Subtle hypocrisy regarding intellectual etiquette

Salutations ATS,

This thread began as a response to a post in one of the many Elenin topics. While I originally intended a light apology for my own less than exemplary moment of glib callousness followed by an explanation of my viewpoint, as I expounded on the idea as I felt I could be hitting on a point of interest to some others of the ATS community.

To begin, one of the attractions ATS holds for myself personally is the grand spectrum of diversity to be experienced here. Geographical, political, chronological, moral etc. While the chaff often outweighs the wheat and contrary to what some profess, the content of ATS sees more agenda derived disinformation in a day than Fox, MSNBC et. all serve up in a year, ATS is possibly the most eclectic and diverse community I know of on the web. Combined with the unique subject matter catered to by the website, I can think of few other guilty diversions I would rather get lost in for a short while and all conspiratorial wisecracking aside, there have been many occasions that I have logged off ATS with a bit more knowledge, some certain jewel of wisdom, than what I had logged on with

As a whole I prefer to lurk on the sidelines, I tend to view random needless comments as background noise but I will just as quickly acknowledge that other people find flitting about from topic to topic rewarding and it is in the combination of these many different types that the unique diversity mentioned earlier is rooted. Knowing that both the quality and volume of content are key to the success of this type of social network I try make a point of not letting too much time go by without making a contribution where I might have insight into a particular subject or unique answer to a question.

I have invested more time on here than I would like to admit examining every conceivable angle to a given story or claim and believe making a point of replying with forethought is nothing more or less than good manners. Sometimes trying, sometimes succeeding to help interested folks gather the mental tools to make their own informed decisions using the available data, explaining scientific method, supporting the scientific communities understanding and trying to keep proper context anchored to historical narrative are soft spots. In short hoping to propagate honest personal viewpoints and opinions in people, a value I see lauded as precious by certain facets of the ATS membership but curiously repressed in other subtle ways by many of the same.

This brings me to my conundrum. As I had said, this began as a admittedly defensive response to another members reaction to a whetted and unabridged statement I had made regarding the latest E.T. saucer behind a comet story. Following a brief (and I had assumed friendly) exchange from different viewpoints and cultures then Boom! Double barreled even.

. In a nutshell this is the exchange ( I redacted the other members name as a measure of respect, this is by no means a rant or complaint towards the other member)

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

 

----------------
Sorry,can you please bring out the evidence that this story is completely false? I would certainly like to see that.
We are all eagerly waiting

In the interest of extending mutual respect towards differing opinions on these forums I would usually be glad to, however as its already been pointed out a half dozen times in the last few pages that this story is an admitted april fools prank (including an admission by the author himself) I think I'll leave the ball in your court.

If your interested in applying some grade school physics and tossing the numbers to demonstrate the silliness of many of the claims that are being made in regard to C/2010 X1 (Elenin) I will be more than happy to oblige although we should pursue that angle in any one of the existing threads.
Either way, anything more than C/2010 X1 is a long period comet on its way through the solar system that may be briefly visible to some amateur astronomers with the right equipment is completely false and has been proven so ad nauseum.

I admit this was not my best post and it would have been better to just pass and let somebody else take it up if they felt it necessary. Conversely, I stand by ever word as being true and feel confident the core statement would withstand any foreseeable scrutiny. The bottom line is that in the context of ATS one persons irrefutable fact is another's falsehood of nefarious pedigree.

The other members response was a bit vitriolic in tone, but as I've acknowledged, justifiably so...

----------------------
Denying ignorance with denial words make no harder your argument against other ones,
You are stating things that read somewhere else and calling them the truth, but by the same way you dismiis the info presented by this astronomer, with nearly 25 years of watching the sky, by saying it is a hoax.
What a way to deny ignorance...

Ouch, but much worse gets handed out daily. It got me to thinking about what I see as a bit of a double standard in the burden of proof expected from information provided by anyone supporting conventional explanation in contrast to the burden of proof in the quality of information provided by someone postulating the more exotic alternative explanations of the everyday mundane.

I appreciate alternative is a core value of the website but often it seems the rational, proven viewpoint is required to supply ever nuance and detail, accurately quoted and sourced without flaw while ideas based on bad science,hearsay and misrepresentation are given much greater leeway.

