracy theory; it's in the history books. As for the motive, well, I'm no history expert, but I'm guessing it's because Hitler tried to invade the Soviet Union and Stalin didn't want him to. I don't quite know where American money came into play, but given that the Americans and the Soviets were on the same side, it seems fairly logical that they'd help each other out.
Bruce Robinson is still a legend though.
Jesus, man. I am laughing at these claims. While everybody knows that Soviets reached Hitler first, US and Soviets were not working together. They were allied in the same cause but were not partners. And why would Americans give money to the Soviets? Pretty logical question. Given also that they wanted to defeat Hitler first. And agree or not, they pretty much disliked each other. Besides, such claim diminishes efforts done by every country who played major role in defeating Nazis. But to Bruce's credit, he did not deny the efforts and bravery of men who died for Allied faction.
Some very odd people here to say the least.
I found this useful in any debate about conspiracy https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/conspiracy-theory-handbook/
Good post, Mikey.
I'm pretty much the same. In the past, I used to enjoy the conspiracy articles in the Fortean Times, for example. Then, every now and again, some conspiracy myth proves true and spoils the fun. I am reminded of the Bilderberg meetings; when I first heard of them they were a paranoid fiction only a loon would believe existed. Turns out they're real and have been going on in secret/private since the 50s. They even have a website (https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.html), for Icke's sake. Nowadays, we all knew it was real all the time and it's no big deal anyway - increasingly archaic in this interconnected world. Probably.
The writer in me is interested in all that kind of stuff - I don't believe it's likely that Elvis is running a CIA mind-control facility hidden inside a London bus on the Moon, but it might make for the foundation of a cracking comedic tale. Or maybe not.
I think you're spot on when you write about the term "conspiracy theory" being a label attached to anything people don't like. It's become a blatant fallacy - X is false because it is a conspiracy theory. No need to even look at X. There's nothing real to see. Move along. Move along. Conversely, it is characterised by those using this definition as meaning, X cannot be adequately explained, therefore X is a conspiracy theory. No need to even look at X. There's nothing real to see. Move along. Move along.
The solution is quite simple, of course. Look at X.
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 12:03:07 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 March, 2021, 10:18:27 AM
I'm genuinely still not sure if you're having a laugh or not. The Soviets played a huge role in beating the Nazis - it's hardly a conspiracy theory; it's in the history books. As for the motive, well, I'm no history expert, but I'm guessing it's because Hitler tried to invade the Soviet Union and Stalin didn't want him to. I don't quite know where American money came into play, but given that the Americans and the Soviets were on the same side, it seems fairly logical that they'd help each other out.
Bruce Robinson is still a legend though.
Jesus, man. I am laughing at these claims. While everybody knows that Soviets reached Hitler first, US and Soviets were not working together. They were allied in the same cause but were not partners. And why would Americans give money to the Soviets? Pretty logical question. Given also that they wanted to defeat Hitler first. And agree or not, they pretty much disliked each other. Besides, such claim diminishes efforts done by every country who played major role in defeating Nazis. But to Bruce's credit, he did not deny the efforts and bravery of men who died for Allied faction.
I'm still not seeing anything in Bruce's 'theory' that contradicts any historical account of it I've read, or what I said in my post. But I'll leave it at that.
Actually to be fair, he said (according to you) that the Soviets won ww2. What I said, and what I've read, was that they played a huge role in winning WW2. If he actually thinks that they did it single-handedly then that's definitely bizarre. As for the US donations, I never claimed to know anything about that - but it does seem to me that Allies would work together in a war, whether or not they 'dislike' each other.
Quote from: Mikey on 07 March, 2021, 11:59:53 AM
Young Earth Creationists claim that, obviously, the Earth is vastly younger than several billion years.
You geologists, all in the pocket of Big Magma.
Magma, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboy geologists.
I'll get me chaps...
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 March, 2021, 01:20:39 PM
Actually to be fair, he said (according to you) that the Soviets won ww2. What I said, and what I've read, was that they played a huge role in winning WW2.
I think the argument is that since they got to Hitler before the Americans, the Soviets were responsible for ending the Nazi threat and thus the war the Nazis instigated, but this kind of reduces the Japanese campaign that continued for months after the fall of Berlin to an afterthought. As for "American money", this might be a reference to the Marshall Plan, though that was a pretty public initiative.
An interesting conspiracy theory was that the Americans bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima purely because they feared the Soviets might get a foothold in any ground war in Japan, but the truth turns out to be almost laughably straightforward: America was so hopped-up on its own anti-Japanese racist propaganda that the newly-installed president Truman feared for his election chances if the public ever found out he had the option to bomb Japan and didn't take it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go).
So basically for the first and last time in history, disaster occurred because America was very racist and there was an ambitious incompetent in the presidential office.
Cheers prof, I'm actually not that clued in on history. I dropped it at school at the age of 15 in favour of Geography, and have spend a long time regretting it and trying to fill in the haps. The only thing I'm not seeing is how the Soviet role in winning WW2 is being cited (not by you of course) as some kind of fringe conspiracy theory, when, afaik at least, there's nothing in the mainstream canon of history that contradicts it. Or, once again, maybe I'm being successfully trolled, in which case shame on me.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 March, 2021, 01:20:39 PM
Actually to be fair, he said (according to you) that the Soviets won ww2. What I said, and what I've read, was that they played a huge role in winning WW2. If he actually thinks that they did it single-handedly then that's definitely bizarre. As for the US donations, I never claimed to know anything about that - but it does seem to me that Allies would work together in a war, whether or not they 'dislike' each other.
https://youtu.be/d4rZDnRXIkg
Go to 01:13:30
Anyway, that's how I understood him (I admit that there is a chance that understood it wrong) that Soviets won the war. Even if they did it single-handed, I can't believe it's because Americans paid them to.
Off ww2 ramblings, I generally love conspiracies, but I don't like stupid ones (like, Earth's flat). And despite my proclaimed affection at them, I don't necessarily believe in them (I said previously in which actually I believe in).
But people who exclusively do, I like to think they try to find some rationality in this, as Alan Moore put it, anarchic rudderless world. Like when Guy Pearce's character in LA Confidental tells how his father was shot and killed by unknown assailant, who apparently never was caught for his crime, so Guy Pearce decided to give the killer a name, to make him more like anonymous thug. And despite all looney theories around, i am not in favor of mocking conspiracy theorists. Oh no.
Thanks, I'll have a look at the interview later today. Whatever else about him, he is the director of one of the best films ever made.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 March, 2021, 03:17:48 PM
Thanks, I'll have a look at the interview later today. Whatever else about him, he is the director of one of the best films ever made.
I concur. Whitnail & I masterpiece, Jennifer 8 severely underrated thriller.
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 March, 2021, 03:17:48 PM
Thanks, I'll have a look at the interview later today. Whatever else about him, he is the director of one of the best films ever made.
I concur. Whitnail & I masterpiece, Jennifer 8 severely underrated thriller.
Haven't seen that one. I'll keep an eye out
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 March, 2021, 02:57:47 PM
Cheers prof, I'm actually not that clued in on history. I dropped it at school at the age of 15 in favour of Geography, and have spend a long time regretting it and trying to fill in the haps. The only thing I'm not seeing is how the Soviet role in winning WW2 is being cited (not by you of course) as some kind of fringe conspiracy theory, when, afaik at least, there's nothing in the mainstream canon of history that contradicts it. Or, once again, maybe I'm being successfully trolled, in which case shame on me.
