It's just the old canard that communism is a jewish plot to weaken the aryan race by turning workers into race traitors against their rightful bosses. Again, the claims are nonsense but they're not made to be supported, they're made to justify what the believer wanted to do anyway. You want to fight workers' rights because they're loud and ungrateful and should do what they're told so you can profit off of them. So obviously it's not that they're being treated poorly, it's that jews are lying to them to get them to make trouble! Conundrum solved, now you just have to send the cops to gun down the union leadership. And very conveniently you'll also get to know who isn't fully on your side because they'll question your reasoning and complete lack of legal mechanisms.
It's just the old canard that communism is a jewish plot to weaken the aryan race by turning workers into race traitors against their rightful bosses. Again, the claims are nonsense but they're not made to be supported, they're made to justify what the believer wanted to do anyway. You want to fight workers' rights because they're loud and ungrateful and should do what they're told so you can profit off of them. So obviously it's not that they're being treated poorly, it's that jews are lying to them to get them to make trouble! Conundrum solved, now you just have to send the cops to gun down the union leadership. And very conveniently you'll also get to know who isn't fully on your side because they'll question your reasoning and complete lack of legal mechanisms.
It is more comforting to believe the hardship of the modern day is down to the intentional malicious actions of a few bad actors, than it being the product of generations of cultural evolution, enabling, and plain old incompetence. The former reality is one that can be fixed by eliminating the bad actors and even besides that there is a clear bad guy to fight and blame. The latter is ambiguous, not going to be fixed in one's own lifetime, and means blame is spread across so many different facets of society that everyone bears some part of it. There's no easy place for blame and fighting it means being the change you want to see, which people are broadly unwilling to do.
Easy E wrote: If you believe everything is false..... then anything can be true. If you believe nothing, you can believe anything.
That's a complete oxymoron. If you believe nothing, you believe... nothing. It doesn't open you up to 'anything.'
If anything it allows for more rational assessment based on evidence, to accept things only if they're testable and repeatable.
That is part of the problem on why Conspiracy Theory's multiply. There is a shocking number of people in the world who are Nihilists that believe in Nothing.
Nonsense again. Most conspiracy theorists are Extreme Edition Believers. They're Fox Mulder type people that _want_ and _need_ something to believe in, to the point that they'll warp their minds around contradictions in their own beliefs and disregard evidence.
I just want to throw out some observations about the conspiracy theory of “international” Illuminati-type cabals.
The first thing to note is that the purported cabals are always international. This is crucially important.
We have to keep in mind that nations are extremely recent. I’m not talking about peoples, kingdoms, empires, countries, etc., but specifically nations. The Founders of the United States were aware of the concept (and rejected it) in the late 18th century. By the mid 19th century, however, the concept had become the rallying cry for European liberals and, gradually, conservatives got on board such that, by the 1860s, Europe was massively reconfiguring along national lines. Most famously, the German Empire was declared in 1871. The American Civil War is similarly probably best understood as a transition from a confederation of sovereigns to a unified nation.
So nations-as-such have only been around for about 150 years and in that short time have been a fundamental contributor of extreme political upheaval, not least of all two World Wars. In other words, nations are not the ancient and stable institutions they present themselves to be and as we often assume they are. Therefore, there always has been (and continues to be) much anxiety around their existence.
The world before nations was not “international” (this being a term that only really makes sense in the context of nations) but it was heavily interconnected in a way that nations, ever jealous of their exclusive jurisdictional claims, sought and still seek to undermine. Some of those “connections” (in the form of institutions) have persisted in the face of a political world increasingly defined by national borders and nationalists have always been skeptical of them. Examples include Catholicism, Judaism, and Freemasonry. New perspectives emphasizing the transience of nations also emerged, such as Communism, and (in some parts of the world) these too have been the targets of nationalist attacks. Nationalists have even consistently attacked “international” institutions (e.g., the United Nations), despite their existence implying that nations are indeed the fundamental building blocks of global politics.
This is the context for Illuminati/New World Order type conspiracy theories.
I'd say calling nations unstable is not taking into account the stability of what came before. If anything nations have survived and even thrived despite a pace of technological and social advancement which would have obliterated the stability of older governments.
Manchu wrote: I just want to throw out some observations about the conspiracy theory of “international” Illuminati-type cabals.
We have to keep in mind that nations are extremely recent. I’m not talking about peoples, kingdoms, empires, countries, etc., but specifically nations. The Founders of the United States were aware of the concept (and rejected it) in the late 18th century. By the mid 19th century, however, the concept had become the rallying cry for European liberals and, gradually, conservatives got on board such that, by the 1860s, Europe was massively reconfiguring along national lines.
This is the context for Illuminati/New World Order type conspiracy theories.
Eh. Somewhat. The problem is, most of the people who believe in these particular conspiracy theories don't understand the distinctions you're drawing. For most country/nation/kingdom are interchangeable synonyms, with the exception that the latter has a King (or sometimes Queen) or equivalent head of state.
That lack of understanding feeds a little into why they believe in the theories in the first place.
Hard to evaluate nations as stable when the course of their existence has been (1) extremely short and (2) even as a matter of their birth, a series of ongoing, violent catastrophes and moreover where digital technology, international cooperation and norms, and globalist commerce has called their relevance into question.
Also, one need not be aware of historical processes to be impacted by them. I agree that not being explicitly conscious of these concepts shapes the way one is impacted by them. A nationalist need not be a xenophobe but it’s no coincidence that they often go hand in hand.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'd say calling nations unstable is not taking into account the stability of what came before. If anything nations have survived and even thrived despite a pace of technological and social advancement which would have obliterated the stability of older governments.
Hell no, nonononono, nations are anything but stable , and especially those of an ethno nationalistic founding have extreme violent tendencies, an complete disregard for local minorities and a mean streak of easily justified wars.
Meanwhile older structures like the HRE survived apocalyptic wars like the 30 years war which killed off approximately 40 % of the WHOLE population. And had just as devastating effects to endure on the hands of technology and by meassure of centuries outlasted even the oldest "nations".
Anyway to go back to my favourite hobby horse. Conspiracy theorists are in no way intellectually inferior to circlejerk internet normies. Everything that everyone believes is false, but at least the conspiracy theorists are daring enough to defy the narratives of authority and are creative enough to entertain unconventional narratives. Moreover much of what they pull into their narratives comes from sources that any internet normie would regard as an authority anyway. What normie would say the Jerusalem Post was a fringe rag? Is it not at least as respectable as the BBC or CNN (snigger)?
This is like Conspiracy Theorist bullgak 101. Given that "normies" and CTs are not well-defined monolithic groups I'm not sure you can make sweeping statements about the intellectual status of either group. What I would argue, though, is that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists demonstrate a lack of critical thinking and evidence evaluation skills in the specific area of their given theory. In that narrow sense an argument could be made that they are intellectually inferior within that subject area but I wouldn't say that's because they are necessarily generally intellectually inferior to the general population. I think it was touched on earlier in this thread but a lot of what I see from conspiracy theorists is a misunderstanding of a subject area magnified through a certain personality type or maybe political or religious leaning. Flat Earthers are a prime example of this: they often try to use maths to prove their theory but demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of basic laws of science or geometry that make all their attempts laughably incorrect. I think it's a combination of a lack of understanding in a specific area combined with a blinkered need to prove their theory, kind of like a double blind spot. It may be some of these people lack the intelligence to even get close to understanding the things they're talking about, but there are plenty of non-believers who are probably in the same boat, the difference is they don't weaponise that ignorance and call it proof.
