Page 5 of 12 [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

RoadRatt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,291
Location: Oregon

13 Jul 2015, 8:56 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
And yet, all conspiracies were, at one time, conspiracy theories.


Wrong.

So what this all comes down to is this: A conspiracy theory is an irrational, instinctual thought process which puts to the fore the greatest fears in our minds. The conspiracy theorist is deluded into believing that the fear they feel is the fear everyone else feels, and they find avenues of opening up the dark recesses of our minds to the "truth". The rational skeptic is that person who intellectually approaches a problem, investigates the problem rationally, deduces a conclusion, and affirms or rejects the hypothesis. The skeptic and the conspiracy theorist are, for all intents and purposes, in each others company, but the fine line that separates them is ultimately logic. They both hear hoofbeats, but only one thinks horses.

Source: http://observationdeck.kinja.com/the-fi ... 1607326065


_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)


Last edited by RoadRatt on 13 Jul 2015, 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,016
Location: Kansas

13 Jul 2015, 9:06 pm

RoadRatt wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
And yet, all conspiracies were, at one time, conspiracy theories.


Wrong.

The Dividing Line between Rational Skepticism and Conspiracy theory:

So given what I have stated, it might be apparent that this dividing line, in some way, exists. That Chomsky and Zinn are able to intellectually approach a controversial topic and provide valid reasons for our introspection is testament to the idea that rational skepticism is a reasonable approach. Moreover, that conspiracy theorists reject this approach in favor of unreasoned, ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories is testament to the fact that people still want to believe in the invisible enemy. However, there is a reason that people like Zinn and Chomsky have difficulty with mass appeal outside of academia and its small umbrella of overlap in mainstream culture.

Conspiracy theorists ruin the whole game for great academics like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Radio hosts like Alex Jones who prop up wild theories of false flag attacks effectively make the public uneasy about trusting people who take the more nuanced approach toward investigating the ills of the world. Nuance and cogency are rendered obsolete when people like Alex Jones are allowed to openly state that the United States intentionally kills its own citizens so that it can begin to rile the dogs of war. Nuance and cogency are replaced by scaremongering and unsoundness.

So where we draw the line between rational skepticism and conspiracy theory has to be based on how blunt one's approach is. Where Zinn and Chomsky tear down the illusion of a beautiful America attempting to help the world using big words and fancy writing, Alex Jones has the openness and blunt prose which is more effective. Rhetoric beats prose every time. So after the first line of information (bought and paid for in our corporate democracy) passes to the public, the next step is to look to what the "real news" is. What aren't they telling us about X? And doesn't it just seem more obvious that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration in order to rile up the dogs of war and set us on a path to Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, no. That's not rational. But, what if the 9/11 terror attacks were retribution for decades long imperialist foreign policy by the United States and its allies? Well that seems to make more sense.

So what this all comes down to is this: A conspiracy theory is an irrational, instinctual thought process which puts to the fore the greatest fears in our minds. The conspiracy theorist is deluded into believing that the fear they feel is the fear everyone else feels, and they find avenues of opening up the dark recesses of our minds to the "truth". The rational skeptic is that person who intellectually approaches a problem, investigates the problem rationally, deduces a conclusion, and affirms or rejects the hypothesis. The skeptic and the conspiracy theorist are, for all intents and purposes, in each others company, but the fine line that separates them is ultimately logic. They both hear hoofbeats, but only one thinks horses.

Source: http://observationdeck.kinja.com/the-fi ... 1607326065



I was actually starting to read your post with an open mind until I read this:

"ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories"

When that kind of talk starts, I shut down and the conversation goes no further. Learn how to debate respectfully.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,048
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

13 Jul 2015, 9:07 pm

I think there's a very real sentiment that so many people have gone slack, are plugged into their iphones/ipods, and completely dead to work events that a lot of people either less included or actively excluded gasp at the sense that instituting a global totalitarian state right under these people's noses would be like taking candy from a baby. These same people are also use to the math that if it can happen, and if it's a temptation to someone to try, eventually someone will do it.

