Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2024/03/16 15:03:09
Subject: Re:Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
Kanluwen wrote: Minor quibble:
Sasquatch being associated with UAPs and other "woo" phenomenon is fairly recent. I think it was early 2000s when it started getting linked together?
Hey there Kanluwen, thanks for the response.
Beliefs among tribal people of the Sasquatch include accounts that attribute the being to a host of magical and supernatural abilities not limited to but including shape shifting, the ability to slip into different spirit realms and a host of other bizarre things. A brief online search will produce a variety of avenues with which to explore that kind of anthropological data. It’s a topic that has been covered in a multitude of ways over the years.
As for the unverified ape hypothesis, well, it is fairly obvious I think that narrative has been popularized by our very own cultural milieu and the paradigm associated with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh just a quick aside, the reason I posted such a long explanation of my position and was so honest about where I stand and what I find interesting about this topic is precisely because I have enjoyed being a part of this forum so much.
I really love this place and taking part in the monthly competition is a genuine delight for me.
I know we might all not share the same view of the cosmos, reality and the nature of consciousness, but that is ok in my book.
You’re all equally great. Period.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/03/16 15:23:56
2024/03/16 19:34:56
Subject: Re:Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
I’m going to be charitable and show my desire for genuine transparency and goodwill here and make the statement that I believe all of the comments in this thread are coming from a place genuinely interested in stimulating lively discussion. The alternative isn’t flattering, particularly if it reveals various positions that are argued to be more ‘truthful’ as actually those based in relative ignorance of the topic itself, so let’s proceed by covering some basic points that I think can be labeled ‘uncontroversial’ and easy to verify without much effort.
1. My stated aim opening this thread was to hear about other people’s ‘thoughts’ (stated clearly as such) on the issue of what is called ‘Bigfoot’. I stated I had some thoughts on the matter, and I stated I have spoken to some who claim to have had personal experiences with this ‘entity’ or ‘phenomenon’, and that is all I said. Nowhere did I state I had scientific propositions, anything approximating scientific theory, uncontroversial evidence or that I wished to provide a philosophical treatise on the nature of the scientific method. If people here have seen anywhere in my original post evidence of these things I am sorry you experienced such an event and can only speculate as to what that means. If they haven’t, and let’s face it they haven’t, then what has slowly unfolded over the course of this ‘discussion’ here represents either a misunderstanding, malice, or something else. I believe the nature of the possible ‘something else’ might indeed be found in the philosophy of science, but as I have been keen to reiterate, time and again, that is not and was never what this thread was opened with the intention to discuss, and I have reiterated that point to absurdity at this stage. I will ignore all attempts to steer the conversation in that direction, so do not take my silence on the matter as evidence of anything other than me not engaging with a topic I have explicitly reiterated I have no desire to get into the weeds about. If you are satisfied the lack of ‘empirical data’ means little more can be said on this topic and you are inclined to dismiss it as all bunk as a result I congratulate you on your steadfast commitment to this view and feel it is a very sensible position to take. It is NOT my position at all, for reasons I will out line.
2. I have stated, time and again, that the cultural phenomenon of ‘Bigfoot’ cannot, is not, and will not ever be reduced to an argument for the existence of a large unknown primate. This does not represent the phenomenon in question accurately at all. What IS an accurate representation of the phenomenon is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence that for centuries human beings have been recounting stories of encounters with a large, often hairy, upright walking creature that seemingly can appear and disappear with ease in a host of environments leaving little else but footprints in its wake. Is that all? No, far from it. Accounts include descriptions of Bigfoot as apelike, more of a baboon shape, doglike, wolflike or something akin to an ‘ogre’ (whatever that is supposed to mean). Moreover, the accounts include descriptions of strange lights (yes, that is UAPs these days), the ‘oz’ effect, disorientation, electrical malfunction and a host of other bizarre events. Why is this important? Well in order to discuss a phenomenon you need to have a working appreciation of the claims that are being made regarding said phenomenon in the first place. So far in this thread I have seen individuals discussing the unlikelihood of a large primate wandering around parts of the Pacific Northwest or other isolated regions. That’s valid, and fun, and it might be true (I personally do not think that is what we are looking at) but let us all be clear here… such a view of the phenomenon of what is called ‘Bigfoot’ simply does not accurately represent the information in the cultural field we have readily available to all.
