|
Bargearse posted:I’m goonicus and so’s my wife All my friends are smiling and being goonicus off camera
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
"Do you have stairs in your house, I want to throw your nan down them."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 08:58
|
|
|
SecretOfSteel posted:The cop that tasered the 95yo is a goon. Which of you is this? *turns off monitor, see's goonicus in reflection...* 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 14:35
|
|
|
Just gonna say that I am about 1/4 of the way through The Article and enjoying it (though please spell Breitbart correctly in Part 5, it's a minor typo but my hindbrain screams 'this guy don't know what he's talking about' when I see something like that, which is a) clearly not the case and b) exactly the kind of thing this article is about)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Just gonna say that I am about 1/4 of the way through The Article and enjoying it Fixed, cheers. Autisanal Cheese posted:what, is it really it does answer one of the biggest mysteries of the last 5 and a half years
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 03:15
|
|
|
i dunno about mystery but its a pretty good read. i sort of fell off it at the very end and i could nitpick its starting point as completely arbitrary but i liked the circada and robert anton wilson shoutouts
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Jezza of OZPOS posted:i dunno about mystery The mystery of who started Q I mean. It's never been accurately reported before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 03:37
|
|
|
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/-elites-vs-the-streets-dutton-s-no-strategy-charles-croucher/102568412 Apparently Albo is too distracted by the voice to properly run the economy. I guess it is a change from what ever it was that was distracting the coalition since creation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Just gonna say that I am about 1/4 of the way through The Article and enjoying it Jezza of OZPOS posted:i dunno about mystery but its a pretty good read. i sort of fell off it at the very end and i could nitpick its starting point as completely arbitrary but i liked the circada and robert anton wilson shoutouts Hats off. I didn't even make it like a sixth of the way through. The sweeping pop psychology/biotruths/evolution generalizations, the permutations of Virus, Virus, Virus, the something something I forgot Virus. Refering to the French Revolution as "The French People and Their Aristocrats and Their Revolution" makes me suspect the author has no clue about the period but is still speaking authoritatively about it. Then not referencing any conspiracy propaganda from that period is very what the gently caress while positioning the article as a complete history. Like, they printed leaflets about Marie Antionette's debauchery. The evidential links linking directly to the evidence (without establishing the credentials of the evidence or how it supports the argument being made).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
Eediot Jedi posted:Hats off. I didn't even make it like a sixth of the way through. The sweeping pop psychology/biotruths/evolution generalizations, the permutations of Virus, Virus, Virus, the something something I forgot Virus. Refering to the French Revolution as "The French People and Their Aristocrats and Their Revolution" makes me suspect the author has no clue about the period but is still speaking authoritatively about it. Then not referencing any conspiracy propaganda from that period is very what the gently caress while positioning the article as a complete history. Like, they printed leaflets about Marie Antionette's debauchery. The evidential links linking directly to the evidence (without establishing the credentials of the evidence or how it supports the argument being made). cool, can you try and do this but with actual quotes or screenshots instead of straw-men.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:cool, can you try and do this but with actual quotes or screenshots instead of straw-men. I would pay someone at least $75/hour for this so I think you should get a contract in place first rather than use him as unpaid labour
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 05:35
|
|
|
Sadly there is no budget for any of this, that's not usually how anti-fascism works. And I'm not asking for labour, just outlining the basic standards of debate and discussion. If they're going to take the time to engage and type all that into the thread, they may as well make it relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:If they're going to take the time to engage and type all that into the thread, they may as well make it relevant. says the guy with a 1hr read starting in the 14th century trying to show the origins of Q.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 06:44
|
|
|
Where would you start it? And which parts do you think are not relevant? Yes, the modern conspiracy narrative's roots can largely be traced to the *18th century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 07:04
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Where would you start it? the future
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 07:16
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Where would you start it? fall of jerusalem imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 07:27
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:cool, can you try and do this but with actual quotes or screenshots instead of straw-men. That wasn't straw-manning, that was criticism. Bucky Fullminster posted:Sadly there is no budget for any of this, that's not usually how anti-fascism works. The threat that I will have wasted my effort if I don't provide examples is great. Oh no, you're going to ignore my feedback which you've already ignored. Jezza of OZPOS posted:fall of jerusalem imo Carthago delenda est