A couple years back I had the opportunity to sort of get my gander at InfoWars, PropheticInfoWars, avant garde end-times stuff from Christian spiritual warfare people writing books about occult conspiracies (most chewing up and regurgitating their own variants of David Flynn's Cydonia), the alien-Vatican conspiracy, return of the Nephilim and giants, genetically modified super-soldiers, an Illuminati-run US that wants to fold our economy and is inviting China and Russia to clean up the 'chattle' in a bloodbath, government-made chimeras as portals in the flesh for demons to incarnate, as well as the ayahuasca of em all - Project Highjump. I got sucked into that because I'd freshly started reading a bunch of new-agey material, started feeling like something was deeply scammy (I'm sure you guys are stunned! :lol: ), a bunch of spiritual warfare videos turned out to be right that channeled beings never spoke of Jesus as Lord and savior and poof! Off I went because, really, I thought I might have actually stumbled in on the strong delusion of 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 and not to mention so-called Pleiadians (remember one man's Pleiadian is another man's Nordic Reptilian of the Black Star of Thule or from Draco) were offering DNA upgrades in the so-called new-age end times ascension from 3-D to 5-D!! I had a front-row seat for 12/21/2012 paranoia! Reading the bible a couple times cleaned that mess up in short order but suffice to say I learned a fair deal about what's out there as well as the kind of crap that tends to be behind it. I've usually never been that gullible but the timing couldn't have been more impeccable either.

I hate to say it but I might suggest a conspiracy of my own. I often wonder if some of the big names in conspiracy-study, particularly those really huge on the US being run by Illuminati witches and synarchs, aren't getting a healthy dose of funding from overseas. A particular guy I was listening to a fair deal really woke me up when he started drooling over Vladamir Putin the way Chris Matthews drooled over Obama and then even talking about how the whole NWO already owned all the fat, lazy, porned-addicted, permachild helpless dumb-undo-damnation wretches in the US, Europe, and in other places but that Putin was the last man fighting the Illuminati that it's the reason why the US and UN was after him. Him going on about gold and silver with his own brokerage was bad enough. Hearing him drone on about Putin pretty much clinched it and when I think of crazy, B-movie, Sky Captain type conspiracy plots I tend to think about how much pulp and reality-blending fiction Russia turns out these days.


Back at OT topic - I really don't knock people for being vigilant. I'd suppose part of having the internet, social media, and tons of information at our fingertips is probably far more powerful at helping us keep our freedoms than the 2nd amendment ever could be on its own. By the same token I'd advise people though, in doing their due-diligence as government watchdogs, to keep some emotional distance for it. There's a certain point where good vigilance starts lampooning itself and that's usually about the time that the Nephilim and DARPA chimeras start showing up.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


RoadRatt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,291
Location: Oregon

13 Jul 2015, 9:26 pm

nurseangela wrote:
I was actually starting to read your post with an open mind until I read this:

"ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories"

When that kind of talk starts, I shut down and the conversation goes no further. Learn how to debate respectfully.


I edited my post down to the part I thought was the most relevant before I noticed your post.

By the way. I wasn't being disrespectful or anything else. The part you quoted were his words, not mine. :geek:


_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

13 Jul 2015, 9:31 pm

nurseangela wrote:
RoadRatt wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
And yet, all conspiracies were, at one time, conspiracy theories.


Wrong.

The Dividing Line between Rational Skepticism and Conspiracy theory:

So given what I have stated, it might be apparent that this dividing line, in some way, exists. That Chomsky and Zinn are able to intellectually approach a controversial topic and provide valid reasons for our introspection is testament to the idea that rational skepticism is a reasonable approach. Moreover, that conspiracy theorists reject this approach in favor of unreasoned, ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories is testament to the fact that people still want to believe in the invisible enemy. However, there is a reason that people like Zinn and Chomsky have difficulty with mass appeal outside of academia and its small umbrella of overlap in mainstream culture.

Conspiracy theorists ruin the whole game for great academics like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Radio hosts like Alex Jones who prop up wild theories of false flag attacks effectively make the public uneasy about trusting people who take the more nuanced approach toward investigating the ills of the world. Nuance and cogency are rendered obsolete when people like Alex Jones are allowed to openly state that the United States intentionally kills its own citizens so that it can begin to rile the dogs of war. Nuance and cogency are replaced by scaremongering and unsoundness.