A good example from my perspective is the chemtrail argument. I often follow with amazement how quickly one poster in particularly consistently provides sourced irrefutable fact along with the necessary background and ancillary information needed to understand the point at hand. This same member brings the added insight to the table of having retired from a career as Captain/pilot in command of heavy commercial airliners. This member is continuously the brunt of nonsensical innuendos and nitpicked to the nth degree in that certain kind of special way that only somebody with little prior education in anything even remotely related can muster. Often all pretence of civility is abandoned by going so far as to disregard the guys flight credentials and openly insinuate he's a phony. It turns out, for all you spiritualists/engineer types, one can channel Kelly Johnsons ghost overnight by quote mining the relevant wikipedia entry. Who could have guessed?

The reason this particular instance sticks out to me is that I come from an aviation background, I studied aeronautical engineering, have a bit past 400 hours logged, was once an aircraft owner and maintain as deep a connection with aviation history as finances and circumstance allowed. The point being its easy to spot a "Walt" a mile away, the gentlemen in question is authentic in every aspect . I've deleted more than one choice remark before posting figuring its not my affair and the chap in question knows where the report tab is located. I know I'm not the only other person here with any sort of formal aviation training and cant help but appreciate the irony that quite often these types of character attacks do nothing more than expose fraudulent, insecure types perpetuating the problem for what they are.

Persistent contrails aren't the issue so much as the flagrant disrespect towards those rare individuals that really have a lot to say on the issue because they have real world experience, to be honest this is one aspect of ATS that I find tactless and sophomoric. There really is little wiggle room on the chemtrail subject, wouldn't some of you agree that the order of reason is a bit skewed when fringe beliefs that repeatedly fail to withstand even the most basic scrutiny are perpetuated at the expense of a retired professional who chooses to contribute to this site? Once again, I am not taking issue with the exchange of alternative or controversial viewpoints, rather the culture of ignorance that has thrived in a specific few topics and is now rooted firmly enough to be a distraction (at least speaking for myself)

Sooner or later it is a lot easier to change venue than to have to process constant yapping from a rare few who view their disruption as a contribution. An immediate casualty of this ,sadly, is the ATS community. An Airline pilot willing to maintain a visible presence on any conspiracy website is a rare breed for the obvious example above, as well as tremendous asset for the website itself and not likely to be replaced anytime soon. Any other forum would be giddy to bring such a wealth of information onboard not to mention the instant rise in credibility associated with the inclusion of a bona fide airline Captain to the members list.

Additionally, a second negative brought about indirectly by permitting these behaviors to continue is tolerance for those at the bottom end of the learning curve. Sometimes the difficulty required to remain patient while politely explaining the same basic science for the 100th time to the 100th different person can become insurmountable with the addition of these anti-intellects to the background noise.
Personally, my own motivation to suffer the foolishness of these characters (rather than fade away to Unexplained Mysteries or a similar venue where basic respect is enforced for the benefit of any who missed the human resources memo) is the hope that a few might actually get it and apply themselves to pursue some legitimate intellectual growth, or at bare minimum, promote a multilayered effort to better understand the world or in the least help to stem the tide of intellectual malaise that seems to have accompanied digital media into the information age.

An legitimate example demonstrating this silent, manifest hypocrisy bourne to a lopsided burden of proof levied against some of the better learned in the ranks.
How many of you have watched exchanges that go something like this unfold time and again?...

Both Persons A and B have similar high school level educations, are employed in similar sectors and have equal interests in ATS type subject matter.

Person A believes in Stitchin's Niburu/2012/whatever. Their entire opinion has been formed by what others have spoon-fed. Easily digestible faux science youtube clips, alternate theory message boards fussed over by activist mods who are tired of the Skeptics ruining all the fun, spectacular claims summarized in a few easy paragraphs punctuated by unrelated graphics, all the while multitasking with their attention divided between chatting with their /B/ros on 4chan and collecting head shots on COD.

Person A believes their convictions because everybody but the sheeple know the government lies, Never a Straight Answer Lies, science is flawed to the point that general relativity and quantum mechanics are both flat wrong etc.

Person B is interested in off the wall subject matter, faster than light travel, the UFO enigma, ancient alien visitors etc but realizes he/she does not have the educational tools to correctly interpret the existing data to either prove disprove nonconventional ideas.

