Conspiracy Theorists Make My Brain Hurt

[Murdoch]

1 hour ago, Captain Keen said:

2) Gina Carano. She was fired from her job. She wasn't arrested. She's doing fine. Now she's going to do right-wing media shows or movies. If you want to be outraged by Disney, there are a lot of other abuses against regular people which are FAR worse. Also, Carano didn't just "voice" an opinion like she wants lower taxes or something. She purposefully spread a lie which had lead to an attack on the United States Capitol. People died. This lie literally could push the United States into a second civil war. She also pushed misinformation about COVID, which has killed half a million people in this country, and then defended herself by comparing her comfy life to the millions of Jews kidnapped and murdered by the nazis. Just unacceptable. Of course she shouldn't be arrested, but damn, people get fired for WAY less. This is what I mean when I say I'm tired of celeb worship. Actions have consequences.

 

I am straining myself from all the agreeing with you I am doing.

[Gokuma]

I'm outraged that Disney-owned ABC suppressed reporting on Epstein, called up CBS (a supposed rival) and then got someone fired from her later job there because they thought she leaked stuff.   Also, two Disney CEO's are on Epstein's flight log and Disney had children's scuba diving on his island.

 

At least I now know that a second civil war will be Gina Carano's fault.

[Murdoch]

9 hours ago, Skootroot said:

The Paul is dead theory is the dumbest and most interesting one to me.

 

Oh yes this is priceless. My favourite is that the supposedly Paul imposter is wearing a jacket on an album cover with OPD on it, which supposedly means "Officially Pronounced Dead". First, it's OPP - Ontario Provincial Police. Second, if the hoax was true, why in God's name would you drop hints about it? There's a lot of this crap around like some shady organisation or other leaving clues around in something or other. First rule of being a shady organsation - don't drop fucking hints everywhere!

 

4 minutes ago, Gokuma said:

I'm outraged that Disney-owned ABC suppressed reporting on Epstein, called up CBS (a supposed rival) and then got someone fired from her later job there because they thought she leaked stuff.   Also, two Disney CEO's are on Epstein's flight log and Disney had children's scuba diving on his island.

 

At least I now know that a second civil war will be Gina Carano's fault.

 

My thoughts on Epstein is that is entirely possible that a controlling, manipulative predator like Epstein would off himself when he knew he was screwed. That is entirely plausible for someone so used to having power and being completely in control. That said, I think it possible and indeed probable his death made some dodgy powerful people rest easier, whether they orchestrated it or not.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Murdoch

[Captain Keen]

1 hour ago, NoXion said:

I understand that JK Rowling gets ire due to her repeatedly endorsing stuff by the LGB Alliance, which trans folks and allies claim is a transphobic organisation. Given that "Drop the T" has actually been used in at least one attempt to divide the LGBT+ rights movement against itself, not to mention the fact that the LGB Alliance itself was founded in opposition to Stonewall's defence of trans rights, I don't think their concerns are entirely unfounded.

 

Just for the record, I don't actually agree with JK Rowling. But I do think there was a bit of a 'mob with pitchforks' mentality that went after her, and I think we need to be able to discuss these sorts of issues without descending into shouting matches. I don't think she's an evil person or a hatemonger or anything like that, and from what I know of her personal life, I can see why she expressed the viewpoints she did, even if she's ultimately wrong about them. We need to be able to discuss difficult and sensitive topics in a society without immediately turning it into culture wars and us vs. them.

 

If anything, it seems like the angry reaction to her original comments just made her take a stronger stance against the transgender community. That's not what anyone wants, right? (Then again, who knows if all of those comments were legitimate.)

 

With that said, some of the insane conspiracy theories and pure hate speech (along with politicians pushing for actual violence) just goes too far. You can't negotiate with terrorists. I kinda see it like that idea of the tree or branch that bends too far. "The tree that doesn't bend, breaks. Bend too far, and you're already broken."

 

That's a big problem with these crazy conspiracy theories. They ONLY exist to mislead people, and make people angrier. They're not legitimate points of view, they are simply propaganda or misinformation or hate speech. And as we've seen on January 6th in the United States, just because they seem absurd doesn't mean a lot of people don't believe them.

 

[Captain Keen]

55 minutes ago, Gokuma said:

At least I now know that a second civil war will be Gina Carano's fault. 

