|
Prester Jane posted:Actually you are accusing me here of a false appeal to authority rather than arguing in bad faith. But aside from that it is not like I don't have something of a fairly extensive established record of insight into the particular functions of conspiracy thought. I've been talking about my experiences with being a former conspiracy theorist in this thread for several years now, among other things. Prester Jane posted:Now this right here is an actual bad faith argument, but the bad faith part is coming from you. The only time I ever mentioned the New World Order (and I believe I am the only person in the last ~5 or so pages to do so) was specifically addressing Alex Jones (who kind of talks about the NWO a great deal) in a post that was not directed towards the conversation occurring with Dog Jones at all. Prester Jane posted:But again, that hook is deep in your mind and from the perspective of cognitive load it is much less work to reflexively defend your faith in a man than it is to engage in introspection and critical examination. Confidence men rely on this quirk of human behavior and know how to exploit it well. boner confessor posted:it's not really possible to argue in good faith with a conspiracy theorist. dog jones is going to shoot down, dismiss, and rationalize any arguments until they get tired of being a punching bag. this is largely because they do not want to accept or admit that they've been suckered into a silly narrative about assange hiding in the free speech zone from big bad uncle sam when really he's just a panicky coward who's sold people on a goofy theory
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Please address the problems you find with my arguments if you care to. If not, congratulations on being smarter than everyone. so what do you think you're accomplishing with passive aggressive attempts to say that people are just being smarty pants. it's pretty clear you're just going to avoid talking about any argument which is inconvenient for your theory (false rape accusations, assange won't face the death penalty, assange is overreacting compared to everyone else in wikileaks) so i can only assume this is your last ditch attempt to quelch lines of argument which you find annoying? or part of your defensive need to respond to every point, just to prove that you're not really ignoring everything? it's weird dude Mercrom posted:Even if you think you can't convince someone who you think is mentally ill, and just want to shout at them until they shut up instead of ignoring them, good arguments could inform people like me who haven't paid much attention to the Assange business. this is also a comedy forum so burning people is as important as argumentation. as far as good arguments i've pointed out -the extreme chain of coincidences and maybe sortas which is necessary for assange to actually face serious charges in the us, which demonstrates that most of this theory hinges on assuming assange will face charges and working backwards from there - notice how dog jones focuses heavily on the possibilities (he could theoretically be sentenced with death!) while ignoring the realities (once in sweden it would be very hard to have him extradited to the US, there are serious procedural roadblocks to charging assange as demonstrated by the fact nobody else aside from manninghas faced charges) -the extreme reaction to these charges - innocent people don't put themselves in house arrest for five years. sane people don't either -assange's behavior makes a lot more sense if you assume he's an attention seeking idiot rather than a rational whistleblower, given that we have another example (snowden) to be the example of how to obtain asylum correctly the charges assange actually faces aren't that serious - certainly not worth multiple years of imprisonment - and the decisions he's made up to this point are extremely irrational. there's no reason to assume assange knows what he is doing, and is just acting out of desperation for one reason or another boner confessor fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Sorry for lateposting, butPrester Jane posted:most Swedish Prisons offer a quality of life literally higher than can be had even as middle class in the US, I am inclined to believe that he is a Narcissist indulging in his personal power fantasies rather than a rational person making decisions in their own enlightened self interest. isn't really true. The middle class in the US is richer than the upper class in most other countries - perhaps not Sweden, but that doesn't change the fact that the general facilities there are pretty scummy compared to life on the outside. Unless you're lucky enough to land in the special open facilities( often reserved for the already rich), economic exploitation, guard harassment and poor amenities are par for the course. Tias fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it's really arrogant to assume everyone who disagrees with you doesn't have knowledge of the topic of discussion. huh it's almost like you're super defensive over a personal choice or something as you slowly realize you did not reason yourself into this argument I did not assume that BENGHAZI 2 lacked knowledge of the topic of discussion. He asked me to tell him what legal instruments are available to the prosecution and called me a dense motherfucker for purporting the idea that there could possibly be other types of charges leveraged against Assange. He indicated that he did not know what other possible charges were in play and still somehow found a way to call me stupid for insinuating there were others. This is why I responded to him as though he lacked knowledge of the topic of discussion -- because that is exactly what he told me. That is not an assumption. I hate to say it but it seems like you might not know what an assumption is, boner confessor! Seriously what is going on with you dude!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:so what do you think you're accomplishing with passive aggressive attempts to say that people are just being smarty pants. it's pretty clear you're just going to avoid talking about any argument which is inconvenient for your theory (false rape accusations, assange won't face the death penalty, assange is overreacting compared to everyone else in wikileaks) so i can only assume this is your last ditch attempt to quelch lines of argument which you find annoying? or part of your defensive need to respond to every point, just to prove that you're not really ignoring everything? it's weird dude Boner confessor we both know you aren't reading the things I write so why do you keep talking to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:I did not assume that BENGHAZI 2 lacked knowledge of the topic of discussion. He asked me to tell him what legal instruments are available to the prosecution and called me a dense motherfucker for purporting the idea that there could possibly be other types of charges leveraged against Assange. He indicated that he did not know what other possible charges were in play and still somehow found a way to call me stupid for insinuating there were others. This is why I responded to him as though he lacked knowledge of the topic of discussion -- because that is exactly what he told me. That is not an assumption. if you can't explain something to someone when asked then you don't understand the topic in question. telling people to just google it is a way to avoid exposing this gap in your understanding. if you're not willing to explain something to someone (yet you post huge walls at fishmech of all people) then why did you even quote them. oh it's because you're desperately trying to convince yourself most of all that you're not a sucker adhering to a silly theory Dog Jones posted:Boner confessor we both know you aren't reading the things I