You say everything everyone believes is false, without justification. That's the type of tactic CTs use to justify their beliefs. If you can't be 100% certain about something, they say, then you have to believe anything (just look at evolution deniers and the "it's only a theory" line of reasoning). That's not how that works. 100% certainty is rare, especially so in the general population who are usually non-experts, but being only 95% sure of something doesn't mean we have to afford the same level of certainty to any other theory someone might present. I'm also not sure why the creativity of a narrative should have any bearing on whether it's actually true or not.
Finally, the stuff about sources is classic CT thinking too. There's difference between a source like the BBC or some other generally reputable media outlet reporting on what some high-ranking military official believes and them endorsing that belief. In the case of some Israeli general talking about some alien federation that's newsworthy because it's a fringe theory being repeated by a public figure in a position of authority. Them reporting on his belief doesn't lend the underlying theory any credibility. I usually find when CTs claim sources from reputable media outlets the sources usually don't actually back up their claims at all.
There's also apparently a theory that for many people (not all) CTs aren't arrived at and believed rationally, but rather emotionally, much like religion.
They try to address the same need for order in an apparently chaotic, uncaring (occasionally hostile) and cold universe.
Hence in the face of a rapidly changing society, ever-faster technology not to mention growing money problems for many on the lower economic rungs and on top of that now corona, people turn to these conspiracy theories so they can feel as though a world spinning out of control at least makes some sense - which makes people feel a semblance of control again.
Which would also explain why any given group of conspiracy theory believers so often exhibit cult-like behaviour. In many ways, they are.
In a few of the Flat Earth videos I've seen of their group meetings there's certainly a big purely social draw for many. For them its a chance to get together with other people; share an interest and work within the group itself. Giving a person social contact, social and group value and purpose/direction.
You see the same thing in some gang videos when they interview former gang members and one reason some join up is purely for the social linkages. That desire to be part of a group and to have value within the group itself.
I'd also note that conspiracy believers often have issues with understanding the subject matter, but its not just a lack of understanding. It's coupled to several other elements
1) Lack of confidence in "formal education". Many are often failures at school - either entirely or in specific subject areas. So they have a chip on their shoulder against the established sciences or maths and such. It's likely something they don't even realise they have, they just really distrust the "official" in any form
2) Being directly missed by others. Not only are they lacking in understanding in the subject area, but there are agents within the conspiracy theory who mislead them further. Starting out with a lack of understanding and then getting incorrect information ontop of that is going to leave them confused.
It's not just that they can't critically think, its that other groups are directly inhibiting their ability to critically think.
This is particularly true when it comes to the denial of evolution.
The actual teaching of evolution in schools (as opposed to further education) is pretty basic and doesn’t delve particularly deeply into the whole shebang.
For most, it’s enough. It sketches out the theory, and offers examples of proof. But, for someone who, all their life, has been given misinformation and misrepresentation, it only backs up what they’ve been told.
Common error of understanding? “Survival of the Fittest”. With limited understanding, it’s just a tagline. Worse. It’s actually a misrepresentation of the prediction. And it doesn’t originate from Darwin.
Anti-evolutionist arguments don’t stand up to much scrutiny. The Crocoduck is one often cited as evidence against - but the theory of evolution doesn’t predict a Crocoduck, or any such creature. Because that’s not what’s meant by a transitional organism.
Evolution doesn’t predict a half chimpanzee, half human organism. At all. Because it instead predicts a long series of incremental changes via mutation. An enlarging of the eye here, strengthening of the wrist bones there, to further over simplify.
And we know these mutations occur, because we see them in nature. It’s when they provide some form of benefit and advantage that evolution predicts they’ll be passed along. If they continue to prove useful, you’ll end up with a sub-species, and even, in time (thousands of years) a new species - defined, as I understand it, as the new organism being unable to procreate with its predecessor.
Example of beneficial mutation? The North Ronaldsay Sheep. In short, it survives on seaweed. And nothing but. After centuries of relative isolation on North Ronaldsay, it can no longer eat grass. That’s a useful mutation for its environment. Normally the patrol the shore, scoffing it’s salty fare. But some have been documented to swim out for its dindins.
And it’s that last behaviour which could lead to natural selection - should the ability to swim prove crucial to getting enough food. Should one or two lambs be born with say, webbed feet in that situation, those basic swimming aids may see the gene responsible spread further, until all North Ronaldsay have such webbing. Rinse and repeat over millennia, and we might even see Sea Sheep, and a continuing populace of non Sea Sheep, both descended from the North Ronaldsay common ancestor.
It’s the sheer, mind boggling time span required that seems to confuse folk.
Apologies if I’ve dropped some non-factual clangers. My knowledge isn’t perfect, nor particularly wide! As always, I’m open to becoming better educated
With evolution there's also confusing elements in that
1) Genetics don't just affect one property. Having a longer neck so you can reach higher food is a gain, however that same gene that affects that might also result in you having weaker eyesight. So you'd have one bonus propping up a weakness. Provided that the benefit outweighs the negative then you can have a negative element preserved within the genepool
2) Benefits and downsides are partly based on both perspective and situation.
Eg being highly selective in your food source is great when you've a stable ecosystem as it gives you a niche to fill. However in a changing system you might find your main food source ends up becoming very rare and thus that once beneficial trait becomes a negative one.
Perspective wise its all about interpreting a trait. Some might interpret certain animal properties as a negative element and others might identify them as a positive one.
Timescale is also really hard for people to wrap their heads around. The vast span of years it takes to evolve things is so vast its really beyond mane people's casual ability to really appreciate. Even within the few thousand years of our own history we have trouble. Consider how often we talk of the Romans; the Greeks, the Middle Ages as if they are single generation peoples/periods of time. When in reality they span hundreds of years each and vast changes over both time and location. And that's just a few thousand years of human history - consider the vast spans of evolutionary time and its mindboggling.
I also agree with the concept that we call a thing a thing and expect it to be the same thing all through time. Even though we've ample evidence of changes. Consider many modern dog breeds look nothing like they did just 200 or even 100 years ago. Yet we'd call them the same breed of dog even though physically some have gone through dramatic changes even that if we saw them side by side today we'd class them as different breeds.
(background - my degree is in biology, with a lot of ecology / evolution / animal behaviour. 20 years ago now though, and haven't worked in the field since, so I'm rusty)
Yeah that gels pretty much with my understanding. I think the biggest misunderstanding is that evolution is a linear process where some chimps stopped evolving and stayed as chimps, and others kept going and eventually arrived at humans. So there should be some intermediate species in between chimps and humans. Also that humans are 'more evolved' than chimps, which is not the case. Or that evolution has finished and we're the end result...
I think you've got it covered pretty well, though I've been given to understand the concept of a transitional species isn't actually used in evolutionary biology much anymore. Any given organism is a member of a distinct species (and occasionally a subspecies), but given the incremental nature of speciation it's impossible to mark a specific point in the line of descent of a species and say "this is where it's no longer species X, but species Y". Unless that's what you were trying to get at?
