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 think Goebbels had some things to say about Conspiracy Theories and lies.

Not Online!!! wrote:
And i am sure Lordofhats has some prime exemple of bots from reddit aswell.

Reddit can be even trickier in at least one way, cause the site rules do allow bots and there's a large number that are mundane, from the humorous BananaBot (who gives you banana facts whenever you post the word 'banana') to the useful LightLinks bot (who provides links to books and fanfictions on some subreddits when people type out the titles). There's even a bot that will check a user's account to see if they've ever used the n-word because Reddit wants you to know it is woke and that gets used (and abused) on various subs! All these bots though openly identify themselves as bots. Malicious bot networks have become a topic but they are as hard to identify there as Twitter I'd guess. The big issue is that Reddit has a small staff (and seems quite content to keep it that way). It mostly falls to users themselves to hunt down and prove that a bot is a bot (or a network of bots) when they don't openly identify themselves as bots, that their behavior is malicious/manipulative, and by the time users have done that whatever the bots were doing has already happened.

Some of the stuff the bot networks are doing aren't really conspiracy theory. For example, Reddit users identified one network late last year that was used to disseminate leaked government documents in the middle of the British parlaimentary elections. These links pushed no conspiracy, but did spread misinformation. They did target the leaking of information into specific subreddits and then manipulated upvotes and downvotes to ensure their visibility. I won't direct link it because of the politics ban (it goes into other things that absolutely will not stay civil in my mind so I'm not even taking that step), but for anyone who wants to see an example, google "redditsecurity secondary infektion" for a very recent example of a bot network users had to hunt down and bring to the attention of the admins due to malicious behavior.

So basically like Twitter, but less reach and more text per post.

Some of the stuff the bot networks are doing aren't really conspiracy theory. For example, Reddit users identified one network late last year that was used to disseminate leaked government documents in the middle of the British parlaimentary elections. These links pushed no conspiracy, but did spread misinformation. They did target the leaking of information into specific subreddits and then manipulated upvotes and downvotes to ensure their visibility. I won't direct link it because of the politics ban (it goes into other things that absolutely will not stay civil in my mind so I'm not even taking that step), but for anyone who wants to see an example, google "redditsecurity secondary infektion" for a very recent example of a bot network users had to hunt down and bring to the attention of the admins due to malicious behavior.

And here we are in irregular media warfare territory aren't we?

So basically like twitter again.




Well, another social media i skip

Yup. Anything real world related on Reddit is an absolute dumpster fire (and many of the fandom subs aren't any better) and that's just one of the many reasons why. The one thing that is neat for Reddit is that it's very easy to go through account histories there cause the interface is easy to navigate. The Admins tend to leave banned accounts and subs up so that they can be inspected, so it's easy to go through them myself and see what they were doing even though I'll only ever manage a peripheral understanding of the specifics. As far as I'm concerned the only major benefit to the website is to see what's being talked about and posted, cause it's a decent microcosm of the Internet.

Edit: though I will admit idiots in cars is a guilty pleasure.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
One of the big issues is the diffusion of "sources of truth". In the olden days pre-internet we had the big 4 broadcasters whose had journalism built off the back of some big city Newspapers. All of them wanted to be seen as credible as that was the path to readership and getting material out there.

This model no longer exists. There are a number of reasons why, but the fact is that a lay person has no "Source of Truth" anymore. The absence of truth means there is a vacuum, and that vacuum will be filled.

There’s also the advent of 24 hour news.

That’s.....that’s a lot of air to fill. Sure, it started off innocuously enough. Rolling news, the same articles being repeated each hour. So far, so good. Meant we as the consumer could tune in anytime, watch for a chosen period or article, and then be about our day. No longer were we tied to specific bulletin times.