write so why do you keep talking to me really what do you think you're accomplishing when you try the passive aggressive guilt trip "oh well you must just be so much smarter than me" posts? is it that being smart is a super important part of your identity and it would just be too much to admit you were fooled by assange's narrative? i keep posting at you because i derive some entertainment from your arguments and i suspect other people who would read this thread do too boner confessor fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Considering however that most Swedish Prisons offer a quality of life literally higher than can be had even as middle class in the US, I am inclined to believe that he is a Narcissist indulging in his personal power fantasies rather than a rational person making decisions in their own enlightened self interest. This is where I remind people that while Prester Jane has a very compelling thesis, she applies it much too generally. It applies very generally to the people in the cult that raised her but in the general population it is confined to a very small and specific subset of ultra-right wingers (who admittedly have an outsized influence on politics).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:if you can't explain something to someone when asked then you don't understand the topic in question. telling people to just google it is a way to avoid exposing this gap in your understanding. if you're not willing to explain something to someone (yet you post huge walls at fishmech of all people) then why did you even quote them. oh it's because you're desperately trying to convince yourself most of all that you're not a sucker adhering to a silly theory Boner confessor come on and think dude! Remember! The post you're referring to had a sentence before the sentence which suggested he should do basic research! Do you remember? It pointed toward the summary I already gave of an alternate charge -- the one I wrote and explained to everyone myself! Try to remember!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Sure, I understand if you believe you are right in doing so. But it doesn't do anything to convince me to agree with you when your argument stems from trying to paint the other side of the argument as "conspiracy thought". I mean I have an entire megathread where I have written literally hundreds of thousands of words on this specific topic. (And a few other related threads mega threads that deal with related topics) I do not have any regular credentials, but I've been providing insight into the mindset that Dog Jones is demonstrating here (which I would actually label "low-compaction narrativism", but that involves invoking my own glossary of terms and I generally avoid doing that outside of my own threads) for a number of years on this board now. To be fair though my posts were not really meant to convince casual bystanders so I can understand where you are coming from here. Mercrom posted:
Actually I do not think that Dog Jones is mentally ill, mental illness is quite different from the behavior pattern he is exhibiting. And most of the people in this thread are actually responding to him in one of the few manners that over time can break down the sort of cognitive dissonance that Dog Jones has repeatedly displayed in this thread. Enaging him in tit-for-tat on everything in his postws would be an inherently fruitless endeavor because A:) For the most part his posts are an incoherent jumble of inferences based on demonstrably false assumptions and B:) Dog Jones does not believe any particular point he is making and will shift around endlessly and change the subject if you try to address a specific area of disagreement with him. If you try to actually engage him in full good faith you will only waste your time and frustrate yourself. As a result, for the most part Goons are just picking at one of the faulty underlying assumptions that he builds his posts on and leaving it at that. Edit: Tias posted:Sorry for lateposting, but Thank you for this, I stand corrected on the issue and offer my apologies for relaying incorrect information. Shbobdb posted:
Was confined. However the proliferation of fake news, the alt-right, and conspiracy thought are proving quite proficient at spreading what I call Narrativism into the population at large, primarily in people who are exposed to media designed with the Inner/Outer Narrative structure in mind. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Boner confessor come on and think dude! Remember! The post you're referring to had a sentence before the sentence which suggested he should do basic research! Do you remember? It pointed toward the summary I already gave of an alternate charge -- the one I wrote and explained to everyone myself! Try to remember! so among the other things you're going to selectively ignore, you're going to gloss over your weird habit of assuming people who disagree with you aren't as smart as you despite not even a few posts ago saying that you're absolutely not doing this one of the hallmarks of conspiratorial thinking is self-contradiction you also refused to speculate as to why, among everyone involved in the initial wikileaks activity who is not chelsea manning, assange is the only individual camped out in an embassy. this is a pretty big argument you need to make as to why assange's fears are actually validated and not part of some delusion about how he's too noble to answer for his actual real alleged crimes he's wanted by the law for
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:so among the other things you're going to selectively ignore, you're going to gloss over your weird habit of assuming people who disagree with you aren't as smart as you despite not even a few posts ago saying that you're absolutely not doing this boner confessor between the two of us, YOU are the only one who wrote in detail about how much you hate my posts, and the joy you get in not reading them, and you are the only who boasted of your ability to ignore the majority of what I say. You are killing me boner confessor please be reasonable boner confessor posted:one of the hallmarks of conspiratorial thinking is self-contradiction "one of the hallmarks, of the think I don't like, is that it is wrong" - wisdom, boner confessor keeping it 100 boner confessor posted:you also refused to speculate as to why, among everyone involved in the initial wikileaks activity who is not chelsea manning, assange is the only individual camped out in an embassy. this is a pretty big argument you need to make as to why assange's fears are actually validated and not part of some delusion about how he's too noble to answer for his actual real alleged crimes he's wanted by the law for boner confessor you only think that because you didn't read my post where I addressed your perceived inconsistency in the treatment of Assange and other, different people. Please be merciful to me boner confessor