Other annoyingly incorrect "counter" arguments are the whirlwind Boeing 747 assembly (ironically actually an argument for evolution); "but evolution doesn't explain where life originated" - that's abiogenesis, evolution was only ever an explanation for how you get a great variety of species complexity and order in organisms from blind natural forces; and "I'm not descended from a monkey" - that's correct. Both monkeys and ourselves evolved from a common ancestor.
The only people currently rejecting Darwinian evolution are bible / koran literalists. The reason they reject it is because they prefer the bible to be true rather Darwin and no one has come up with a particularly nice way to have both. Everyone just believes what they want to be true. There are people who only wave Darwin around like a tribal mascot because they dislike Christians but anytime someone wants to actually act on Darwinism as if it were true they spit their dummy out. So it goes both ways, but at least the bible literalists are trying to be consistent.
SolarCross wrote: There are people who only wave darwin around because they dislike Christians
Are there? Do you have any examples of that?
I'm aware that the most common arguments against evolution are religious and therefore the tension is normally between adherents to a particular religion and those who argue for evolution. I'm not sure you can really claim those arguing for evolution are doing so just to spite any particular religion though.
SolarCross wrote: There are people who only wave darwin around because they dislike Christians
Are there? Do you have any examples of that?
I'm aware that the most common arguments against evolution are religious and therefore the tension is normally between adherents to a particular religion and those who argue for evolution. I'm not sure you can really claim those arguing for evolution are doing so just to spite any particular religion though.
Not all, but there are some who are vocal in their contempt for Christianity and those people like to signal their virtue as anti-christians by professing their allegiance to Darwin as a totem of their enmity. This professed allegiance disappears the instant that anyone starts drawing any obvious conclusions from Darwin though. In my experience of online debate these people tend to be adherents of one of the communist sects although also many political liberals / secular humanists will also do this.
OK this is risking getting political, but I guess you're maybe talking about a more right-wing ideology suggesting a Darwinian element to supporting those not able to look after themselves or something? And how it goes against survival-of-the-fittest Darwinism to help people who can't help themselves?
Firstly, that ignores the many examples of altruism being a beneficial trait that evolution has selected for in the natural world.
Secondly, just because that is how the natural world (often) works, it doesn't mean we can't choose to be better.
Crispy78 wrote: OK this is risking getting political, but I guess you're maybe talking about a more right-wing ideology suggesting a Darwinian element to supporting those not able to look after themselves or something? And how it goes against survival-of-the-fittest Darwinism to help people who can't help themselves?
Firstly, that ignores the many examples of altruism being a beneficial trait that evolution has selected for in the natural world.
Secondly, just because that is how the natural world (often) works, it doesn't mean we can't choose to be better.
Also, evolution is a theory of biological diversity and speciation. Just because somebody applies a label of "Darwinism" or "evolution" to a non-biological process doesn't mean it's directly analogous. You can't really blame the original theory for the way it's subsequently misused.
Not Online!!! wrote: Theistic Evolution is a concept propagated by one of the biggest churches and accepted though?
Yes indeed many Christians have basically conceded the field to Darwin but they still want to keep their faith so they try to awkwardly patch it with little stories like "genesis is not meant to be taken literally" and that sort of thing. Not all Christians are willing to surrender that point though and even fewer Muslims. The reason is not that they are stupid though, just the opposite they are smart enough to realise that the whole edifice of their belief system rest on Genesis and if it is not true then there is no good reason to believe the rest of it either. They choose to reject Darwin even with a good working knowledge of its propositions because they prefer their old stories over Darwin's newer one. In this way they are like all of us, including all of us here. We believe what we want to believe.
Not Online!!! wrote: Theistic Evolution is a concept propagated by one of the biggest churches and accepted though?
Yes indeed many Christians have basically conceded the field to Darwin but they still want to keep their faith so they try to awkwardly patch it with little stories like "genesis is not meant to be taken literally" and that sort of thing. Not all Christians are willing to surrender that point though and even fewer Muslims. The reason is not that they are stupid though, just the opposite they are smart enough to realise that the whole edifice of their belief system rest on Genesis and if it is not true then there is no good reason to believe the rest of it either. They choose to reject Darwin even with a good working knowledge of its propositions because they prefer their old stories over Darwin's newer one. In this way they are like all of us, including all of us here. We believe what we want to believe.
Remaining ardently upon the "old story" is to ignore the present by favour of dogmatism. Further than that, it is outright disprovable, as is the whole notion of god to a degree. And i say that as a catholic. And frankly if you regard it as akwardly patching then you frankly have issues with the theodizee and any fact that there exists a notion of evil for a supposedly benevolent all powerfull god.
That has nothing to do with smart, but rather with selfdelusion. In some cases even connected actively to malice in order to exploit people. Hence why wealth gospel and such structures exist and prosper.
And there we have the whole cult like structure that was allready brought up.
Some conspiracy theory thinking seems to be based on the 'counter intuitiveness" mentality.
Now don't think I'm condemning counter intuitive thinking, it's actually valid in a lot of cases, especially in scientific research where things don't always go they way "common sense' would say they should. (Quantum research, for example.)
But some people take the counter intuitive thing to just ridiculous extremes.
The 'rational" for it seems to be that there are things that are counter intuitive and true, combined with "Well, no one would say something that apparently impossible unless they had proof it was true."
Oh, yeah, let's not forget the whole 'confirmation bias" thing.
Plus the counter intuitive will often smugly say that the fact you think his views make no sense is due to your inability to grasp his "higher reasoning"...
Here's a cartoon illustrating the modern counter intuitive in action.
With the whole creation thing, the counter intuitive will say "So called evidence for evolution..is actually evidence for creationism!" and "The evidence reputed to defeat creationism...actually proves it!"
So counter intuitivism, which is often valid, is also often misused to support views that have no factual basis. This makes it a tool to prop up a lot of CTs.
Not Online!!! wrote: Theistic Evolution is a concept propagated by one of the biggest churches and accepted though?
Yes indeed many Christians have basically conceded the field to Darwin but they still want to keep their faith so they try to awkwardly patch it with little stories like "genesis is not meant to be taken literally" and that sort of thing. Not all Christians are willing to surrender that point though and even fewer Muslims. The reason is not that they are stupid though, just the opposite they are smart enough to realise that the whole edifice of their belief system rest on Genesis and if it is not true then there is no good reason to believe the rest of it either. They choose to reject Darwin even with a good working knowledge of its propositions because they prefer their old stories over Darwin's newer one. In this way they are like all of us, including all of us here. We believe what we want to believe.
Remaining ardently upon the "old story" is to ignore the present by favour of dogmatism. Further than that, it is outright disprovable, as is the whole notion of god to a degree. And i say that as a catholic. And frankly if you regard it as akwardly patching then you frankly have issues with the theodizee and any fact that there exists a notion of evil for a supposedly benevolent all powerfull god.
That has nothing to do with smart, but rather with selfdelusion. In some cases even connected actively to malice in order to exploit people. Hence why wealth gospel and such structures exist and prosper.
