A recommendation for conspiracists/people who understand things the rest of us don't

[Chris152]

1. The term "Conspiracy Theory" was created by the CIA to discredit anyone who didn't buy into the official JFK assassination (or was it? https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-conspiracy-theory-jfk-941578119864). Whatever it's origin, the term is used in a smugly disparaging way to confirm the boundaries of right-thinking and "wrongthink" or more accurately "crimethink". It's all very orwellian. Accuse someone of being a "Conspiracy Theoriest" and you have immediately destroyed their argument, without actually addressing any of their arguments.

2. The desire to conform is strong in many people, and especially strong in British culture. Us and Them is a very important way of understanding who you are and where you might fit in to society, and having swivel-eyed loons and gammons trying to tell you that black is white and up is down is, frankly, unsettling. Especially when you know, for a proven fact, that they are deranged imbeciles, which rather presupposes that the facts your certain knowledge is based on are valid and truthful facts. This brings me on to the next point:

3. Narrative control. (See point 1 above, also). There are numerous groups who want to keep you believing in certain things, and not believing in certain other things. You can tell it's a narrative by the endless, redundant repetition. I am sure we can all come up with examples, but just a couple for ironic effect: "illegal and unprovoked invasion", and "the right to defend itself". I'm sure you know who these two are applied to, but just for fun try swapping the names of the countries, and see what happens...

Governments spend a lot of time and effort getting you to belive a narrative, rather than facts. Entertainingly, there are so many different groups vying for control of the narrative that they now make up the bulk of the comments on many fora (I prefer "forums", but we need to pretend to speak Latin to show our off edumication - status again). The half dozen "real" posters get swamped by all the crazy. Flat-earthers tend to turn up wherever there is anything controversial to sidetrack the conversation. Global warming is another favourite. Vitriolic antisemitism is often used by the worldwide Jewish Internet mind control network (Hasbara, anyone?) to rapidly stop any sensible debate. It will be interesting to see who's cages I rattle here.

A resent trend in journalism is to stop reporting facts, and create "stories" tha make you feel. It doesn't really matter what emotion the stoŕy conjures up, as long as you do lots of emotion rather than logic. The BBC website has devolved into an irrelevance of touchy-feely reporting that is heavy on things to make you emotional, but little if anything factual to let you know what is actually going on. Apparently you are more likely to click on a link if you are angry, so the majority of news reports are designed to make you angry, for clicks. Try not reading any news for a week, and see if your mental state improves.

That's quite enough for one post - I stopped posting here a couple of years ago, mainly because I couldn't cope with the enforced group think, jingoism and racism that is built into british society and extremely visible here. Apologies if that includes you, but take comfort in the knowledge that it's not your fault - you are a product of your society. I used to be, but 25 years of living abroad has given me a certain distance with which to view things. I don't know if I will reply again, (I am mentally much better off for not being involved in sharpening squabbles), but have at it. Debate is the search for knowledge, is it not?

Never mind all that, did you build the SUP?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The article you posted as a ‘case in point’ talks about the ‘popular’ online conspiracy of government being able to control the weather.
This is not a conspiracy. You yourself confirmed it. The example given by MTG is true, as you stated.

Secondly and to my other point, to take this story as fact when you have no real data to show who is posting these theories, seems a bit keen given your article doesn’t give any worthwhile evidence. Clearly a low standard in genuine reporting.

The legacy media as shown by Piers Morgan, now gets most of its news from social media, whilst trying to report on it as a 3rd party objective source. A perverse position indeed.

There are cranks, there have always been cranks but taking ridiculous social media stories and trying to turn them into serious news, makes all involved look a bit ‘cranky’.

And who is the bigger crank? The ‘conspiracy theorists’ who claims the government made Hurricane x, or those claiming the government can’t control the weather?

If you wrestle with pigs, you end up in ….

Seeding clouds is categorically not "controlling the weather". Clouds cannot form when the conditions do not favour cloud formation, so the "weather" needs to be predisposed to form clouds for clouds to form. That doesn't equate to controlling any weather - rather it is an attempt to increase cloud formation, where cloud formation was already taking place, in an attempt to increase rainfall or snowfall, where rain or snow were already going to fall.

So no, real world observable reality refutes your claim of human ability to "control the weather".


As mentioned previously, if a lie can include a small element of truth, that is then taken out of context, or embellished, or extended in a related, but not "dependent" way, it becomes more believable or subscribable-to.

