The coming attack on ATS by MSM

And TV is infiltrated by Project Mockingbird agents.
Because TV is a control point.
As for conspiracy theorists being delusional, remember that the biggest conspiracy theorists work for the government.
Have we not heard of conspiracy to commit?

I've had an idea, if the MSM is calling the visitors to sites such as ATS and other conspiracy sites as 'mentally unstable', then why not play them at their own game.
Here's my idea:

Next time you go to vote or are asked to register to vote , or to take part in a questionaire of some sort, class your religeon as 'Conspiracy Theorist'

I know that here in the UK when it comes to voting if a lot of people all call themselves something, ( like the last time I heard it was Jedi Knight) then it becomes classified as a religeon.

That way when someone says that to be a conspiracy theorist you must be 'mentally unstable' then you can sue them for defamation of character and for discrimination. After all you don't see TPTB bashing Christianity or Islam in the MSM.
If enough people make this stand then it should be ok.

Because after all isn't religeon all about belief? and don't we as a community believe in something different to what the MSM media wants us to ?
So next time do as I will , instead of classing myself as a Pagan, i'm going to go for Conspiracy Theorist. And let them chew on that hot potato.

If they try to bash you or ridicule you , ask them do you make fun of the Christians or the Muslims to their faces? then why do the same to me? Just because I believe something different as opposed to you....

reply to post by BlackOps719


We need an ATS thread dedicated to Network clips...

(not one liner)

reply to post by Yoda411


I have to say that there is some truth to what you're saying, but that I don't wholly agree with it.

The fact that they went out of their way to get PhD Psychologists to comment on conspiracy websites amplifying delusional tendencies says something.

It says that they thought it was important enough to do. If they wanted to mock a conspiracy website like ATS, or any other alternative discussion forum, they would have done so.

Instead, they made an effort to get a professional commentary on the issue.

I have a degree in Journalism. I thoroughly know how "fact-checking" works, and also know how the industry works. You don't have to lie or falsify information in order to shape someone's opinion. All you have to do is present the information in a certain way that would evoke a certain response.

For example, if I were to do a story on 'Global Warming' for corporate news, and I wanted to show how it has affected ice volume in the Arctic, I would do the following.

(Following is a fictitious story used for illustrative purposes)

If the execs wanted the story to support the idea of global warming, I would scour statistics, reports, and studies for evidence that would support my view that ice volume has been decreasing rapidly.

Say if I found a statistic that said, "The Hellburger Ice Sheet has lost 30% of its mass in the past 6 months," I would certainly use it. I wouldn't mention that other ice sheets in the world had gained proportional amounts, or I would put that information at the bottom of the story.

I wouldn't be lying because it actually did lose 30% of its mass, but I would be presenting the facts in a certain way that shapes public perception.

People would see the headline "Hellburger Ice Sheet Sheds 30% of Mass: Global Warming?"

Most wouldn't even bother to read the story, because it's already a foregone conclusion that it's caused by global warming.

Possible reactions:

"Of course it's caused by Global Warming. 30%! Wow that's a huge number, it's gotta be global warming."

"I think this is just more evidence that Global Warming is real."

The people that did read the story likely wouldn't read to the bottom, and therefore wouldn't get the whole picture.

I could also bring in some 'expert' that agrees with the story and put his quote in a prominent position.

It might be something like,

"Of course it's caused by Global Warming. An ice sheet like this just doesn't lose 30% of its mass in 6 months under normal circumstances."

I might also have a dissenting viewpoint, but I would stack the article against him in order to make him look stupid.

His quote might be something like,

"It's important to remember that this is only one ice sheet out of a few that lost mass"

Or:

"It's important to note that other glaciers have gained mass in the same time frame."

I would place a statistic before his quote that read something like;

Over the past 15 years the temperature has increased by 1 degree celsius.
While most experts believe this is due to global warming, Dr. _____ seems to think otherwise.

Do you see how this works? You stack the article against the opposing viewpoint, in order to convey a certain message or shape public perception.