3. What is called ‘Bigfoot’ is closely associated with UAPs and other ‘woo’ amongst many interested parties actively discussing the topic. I think that point is made clear in the above section, but the meaning of that point is often lost by those who simply hear such a thing and immediately begin to drift off into a knee jerk desire to ‘deboonk’ the phenomenon. Why is this fact important? Well, because we have admissions by scientifically minded individuals that the study of UAPs has been actively undertaken by government entities for a very long time, with concomitant funding and the scandals you’d expect in such matters occasionally breaking into mainstream news. In fact, it is even more spectacular than that, we have a situation where ‘scientific’ interest in the issue is being publicly ‘admitted’ through the very social institutions whom the public turn to in order to gauge acceptable attitudes towards this subject. Furthermore, it has created a dichotomy (at least perceived amongst many) that science itself might be unable to fully account for some form of ‘phenomenon’ with which our institutions of government are claiming to be worthy of ‘study’. If the societal implications of this are lost on people here I admit defeat and indeed agree there is nothing worthy of discussion. See you all back in the Stone Age,
To put it succinctly, no outcome here, in turns of an explanation of what is actually going on, is particularly comfortable to contemplate,
Now, if it makes one more comfortable, we can agree to discuss what function such narratives surrounding ‘Bigfoot’ might serve either unconsciously or consciously to our social and cultural milieu, and I have no problem with that, but in the meantime I hope I have made my position here clearer, and I hope any misunderstandings can be laid to rest.
I suspect there are a few people here whose views I do not share at all, in fact I suspect I might find them severely lacking at a fundamental level, but let’s not act surprised about that. One can find the necessary clues as to the basis for such disagreements very very early on in this thread, and it is clear an exploration of those topics is not on the agenda, so in the interest of keeping this friendly and good natured, let’s see where we can agree.
(Spoilered as it's such a large post) Firstly, I'll agree with BobtheInquisitor. While I believe you are sincere in wanting genuine discussion on this topic, your general tone could easily be taken as condescension if read in a certain way. Also, you write a lot of words but don't really say much in a concrete fashion, which has been my biggest frustration with your posts in this thread. There's a lot of vague allusions and comments that could be taken as accusations of dishonesty or statements of your own superiority, but it's difficult to know how to take them because they are so vague.
To take your points in order:
1. I think it's naive to expect people not to bring up concepts like how to evaluate evidence in a discussion about bigfoot. It's central to the whole topic, IMO. You don't get to dictate the exact direction a discussion takes just because you started the thread. These things evolve organically depending on the input of everyone involved. Asking for people's thoughts is fair enough, but if there's no more substance to them there isn't a lot to discuss. You were also the one to bring up scientism here, so it's a bit rich to then complain when discussion turns to the nature of science itself.
2. I don't think I agree with the first sentence here. I believe you think you've done that, but I find it difficult to identify much in the way of a positive statement from you about what bigfoot might be. There are a lot of vague assertions and suggestions, but nothing to really latch onto and have a discussion about. I think this post is by far the most specific in terms of outlining your actual position and it's come on page 6. That said, there are a couple of things that don't make sense to me here. You mention that many cultures have legends or folklore around bigfoot, or similar creatures. You then list a whole bunch of concepts and creatures that don't really seem particularly similar to me. We've got everything from bigfoot to dogman to some ill-defined "ogre". It's a bit of a stretch to say they're all the same thing, IMO. If you find concepts more valid the more cultures believe in them, what about thunder gods? Almost every culture has or had a belief in a thunder and/or lightning god at some point in their past. If we're looking purely at frequency of a belief occurring that would seem a more reasonable thing to believe in than bigfoot. Or it could just be an indication that human psychology shares certain qualities that lean towards the emergence of similar legends and tales. That says nothing about the truth of those claims.
3. This is all a bunch of vague unsubstantiated conjecture, ending in another of your comments that could be read as condescending. The mere existence of investigations into UAPs don't tell us anything about the validity of some of the more outlandish claims regarding their nature. It'd be surprising if there weren't investigations into UAPs, given the obvious national security risks of not doing so. Tying bigfoot to UAPs is also something that is indicative of common behaviour among people who believe in conspiracy theories. It's pretty well established that believers in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in multiple, unrelated, conspiracies. This seems like the same thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/03/16 19:35:29
2024/03/16 20:23:24
Subject: Re:Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
Tying bigfoot to UAPs is also something that is indicative of common behaviour among people who believe in conspiracy theories. It's pretty well established that believers in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in multiple, unrelated, conspiracies. This seems like the same thing.