So where we draw the line between rational skepticism and conspiracy theory has to be based on how blunt one's approach is. Where Zinn and Chomsky tear down the illusion of a beautiful America attempting to help the world using big words and fancy writing, Alex Jones has the openness and blunt prose which is more effective. Rhetoric beats prose every time. So after the first line of information (bought and paid for in our corporate democracy) passes to the public, the next step is to look to what the "real news" is. What aren't they telling us about X? And doesn't it just seem more obvious that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration in order to rile up the dogs of war and set us on a path to Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, no. That's not rational. But, what if the 9/11 terror attacks were retribution for decades long imperialist foreign policy by the United States and its allies? Well that seems to make more sense.

So what this all comes down to is this: A conspiracy theory is an irrational, instinctual thought process which puts to the fore the greatest fears in our minds. The conspiracy theorist is deluded into believing that the fear they feel is the fear everyone else feels, and they find avenues of opening up the dark recesses of our minds to the "truth". The rational skeptic is that person who intellectually approaches a problem, investigates the problem rationally, deduces a conclusion, and affirms or rejects the hypothesis. The skeptic and the conspiracy theorist are, for all intents and purposes, in each others company, but the fine line that separates them is ultimately logic. They both hear hoofbeats, but only one thinks horses.

Source: http://observationdeck.kinja.com/the-fi ... 1607326065



I was actually starting to read your post with an open mind until I read this:

"ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories"

When that kind of talk starts, I shut down and the conversation goes no further. Learn how to debate respectfully.
it was accurate, you didn't read far enough as it's referencing 9/11 trutherism.



Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1021
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...

13 Jul 2015, 9:48 pm

Accurate according to whom & which sources ? Yes, I read all of that, but man, full of logical-fallacies.

Fugu wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
RoadRatt wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
And yet, all conspiracies were, at one time, conspiracy theories.


Wrong.

The Dividing Line between Rational Skepticism and Conspiracy theory:

So given what I have stated, it might be apparent that this dividing line, in some way, exists. That Chomsky and Zinn are able to intellectually approach a controversial topic and provide valid reasons for our introspection is testament to the idea that rational skepticism is a reasonable approach. Moreover, that conspiracy theorists reject this approach in favor of unreasoned, ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories is testament to the fact that people still want to believe in the invisible enemy. However, there is a reason that people like Zinn and Chomsky have difficulty with mass appeal outside of academia and its small umbrella of overlap in mainstream culture.

Conspiracy theorists ruin the whole game for great academics like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Radio hosts like Alex Jones who prop up wild theories of false flag attacks effectively make the public uneasy about trusting people who take the more nuanced approach toward investigating the ills of the world. Nuance and cogency are rendered obsolete when people like Alex Jones are allowed to openly state that the United States intentionally kills its own citizens so that it can begin to rile the dogs of war. Nuance and cogency are replaced by scaremongering and unsoundness.

So where we draw the line between rational skepticism and conspiracy theory has to be based on how blunt one's approach is. Where Zinn and Chomsky tear down the illusion of a beautiful America attempting to help the world using big words and fancy writing, Alex Jones has the openness and blunt prose which is more effective. Rhetoric beats prose every time. So after the first line of information (bought and paid for in our corporate democracy) passes to the public, the next step is to look to what the "real news" is. What aren't they telling us about X? And doesn't it just seem more obvious that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration in order to rile up the dogs of war and set us on a path to Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, no. That's not rational. But, what if the 9/11 terror attacks were retribution for decades long imperialist foreign policy by the United States and its allies? Well that seems to make more sense.

So what this all comes down to is this: A conspiracy theory is an irrational, instinctual thought process which puts to the fore the greatest fears in our minds. The conspiracy theorist is deluded into believing that the fear they feel is the fear everyone else feels, and they find avenues of opening up the dark recesses of our minds to the "truth". The rational skeptic is that person who intellectually approaches a problem, investigates the problem rationally, deduces a conclusion, and affirms or rejects the hypothesis. The skeptic and the conspiracy theorist are, for all intents and purposes, in each others company, but the fine line that separates them is ultimately logic. They both hear hoofbeats, but only one thinks horses.

