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.
I would have thought that 'laser swords and hokey religions are no match for a good blaster' would be more your speed.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2018/03/23 20:54:49
Subject: Re:Conspiracy Theories: What's your take?
Pretty much every successful revolution in the world was, initially just a few people planning to try and change things.
We know that for example the FBI spied on people like MLK, authors, artists etc etc.
.. was anyone here really that surprised when Snowden and all the NSA stuff started coming out ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2018/03/23 21:25:15
Subject: Re:Conspiracy Theories: What's your take?
TheMeanDM wrote: Not necessarily a conspiracy theory (though maybe someone out there thinks it is).....
What of the "Mandela effect"? Any thoughts on that collective group think phenomenon?
I love the Mandela effect, and it's implications as we move to digital media. Previously, it would have been difficult for something really significant to be changed- after all, you'd have to destroy hundreds of thousands of hardcopy records. But now- alter the digital records, and there's no trace of what you've done except far below the surface, or in the screenshots of a few folks. Steven Colbert's wikiality experiment changed only the information on current elephant populations- but what if you went back and changed data that wouldn't matter to anyone until you used it- say, alter the population data for some European birds, then modify current data and point to a historical trend precipitating another round of bird flu. Boom! You secure huge contracts to rapidly develop vaccines, or sell bird repelling gewgaws before the science is disproved.
Or fabricate one or two successful initiatives in minor towns, or countries that no longer exist. Point to it to prove policy.
Just read a page or two of that- then imagine a corporation or government deciding to alter their image and succeeding. All too plausible. And that's my favorite conspiracy theory.
The most fabulous one is, of course,
Spoiler:
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
TheMeanDM wrote: Not necessarily a conspiracy theory (though maybe someone out there thinks it is).....
What of the "Mandela effect"? Any thoughts on that collective group think phenomenon?
Oh man. I know someone way into this nonsense and it's gotten to the point where I can't talk to them. I don't care about Tony the Tiger's nose.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Most of the big conspiracy theories are easy to disprove, like faking the moon landings. That being said I do believe there are a number of more mundane conspiracies designed to indoctrinate society.
From first hand experience I can see that new history books for children aren't just getting history wrong, they are flat out rewriting history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also of note, I love when a conspiracy nut believes two totally contradicting theories are both true. A really funny one that popped up years ago was that the US invaded Iraq to lower oil prices. Over time that theory changed to "we invaded to raise oil prices for the petroleum companies". I literally had friends (not to mention dozen of celebrities) flip flop back and forth between these two theories as gas prices fluctuated.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/24 04:00:19
Wasn't there a conspiracy to use a routine Egyptian rites for the dead in hieroglyphs as a representation of a new found bible book to create a new religion? Back when only two people (France and England) could translate it thanks to the just recently discovered rosetta stone. Egyptian hieroglyphics were all the rage back then.
Also is Nibiru still a thing? Entertaining read and make for a good Sci fi plot.
In all seriousness the truth, in my opinion, is that as fantastically wild as conspiracy theories can get I find reality can come up with much weirder.
I should hope we're rewriting history these days; it would be somewhat pointless to just stick to writing things that have already been (often badly) written.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/24 13:00:22
What possible reason would the Police have to not follow up, especially given conspiracy theorists claim it’s so obvious.
First hurdle. Flat on its face.
You're doing this all wrong. I have almost a quarter of a century invested in this. I'm not interested in your facts. I just know she did it. That's all there is to it.
One of my "favourites" is the guy who's got that thing that makes it so you have trouble remembering and distinguishing faces and is losing his mind over how most every celebrity and politician is posing as other celebrities and politicians.
What possible reason would the Police have to not follow up, especially given conspiracy theorists claim it’s so obvious.
First hurdle. Flat on its face.
You're doing this all wrong. I have almost a quarter of a century invested in this. I'm not interested in your facts. I just know she did it. That's all there is to it.
From first hand experience I can see that new history books for children aren't just getting history wrong, they are flat out rewriting history.
Source?
Well, as I said first-hand, that would be me.
I got a look at a current history book from the local highschool and happened to land on a section of history covering 1800 to 1850 North American history. According to this book Americans moving into the current Texas territory (at the time Mexico) were basically unwelcomed illegal immigrants. In reality Mexico actively advertised and invited Americans to move in so they could have a population to tax to pay off their debts from a war of Independence from Spain. Also in the book, Texas never gained independence from Mexico, and when they became a US state it was the US illegally annexing Mexican land.
notprop wrote: A bettter question is why do so many conspiracies originate in the US?
Is the US more ‘awoke’ or more full of crazies?
Who is stopping us from knowing? 8)
Well, we do have a larger population than most. Also a historical distrust of Governments. Also, talking about government conspiracies in some countries used to be enough to get thrown in a gulag.
From first hand experience I can see that new history books for children aren't just getting history wrong, they are flat out rewriting history.
Source?
Well, as I said first-hand, that would be me.