I went to Germany for a school trip last year (for business school), so one of the things most of us did in the morning was turn on the news, or late in the evening. . . The impression of the 24 hour news channel that I found in the hotel was (and it could be wrong so native Germans, please correct if I am) that the 24 hour news channel ran basically like the local channel: sure they repeated the same stories each hour, but they also ran weather updates seemingly at least every 2-3 hours (as in, they only repeated the same forecast a couple times before updating it)


The biggest problem leading to a downward spiral of news quality is how the cable news (and all cable) was paid. . . In the US, we have Nielsen ratings, which is not rating quality, but quantity. As such, cable channels were paid based on the volume of viewership at a given time. Within the cable model, there is still the advertiser model, wherein an advertiser pays for ad time within a given time slot.

Long story short: in order to secure quantity of viewers, the news program "needs" to go more sensational. But there's something that, IMHO, is more damaging than that (at least in terms of journalistic integrity and quality) that I will illustrate through a story a good friend of mine told me. . . So, long time ago, when my buddy was fresh out of university with a journalism degree, he was working a local news station that happened to have an automotive manufacturing plant in the town (he will never tell me which company it was). One of their investigative reporters had a story phoned in by a worker, they investigated, shot a story, edited, etc. etc. etc. and when the day came they were finally ready to air the story, they called over to the plant. They said, "hey, we've been prepping this story, and we're giving you this courtesy call as X major issue is the main idea behind what we're airing" . . . the manufacturer PR replied with "you run the story, we pull all of our advertising money". So, they didn't run the story.


Now, I'm not so sure that countries like the UK or maybe Germany have this same issue, because as far as I'm aware, the UK government funds the BBC and has a general "we won't interfere so long as you don't cross this line" rule to preserve journalistic integrity, but it seems to me that having advertisng money and cable money involved in the actual news "product" (cuz sadly that's basically how its viewed by the execs) is inherently a bad thing because it will invariably lead to declines in quality.

I also think it is easy for the conspiracy theorists to see conspiracy in the way the US has its news media set up. . . I mean, sure, you have ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox as "major" channels. . . but the local news station is actually owned by Sinclair Media (and will be on different carriers, so it could be CBS in Seattle, but the ABC affiliate in Portland, etc) . . . Of course, in this situation the only "conspiracy" is profit, but the CT peeps out there won't see it that way.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The biggest problem leading to a downward spiral of news quality is how the cable news (and all cable) was paid. . . In the US, we have Nielsen ratings, which is not rating quality, but quantity. As such, cable channels were paid based on the volume of viewership at a given time. Within the cable model, there is still the advertiser model, wherein an advertiser pays for ad time within a given time slot.

Long story short: in order to secure quantity of viewers, the news program "needs" to go more sensational. But there's something that, IMHO, is more damaging than that (at least in terms of journalistic integrity and quality) that I will illustrate through a story a good friend of mine told me. . . So, long time ago, when my buddy was fresh out of university with a journalism degree, he was working a local news station that happened to have an automotive manufacturing plant in the town (he will never tell me which company it was). One of their investigative reporters had a story phoned in by a worker, they investigated, shot a story, edited, etc. etc. etc. and when the day came they were finally ready to air the story, they called over to the plant. They said, "hey, we've been prepping this story, and we're giving you this courtesy call as X major issue is the main idea behind what we're airing" . . . the manufacturer PR replied with "you run the story, we pull all of our advertising money". So, they didn't run the story.

Indeed, it is just "business as usual" in a way. You might be interested in listening to Jessica Yellen on the Mindscape Podcast who discusses these sorts of issues there. Here is a brief part of what she mentions:

0:17:45 JY: There’s also eyeball meters, so that people can now tell… Executives can now tell as viewers are turning the channel. So, “Oh, they were watching for that topic, but they’re turning for this topic. Let’s go back to that topic.” That kind of thing. Now, the flaw in this from my point of view, is that this is all based on their framework. Which is news needs to be told like sports. Viewers want news that feels like ESPN. So it has to be all that conflict, jargon, competition and outrage. And they program everything through that filter. I can get into how it got to be that way. But the bottom line is, I know for a fact, because I’ve done the research, it leaves a huge audience unaddressed, because so many people feel alienated by that sports-like coverage, they just turn it off, and so they’ve already limited their audience to the people who want news that feels like sports and yes, within them their metrics and their analytics can measure how many they’re getting, but I believe that there’s a massive unaddressed audience out there, and they’re just missing the opportunity.

