lowenz on 25/6/2020 at 07:02
"
Winnie Heartstrong"
What a name about claiming fake identities.
faetal on 25/6/2020 at 11:19
I see this stuff with conspiracy nuts a lot:
1) Really specific claims delivered with total confidence in their truth
2) Insistence that they have seen proof that this is the truth
3) Total absence of courteous delivery of said proof, usually delivered in the form of:
a) Walls of links to articles from thetruthisoutthere type aggregator sites
b) Huge documents containing mostly useless info, which you're expected to either give up your weekend to wade through, or just take their word for it, it proves X
The reason I have yet to be convinced of (checks notes) ANYTHING from a conspiracy theorist, is due to a consistent lack of the following replacement of step 3:
> Repeat specific claim
> Link to source
> Highlight sentences / paragraphs which back up the specific claim, without doing anything sneaky like removing context where it is likely to impact the meaning / implication.
This is how I imagine the thought process works at their end:
1) Get REALLY stoned
2) Watch a lot of YouTube videos / read a load of aggregator site articles with references*
3) End up down a video/article-hopping rabbit hole about a global conspiracy
4) Assimilate theory via emotional gratification from specious template (this part I can kind of understand, as the world is pretty fucked up and the amount of corruption out there makes it hard to trust any power structures)
5) Go conclusion shopping on google to back your pre-cooked hypotheses up, without really reading the sources to see if they actually say any of the things they are meant to be
6) Kick the door open in your nearest forum and douse everyone in your I'm Very Smart off the shelf pseudowisdom
7) Curl up in bed with a family size bag of cheese puffs feeling super vindicated that everyone else is brainwashed and only you and handful of other REALLY stoned people know the real truth, and that you're fighting the good fight. Ignore any nagging feelings that maybe some of the people disagreeing with you had a point, that's just their brainwashing trying to infect you
* No filter for the quality or pertinence of the references, just the fact that there are some means this is FOR SURE 100% REAL
heywood on 25/6/2020 at 12:36
She also says the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson was debunked. She's one of very few Black females active in Republican politics, and will probably never get a better opportunity to run than she's got now thanks to the protest movement. Kind of a similar story for Candace Owens, who isn't running for office but is probably trying to get picked up by Fox News or something.
Gryzemuis on 25/6/2020 at 20:00
Quote Posted by faetal
3) Total absence of courteous delivery of said proof, usually delivered in the form of:
a) Walls of links to articles from thetruthisoutthere type aggregator sites
I got two words for you. Is that short enough ?
(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpcpQxLvadQ) Building 5.
nbohr1more on 25/6/2020 at 20:22
Quote Posted by Tocky
I read the first "proof" and there was nothing backing up the aligation he posted directly above it. My guess is that this works with Republicans because they never read anything.
It was however nice to read an email where a leader actually understood a situation and made suggestions using information. It gave me that old timey feeling of folks in government knowing more than street bums with personality disorders.
From that email:
Quote:
Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL
She was informed by multiple sources that QATAR was providing aid to ISIL yet she courted their financial contributions to
her re-election campaign.
Who is illiterate?
I am not a Republican.
nbohr1more on 25/6/2020 at 20:41
Quote Posted by faetal
I see this stuff with conspiracy nuts a lot:
1) Really specific claims delivered with total confidence in their truth
2) Insistence that they have seen proof that this is the truth
3) Total absence of courteous delivery of said proof, usually delivered in the form of:
a) Walls of links to articles from thetruthisoutthere type aggregator sites
b) Huge documents containing mostly useless info, which you're expected to either give up your weekend to wade through, or just take their word for it, it proves X
The reason I have yet to be convinced of (checks notes) ANYTHING from a conspiracy theorist, is due to a consistent lack of the following replacement of step 3:
> Repeat specific claim
> Link to source
> Highlight sentences / paragraphs which back up the specific claim, without doing anything sneaky like removing context where it is likely to impact the meaning / implication.