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 07:29
|
|
|
Eediot Jedi posted:That wasn't straw-manning, that was criticism. Eediot Jedi posted:Refering to the French Revolution as "The French People and Their Aristocrats and Their Revolution" makes me suspect the author has no clue about the period but is still speaking authoritatively about it. This is a misquote  Eediot Jedi posted:The sweeping pop psychology/biotruths/evolution generalizations Can you be specific about what you're actually disputing here, otherwise there is nothing to work with. quote:Then not referencing any conspiracy propaganda from that period is very what the gently caress while positioning the article as a complete history. Like, they printed leaflets about Marie Antionette's debauchery. The evidential links linking directly to the evidence (without establishing the credentials of the evidence or how it supports the argument being made). These are not really coherent sentences sorry, it's hard to know what you mean. It's not about the French revolution, other than simply to say that it happened, and spawned the two pieces of literature that go on to form the foundation of the narrative. Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Jul 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 07:35
|
|
|
Laserface posted:says the guy with a 1hr read starting in the 14th century trying to show the origins of Q. ...but it's completely relevant to start talk about conspiracy theories with discussion of the actual Illuminati
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 07:35
|
|
|
Eediot Jedi posted:Carthago delenda est whats the conspiracy to do with carthage,
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 08:27
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:...but it's completely relevant to start talk about conspiracy theories with discussion of the actual Illuminati Or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 08:49
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Here's the story I've been working on for 3 years, about the roots of conspiratorial disinformation that is driving the cookers and the freedom movement, if anyone is interested. Yes there have been versions of it shared in here along the way, but this may well be the final one. Don't want to start a whole thing, just would like to know if anyone can find anything false or has any other comments before I commit it to tape and send it out into the world. Ranter, would be interested in your anti-capitalist critique, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 09:56
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:The mystery of who started Q I mean. It's never been accurately reported before. This is a really bizarre claim to cling to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
Ctrl-f 'class' zero results lol lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Bucky are you alright mate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 00:44
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:I read some of the article, but you lost me when I realized that you were using Wikipedia as a source. Also, all your references are inline hyperlinks, and they are scattered everywhere, and some are SUPER unnecessary and off topic (e.g. the random selfish gene youtube video). Have your references be little numbers at the end of paragraphs that link to a big list of references at the bottom of your article, and have your actual hyperlinks that you want people to click be hyperlinks. Interesting, thanks. The wiki links aren't there as a source, they're there for someone to click through to get more info on something. To save them googling. But yes I may well have got a bit carried away there, and could probably stand to take some out. And not to get sidetracked but I think it's more reliable than you seem to give it credit for. So I use it as a resource, sure, but it's not like you can type "who made Q" into wikipedia and then say there you go. I would never make a reader have to follow a number at the end of the paragraph to a link at the bottom and then have to click on that. That is just unfathomably poor hospitality. And the Selfish Gene thing is arguably at the centre of the whole thing. That tension between the different strategies. It's zoomed right out obviously, and been towards the top of the "cut" pile for a long time, but it always manages to survive, because if we're going to do it then we may as well do it properly. I think I like the pace of it, taking the time to go right back to first principles, and build the story from there.  Animal Friend posted:This is a really bizarre claim to cling to. It's not wrong though, is it. What's bizarre is how all the experts have managed to be so aggressively wrong, and miss this thing that's been right in front of their faces. Oh and it's the mystery of who started pizzagate with FBIanon too. Also never been accurately reported before. go_banana posted:Bucky are you alright mate? yeah not too bad thanks how are you
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
The Royal Commission Report into Robodebt is out and it's 900 or so pages, so disregard Bucky's Kingdom Hearts fanfic or whatever and check this out instead https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-07/report-of-the-royal-commission-into-the-robodebt-scheme.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
The commission recommends referrals for some as yet unnamed individuals for civil or criminal prosecution *actual shocked pikachu face* The report states that former PM Scott Morrison misled cabinet by not providing all the relevant information *ironic shocked pikachu face*
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
‘At the least, I am confident that the Commission has served the purpose of bringing into the open an extraordinary saga, illustrating a myriad of ways that things can go wrong through venality, incompetence and cowardice.’