You're pretty on the ball here with what happened at the end of WW2. The Cold War ramped up for two reasons - to curb the Soviet / Communist sphere of influence and the influence of our old favourite, the military industrial complex, which wants to keep America in a continual state of war because .. money.
If you do want to read up on European history in particular the world wars I would recommend Robert Service & Max Hastings as a good place to start.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 07 March, 2021, 07:21:35 AM
No, no - you're absolutely right. I've never seen American Tabloid (Ellroy 1995) or
the follow-up, The Cold Six Thousand (Ellroy 2001) because I already know they're crap without even watching them.
I have to assume you're trolling me now, as you're ignoring the logical points I made and trying to equate fiction and lies. Fictional books are different from a source that purports to be news whilst perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes. Argue the point or step off.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 07 March, 2021, 04:29:38 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 March, 2021, 02:57:47 PM
Cheers prof, I'm actually not that clued in on history. I dropped it at school at the age of 15 in favour of Geography, and have spend a long time regretting it and trying to fill in the haps. The only thing I'm not seeing is how the Soviet role in winning WW2 is being cited (not by you of course) as some kind of fringe conspiracy theory, when, afaik at least, there's nothing in the mainstream canon of history that contradicts it. Or, once again, maybe I'm being successfully trolled, in which case shame on me.
You're pretty on the ball here with what happened at the end of WW2. The Cold War ramped up for two reasons - to curb the Soviet / Communist sphere of influence and the influence of our old favourite, the military industrial complex, which wants to keep America in a continual state of war because .. money.
If you do want to read up on European history in particular the world wars I would recommend Robert Service & Max Hastings as a good place to start.
I will, thanks!
Regarding the relationship between the Allies in WWII - it is certainly true that the US economy drove the success of the Allies. The lend-lease plan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union) sent large quantities of arms and equipment to Britain and to Russia during the war. This is not a conspiracy - it was open US government policy of the time.
To provide some notion of the significance of this to the outcome of the war: "92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease".
In terms of manpower, there is a strong argument that the European aspect of WWII was indeed hard-won in large part by the Russians. Their military casualties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Soviet_Union) were approximately twenty-four million. For the US, it was about one million (including the war in the Pacific). This is not to downplay the sacrifice of any Allied nation (or even, at the level of front-line soldiery) that of the Axis: simply to illustrate the scale and complexity of the conflict.
If you're interested in the history of WWII, you could do worse than read The Second World War (Anthony Beevor 2012).
Thanks, Funt. Another book for the list
Quote from: Funt Solo on 07 March, 2021, 04:56:31 PM
...a source that purports to be news whilst perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes. Argue the point or step off.
Which episode was it that convinced you of this?
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 07 March, 2021, 06:47:09 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 07 March, 2021, 04:56:31 PM
...a source that purports to be news whilst perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes. Argue the point or step off.
Which episode was it that convinced you of this?
The one where he suggested that Hitler was a Rothschild. Or how about the one that denies the existence of gas chambers? You don't have to look very far to find the strong whiff of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. The global cabal you're always banging on about - always turns out (in these "news" stories) to be of a particular religion. Can you guess which one?
So, either you're a confirmed anti-Semite, or just a careless partaker at the slightly obfuscated well. In either case, please stop peddling that horrible shit in my direction, would you? I don't want to link to the videos because that will provide the horrible little Nazi man with $$$, and I don't want to financially reward him for his hate speech. For some reason, you do.
---
The idea that any source you can point to has anything new to teach me about the mythology surrounding JFK's assassination is just laughable. I've already consumed enough to know that nobody knows any more than anyone else, except that JFK was assassinated, and that Lee Harvey Oswald fired a gun at him at the same moment. Everything else is conjecture, of which I have in my life imbibed enough to be satisfied. You are offering me "just one wafer-thin mint" (without realizing that it's been poisoned).
But you haven't actually seen an episode, right?
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 07 March, 2021, 07:18:49 PM
But you haven't actually seen an episode, right?
So you're actually a
Nazi, right? [I am simply playing your own game back at you here.]
Quote from: Funt Solo on 07 March, 2021, 07:20:54 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 07 March, 2021, 07:18:49 PM
But you haven't actually seen an episode, right?
So you're actually a Nazi, right? [I am simply playing your own game back at you here.]
Sorry to double post, but the idea that I need to read Mein Kampf in order to argue against Hitler's world view is essentially the argument that you're making.
Actually, the argument I'm making is that you are dismissing something based on hearsay. Not only that, but you are basing accusations of Nazism against the same source, and by extension me, based on the same hearsay. "You are a Nazi because somebody told me a podcast you listen to is made by a Nazi."
Even the example you give proves my point - you absolutely do have to read Mein Kampf, and the rest of his personal papers, if you want to honestly and accurately argue against Hitler's world-view, otherwise you're just arguing against other people's interpretations of Hitler's world-view. (And we're talking world-view, not historical impact, which is a different argument.)
Does my constant call for the right, of everyone to say "No" really sound like fascism to you? Do you think I would encourage you to sell your soul to the shade of Hitler by pointing you towards a Nazi website?
You started this "debate" thread and the first thing you did was have another tilt at some of my old posts. I didn't rise because, same old, same old. We've danced that dance before, many times. I'm as tired of it as you are, so fancied something different. I offered a proper debate, you declined.
You recognise the difference between investigation and theorising, yet somehow still see only the theorist. You mention an interest in the JFK conspiracy theory, which many share - including myself - and so I post a link to a podcast about Lee Harvey Oswald by one of the most respected "conspiracy theorists" in the field but, again, you're not interested. You know all you need to know (how did he afford that stay in a luxury hotel in Norway on his way to defect to the USSR?) and, even if you didn't, you've heard this guy's a Nazi Jew-hater so he can't know anything anyway.
I'm beginning to suspect it's me you don't like, My recommendation that's stopping you from listening to what I thought was a very interesting podcast that I think you might find interesting as well. I don't think there are any subliminal mind-control messages in there, so if you keep your skepticism about you you should be fine.
Like I said earlier, look at X. Then you'll know for sure.
Regarding Allies in ww2, I would appreciate if someone gives evidence that US gave Soviets money to fight Hitler as I for number of reasons find such claim ludicrous and senseless. Backing up your ideological enemy which Soviets were for Americans and vice versa (capitalist pigs and communist swines), which started before Cold War. Let alone that US suffered heavy economical crisis just a few years prior, neither it was in US interest to back up Soviets. Soviets indeed died a lot, but that was because comrade Stalin sent many men as possible through the meat grinder. But regardless, they did not won alone Hitler. And they never were considered as part of Allied faction. At least I never saw it anywhere.
https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/
First result when I Googled, "Who financed Russia in WWII?"
Shark - I offered some fictional takes on the JFK myth because I enjoyed them. But they're presented as fiction and labeled as such. You're offering a fiction that labels itself as fact (from a Holocaust denial site). No thank-you, very much. It's not you - it's what you're offering.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 07 March, 2021, 02:57:47 PM
...maybe I'm being successfully trolled, in which case shame on me.
Well, he keeps asking for evidence after being provided with evidence, so either troll or ... something less kind.
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 08:37:18 PM
And they never were considered as part of Allied faction. At least I never saw it anywhere.
Not even Potsdam?
(https://www.airforcemag.com/Image/MagazineArchive/PublishingImages/2017/September%202017/0917_Correll_Potsdam_HV20.jpg)
I have been listening to Corbett for many years and have never heard him deny the Holocaust or promote it as a good or necessary thing. He criticises some aspects of Israel's government, as he criticises some aspects of all governments, but his criticisms are based on neither race or religion.