Beautifully put.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/03/16 20:24:35
2024/03/16 22:05:52
Subject: Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
That there was something seen flying, and nobody is quite sure what it is doesn’t mean Therefore Aliens.
Cliched as it might be? Could be experimental aircraft or drones, and by no means owned/built by a hostile country. After all, most western governments are firm allies, and all will have their own secret military gubbins either in development, or perfected and being kept hush-hush until it’s needed. And so a lip service investigation being made when someone saw something they weren’t supposed to, with the foregone conclusion “nope we don’t know either” isn’t outside the realms of possibility.
We can look to WW2 for some broadly similar film-flammery. The UK had developed radar, which allowed us to detect Luftwaffe air raids on their way over. Indeed it was effective use of Radar that gave the defending airforce a leg up during the Battle of Britain.
To cover this up? Propaganda posters about how Carrots (something Britain could grow in abundance during a period of rationing) let you see in the dark. Seemingly, German Intelligence fell for it. At least for long enough that the German ability to launch significant air raids via bombers was curtailed.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
That there was something seen flying, and nobody is quite sure what it is doesn’t mean Therefore Aliens.
Cliched as it might be? Could be experimental aircraft or drones, and by no means owned/built by a hostile country. After all, most western governments are firm allies, and all will have their own secret military gubbins either in development, or perfected and being kept hush-hush until it’s needed. And so a lip service investigation being made when someone saw something they weren’t supposed to, with the foregone conclusion “nope we don’t know either” isn’t outside the realms of possibility.
We can look to WW2 for some broadly similar film-flammery. The UK had developed radar, which allowed us to detect Luftwaffe air raids on their way over. Indeed it was effective use of Radar that gave the defending airforce a leg up during the Battle of Britain.
To cover this up? Propaganda posters about how Carrots (something Britain could grow in abundance during a period of rationing) let you see in the dark. Seemingly, German Intelligence fell for it. At least for long enough that the German ability to launch significant air raids via bombers was curtailed.
Hahaha! I absolutely love that, and I think it gets to the heart of much of what goes on here. To be fair you do have to possess a particular kind of humor sometimes to get the funny side when it comes to these kinds of operations. I think what is going on in this modern equivalent is a little more serious though; in as much as it seems the objective, whatever may be behind it, is clearly at risk of further undermining general trust in our institutions at large.
Anyway, one of my favorite examples of psychological operations inventive use of cultural myth was the staging of, wait for it, vampire terror raids. Yep, special forces successfully employing the terror of the ‘undead’. Dracula warfare. It’s a thing… and it worked. Here’s a good write up:
Considering Drones and other things we have now I'm actually surprised we don't have a huge surge of "UFOs" that turn out to be drones and other things. Or at least enough of a surge for it to make the news.
Overread wrote: Considering Drones and other things we have now I'm actually surprised we don't have a huge surge of "UFOs" that turn out to be drones and other things. Or at least enough of a surge for it to make the news.
Yeah, but then in fairness to the many defense employees, scientists and journalists (acting on their behalf) much has been said about the number of reports ‘solved’ because of just this type of thing.
I think there was acknowledgement of an increase in reported sightings during the lockdowns that were attributed to drones too.
Apparently many of the elderly have been astonished to discover the concept of unmanned flight!
The world these days!
Automatically Appended Next Post: It’s interesting to me when you consider the simple manner in which genuine everyday folk fall prey to their own biases, biology or cultural circumstances but to be honest I don’t really think, at least in terms of really getting to the meat on the bone, it’s very enlightening when it comes to this bizarre situation we all find ourselves in.
Fun, definitely! No doubt.
Yet, if we take the same line of enquiry and turn it precisely outward, to the proponents of the alternative possibilities from within institutionalized structures of ‘belief’ things become richer in explanatory power.
Put simply, the creation of the ‘terror in the skies’ narrative and the priestly class who often unwittingly engender its cultural significance and reach; invoking fear both deliberately and unknowingly in a kind of grand, semi-autonomous gnostic sorcery project.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/03/17 09:05:04
2024/03/17 12:21:31
Subject: Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
Yet, if we take the same line of enquiry and turn it precisely outward, to the proponents of the alternative possibilities from within institutionalized structures of ‘belief’ things become richer in explanatory power.