Person B realizes that without certain fundamental knowledge he/she has no way of knowing if Nasa is lying about brown dwarf stars marauding our solar system or the owner of www.2012.com is selling snake oil and swampland under the label of "enlightenment"

Person B attended extra night classes, spent months buried in books, joined local astronomy club sacrificing a lot of good LOLZ to gain the basic mathematical tools and scientific base to not have only opinion but to have the beginnings of understanding of things like time dilation and orbital precession.

Person A posts the latest "Proof 100% of Niburu" or "Nasa admits Comet Elenin is brown dwarf" youtube vid along with the usual inflammatory "were all gonna die statements"

Person B steps up to the plate, video title is misleading, blacked out areas in google sky are years old and not real time, brown dwarf in solar system would make a lot of trouble we aren't seeing etc.

Person A responds by posting links to other ATS Niburu threads and a wikipedia link to "operation northwoods" as "proof".

Person B makes comment that 3km comet cannot be failed dwarf star, 3600 year orbit doesn't allow for travel from oort cloud through inner planets, galactic alignment is meaningless and tells person A so much..

Person A calls foul, insists person B source basic, elementary facts that are taken for given as common knowledge to all parties in the discussion as they are necessary to build an understanding of the subject matter.

Should person B honestly be expected to spell out the periodic table, explain the basic tenants of thermodynamics or give baby steps through what 1 g = 9.80665 m/s2 means and why its important?

At what point is person A obligated to educate themselves in the necessary material to participate honestly in the discussion, for example, isn't somebody who is insisting that C/2010 X1 is actually a sub stellar object but doesn't understand the workings or differences between what makes a white dwarf or brown dwarf doing nothing more than trolling and disrupting the conversation by doing anything beyond asking questions and trying to learn?

I saw a thread a few days ago where a poster who has expressed some highly unconventional views challenging some extremely complicated process who was absolutely stumped for over a dozen pages by the working order of a 6th grade algebraic problem. Working within the context of a similar situation, if this person were to want to argue,say that, CERN are a bunch of tools pursuing the higgs boson because the latest Jared White video says the LHC is a fake and demonstrates this by rubbing two refrigerator magnets along a red helium baloon while blowing a duck call.

Is the person with the working knowledge honestly obligated to explain every facet in minutia while the person lacking any real knowledge is perfectly justified battling wits with their own strawmen or flipping ad homs of "disinfo shill" and the like every time they are proven wrong? Shouldn't the person who has done the hard work, studied the math and memorized the theory be afforded the courtesy of requiring some effort of understanding the fundamentals on the part of the non traditional or alternative minded critics of conventional wisdom?

As said above, there is a trend momentarily that seems to expect those persons with an educated opinion to make the effort to respond with patient, well sourced and accurate information on a mundane subject 100 different times to 100 different people who are every bit as capable of running down the facts.
In the same vein at the other extreme, those promoting baseless nonsense get a pass on poor quality research, abysmal source validation and non existent fact checking yet are afforded an considerable leeway to substitute disrespectful commentary and poor manners in place of actual substance and factual platform.

In closing, I look forward hearing other viewpoints regarding what I am perceiving as a climate of favoritism allowing the intellectually lazy and dishonest slowly taking root a pass on manners and etiquette for lack of substance. Is it really such an unthinkable faux paus for those that have invested the time and effort in pursuit of knowledge and truth to relish in forcing a bit of intellectually honesty into the conversation by tasking those with extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence before they are allowed to sit at the grownups table?

A very well put point and one which mirrors my sentiments for over a year now.

I do think that the business element of ATS (which I have no problem with) overshadows the investigation and research element which is what makes it so vastand popular in the first place (with some behind the scenes work from the 3 Amigos too).

It is user generated content and I'm sure that quality research, whilst getting a lot of attention here, may keep it's dialogue upon it's findings elsewhere with a more serious attitude towards commenting and critique.

I'd say ATS is an important step to get the proletariat, or sensationalists, of whatever paranormal field they are interested in prior to them becoming epicurean with their understanding elsewhere. Taking enthusiasm and turning it into passion is an important part of the process and keeps those with a determined interest focussed until they find others with a similar value system.