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
I’m going to laugh so hard if Scomo or Tudge or one of those fuckers ends up in prison before Trump does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 04:06
|
|
|
everyone I implore you to skip this post. This is all personal opinion. Control + F your article. Notice ever time you refer to the Virus. Or the Virus. Or the Virus. Or the Conspiracy Virus. Or the Conspiracy Narrative Virus. Pick one and stick to it. Ever inconsistent reference looks like sloppiness, it reduces your credibility. When I read the intro to your article, quote:The “shared reality” that we rely on for society to function has begun to fracture. A rift has appeared, people are living in almost entirely seperate worlds, and tensions between the opposing sides are becoming dangerously inflamed. So today we’re going to look at the roots of some of the divisive lies that have done so much damage, and see if there might be a way to build some kind of a bridge. That intro sets me up to think that actually we're going to look at weaponised propaganda first, its historical context and its evolution over time, how the methods have changed over time, how it was used to influence the 2016 US elections in particular with conspiracies such as #pizzagate, then a history of Qanon and the future implications if modern weaponised propaganda continues as it is. The article is not about the historical context and evolution of weaponised propaganda, it is about the history and evolution of Qanon and co's weaponised propaganda. That distinction between the claimed scope of the article, and how the article references both the French & Russian Revolutions (periods of great social upheaval where I know weaponised propaganda was employed in new ways for the time) but are somehow outside the scope of the article, is enough to set my bullshit radar off and treat the author skeptically. IMO, my suggested changes are to clarify the scope of your article to a history of Qanan & co and to nix how you are currently introducing the illuminati, French Revolution etc. Instead introduce the books “Proofs of a Conspiracy” and “Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism”, state that they blamed the French Revolution on a secret cabal/Illuminati, briefly explain who the historical Illuminati were, and make sure to reference actual historians debunking these books, and briefly outline the accepted historical causes. This would build the author's credibility for me, because it's demonstrating a knowledge of what actually happened, briefly educating people who don't know the actual history of the period and referencing to experts to back you up. In my opinion, when you introduce a book purporting a certain view of history happened, you have to be able to explain to the reader what the book alleges to have happened, how that is different from the accepted historical version of events, and provide references to back your views up and to confirm the book is horseshit. Without that basic academic rigour, the arguments being made don't ever get past a certain threshold for establishing trust. I have no reason to trust the author of the article, and the longer the article goes on, the more statements that aren't supported, the less I trust the author. When I talk about sweeping biotruths/evolution/pop psychology, I mean things like, quote:Chaos is a deeply terrifying concept, and even the most evil of imagined villains is preferable to the rudderless, swirling complexity of existence. quote:Ultimately, we are strings of DNA, trying to get enough energy to replicate the code before we die. That’s the “Game of Life” that every organism on the planet is playing, including humans — Money is just a proxy for Energy. quote:The brain, however, is still more or less the same humble organ that was roaming the prairie for those countless millennia. It had very different things to deal with, and isn’t cut out to handle these dazzling digital displays that have sprung up almost overnight. So it has developed a wide range of tricks to avoid the discomfort of Cognitive Dissonance. And when faced with a towering Hyper-Object like Climate Change, it’ll gladly take a tidy conspiracy theory. Especially if it means we get to keep burning stuff, while absolving us of having to bear any responsibility for the consequences. Basically insert a huge flashing Citation Needed sign here. It's not good enough imo to refer to external sources, the article needs to address the psychology of conspiracy theories. Keeping in mind I bailed early on your article so I could be doing you dirty, but I couldn't find any of this with a control + F session. The article doesn't talk about the psychology of conspiracies in a credible way, about