"Shill Hysteria" Is Destroying the Conspiracy Theorist World

reply to post by DJW001


That their allegiance does not lie with "denying ignorance"(barf) or the finding of truth.

reply to post by DJW001


I think the video material of that day is sincere in pointing out the truth, as can be, meaning that the footage itself is not sincere at all.

SkeetFighter
reply to post by Rob48

 

So you are saying they are like.....shills?

No, I'm saying that there's a lot of batsh*t crazy people who will believe anything as long as it goes against the "official story". Plus a whole bunch of hucksters trying to make money out of a tragedy with stupid videos and half-baked theories. Just let them all stew in their own morass of ignorance.

SkeetFighter
reply to post by DJW001

 

That their allegiance does not lie with "denying ignorance"(barf) or the finding of truth.

Is not eliminating the false the path to truth? Why does the thought of denying ignorance make you ill?

reply to post by DJW001


Whtat makes me barf is the blatant hypocrisy and disregard for the motto. It's a joke.

SkeetFighter
reply to post by DJW001

 

Whtat makes me barf is the blatant hypocrisy and disregard for the motto. It's a joke.

You still have not explained why you feel that way.

reply to post by Rob48

No, I'm saying that there's a lot of batsh*t crazy people who will believe anything as long as it goes against the "official story". Plus a whole bunch of hucksters trying to make money out of a tragedy with stupid videos and half-baked theories. Just let them all stew in their own morass of ignorance.

I see, and your views are based on anything else but your own preconceived notions?

reply to post by DJW001


I actually did, I think your reading comprehension skills are at fault here.

SkeetFighter
reply to post by DJW001

 

I actually did, I think your reading comprehension skills are at fault here.

It couldn't possibly be your communications skills that are at fault. You have whined and grumbled, but not explained specifically why you feel the way you do. Are you a 'No planer?' Do you believe Sandy Hook never happened? Or do you just have a general objection to unrealistic fantasy being forbidden if it hurts people?

reply to post by DJW001


The typical thought process for a lot of CTers seems to be "I believe the official story is a lie, therefore I will go looking for evidence that helps this position (and only evidence that helps this position)".

Rather than the rational person's thought process, which should be: "I don't know what happened here, so I will seek out as much evidence as possible, and weigh it up and come to my own conclusions."

Working backwards from the conclusion you want to draw is a surefire way of ending up with circular logic and flawed arguments.

I remember pointing out on a different forum that a video supposedly showing Elenin or Nibiru or whatever doomsday flavour of the month was quite clearly an aircraft contrail lit up by the sunset, which anyone who walks around with their eyes open pretty much anywhere in the western world must surely have seen several times in their life. I was told that I was clearly a government shill trying to "Hide the Truth" by spreading disinformation about aircraft. Yup, Elenin is on the way, so therefore anything that looks a bit odd in the sky is definitely proof, and anyone who points out your mistake is working for The Man. Er, okaaayyy...

(Meanwhile three years later and we still haven't been assimilated by Planet X, as I was assured was happening)


Skeetfighter:

I see, and your views are based on anything else but your own preconceived notions?

My views are based on weighing up evidence, as I said above. I find that in the real world that tends to get better results than a combination of scientific ignorance, poor observational skills and paranoia, which seem to be at the root of a lot of CTs.

I love a good conspiracy theory, but there are so many around that don't even stand up to the smallest bit of scrutiny that let the side down. Why do people come up with rubbish like chemtrails or Apollo hoaxes, which can be debunked by anyone with even the most basic understanding, when there are much more interesting things that are REALLY going on in the worlds of surveillance, finance and so on?

reply to post by Rob48


Conspiracy Theorists also assume that everyone shares their thought processes, which is why they do not express themselves fully. They just assume that everyone knows what they mean and can 'work it out for themselves.' If someone asks for a fuller explanation, they are told that they have 'poor reading comprehension skills' or should 'do their own research.' The practical upshot of this is that Conspiracy Theorists gradually lose the ability to communicate even with like minded individuals. From there, the belief in 'shills' justifies abandoning any attempt at constructive engagement.

reply to post by DJW001

Or do you just have a general objection to unrealistic fantasy being forbidden if it hurts people?

"If it hurts people..."

Weeh...weeeh.....boohooo.....

I object to any censorship based on (feigned) political correctness.

I may not agree with every theory either but I would never want to see anything censored. It goes against everything we should stand for.

DJW001
reply to post by Rob48

 

Conspiracy Theorists also assume that everyone shares their thought processes, which is why they do not express themselves fully.

Some (or perhaps even "most") conspiracy theorists. There are some who are quite eloquent and I have enjoyed good debates with them.

The sort that drive me mad are the ones who post a picture or video saying "Look at this anomaly - this can't be explained!", and you then take the time to point out what the picture shows, perhaps searching for more pictures, posting annotated screenshots etc etc, and then... nothing. No acknowledgement, no "Thanks, now I see where I went wrong", no evidence of having learnt anything, they just ignore it and then post an entirely unrelated "anomaly" and say "Look at this"... and so it goes on

reply to post by DJW001

If someone asks for a fuller explanation, they are told that they have 'poor reading comprehension skills'

Are you a 'No planer?' Do you believe Sandy Hook never happened? Or do you just have a general objection to unrealistic fantasy being forbidden if it hurts people?

You seem to know exactly what I am talking about, so maybe it is not your RC skills but just playing dumb.

reply to post by SkeetFighter

I object to any censorship based on (feigned) political correctness.

What about posting rules designed to prevent lawsuits for libel? Do you feel that the site owners have no right to protect themselves from people exercising their right to protect their reputation?

reply to post by SkeetFighter

You seem to know exactly what I am talking about, so maybe it is not your RC skills but just playing dumb.

So humor me. What, specifically, has the management done that makes you believe they are not interested in denying ignorance?

reply to post by DJW001


Playing dumb again?

I have already explained exactly what the problem is.

reply to post by DJW001

What about posting rules designed to prevent lawsuits for libel? Do you feel that the site owners have no right to protect themselves from people exercising their right to protect their reputation?

That's bs.

They can't be held responsible for what some members say on here.

Once they start deciding what can be said based on how it affects their reputation, the whole supposed point of this site and its motto have been compromised.

DJW001
Is not eliminating the false the path to truth?

Of course. Weed out the crap. It only makes sense to do so.

If someone thinks that Above Top Secret management is just supposedly 'corporate sponsored shilling' .. or they hate it here soooo much that they end up 'barfing' because the motto of 'deny ignorance' supposedly is being ignored ... then they should just leave. Why stay somewhere that is supposedly part of the problem? Why get banned and come back, over and over, to a place that is supposedly so bad? (and it happens). Senseless.

SkeetFighter
They can't be held responsible for what some members say on here.

They absolutely can be held responsible for what is posted here if they are made aware of it, they are then obligated to remove the content:

Section 230 of the CDA is the section that is perhaps most relevant to online defamation. It attempts to deal with the question of an ISP's liability to content that is stored on their servers. Although it does not specifically outline all instances, it does contend that an ISP is not responsible for the information published by their users unless and until they are informed of any infringement; at this point, the ISP should act to remove the content or face legal action themselves.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 can be viewed in full at the FCC website - www.fcc.gov...
source