I'm not saying that everything he says is correct or all his opinions are valid - something he often says himself - but I find him in no way bigoted, racist, or fascist. Your conception of him is of a person I do not recognise.
At the end of the day, it's up to you. Listen to it, don't listen to it. It's no skin off my fin. But, please, if you don't want to then I don't care, honestly, I ask only that you don't then try to justify your disinterest by throwing second-hand accusations around in the hope something will stick. You have a better mind than that.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 07 March, 2021, 08:11:18 PM
... you absolutely do have to read Mein Kampf, and the rest of his personal papers, if you want to honestly and accurately argue against Hitler's world-view, otherwise you're just arguing against other people's interpretations of Hitler's world-view.
I think I get your point, and from a purely academic stance you're broadly right, although if you want to be purely
pedantic academic, Mein Kampf would only really give you an insight into 20-something jailbird emo Hitler's worldview. The worldview of Fuhrer and Trump-level-arsebiscuit Hitler would probably be a bit different, because people can be wildly inconsistent. You did mention you would have to read all other personal papers and correspondence, but you would have to have a serious academic interest to start into that. Honestly I don't have the time, a serious enough interest or the even adequate intellectual tools to get into all that, but others do, so I would defer to them. I might not be qualified to give a full dissertation arguing the minutiae of Hitler's views, but I don't think history has been too unkind to him and I think I can honestly and accurately say Hitler's worldview was that of a bigoted, narcissistic, antisemitic wee dickhead. I think it's not unfair to say you can only honestly and accurately assess someone's world view by having an open and frank face-to-face conversation. Unfortunately we cannot do this with Hitler because he was murdered by *checks notes* Huh, Hitler killed Hitler, maybe he wasnae so bad.
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 March, 2021, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 08:37:18 PM
And they never were considered as part of Allied faction. At least I never saw it anywhere.
Not even Potsdam?
(https://i.imgur.com/Pq1d84u.png)
C'mon, Tordelback - that's clearly been doctored!
I'm happy to say that Hitler was a bad 'un, even though I've never read his book. I'm also happy to believe that the Earth is a globe, despite never having actually checked for myself.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 07 March, 2021, 09:48:50 PM
At the end of the day, it's up to you. Listen to it, don't listen to it. It's no skin off my fin. But, please, if you don't want to then I don't care, honestly, I ask only that you don't then try to justify your disinterest by throwing second-hand accusations around in the hope something will stick. You have a better mind than that.
If you can promote something that doesn't have any credible source behind it, then I can denigrate it. Fair? (It took me about five seconds of internet sleuthing to find links to fascist ideology riding on the coattails of your recommended source, which propagates the myth that the world is controlled by a secret cabal. You're allowed to believe it in the same way as I'm allowed to call it out as bullshit.)
Y'see, when I had my appendix out, I didn't stop the surgeon and ask for some medical books so I could study up on the procedure first - because I recognized the surgeon was an expert. Fuck it - even if he was some charlatan, he was the best option I had right then.
I rely on experts so that I don't have to become an expert on everything (because that's impossible, as amazing as I am). And then I rely on consensus, because then one rogue expert can't pull a sneaky and fool me with bullshit.
I disagree quite fundamentally with your approach of listening to lone non-experts who purport to be experts on everything, and the idea that everything I assume to be true must first be closely studied at a microscopic level. So, no - I don't need to always look at 'X'. And I think that's a ridiculous approach to life, or truth-seeking, or whatever it is you're doing.
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 March, 2021, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 08:37:18 PM
And they never were considered as part of Allied faction. At least I never saw it anywhere.
Not even Potsdam?
(https://www.airforcemag.com/Image/MagazineArchive/PublishingImages/2017/September%202017/0917_Correll_Potsdam_HV20.jpg)
Actually, I had more in mind Yalta conference :)
Quote from: Funt Solo on 07 March, 2021, 10:56:34 PM
I don't need to always look at 'X'. And I think that's a ridiculous approach to life, or truth-seeking, or whatever it is you're doing.
I'm going to introduce quantum physics to this discussion, which is basically the intellectual equivalent of flipping the game board, but fuck it, I'm not that well informed on World War II, and this is closer to my wheelhouse.
You cannot draw any definitive conclusions by looking at "x". The act of observing "x" means a bare minimum of one photon has to bounce off it. The energy imparted by that one photon bouncing off "x" might change the fundamental nature of "x". The angle at which that photon bounces off "x" might change it in different ways, to the point where multiple observers, at various angles might simultaneously see different versions of "x". Some might even see "+". You could take things to the extreme and claim that, isomorphically, "x" is just two lines intersecting, so from certain angles the photons bouncing off it might make it look like an "L". To paraphrase Feynman, if any of this makes sense, you're not paying attention.
In this case, you should try and collate as many observers as you can. Observers from multiple angles. Then it's just up to you whether you accept the consensus that there's an "x", or listen to someone who definitely saw an "L".
To be clear, the people claiming "L" in this case are the conspiracy nuts. The evidence they have presented isn't wrong. Their individual observation cannot be denied. It's their failure to take other, contradictive evidence into account, that makes them wrong.
You can go back to proving history happened to Milstar now, my apologies. Quantum is bullshit argument.
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 11:48:34 PM
Actually, I had more in mind Yalta conference :)
How about Tehran 1943?
(https://cdn.britannica.com/67/48167-050-21151FA6/Joseph-Stalin-Franklin-D-Roosevelt-Soviet-Winston-December-1943.jpg)
Quote from: Funt Solo on 07 March, 2021, 10:56:34 PM
(It took me about five seconds of internet sleuthing to find links to fascist ideology riding on the coattails of your recommended source, which propagates the myth that the world is controlled by a secret cabal.
I'd like to see those links.
That Josef 'Keanu Depp' Stalin has really let himself go.
(https://newcriterion.com/storage/app/media/442px-Stalin_1902.jpg)
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 08:37:18 PM
And they never were considered as part of Allied faction. At least I never saw it anywhere.
... now I'm convinced this is trolling.
QuoteI'd like to see those links.
Aaaaarrrgg! Why? Do you doubt they exist? Are you so unwilling to accept that other people know more than you that you have to get evidence of everything?
Let's save you the effort. Pick one.
A) "thanks for the links. Here are some links which say its not fascist, which you now have to waste your time reading"
B) "all forms of so-called government are fascist."
C) " hey guys, I never said I believed in anything, I just think its important to have a healthy debate about
everything."
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 March, 2021, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: Mikey on 07 March, 2021, 11:59:53 AM
Young Earth Creationists claim that, obviously, the Earth is vastly younger than several billion years.
You geologists, all in the pocket of Big Magma.
I see you failed to mention the role of Big Ditch in keeping archaeologists on message.
...
So the Russians weren't allies? What's with all those US and UK WW2 tanks and planes in Russian mark schemes about then?
Quote from: Modern Panther on 08 March, 2021, 09:20:34 AM
QuoteI'd like to see those links.
Aaaaarrrgg! Why? Do you doubt they exist? Are you so unwilling to accept that other people know more than you that you have to get evidence of everything?
Let's save you the effort. Pick one.
A) "thanks for the links. Here are some links which say its not fascist, which you now have to waste your time reading"
B) "all forms of so-called government are fascist."
C) " hey guys, I never said I believed in anything, I just think its important to have a healthy debate about everything."