Source: http://observationdeck.kinja.com/the-fi ... 1607326065



I was actually starting to read your post with an open mind until I read this:

"ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories"

When that kind of talk starts, I shut down and the conversation goes no further. Learn how to debate respectfully.
it was accurate, you didn't read far enough as it's referencing 9/11 trutherism.

Speaking of 9/11 trutherisms, I know that 9/11 was an inside-job done by aliens, because this guy is teh awesome...
Image


_________________
Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,016
Location: Kansas

13 Jul 2015, 10:09 pm

RoadRatt wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
I was actually starting to read your post with an open mind until I read this:

"ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories"

When that kind of talk starts, I shut down and the conversation goes no further. Learn how to debate respectfully.


I edited my post down to the part I thought was the most relevant before I noticed your post.

By the way. I wasn't being disrespectful or anything else. The part you quoted were his words, not mine. :geek:


Ok. I saw the words and just shut down. I apologize thinking it was you. My mistake.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,016
Location: Kansas

13 Jul 2015, 10:14 pm

Ban-Dodger wrote:
Accurate according to whom & which sources ? Yes, I read all of that, but man, full of logical-fallacies.
Fugu wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
RoadRatt wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
And yet, all conspiracies were, at one time, conspiracy theories.


Wrong.

The Dividing Line between Rational Skepticism and Conspiracy theory:

So given what I have stated, it might be apparent that this dividing line, in some way, exists. That Chomsky and Zinn are able to intellectually approach a controversial topic and provide valid reasons for our introspection is testament to the idea that rational skepticism is a reasonable approach. Moreover, that conspiracy theorists reject this approach in favor of unreasoned, ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories is testament to the fact that people still want to believe in the invisible enemy. However, there is a reason that people like Zinn and Chomsky have difficulty with mass appeal outside of academia and its small umbrella of overlap in mainstream culture.

Conspiracy theorists ruin the whole game for great academics like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Radio hosts like Alex Jones who prop up wild theories of false flag attacks effectively make the public uneasy about trusting people who take the more nuanced approach toward investigating the ills of the world. Nuance and cogency are rendered obsolete when people like Alex Jones are allowed to openly state that the United States intentionally kills its own citizens so that it can begin to rile the dogs of war. Nuance and cogency are replaced by scaremongering and unsoundness.

So where we draw the line between rational skepticism and conspiracy theory has to be based on how blunt one's approach is. Where Zinn and Chomsky tear down the illusion of a beautiful America attempting to help the world using big words and fancy writing, Alex Jones has the openness and blunt prose which is more effective. Rhetoric beats prose every time. So after the first line of information (bought and paid for in our corporate democracy) passes to the public, the next step is to look to what the "real news" is. What aren't they telling us about X? And doesn't it just seem more obvious that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration in order to rile up the dogs of war and set us on a path to Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, no. That's not rational. But, what if the 9/11 terror attacks were retribution for decades long imperialist foreign policy by the United States and its allies? Well that seems to make more sense.

So what this all comes down to is this: A conspiracy theory is an irrational, instinctual thought process which puts to the fore the greatest fears in our minds. The conspiracy theorist is deluded into believing that the fear they feel is the fear everyone else feels, and they find avenues of opening up the dark recesses of our minds to the "truth". The rational skeptic is that person who intellectually approaches a problem, investigates the problem rationally, deduces a conclusion, and affirms or rejects the hypothesis. The skeptic and the conspiracy theorist are, for all intents and purposes, in each others company, but the fine line that separates them is ultimately logic. They both hear hoofbeats, but only one thinks horses.

Source: http://observationdeck.kinja.com/the-fi ... 1607326065



I was actually starting to read your post with an open mind until I read this:

"ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories"

When that kind of talk starts, I shut down and the conversation goes no further. Learn how to debate respectfully.
it was accurate, you didn't read far enough as it's referencing 9/11 trutherism.