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:boner confessor you only think that because you didn't read my post where I addressed your perceived inconsistency in the treatment of Assange and other, different people. Please be merciful to me boner confessor i did read the post. you just said "like who?" and then you accused me of not reading any of your posts. you dismissed the argument, because you are dismissing any argument you can't wordcloud away. you are dismissing these arguments because you are not comfortable trying to poke holes into your own theory. this is not the behavior of a rational skeptic, this is the behavior of someone who is trying to convince themselves by whatever means necessary they could not be wrong so, why hasn't anyone else made a big stink about how they're a self-imposed political prisoner who is avoiding false rape allegations which will lead to us federal charges that haven't been filed? why is that? it's a little weird that nobody else currently in the wikileaks organization or past members of wikileaks are this terrified of facing us federal charges, that they would confine themselves to a tiny room for five years isn't it at least bad for appearances, that assange would refuse to answer to charges of sexual misconduct? most people would find that behavior kind of disturbing boner confessor fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I do not have any regular credentials, but I've been providing insight into the mindset that Dog Jones is demonstrating here (which I would actually label "low-compaction narrativism", but that involves invoking my own glossary of terms and I generally avoid doing that outside of my own threads) for a number of years on this board now. To be fair though my posts were not really meant to convince casual bystanders so I can understand where you are coming from here. What cognitive dissonance have I betrayed in this thread? Some have charged I am not actually making a positive argument and I'm arguing from a 'defensive' standpoint. And in fact you go on to say I don't believe any particular point I am making. How could I experience cognitive dissonance if I never had any genuine beliefs at stake in the discussion. Prester Jane you have never said anything substantial to me about the content of my arguments, so gently caress you for saying that engaging me is a waste of time. That's pretty disrespectful! Please me for a little bit, and demonstrate to me which of the assumptions I've made is false.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i did read the post. you just said "like who?" and then you accused me of not reading any of your posts. you dismissed the argument, because you are dismissing any argument you can't wordcloud away. you are dismissing these arguments because you are not comfortable trying to poke holes into your own theory. this is not the behavior of a rational skeptic, this is the behavior of someone who is trying to convince themselves by whatever means necessary they could not be wrong boner confessor, no... you aren't listening. You did not read the post where I address the people you mentioned. The reason you think my response was the "like who?" post is because you did not read my post which addressed the people you listed. The 'like who?' post was not my response to your charge of inconsistency. I wrote another post in response to the list of people you provided, which you did not read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:boner confessor, no... you aren't listening. You did not read the post where I address the people you mentioned. The reason you think my response was the "like who?" post is because you did not read my post which addressed the people you listed. The 'like who?' post was not my response to your charge of inconsistency. I wrote another post in response to the list of people you provided, which you did not read. oh right, the post where you just said "i don't know" and left it at that. sorry you have a ton of really repetitive posts that are just evasive dismissals of uncomfortable questions so basically you're not willing to speculate or guess as to why nobody else involved in the leaking of information obtained by manning is as freaked out as assange is? yet you are willing to speculate about false rape accusations and extremely unlikely death penalties. why do you have this double standard about what you are and are not willing to theorize about? it seems as though you'll jump to conclusions so far as they support your argument but play coy when talking about things that detract from your argument. is this a rational argumentation style?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
Prester Jane posted:Assange could have chosen to face the charges against him. Instead of doing that he scammed his supporters for bail money and then skipped bail to go hide in an embassy. These are actions he alone undertook, and for which he alone has agency. He went into exile willingly, he had other options and he voluntarily elected not to pursue those options. Address the point I made in the above post and I will address one of yours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:oh right, the post where you just said "i don't know" and left it at that. sorry you have a ton of really repetitive posts that are just evasive dismissals of uncomfortable questions booooner confesoorrrr i think my post said more than "i don't know"! I think it was a little longer than that and had more to say! I'm not sure if you're telling the truth that you read it buddy! In fact, I'm sure you didn't read it, because the second paragraph you wrote doesn't make sense in light of what I wrote in that post! Just so we're totally clear, here is my first attempt at understanding your criticism (the post I am talking about and asking you to read): http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3569772&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=187#post466923285
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:booooner confesoorrrr i think my post said more than "i don't know"! I think it was a little longer than that and had more to say! I'm not sure if you're telling the truth that you read it buddy! In fact, I'm sure you didn't read it, because the second paragraph you wrote doesn't make sense in light of what I wrote in that post! i mean i guess you're right in that he's the only current or past member of wikileaks currently wanted in sweden on charges of sexual misconduct but that's not exactly a compelling answer as to why he's the only one who firmly believes in an elaborate, unsubstantiated plot to extradite him to the united states it's ok to not know things but it's weird to me that you'll dismiss people you don't want to argue with by saying "just google it dummy" yet you can't or won't google these other people and put forth a credible explanation as to why they are not currently also in some convenient embassy afraid for their life on charges that have not been made and probably wont be made i'm not convinced that you yourself think this is a productive or worthwhile argument. i've said that i'm doing it for amusement and also it's appropriate to dissect conspiracy theories in this thread. what's your excuse - trying to set the record straight? trying to be funny with the repeated insistence that nobody arguing with you is as intelligent as you are?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:\ Outer Narratives are never meant to accurately represent the true beliefs of the Narrativist nor are they ever meant to be good faith arguments. Whatever Dog Jones actually believes he will not risk exposing to the thread, so instead he repeats the same junk talking points about Julian Assange over and over, changes his tune whenever you corner him on a specific detail (he will change right back to the original tune though in the very next post), and generally refuses to engage with any counter argument presented to him. All he does is reiterate the same vague inferences over and over and demand that you address his points while he steadfastly refuses to address anyone else's. Look at my above post where I made a simple, two sentence point and asked him to address it. (After he called me out by name for never engaging his posts) Note that he simply ignored my reply as if it never existed and instead tried to refocus the conversation on getting someone else to engage his absurd arguments. His real goal here is to wear anyone who disagrees with him down until you either admit that he has a point or he has destroyed the conversation. That is why my replies to him are so succinct and direct, it makes it impossible for him to play his game with me. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:The fact that wikileaks and assange have escaped criminal charges for 3 years does not necessarily mean that the prosecutors are not pursuing charges aggressively. This is a logical failing on your part. No, dumb-dumb, this is a logical failing on your part. If I'm being generous, the fact that charges have never been carried suggests that "aggressive" is a very poor choice of adjective. In actuality, you need to prove that prosecutors are "aggressively pursuing charges" instead of just stating it as fact. quote:You don't need to be particularly imaginative to think of other reasons why the investigation has not made its move yet. A few that immediately come to mind: Wrong again, dumb-dumb. The burden of proof is on you to prove that prosecutors are "aggressively pursuing charges", not on anyone else to disprove it. quote:I don't know why you think that the New York Times publishing classified information and not facing criminal charges is enlightening in regards to the way wikileaks and assange are being treated. I wasn't aware that the supreme court had established that publishing secrets is acceptable, but thats also irrelevant since no one has claimed that the US would try and prosecute Assange for publishing secrets. It's extremely relevant because Assange believes that the US wants to prosecute him for publishing secrets. You seem to agree that the US wants to prosecute him, but not for publishing secrets? What do you think they want to prosecute him for, then? You've handwaved this question twice with "do your own research" but that is an unacceptable response because it's basically just an admission that your argument has no substance. quote:I have never accused anyone of being a conspiracy theorist because they posted publically available information. That wouldn't make sense. But if I had said that I could see the irony in suggesting the rape charges are fabricated -- another claim I have not made. It didn't make sense, but that didn't stop you from doing it a few pages ago: Dog Jones posted:
You have not said that you personally believe that the rape charges were fabricated, but you have defended the idea that they were fabricated so you're still a dumbfuck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Was confined. However the proliferation of fake news, the alt-right, and conspiracy thought are proving quite proficient at spreading what I call Narrativism into the population at large, primarily in people who are exposed to media designed with the Inner/Outer Narrative structure in mind. I disagree. I still think it is still very small. Vocal, violent, but small. This may be due to a difference in bubbles though. Correct me if I'm wrong but "Poor, rural and cultish" seems to describe your upbringing and "scraping by on disability in Texas" describes your present. My upbringing was "patrician, urban and secular" while my present is "thriving in California". Neither of us chose the situation of our birth and (I feel) our present conditions are largely an extension of the roll of the dice that was our birth. But they've resulted in a very different Umwelt. Your perspective is very powerful and is very illustrative for me since it manages to eloquently fill in a lot of seemingly insane aspects of Republican behavior. Your whole Narrativist thesis helps flesh out the thinking of Evangelical and Racist voters (while Evangelicals and hard R-Racists may be theoretically separate groups they functionally vote the same and appeals to one work as appeals to the others so they basically look the same to me). That's very helpful. But even in Trump's America, motivated, voting Racists and Evangelicals are small minority with control over a very small percentage of the population. Gerrymandering, the Electoral College and the Senate have given and continue to give that population an outsized influence. That is bad. But it's worth keeping in mind that not only are they not some hegemonic force controlling everywhere, it's that they are nobodies in most places. Aside from hegemonic racist institutions like the police (and the police are real hosed up, don't get me wrong) most people live in places where Trump voters and Republicans in general are shunned. My perspective is biased, so I may be seeing things in all the wrong ways. But what I see is a lunatic fringe abusing a system set up by rich slave-holding white men trying to be better. I embrace and believe in their struggle while also being critical of their execution. That may just be my privilege speaking -- I know my privilege has shaped my world view. What I'm not convinced of is whether an insulated view from the perspective of privilege is less authentic, less accurate than an insulated view from the perspective of deprivation? I've lived in many places all over the United States (and to a lesser extent the world). Though I've been personally insulated from many of the lows this world has to offer I've seen a great deal and I find the world much less dire than you do. Your Narrativism is a very useful description of a very real political force. While that force is powerful, I don't see it as widespread nor do I see it as having widespread appeal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Dog Jones: 1) Why is the US government aggressively pursuing charges against Julian Assange in secret? 2) Why are they only pursuing these charges against Julian Assange and not against anyone else who has worked for Wikileaks? 3) It's obvious that you like to gently caress watermelons. Prove to me that you don't like to gently caress watermelons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
My life is a good bit more complicated and my viewpoint a great deal wider than you might imagine. While my youth was quite accurately surmised as "poor, rural, and cultish" my life post entering public school at the age of 14 changed rather dramatically. I achieved several national recognitions in high school in competitive events (Largely through DECA) despite what you can imagine was a rather cruel handicap at the time. In my adult life I have traveled the US extensively (Seen over 40 states and <80% of the major cities in the continental US) and worked in a wide variety of fields from driving instructor for 18-wheelers to wedding DJ to tech crew at a major (but now defunct) dinner theater. My perspective on the US has largely been formed by purposefully breaking out of my bubble whenever I got the chance as well as working difficult/strange low end jobs in various locations around the US. (although I had a few years where I was making 80k+, that was right before my illness starting to really assert itself and render me unable to hold regular employment.) And while I did live in San Antonio for some time (barely scraping by to be fair) I now reside in Portland and am not barely scraping by anymore, although I still could definitely use a higher income than what my social security provides. In regards to Narrativism not spreading beyond its old confines, I wold point you to the election of one Donald J Trump as evidence that Narrativism (especially its low compaction form) might be quite a bit more widespread at this point than you want to concede. I would also point to the recent acquittal of the Malheur crew by jury nullification as evidence that what I call Narrativism is spreading throughout the regular population now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