I think that whole self-feedback loop that executives can get locked into is something we've seen a lot with media. We see it with films from hollywood and even the structure of TV shows all the time.

Go back 20 years and TV shows were almost all episodic. You could drop in at any point and its basically the same cast, same adventure structure no matter what it was.

Today that approach is almost becoming a legacy compared to heavy story driven based shows. The latter was considered quite exceptional and not wanted back when shows like Babalon 5 were trying to push for a more story structured approach.




We see Hollywood do the same thing; heck right now we are in the grips of a huge Comic film franchise fest. With loads of comic films for comic fans that reinforces that comic films are THE thing right now. And yet there's huge portions of the population eager for something else.


Sometimes chasing the "popular" thing is good ,but I think media often goes just a step too far with it at times. I think its better today now that we've actually more TV production firms starting up and producing things; increasing variety of what is produced. Computer games show the same thing, with the rise of Indie studios and online retail for games we saw the market erupt with variety and new ideas because it is possible for indie companies to test waters and try new things and fill niches.

 H wrote:
Indeed, it is just "business as usual" in a way. You might be interested in listening to Jessica Yellen on the Mindscape Podcast who discusses these sorts of issues there. Here is a brief part of what she mentions:

0:17:45 JY: There’s also eyeball meters, so that people can now tell… Executives can now tell as viewers are turning the channel. So, “Oh, they were watching for that topic, but they’re turning for this topic. Let’s go back to that topic.” That kind of thing. Now, the flaw in this from my point of view, is that this is all based on their framework. Which is news needs to be told like sports. Viewers want news that feels like ESPN. So it has to be all that conflict, jargon, competition and outrage. And they program everything through that filter. I can get into how it got to be that way. But the bottom line is, I know for a fact, because I’ve done the research, it leaves a huge audience unaddressed, because so many people feel alienated by that sports-like coverage, they just turn it off, and so they’ve already limited their audience to the people who want news that feels like sports and yes, within them their metrics and their analytics can measure how many they’re getting, but I believe that there’s a massive unaddressed audience out there, and they’re just missing the opportunity.

Sports is definitely the model. Mike Greenberg on the old Mike & Mike sports radio show was a modern program director's dream. He used to find ways to bring up Tim Tebow and Lebron no matter what the topic was. Sometimes completely awkwardly. ("But let's talk about Tim Tebow.") Because apparently ESPN could see a little spike every time those topics came up.

It made the show unlistenable at times. The show was much more freeflowing and interesting whenever Greenberg was out. And so many people you talk to will say how bad ESPN has gotten and how they don't watch or listen anymore. But the people who are left live on that stuff and so get served up heaping portions of Mike Greenbergs and endless numbers of 'hot take' shows.

Anyway, swap Tebow out with things like "Hillary's e-mails" or "The 10 Biggest Lies Trump Told Today" and that's pretty much the news as we know it. *shrug*

Lots of industries go through something like this...focusing more and more on a small number of their most engaged customers instead of trying to appeal to a wider audience. Shoot, isn't that GW just a few years back? You would hope that news organizations would be different than companies selling miniatures to niche hobbyists. But.

 Overread wrote:
I think that whole self-feedback loop that executives can get locked into is something we've seen a lot with media. We see it with films from hollywood and even the structure of TV shows all the time.

Go back 20 years and TV shows were almost all episodic. You could drop in at any point and its basically the same cast, same adventure structure no matter what it was.

Today that approach is almost becoming a legacy compared to heavy story driven based shows. The latter was considered quite exceptional and not wanted back when shows like Babalon 5 were trying to push for a more story structured approach.




We see Hollywood do the same thing; heck right now we are in the grips of a huge Comic film franchise fest. With loads of comic films for comic fans that reinforces that comic films are THE thing right now. And yet there's huge portions of the population eager for something else.