Speaking of 9/11 trutherisms, I know that 9/11 was an inside-job done by aliens, because this guy is teh awesome...
Image





Image


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1021
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...

13 Jul 2015, 10:40 pm

Fixed :D Yup, I know, I am amazingly good-looking, and I'm even VERY MODEST, too ! ^_^

nurseangela wrote:
Ban-Dodger, I have to let you know, you are incredibly handsome!

Also, speaking of what actually destroyed the Twin-Towers during the 9/11 incident, was: Molecular-Dissociation.

P.S.: They who call themselves rational are more akin to pseudo-skeptics as defined & described by Marcello Truzzi.


_________________
Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

13 Jul 2015, 10:48 pm

nurseangela wrote:
I was actually starting to read your post with an open mind until I read this:

"ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories"

When that kind of talk starts, I shut down and the conversation goes no further. Learn how to debate respectfully.


I think he's since made it clear that he didn't mean you. Or any one person, really.

But the skeptic's dilemma is that, while we know that trying to talk sense into people with crazy ideas is pointless, failing to counter their ideas results in real consequences.

Such as the woman who died of measles this spring in Washington. She was immunocompromised and had a number of issues, but it was measles that did her in. It was undiagnosed, and discovered only after her autopsy.

She was receiving treatment in the same hospital as a child who was infected by the disneyland outbreak. They know this because it was the same genetic strain of measles as was found in the disneyland outbreak.

The absurd, unscientific concept that the MMR vaccine causes autism is likely directly responsible for her death.

The media has a problem with trying to be "fair" to "both sides" of an argument.

But one of those sides is stupid. And harmful. And consists mostly of arm-chair scientists with degrees from google university and a handful of crackpots, and the other consists most importantly of nearly all doctors, biologists, immunologists, etc.

So a skeptic has to ask - to what extent is it a virtue to suffer a fool?



nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,016
Location: Kansas

13 Jul 2015, 11:40 pm

Ban-Dodger wrote:
Fixed :D Yup, I know, I am amazingly good-looking, and I'm even VERY MODEST, too ! ^_^
nurseangela wrote:
Ban-Dodger, I have to let you know, you are incredibly handsome!

Also, speaking of what actually destroyed the Twin-Towers during the 9/11 incident, was: Molecular-Dissociation.

P.S.: They who call themselves rational are more akin to pseudo-skeptics as defined & described by Marcello Truzzi.


WTH!! How did you do that with my name?! I didn't say what you quoted me to say. That's false quoting. Please remove it immediately.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


pezar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,557

13 Jul 2015, 11:59 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I think there's a very real sentiment that so many people have gone slack, are plugged into their iphones/ipods, and completely dead to work events that a lot of people either less included or actively excluded gasp at the sense that instituting a global totalitarian state right under these people's noses would be like taking candy from a baby. These same people are also use to the math that if it can happen, and if it's a temptation to someone to try, eventually someone will do it.
(snip)
I hate to say it but I might suggest a conspiracy of my own. I often wonder if some of the big names in conspiracy-study, particularly those really huge on the US being run by Illuminati witches and synarchs, aren't getting a healthy dose of funding from overseas. A particular guy I was listening to a fair deal really woke me up when he started drooling over Vladamir Putin the way Chris Matthews drooled over Obama and then even talking about how the whole NWO already owned all the fat, lazy, porned-addicted, permachild helpless dumb-undo-damnation wretches in the US, Europe, and in other places but that Putin was the last man fighting the Illuminati that it's the reason why the US and UN was after him. Him going on about gold and silver with his own brokerage was bad enough. Hearing him drone on about Putin pretty much clinched it and when I think of crazy, B-movie, Sky Captain type conspiracy plots I tend to think about how much pulp and reality-blending fiction Russia turns out these days.


I've thought the same thing. Russia Today at least TRIES to be seen as "real news". But then you have the conspiracy ranters like Alex Jones, who is paying that guy's salary, who is paying to keep the lights on in his radio studio? Who funded Art Bell's home radio studio in the middle of the Nevada desert? RT makes no secret of its leanings and funding, and if you want you can ignore articles or the entire "Op-Edge" section of their website, although personally I find Op-Edge to be fascinating, albeit very slanted.