This obviously won't fool an expert or well-informed citizen, but the goal wouldn't be to fool them, it would be to fool the majority of people.

EDIT:

I would also like to note that Mainstream Media is much more guilty of amplifying fear and mental illness than a conspiracy website.

Because of the stories they choose to report on, we are fed a false sense of reality, much like ABC would suggest conspiracy websites do.

It's not that MSM lies consistently, it's that they prevent facts in a skewed way to achieve a desired perception or reaction.

ALSO:

With regards to 'Studies,' a media outlet selectively decides which studies to report on, so don't think they randomly choose them. In all likelihood, I think that money dictates which studies they report on, and which they don't.

Reporting on a study is one of the easiest ways to sway public opinion, because you're not actually skewing any facts, you are merely reporting.

This is a more 'guilt-free' method of deceiving the public, because you're not making up the facts, you're just conveying information someone else came up with.

The key is that the media CHOOSES which ones to report on, and therefore can be insidious gatekeepers.

NOTE:

I am not saying all media outlets are like this, or that most journalists are heartless immoral people. I am saying that some are, and that the methods above might be how they influence public opinion.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by JipStix]

I would not be shocked if this has already been mentioned since I am a bit late to the party, but the "first shots" have already been fired.

Sites like this will cease to exist with the introduction of Internet 2. Feel free to look into Obama's choice for Attorney General and his views on the internet. Feel free to google or do an ATS search for Internet 2.

Of course this could be nothing more than my own mental illness as it relates to conspiracy theories

I agree with the OP. We got that news here in the UK. For one, myself and others here on ATS are rational people, who like to look at a topic and study it, discuss it and watch where it leads.

I wonder if the reason that they want to label those of us on these sights with mental health issues is because we go in search of the truth. Sites like ATS awoke people to the Illuminati and Bohemian Grove.

The Illuminati and Bohemian Grove have shed light on how the elite control the masses. They can't control our thoughts, and feelings. I am surprised they haven't taken away our Freedom of Speech. This wreaks of the scenario of the film, '1984'. The Thought Police would come after you, if you didn't tow the line.

Because we don't tow the line, it gives them the right to label us mentally ill. We are intelligent enough to discuss issues and reason out for ourselves what is right and what is wrong.

For a long while, the Illuminati had been discussed on these boards. Their activities discussed at length. Then recently, I came across on YOUTUBE that somebody in their outer circle admitted that they exist. I will have to look it up.

If it were not for boards like ATS, we will still be wandering around in darkness. Those of us, who are members of ATS are much wiser for the knowing.

This was very and is expected to happen and not only to this website but to the thousands out there, so why is anyone really surprised.

So I will make a great prediction

MSM decides people on ATS are Whackos... Result, many more people visit ats and... nothing happens as a result but that.

prediction 2

Over 50% come in and for the first few weeks make up stories or try to flame people to "win" debates

JOY... lots more total newbies

good for ats, good for all of us... (after a few months when they calm down)

MSM will be as effctive in ridding the world of conspiracy sites as they were at getting rid of Rock Music and Dungeons and Dragons...


Somewhere in America right now, some over zealous Mom is kicking her 16 year old son to the curb because he smokes weed and logs in to Ats... and he needs "Tough Love"

If he ends up a bit pschizoid... her fault

but beyond that... no one gives a damn about ABC... Heroes is on NBC so is 30 Rock anything else worth watching is Showtime or HBO... Eff em if they can't take a joke is what I say.

Cheers

To ABC being retarded enough to hopefully mention the name ATS and send the user base into the stratosphere

and

after all

There are a few Delusional people in here, dosen't give em the right to shut anything down nor will it...

Keep and eye on a few people...well, sure, probably since long before ABC said a thing

But you know what?