I got a look at a current history book from the local highschool and happened to land on a section of history covering 1800 to 1850 North American history. According to this book Americans moving into the current Texas territory (at the time Mexico) were basically unwelcomed illegal immigrants. In reality Mexico actively advertised and invited Americans to move in so they could have a population to tax to pay off their debts from a war of Independence from Spain. Also in the book, Texas never gained independence from Mexico, and when they became a US state it was the US illegally annexing Mexican land.
Actually, that's all correct.
2018/03/24 21:10:38
Subject: Re:Conspiracy Theories: What's your take?
I expect that the USA and USSR/Russia have the most about them because they are similar in a few ways - both have large populations which are very spread out with leaving many places isolated, a history of treating minorities badly (both improved over time remember) and both had idealistic governments who are based on the ideal of the greater good (from opposite politics) but are both willing to comprimise the ideals so long as its not widely known.
I do have an idea on the faked moon landings and why it has hung around so long - NASA did (of course!) get to the moon and planned to film it - going so far as to put light up flags on the sides of the lander (common thing spotted in photos). BUT they were not sure that the recording would be good enough for broadcast on earth, so they quietly make a set so they can record there for TV probably doing a few photo shoots to make sure it looks right. It isnt used in the end as the Moon footage is good enough but some idea they were willing to fake it does get out. Its even possible a few of the set shots got in the public domain and are the ones the conspiracy nuts are always on about. It was never a conspiracy to fake the moon landings, just a backup to make better images for the public.
I am probably wrong but hey stranger things have happened.
From first hand experience I can see that new history books for children aren't just getting history wrong, they are flat out rewriting history.
Source?
Well, as I said first-hand, that would be me.
I got a look at a current history book from the local highschool and happened to land on a section of history covering 1800 to 1850 North American history. According to this book Americans moving into the current Texas territory (at the time Mexico) were basically unwelcomed illegal immigrants. In reality Mexico actively advertised and invited Americans to move in so they could have a population to tax to pay off their debts from a war of Independence from Spain. Also in the book, Texas never gained independence from Mexico, and when they became a US state it was the US illegally annexing Mexican land.
Ketara wrote: I should hope we're rewriting history these days; it would be somewhat pointless to just stick to writing things that have already been (often badly) written.
I can only agree with Ketara here. I don't see anything wrong with re-assessing, re-examining and if necessary re-writing history. If new information comes to light or just a fresh interpretation presents itself, why not take another look? It might upset some people or contradict widely accepted views, but is that necessarily a bad thing (Provided it's done properly, of course)?
I do a lot of work with Federal Labs in the US right now, looking at commercial uses of technology emerging from their programs. It's given me some perspective on the origin and meaning of conspiracy theories.
Aside from cryptozoology, I generally believe conspiracy theories are the result of observation without explanation. When people observe something that they can't easily identify, they explore possible reasons for what they saw. In some cases, they ask questions which would be hard for someone to answer, and the lack of a response itself becomes part of what is being observed.
Imagine if you saw a bright light streaking across the sky during the day at an impossible speed. The news doesn't report anything about a meteorite or anything to that effect. But it definitely happened, multiple people observed it. A call goes into the local Air Force base, who state there were no exercises going on at that time. This is despite the fact they have radar capable of tracking the movement of objects in the area.
What was it? Some people leave that topic where it is, others continue asking questions. It helps if there's video or some other tangible proof something happened. The lack of response from the Air Force is questioned, the lack of coverage in the media makes it seem like this is being ignored. Someone very inquisitive makes a statement about what it could have been, and someone else becomes aware of that statement. All kinds of rationalizations for what happens follows.
In other words, conspiracy theories are kind of like a social disease. The substance of the theory is mostly about the reactions of other people (i.e. the cover up) and has less and less to do with what actually occurred. The claims at the center of the theory - i.e. I saw a UFO - could be empirically true, but the conjecture around maintaining the conspiracy becomes the focus.
The Internet makes it worse. People have a poor grasp on risk and often see a threat in that which is unknown. It's this principle that makes conspiracy theories so persistent, and the fact they can be shared so widely and with little cost makes it harder to sort out the truth to any of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/24 21:29:49
From first hand experience I can see that new history books for children aren't just getting history wrong, they are flat out rewriting history.
Source?
Well, as I said first-hand, that would be me.
I got a look at a current history book from the local highschool and happened to land on a section of history covering 1800 to 1850 North American history. According to this book Americans moving into the current Texas territory (at the time Mexico) were basically unwelcomed illegal immigrants. In reality Mexico actively advertised and invited Americans to move in so they could have a population to tax to pay off their debts from a war of Independence from Spain. Also in the book, Texas never gained independence from Mexico, and when they became a US state it was the US illegally annexing Mexican land.
Actually, that's all correct.
No, it's not. Not at all.
Well its a bit of a tough one, because its a bit of both. Migration was encouraged up until 1830 but because US settlers openly misbehaved and went against Mexican law migration was stopped, so not all immigrants after 1830 came in legally. As for indepemdence, that is always a bit of a semantics topic, the trouble is that the time between Texas declaring independence and joining the US is so short that it was an illegal annexation as Mexico hadn't recognized the independence yet. Its certainly a stretch to argue, but people could. Current day though? That would be an illegal annexation.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/24 22:01:30
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
From first hand experience I can see that new history books for children aren't just getting history wrong, they are flat out rewriting history.