Put simply, the creation of the ‘terror in the skies’ narrative and the priestly class who often unwittingly engender its cultural significance and reach; invoking fear both deliberately and unknowingly in a kind of grand, semi-autonomous gnostic sorcery project.
Put simply? Seriously? This is a perfect example of what I've been critical of ITT. What are you trying to say in that last sentence? I'm not even sure it's a sentence at all. Can you try rewriting it in plain English in order to facilitate some useful discussion? Who are the "priestly class"? What "institutionalized structures of 'belief'" are you talking about? I have an idea, but because you remain so imprecise and vague I can't say for sure. What is the first sentence above talking about exactly? The whole thing reads like it's straight out of the postmodernism generator website.
2024/03/17 13:09:01
Subject: Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
Yet, if we take the same line of enquiry and turn it precisely outward, to the proponents of the alternative possibilities from within institutionalized structures of ‘belief’ things become richer in explanatory power.
Put simply, the creation of the ‘terror in the skies’ narrative and the priestly class who often unwittingly engender its cultural significance and reach; invoking fear both deliberately and unknowingly in a kind of grand, semi-autonomous gnostic sorcery project.
Put simply? Seriously? This is a perfect example of what I've been critical of ITT. What are you trying to say in that last sentence? I'm not even sure it's a sentence at all. Can you try rewriting it in plain English in order to facilitate some useful discussion? Who are the "priestly class"? What "institutionalized structures of 'belief'" are you talking about? I have an idea, but because you remain so imprecise and vague I can't say for sure. What is the first sentence above talking about exactly? The whole thing reads like it's straight out of the postmodernism generator website.
Hahaha! That did make me laugh! I remember once me and a friend actually wrote a pseudo ‘scientific’ analysis using nothing but the language of postmodernism slipping in terms like ‘hyper reality’ and ‘simulacra’ etc. It was actually pretty hilarious, a lot of people praised the jibberish we’d subjected them to as deeply insightful. The more things change, the more they stay the same I suppose.
Anyway, the ‘structures of belief’ refer to the practical business of ‘worldview building’ (or Weltanschauungskrieg) in psychological operations and social engineering endeavors. You’re right to point out much of that employs psychobabble jibberish (postmodernist nonsense) it’s actually an old gnostic trick at its core. The sorcery comment is inspired by that fact.
It goes deeper than that though, there is a blue on blue situation that can and does occur at the societal level if the lack of transparency inherent in the use of these tactics begins to erode the ability of even the most intelligent amongst us to discern fact from fiction. George Orwell and Arthur Koestler wrote a lot about that kind of thing.
Hope that helps clarify what I meant.
I was just discussing this with my partner and she suggested the ultimate clarification would be something like ‘nonsense in = nonsense out’. I’m sorry my language can be a little verbose at times, it can be a little frustrating for people and I need to work on that for sure.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/03/17 13:43:02
2024/03/17 15:34:15
Subject: Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
You don’t sound like a post modernist. You sound like a politician who wants to assure his crazy base he’s with them while evading saying anything specific enough for his opponents to nail him down.
Also, your last post makes me wonder if you’ve even graduated high school. You talk about science and education like everything you’ve learned about it came from YouTube “destroyed!!!” videos. There’s a famous quip that William F Buckley sounds like a dumb person’s idea of a smart person. You’re posting like a teenager’s idea of an educated person.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, I am working on a longer reply to your earlier post because you asked me to.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/03/17 15:36:14
As am I. I’ve outlined clearly what it is I meant in the earlier post and provided specific terminology in some examples. Very specific.
Look, I think I’m done here.
Given the allusions to my character I have endured several times now, even after having made genuine attempts to clarify and further communicate, I have no faith truly open discussion is actually wanted or desired here.
You might have found the above people to have good character, and I’m sure that’s true in your experience. Mine is evidently different.
It’s the internet for you I suppose.
2024/03/17 16:11:00
Subject: Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
You are not communicating clearly. That is not to say you're a bad person or anything of the sort, just that your words have failed to effectively get your point across.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2024/03/17 16:22:47
Subject: Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
I am sorry this has degenerated into such a state and it makes me genuinely sad as I have so enjoyed my interactions in this forum up until this point.