Sometimes chasing the "popular" thing is good ,but I think media often goes just a step too far with it at times. I think its better today now that we've actually more TV production firms starting up and producing things; increasing variety of what is produced. Computer games show the same thing, with the rise of Indie studios and online retail for games we saw the market erupt with variety and new ideas because it is possible for indie companies to test waters and try new things and fill niches.

More interestingly, things that changed the status quo aren’t exactly carefully stage managed, instead being break out.

MCU? Nobody saw that juggernaut coming. And prior to X-Men, the ‘general consensus’ was super hero films don’t sell. Same with A New Hope when that came out.

Yet their impact was such, then as now we see competitors falling over themselves to get a slice of the pie, no matter how ham fisted.

To a lesser degree, we saw the same with Paranormal Activity. A zero budget bolt from the blue which reinvigorated the rather flaccid horror genre, which had spent years eating itself. Low budget. High returns - when it’s done well

We can also look at examples where it fizzled out. Specifically, Lord of The Rings. Those were and are great films. Genuine landmarks in Cinema. Yet.....nothing really followed up. Not even The Hobbit trilogy (which despite my easily pleased nature definitely sucked. And not just because they cast James Nesbit).

This also happens in TV. Even Reality TV, when it first started, was something fresh, new, interesting and even entertaining. Sadly, it soon devolved into mindless fame hungry people embarrassing themselves for their Five Minutes, neatly gutting any casual sociological interest.

I bet if we looked into it, like properly assessed the trends in the Conspirasphere we’d find something similar!

 Overread wrote:
We see Hollywood do the same thing; heck right now we are in the grips of a huge Comic film franchise fest. With loads of comic films for comic fans that reinforces that comic films are THE thing right now. And yet there's huge portions of the population eager for something else.

Are there, though? People largely HAVEN'T been supporting movies that aren't big comic franchise films. The medium budget rom-com is just about dead in theaters. Now they'll just take it to streaming services. And why not? It's better watching those and snuggling at home with your SO anyway.

We've even seen genre films of previously popular IP get good reviews from fans and critics and bomb in theaters. Terminator Dark Fate, Blade Runner 2049, etc. Hell, we've also seen COMIC films get good reviews from critics and audiences and still underwhelm at the box office. Shazam, Birds of Prey, etc.

There's a HEALTHY degree of skepticism about the BO for Villeneuve's Dune film, even though it's got a killer cast, a highly regarded director and is based on one of the great sci-fi works ever. Years ago, that thing -- provided it isn't a messy bomb with critics, etc. like Lynch's was -- would be money in the bank. Now...I don't know, and I say that as a giant Dune fan.

Marvel kinda figured out the right instrument for the right time to do great business in theaters -- a loosely episodic, building series that uses each film to promote and guarantee box office for the next. But other than Marvel, Star Wars, and selected DC films...what's really been crushing it in theaters?

 gorgon wrote:

Lots of industries go through something like this...focusing more and more on a small number of their most engaged customers instead of trying to appeal to a wider audience. Shoot, isn't that GW just a few years back? You would hope that news organizations would be different than companies selling miniatures to niche hobbyists. But.

Lol, this is likely the reason why there are so few proper cars being developed these days. . . it's all horrible, boring, dreary crossovers

Anyways, back on topic

Interesting Op Ed about political conspiracy theories from The Newstatesman.

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2019/10/why-conspiracy-theories-are-deeply-dangerous

Warning - article isn’t exactly bipartisan in the CT’s it brings up. For the purpose of the thread, it’s the commentary and not the examples that are of interest

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyways, back on topic

Interesting Op Ed about political conspiracy theories from The Newstatesman.