I know the people around Putin like to see him as the last great crusader standing between The Hegemon (USA) and a "prison planet". As for Putin himself, it's impossible to say whether he believes his own press releases. RT insists that The Hegemon is aiming to start a nuclear war, and then you have American generals saying that we need to spend zillions to counter Russia. Will somebody press the big red button, and destroy the world?

Anyway, I do know that Russia funded some of the big antiwar groups in the 60s, like SDS. More recently, they were involved in the Occupy Movement.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

14 Jul 2015, 12:22 am

blauSamstag wrote:
So a skeptic has to ask - to what extent is it a virtue to suffer a fool?


I think that's any knowledgeable and rational persons dilemma, not just skeptics. The really tough part is knowing how to effectively construct a persuasive argument, the kind that takes a lot of work and time, and resisting the urge to simply destroy the fools credibility and move on, which is less effective long term, but quicker and more satisfying now. I'm not very good at resisting anymore, I call the process of fool tolerance loss Raptorization.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

14 Jul 2015, 12:30 am

pezar wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I think there's a very real sentiment that so many people have gone slack, are plugged into their iphones/ipods, and completely dead to work events that a lot of people either less included or actively excluded gasp at the sense that instituting a global totalitarian state right under these people's noses would be like taking candy from a baby. These same people are also use to the math that if it can happen, and if it's a temptation to someone to try, eventually someone will do it.
(snip)
I hate to say it but I might suggest a conspiracy of my own. I often wonder if some of the big names in conspiracy-study, particularly those really huge on the US being run by Illuminati witches and synarchs, aren't getting a healthy dose of funding from overseas. A particular guy I was listening to a fair deal really woke me up when he started drooling over Vladamir Putin the way Chris Matthews drooled over Obama and then even talking about how the whole NWO already owned all the fat, lazy, porned-addicted, permachild helpless dumb-undo-damnation wretches in the US, Europe, and in other places but that Putin was the last man fighting the Illuminati that it's the reason why the US and UN was after him. Him going on about gold and silver with his own brokerage was bad enough. Hearing him drone on about Putin pretty much clinched it and when I think of crazy, B-movie, Sky Captain type conspiracy plots I tend to think about how much pulp and reality-blending fiction Russia turns out these days.


I've thought the same thing. Russia Today at least TRIES to be seen as "real news". But then you have the conspiracy ranters like Alex Jones, who is paying that guy's salary, who is paying to keep the lights on in his radio studio? Who funded Art Bell's home radio studio in the middle of the Nevada desert? RT makes no secret of its leanings and funding, and if you want you can ignore articles or the entire "Op-Edge" section of their website, although personally I find Op-Edge to be fascinating, albeit very slanted.

I know the people around Putin like to see him as the last great crusader standing between The Hegemon (USA) and a "prison planet". As for Putin himself, it's impossible to say whether he believes his own press releases. RT insists that The Hegemon is aiming to start a nuclear war, and then you have American generals saying that we need to spend zillions to counter Russia. Will somebody press the big red button, and destroy the world?

Anyway, I do know that Russia funded some of the big antiwar groups in the 60s, like SDS. More recently, they were involved in the Occupy Movement.


Russia did get involved in some of the anti-war groups in the 60's.

But so did pretty much every US government agency. It's said that there were chapters of various communist and/or socialist parties on the east coast that were predominantly populated with covert agents who mostly did not know each other, and were not aware of each other's missions. Some of them even elected government agents to lead them.

Ever read about COINTELPRO? The FBI even owned up to that program. You can go read about it at fbi.gov right now.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

14 Jul 2015, 10:43 am

Back to the topic: There is now a Counter Jade Helm web site ( http://www.counterjadehelm.info/ ) which is published by an Arizona-based private tactical-firearm training facility. While not opposing the exercise or U.S. service members, the site will be monitoring and documenting all activity related to the exercise. Anyone can join the web site free of charge either for informational reasons or to help monitor activity in his or her community. It seems to me to be a great way to get local reports before the world's mainstream media gets their hands on "official" Pentagon news releases.

Something to consider joining....


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)