 

That's not actually what I said, though. She spread the BIG LIE that the election was stolen from Donald Trump and handed to Joe Biden because of "massive fraud". That same exact lie lead to people storming the U.S. Capitol, beating a police officer to death, and trying to stop a vote certification. That same BIG LIE very well could lead to states seceding in a future election. If states secede, that's civil war II. And I think that very well could happen in 2024 or 2028.

 

Just look at history. Big lies that spread to enough people are the cause for some of our biggest wars. It's like a virus that spreads from person to person. Everyone who spread nazi propaganda in the 1930s absolutely has responsibility for what followed, even if a lot of them were just "regular" people who were parroting what they were told by nazi politicians. Or look at Rwanda, which was coming out of a civil war. Then some DJs on the radio in 1994 rile everyone up and stick a knife in those cultural wounds, and you have a horrific genocide that kills a million people.

 

By the way, Georges Ruggiu (who worked for Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) plead guilty to charges of incitement to commit genocide and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Félicien Kabuga went on the run, and I believe was finally captured last year. Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines has been described as "death by radio" and "the soundtrack to genocide", and many Rwandans blame it for what happened to them in 1994.

[dew]

@Captain Keen I recommend not engaging with Gokuma. He's not in it for the arguments and the more he's intervowen into the fabric of the thread, the higher likelihood the thread gets outright locked instead of rid of his pleasant presense.

[Captain Keen]

@dew Thanks for the heads up.

 

Also, I didn't realize Carano used an image of the 1941 Lviv pogroms in her "oh poor conservatives" Twitter rant. Ugh. That's some sociopath shit right there.

[whirledtsar]

8 hours ago, Captain Keen said:

 

Sorry, I can't take anyone who uses the phrase "sheep" or "sheeple" seriously (unless they're being ironic).

 

It may be cliche, but thta doesnt make it any less accurate. The whole focus on "misinformation" is clearly meant to demonize independent news and retain trust in traditional media institutions. The idea is that citizens can't investigate and make their own conclusions, they need to have news filtered through trustworthy (TM) sources like CNN. And its working. There was just a poll that reported that Democrat's top priorities were not anything real like workers' rights or foreign policy, but nebulous bogeymen like "misinformation" and "Trump supporters".

[Gokuma]

5 hours ago, dew said:

@Captain Keen I recommend not engaging with Gokuma. He's not in it for the arguments and the more he's intervowen into the fabric of the thread, the higher likelihood the thread gets outright locked instead of rid of his pleasant presense.

 

LOL, the hypocrisy of someone with a history of nasty, petty posts.

[frag enabler]

Felt like chipping in, but then I saw the amount of "trust the media/experts/science" and "everything I disagree with is hate speech". The world needs a reset button.

[Maes]

Regarding "moon landing hoax" conspiracies, it's interesting how they only focus on the first mission (Apollo 11), by "debunking" it in great detail. There were other 5 successful missions after that, though, and not a peep/not nearly the same level of debunking about them. I guess because they are "debunked by default" once Apollo 11 is "debunked"?

 

I wonder what's their take on Apollo 13...that one didn't reach the moon, OK but it did leave Earth orbit far enough to pass through the (allegedly fatal) Van Allen belts....which is also considered "impossible" onto itself. But I guess that's a specialized branch of moon-hoaxing, which considers manned spaceflight as a whole impossible precisely due to this.

 

I guess it's just like how the flat earthers only fixate on one aspect of their theory, and consider everything else (like e.g. how the rest of the Universe would work in a flat earth scenario) secondary.

 

1 hour ago, frag enabler said:

"everything I disagree with is hate speech"

 

That is-unfortunately- a tactic widely used in so-called "democracies" by otherwise "constitution-upholding" parties to silence opponents who would otherwise be beyond reproach or very hard to prosecute legally. It's often easier to characterize anything they say as "hate speech" (which -usually- has no free speech protection), rather than a "political statement" (which does have freedom of speech protection), and if you get enough political allies -even other opponents- to back you up on this, you're golden.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Maes

[Murdoch]

59 minutes ago, frag enabler said:

Felt like chipping in, but then I saw the amount of "trust the media/experts/science" and "everything I disagree with is hate speech". The world needs a reset button.

 

I have seen absolutely no one in this thread say trust the media. Media and conspiracy fear porn peddlers are two sides of the same shitty coin.