1) Awesome that you are doing so well, congrats! Next time I'm in Portland I'll let you know and buy you some drinks of your choice. This is a serious offer though I'm only in Portland every couple of years. 2) I'm with you on Malheur. I had to eat a ban because I toxxed that they would get off with a slap on the wrist after a grandiose display. In the same way that Hillary's election was inevitable, the FBI had been playing 23D chess and were going to turbofuck all the Malheur people. I don't appreciate the loss of  and I don't appreciate the ban since I was right but whatever.3) Re: Trump, this is where we really disagree. I think Trump won because nobody wanted to vote for Hillary (see: depressed voter turn out). Voting was down for Republicans too but dedicated racist, evangelicals, narrativists, etc. absolutely turned up to vote. These weren't new Republican voters though. These were the same ACE-style robots that always turn up and vote Republican. The Narrativist fringe you so accurately describe absolutely turned out and absolutely voted for Trump. But they turned out for Romney, they turned out for Bush, they turned out for Dole, they turned out for HW Bush, all because they turned out for and adore Reagan (and were raised by Goldwaterites). I don't see a change in the electorate beyond people not being inspired to vote. There have been (and will be many more) local lunatics inspired by Trump's victory. That is a very real problem. But they are fringe lunatics in a broader society not a society of fringe lunatics. Does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
1.) I'll take you up on that offer. I don't drink very often but when I do I prefer Drambuie. 2.) I remember one of the first things I thought about after reading the Malheur verdict was "Huh, shbobd got legit robbed here and is owed 3.) Yeah, this is really where we disagree. Frankly, I really really really hope you are right. That said, this particular topic would require such a length for either of us to meaningfully debate it that this really isn't the threade. (Also I truly hope you are right and I am wrong so goddamned much I'm not even willing to defend my own position on this one.) Thanks by the way for all the thoughtful exchanges over the past couple years. We've disagreed plenty and you have generally put quite a bit of thought into your critiques of my work, (actually you are one of the few who vigoursly challenged me who really put some effort into it) and the Narrativist Framework is genuinely better because of your contributions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Address the point I made in the above post and I will address one of yours. Deal! Prester Jane posted:Assange could have chosen to face the charges against him. You are wrong. Sweden has filed no charges against Assange and he has not been accused of a crime. He is a suspect in a criminal investigation. However, it is true that Assange was wanted for questioning in Sweden. From his perspective though, it would have been foolish for him to return to Sweden - Assange and his legal team's biggest fear is the US filing an indictment of Assange and begining the process of extradition to the US - The swedes have explicitly refused to guarantee that they will not extradite Assange to a nation which could potentially violate his human rights, despite requests from Assange's legal team and amnesty international. - Returning to Sweden meant indefinite detention in Sweden while Assange is questioned and then possibly awaiting his trial. Since his court date is not yet defined, he will necessarily be waiting for an indefinite period of time. Returning to Sweden means Assange will be detained indefinitely. - While under bail in the UK, the swedes are moving to extradite Assange from the UK to Sweden. This motion to extradite Assange would take precedence over a US attempt at extradition, since the Swedes tried to extradite Assange first. As Fishmech pointed out earlier, the US attempting to extradite Assange while Sweden is already attempting to extradite him dramatically increases the likelihood that the US attempt will fail. - If Assange returns to Sweden, the swedes will no longer be trying to extradite him from the UK, and he will be in a country that has refused to say they will not extradite him to the US - This potential move to Sweden would be an extremely desirable opportunity to indict Assange and attempt extradition, he'll even be detained while they work their way through the lengthy extradition process. - Therefore, a move to Sweden carries the largest risk of the worst case scenario for Assange and his legal team. So, despite the fact that Assange might have a desire to clear his name, or whatever we speculate motivates him, returning to Sweden so Swedish authorities can question him is too dangerous in his mind, especially in light of the fact that they have refused to guarantee they will protect his human rights (I think this violates international law? ) Extradition and conviction in the US could mean a very long jail sentence and possibly execution. Its reasonable to want to avoid that outcome. Assange ultimately decides to not return to Sweden. I think I have demonstrated that there were reasonable concerns about his well-being if he were to return to Sweden, so this is a reasonable decision. Later, when Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy, the Swedish prosecutor in charge of the Assange investigation refuses to travel to the embassy so as to question Assange (the entire reason why he is wanted in Sweden). Despite his lawyer's attempts to clear his name, Sweden will not confront the matter. Recently, after substantial pressure from other prosecutors in sweden and other authorities on law, and after the statute of limitations expires on 3 of the 4 allegations against Assange, the prosecutor finally travels to London and questions Assange. Still Sweden has not dropped the allegations or charged Assange with the crime. Earlier this year, a UN panel concluded that the governments of the UK and Sweden are arbitrarily detaining Assange. So you are wrong about nearly everything you are saying here. Assange could not have faced the charges against him, because there are no charges against him. Furthermore, Assange's ability to confront the allegations was out of his control and the Swedish prosecutor is not interested in actually prosecuting the case or allowing it to reach a meaningful conclusion. Assange COULD have gone to Sweden and submitted to questioning despite the credible threat to his personal well-being, and that would have gotten him nowhere since the prosecutor still won't drop the allegations or formally indict Assange after they interviewed him years later. There is no reason for Assange to do something pointless, absurd, and dangerous. Prester Jane posted:Instead of doing that he scammed his supporters for bail money and then skipped bail to go hide in an embassy. I reiterate: he could not have done what you imagine he should have done, because there were no criminal charges against him in Sweden. Your charge that Assange scammed his supporters is damning. But it is not self-evident. You have accused Assange of scamming his supporters out of tens of thousands of pounds in an offhand way and offered no evidence that he was actually scamming them. I will overlook your charge that the effort to raise bail money for Assange was a scam for now because it is completely insubstantial as far as I know. I am not ignoring your charge, there is just nothing to say about it. I am very interested to hear what evidence you have that Assange was scamming his supporters since that is pretty devious and interesting to me. It is true that Assange skipped bail to hide in the Ecuadorian embassy so as to avoid extradition to Sweden. Like I said above, it is reasonable that Assange would want to avoid extradition to Sweden since that constitutes in his mind a credible threat to his well being. From Assange's perspective, there is another reason why it is justifiable to have skipped bail. According to article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." If Assange broke UK law when he went to the Ecuadorian embassy to seek political asylum, then the UK government was necessarily and actively violating Assange's human rights. If this is true, I think it is perfectly reasonable to break that law. So, you have failed to demonstrate that Assange was running a scam, and I have presented reasons to think that it is actually good that Assange skipped bail and hid in an embassy. Prester Jane posted:These are actions he alone undertook, and for which he alone has agency. He went into exile willingly, he had other options and he voluntarily elected not to pursue those options. Yes. Assange is responsible for his actions, which all seem to be perfectly reasonable. It's stretching the truth to say that he entered exile willingly, since he probably would not have gone into exile if there were no risk (in his mind) of political persecution at the hands of the US and if the Swedish prosecutor had allowed him to clear his name in good faith. Assange and his legal team would also claim that they were perfectly willing to return to Sweden and submit Assange for questioning if Sweden would have guaranteed that he would not be imprisoned or killed in the US after his visit. Let me know your thoughts then I'll post my argument that you have to respond to!