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2019/10/why-conspiracy-theories-are-deeply-dangerous

Warning - article isn’t exactly bipartisan in the CT’s it brings up. For the purpose of the thread, it’s the commentary and not the examples that are of interest

I mean, I'd say some conspiracy theories are deeply dangerous. I've already had my rant about how Sandy Hook destroyed lives twice over and how anti-vaxxers are killing people. Sovereign Citizens kill a surprising number of law enforcement officers year to year. Moreso than the low level of media attention directed their way suggests. Other conspiracy theories, despite what they are, are fairly harmless. Fake moon landing nonsense normally doesn't hurt anyone. Though there is that time that astronaut punched that one douche who harassed him on the street about it, that was uncool of them. I think CTs get used by people with agendas and I think those agendas are sometimes deeply dangerous, which is maybe a more accurate summation of the article's main concern. Sometimes though a conspiracy theory is just... people being at their less than best in a way that is strange and bizarre, but brings no one any harm. Depends on what the conspiracy is and whether or not the theorist is truly deranged or just not as bright as they think they are.

There's also probably a factor of time involved. I mean, as long as NASA doesn't hire one to launch rockets flat-earthers are completely inoffensive outside of their weirdness.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyways, back on topic

Interesting Op Ed about political conspiracy theories from The Newstatesman.

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2019/10/why-conspiracy-theories-are-deeply-dangerous

Warning - article isn’t exactly bipartisan in the CT’s it brings up. For the purpose of the thread, it’s the commentary and not the examples that are of interest

I mean, I'd say some conspiracy theories are deeply dangerous. I've already had my rant about how Sandy Hook destroyed lives twice over and how anti-vaxxers are killing people. Sovereign Citizens kill a surprising number of law enforcement officers year to year. Moreso than the low level of media attention directed their way suggests. Other conspiracy theories, despite what they are, are fairly harmless. Fake moon landing nonsense normally doesn't hurt anyone. Though there is that time that astronaut punched that one douche who harassed him on the street about it, that was uncool of them. I think CTs get used by people with agendas and I think those agendas are sometimes deeply dangerous, which is maybe a more accurate summation of the article's main concern. Sometimes though a conspiracy theory is just... people being at their less than best in a way that is strange and bizarre, but brings no one any harm. Depends on what the conspiracy is and whether or not the theorist is truly deranged or just not as bright as they think they are.

There's also probably a factor of time involved. I mean, as long as NASA doesn't hire one to launch rockets flat-earthers are completely inoffensive outside of their weirdness.

Sovereign citizens?

You mean those declaring their own land? Claiming government is illegitimate. etc.

Didn't realize they were that dangerous. How come?

In the violent sense, they have a habit of squating and shooting at the officers who show up to evict them. Apparently the Sheriff is only the highest authority when he’s not doing anything. Among other things, the Oklahoma City Bomber and the El Paso shooter both espoused elements of sovereign citizen ideology that feed into their behavior so theirs is also a trend that feeds into some other things at times that are even more violent. They have a shared origin with the militia movement in Posse Comitatus so their ideology finds its way around.

In a less overtly violent way, some of the scams they perpetuate can really screw with people’s finances and that’s not really much better. The term paper terrorism was coined to describe their habit of bombarding people with empty litigation design to intimidate.

Edit: it can also go in really outright murder directions. There’s a case where a guy set his own house on fire and shot the first cops who showed up. I can’t remember his specific reasoning but he was an SC. The movement does attract some people who just want an excuse to hurt others I think.

Why are exponents of Sovereign Citizen (US) or Freeman on the Land a bloody menace?

Well

Some light reading on the matter

Essentially rope in the desperate and the vulnerable.

And only make things far, far worse for them

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/194450/DRN8075032.pdf

This one is my favourite.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/199972/DRN8341979.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that last one?

A promissory note is legally binding..

Read the full letter, then see if you can tell me where the consumer has gone wrong....

 LordofHats wrote:
In the violent sense, they have a habit of squating and shooting at the officers who show up to evict them. Apparently the Sheriff is only the highest authority when he’s not doing anything. Among other things, the Oklahoma City Bomber and the El Paso shooter both espoused elements of sovereign citizen ideology that feed into their behavior so theirs is also a trend that feeds into some other things at times that are even more violent. They have a shared origin with the militia movement in Posse Comitatus so their ideology finds its way around.

In a less overtly violent way, some of the scams they perpetuate can really screw with people’s finances and that’s not really much better. The term paper terrorism was coined to describe their habit of bombarding people with empty litigation design to intimidate.