No, I don't doubt they exist. I'd like to investigate these specific links for myself. If Funt is correct, and I've missed something in my 10+ years (on an off) of listening to this podcast, then I need to know.
When I've done that, I'll be in a better position to respond. As it is, I can't square Funt's allegations with the site I am familiar with - which may well be a blind spot on my part. I have to know whether James Corbett, who always claims to be a voluntarist and presents numerous podcasts on this and similar solutions to modern ills which are as decentralised as possible, who claims each and every human is a sovereign being with no innate obligation to authority, who rejects violence as a solution, and who is a fine investigator, is really an undercover Nazi.
Funt made his determination in five seconds - so those must be some very compelling links and I really,
really, want to see them.
Quote from: Tjm86 on 08 March, 2021, 08:30:26 AM
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 08:37:18 PM
... now I'm convinced this is trolling.
Such Allies they were, competing with each other who'll defeat Hitler, while secretly conspiring into Cold War. I think both were aware of that.
Well, both sides scrambled to quietly "recruit" top Nazi experts in many fields as the War ended. I think the USA and USSR were uncomfortable wartime bedfellows driven by the simple 'enemy of my enemy' expediency.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 08 March, 2021, 10:42:28 AM
Well, both sides scrambled to quietly "recruit" top Nazi experts in many fields as the War ended. I think the USA and USSR were uncomfortable wartime bedfellows driven by the simple 'enemy of my enemy' expediency.
True. God knows how many Nazi "scientists" were recruited into their ranks.
Quote from: milstar on 08 March, 2021, 10:45:06 AM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 08 March, 2021, 10:42:28 AM
Well, both sides scrambled to quietly "recruit" top Nazi experts in many fields as the War ended. I think the USA and USSR were uncomfortable wartime bedfellows driven by the simple 'enemy of my enemy' expediency.
True. God knows how many Nazi "scientists" were recruited into their ranks.
While it's true that many scientists from Germany were recruited after the war, not all of them were necessarily Nazi true believers. Many couldn't just abandon their life's work when the Third Reich rose to power because that might also mean abandoning their life.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 07 March, 2021, 10:01:38 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 07 March, 2021, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 08:37:18 PM
And they never were considered as part of Allied faction. At least I never saw it anywhere.
Not even Potsdam?
(https://i.imgur.com/Pq1d84u.png)
C'mon, Tordelback - that's clearly been doctored!
It can't have been. They didn't have Photoshop back then.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 08 March, 2021, 11:18:49 AM
While it's true that many scientists from Germany were recruited after the war, not all of them were necessarily Nazi true believers. Many couldn't just abandon their life's work when the Third Reich rose to power because that might also mean abandoning their life.
Good point, well made.
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 08 March, 2021, 11:36:33 AM
It can't have been. They didn't have Photoshop back then.
The ICIA has had Photoshop* since the zombie of Abraham Lincoln signed the Orion Accords** in 1843 - everybody knows that.***
* No they haven't.
** No he didn't.
*** No they don't.
At the risk of ripping off the bandage on some of the tin-foil-hattery we've seen recently, especially around the issue of Russia, the Bolsheviks proved themselves incredibly adept at photographic manipulation in the 20's and 30's, long before the advent of photoshop.
Even the most cursory examination of photographs from different points in the period shows significant manipulation as different individuals fell in and out of favour.
So it's entirely possibly that Mickey Mouse and Goofy were present at Potsdam but during the McCarthyite purges their contributions were airbrushed out as they fell foul of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities ... :(
Quote from: Tjm86 on 08 March, 2021, 12:56:25 PM
So it's entirely possibly that Mickey Mouse and Goofy were present at Potsdam but during the McCarthyite purges their contributions were airbrushed out as they fell foul of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities ... :(
Who said anything about Goofy being there? I don't see him there. Exactly how much do you know? Who are you
really?
Quote from: Mister Pops on 08 March, 2021, 11:18:49 AM
... not all of them were necessarily Nazi true believers.
Which brought to mind the 'Clean Wermacht' effort. It was of course good for the Western allies to help perpetuate this because of the Cold War, but despite the fact it's clear the Wermacht was far, far from innocent, I still can't shake the notion that a lot of them were probably not 'true believers' as you put it. They were doing what they thought was right (if they volunteered).
Young men do stupid things sometimes, especially when other young men are doing stupid things. It turns out they were spectacularly on the wrong side of history in this case.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 08 March, 2021, 05:54:20 AM
Quote from: milstar on 07 March, 2021, 11:48:34 PM
Actually, I had more in mind Yalta conference :)
How about Tehran 1943?
(https://cdn.britannica.com/67/48167-050-21151FA6/Joseph-Stalin-Franklin-D-Roosevelt-Soviet-Winston-December-1943.jpg)
Uh - is it just me, or can anyone else see a blurred Mickey looking out of the window in the top left corner?
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 08 March, 2021, 10:42:28 AM
I think the USA and USSR were uncomfortable wartime bedfellows driven by the simple 'enemy of my enemy' expediency.
Pretty much exactly. The US didn't really care (at the time) that Stalin's army was sweeping over Europe, because the math said that they wanted Europe to be done and dusted so they could focus on the Pacific war.
In fact, the US felt hounded by Churchill because he kept banging on about Soviet influence in Europe and they (the US) felt like the British were just doing their usual Empire-building thing.
It's only post-war, with the nukes on the scene, and the US starting to lord it over the Sovs that things start to get chilly.
[/quote]
Uh - is it just me, or can anyone else see a blurred Mickey looking out of the window in the top left corner?
[/quote]
If you posed that question to someone here / from The Emerald Isle, you would quite possibly be advised to see an Opthamologist and / or Urologist as a matter of some urgency.
(That is to say, after the person you asked had managed to stop rolling around the ground with laughter. Because...well...let's just say that the word "Mickey" has a somewhat alternative meaning in this neck of the woods... :)
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 08 March, 2021, 11:36:33 AM
It can't have been. They didn't have Photoshop back then.
Photoshop was originally based on real world techniques. The first time I used photoshop in 1993 it really was just a digital version of the darkroom. I used dodge and burn a load, no layers and that but paths. The masking and editing that it has become famous for was in that too and it was damn cool. But it only copied what could be achieved with editing photos together and negative re-touching. Whether it was as good/seamless as it is today with photoshop I don't know but I dabbled in the 80's with prints and negatives in my teens adding a deceased member to a family portrait and it was pretty decent for someone with little experience. So maybe not photoshop but the potential to manipulate, quite convincingly I'll say, pictures can be manipulated.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 08 March, 2021, 10:26:23 AM
If Funt is correct, and I've missed something in my 10+ years (on an off) of listening to this podcast, then I need to know.
So, you missed the feature-length enslavement "documentary" in which a largely Jewish banking cabal was blamed for ... *checks notes* ... all the world's ills? And because the secret banks deliberately caused World War II, they argue (in another video) that Hitler was nothing but a patsy. Oh, poor old Adolf! He was tricked. By ... his victims! Genius! [I'm not posting the links or even saying the name of the guy's site, because I know you know it already and because I don't want to spread his horrible messages around.]
This is quite apart from the complete fringe quackery that makes up the entire content of the guy's site: 9/11 was faked, global warming is a hoax, the virus ain't real etc.
His videos are all of the format of being so dense as to be inscrutable - with about thirty ideas a minute flowing out and interconnecting everything that's ever happened ever. It's just rank bullshit. Tin Foil Hat of Gullibility+5, +6 vs. Reason required to listen to more than about a minute of that font of rambling buffoonery.