And there we have the whole cult like structure that was allready brought up.
Self-delusion is ubiquitous though and the most ubiquitous self-delusion is that it is only the other guy who is self-deluded. Everyone here is also doing that at the same time as being completely and deliberately unaware of it. There is no escape from our ownselves and the needs of the self always and should obscure the truth which is probably useless to the self and unknowable anyway.
Self-delusion is ubiquitous though and the most ubiquitous self-delusion is that it is only the other guy who is self-deluded. Everyone here is also doing that at the same time as being completely and deliberately unaware of it.
**Deleted Myself and Nothing of value was lost.....**
Crispy78 wrote: OK this is risking getting political, but I guess you're maybe talking about a more right-wing ideology suggesting a Darwinian element to supporting those not able to look after themselves or something? And how it goes against survival-of-the-fittest Darwinism to help people who can't help themselves?
Firstly, that ignores the many examples of altruism being a beneficial trait that evolution has selected for in the natural world.
Secondly, just because that is how the natural world (often) works, it doesn't mean we can't choose to be better.
Survival of the fittest is actually the single biggest argument in favor of altruism that there is. Evolution and adaptation on an individual level ONLY cares about one's own ability to pass on their genes. Other individuals from the same species are competition as much as those from other species. Helping another organism is inherently detrimental unless there is a reason otherwise. Yet, natural selection has seen fit to give humans (and other organisms) altruistic feelings and a genuine desire to help others at the expense of ones self. Why would that be beneficial in a strictly selfish system?
Because individuals who worked together ended up with more individual success in the long run. Humans A B and C may have each managed to get a a kilo of meat for food in a day, but by working together they could get 5 kilos, providing each member with more than if they worked alone. Because of that, if individual C is struggling it is in the best interest of the other two to help because the short-term cost is outweighed by the long term gain. The most selfish thing to do is, paradoxically, to help others.
Put simply: survival of the fittest only cares about the individual, and by that system we were given a drive to help others, meaning that helping others is more beneficial to ourselves than not.
Im telling you... What if there really is something on the moon?? Why the sudden step up ?
Aliens dunit
The sudden setup is probably due to a). China's Space Program which aims to builds its own space station by 2020 and put human on the Moon. It's also probably related to Pres. Trump's attempts to defund the program, which means the organization has to promote itself as useful to the American public. Putting the two together and ask yourself: what better way to garner public support then to challenge the Chinese in a match it's already won?
Im telling you... What if there really is something on the moon?? Why the sudden step up ?
Aliens dunit
The sudden setup is probably due to a). China's Space Program which aims to builds its own space station by 2020 and put human on the Moon. It's also probably related to Pres. Trump's attempts to defund the program, which means the organization has to promote itself as useful to the American public. Putting the two together and ask yourself: what better way to garner public support then to challenge the Chinese in a match it's already won?
I hope there's a typo in there, lcmiracle, or someone is going to have to break it to the Party that they have three weeks to build (and presumably launch) a space station...
Competition - either between firms or nations - does seem to be a factor in space exploration/technology progressing quickly, though, so this seems useful.
Im telling you... What if there really is something on the moon?? Why the sudden step up ?
Aliens dunit
The sudden setup is probably due to a). China's Space Program which aims to builds its own space station by 2020 and put human on the Moon. It's also probably related to Pres. Trump's attempts to defund the program, which means the organization has to promote itself as useful to the American public. Putting the two together and ask yourself: what better way to garner public support then to challenge the Chinese in a match it's already won?
I hope there's a typo in there, lcmiracle, or someone is going to have to break it to the Party that they have three weeks to build (and presumably launch) a space station...
Competition - either between firms or nations - does seem to be a factor in space exploration/technology progressing quickly, though, so this seems useful.
Apparently an extra 2 at the end was eaten because I haven't been paying my party fees because I haven't joined...
I'm not a covid conspiracy nut, but i admit i just heard something on MSNBC that makes me understand them better.
There were people talking about the tens of thousands of small businesses and restaurants that have been destroyed by covid, and how i'ts possible only giant corporate stores and restaurants will survive the pandemic.
I'm not saying this is not true, and i'm not saying i don;t see the economic reasons behind it, but I also admit i can see the POV of a covid conspiracy theorist that will jump up and scream "AHA! THIS PROVES COVID WAS ENGINEERED BY THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY TO KILL ALL SMALL BUSINESSES AND LEAVE THEM WITH NO COMPETITION SINCE THEY ALL COLLUDE WITH EACH OTHER! PROVES IT ABSOLUTELY!!!"
And yes, given how amazon (Jeff Bezos, aka the real world's version of lex luthor) went out of its way to destroy all online diaper sellers, openly and intentionally, and how walmart had practiced predatory pricing to force local retailers out of business when they move into an area, it's actually easy to see how many reasonable, intelligent people could find it easy to believe that the huge corporations might actually want to eliminate all small businesses even if it mean engineering a pandemic. They certainly have a history of actively targeting and destroying small businesses by whatever means possible, so it's hard to blame people for assuming the worse about them.
So not all 'conspiracy nuts' are raving paranoids with tinfoil hats, sometimes their views are actually not fringe or extreme at all. This is a case where believing in a conspiracy theory might be far from unreasonable.
I'm not saying i do believe it, but i'm not saying i consider it a ridiculous belief either.
Thing is in the UK we've seen more than a few big names also go under or get close to it. Big internet sellers are doing good, but a lot of big "highstreet" names which aren't food stores, are really hitting the wall. Of course they often do during recessions because they are up to their eyeballs in debt which they used to grow big fast, it bites them when the economy slows and they wind up owing more than they can earn.
At the same time much of this isn't new, we've been losing highstreet shops for a while and services like Amazon have been steadily growing in power and influence in the market.
So when you look at it like that they didn't need Covid, the market was fully heading in their favour to begin with. Even Cinemas coming under threat from streaming is, again, just acceleration of a pattern that was already happening.
I can certainly see their point, but I think for many its also having someone to blame for all this. Esp when you are one of those who have lost their business or their job through no fault other than never having times good enough to have a years investment set aside. When you've worked hard and there is nothing you can do - your shop is shut and even when its open you're hobbled on customers and many also don't want to come for safety reasons.
Yeah, I seriously doubt that big corporations planned the whole thing.
However, I have no doubt whatsoever that they're immoral, clever, and opportunistic enough to abuse the hell out of the situation.
The same applies to China, another beloved target for "plandemic" conspiracies.
Yeah. This wasn't a planned thing. The Pandemic has just been an extremely convenient thing for a lot of people to take advantage of, both for governments and private corporations. And they need to be called out on it.
Overread wrote: Thing is in the UK we've seen more than a few big names also go under or get close to it. Big internet sellers are doing good, but a lot of big "highstreet" names which aren't food stores, are really hitting the wall. Of course they often do during recessions because they are up to their eyeballs in debt which they used to grow big fast, it bites them when the economy slows and they wind up owing more than they can earn.
At the same time much of this isn't new, we've been losing highstreet shops for a while and services like Amazon have been steadily growing in power and influence in the market.
So when you look at it like that they didn't need Covid, the market was fully heading in their favour to begin with. Even Cinemas coming under threat from streaming is, again, just acceleration of a pattern that was already happening.