Edit: it can also go in really outright murder directions. There’s a case where a guy set his own house on fire and shot the first cops who showed up. I can’t remember his specific reasoning but he was an SC. The movement does attract some people who just want an excuse to hurt others I think.

Comparative movements exist in germany but they are mostly regarded as nutjobs. However they recently also stirred up some trouble.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why are exponents of Sovereign Citizen (US) or Freeman on the Land a bloody menace?

Well

Some light reading on the matter

Essentially rope in the desperate and the vulnerable.

And only make things far, far worse for them

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/194450/DRN8075032.pdf

This one is my favourite.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/199972/DRN8341979.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that last one?

A promissory note is legally binding..

Read the full letter, then see if you can tell me where the consumer has gone wrong....

Seems like they attempt to void paying "unjustified " debts

terribly convenient.
Well still better then the ideological nutjobs as above or the ones in germany...

It’s all very, very bizarre.

The U.K. version is arguably less serious, as we don’t tend to involve guns etc.

Not Online!!! wrote:
There's also probably a factor of time involved. I mean, as long as NASA doesn't hire one to launch rockets flat-earthers are completely inoffensive outside of their weirdness.

Sovereign citizens?

You mean those declaring their own land? Claiming government is illegitimate. etc.

Didn't realize they were that dangerous. How come?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s all very, very bizarre.

The U.K. version is arguably less serious, as we don’t tend to involve guns etc.

I mean i can partially understand the argument of Reichsbürger or such groups, in way i regard them as a symptom of a failure somewhere in the governmental system be it democratic deficit or only partially functioning. HOWEVER only partially, that has more to do with my philosophical standpont on constitution and democracy than anything, but just because i find some things partially illegitimate isn't reason enough for me to just shoot someone now is it?
Or declare my own country for that matter.

There's a bit more to their beliefs than that. Mostly it's a lot of magical thinking regarding the courts, stemming from a severe misunderstanding of how they operate. Sort of like a cargo cult, really, if the cargo cult had guns and a tendency to take over wildlife refuges.

well, atleast cargo cults were peacefull for the most part.
I find them actually kinda fascinating.

I know much of this thread has been devoted to "heavy" conspiracies involving lizard-folk, NWO, and global dominance, but what are your views on the rather innocuous conspiracies out there?


If you're wondering what I'd consider an innocuous conspiracy, here's an example:

In 1966, the Ford GTs famously beat Ferrari at Le Mans. . . there's even a recent hollywood movie about it . . But, while doing more research on Ken Miles and his cars (for scale model projects) I came across a group (I guess one term would be boffins? anoraks? I dunno. . . ) who was absolutely CONVINCED that Ken Miles had, in fact won the race. They were setting out to prove it by reconstructing the race of the top 3 cars to prove that, lap by lap, the Miles/Hulme car was consistently so much faster than Mclaren/Amon's GT-40 that the ONLY possible way for Miles to have lost, is that race officials opted to simply "not count" a number of his laps.

The main thrust of the argument here, I guess, is that because of Miles' . . . particular. . personality, he was rather unliked by certain members of not only the Ford executive committees, but apparently he'd pissed off some FIA types as well during the course of his racing career, and as a result of his prickly-ness, they didn't *want* him to be the only triple crown endurance racer in history.



Honestly, when it comes to a lot of the "innocuous" types of conspiracy, seems like we can really just hover around and dive into all sorts of sports/sporting situations. And really, what I think makes them this way, rather than the "dangerous" sorts of conspiracy is that ultimately, it doesn't matter. . .belief in this subset of conspiracies doesn't really affect how one participates in a democratic government, or public policy, or really anything like that. . . it just leads some to maybe, dislike a particular team or sport for a particular and peculiar reason.

Ah. Rigged sporting events.

Yeah, heard a lot of that with the last couple Superbowls and semi-finals leading up to that, about how the league and refs are going to 'steal' games from teams to promote the other team that serves their agenda... whatever that is- usually a particular quarterback who is 'definitely' going to win the Heisman trophy or whatever.