Knock yourself out, but if you punt it here, I'll probably keep pointing out it's dangerous lunacy.
Oh - and what Pops said about the 'L' and the 'X'. That was beautiful. I wept.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 08 March, 2021, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: Tjm86 on 08 March, 2021, 12:56:25 PM
So it's entirely possibly that Mickey Mouse and Goofy were present at Potsdam but during the McCarthyite purges their contributions were airbrushed out as they fell foul of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities ... :(
Who said anything about Goofy being there? I don't see him there. Exactly how much do you know? Who are you really?
That's the point isn't it? Since he has been airbrushed out of history after being blacklisted by McCarthy, no one is willing to admit to his role in the treaties and negotiations of the final days of the second world war.
If you do your research properly you will find that all of the major events of the 20th Century were part of a secret conflict between Disney and Looney Tunes. Disney has been secretly manipulating events to bring about global domination and to mind wash the human race.
This idea that we are all in the thrall to some Jewish banking cabal is just a smokescreen to distract us from the real threat. Don't believe me? Look at the latest attacks. Pepe Le Pew is now being outed as a serial rapist. You just know they'll be coming for Jessica Rabbit next ...
Quote from: gurnard on 08 March, 2021, 03:22:37 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 08 March, 2021, 11:36:33 AM
It can't have been. They didn't have Photoshop back then.
Photoshop was originally based on real world techniques. The first time I used photoshop in 1993 it really was just a digital version of the darkroom. I used dodge and burn a load, no layers and that but paths. The masking and editing that it has become famous for was in that too and it was damn cool. But it only copied what could be achieved with editing photos together and negative re-touching. Whether it was as good/seamless as it is today with photoshop I don't know but I dabbled in the 80's with prints and negatives in my teens adding a deceased member to a family portrait and it was pretty decent for someone with little experience. So maybe not photoshop but the potential to manipulate, quite convincingly I'll say, pictures can be manipulated.
It was meant to be a joke.
A joke.
Not a very good one, as is now obvious to me.
It's good to see Mickey advancing from steamboat Willy to spying world's politicians. I wilt never look at Mickey Mouse with the same eyes.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 03:22:52 PM
I'm not posting the links or even saying the name of the guy's site, because I know you know it already and because I don't want to spread his horrible messages around.
Then please pm them to me, or email me at sharkpoolATgmailDOTcom.
Cheers.
Really? You know his name, and you know he did a full length, documentary-style bucket of nonsense with the word "enslavement" in the title, because I just posted that. You said you'd followed the guy for ten years (which sort of explains your world view), and you missed that? You can't just Google it yourself? C'mon along! You have got to be pulling my leg.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 08 March, 2021, 07:40:57 AM
That Josef 'Keanu Depp' Stalin has really let himself go.
(https://newcriterion.com/storage/app/media/442px-Stalin_1902.jpg)
Would definitely like to be more than comrades with this guy!
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 08 March, 2021, 04:30:29 PM
It was meant to be a joke.
I actually got it, and normally these things fly over my head. I bet those others feel pretty goofy now. This entire threads gone off the deep end - it's daffy.
Quote from: milstar on 08 March, 2021, 10:37:16 AM
Such Allies they were, competing with each other who'll defeat Hitler, while secretly conspiring into Cold War. I think both were aware of that.
No one said they were best friends .. my enemy's enemy is my friend etc
Quote from: Rara Avis on 08 March, 2021, 05:51:05 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 08 March, 2021, 07:40:57 AM
That Josef 'Keanu Depp' Stalin has really let himself go.
(https://newcriterion.com/storage/app/media/442px-Stalin_1902.jpg)
Would definitely like to be more than comrades with this guy!
One of my favorite bits of Stalin-lore is that his name was actually Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili, and he changed it to "Joe Steel" (because Stalin just means steel). He gave himself a superhero name.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 05:27:53 PM
Really? You know his name, and you know he did a full length, documentary-style bucket of nonsense with the word "enslavement" in the title, because I just posted that. You said you'd followed the guy for ten years (which sort of explains your world view), and you missed that? You can't just Google it yourself? C'mon along! You have got to be pulling my leg.
So, you've never seen an episode and you won't share your links. How about your search terms? What exactly did you type in to Google so I can reconstruct your results?
Let me guess - that's copyrighted information.
Oh ffs ... first, his name, which you know, then E-N-S-L-A...
Just post me your keyboard and I'll do it.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 05:51:16 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 08 March, 2021, 04:30:29 PM
It was meant to be a joke.
I actually got it, and normally these things fly over my head. I bet those others feel pretty goofy now. This entire threads gone off the deep end - it's daffy.
See, this is what I was talking about .... following the clues .... Looney Tunes and Hannah Barbara dominated Western Civilisation for years but where are they now? It's all the House of Mouse!
I'm telling you, it's a conspiracy but no-one was watching!
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 06:14:25 PM
One of my favorite bits of Stalin-lore is that his name was actually Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili, and he changed it to "Joe Steel" (because Stalin just means steel). He gave himself a superhero name.
The Man of Steel sounds like something someone who looks like Hipster Stalin would call himself to seduce young female Bolsheviks ..
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/38/97/92/389792f31b60bfb4c5bebc45bd30a89f--joseph-stalin-bad-puns.jpg)
"Sta ... Sta ... Sta .. Sta lin! Russia's Greatest love machine!"
So those were the Boney M lyric's the first time then!
So, "James Corbett, Century of Enslavement" (?)was the first thing you typed in to Google at the start of your five second search? Never having seen an episode, you just happened to turn your spotlight upon such a specific search term? Are you sure it wasn't something like, "is James Corbett a Nazi?"
You know what, forget it. If I remember that episode right it's a history of the Federal Reserve - for you, who have never listened to it but somehow knew its title, it's about something else entirely.
I think I'll keep on risking missing the point, if you don't mind, because your five seconds of research and refusal to share the data supporting your baffling conclusions somehow isn't cutting it for me.
I love that you're all "question everything" and "examine x", but as soon as someone brings up some negative points about your beloved conspiracy guru you go all attack dog and start laying about with the ad homs. Shouldn't you be questioning the validity of his points, given that there's no expert consensus to back up his nonsense-scape?
And shouldn't you be specific in your allegations and willing to support them - and willing to consider counter-arguments?
As I've already said, I'm willing to explore the possibility that I am wrong about James Corbett. Are you?
So, what - he doesn't make videos about faked 9/11 attacks? He doesn't downplay the effects of Covid? He doesn't suggest that WWII was staged by a global banking cartel?
Because, yes, if I imagined all of that then I'm willing to concede that it's me that's insane and not him.
Shark, this is us, now, for several pages:
(https://i.imgur.com/pPfZhhI.png)
Well, there you have taken three very complex issues, removed all context, and boiled them down to short, twisted absurdities that support your original view. Without listening to a single episode.
I suggest you pick an episode, we'll both listen to it and then discuss it (discuss, mind, not attack/defend) - no rush, say up to a week, and when we're both ready we can start.
I further suggest the LHO one, as we can consider the historical and popular nature of the JFK thing a "safe" conspiracy theory, as it were, about which you are already knowledgeable, giving you at least one metric from which to judge.
Feels more like
(https://dgeiu3fz282x5.cloudfront.net/g/x/x-18988.jpg)
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 08 March, 2021, 09:12:16 PM
I suggest you pick an episode, we'll both listen to it and then discuss it (discuss, mind, not attack/defend) - no rush, say up to a week, and when we're both ready we can start.