I can certainly see their point, but I think for many its also having someone to blame for all this. Esp when you are one of those who have lost their business or their job through no fault other than never having times good enough to have a years investment set aside. When you've worked hard and there is nothing you can do - your shop is shut and even when its open you're hobbled on customers and many also don't want to come for safety reasons.
As a general suggestion, i might recommend that more countries set of what we had in america called the Small Business Administration, SBA, that used to help small businesses get started with low interest loans and help in dealing with red tape. The SBA used to be a real power in america but has been gutted badly by certain leaders.
Given the history of big businesses actively crushing small businesses with various practices, i'd find the SBA with a special tax on huge businesses. I'm sure they;d squeal and have a lot of media screaming for the horror of majt corporations being taxes, my reply would be "Waah Waah."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote: Yeah, I seriously doubt that big corporations planned the whole thing.
However, I have no doubt whatsoever that they're immoral, clever, and opportunistic enough to abuse the hell out of the situation.
The same applies to China, another beloved target for "plandemic" conspiracies.
See now this is what i meant. Maybe the big business players didn't make this happen but it sure looks like they wanted it to happen, and they're acting in every way like they're glad it happened so they can exploit it.
Now when people act like that it's hard to condemn people for stepping (It's not really a leap) to the conclusion that they had something to do with it happening ITFP. So not all conspiracy theorists are always raving paranoids.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. This wasn't a planned thing. The Pandemic has just been an extremely convenient thing for a lot of people to take advantage of, both for governments and private corporations. And they need to be called out on it.
Now when people act like that it's hard to condemn people for stepping (It's not really a leap) to the conclusion that they had something to do with it happening ITFP. So not all conspiracy theorists are always raving paranoids.
No, jumping to conclusion that there's a conspiracy is still worthy of condemnation, particularly since rampant conspiracies and conspiracy theorists get pretty nasty with 'who' is to blame.
By all means go after corps and people who act illegally and immorally, but the idea that 'they're involved' is still off the rails.
The big money companies just have an easier time pivoting to online and deliveries in a way a small business can't. Its simple a matter of lacking the non-invested cash, expertise and infrastructure. Big businesses can also soak short term losses to make structural changes that will benefit them in the long term, and most small business can't do that. It isn't a good thing, but it isn't the result of conspiracy.
Jumping from "they're profiteering off it" to "they caused it so they could profit off it" also makes it far too easy to dismiss the former, legitimate criticism as the latter tinfoil hat rambling.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. This wasn't a planned thing. The Pandemic has just been an extremely convenient thing for a lot of people to take advantage of, both for governments and private corporations. And they need to be called out on it.
hear hear..
This I agree with. Disaster Capitalism is very much a thing. Indeed, we’re seeing a certain situation in the U.K. being exploited in the same way.
Reading the article they've stopped development of it for Corona; likely because as soon as anyone hears HIV antibodies they'd go "OMG its giving people aids". Which would be a PR disaster.
So its a good call there, but yes I really would expect them to take that ground work and run with it and see what they can produce. A vaccine for AIDS would be phenomenal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reading the article they've stopped development of it for Corona; likely because as soon as anyone hears HIV antibodies they'd go "OMG its giving people aids". Which would be a PR disaster.
So its a good call there, but yes I really would expect them to take that ground work and run with it and see what they can produce. A vaccine for AIDS would be phenomenal.
Crispy78 wrote: Not really getting why the spin of the article is so negative.
The problem is the vaccine makes the body create the same antibodies it uses to fight HIV. Detecting those antibodies is usually the quickest way to detect is someone has HIV, so this vaccine causes a massive problem because it creates false positives where regular HIV screening would assume the person has HIV when they don't. To be clear this isn't an HIV vaccine - the antibodies are known antibodies that the body produces to fight HIV (sadly, not very effectively).
There are two reasons this is bad:
1. It messes with standard screening procedures for HIV. You can still determine if you have a false positive or not through further testing but that's slower and more expensive.
2. If your vaccine is producing weird, unrelated, antibodies that's something you want to be wary of in general. It's a side-effect and may be indicative of bigger problems with your vaccine. It's also a bit of a PR nightmare even if the side-effects aren't medically problematic, particularly when it now appears we have a bunch of viable vaccine candidates that don't have this issue.
It was sounding a bit like "Bruce ya bloody drongo! You were supposed ta make a bloody Covid vaccine! Not this bloody AIDS vaccine! Bin it, ya flaming galah!"
HOLD UP! You are telling me, the Aussie COVID vaccine actually produced HIV antibodies? By. the. Emperah. -- We have AIDS vaccine!
For the explain it like I'm five crowd, should I read this as meaning that producing HIV antibodies could combat HIV, and it's super weird that the vaccine for a completely different virus did it? Is it possible there was simply some kind of mistest or contamination? EDIT: And nvm, this was answered just above me!
Slip has the roundout as to why that is an issue. NINJAed
Still, contamination is indeed an maybee?
However if not, then the question is as to why our body produced them, are they a general defensive tool and we didn't know?
Or is there more going on?
It was probably contamination. Perhaps whatever method that vaccine was using to generate the immune response for COVID also generated one that would stimulate HIV immune response.
For the record, I believe the US media is conspiring to wage a war on intelligence in america.
"But whyyyyy?" you ask?
I believe it's being done because when you look at a lot of media, intelligent people are portrayed negatively, like on TBBT, they are portrayed as objects of ridicule and mockery, caricatures to be pander to popular stereotypes much like a modern Amos 'n Andy.
other highly intelligent characters are portrayed as being weird, unpopular, cold, creepy, etc.
Robert Goren on Law and order criminal intent was a good effort at portraying a highly intelligent person with serious problems which is often the case as i know from experience. His portrayal was sensitive and realistic.
But many other characters with high intelligence and shown as less sympathetic. In the awful flash gordon one season series the SFC did Dr. Zarkov was a pathetic spazz who was routinely abused and bullied by everyone and portrayed as a slovenly wretch while trying to save humanity. (Given how he was treated i wonder why he bothered.)
Captain Kirk in the generic scifi action movies abrams made and stuck star trek names on was basically a smartass stupid punk who got away with ridiculous gak no on would, and his promotion to commanding the enterprise without even graduating starfleet academy was utterly idiotic, as were the abrams generic scifi action movies called star trek in general.
In the original series kirk was fairly intelligent and in the academy referred to as 'a stack of books with legs'. Hic changeover was to emphasize "cool" over intelligent.
Scotty was a spastic dweeb, as opposed to how he was portrayed in the series.
So, yeah, I see the media subtley and not so subtley demeaning and negatively portraying intelligent people, and intelligent is different from "smart", which is more attitude.
Meanwhile stupid people are held up as icons. Charlie Sheen's character on 2 and a half men was a selfish, shallow, stupid blockhead, and sheen was about the highest paid actor on tv until he hit the self destruct button on his career.
Tim Allen's character on Last man standing openly dumps on "intellectualism" as did his character in home improvement, and both are proud to be somewhat neanderthalish.
The joey character on friends was a dimwit, but a likeable one. It goes on.
So that's why i think there is a war on intelligence being waged in the media.