I’ve been accused directly of trolling, being a liar, being uneducated or somehow lacking intellectual honesty and generally a host of pretty unpleasant stuff. I’ve tried with an open heart to address these comments, even in good humor, but it doesn’t seem to be enough.
I don’t want to engage with anyone here on this topic anymore.
Thankyou.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/03/17 16:23:27
2024/03/17 17:19:01
Subject: Re:Bigfoot… is it real, a hoax, imaginary cultural boogeyman or… something else?
XvArcanevX wrote: I’m going to be charitable and show my desire for genuine transparency and goodwill here and make the statement that I believe all of the comments in this thread are coming from a place genuinely interested in stimulating lively discussion. The alternative isn’t flattering, particularly if it reveals various positions that are argued to be more ‘truthful’ as actually those based in relative ignorance of the topic itself, so let’s proceed by covering some basic points that I think can be labeled ‘uncontroversial’ and easy to verify without much effort.
1. My stated aim opening this thread was to hear about other people’s ‘thoughts’ (stated clearly as such) on the issue of what is called ‘Bigfoot’. I stated I had some thoughts on the matter, and I stated I have spoken to some who claim to have had personal experiences with this ‘entity’ or ‘phenomenon’, and that is all I said. Nowhere did I state I had scientific propositions, anything approximating scientific theory, uncontroversial evidence or that I wished to provide a philosophical treatise on the nature of the scientific method. If people here have seen anywhere in my original post evidence of these things I am sorry you experienced such an event and can only speculate as to what that means. If they haven’t, and let’s face it they haven’t, then what has slowly unfolded over the course of this ‘discussion’ here represents either a misunderstanding, malice, or something else. I believe the nature of the possible ‘something else’ might indeed be found in the philosophy of science, but as I have been keen to reiterate, time and again, that is not and was never what this thread was opened with the intention to discuss, and I have reiterated that point to absurdity at this stage. I will ignore all attempts to steer the conversation in that direction, so do not take my silence on the matter as evidence of anything other than me not engaging with a topic I have explicitly reiterated I have no desire to get into the weeds about. If you are satisfied the lack of ‘empirical data’ means little more can be said on this topic and you are inclined to dismiss it as all bunk as a result I congratulate you on your steadfast commitment to this view and feel it is a very sensible position to take. It is NOT my position at all, for reasons I will out line.
2. I have stated, time and again, that the cultural phenomenon of ‘Bigfoot’ cannot, is not, and will not ever be reduced to an argument for the existence of a large unknown primate. This does not represent the phenomenon in question accurately at all. What IS an accurate representation of the phenomenon is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence that for centuries human beings have been recounting stories of encounters with a large, often hairy, upright walking creature that seemingly can appear and disappear with ease in a host of environments leaving little else but footprints in its wake. Is that all? No, far from it. Accounts include descriptions of Bigfoot as apelike, more of a baboon shape, doglike, wolflike or something akin to an ‘ogre’ (whatever that is supposed to mean). Moreover, the accounts include descriptions of strange lights (yes, that is UAPs these days), the ‘oz’ effect, disorientation, electrical malfunction and a host of other bizarre events. Why is this important? Well in order to discuss a phenomenon you need to have a working appreciation of the claims that are being made regarding said phenomenon in the first place. So far in this thread I have seen individuals discussing the unlikelihood of a large primate wandering around parts of the Pacific Northwest or other isolated regions. That’s valid, and fun, and it might be true (I personally do not think that is what we are looking at) but let us all be clear here… such a view of the phenomenon of what is called ‘Bigfoot’ simply does not accurately represent the information in the cultural field we have readily available to all.
3. What is called ‘Bigfoot’ is closely associated with UAPs and other ‘woo’ amongst many interested parties actively discussing the topic. I think that point is made clear in the above section, but the meaning of that point is often lost by those who simply hear such a thing and immediately begin to drift off into a knee jerk desire to ‘deboonk’ the phenomenon. Why is this fact important? Well, because we have admissions by scientifically minded individuals that the study of UAPs has been actively undertaken by government entities for a very long time, with concomitant funding and the scandals you’d expect in such matters occasionally breaking into mainstream news. In fact, it is even more spectacular than that, we have a situation where ‘scientific’ interest in the issue is being publicly ‘admitted’ through the very social institutions whom the public turn to in order to gauge acceptable attitudes towards this subject. Furthermore, it has created a dichotomy (at least perceived amongst many) that science itself might be unable to fully account for some form of ‘phenomenon’ with which our institutions of government are claiming to be worthy of ‘study’. If the societal implications of this are lost on people here I admit defeat and indeed agree there is nothing worthy of discussion. See you all back in the Stone Age,
To put it succinctly, no outcome here, in turns of an explanation of what is actually going on, is particularly comfortable to contemplate,
Now, if it makes one more comfortable, we can agree to discuss what function such narratives surrounding ‘Bigfoot’ might serve either unconsciously or consciously to our social and cultural milieu, and I have no problem with that, but in the meantime I hope I have made my position here clearer, and I hope any misunderstandings can be laid to rest.