Source?
Well, as I said first-hand, that would be me.
I got a look at a current history book from the local highschool and happened to land on a section of history covering 1800 to 1850 North American history. According to this book Americans moving into the current Texas territory (at the time Mexico) were basically unwelcomed illegal immigrants. In reality Mexico actively advertised and invited Americans to move in so they could have a population to tax to pay off their debts from a war of Independence from Spain. Also in the book, Texas never gained independence from Mexico, and when they became a US state it was the US illegally annexing Mexican land.
Actually, that's all correct.
No, it's not. Not at all.
Well its a bit of a though one, because its a bit of both. Migration was encouraged up until 1830 but because US settlers openly misbehaved and went against Mexican law migration was stopped, so not all immigrants after 1830 came in legally. As for indepemdence, that is always a bit of a semantics topic, the trouble is that the time between Texas declaring independence and joining the US is so short that it was an illegal annexation as Mexico hadn't recognized the independence yet. Its certainly a stretch to argue, but people could. Current day though? That would be an illegal annexation.
If Mexico didn't want to loose Texas it shouldn't have had a Dictator with the legal authority to sign treaties agree to it. It's also a bit of a stretch to say that Texas secession wasn't legal when Mexico itself had just done the same thing with Spain. Mexicans as a whole were pretty unhappy with Mexico. The Texas rebellion was the fifth or sixth "independence from Mexico" secession movement that was fought in the last 15 years.
Also, Texas was recognized as an independent nation by the US, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the Republic of Yucatan.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/24 22:13:07
From first hand experience I can see that new history books for children aren't just getting history wrong, they are flat out rewriting history.
Source?
Well, as I said first-hand, that would be me.
I got a look at a current history book from the local highschool and happened to land on a section of history covering 1800 to 1850 North American history. According to this book Americans moving into the current Texas territory (at the time Mexico) were basically unwelcomed illegal immigrants. In reality Mexico actively advertised and invited Americans to move in so they could have a population to tax to pay off their debts from a war of Independence from Spain. Also in the book, Texas never gained independence from Mexico, and when they became a US state it was the US illegally annexing Mexican land.
Actually, that's all correct.
No, it's not. Not at all.
Well its a bit of a though one, because its a bit of both. Migration was encouraged up until 1830 but because US settlers openly misbehaved and went against Mexican law migration was stopped, so not all immigrants after 1830 came in legally. As for indepemdence, that is always a bit of a semantics topic, the trouble is that the time between Texas declaring independence and joining the US is so short that it was an illegal annexation as Mexico hadn't recognized the independence yet. Its certainly a stretch to argue, but people could. Current day though? That would be an illegal annexation.
If Mexico didn't want to loose Texas it shouldn't have had a Dictator with the legal authority to sign treaties agree to it. It's also a bit of a stretch to say that Texas secession wasn't legal when Mexico itself had just done the same thing with Spain. Mexicans as a whole were pretty unhappy with Mexico. The Texas rebellion was the fifth or sixth "independence from Mexico" secession movement that was fought in the last 15 years.
Well fact is that the Mexican government didn't ratify the treaty. As for secession and independence wars, they are always messy. The quick way in which Texas joined the US is pretty exceptional. Without clear rules its hard to say legal/illegal at that point in history. Nowadays it would almost clearly be illegal, but back then its a much more gray area. From the Mexican perspective it is too. Of course it isn't from a US perspective. A bit more nuance in writing can explain that.
International recognition only goes so far, as its subject to manipulation and power games.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/24 22:22:27
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Ketara wrote: I should hope we're rewriting history these days; it would be somewhat pointless to just stick to writing things that have already been (often badly) written.
I can only agree with Ketara here. I don't see anything wrong with re-assessing, re-examining and if necessary re-writing history. If new information comes to light or just a fresh interpretation presents itself, why not take another look? It might upset some people or contradict widely accepted views, but is that necessarily a bad thing (Provided it's done properly, of course)?
Any educated historian can tell you history is in a constant state of being rewritten otherwise there'd be no point to it. Every new paper, study, and book is a revision of previous works. It's not like historians are paid to write "yes Washington did not cut down a Cherry tree" 5000+ times. Historians are still "scientists." You either break new ground, propose new ideas, or refine existing theory or you can kiss your academic career goodbye.
Also to be blunt; a history book calling the US a douchebag for how it handled relations with Mexico isn't new. Historians have thought the US was pretty douchy with how it handled Mexico in the 19th century for ages. Even America itself thought it was pretty douchy at the time
notprop wrote: A bettter question is why do so many conspiracies originate in the US?
Is the US more ‘awoke’ or more full of crazies?
I dunno, man. Some stuff is kind of fun, like cryptozoology. But then you have some of the more recent politically motivated stuff. Those sorts of conspiracy theorists make me simultaneously sad and angry: Sad that I live in a country with people who actually believe in stuff like "crisis actors", and angry that platforms to spread their dumb as rocks craziness have become more influential. It's depressing and infuriating.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/25 01:34:31
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