Well stated drunkenparrot however I feel that it won't change anything. I'd say ATS is a bit of an elbow joke for other communities on the internet and this attracts hoaxes, faux idiots and those who like attention as well as those who are trying to understand the universe better.

-m0r

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Is that you Weedwhacker??

Sorry, but I found most of what you posted to be nothing but a rant..

Wow!
Well worth the read.

All I can offer is my experience from being on the net since 1982.
A back-in-the-day story, if anyone has the patience for it.


1)
Spam was invented as a way to control trolls.
In the early days most servers were a computer in some kids bedroom
that hosted a bulletin board and a primitive e-mail server.

After a while someone figured out that in the ascii set there was an invisible character that made a beep noise generated on the motherboard. The server computer would process the e-mail's header so it could store it in the right account, but wouldn't read the rest of it. So a malicious user, or prankster, would pack a hundred beeps into the header and send it in the middle of the night. The local admin would wake up out of a cold sleep to hear their computer going beep-beep-beep in rapid fire non stop for a long time. When they searched through the files they would see nothing. The character, after all, was invisible.

The first counter to this was to hack some editors to show the hidden characters. When the offending account was identified it was banned. But the mischievous figured out a way around this too. They would just pack the header with a fake address for who sent it.

Worse, was even when the actual sender was identified, many times the local admin would refuse to ban that person, or just wouldn't reply at all. E-mail bombing continued.

Finally the angry admin community found a permanent solution. They would publicize the offending e-mail account to all the admins who would write a script to e-mail that account with hundreds of e-mails packed with huge files. This would overwhelm the local admin's machine and fill up their hard drive. They then _had_ to ban the offending account.

So, as one may be able to see, spam was invented by the original internet community as a way to fight off bad behavior.

Isn't it ironic that it became the tool of bad users in the end.


2)
In the days of compuserve, prodigy, and delphi usenet newsgroups were all the rage. Hardly anyone in America knew anything about computers or the net, or even how to find a service to get connected. And the best thing of all was that the university networks were connected so one could find actual leading experts in almost any field of science.

Literally, a thread about cold fusion might get comments from people doing cutting edge research of that very subject. It was paradise. Intellectual, facts before emotion, paradise. Then something changed.

See the original public communities were seasoned by the earlier experiences with bad behavior and when new members would join, say compuserve, the veterans there would come down pretty hard on any bad behavior. They would socialize them into a more academic norm, and only then, maybe, would they tell them how to find a usenet newsgroup. For a couple of years there it looked like we really were going to conquer the entire world with science, respect, and openness.

But then AOL came into existence. Massively funded, free trial periods, account give aways. They didn't care one whit about the internet, they had Mosaic which was point-and-click so they didn't even have to teach people how to connect or access their e-mail. A person now, didn't have to know how to write a single line of code to join in.

And for years after that, every single time some smack-tard posted pr0n, trolled a thread, or generally behaved like a jackass they always, and without exception, had @aol.com at the end of their name.

Slowly the real experts started retreating to smaller and smaller servers. Slowly usenet decreased it's signal to noise ratio. Slowly the culture of socializing the newbies to the standards of the day eroded away.

Thanks for throwing open the barn doors to the interned Al Gore. /pimp slap



3)
The very same big companies that made the internet available to everyone while refusing to hire moderators to socialize the swarm of newcomers then began making noise that there was some bad behavior on the net. That something had to be done. That legislation _must_ be passed.

And then the word hacker, was hijacked and turned from being the acme of social graces in the computer world into it's evil opposite a "cracker." At least in the public mind. Now all of a sudden hackers were bad, and no one had time to find out what the difference between a hacker and a cracker was.

Then the government got involved followed shortly by the news networks. And hackers became some kind of romanticized ideal of a rebel / criminal. And a new wave of smack-tards showed up on the net all eager to learn how to be a script kiddie.

And from that the public gave government and business the authority and laws over the internet that we have now.

The very agents that wrecked Valhalla, have sent us the bill for the damage they did, while in the same breath blaming us for the bad behavior of the people they flooded us with.


What can I say.
I feel ya.