 

Trust experts and science? Sorry but if you think you know better than someone who has spent years studying and becoming well versed in a topic that is sheer unbridled and quite despicable arrogance. Im not particularly smart but i am reasonably well versed in one or two topics like tech. That doesn't make me qualified to say i know better than a doctor about medicine or a builder about what needs to happen to fix some dodgy boards on my house.

 

Can experts screw up? Of course they can. They are human. Thats why you look at the overall consensus on a given topic and then decide on what feels correct. I will take that over some random online ramblings from some paranoid nutter any day of the week.

[Biodegradable]

I love morons who believe the US government faked the moon landing, shot JFK and was behind 9/11. Yeah, okay fam, the very same institution who couldn't even keep Watergate a secret has definitely managed to keep the wool over our eyes regarding all that shit. I'm totally convinced.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Biodegradable

[seed]

30 minutes ago, Biodegradable said:

I love morons who believe the US government faked the moon landing, shot JFK and was behind 9/11. Yeah, okay fam, the very same institution who couldn't even keep Watergate a secret has definitely managed to keep the wool over all our eyes regarding all that shit. I'm totally convinced.

 

Just like someone said earlier, the bigger the conspiracy is, the harder if not impossible it will be for it to stay a secret, especially when that "inner circle" who knows the reality is actually quite big. The truth just inevitably leaks.

 

1 hour ago, frag enabler said:

"everything I disagree with is hate speech".

 

If you're referring to this topic, I haven't seen any such statements.

 

Besides, some "opinions" really aren't worth anything. Racism, a million types of -phobia's, supporting criminal activity, infringing on someone else's freedom/rights, etc. are not "different views", as a simple example. They are just shitty views. Opinions can diverge on virtually anything and everything, but these don't classify as such.

[Zulk RS]

37 minutes ago, Murdoch said:

Trust experts and science? Sorry but if you think you know better than someone who has spent years studying and becoming well versed in a topic that is sheer unbridled and quite despicable arrogance. Im not particularly smart but i am reasonably well versed in one or two topics like tech. That doesn't make me qualified to say i know better than a doctor about medicine or a builder about what needs to happen to fix some dodgy boards on my house.

 

Can experts screw up? Of course they can. They are human. Thats why you look at the overall consensus on a given topic and then decide on what feels correct. I will take that over some random online ramblings from some paranoid nutter any day of the week.

 

Exactly! I am the mind that it is 100% reasonable for someone to not trust what their "expert" (Doctor, Car repair guy, psychiatrist etc.) is telling them. There have been many cases where these experts make mistakes or worse, purposely told lies for their own profit (usually to keep the client coming back to them or to sell a medicine that isn't quite the right tool for the job because they would get a higher commission). So if you don't trust your expert that is actually pretty reasonable. What makes it unreasonable is if you then go on to condemn all experts of lying. If you suspect your doctor might be lying to you, you GO TO A DIFFERENT DOCTOR. You don't go online and say doctor's peddle snake-oils. That is stupid. You don't have to trust a particular expert but you then you have to find an expert in that field who you can trust. If you find yourself in a situation when you are having trouble believing and trusting what you're being told by multiple experts in a field, then the problem is not that the experts are lying; it's that you're paranoid.

[Murdoch]

15 minutes ago, seed said:

Just like someone said earlier, the bigger the conspiracy is, the harder if not impossible it will be for it to stay a secret, especially when that "inner circle" who knows the reality is actually quite big. The truth just inevitably leaks.

 

There was a great image someone shared on Facebook recently about someone saying he was pretty sure conspiracy theorists have never been project managers and their optimism was adorable.

[DSC]

2 hours ago, frag enabler said:

Felt like chipping in, but then I saw the amount of "trust the media/experts/science" and "everything I disagree with is hate speech". The world needs a reset button.

...Are you seriously talking about trusting the experts and trusting science as a bad thing?

You're right, we do need a reset.

[DooM Bear]

1 hour ago, Biodegradable said:

I love morons who believe the US government faked the moon landing, shot JFK and was behind 9/11. Yeah, okay fam, the very same institution who couldn't even keep Watergate a secret has definitely managed to keep the wool over all our eyes regarding all that shit. I'm totally convinced.