A prime example from another thread being:

Previous Tory government accepted donations and gifts in this has been proven to have led to their corrupt and unlawful acts;
Kier Starmer has also accepted gifts and donations;
Ergo Kier Starmer is even more corrupt than the last lot.


Elements of truth = lawful donations;Tory corruption. Plus, as per Tn's point 3 above - narrative control...

People who subscribe to the obviously dishonest "conclusion" of the "narrative" are *exactly* the same as conspiracy theorists and flat-earth believers//evangelists.

 

[artie]

Debate is the search for knowledge, is it not?

Unfortunately it often seems more about pushing an agenda no matter what.

 

[Agent_zed]

Example please? Not an enhanced image, a manipulated one.

It's well documented that the NASA moon landing photographs were taken with a camera that had crosses etched into the lens. Every photo therefore should have a crosses on top of every scene. There are numerous photos that NASA released that showed the crosses obscured by something in the scene. This is impossible and can only have been done by manipulating the photo. Even the head of the Royal Photographic Society said there was no way the photos hadn't been manipulated. Whatever the reason, they were manipulated.

And on a simple level Fox news was showing clip of Biden looking 'the wrong way' at an event in France. The footage had been cropped and in fact Biden was looking at the parachutists on the ground behind the rest of the group. Millions of people will only have seen the cropped version.

Even Princess Kate was caught out manipulating a photo of their family recently, albeit a pretty poor attempt.

The really good ones, we won't even have realised were manipulated.

It's not new as such, it's just a whole lot easier for people to do it now.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to lump people not being happy with the receipt of gifts by Starmer as a conspiracy theory. I may be mistaken but I thought an essential element in a conspiracy theory is that there is a small, powerful and sinister group manipulating or causing events for some nefarious purpose.

A prime example from another thread being:

Previous Tory government accepted donations and gifts in this has been proven to have led to their corrupt and unlawful acts;
Kier Starmer has also accepted gifts and donations;
Ergo Kier Starmer is even more corrupt than the last lot.

Perhaps there is a bit missing in the narrative here and it would be more factual to say:

1. Previous Tory government (and others) accepted donations and gifts which were viewed as sleazy by many voters
2. Starmer set himself a "higher moral bar" and promised to clean up politics
3. Starmer also accepted gifts that were seen by many to be disproportionate
4. While he did abide by the rules and has broken no laws many feel Starmer to have demonstrated hypocrisy or lack of judgement as he confidently set an expectation that he should have known he was not able to achieve.
5. There's a debate to be had as to how the rules relating to gifts to politicians should work as the current rules arguably are not working.

 

[RobinBHM]

1. The term "Conspiracy Theory" was created by the CIA to discredit anyone who didn't buy into the official JFK assassination (or was it? https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-conspiracy-theory-jfk-941578119864). Whatever it's origin, the term is used in a smugly disparaging way to confirm the boundaries of right-thinking and "wrongthink" or more accurately "crimethink". It's all very orwellian. Accuse someone of being a "Conspiracy Theoriest" and you have immediately destroyed their argument, without actually addressing any of their arguments.

2. The desire to conform is strong in many people, and especially strong in British culture. Us and Them is a very important way of understanding who you are and where you might fit in to society, and having swivel-eyed loons and gammons trying to tell you that black is white and up is down is, frankly, unsettling. Especially when you know, for a proven fact, that they are deranged imbeciles, which rather presupposes that the facts your certain knowledge is based on are valid and truthful facts. This brings me on to the next point:

3. Narrative control. (See point 1 above, also). There are numerous groups who want to keep you believing in certain things, and not believing in certain other things. You can tell it's a narrative by the endless, redundant repetition. I am sure we can all come up with examples, but just a couple for ironic effect: "illegal and unprovoked invasion", and "the right to defend itself". I'm sure you know who these two are applied to, but just for fun try swapping the names of the countries, and see what happens...

Governments spend a lot of time and effort getting you to belive a narrative, rather than facts. Entertainingly, there are so many different groups vying for control of the narrative that they now make up the bulk of the comments on many fora (I prefer "forums", but we need to pretend to speak Latin to show our off edumication - status again). The half dozen "real" posters get swamped by all the crazy. Flat-earthers tend to turn up wherever there is anything controversial to sidetrack the conversation. Global warming is another favourite. Vitriolic antisemitism is often used by the worldwide Jewish Internet mind control network (Hasbara, anyone?) to rapidly stop any sensible debate. It will be interesting to see who's cages I rattle here.