David Grouchy

If you would like to read a tiny time capsule of what it used to be like,
check out the "The New Hackers Dictionary"
outpost9.com...
and scroll down to the section on "Folklore" particularly "The meaning of Hack"

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Amen. I'd like to add that I have no problem taking the time to explain things that may have been missed in fifth grade science class due to a childhood illness, or walking through a cost/benefit analysis or decision tree for people who may lack training or experience in management or strategic thinking... it becomes not only frustrating but actually frightening when people honestly don't seem to understand the most basic life experiences: how shadows are formed, why reflections happen, how and why the Sun and Moon rise and set.... Throw in a remarkable lack of common sense (eg; that if the Moon really did rise in the West one night, wouldn't everyone else on Earth also see it?) and the situation becomes truly distressing.

For a certain type of ATS denizen, competency actually seems to be a disqualification. For example, an amateur astronomer who has spent years observing the skies with his own eyes and has actually photographed "Elenin," himself seems to be given negative weight when he airs his opinions in certain threads. Apparently, to some people, being spoon fed graphics on YouTube outweighs personal experience.

Finally, there is the entire issue of subjective and objective fact. If someone were to claim that the Archangel Gabriel appeared to them in a dream and announced that the world were to end at 4.30 PM on Tuesday, I would make no attempt to dispute them. I have no means of accessing their dreams and therefore no way to confirm or falsify Gabriel's actions or words in them. On the other hand, when someone claims to be making a prediction based on science, I feel compelled to apply scientific methods to the statement. Science is accessible to everyone! It is not a dogma dictated by a cloistered elite, it is a methodology that can be practiced by anyone. If you don't believe in Newton's laws of motion, get some billiard balls and work it out for yourself. Get yourself a compass, a magnifying glass, some binoculars and a stopwatch and start observing the world around you, instead of taking some YouTube ranter at face value because you, too, want to believe that "NASA lies."

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

Is that you Weedwhacker??

Weedwhacker twins, that would send shudders through the 9/11 and Chemtrail forums

Sorry, but I found most of what you posted to be nothing but a rant..

As is your prerogative, however I see it differently. This can be a great forum at times, unfortunately those who see ATS as an opportunity to play make believe or to intentionally propagate groundless fringe nonsense for the sole purpose of winding others up to get a reaction need to be reigned in for the sake of both the website and the rest of the legitimate membership.

What's the saying...? You can put lipstick on a pig, but.."

All jest aside, its all subjective but I don't think I'm alone in my perceptions. What passes for "truth" more often than not isn't rooted in any science whatsoever, quite a few of the "truths" settled on by the membership is the product of semantics and circular reasoning.

Seems rather pointless as doggedly arguing somebody into a corner based on word games doesn't really produce the kind of data that drives innovation and progress.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

As is your prerogative, however I see it differently. This can be a great forum at times, unfortunately those who see ATS as an opportunity to play make believe or to intentionally propagate groundless fringe nonsense for the sole purpose of winding others up to get a reaction need to be reigned in for the sake of both the website and the rest of the legitimate membership.

Oh I don't disagree with some of what you say..
I just found the way you were praising one member quite pathetic,bordering on worship...

No member's opinion is worth more than another's IMO and most have NEVER proven who they are anyway...

First, to OP. Great read, thank you. It is true, it happens. But let me give you a little perspective after many years reading and watching the persona's and types that frequent ATS.


Attention seekers.
Blatant liars.
Kids.
Well-informed skeptics
Highly educated individuals.
Religious fanatics
Anti-religious fanatics


These groups, without a doubt (and far from a comprehensive list) are about as much at odds as any group(s) can be.

But you know what, the real bottom line is, and the bread and butter of ATS' revenue generating capacity is? The fact that the truth and well thought out argument and debate is nowhere near as interesting in our (new) society of digital dominion. He who can post the most, he who can garner the most attention (negative or positive) wins. The end.

Originally posted by backinblack

No member's opinion is worth more than another's IMO and most have NEVER proven who they are anyway...

Think what you want...some members opinion's ARE worth than other member's opinion, and often, it has little to do with the number of flags they've accrued or the stars.

A fun, refreshing read with some great points, But I think you are perhaps being bit kind with he modifier 'subtle'.

I'd call it "Blatant", personally.

I agree that much of the more educated and reasoned posters will likely continue to drift away as ATS becomes (understandably) more concerned with popularity and revenue than with much of what established them in the first place. This the cycle of things.

Id be interested to know where they are all going. Got some links?