This is how I imagine the thought process works at their end:
1) Get REALLY stoned
2) Watch a lot of YouTube videos / read a load of aggregator site articles with references*
3) End up down a video/article-hopping rabbit hole about a global conspiracy
4) Assimilate theory via emotional gratification from specious template (this part I can kind of understand, as the world is pretty fucked up and the amount of corruption out there makes it hard to trust any power structures)
5) Go conclusion shopping on google to back your pre-cooked hypotheses up, without really reading the sources to see if they actually say any of the things they are meant to be
6) Kick the door open in your nearest forum and douse everyone in your I'm Very Smart off the shelf pseudowisdom
7) Curl up in bed with a family size bag of cheese puffs feeling super vindicated that everyone else is brainwashed and only you and handful of other REALLY stoned people know the real truth, and that you're fighting the good fight. Ignore any nagging feelings that maybe some of the people disagreeing with you had a point, that's just their brainwashing trying to infect you
* No filter for the quality or pertinence of the references, just the fact that there are some means this is FOR SURE 100% REAL
Just to be clear, this is a
"forum discussion" not a long-form news report or doctoral thesis.
I will certainly try to pare down some of this and provide more specific details but what I posted is a pretty good sub-set of the type of criminality exposed in the releases.
IMHO opinion, we already have the 3 constituent requirements for a crime investigation:
1) Means (help from the shadow government and all major news networks)
2) Motive (desire to avoid prosecution and maintain financial fortunes )
3) Opportunity ( CIA cells in China and elsewhere for deployment )
catbarf on 25/6/2020 at 21:07
I picked this claim out and wasted five minutes of my life reading through the entirety of both. There is not a damned thing in either link about 'paying people to incite violence and unrest at Trump rallies'. The first link is a strategy discussion about upcoming speeches, and the second link is expressing support for students who peacefully protested and convinced the venue to pull the Trump rally.
Absolutely par for the course for Gish gallop conspiracy bullshit- it takes far longer to disprove than it does to assert.
caffeinatedzombeh on 25/6/2020 at 21:31
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
Just to be clear, this is a
"forum discussion" not a long-form news report or doctoral thesis.
One or two lines would do.
*insert ridiculous claim here* as evidenced by *supporting evidence* in particular this bit *in context quote*
Whereas *daft assertion* *random link to hundred page document that does nothing to back it up at all* just demonstrates that you've no idea what you're talking about and that you've not read any of the material you're suggesting we waste our time on.
faetal on 25/6/2020 at 22:49
Nbohr - I am totally 100% open to believing anything which is true.
Knowing that it is true is just a simple case of providing decent source.
Sure it's not a long form article we're writing here, but you are making BIG claims. These require BIG evidence.
You can say what you like on a forum, but you can't make other people think the same way as you without a decent level of justification, and the wilder the ideas, the more solid the justification needs to be.
No one's saying Hilary is awesome here, but suggesting that she is complicit in engineering a virus which is killing people all over the world in order to make Trump look bad is a pretty huge claim.
The fact that this claim is not being investigated by ANYONE AT ALL means either that it isn't true, or that there is a global (i.e. every world leader seeing eye to eye on this stuff) conspiracy to make sure nothing is investigated and that the entire world's scientific community are somehow in on it. This replaces a big wild hypothesis, with a bigger, wilder hypothesis. Ockham's razor says no by default, but if there is compelling evidence to the contrary, then it could be considered. But if there is compelling evidence, then we're back to why no one is doing anything about it? And if there isn't compelling evidence, then how do you know it to be true?
There's no personal axe being ground here, other than my projecting my general dismay of post-truth internet discourse onto you (my bad a bit, but you are kind of doing that thing).
If you have good info, then that is all that is needed - no amount of convincing will be done by gesticulating wildly about the deep state.
Just the facts - then the conclusions more or less write themselves, without the need for embellishment, over-extrapolation, or appeals to incredulity.