As to why it's being done, maybe its because stupid, ignorant, self indulgent, selfish, shallow people are easier to manipulate and sell junk to than intelligent people. Maybe it's cheaper to dumb down the market that make useful, well designed products.
I don't think there's an agenda behind that. It's pandering to the lowest common denominator - most people aren't very smart and think that's what smart people are like, so the media portray them that way, which reinforces the stereotype.
Since "smart people" aren't considered to be a minority that can be discriminated against, it's a fairly safe stereotype to use without getting accused of discriminating against anyone - which especially in comedy shows is a useful thing to have. Perceived unworldliness makes such characters a great straight man in setting up a joke.
Alternatively (or perhaps both are at play, one feeding off the other) there's a famous quote by Asimov about anti-intellectualism in the US that seems to point more towards a deeper cultural disdain for intellect that is being portrayed (and enhanced) by the media rather than them inventing it, at least when it comes to entertainment.
There’s also plenty of “comedy” that revolves almost entirely around people being thick.
BBT is noticeably terrible. The male leads are all thin stereotypes, and from there the ‘humour’ is derived.
But to weigh the matter, one would need to take a wider look. In the U.K. for example, we have quite a few high quality, high brow shows which reward intelligence (QI, Only Connect, Have I Got News For You) - and we also have many, many reality shows which reward acting like an utter arse.
Does a Love Island balance out a QI? Are both demographs equally served? If not, are there reasons for it (much as I watch a lot of telly, I also have outside interests and hobbies, meaning I’m more able to select my viewing pleasure).
Yes, anti-intellectualism is a thing. And it always will be, because some like to look down on the less learned, often sneeringly. And it’s gratifying to see them skewered for it, to see that ego bruised when they lose out to Average Joe.
For every mass market show like Mrs Brown’s Boys (utter, utter crap), there’s stuff like Black Mirror, Stewart Lee, Charlie Brookner and other excellent comedy which assumes a certain level of knowledge from its audience.
Example of QI, just in case you’ve not had the pleasure.
Bran Dawri wrote: I don't think there's an agenda behind that. It's pandering to the lowest common denominator - most people aren't very smart and think that's what smart people are like, so the media portray them that way, which reinforces the stereotype.
This.
I think a lot of the things most people complain about in modern media come down to occam's razor. Media is for profit. They will always pander to the lowest common denominator for the highest amount of income. There is no grand conspiracy. The media and entertainment industries are stupid as everyone else is. They're just dogs chasing a car and grabbing all the money coming out of the exhaust pipe.
Example of QI, just in case you’ve not had the pleasure.
Between that clip and Black Adder Goes Forth, I'd now be willing to entertain conspiracy theories about Stephen Fry and pigeons.
Possibly enlisting them in a conquest of Flanders.
Bran Dawri wrote: I don't think there's an agenda behind that. It's pandering to the lowest common denominator - most people aren't very smart and think that's what smart people are like, so the media portray them that way, which reinforces the stereotype.
Since "smart people" aren't considered to be a minority that can be discriminated against, it's a fairly safe stereotype to use without getting accused of discriminating against anyone - which especially in comedy shows is a useful thing to have. Perceived unworldliness makes such characters a great straight man in setting up a joke.
Alternatively (or perhaps both are at play, one feeding off the other) there's a famous quote by Asimov about anti-intellectualism in the US that seems to point more towards a deeper cultural disdain for intellect that is being portrayed (and enhanced) by the media rather than them inventing it, at least when it comes to entertainment.
I'd say its a bit chicken and egg here. . . When I was in Uni, I saw a number of psychology studies that outlined how people, even unconsciously, start to exhibit traits that they see often enough on TV. Some religious "family advocacy groups" have picked up on this, and use the Disney Channel's programming as a prime example of how media is leading to kids disrespecting their parents and "getting away" with it. Other parenting groups have noted that, during the period of time when Tim Allen's "Home Improvement" was on, nearly every tv sitcom involving a family unit, portrayed the dad in much the same way as "Tim 'the toolman' Taylor" was, and thus have noticed an increase in "hapless morons with a heart of gold" fathers raising kids after that show.
As others have noted, media is out to make money, and in America, that means more more more. Look at the sport of football. When I was a teenager, NFL games were Monday nights, and Sunday. The only exception to that was the thanksgiving day doubleheader, and then saturday playoff games after the NCAA season was finished. . . . Today, you've got Monday nights, Thursday nights, Sunday and Sunday night primetime games. There's the occasional saturday primetime game, the entire pre-season is televised. IF you go to the right channel, you can watch old games any day of the week. You've got 24h channels devoted solely to "analysis" and highlights, explaining why a team is doing a thing better than another. Media execs said, "hey, the people like this football thing, lets give them so much football, 365 days a year!!! They'll love that!!"
Hell, even baseball, with its 162 game season does not go to the lengths that football has in terms of televising all the things all the time.
And, well, lets be real here. . . Most of us on this forum are reasonably intelligent/smart. We get and understand that learning things is hard, at least when compared to turning on whatever latest sitcom is on, and mindlessly soaking up nonsense for an hour a night. It makes total sense that people believe that society as a whole is getting dumber, given the spate of "popular" shows out there now, but to lay the blame solely on the media, and some conspiracy doesn't make much sense.
Dumb TV can also be a pressure valve, or at least I’ve found it so.
I do a fairly stressful job. Whilst the stakes for me are low, I’m aware others have far more riding on it.
I’ve been doing it 8 years now - though 3ish my current role where it’s proper serious business.
When I’ve had A Heck Of A Day, I find a neat injection of pure, calculated stupidity genuinely helps. Something which makes me give a proper belly laugh of appreciation.
Examples include, but are by no means limited to......
Beavis & Butthead, Mr Pickles, What We Do In The Shadows, and a serious favourite, Uncle Grandpa. Really depends what I’m in the mood for. Uncle Grandpa is reserved for when I really, really need to disengage my brain.
Eh, I don't think society is particularly dumber that it always has been. We have regressed in some places, but moved forward in others. I'd even go so far as to say we've gotten smarter, as even the low-bar stupid shows need to pack in more content happening faster to keep up.
But while I have little concern over our intelligence score, I feel our wisdom score has suffered over the course of the 21st century. The internet proved to be a catalyst for the reaction between a certain portion of politics and US-led culture for an extremely loose definition of 'protected free speech'. It's a low wisdom score that more often than not feeds these conspiracy theories, and they only get fully stupid once they have the momentum of popularity to rope in the actual idiots while keeping the fools onboard.
Matt Swain wrote: In the awful flash gordon one season series the SFC did Dr. Zarkov was a pathetic spazz...
Scotty was a spastic dweeb...
...a selfish, shallow, stupid blockhead...
As to why it's being done, maybe its because stupid, ignorant, self indulgent, selfish, shallow people are easier to manipulate and sell junk to than intelligent people. Maybe it's cheaper to dumb down the market that make useful, well designed products.
Maybe the reason intelligent people (or, rather, people engaged in performative impressions of what they think is intelligence) are so often lampooned is because of sneering, condescending, and aloof attitudes like this?
Matt Swain wrote: In the awful flash gordon one season series the SFC did Dr. Zarkov was a pathetic spazz...