I would just like to add one thing to your well-composed post.

I know there are brilliant, creative and intellectual minds on this site. It is the main reason I posted here. I can't help but be dismayed however, by the drive-by posting. I don't know if it is a form of passive-aggressive behavior or some type of snub that lets me know that 'I don't know everything by half'- but I wish it wouldn't happen.

It is because 'I don't know everything by half' that I post! So many flit onto the thread- make an interesting or brilliant observation and then flee- never to expand or clarify or LEAVE LINKS to the repository of wisdom held out tauntingly on the post, regardless of questions asked of them.

So why bother posting? Fifteen open-ended replies promising information that will never be shared is probably more of a thread killer and discouragement to me than all the trolls added together. I remember the day when information was brought to the table and then it was disseminated and reconstructed and lo and behold- insight!

Quantity over quality?

Thank you for the acknowledgement of the awesomeness of Asimov's NightFall

Were my other points irrelevant?
Nasa was afterall the Source and I was merely questioning and pointing out the origins of the Source.

Do you agree that Nightfall is very relevant to the discussion of Comet Elenin especially considering the motive of most Comet Elenin posts? i.e. "we are all gonna die"...

Honestly, I am simply curious as I sensed no bias either way yet since that was all that you chose to comment on and then I see this post, I feel the need now to enquire, please?

Apologies yet one of my teachers was Bruce Lee and one of his quotes goes "There is no one way" and I apply this thought to much of my works and only wished that it truly applied evenly to all things. Maybe it does and I am simply unable to see how yet as far as debate goes, as far as these forums go, public opinion et al.... I see No One Way but many ways...

One side saying "we are all going to die!" without much logical proof and the other side suggesting that everything is fine and again, without much logical proof or worse still, while using a Source proven to be untrustworthy as their reasoning......leaving me with no choice but to position myself somewhere in the center/middle/grey area.

The "bacon and eggs" reference was simply a proof that many have no clue as to why they behave in a certain way i.e. the Power of Propaganda.

Some view NASA as the penultimate reference concerning everything SPACE yet if they knew about the power of propaganda and the Origins of their Source, would they still be adamant about using it?

If they knew that Von Brauns deathbed confessions included a warning about government conspiracies to use Comets, Asteroids and Aliens to subdue the masses could they then see the reverse?

That when NASA says all is well all does not have to be well....at all and perhaps quite the contrary...

This I feel is part of my purpose in being here, a part I can play as a reminder of these little nuances that so many seem to either have never known or are trying desperately to forget...

Am I wrong?
Do I go about it the wrong way?
Is there only one way to the truth?

I really do not believe so yet... I could be wrong

Originally posted by Ev0lveUp
I would just like to add one thing to your well-composed post.

I know there are brilliant, creative and intellectual minds on this site. It is the main reason I posted here. I can't help but be dismayed however, by the drive-by posting. I don't know if it is a form of passive-aggressive behavior or some type of snub that lets me know that 'I don't know everything by half'- but I wish it wouldn't happen.

It is because 'I don't know everything by half' that I post! So many flit onto the thread- make an interesting or brilliant observation and then flee- never to expand or clarify or LEAVE LINKS to the repository of wisdom held out tauntingly on the post, regardless of questions asked of them.

So why bother posting? Fifteen open-ended replies promising information that will never be shared is probably more of a thread killer and discouragement to me than all the trolls added together. I remember the day when information was brought to the table and then it was disseminated and reconstructed and lo and behold- insight!

Quantity over quality?

Perhaps more use could be made of U2U's to ask for links? I know that sometimes when reading a thread I remember something I've read on the topic and may post about that. However, I honestly don't always have the time or the inclination to go searching for the original link, especially because it's clear that many wouldn't be interested enough to check it out.

However, if someone sent me a U2U I might be willing to invest the time and effort to research the link.

I understand your post in spirit.
I look at things more pragmatically I guess. I don't think I've started a topic on ATS because frankly there are hundreds of "tube heads" who are apparently sitting around sifting through tons of information in the hopes of scooping a single thread title. I find it amusing how many posts start with "Good post, but you are about 10 hours late, this was posted LINK" yesterday", and then a snide remark is made and poof. That thread is dead.