A resent trend in journalism is to stop reporting facts, and create "stories" tha make you feel. It doesn't really matter what emotion the stoŕy conjures up, as long as you do lots of emotion rather than logic. The BBC website has devolved into an irrelevance of touchy-feely reporting that is heavy on things to make you emotional, but little if anything factual to let you know what is actually going on. Apparently you are more likely to click on a link if you are angry, so the majority of news reports are designed to make you angry, for clicks. Try not reading any news for a week, and see if your mental state improves.

That's quite enough for one post - I stopped posting here a couple of years ago, mainly because I couldn't cope with the enforced group think, jingoism and racism that is built into british society and extremely visible here. Apologies if that includes you, but take comfort in the knowledge that it's not your fault - you are a product of your society. I used to be, but 25 years of living abroad has given me a certain distance with which to view things. I don't know if I will reply again, (I am mentally much better off for not being involved in sharpening squabbles), but have at it. Debate is the search for knowledge, is it not?

I didnt realise you were still around

still trolling, I see

 

[RobinBHM]

Not that you are remotely biased, of course.

I go to peer reviewed scientific journals for information on covid, not facebook or you tube
thats as least biased as is possible

I do the same with climate change


where do you get your information from? A =GBnews

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Believe what you like - it doesn't necessarily make you right.

 

[RobinBHM]

The article you posted as a ‘case in point’ talks about the ‘popular’ online conspiracy of government being able to control the weather.
This is not a conspiracy. You yourself confirmed it. The example given by MTG is true, as you stated.

and thats the skill of the conspiracy theorist

1) yes clouds can be seeded

2) MTG tried claiming Democrats are controlling the weather and causing hurricanes in Republican areas to try and get the voting democrat

do you see how 2) is a lie and a devious conflation of 1)


its the same as Trumps "they are eating the dogs" conspiracy

this has been created by

A) Haitian do have some historical cultural rituals like sacrificing animals
and
B) there is a news article discussing a case of eating pets / geese -which happened to have occurred in a different place and a different time


but Trump supporters are using the above points as "evidence" it is happening in Springfield

 

[RobinBHM]

Believe what you like - it doesn't necessarily make you right.

peer reviewed scientific journals are more right than somebody on youtube

I look at climate change studies from both sides of the argument, Its hard to get a balanced view, but its way better than believing vested interests


I bet you dont believe in man made climate change
Who is funded by fossil fuels: Conservative party, Reform party, GBnews
who do you support A= Conservative Party, Reform party, GBnews (vested interests for fossil fuels)

 

[RobinBHM]

narrative control...

Who Owns the UK Media?” 2023 report, published by the Media Reform Coalition at Goldsmiths University, found that three companies – DMG Media, News UK and Reach – control 90% of the UK’s national newspaper market

Viscount Rothermere owns DMG
Rupert Murdoch owns News UK Corp
Reach: massive media corp

"From the point at which Boris Johnson became Prime Minister in July 2019 to the end of September 2020, three billionaire press owners, and their representatives, had more meetings with ministers than all the rest of the UK media combined. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp was top with 40 meetings, followed by DMGT (owned by the current Lord Rothermere) and Sir Fred Barclay’s Telegraph and Spectator."


I wonder why we mostly have Conservative governments..........

 

[Jacob]

....

I wonder why we mostly have Conservative governments..........

https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/3107-the-vote

"Throughout, Foot shows how vested interests first delayed and then hobbled the progress of democracy. Looking to the twentieth century, Foot exposes the gaps between the promises of a succession of Labour governments and their actions once in power, and the party's abandonment of any aspiration to economic democracy."

"Whenever we try to do anything," Attlee warned in 1932, "we will be opposed by every vested interest, financial, political and social."

Most interesting and informative book I've read for years. Just getting to next to last chapter, which kicks off in 1979
Really looking forward to the conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Foot_(journalist)

 

[Phil Pascoe]

peer reviewed scientific journals are more right than somebody on youtube

I look at climate change studies from both sides of the argument, Its hard to get a balanced view, but its way better than believing vested interests


I bet you dont believe in man made climate change
Who is funded by fossil fuels: Conservative party, Reform party, GBnews
who do you support A= Conservative Party, Reform party, GBnews (vested interests for fossil fuels)

You make far too many presumptions for someone who allegedly reads scientific journals.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"Throughout, Foot shows how vested interests first delayed and then hobbled the progress of democracy.