Scotty was a spastic dweeb...
...a selfish, shallow, stupid blockhead...
As to why it's being done, maybe its because stupid, ignorant, self indulgent, selfish, shallow people are easier to manipulate and sell junk to than intelligent people. Maybe it's cheaper to dumb down the market that make useful, well designed products.
Maybe the reason intelligent people (or, rather, people engaged in performative impressions of what they think is intelligence) are so often lampooned is because of sneering, condescending, and aloof attitudes like this?
well, considering the attitudes of the most extreme cases of both sides, this is accurate:
Thinking there is a war on intelligence means thinking that hundreds of writers that have no connection to one another are all just....deciding to write smart people as evil when the simple answer is ....people write what they have seen before.
As to TBBT portraying the smart people as bad. It doesn't. If you paid attention, they are never mocked or insulted for being intelligent unless it is by someone framed in the wrong.
They are mocked for the social ineptitude, which was never shown to be because they are smart. Infact they are praised for being smart often.
I wish people could actually watch the show.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thinking there is a war on intelligence means thinking that hundreds of writers that have no connection to one another are all just....deciding to write smart people as evil when the simple answer is ....people write what they have seen before.
As to TBBT portraying the smart people as bad. It doesn't. If you paid attention, they are never mocked or insulted for being intelligent unless it is by someone framed in the wrong.
They are mocked for the social ineptitude, which was never shown to be because they are smart. Infact they are praised for being smart often.
I wish people could actually watch the show.
This. I don't particularly like the show, but the only time their intelligence is really mocked is when it is by one of the "smart ones".
Other than that, it is really just about their having issues with social interactions and basically making fun of people with aspergers.
Yeah, I think CTs have been a danger for a bit longer than the last few months. This example is just a continuation of the MMR causes autism bullgak and the Bill Gates is creating a New World Order through microchips gibberish.
Sadly, it seems the real-world consequences of CT nutjobs continue to be all-too dangerous. Seems like there's pretty good evidence the Christmas Day bombing in Nashville was by some guy convinced 5G was evil or transmitting Covid or something. As if any more evidence were really needed, this is why I detest any arguments along the lines of "well, it could be true" or "we should keep an open mind" about stuff that is clearly whacko CT fodder. Mostly it's harmless, but in many cases it isn't and for that reason anyone who perpetuates these sort of CTs should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Not Online!!! wrote: As for the whole bombing, wasn't it pretty much clear from the get go that it was due to a covid 5G nutcase?
My understanding was that there was some initial mystery because the perpetrator didn't release any sort of manifesto and make a big statement prior to the boom. He was identified fast, but because he was a recluse it took a bit to put together the reasons for why.
Yeah, now. See, if idiots want to believe that vaccines are evil (And I have just a little sympathy for them as vaccines are made by corporations and i understand people seeing everything corporations do as evil.) that's mostly on them and their kids, who i do pity.
But, when they start sabotaging vaccinations that the rest of us choose to get, that's a whole new level, and a real public threat.
On one hand i think america has way too many people doing waay too much time in it's for profit prison system, OTOH I think this guy needs to go to prison for at least a decade.
As others have noted, media is out to make money, and in America, that means more more more. Look at the sport of football. When I was a teenager, NFL games were Monday nights, and Sunday. The only exception to that was the thanksgiving day doubleheader, and then saturday playoff games after the NCAA season was finished. . . . Today, you've got Monday nights, Thursday nights, Sunday and Sunday night primetime games. There's the occasional saturday primetime game, the entire pre-season is televised.
You think you got it bad - try watching football (soccer) in England. There's a game every night and for 10 hours each day on the weekend. Premier League, Championship, Champions League, UEFA Cup, FA Cup, League Cup - it's relentless! And between seasons we have the national competitions. And since I've been getting into (American) football more and more I have to pick and choose what to watch otherwise sports become mundane. And I'm double screwed if it's an F1 weekend, but at least that's only 2 hours on Saturday and 3 on Sunday.
But yeah, that's not a conspiracy, it's capitalism without a plan or understanding of how to make the product consumable.
I never thought I would see Americans advocating to overthrow their own democracy based on a bunch of easily disproved and debunked lies and conspiracy theories.
I feel that its getting closer to the time to start showing a lot less tolerance of "harmless" bs.
I never thought I would see Americans advocating to overthrow their own democracy based on a bunch of easily disproved and debunked lies and conspiracy theories.
I feel that its getting closer to the time to start showing a lot less tolerance of "harmless" bs.
Right, because freedom of speech is clearly the problem here. We better had some more rights to the list while we’re at it just to make sure nobody even thinks about the need to reform antiquated election laws. Gotta male sure that any hyperbolic narrative the media churns out is parroted by as many people as possible.
I never thought I would see Americans advocating to overthrow their own democracy based on a bunch of easily disproved and debunked lies and conspiracy theories.
I feel that its getting closer to the time to start showing a lot less tolerance of "harmless" bs.
Right, because freedom of speech is clearly the problem here. We better had some more rights to the list while we’re at it just to make sure nobody even thinks about the need to reform antiquated election laws. Gotta male sure that any hyperbolic narrative the media churns out is parroted by as many people as possible.
I'm guessing you're not referring to the "hyperbolic narrative" of NTD, OAN and Fox then?
I think you have a problem when "freedom of speech advocates" are wandering around the houses of your democracy and attempting to overthrow legitimate democratic process advocated by the sitting President.
Notice how its usually the left on this board who starts the political crap throwing.
When 47% of the voters including 30% of democrat's think some hanky panky went on, the dumbest possible response the political class can use is STFU plebes, yet that's what they've been doing.
Honestly what it really is comes simply down to how lawsuits over libel/slander are approached in the US. Obviously there are a variety of legal details but the core concept is needing to prove that one entity spoke falsely with the specific intent of damaging another. Which is nearly impossible to prove. In the US lawsuits are one of the main mechanisms for regulating the behavior of groups/entities, so if those don't work things can run amok.
Jerram wrote: Notice how its usually the left on this board who starts the political crap throwing.
When 47% of the voters including 30% of democrat's think some hanky panky went on, the dumbest possible response the political class can use is STFU plebes, yet that's what they've been doing.
/
30% of Democrats? Can't see that figure in that report anywhere?
Besides, I'm not surprised that so many people "think" there was fraud when that is what has been said repeatedly by the media for months in the run up, lead by certain high profile politicians and commentators.
However, that means absolutely feth all without some sort of actual evidence. People "thinking" stuff means nothing. There have been ample opportunities to PROVE fraud occurred, however, and this is where the conspiracy theory bit comes in, they have been unable to and so blame a deep state cover up. Again without any evidence whatsoever.
Now, unable to accept that they have lost they have abandoned the principle of a peaceful transfer of power and just wish to coerce the system to give them what they want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Honestly what it really is comes simply down to how lawsuits over libel/slander are approached in the US. Obviously there are a variety of legal details but the core concept is needing to prove that one entity spoke falsely with the specific intent of damaging another. Which is nearly impossible to prove. In the US lawsuits are one of the main mechanisms for regulating the behavior of groups/entities, so if those don't work things can run amok.