Having a ranking system involved will always make these issues worse. Even if someone is a complete dullard, they will get more recognition, thus more manufactured credibility as long as they keep posting things first and in a friendly interesting way. Doesn't matter how right or wrong they are. Just that they are first, and stay ahead of the curve.

The last thing I want to say is that I've found and read some truly interesting posts on ATS. I joined because of an Australian kid posting about the moon landings, and separate John Titor threads.

After those threads died off I've been lurking and making posts and trying to integrate but I keep bumping into a singular problem for me.
ATS is flooded with idiots. For every one post I read that is even remotely reasonable, there are a dozen that are (in order) predominately Racist, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Bible based, and Sexist, Partisan political and finally just plain old stupidity/gullible.

I like to think I am above such name calling and all that but really. At the end of the day, there are just a great number of stupid people who can sit around with instant communication capabilities and support and back up each others version of stupid like circling the wagons, or the single grandest example of the worst game of "telephone" ever played.
Current society promotes stupid. Stupid is cool. Stupid is easier to be than smart, so be stupid and support other stupid people and you can all have a fresh new community of stupid.
Well in my opinion ATS is well on it's way to being a full blown star in a solar system of stupid. There may be brilliant flashes, but the general burning plasma of ignorance is by volume so much greater that it's gravity is going to start dragging satellites in and forming regular paths. You can already see these paths forming. Looking at the back linking and interlinking with Alex Jones.
Now I like Alex Jones, and I've listened to his show for years. But I don't think he is right all the time. I think he is right very very very rarely, and even when you can say he is right it's a more that he was right in spirit, then in any factual way. He's entertaining, and I think it's funny when he gets all ranty. But other than that he's mostly a loon.

Ignorance isn't bad. Ignorance is a natural and balanced state of being. We all start out ignorant and we choose over time to stick with whatever level of ignorance is comfortable for us. I'm totally ignorant of how they get the pimento inside the olive. I know in my head it's probably a machine, or done by hand, but I don't know the axact process. And I don't want to. So I choose that level of ignorance.

If someone posts a thread that aliens have been the ones inserting pimentos into olives for 100 years, I am going to challenge that based on common sense. But then I have to choose to no longer be ignorant. I have to do research, I have to find out for myself. If I find out that aliens are in fact the ones doing it, then kudos for the poster and kudos for me.
What happens most often is that someone hears that aliens are putting pimentos inside olives and they either choose to believe it right there, or choose to refute it right there. Then they make their comments and move on, or wait to argue with someone who disagrees with them mainly along the lines of the above listed order of importance ( Racist, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Bible based, and Sexist, Partisan political and finally just plain old stupidity/gullible).
No research is needed when you have impressions, inference, and extrapolation of your "opponents" faults.

That's my biggest problem with ATS.

Facts on ATS are easy to create and valid as the size of the group you can convince to support them. No matter what they may actually be.

So....you can't fix stupid. It has to do that on it's own.

reply to post by wcitizen


Thanks for that feedback. It would never have occurred to me to U2U someone. Some kind of deep South upbringing against cold-calling, I guess. I'll work on that.

And the post above me- dead on correct, IMHO

reply to post by OverMan

Some view NASA as the penultimate reference concerning everything SPACE yet if they knew about the power of propaganda and the Origins of their Source, would they still be adamant about using it?

Actually, NASA is a "Johnny Come Lately" when it comes to outer space. Anyone wanting to know the truth about comets need only go to a place called "the public library." These are brick and mortar repositories of random access information storage units called "books." The beauty of a book is that it is physical, and cannot be altered with the stroke of a key. If you find the oldest book on astronomy in the library, say, one from 1920, you will be able to read about the nature of comets based on centuries of observation. They are dusty balls of ice. NASA's, ESA's and JAXA's probes have simply confirmed what has been surmised for over 100 years. You don't need to trust NASA when it comes to our solar system; they just have the latest toys.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
A fun, refreshing read with some great points, But I think you are perhaps being bit kind with he modifier 'subtle'.

I'd call it "Blatant", personally.

I agree that much of the more educated and reasoned posters will likely continue to drift away as ATS becomes (understandably) more concerned with popularity and revenue than with much of what established them in the first place. This the cycle of things.

Id be interested to know where they are all going. Got some links?