Unions are vested interests.

 

[Jacob]

1. The term "Conspiracy Theory" was created by the CIA

No it was not.

to discredit anyone who didn't buy into the official JFK assassination (or was it? https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-conspiracy-theory-jfk-941578119864). Whatever it's origin, the term is used in a smugly disparaging way to confirm the boundaries of right-thinking and "wrongthink" or more accurately "crimethink". It's all very orwellian. Accuse someone of being a "Conspiracy Theoriest" and you have immediately destroyed their argument, without actually addressing any of their arguments.

Read all about it if you are interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

You seem to be saying that doubting a conspiracy theory is in itself a form of conspiracy.
This is the sort of crackpot "circular reasoning" which keeps the theories rolling along!

 

[Fergie 307]

peer reviewed scientific journals are more right than somebody on youtube

I look at climate change studies from both sides of the argument, Its hard to get a balanced view, but its way better than believing vested interests


I bet you dont believe in man made climate change
Who is funded by fossil fuels: Conservative party, Reform party, GBnews
who do you support A= Conservative Party, Reform party, GBnews (vested interests for fossil fuels)

Come on Robin, some stereotyping on display here.
I am assuming you don't particularly care for the likes of Braverman describing those on the left as sandal wearing, tofu eating wokerati?
So why stoop to similar nonsense yourself.

 

[Fergie 307]

I didnt realise you were still around

still trolling, I see

Careful Robin. Next thing he'll be trying to sell you a bit of burnt rope from a certain embassy balcony

 

[MikeJhn]

No it was not.

Read all about it if you are interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

You seem to be saying that doubting a conspiracy theory is in itself a form of conspiracy.
This is the sort of crackpot "circular reasoning" which keeps the theories rolling along!

You seem to be saying that doubting a conspiracy theory is in itself a form of conspiracy.
This is the sort of crackpot "circular reasoning" which keeps Jacobs Threads rolling along!

 

[John Brown]

Come on Robin, some stereotyping on display here.
I am assuming you don't particularly care for the likes of Braverman describing those on the left as sandal wearing, tofu eating wokerati?
So why stoop to similar nonsense yourself.

Trying hard to keep out of this thread, but just have to say that I love it when the likes of Braverman use phrases like "sandal wearing, tofu eating wokerati", as it demonstrates what total a-holes they are.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to lump people not being happy with the receipt of gifts by Starmer as a conspiracy theory. I may be mistaken but I thought an essential element in a conspiracy theory is that there is a small, powerful and sinister group manipulating or causing events for some nefarious purpose.



Perhaps there is a bit missing in the narrative here and it would be more factual to say:

1. Previous Tory government (and others) accepted donations and gifts which were viewed as sleazy by many voters
2. Starmer set himself a "higher moral bar" and promised to clean up politics
3. Starmer also accepted gifts that were seen by many to be disproportionate
4. While he did abide by the rules and has broken no laws many feel Starmer to have demonstrated hypocrisy or lack of judgement as he confidently set an expectation that he should have known he was not able to achieve.
5. There's a debate to be had as to how the rules relating to gifts to politicians should work as the current rules arguably are not working.

Nope, your flow chart description falls down at point 1. - in a false equivalence fallacy which conflates the acceptance of donations to be the sleazy behaviour in question.

That's simply dishonest.

The ACTUAL sleazy behaviour was, for example, a minister acting unlawfully for the benefit of a donor to proactively and knowingly avert them paying £45million in tax. The catalogue of sleaze over the past 10 years is huge.

For the avoidance of any doubt "accepting donations" was never on anyone's RADAR as "sleazy". Because it just isn't. The two things are separate and distinct.

Also for the avoidance of doubt, the nation's collective conscience has only just been awakened to the issue of donations by what can only be described as a forced narrative within some of the media and that forced narrative has attempted to do, and in some respects successfully, falsely conflate the acceptance of donations and sleazy behaviour.

You may well have had the previous mindset that donations to politicians = fundamentally bad, however, my question to you and others will always be the same: When did you first put your mindset into writing on a forum or on social media? You may well be in a vanishingly small minority that previously have done so, but it is dishonest to declare that the forced narrative has always been an issue for those organisations and individuals who are now flooding the media space with their forced narrative.

The outlets that are forcing the narrative have always, always been actively and acutely aware of donations taking place to politicians (they even did it themselves...), however, they have singularly failed to take that to print in the past and it is only now that it is suddenly a thing? Pull the other one.