I'm keeping an eye on the Federation of Light people and the Icke followers too... they give me the willies

holy crap, the MSM is saying conspiracy theorists are nut jobs, jebus h cripes, thats a shock. i can't believe it, no-one has ever said anything like that before!!!!!!

it hardly makes a difference what the MSM say, it's looking more and more like the tinfoil hat wearing crazies on the corner were pretty much bang on, so the time for exposing conspiracies is almost passed one way or the other.

propaganda is obsolete, but media isn't much good at anything else. this stuff is just the last fart of a dying bohemeith

sooner or later this is all going to come out, probably sooner. it's going to be the same as the whole financial system timebomb we've been discussing for the last few years. one day we're crazy, next day we're just another voice in the crowd. a nice starter for a four course meal.

for imaincourse, the NWO is now a floating idea, our hypothesis' and theories on the subject are almost obsolete, all we do now is log progress and guess at the provocateurs motives.

soon, we'll be fed the desert and smelly cheese, all the conspiracies we discuss will be acknowledged reality and conspiracy theory sites will have to change or they're going to be left with bigfoot, two ghosts and a shadow person discussing the possibility that the universe is a bananna burrito.

i for one welcome the change.

I think there are people who do not see connections between related phenomena unless it is very very obvious and there are people who are very capable of finding a very faint signal amongst very high noise.

I also think that people who are more adept at finding a very weak signal in a high noise environment also will have a higher preponderance of finding a signal where no signal actually exists.

There is a normal range, where people can function reasonably well, and then there are the extremes at either end of the spectrum where functionality is compromised, and at the point where functionality is compromised, that would normally be considered mental illness.

I think systems like ATS do cater to those who have a high ability to find a signal in a highly noisy environment. I think it's a fair bet that a higher percentage of the people here tend to find signals where there are none as well.

Another way to put it, I think you'd find the user base here more intelligent than the average population by a significant amount, I also believe you would find the incidence of schizophrenia higher than the background.

Does that mean that everyone here is schizophrenic? No, I don't think so, I believe only a small minority are, but I think that minority is a larger percentage than the general population.

Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by americandingbat

 

Why would ABC want to falsely distort ones perception on conspiracy theorists?

Why would ABC chuck there journalistic integrity to air an opinion only hit piece?

Originally posted by Yoda411

1.) Paranoia is almost definitely increased by believing false, and unscientific theories. Delusions could also be a result of believing too much crap on the Internet.

Back it up. Back one thing you claim up, please.

2.) If nobody did represent the other side we would all be just as close to sheep as we would be if we all agreed with everything in the news.

What other side??????????

This is the problem. There is no other side. ABC created another side just for suckers to buy as actual news, then believe, then spread. You fell for it. If there was a legitimate "other side" there would be at least one example of this to even get all worried about. Just one example is all it would take to make this a real argument. Until then it is no more valid than arguing pegasus over unicorns. I would like to report that the sun is made of gumdrops and the sky is milk chocolate. There, now have I just introduced some other side about astronomy or just pulled something out of my behind? Is the only difference that I did not disguise mine as news and I have no network logo?

[edit on 17-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

anything that challenges the mind or their version of reality scares them how ever one must be open to "interesting" people that show up here.

I hear so much about the evil illuminati on this site, hell by our own right we are the illuminati. They fear what we know. 65.27.83.222

seems to me that 'attacks' on fringe topic forums like ATS have been ongoing for quite some time before being bumped up to the big show.

the term 'conspiracy theorist' has become a catch-all phrase for any left-of-center demographic. (just ask rush.) i hear it thrown around as if it were the "N" word.

some boards seem to be infested with antagonistic cynicism, not to be confused with rational skepticism, as if designed to ferret out free thinkers (not to be confused with raelians). that may seem paranoid or delusional, but i have a clean bill of health therefore can't exactly use that as reason or excuse for why i am, to say the least... concerned.

speaking from personal experience, those that question authority become highly subject to it's scrutiny.

p.s.
the 'lone nuts' party would look better on a ballot. less wordy, more political.

Conspiracy websites + mental illness = most likely right.


It is possible and you know it. The paranoid will feast on our steaming hot paranoia servings.