This is a perfectly reasonable offer - except for what I said a few posts ago about having no interest whatsoever in listening to any (more) JFK conspiracy theories, because (over the course of my life) I've had my fill of 'em.
And, if you were to pick any of his other videos, it would be like saying to me "come and listen to this lecture by Trump - I know you think he's a c*nt, but just hear him out - what have you got to lose", and I'd immediately think of thousands of other ways I could spend my time and not be filled with rage and hate.
So - like I say - perfectly reasonable offer. No thanks, though. There's no value in it, because he's one guy who says he's an expert on everything but has no expert consensus to back any of it up. If he really was exposing grand secrets about our world then other people would know, and I'd be the edge-case loony in this discussion. But that's not what's happening.
I get your argument: if you're not willing to listen to something then you're not allowed to criticize it - but you've missed the point made several times on the thread that one is actually allowed to form an opinion on something without examining its minutia. The burden of proof of outlandish claims is not on me - it's on the purveyor of the outlandish claims.
I don't listen much to religious preachers either, and I don't need to read their religious books or dissect their sermons to know that their beliefs are (kindly) just beliefs, with no basis in fact.
"I don't need to go to the Arctic to know it's cold."
And where did you hear him say, "I am an expert on everything"?
Again, offer me one shred of evidence to support your accusations, one link, one attributable quote (he's written tons, there should be at least a sentence or two you can use to hang him) - or should we just chuck him in the pond and see if he floats?
I have no idea what you get out of these exchanges. You've side-stepped the issue so many times tonight that you must be typing on next door's computer.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 08 March, 2021, 09:48:53 PM
I have no idea what you get out of these exchanges.
I'm just reacting. It's a forum - so we're open to respond to whatever takes our fancy.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 08 March, 2021, 09:48:53 PM
Again, offer me one shred of evidence to support your accusations, one link, one attributable quote
I don't see what I'd be getting out of it. I'd be willing to do it for a negotiated hourly rate, though. Let's say ... $75 an hour.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 08 March, 2021, 05:51:05 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 08 March, 2021, 07:40:57 AM
That Josef 'Keanu Depp' Stalin has really let himself go.
(https://newcriterion.com/storage/app/media/442px-Stalin_1902.jpg)
Would definitely like to be more than comrades with this guy!
One of my favorite bits of Stalin-lore is that his name was actually Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili, and he changed it to "Joe Steel" (because Stalin just means steel). He gave himself a superhero name.
I only learned that recently myself. I just wonder if when a Russian hears the name, does it sound something like 'Joe, Man of Steel'? It's still hard to wrap my head around the fact that a Spanish speaker hears 'Zorro' as 'Fox' (and 'Lobo' as 'Wolf', for that matter).
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 10:32:14 PM
I don't see what I'd be getting out of it. I'd be willing to do it for a negotiated hourly rate, though. Let's say ... $75 an hour.
I just remembered we're not supposed to tout for business on the forum. I retract my offer. :-\
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 08 March, 2021, 10:47:29 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 08 March, 2021, 05:51:05 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 08 March, 2021, 07:40:57 AM
That Josef 'Keanu Depp' Stalin has really let himself go.
(https://newcriterion.com/storage/app/media/442px-Stalin_1902.jpg)
Would definitely like to be more than comrades with this guy!
One of my favorite bits of Stalin-lore is that his name was actually Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili, and he changed it to "Joe Steel" (because Stalin just means steel). He gave himself a superhero name.
I only learned that recently myself. I just wonder if when a Russian hears the name, does it sound something like 'Joe, Man of Steel'? It's still hard to wrap my head around the fact that a Spanish speaker hears 'Zorro' as 'Fox' (and 'Lobo' as 'Wolf', for that matter).
I just asked one of my Hispanic friends about this. He said they don't get foxes in southern California, but a quick google revealed there are. It looks like they commonly get misidentified as coyotes. Anyway, he says Zorro doesn't conjure the image of a bushy tailed vulpa in the same way Batman doesn't inspire an image of a flying rodent.
I would assume Russians hear Josef Stalin and think of the murderous dictator and not a man of steel. Much like when I hear Jessica Fletcher I think of the murderous old lady who frames others for her crimes and not some woman who dicks about with twigs and feathers.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 10:57:34 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 10:32:14 PM
I don't see what I'd be getting out of it. I'd be willing to do it for a negotiated hourly rate, though. Let's say ... $75 an hour.
I just remembered we're not supposed to tout for business on the forum. I retract my offer. :-\
Okay, you get one freebie (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Corbett). But just one!
Quote from: Mister Pops on 08 March, 2021, 11:36:04 PM
I just asked one of my Hispanic friends about this. He said they don't get foxes in southern California, but a quick google revealed there are. It looks like they commonly get misidentified as coyotes. Anyway, he says Zorro doesn't conjure the image of a bushy tailed vulpa in the same way Batman doesn't inspire an image of a flying rodent.
I would assume Russians hear Josef Stalin and think of the murderous dictator and not a man of steel. Much like when I hear Jessica Fletcher I think of the murderous old lady who frames others for her crimes and not some woman who dicks about with twigs and feathers.
Thanks for looking into it - fair points all round. Nobody thinks of Christopher Steele, I suppose, as a Robot-Archie-like automaton, just as nobody thinks of Simon Pegg as a small clasping device on a washing line.
Batman did cross my mind - to be honest I'm not sure if his name doesn't conjure up images of bats, given that he dresses up as one. But, as far as I can see, they don't translate his name in other languages - I remember one of my foreign students was surprised when I explained what it meant.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 10:32:14 PM
I don't see what I'd be getting out of it.
No, I don't believe you do. :(
Thanks for the link. Even more hearsay evidence written by some anonymous author who's opinion you obviously value above your own or mine - or the man you're accusing.
Go back over our discussion and switch places - Imagine I'd made your posts, but about, oh I don't know, the DG of the BBC, offered the same lack of evidence and evasions, and finally posted a link to a third party website displaying an anonymous hatchet piece. Would you really, really think I'd come close to even establishing, let alone supporting, my accusations?
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 09 March, 2021, 07:57:40 AM
Thanks for the link. Even more hearsay evidence written by some anonymous author
There's plenty of citations on that wiki linking back to Corbett's blog, evidencing that what he said, and citations to evidence for why it's wrong. That's not what I'd call hearsay - that's an argument. Admittedly the tone is somewhat derisive and it's a wiki so yeah could have been edited by anyone (there is a history there though but that doesn't tell you much). But it does seem to contain a good amount of evidence that Corbett is pushing unfounded conspiracies re Bill Gates, Pizzagate (possibly one of the most stupid conspiracies of the last few years), GMOs, 5G (all the usual topics tbh). And the tone is no more derisive than Corbett's own:
QuoteDiscover what the globalist carbon eugenicists and their pals in the mainstream mockingbird media don't want you to know about the upcoming IPCC report in this week's editorial.
(https://www.corbettreport.com/the-ipcc-prepares-to-release-more-hot-air/).
I have to say I'm with Funt on this one. The guy looks like someone peddling conspiracies for $s to me, looks like a very similar boat to Alex Jones.
Oh and a bit more googling finds videos of him discussing "The Great Reset", favoured theory of white power advocates and QAnon followers. Yeah I'm out. Last time I heard that phrase was an old friend who went full alt-right in the wake of gamer gate - he was last seen being banned from FB for posting pro-eugenics "research" from white power sites and "news" reports about Islamic immigrants (usually from weird Russian news sources). Watched and read more than enough of that stuff when I was trying to convince him he was being lied to, not going back down that rabbit hole.