I suspect there are a few people here whose views I do not share at all, in fact I suspect I might find them severely lacking at a fundamental level, but let’s not act surprised about that. One can find the necessary clues as to the basis for such disagreements very very early on in this thread, and it is clear an exploration of those topics is not on the agenda, so in the interest of keeping this friendly and good natured, let’s see where we can agree.
1st paragraph: “I am going to be charitable…” right off the bat you are condescending and contemptuous. “The alternative isn’t flattering … [everyone else’s opinions are] those based in ignorance.” Come on, man. You don’t see how that immediately puts everyone else against you? It makes you come across like the worst kind of smug conspiracy theorist to call the world sheeple for believing Antarctica exists. “So let’s proceed…basic points…”. Yes, Professor Galaxy Brain, let’s. Would you be “charitable” to anyone addressing you with such condescension? I wouldn’t.
Paragraph numbered 1: you state you wanted to hear other people’s thoughts, but you sure seem more interested in dismissing other people and pushing your own. Comes across like you really just want to fluff yourself and feel clever.
You follow this up with an absurd amount of wish-washy word salad to basically say you reject our reality and replace it with your own. Really conducive to conversation.
Paragraph numbered 2: Bigfoot is real, but not a flesh and blood creature. Bigfoot is a conspiracy, possibly by the World Science Cabal in service of definitely-not-demons. Stupid sheeple.
If that’s not what you mean to imply, then you should take a stand and say what you do mean. Don’t beat around the bush. Don’t waffle. Don’t talk about what you don’t mean. make your sentences short and to the point.
Paragraph marked 3: Dismissing any sightings at all for any reason makes you sheeple. Science is a cult that has no answers, unlike my guru. Was that so hard?
Next paragraphs: Now that I have dismissed the reasonable, the only remaking explanations are disquieting. Choke on that, sheeple.
Let’s talk about the Bigfoot’s effect on man. Also, I really need a B- on this undergraduate-level essay.
So, here are my issues: constant condescension. Fine, we all think we’re right and other people are wrong. But generally most people also realize that laying it on so thick is counterproductive.
Constant evasiveness. If you can’t get to the point, then you don’t have one. The biggest sin in writing is wasting the reader’s time, and you would need a whole flock of scapegoats to expiate that one. You constantly move the conversation goal posts to throw everyone off whenever there’s any kind of consensus you don’t like. You try to control the thread through what looks like incompetent sealioning. It all comes back to the purpose of this thread not being a discussion of Bigfoot, but about what a clever person you are for seeing through the sham of verifiable reality. Added together, your posts are insufferable. But they don’t have to be.
Please, be direct. If you think Bigfoot is a CIA conspiracy to make the world atheist, just say that. It’s hard to respect someone who says so much without ever showing vulnerability by posting anything he truly believes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XvArcanevX wrote: I’m sorry you’re both struggling to understand what it is I’m saying.
As for the various attempts at derision and snide you are both engaging in; I think that speaks for itself.
I am giving back to you what you have given us for 6 pages, in terms of derision.
If everyone you meet is incapable of understanding your points, it’s not them. It’s you. You’re the problem, it’s you.
Seriously, though, this is one of your shortest and most direct posts, which is a big step up and I appreciate it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: You are not communicating clearly. That is not to say you're a bad person or anything of the sort, just that your words have failed to effectively get your point across.
This, but also more than this.
There’s a reason I asked you to read your own paragraph as if someone else had addressed you in that manner. If you don’t like the way people are responding, ask yourself what in your posts they are responding that way to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I see that you feel dogpiled and personally attacked. I apologize. My intention was to criticize only your communication style in the hope to help you communicate more clearly and less abrasively, and I was far too blunt.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/03/17 18:02:15