KUDOS on the thread;At the risk of appearing egotistical lumping myself in with the aforementioned; personally I spend less and less time here every week, seems I've reached"peak ats"
between the pixellated over zoomed( non- sequiter)"PROOF!";perpetual motion/ free energy ;and teaparty goers daydream about walrus testicle threads ; I find little more than "light entertainment" here.

Whatever social needs I originally filled here previously are currently overshadowed by the constant left/right abusive name calling and derision."conservatives" are not "conservatives" but "clueless racist idiot birthers and baby eaters who love corporations but hate people". A lot of comments posted here would not be said face to face out of what passes for common respect and good behavior even under today's (shockingly lax) "standards"..

reply to post by DJW001


Thank you for the info yet I do not appreciate your tone unless it was aimed at the ignorant masses like a sonic spotlight in the Soho district saying "its not your imagination...is someone there... is someone there" and if you understand that reference then you are way "cooler" then your condescending tone implies... to me at least

I read a book the other day pffft!, a 2 book series actually, entitled ISIS UNVEILED where I learned about centuries of atrocities committed do to the belief in another "repository of information" a.k.a "Book" entitled the Bible.

In this book I learned that they murdered a horse and its owner simply because the horse could count.
They also burned alot of people because they were said to be "witches" etc etc...
I also learned that they sentenced Galileo to house arrest for life for proving that the Earth was not the center of the universe et al... they called this "heresy".

I find the thought that TPTB do not wish for us to know the truth is a powerful arguement, then and now.

Ah, back around to my main point that THE NASA NAZI'S are not to be trusted!

Books, yes, check 'em out...before the good ones are removed/banned...new editions are written...words are changed to obscure the original meaning etc etc...when the lorax no longer speaks for the trees...

You know the lorax? A Dr. Seuss book that was BANNED in some "sensitive" areas?
By powerful interests that did not want this book read...

Darn, you dont think they still do stuff like this do ya?

Yeah Banned books, check em out! Oh! Sorry! You cannot!!!

A few years ago, I would have removed your imaginary ATS Forum head from your imaginary ATS Forum shoulders and placed it on an Imaginary ATS Forum Pike.... for this type of infraction thus I am proud of myself for todays display of patience, understanding and down right pity for those who attempt to talk above my station.

Apologies.....You were saying something about public libraries and books, yes?

#, my ADD precludes me from enjoying this thread.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that to some (many?) of the ATS community, belief in their chosen alternative topic, be it chemtrails, sasquatch, ghosts, alien abductions, or reptoids controlling the government, is like a religion to them.

You can't effectively discuss most peoples' religion with them based on science or scientific facts. And, in fact, if you try it will most likely be perceived as an attack on their religion and you'll get the very sort of defensive, angry, antagonistic responses you've been getting.

I've seen a lot of "believer vs. skeptic" threads under various topics that got extremely heated and displayed lots of traffic signs, and I've come up with a theory that there are two very different types of "believers."

One type, like me, considers it more likely that their topic of interest exists or is what they think it is (I.e. UFOs are craft piloted by non-human sentient beings) because of a personal experience, the personal experience of someone they trust and believe, research, or cumulative evidence (the sheer volume of reports.) Most of them will consider points pro and con and may even be convinced if you present worthy evidence, and are capable of discussing the topic without too much emotion or angst. And, if you "discuss" with them too hard, they will often simply shrug and walk away with a "whatever, dude, I know what I saw" type of attitude.

The second type are extremely invested in their chosen belief and any argument against said belief is an unwarranted, vicious, personal attack on them. All facts and evidence will be angrily refuted even when you are being reasonable. Once you've identified that this type of person is your opponent in a discussion, I've found it's best just to give up. You can't win, and the more reasonable, polite, and patient (which they perceive as condescending) you are, the madder they get. Trying to inject facts and science into a Type II Believer thread is analogous to stirring up a hornet's nest, and your results will likely be somewhat similar.

That said, there are plenty of the other type around to get into wonderful discussions with, and even some of the skeptics around here are really nice people and great fun (and mental exercise) to debate and discuss with. Don't get discouraged, just hang around and keep trying until you find them!

reply to post by hhott


Of course.

Knowledge is the permanent enemy of religion. Sycophantic belief can never be swayed. As a result, angry retort is all that is really left when knowledge and rationale have been spent.