All his work is available for free, whether one subscribes or donates or not. No paywalls like Wiki claims. He has to make some money to finance his site and work, of course, but all donations are entirely voluntary. So the money-grabbing argument holds very little water.
Got to work. Bbl.
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 07:37:23 AM
Thanks for looking into it - fair points all round. Nobody thinks of Christopher Steele, I suppose, as a Robot-Archie-like automaton, just as nobody thinks of Simon Pegg as a small clasping device on a washing line.
Donald Trump, on the other hand...
QuoteBatman did cross my mind - to be honest I'm not sure if his name doesn't conjure up images of bats, given that he dresses up as one. But, as far as I can see, they don't translate his name in other languages - I remember one of my foreign students was surprised when I explained what it meant.
I do think of the flying mammals when I hear that name. I don't think of assistants to military officers though...
Quote from: sheridan on 09 March, 2021, 10:40:14 AM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 07:37:23 AM
Thanks for looking into it - fair points all round. Nobody thinks of Christopher Steele, I suppose, as a Robot-Archie-like automaton, just as nobody thinks of Simon Pegg as a small clasping device on a washing line.
Donald Trump, on the other hand...
Not to mention Boris Johnson.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 09 March, 2021, 07:57:40 AM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 08 March, 2021, 10:32:14 PM
I don't see what I'd be getting out of it.
No, I don't believe you do. :(
Opening with an incredibly patronizing ad hominem in which I'm portrayed as incapable of understanding. Nice.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 09 March, 2021, 07:57:40 AM
Thanks for the link. Even more hearsay evidence written by some anonymous author who's opinion you obviously value above your own or mine - or the man you're accusing.
You asked for some evidence of his charlatanism - I provided it (and, as sintec pointed out, it does have citations you can follow up - just like your beloved guru) and you've dismissed it out of hand. Because you love him and won't have anyone detract without punishment. You are biased and incapable of shifting position one iota.
Someone posted a few pages ago that providing you with data is not a solution. Goal posts shift and it's a never-ending story.
Here's a thought experiment for you: what's more likely? That your beloved guru is correct, but that the entire journalistic world hasn't (even with all his evidence and all his years of posting) caught on to the terrible truth of the global cabal OR it's all just pasted together half-truths painting an amazing fictional picture that you think is real?
Thank-you and goodnight. :D
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: sheridan on 09 March, 2021, 10:40:14 AM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 07:37:23 AM
Thanks for looking into it - fair points all round. Nobody thinks of Christopher Steele, I suppose, as a Robot-Archie-like automaton, just as nobody thinks of Simon Pegg as a small clasping device on a washing line.
Donald Trump, on the other hand...
Not to mention Boris Johnson.
Or Mickey Mouse, now that I know that means Penis Mouse in Ireland.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 09 March, 2021, 02:26:40 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: sheridan on 09 March, 2021, 10:40:14 AM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 07:37:23 AM
Thanks for looking into it - fair points all round. Nobody thinks of Christopher Steele, I suppose, as a Robot-Archie-like automaton, just as nobody thinks of Simon Pegg as a small clasping device on a washing line.
Donald Trump, on the other hand...
Not to mention Boris Johnson.
Or Mickey Mouse, now that I know that means Penis Mouse in Ireland.
I've never seen Steamboat Willy, and now I'm not sure I want to.
We should all be ashamed, we're not taking this discussion about conspiracies seriously.
I suggest the mods split off all the Stalin stuff into a separate thread where we can properly objectify history's greatest monsters. Possibly rank them in order of sexiness? Ranking is popular here right? I'm an enthusiastic ranker myself. I think my ranking activity has increased now that I'm at home all the time.
Welcome to a whole new avenue of puerile sniggering, Funt.
(https://store.scrapstore.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Crochet-Your-Own-Mickey-scaled.jpg)
Quote from: Mister Pops on 09 March, 2021, 02:43:43 PM
I suggest the mods split off all the Stalin stuff into a separate thread where we can properly objectify history's greatest monsters.
Trotsky Assortment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHMuSA63eoA)
---
*There's nothing cuter than Walt Disney's trusty old Mickey!*
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 02:44:47 PM
Welcome to a whole new avenue of puerile sniggering, Funt.
(https://store.scrapstore.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Crochet-Your-Own-Mickey-scaled.jpg)
See, any you all laughed when I said that Disney had secretly taken over the world!!!!!
Quote from: Tjm86 on 09 March, 2021, 03:35:19 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 02:44:47 PM
Welcome to a whole new avenue of puerile sniggering, Funt.
(https://store.scrapstore.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Crochet-Your-Own-Mickey-scaled.jpg)
See, any you all laughed when I said that Disney had secretly taken over the world!!!!!
Lol that beats the conspiracy that Jews rule the world. Maybe in fact it's the Irish.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 09 March, 2021, 02:43:43 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 09 March, 2021, 02:26:40 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: sheridan on 09 March, 2021, 10:40:14 AM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 07:37:23 AM
Thanks for looking into it - fair points all round. Nobody thinks of Christopher Steele, I suppose, as a Robot-Archie-like automaton, just as nobody thinks of Simon Pegg as a small clasping device on a washing line.
Donald Trump, on the other hand...
Not to mention Boris Johnson.
Or Mickey Mouse, now that I know that means Penis Mouse in Ireland.
I've never seen Steamboat Willy, and now I'm not sure I want to.
We should all be ashamed, we're not taking this discussion about conspiracies seriously.
I suggest the mods split off all the Stalin stuff into a separate thread where we can properly objectify history's greatest monsters. Possibly rank them in order of sexiness? Ranking is popular here right? I'm an enthusiastic ranker myself. I think my ranking activity has increased now that I'm at home all the time.
Hm... Well, conspiracies basically are not serious subject. Seriously.
As for your suggesting, I heard that Hitler was impotent, others say he preferred men. Don't know where it place him in terms of ranking. Or if you ask for their sex appeal? I find Robert Carlayle more attractive than Adolf. Do fictional portrayals count as real guys?
Quote from: milstar on 09 March, 2021, 04:59:09 PM
Lol that beats the conspiracy that Jews rule the world. Maybe in fact it's the Irish.
Shhh! Don't tell everyone. Like the mice in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we've successfully managed to convince everyone we're at the bottom of the pecking order rather than the top.
(Mice, see? It's all connected.)
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 05:11:20 PM
Quote from: milstar on 09 March, 2021, 04:59:09 PM
Lol that beats the conspiracy that Jews rule the world. Maybe in fact it's the Irish.
Shhh! Don't tell everyone. Like the mice in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we've successfully managed to convince everyone we're at the bottom of the pecking order rather than the top.
(Mice, see? It's all connected.)
I always had tremendous respect for the Irish. Well, except Guiness beer.
It's all true:
China's Selling Genetically-Modified Mice for $17,000 a Pair (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-01/china-s-demand-for-17-000-gene-altered-lab-mice-is-skyrocketing)
MOUSE MADNESS! - biggest mice swarms ever seen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWVw-j8eYSk)
++Funt Solo: Taking the mickey since 2003++
Quote from: milstar on 09 March, 2021, 05:34:26 PM
I always had tremendous respect for the Irish. Well, except Guiness beer.
OK, now you're DEFINITELY trolling. ;)
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 09 March, 2021, 06:08:40 PM
Quote from: milstar on 09 March, 2021, 05:34:26 PM
I always had tremendous respect for the Irish. Well, except Guiness beer.
