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

[Deadeye]

There's been a few threads on topics that have become controversial even though the credible evidence might suggest they shouldn't be.
I've been scratching my head why "some bloke on Youtube" is seen by some as a valid citation.
It turns out there's quite an interesting book about that very question (and other stuff about the depths of what I would see as an internet-algorithm amplified rabbit hole that some people get trapped in).
Anyway, I'd recommend it very highly; the main weakness is the conclusion - which is an attempt to find hope where I don't think there's much around.

The book is "Doppelganger" by Naomi Klein, Prof. at University of British Colombia and author of "No Logo" and several others you'll likely have heard of.
I'd particularly recommend to those who find themselves being labelled as conspiracists - at the very least it will give you an insight into why the rest of us think you've been suckered in.

 

[Spectric]

When it comes to you tube just tread very carefully because it is just a free for all and very hard sometimes to separate reality from the fairies as evidenced by these so called influencers who I dare say can only influence the vunerable and gullable who would buy snake lubricant anyway.

 

[Fitzroy]

The internet, and social media (FB, UT, Insta, TT, etc) is the world's largest echo chamber, whatever you shout into it through your search bar and mouse click it feeds you ever more of the same. If you are a loon it used to be difficult to find like minded individuals, now there is a virtual room/hottub full of your fellow loons just waiting for you to jump in. The chief loon in whatever area of interest is then emboldened by the 1000s of people that the echo chamber has led to them. When you think about it you realize what a broken system it is for supporting critical thought and rational debate.

 

[Spectric]

These social media platforms have certainly changed the meaning of "follower" from the days of people like Manson and Koresh.

 

[Deadeye]

There's been a few threads on topics that have become controversial even though the credible evidence might suggest they shouldn't be.
I've been scratching my head why "some bloke on Youtube" is seen by some as a valid citation.
It turns out there's quite an interesting book about that very question (and other stuff about the depths of what I would see as an internet-algorithm amplified rabbit hole that some people get trapped in).
Anyway, I'd recommend it very highly; the main weakness is the conclusion - which is an attempt to find hope where I don't think there's much around.

The book is "Doppelganger" by Naomi Klein, Prof. at University of British Colombia and author of "No Logo" and several others you'll likely have heard of.
I'd particularly recommend to those who find themselves being labelled as conspiracists - at the very least it will give you an insight into why the rest of us think you've been suckered in.

A case in point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lyzw7xwxo

 

[Jacob]

A case in point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lyzw7xwxo

Missed Mar el Lago by inches! Obviously another Trump assassination attempt.
Ruffled his hair a touch. You can see he looks shaken but still unbowed.
PS just noticed - his face seems to have a similar texture to orange skin, not just the colour!
Is he "transitioning"? Going the full Seville? Marmalade el Largo?

 

[Jake]

The ones who need this will not see it as their need.

 

[Deadeye]

The ones who need this will not see it as their need.

Which is why I think they might be interested in how others see them

 

[artie]

Which is why I think they might be interested in how others see them

Why would any sane person worry about how others see them?

 

[Jacob]

Why would any sane person worry about how others see them?

Yep, that's what they all say.

 

[John Brown]

Why would any sane person worry about how others see them?

Who mentioned sane people?

 

[Chris152]

There's been a few threads on topics that have become controversial even though the credible evidence might suggest they shouldn't be.
I've been scratching my head why "some bloke on Youtube" is seen by some as a valid citation.
It turns out there's quite an interesting book about that very question (and other stuff about the depths of what I would see as an internet-algorithm amplified rabbit hole that some people get trapped in).
Anyway, I'd recommend it very highly; the main weakness is the conclusion - which is an attempt to find hope where I don't think there's much around.

The book is "Doppelganger" by Naomi Klein, Prof. at University of British Colombia and author of "No Logo" and several others you'll likely have heard of.
I'd particularly recommend to those who find themselves being labelled as conspiracists - at the very least it will give you an insight into why the rest of us think you've been suckered in.

Nice post. I think it's the real issue in some of these threads.

 

[artie]

Who mentioned sane people?

ME

 

[Deadeye]

Why would any sane person worry about how others see them?

Well, self-insight is pretty useful for learning how to do things better, and similarly others' views for developing empathy. Feedback (in its broadest sense) is the greatest shaping force in the universe.

Also, if you truly don't care, that's a teeny bit psychopathic...

 

[Lons]

These social media platforms have certainly changed the meaning of "follower" from the days of people like Manson and Koresh.

It's still the Pied Piper by any other name.

 

[artie]

Well, self-insight is pretty useful for learning how to do things better, and others' views for developing empathy. Feedback (in its broadest sense) is the greatest shaping force in the universe.

Also, if you truly don't care, that's a teeny bit psychopathic...

The goal posts moved pretty quickly on this one.

The word I used was worry. Not at all the same as care.

 

[John Brown]

ME

Yes, but before that...

 

[RobinBHM]

There's been a few threads on topics that have become controversial even though the credible evidence might suggest they shouldn't be.
I've been scratching my head why "some bloke on Youtube" is seen by some as a valid citation.
It turns out there's quite an interesting book about that very question (and other stuff about the depths of what I would see as an internet-algorithm amplified rabbit hole that some people get trapped in).
Anyway, I'd recommend it very highly; the main weakness is the conclusion - which is an attempt to find hope where I don't think there's much around.

The book is "Doppelganger" by Naomi Klein, Prof. at University of British Colombia and author of "No Logo" and several others you'll likely have heard of.
I'd particularly recommend to those who find themselves being labelled as conspiracists - at the very least it will give you an insight into why the rest of us think you've been suckered in.

Thank you, I shall have a look.

It’s something I find fascinating

 

[Deadeye]

The goal posts moved pretty quickly on this one.

The word I used was worry. Not at all the same as care.

It's only you that is shifting emphasis, as you are well aware.
You said "Why would any sane person *worry* about how others see them?"
But that was in response to me saying "Which is why I think they might be *interested* in how others see them"
(* emphasis added by me)

So I think you've "moved the goalposts" from "interested in" to "worry about"...whereas "worry about" and "care about" are really rather similar in usage.

Anyway, I did present the topic in not completely confrontational tones, so maybe dial back the defensiveness? Have a read of the book. You'll find some stuff you disagree with (I did), and some interesting stuff. It explains quite well why you have responded the way you have just now!