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:3) Re: Trump, this is where we really disagree. I think Trump won because nobody wanted to vote for Hillary (see: depressed voter turn out). Voting was down for Republicans too but dedicated racist, evangelicals, narrativists, etc. absolutely turned up to vote. These weren't new Republican voters though. These were the same ACE-style robots that always turn up and vote Republican. The Narrativist fringe you so accurately describe absolutely turned out and absolutely voted for Trump. But they turned out for Romney, they turned out for Bush, they turned out for Dole, they turned out for HW Bush, all because they turned out for and adore Reagan (and were raised by Goldwaterites). I don't see a change in the electorate beyond people not being inspired to vote. There have been (and will be many more) local lunatics inspired by Trump's victory. That is a very real problem. But they are fringe lunatics in a broader society not a society of fringe lunatics. Does that make sense? I feel like you're basing your argument on the early vote totals before California had finished counting. Because the current totals have a 54% turnout (compared to 54.9% four years ago), and Trump got over 1.5 million more votes than Romney did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, dumb-dumb, this is a logical failing on your part. If I'm being generous, the fact that charges have never been carried suggests that "aggressive" is a very poor choice of adjective. In actuality, you need to prove that prosecutors are "aggressively pursuing charges" instead of just stating it as fact. Why do you think the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that US prosecutors are 'aggressively' pursing charges. I have no idea if they are aggressively pursuing charges, and never claimed they were. The actual work the investigation is doing is secret, we can only speculate about thier strategy. It is possible that they are 'aggressively' pursuing charges, and it is possible they already have a sealed indictment against Assange and are simply waiting for an opportune time to begin extraditing him. QuarkJets posted:It's extremely relevant because Assange believes that the US wants to prosecute him for publishing secrets. You seem to agree that the US wants to prosecute him, but not for publishing secrets? What do you think they want to prosecute him for, then? You've handwaved this question twice with "do your own research" but that is an unacceptable response because it's basically just an admission that your argument has no substance. I have never avoided describing the types of charges Assange might face if he is prosecuted. I have referenced a congressional report which outlines a promising strategy to indict Assange on violations of the espionage act, I have referenced the fact that during the prosecution of Manning, the justice department tied Manning's crimes to Assange. I pointed out the ability to indict Assange on charges related to illegally compromising secure computer systems. I think I also mentioned the possibility of charging Assange with conspiracy. Every time someone has confronted me with their shock and anger that I say we don't know for sure if prosecutors will indict Assanage 'publishing secrets', they demand to know what I think he could possibly be charged for, and I say to read what I have already written on that exact subject in that long rear end post I made, or if you refuse to read my post as some have, just look it up. If you won't read the things I am writing and you won't look up information yourself, I don't know what to tell you dude. But this idea that I'm avoiding responding to people's questions because they won't read what I write is a complete joke. QuarkJets posted:It didn't make sense, but that didn't stop you from doing it a few pages ago: You are wrong to think that this was me accusing someone of being a conspiracy theorist for posting publically available information, because the outlandish claim that Assange was caught cybering with a 12 year old has no evidence in the public domain to my knowledge. Am I wrong? I think if there was conclusive proof that Assange was a pedophile it would have come to my attention at some point. Possibly when I began investigating that poster's claim. Accusing Assange of pedopilia is obviously a damning and controversial charge, its not a charge you make out of hand. And no evidence of Assange cybering with a 12 year old was presented with the charge, as if the fact that Assange is a pedophile were the most obvious thing in the world. It was an incredibly hypocritical post and I was right in my description of it. QuarkJets posted:You have not said that you personally believe that the rape charges were fabricated, but you have defended the idea that they were fabricated so you're still a dumbfuck. Why am I a dumbfuck for defending the idea that the rape allegations are fabrications? Do you believe there is merit to the rape charges? Why? It is plausible to me that they are fabrications because the Swedish prosecutor allowed most of the allegations to expire, and does not seem interested in actually formally charging Assange with the last allegation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
Why do you believe there is an investigation into Assange, especially a secret investigation as you allege there is?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Dog Jones: 1) I don't know why you think the US government is pursuing charges 'aggressively', or what you even mean by that any more. To answer your question: criminal investigations are often conducted in secret so as to not 'tip off' the suspects who might begin covering up the crimes or strategizing to conceal their actions from the investigators. Succinctly, the work of the investigators is easier if the suspects don't know how they are being watched, or if they are being watched at all. 2) ...I don't understand where you are coming from with this. Mere association with WikiLeaks is not evidence of a crime. Imagine you and I work for WikiLeaks. One day, on our lunch break, you pull a gun out and shoot someone in the restuarant. You are charged with murder, an investigation is conducted, and evidence that you killed a person is assembled into a case which is prosecuted successfully. Why does it make any sense at all to you that I should also be charged with murder since we both happened to work for WikiLeaks? The reason why you were charged and not me is because there is evidence that you committed the murder, and there is no evidence that I committed the murder. Like, am I understanding your question properly? People are charged with crimes when the prosecution believes they have sufficient evidence to get a guilty verdict. For example, one of the possible charges against Assange is that he helped Manning crack a password that allowed manning to access a poo poo ton of classified documents. The prosecutors have evidence that assange violated the law because they have chat logs of Assange helping manning to crack the password (if I am remembering all of this right). So prosecutors would likely use this evidence to charge Assange with hacking or whatever the actual name of the charge is. They can not use it to charge loving Joe WikiLeaks or whoever with hacking, because Joe WikiLeaks has nothing to do with that evidence. Do you get it? By the way, it's not impossible that other wikileaks people could be indicted, but I am aware of no evidence that says other people may be indicted. 3) Why