Yes it was interesting to see how quickly retractions and "clarifications" were issued recently once the threat of legal action was pressed.
Perhaps that should be used more extensively? Say what you like, however, be prepared to back it up in court or have your arse sued off, or retract your BS.
I never thought I would see Americans advocating to overthrow their own democracy based on a bunch of easily disproved and debunked lies and conspiracy theories.
I feel that its getting closer to the time to start showing a lot less tolerance of "harmless" bs.
Right, because freedom of speech is clearly the problem here. We better had some more rights to the list while we’re at it just to make sure nobody even thinks about the need to reform antiquated election laws. Gotta male sure that any hyperbolic narrative the media churns out is parroted by as many people as possible.
I'm guessing you're not referring to the "hyperbolic narrative" of NTD, OAN and Fox then?
I think you have a problem when "freedom of speech advocates" are wandering around the houses of your democracy and attempting to overthrow legitimate democratic process advocated by the sitting President.
I don’t know exactly which narratives those channels are promoting because I don’t have cable and don’t use their websites. From what I can gather Fox and OAN (I honestly don’t know what NTD is) have been pushing the same tired Democrats are Socialists, no wait, they’re Communists pretending to be Socialists who are taking over the Democratic Party and soon they’ll take over America and the. THE WORLD. They’re funded by a cabal of bakers that eat babies and gold leaf while worshipping pagan gods on an island, not Epstein’s Island they only go there on vacation. We have to stop them before they burn down all the churches and murder everyone who has an American flag in their yard or has attended a college football game which makes this election and every election an EXISTENTIAL THREAT!!!1!! If the Republicans don’t when every private business will be taxed out of existence to the point where Jeff Bezos will have to fly commercial. If we lose the election we’ll have exhausted the soap box and the ballot box so we’ll be forced to open up the cartridge box and water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and by tyrants we mean anyone you didn’t vote for and also anyone you did vote for but who really don’t love the constitution enough.
That hyperbolic narrative is also terrible. Sure it’s amusing listening to conservative talk shows try to convince long time listeners that it’s actually not time for an armed revolt, the chair is NOT against the wall and John is totes clean shaven. Amusing but still not smart.
It’s not good when for profit media corporations chase ratings instead of actual news.
The specific narrative I was referring to in my previous post was the pearl clutching narrative that the videos of middle aged chubby people walking around the Capitol rotunda waving flags and shouting is the the darkest day in our national history even though for some reason those protestors were allowed to literally move barricades out the way and walk through the front door while Congress is in session. Protestors can get tear gassed and beaten by cops all summer long but somehow protestors can walk right through the front door into the Capitol and security could do nothing. Storming the Capitol wasn’t a smart move, people are going to get arrested and they really haven’t affected anything other than driving up weekday ratings and website views.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If I had to choose between 'censorship' of factually untrue statements presented as truth or a violent revolt I think I'd prefer the former.
If we’re going to post false dilemmas I’d rather have a nice bacon cheeseburger than an asteroid impact that wipes out humanity.
Jerram wrote: Notice how its usually the left on this board who starts the political crap throwing.
When 47% of the voters including 30% of democrat's think some hanky panky went on, the dumbest possible response the political class can use is STFU plebes, yet that's what they've been doing.
I never thought I would see Americans advocating to overthrow their own democracy based on a bunch of easily disproved and debunked lies and conspiracy theories.
I feel that its getting closer to the time to start showing a lot less tolerance of "harmless" bs.
Right, because freedom of speech is clearly the problem here. We better had some more rights to the list while we’re at it just to make sure nobody even thinks about the need to reform antiquated election laws. Gotta male sure that any hyperbolic narrative the media churns out is parroted by as many people as possible.
I'm guessing you're not referring to the "hyperbolic narrative" of NTD, OAN and Fox then?
I think you have a problem when "freedom of speech advocates" are wandering around the houses of your democracy and attempting to overthrow legitimate democratic process advocated by the sitting President.
I don’t know exactly which narratives those channels are promoting because I don’t have cable and don’t use their websites. From what I can gather Fox and OAN (I honestly don’t know what NTD is) have been pushing the same tired Democrats are Socialists, no wait, they’re Communists pretending to be Socialists who are taking over the Democratic Party and soon they’ll take over America and the. THE WORLD. They’re funded by a cabal of bakers that eat babies and gold leaf while worshipping pagan gods on an island, not Epstein’s Island they only go there on vacation. We have to stop them before they burn down all the churches and murder everyone who has an American flag in their yard or has attended a college football game which makes this election and every election an EXISTENTIAL THREAT!!!1!! If the Republicans don’t when every private business will be taxed out of existence to the point where Jeff Bezos will have to fly commercial. If we lose the election we’ll have exhausted the soap box and the ballot box so we’ll be forced to open up the cartridge box and water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and by tyrants we mean anyone you didn’t vote for and also anyone you did vote for but who really don’t love the constitution enough.
That hyperbolic narrative is also terrible. Sure it’s amusing listening to conservative talk shows try to convince long time listeners that it’s actually not time for an armed revolt, the chair is NOT against the wall and John is totes clean shaven. Amusing but still not smart.
It’s not good when for profit media corporations chase ratings instead of actual news.
The specific narrative I was referring to in my previous post was the pearl clutching narrative that the videos of middle aged chubby people walking around the Capitol rotunda waving flags and shouting is the the darkest day in our national history even though for some reason those protestors were allowed to literally move barricades out the way and walk through the front door while Congress is in session. Protestors can get tear gassed and beaten by cops all summer long but somehow protestors can walk right through the front door into the Capitol and security could do nothing. Storming the Capitol wasn’t a smart move, people are going to get arrested and they really haven’t affected anything other than driving up weekday ratings and website views.
Jerram wrote: Notice how its usually the left on this board who starts the political crap throwing.
When 47% of the voters including 30% of democrat's think some hanky panky went on, the dumbest possible response the political class can use is STFU plebes, yet that's what they've been doing.
What should be done? Claims have been investigated and nothing done. Only thing different that could be done is hand trump presldency.
And where 30 comes? Not on page. 47 doesn't surprise. About half the voters are rep's who believe it's rigged if trump didnt win.
Which investigations are you referring to? We don’t audit elections. We don’t audit the DoD or the Fed either. There’s very little actual transparency in the government although the government audits citizens and businesses all the time. We have recounts but recounting bad data is t an investigations. Lawsuits have been thrown out and admitted irregularities have been dismissed because the numbers involved weren’t enough to change the outcome but that doesn’t disprove that the irregularities occurred. Vote counts in elections in the US routinely decline as final tabulations are done. That should never happen. If the election is conducted properly you should never see vote counts decline. Improper ballots shouldn’t get into the system and be counted and declining vote totals is an admission that fraudulent votes got into the system. Vote totals could increase if more ballots are found but a candidate should never lose votes that have been cast. Of course we don’t audit elections and we never get the allegedly totally accurate results for weeks or months after the election is over. There’s no reason to object to an audit of an election, it’s always in everyone’s best interest for the process to have integrity and accuracy.
OK, folks, this is turning into a de facto politics thread, which is obviously not ideal. I'm going to lock it down for the moment. The thread will be re-opened once we've given it a spring-clean.