:)
OK, now you're DEFINITELY trolling. ;)
While the House of Mouse is in the thread, epic rap battles: Stan Lee versus Jim Henson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXBJIZ1NXFU)
(https://external-preview.redd.it/2JvpobXKADZKkZxwq-ldan4vAWlbOFDOtMZ5kFsVXYU.jpg?auto=webp&s=18b7d8e23b7434d9dadb8f1d9b892ee7902e4271)
What a dreamboat and killed 45 million in 4 years!
Quote from: Mister Pops on 09 March, 2021, 02:43:43 PM
I suggest the mods split off all the Stalin stuff into a separate thread where we can properly objectify history's greatest monsters. Possibly rank them in order of sexiness?
See what you have done!
Quote from: Funt Solo on 09 March, 2021, 02:00:27 PMOpening with an incredibly patronizing ad hominem in which I'm portrayed as incapable of understanding. Nice.
Have you read your own posts?
Quote from: Funt Solo on 09 March, 2021, 02:00:27 PMYou asked for some evidence of his charlatanism - I provided it (and, as sintec pointed out, it does have citations you can follow up - just like your beloved guru) and you've dismissed it out of hand. Because you love him and won't have anyone detract without punishment. You are biased and incapable of shifting position one iota. Someone posted a few pages ago that providing you with data is not a solution. Goal posts shift and it's a never-ending story. Here's a thought experiment for you: what's more likely? That your beloved guru is correct, but that the entire journalistic world hasn't (even with all his evidence and all his years of posting) caught on to the terrible truth of the global cabal OR it's all just pasted together half-truths painting an amazing fictional picture that you think is real? Thank-you and goodnight. :D
No, you provided no evidence. You pointed to a markedly biased website, probably without reading it and certainly without checking whether the information presented is accurate and taken in context. "...you love him and won't have anyone detract without punishment. You are biased and incapable of shifting position one iota." What were you saying about ad homs? I don't care whether you agree with him or not - I don't on everything - but I feel that if one is going to challenge a person's position, call them anti-semitic and fascist, then one should - at the very least - examine what that person actually says to support one's accusations. I get that you might disagree with his position and perspective, but you don't - you disagree with your fantasy of what his position is based on one biased website. Your argument is mist inspired by fog. In answer to your thought experiment - neither. (Because you presented a false dichotomy and decorated it with ad homs and your beloved absurdities.) Here's a thought experiment for you - A says something. B tells C what A said. Should C believe B without checking with A? The Court of Solo. Judge Solo: You are accused of badness! Prisoner Corbett: On what grounds? JS: I read it on the internet. PC: You've read my work? JS: Of course not! It might break my brain! PC: Eh? So what badness am I accused of? JS: I don't know. It says on this website, though. PC: But that's all misrepresentations and spin. JS: Nevertheless, it is hard evidence. Send him down! PC: I knew the system was rigged! JS: Sure you did. Next case!
++WALL OF TEXT RESPONSE++
(It just looks like you're ranting at me now. I can't read that: sorry.)
(Conclusion: anyone else reading can make up their own minds what they think of your supposed source. I have, and your arguments otherwise are not swaying me.)
(https://i.imgur.com/pPfZhhI.png)
Quote from: sintec on 09 March, 2021, 08:29:13 AM
Oh and a bit more googling finds videos of him discussing "The Great Reset", favoured theory of white power advocates and QAnon followers. Yeah I'm out. Last time I heard that phrase was an old friend who went full alt-right...
The Great Reset is a real initiative backed by the World Economic Forum -
https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/
Hands up how many people think we'll get to vote on it?
As an aside, there was a fantastic faux pas on the WEF's Twitter thing last month. I wrote a post about it, with links, but dithered over posting it in case it upset the mods so I slept on it. By the next evening, however, none of the links worked any more so I didn't post it.
Basically, the WEF tweeted that lockdowns were "quietly improving cities," which stirred up criticism from locked-down city dwellers fed up of losing their jobs, freedoms, and minds. The WEF later backed down and tweeted that lockdowns aren't "quietly improving cities," but are essential in the fight against Covid.
But the criticism didn't end and the WEF finally put the matter to bed with the unfortunately phrased tweet (read it in a Cyberman's voice to get the full effect...),
It was written by a working human being who made a mistake. It was deleted. —
World Economic Forum (@wef) February
27, 2021 (https://mobile.twitter.com/wef/status/1365752112316055554?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
eek
NB - this isn't really a conspiracy theory, unless one thinks the WEF (of Davos fame) wants all common humans locked away in their homes until needed. But, even if some of them do want that, they're not going to get it.
What? Oh. Right.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 09 March, 2021, 08:45:12 PM
Hands up how many people think we'll get to vote on it?
You don't believe in voting, of course. :-\
Quote from: Funt Solo on 09 March, 2021, 07:58:10 PM
++WALL OF TEXT RESPONSE++
(It just looks like you're ranting at me now. I can't read that: sorry.)
(Conclusion: anyone else reading can make up their own minds what they think of your supposed source. I have, and your arguments otherwise are not swaying me.)
So, now you won't even read my arguments. Because "wall of text." You want one word answers? How about, "no." Short enough for ye?
I thought we'd reached Peak Lunacy when you all but invoked National Security ("[I'm not posting the links or even saying the name of the guy's site, because I know you know it already and because I don't want to spread his horrible messages around]") to avoid the core question of how you can understand someone's position without actually listening to them, but you've just topped that with the All New Stratospheric Lunacy of refusing to even read opposing views!
Genius!
I bow to your superior logic and will endeavour to use it myself in the future. If I ever lose my mind. And my self-respect. (Yes, that
is an ad-hom, because there's nothing else left and because it seems acceptable.)
I have given you every opportunity to engage in an honest discussion but every time you refuse or weasel out of it. I find this very frustrating and disappointing but I know I'm not wrong about you. You have a better mind than that and, to be frank, I don't care if you agree with Corbett or not but, please, make up your mind honestly and don't just parrot the words of some anonymous critic because it's "the right thing to do" or whatever.
(Conclusion: anyone else reading can make up their own minds what they think of your supposed source. I have, and your arguments otherwise are not swaying me.)
Addendum - I don't believe voting trumps moral obligations.
I think you're just lashing out now and trying to hurt my feelings. I'm not going to take it personally - I figure you must be having a bad day and feeling a bit salty. I know how that goes.
Your feelings are not my responsibility, remember? If you want to be upset, that's your decision.
I've been as patient with your myopic idiocy as I can, tried to understand your position, and given you every opportunity to engage in a meaningful debate but you have radiated scorn and wilful ignorance at every turn.
I must, finally, call your accusations bullshit.
You may now have the Last Word so you can pretend you've "won." Or, you can keep quiet and pretend that I'm indulging in the fallacy of the last word. Or whatever, I'm sure what you have to say now will be made of words.
But I'm off to bed now.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/6f/e2/a06fe237110e6da70fefe36b99f3c681.gif)
*shuffles onto the seat next to Pops*
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/6f/e2/a06fe237110e6da70fefe36b99f3c681.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/FfyFOMw.png)
Okay folks, could I ever so politely suggest that perhaps we back away gently from this thread? I mean, it has been interesting for sure, not to mention educational (I never actually realised that Disney had managed to take over the world without anyone noticing!).
That said, it looks a little like things are starting to get a bit unpleasant. We are in danger of proving the views of a certain former boarder over on FB right about us.
:(