Mind you, the predictions I've heard the last couple years have an accuracy of about one game in six predictions being successfully 'stolen,' so why they believe their conspiracy is an open question.

Conspiracy Theorists are easy to understand - their epistemological errors come from their inability to accept objective evidence/proof, under the proper context, with reality as the standard for judgment.

Had to Google a word....thank you! Always nice to expand ones vocabulary a wee bit!

Oddly, there are those unable to accept empirical evidence, but also those unwilling to do so.

It’s the former I see as victims, the sort used to fund religious sects, woo peddlers etc due to their natural mindset.

It’s those that are wilful that are the real problem.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Had to Google a word....thank you! Always nice to expand ones vocabulary a wee bit!

Oddly, there are those unable to accept empirical evidence, but also those unwilling to do so.

It’s the former I see as victims, the sort used to fund religious sects, woo peddlers etc due to their natural mindset.

It’s those that are wilful that are the real problem.

Isn't there a very blurry line between the two tho?? Can you maybe expand on what you mean between unable and unwilling??

Because when follow that with "victims" who are used to fund religious sects, woo peddlers, etc. I personally would usually put them in the unwilling category myself.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why are exponents of Sovereign Citizen (US) or Freeman on the Land a bloody menace?

Well

Some light reading on the matter

Essentially rope in the desperate and the vulnerable.

And only make things far, far worse for them

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/194450/DRN8075032.pdf

This one is my favourite.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/199972/DRN8341979.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that last one?

A promissory note is legally binding..

Read the full letter, then see if you can tell me where the consumer has gone wrong....

There is a new variant starting up with somewhat more weight behind it.
It works on the Common Law principle and argues that if Amazon can openly negotiate not to pay tax, and do so in arrears this sets a legal precedent for common citizens to also do so. I find this interesting as it is understood that lawful tax cannot be legally deferred. I know a man who works as a council executive and faces this question frequently and honestly by people who simply cannot pay their council tax. He has no choice but to inform them that a due tax cannot be defered, there is no mechanism for doing so. However now apparently there is as corporations can and do do so.
I do not know of any case that has gone to court over this issue yet, but it is only a matter of time, and the first cases will likely be individuals not caught up in any Freeman of the Land bull, but poor people who say 'if Jeff Bezos doesn't have to pay tax on his earnings why cant I.'

Quite frankly, they've got a point. I wonder if the ACLU or someone else could consider this one a reason for a class-action lawsuit, as it seems this discriminates legal entities based on income?
Not a lawyer, just speculating...

I was playing the resident evil 3 remake yesterday, and it got me thinking - could modern media and video games feed into the rise of 'nutty' conspiracy theories?

Most folks know resi as the series with lots of zombies and monsters. The 'big bad' are an evil pharmaceutical called 'umbrella'. They make the virus, and release it, essentially for ***** and giggles.

Playing 3, you,end up in this giant secret lab built under a hospital. This thing was huge and skyscraper level underground. Even Jill has a comment as to how did no one notice it there. Another was stranger things s3 where the Russians have built a secret facility under the town there seemingly miles big.

I just wonder if the 'ease' and familiarity we have with this huge facilities in our media and video games could help hoodwink people into thinking these kinds of things were possible when they're not. They're nothing like facilities in real life. I work in them, I mean, were the resi 3 secret facility real, a facility that big would cost billions and would require (tens of) thousand states of workers and years to build. It would not be a secret.

Just a thought..

Deadnight wrote:
I was playing the resident evil 3 remake yesterday, and it got me thinking - could modern media and video games feed into the rise of 'nutty' conspiracy theories?.

I'd say it's more the other way around myself. You get conspiracy theory stuff in games because they're prominent in the cultural consciousness, even among people who don't believe in that sort of thing. They do, as many posters have pointed out, make for gripping narratives when you ignore all the ways they don't make sense.

Like Nazi's on the Moon and Dinosaurs under the Earth - aka Iron Sky 1 and 2.