The only attack by the MSM on ATS will be in the form of death throws. It will be like a tantrum of a 2 year old. My local newspapers here in Detroit are already at deaths door. They just don't get it. They are cutting down to 3 days of local delivery when what they should do is stop printing altogether.

In the end I don't think the government or the media wants to really take on a site like ATS. Would we not thrive in that type of environment? People that participate in discussions here are made for that type of adversarial internet combat!

In fact as I sit here drinking my coffee from my ATS coffee mug I dare any government or non-government entity to try it. How utterly foolish would we make them look?

Well,,The MSM is all about creating stories that might keep people from getting up and rummaging through the frige for the rest of that pizza. So they do a piece on conspiracy sites. Was this site mentioned by name? and if it was so what? The internet is as full of BS as the MSM. I can make a website in no time that can say whatever I want but that don't make it true. Just like they can in the MSM.

I've been to more than one website that caused me to want to adjust my tin foil hat. As I'm sure many of you have too. I've watched many a news show that tried to do the same. And I'm sure there is a heaping helping of true nut jobs that search out sites that will help support whatever flavor of paranoia they are seeing to support. There may well be some here.

I don't think anyone can believe that TV or the internet can make someone tip over to the dark side of sanity. It might make a few people reclusive and fat though

MSM tries to cater to the audience they think is sitting there and don't want to look for their remote. so that way they can tell the advertisers that they are getting their moneys worth. They haven't been able to get farm porn off the net. What makes anyone think they can a well rounded discussion website. Just about every topic I've seen on this site has a pro and con group and both seem to be pretty vocal in their theories or abilities in fact checking. So I think we would sell ATS short in just calling it a conspiracy theory site. It's a site where we can bring up a theory then get opinions from all sides...Even the paranoid

Not ABC or any of the other letters of the alphabet are going to try to kill it. They just want people to watch long enough to make the sponsors happy.

Originally posted by northof8
The only attack by the MSM on ATS will be in the form of death throws. It will be like a tantrum of a 2 year old. My local newspapers here in Detroit are already at deaths door. They just don't get it. They are cutting down to 3 days of local delivery when what they should do is stop printing altogether.

In the end I don't think the government or the media wants to really take on a site like ATS. Would we not thrive in that type of environment? People that participate in discussions here are made for that type of adversarial internet combat!

In fact as I sit here drinking my coffee from my ATS coffee mug I dare any government or non-government entity to try it.

How utterly foolish would we make them look?

But what if this is the setup. Plant this idea now. In a few weeks another story, maybe a specific theory. Work up some real ire against Icke or Jones or any of them. "These guys are making money telling you lizards steal your kids, be mad at them. Grrrrrrrr"

In a few months some guy will shoot some people. They will tell us all the crazy sites like this he visited when they look at his computer (after he kills himself or is shot in pursuit). Let's get more bad doctors on tv to tell people in a round about way, since we have no proof, that this man would have been ok with some meds and not going to these sites. People like Yoda will agree and feel vindicated. They will trample the innocent dead to bring their "SEE! TOLD YA" to my front step.

The fear will spread and the talk will boil. "Conspiracy websites are the kind of thing that lead to campus shootings and spree killing and mass murder." And it will be eaten like so much buttery sugar. Then, when Time Warner explains how it is expanding it's already in place web censoring system, it will not only make sense to Yoda, it will seem necessary and be ushered in with little opposition.

Everyone will forget that these exact same atrocities have been happening all along without any help from the web. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Son of Sam. Take your pick, any crime they use to prove their point will have a counterpart predating the web that will soon be forgotten under the context of a new fear for the people to enjoy. But that is just my opinion. I could be wrong but I really hate bloody footprints on my mat.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Originally posted by Yoda411
Just for the record the ABC article included interviews with two accredited psychologists.

Just wanted to jump on this quote.

I could go out right now and pay someone with a degree to say global warming is man made, then i could go pay another expert to say it isn't man made. Drug companies pay experts hundreds of thousands in lucrative research contracts if they say a drug they are making is safe enough for distribution.

Experts are great, but only when in consensus.