 

I can believe the JKF one as it only takes a handful of people to shoot someone and frame someone else for it but agree the other two are a whole other kettle of fish :-P

[Maes]

1 hour ago, seed said:

Besides, some "opinions" really aren't worth anything. Racism, a million types of -phobia's, supporting criminal activity, infringing on someone else's freedom/rights, etc. are not "different views", as a simple example. They are just shitty views. Opinions can diverge on virtually anything and everything, but these don't classify as such.

 

Careful there. Deciding a-priori what constitutes a "legitimate" opinion and what doesn't has always been the stepping stone to dictatorship and tyranny, no matter how "enlightened" the one(s) setting the rules believed themselves to be. Many times the line between a "dangerous" opinion (to society, presumably), an "offensive" one (to whom, is to decide) and one which is merely "of poor taste" (again, according to whom?) is hard to decide.

 

The moment you see a law passed that pretty much says "view X or Y is shitty and anyone holding it will be treated as such", RUN AWAY from that jurisdiction ASAP. No matter if you believe that you are -for the time being- beyond reproach or that you'll never "be the next".

 

TBQH I believe that even current anti-racism or anti-whatever laws are dangerous to have in place, at least without safeguards and limits to their applications, exactly because they can be bent to suit almost any agenda, and pave the way for legislating against other "unacceptable" behaviors...whatever those might be at the time.

[frag enabler]

1 hour ago, DSC said:

...Are you seriously talking about trusting the experts and trusting science as a bad thing?

You're right, we do need a reset.

Yes, because the "science" that is being forcefed to everyone through news sites and social media outlets is created by constructing a model from a hypothesis based on preconceived ideas, then gathering only the data that agrees with the model while discarding everything else. On both sides. Scientific method seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

Anyway, this is precisely why I shouldn't have said anything. A mere thought of going against the consensus was enough to make the proverbial torches and pitchforks appear.

[seed]

42 minutes ago, Maes said:

Careful there. Deciding a-priori what constitutes a "legitimate" opinion and what doesn't has always been the stepping stone to dictatorship and tyranny, no matter how "enlightened" the one(s) setting the rules believed themselves to be.

 

Ah shit, I got caught.

 

Pfft, gonna have to forget about my world domination plans, boo hoo 🦊.

[Cacodemon345]

18 minutes ago, frag enabler said:

Anyway, this is precisely why I shouldn't have said anything. A mere thought of going against the consensus was enough to make the proverbial torches and pitchforks appear.

Are you one of those guys who believe that Section 230 should be nuked/reformed?

[DooM Bear]

23 minutes ago, frag enabler said:

Yes, because the "science" that is being forcefed to everyone through news sites and social media outlets is created by constructing a model from a hypothesis based on preconceived ideas, then gathering only the data that agrees with the model while discarding everything else. On both sides. Scientific method seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

Anyway, this is precisely why I shouldn't have said anything. A mere thought of going against the consensus was enough to make the proverbial torches and pitchforks appear.

 

I think I kinda see what you are saying and in a sense yes you are correct that you have to take into account who did the research / funded the research (perfect example of this is the tobacco industry swearing up and down that nicotine is not addictive back in the day) but you also have to take into account the weight of evidence.

 

For instance, there have been thousands of studies on climate change and almost all of them point in one direction. You could probably find a study saying the opposite but generally the reason these studies get shot down are due to poor experimental design, data issues etc. and what scientists mean by this isn’t necessarily that the study is completely wrong, but that these things are factors of concern and would need validation before they would be comfortable coming to the same conclusion.

 

Get enough well thought out and run, independent studies pointing in the same direction and that is good science.

[seed]

42 minutes ago, frag enabler said:

Anyway, this is precisely why I shouldn't have said anything. A mere thought of going against the consensus was enough to make the proverbial torches and pitchforks appear.

 

And this would be a textbook example why free speech =/= free from consequence.

 

You've expressed your opinion, and others disagreed with you. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean it's untouchable and can't be challenged. So, you're right in that regard, if you state something but aren't prepared to defend it - especially on a public forum where anyone can read it - well, I'm sorry, but that's on you.

 

Playing the victim card doesn't help making your point any more valid, it does the exact opposite in fact - it discredits it since you can't back it up with any arguments. May just as well start a personal blog and block comments, that way no-one's going to "attack" you for your "transgression".