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:Why do you believe there is an investigation into Assange, especially a secret investigation as you allege there is? Humor me for a moment Kit Walker. I promise I will answer your question but humor me a second. What do YOU believe regarding the alleged investigation of Assange, and why do you hold that belief?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Humor me for a moment Kit Walker. I promise I will answer your question but humor me a second. What do YOU believe regarding the alleged investigation of Assange, and why do you hold that belief? I do not believe there is one as I have yet to see any evidence that there is one. Assange also hasn't committed a crime by US law so that's a pretty big hurdle to jump, too
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:I do not believe there is one as I have yet to see any evidence that there is one. Assange also hasn't committed a crime by US law so that's a pretty big hurdle to jump, too Sorry Im way tired now, check this out it is a fine summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#US_criminal_investigation
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I mean I have an entire megathread where I have written literally hundreds of thousands of words on this specific topic. (And a few other related threads mega threads that deal with related topics) I do not have any regular credentials, but I've been providing insight into the mindset that Dog Jones is demonstrating here (which I would actually label "low-compaction narrativism", but that involves invoking my own glossary of terms and I generally avoid doing that outside of my own threads) for a number of years on this board now. To be fair though my posts were not really meant to convince casual bystanders so I can understand where you are coming from here. Also what is "low-compaction narrativism" and why can't you explain it through common words? The only kinds of words that I know of that are hard to explain are well defined scientific jargon and words with vague or controversial meaning. Prester Jane posted:Actually I do not think that Dog Jones is mentally ill, mental illness is quite different from the behavior pattern he is exhibiting. And most of the people in this thread are actually responding to him in one of the few manners that over time can break down the sort of cognitive dissonance that Dog Jones has repeatedly displayed in this thread. Enaging him in tit-for-tat on everything in his postws would be an inherently fruitless endeavor because A:) For the most part his posts are an incoherent jumble of inferences based on demonstrably false assumptions and B:) Dog Jones does not believe any particular point he is making and will shift around endlessly and change the subject if you try to address a specific area of disagreement with him. If you try to actually engage him in full good faith you will only waste your time and frustrate yourself. As a result, for the most part Goons are just picking at one of the faulty underlying assumptions that he builds his posts on and leaving it at that. Dog Jones is arguing defensively through arguments of skepticism against other people's claims. He is arguing against certainty, and others are arguing for it, claiming it is the other way round. What you should be having is an honest discussion about the uncertainty or likelihood of events, and how that should influence people's decisions. That doesn't look to be the case. Prester Jane posted:Was confined. However the proliferation of fake news, the alt-right, and conspiracy thought are proving quite proficient at spreading what I call Narrativism into the population at large, primarily in people who are exposed to media designed with the Inner/Outer Narrative structure in mind. I don't even care about Assange anymore. This interests me more: Prester Jane posted:Someday I may do a write up on Alex Jones, because personally I think he is a very specific (and thankfully uncommon) type of social predator. In my analysis Jones is quite a wild card at present and will remain so going forwards. I think that Jones is not an idealogue so much as he is a very cunning and particularly self-aware type of cult leader. Make no mistake, Jones wants power more than anything else and there will come a day when he uses every single resource at his disposal to make a play for real power. (How/when/what form that will take is rather impossible to predict at present, however his personality type always makes a massive play at some point. Whether that play is motivated by a real chance at power or by the realization that his influence is quickly waning only time will tell, but unless he keels over suddenly from a heart attack then someday you will see him do some real interesting poo poo.) Prester Jane posted:Everything Jones says about the New World Order is based entirely on his (admittedly excellent) instincts for knowing what his audience wants to hear. (His audience has shifted over time, during the early Bush years it was heavily made up of left-leaning Millenials, now its mostly the younger/more violent Tea Party types). The reason Jones does not create as much of his own content anymore is because Jones does not actually want to create content, he wants to empire build behind the scenes. As long as Infowars is putting out material that attracts an audience of fanatics Jones does not actually give the tiniest of shits about what he has to say in order to attract that audience. Jones knows exactly who is attracted to him and he knows how to slowly radicalize them and bring them into his fold. Whereas with many other right wing figures you can make a case that they are genuine demagogues (e.g. O'Reilly) or hucksters who have bought their own poo poo (e.g. Beck), Jones is a different beast altogether. Jones knows what he is doing, and he knows why he is doing it, and he always has a half dozen plans for doing even more of it. What his ultimate intentions are is very hard to decipher, (and to a degree the specifics are not really that important from our perspective) but they will involve him acquiring huge power as well s the ability to cruelly punish anyone he pleases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Deal! Assange was wanted in Sweden for an investigation that he refused to cooperate with. He could have simply faced the charges. He chose not to and he made that choice freely. It is at this point that the entire premise of your response falls completely apart. It isn't worth addressing the rest of your post because it all suffers from the same failing. Now even though you typed a bunch of words in response to me they are ultimately worthless because you refused to address the point I actually made. So I will repost my original post here again and ask you to respond to that post please. Prester Jane posted:Assange could have chosen to face the charges against him. Instead of doing that he scammed his supporters for bail money and then skipped bail to go hide in an embassy. These are actions he alone undertook, and for which he alone has agency. He went into exile willingly, he had other options and he voluntarily elected not to pursue those options. When you respond this time do not simply handwave away Assange's agency in his own decision making. Assange was wanted for questioning and could simply have remained in Sweden to face the investigation. Instead he fled to great Britain where he was arrested with an aim towards deporting him to Sweden so that he could face the charges against him. He chose not to do so, and instead literally jumped bail in order to hide out in the Ecudorian embassy. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:That megathread wasn't the decoding authoritarians thread was it? That thread made me sad. It was the Decoding Authoritarians thread actually. The glossary I am using resulted from many long discussions that occurred in that thread. Mercrom posted:
The words I am using are technical jargon with a well understood meaning, but that meaning is not simply summarized. Its not really fair I guess considering the length of the discussion but these terms are all defined in that thread and their meaning is pretty well understood by those who have read the thread. My responses using those terms were geared towards Goons who are familiar enough with my material that they understand the meanings of those words. (There are actually quite a few goons who have.) Mercrom posted:Your posts are convincing him? I'm not seeing that right now. I'm just seeing a bad discussion full of either misunderstanding or dishonesty. My first account on SA was named "Truckin A Man" and it died doing exactly what Dog Jones is trying to do here. (The only difference is that I went down defending Ron Paul instead of Julian Assange.) My responses are made with the knowledge of what broke me out of that mindset in the past. The only way to do it is to force Dog Jones to address the fundamental aspects of the situation that he flatly refuses to see, and to refuse to engage in any of his silly leaps of logic or permit him to distract me with gigantic (and largely irrelevant) walls of text. Mercrom posted:Dog Jones is arguing defensively through arguments of skepticism against other people's claims. He is arguing against certainty, and others are arguing for it, claiming it is the other way round. What you should be having is an honest discussion about the uncertainty or likelihood of events, and how that should influence people's decisions. That doesn't look to be the case. No, he is refusing to address the actual points raised and every post of his is an effort to string together a bunch of vague inferences in order to re-contextualize the discussion in such a way that he fells makes him right. His efforts to re-contextualize the issue though always ignore important facts while including demonstrably fallacious base assumptions. This is the only way to debate that Dog Jones has shown he is willing to engage in at the moment. He is not arguing "against certainty", his posts are not anywhere near focused enough to achieve that goal. Mercrom posted:
You would need to read the Authoritarians thread unfortunately. Mercrom posted:
You are basically asking me to do the entire write up on Alex Jones, which is something I said I might do in the future. (And with me the word "maybe" truly means "maybe".) I did a similar write up for Trump back in June that has proven quite useful in predicting and understanding Trump's behavior. However designing that post took me several weeks worth of effort, and it would require the same amount of effort to do one for Alex Jones. At this time I am not sure if I have enough motivation to actually go through with doing that write up, however I am genuinely considering it at present. I think I should offer some context here that is addressed in much greater detail in my Authoritarians thread. I am a diagnosed schizophrenic who is unusually self aware about the way my illness impacts my perceptions. (I take my illness very seriously and have been stable and actively receiving treatment for it for several years now.) Much of my material is derived from parts of my psyche that are directly tied into my illness. I have an entire separate mode of thinking that I call "[Pattern]" and it is in this mode of thinking that I actually do most of my creative work. This mode of thinking is very different from normal waking consciousness and is premised on a completely different way of processing data. (Or at least that is the best way I can describe it) My thinking in [Pattern] is conducted in an extremely abstract internal language that I have developed as a way of coping with my illness. Translating the meaning of this internal language into something comprehensible by other people is extremely time consuming, although I do often find it to be a rewarding endeavor. (A unique and fulfilling form of creative expression is how I personally regard it.) Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Assange was wanted in Sweden for an investigation that he refused to cooperate with. He could have simply faced the charges. He chose not to and he made that choice freely. It is at this point that the entire premise of your response falls completely apart. It isn't worth addressing the rest of your post because it all suffers from the same failing. You need to use the correct words. He was not charged with a crime so there are no "charges" to face. He is wanted for questioning, he has questioning and allegations to face and eventually maybe potential charges, but as of now, no charges. GutBomb fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:You need to use the correct words. He was not charged with a crime so there are no "charges" to face. He is wanted for questioning, he has questioning and allegations to face and eventually maybe potential charges, but as of now, no charges. Excuse me, he could have faced the allegations but he chose not too. I used the wrong term but the overall meaning of my point is completely unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:My first account on SA was named "Truckin A Man" and it died doing exactly what Dog Jones is trying to do here. (The only difference is that I went down defending Ron Paul instead of Julian Assange.) My responses are made with the knowledge of what broke me out of that mindset in the past. The only way to do it is to force Dog Jones to address the fundamental aspects of the situation that he flatly refuses to see, and to refuse to engage in any of his silly leaps of logic or permit him to distract me with gigantic (and largely irrelevant) walls of text. I have pondered the possibility that I might be an idiot, but in the end my conclusion was that everyone is an idiot. If something seems unclear to me, I don't believe it, and I think other people should have the same attitude. Prester Jane posted:No, he is refusing to address the actual points raised and every post of his is an effort to string together a bunch of vague inferences in order to re-contextualize the discussion in such a way that he fells makes him right. His efforts to re-contextualize the issue though always ignore important facts while including demonstrably fallacious base assumptions. This is the only way to debate that Dog Jones has shown he is willing to engage in at the moment. He is not arguing "against certainty", his posts are not anywhere near focused enough to achieve that goal. To function people need to recognize uncertainties as much as patterns. I don't know which side is worse at this, but the only thing I've seen from Dog Jones that indicates he's a True Believer is the rate of his posting. Mercrom fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Mercrom posted:This is sarcastic right? Right? No?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:10
|
|