 

19 minutes ago, DooM Bear said:

you also have to take into account the weight of evidence.

 

For instance, there have been thousands of studies on climate change and almost all of them point in one direction. You could probably find a study saying the opposite but generally the reason these studies get shot down are due to poor experimental design, data issues etc. and what scientists mean by this isn’t necessarily that the study is completely wrong, but that these things are factors of concern and would need validation before they would be comfortable coming to the same conclusion.

 

Get enough well thought out and run, independent studies pointing in the same direction and that is good science.

 

Also this very much.

 

If the information has been verified and proven repeatedly by as many people as possible, then that's because it's probably true indeed, and not because of a bias. These so-called contradictory tests often don't have sufficient proof to stand and just exist for the sake of contradicting a point, hence why they're dismissed.

[insertwackynamehere]

The “trust experts” thing has become another weaseling appeal to authority in a lot of cases, I’ve noticed. With COVID for example I trust the experts, but I’ve seen a lot of people saying things that are pessimistic nonsense that no expert is endorsing, but trying to end the discussion by saying “I trust the experts, not someone on the internet”.

 

For example, it’s become very popular in my experience to see people online argue that life will never go back to normal even with a vaccine. Experts are saying we should be wary of when we can lighten up even with the vaccine, but no one is saying normality is over forever. The take that extreme pessimism is inherently scientific and then appealing to some vague notion of “experts” who are saying nothing of the sort is just annoying.

 

The conspiracy-minded side of me would say it’s maybe a foreign psyops campaign to get people to have awful morale or give up trying at all. But since I clearly can’t prove that, we can leave it at a lot of people saying “trust the experts” while spouting nonsense.

[dew]

48 minutes ago, frag enabler said:

Anyway, this is precisely why I shouldn't have said anything. A mere thought of going against the consensus was enough to make the proverbial torches and pitchforks appear.

lmao brah you just pre-canceled yourself to get out of a pickle lol

[continuum.mid]

Some thoughts on "(don't) trust the media/experts/science":

 

A lot of conspiracy theorists, or people with views that aren't mainstream, will tell you to "question everything" and "don't trust the media" but then put their trust into another biased news source - OAN, Drudge, Infowars, etc. Not trusting the media, in my mind, means being skeptical of all news media, both "mainstream" and "independent" media, because everyone is biased, and every news source has its own agenda. You have to read a lot of different sources and notice the difference in how they report the news. At the very least, accept that any news source can be wrong about anything, and so can you. It's harder than finding a single "trustworthy" source, but it's worth it.

 

As for "experts/science," pretty much every scientific conclusion is well documented. Scientific studies are public and usually very detailed. Sure, there are problems within the scientific community, and the media tends to distort the actual contents of scientific studies. Skepticism is still needed, but "questioning everything" is what science is all about, and generally if something in science doesn't make sense to you, you can find several studies, articles, etc explaining it and how scientists came to that conclusion. Fact-check what you hear about science, and you might find that the scientific community, as a whole, tends to form accurate conclusions and admit when it's wrong. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be skeptical of scientists, but you should also be skeptical of the people telling you that the science is wrong.

 

tl;dr - conspiracy theorists are not skeptics

[DooM Bear]

Hey! Be nice all!

 

@frag enabler is also correct that it is also generally harder to get funding for studies that go against the grain or are on the fringes.

 

This is often because we believe we have enough evidence to support our models / theories but if Einstein didn’t go against the grain of Newtonian physics where would we be now?

[dew]

7 minutes ago, DooM Bear said:

@frag enabler is also correct that it is also generally harder to get funding for studies that go against the grain or are on the fringes. 

What. This is generic nonsense that doesn't mean anything. Expand your talking point.

 

8 minutes ago, DooM Bear said:

This is often because we believe we have enough evidence to support our models / theories but if Einstein didn’t go against the grain of Newtonian physics where would we be now?

What. Now you're being stupid and ahistorical. Educate yourself on physics of the early 20th century.

[wallabra]

1 hour ago, frag enabler said:

Anyway, this is precisely why I shouldn't have said anything. A mere thought of going against the consensus was enough to make the proverbial torches and pitchforks appear.

 

You think you're being a super conservative boomer man, but any boomer would tell you're a coward and a wuss, a big chicken. Let the adults here have a conversation, okay?