the social, economic or personal factors that make some people more vulnerable to them, some people reject them, how people can be recruited into them, how people leave them, with references to actual researched scientific literature. The article just ascribes a magical quality to weaponised conspiracy as a virus to spread. Ok! So why didn't I, average joe reader, get infected? Reading, I just keep thinking "bull poo poo bull poo poo bull poo poo" because the article has said a lot, but hasn't proved its assertions, it just says they are. Again I have no reason to trust the author. As far as I can tell the author has no qualifications that makes them especially insightful to comment on human psychology, or that they are using and referring to sources that are qualified to comment on human psychology. Without that, saying things like" It had very different things to deal with, and isn’t cut out to handle these dazzling digital displays that have sprung up almost overnight." is just pop psychology. I'm running out of willpower to live but another thing is you go way too hard on all capitalists are hitlers. It's fine if you only expect deranged auspol left whingers to read the article, but IMO it's going to put off a wider audience with how casually the article asserts most capitalists are in it, it sounds like a conspiracy itself. This is loving way too long already. But the final thing is the accessibility of the article is god awful. It's a huge wall of text without even a table of contents so far as I could see. Even just as basic courtesy to your expected reader, the article should be broken down into sub articles talking about specific periods, so that a reader can pick it up, read a part, think about it, then come back and read more. IMO it's actually not necessary for a reader to learn about the illuminati or a book from the 1920's if they just want to know who is pushing the buttons now, the article should accommodate that by being split up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 05:11
|
|
|
Hey all I’m running a book on what the response will be to the above, so start placing bets
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 06:01
|
|
|
hambeet posted:Hey all I’m running a book on what the response will be to the above, so start placing bets What's the payout for something about strawmen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
Captain Theron posted:What's the payout for something about strawmen? $1.50
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 06:20
|
|
|
hambeet posted:Hey all I’m running a book on what the response will be to the above, so start placing bets $10 on 'hey thanks for the feedback, this is really helpful. I'll take this on board and make some changes you suggested!'
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 07:06
|
|
|
hambeet posted:Hey all I’m running a book on what the response will be to the above, so start placing bets is the book longer than bucky's article
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 08:12
|
|
|
Hello, Auspol. Please shut the hell up about QAnon and conspiracy theories. Thank you. ~The management
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 13:07
|
|
|
awesome, very kind, thank you. I think the typography depends on the context of the particular sentence / paragraph. Like if you're reading it out, you don't say it with the same emphasis every time. But if it's a distraction I'll see if I can tidy it up a bit for consistency's sake. The intro seems fair enough? "So today we’re going to look at the roots of some of the divisive lies that have done so much damage", and that's exactly what we do, in more or less the order described. To explain Q you have to talk about pizzagate, to explain pizzagate you have to talk about Alex Jones, to explain Alex Jones you have to talk about the JBS / CNP, to explain the JBS / CNP you have to talk about Nesta Webster, to explain Nesta Webster you have to talk about the Eediot Jedi posted:IMO, my suggested changes are to clarify the scope of your article to a history of Qanan & co and to nix how you are currently introducing the illuminati, French Revolution etc. You're giving me a bit of a head-gently caress here, because that kind of order, and the subject/object of a paragraph, is something I agonise over, and I can see your point, but I do think it's right the way it is. The kingdom of Bavaria (thanks Recoome) with the Illuminati is tough to beat as a starting point, rather than "so there there were these two books, which were written because of the french revolution, which was.." etc Eediot Jedi posted:When I talk about sweeping biotruths/evolution/pop psychology, I mean things like, I mean, none of that is really in dispute. There is plenty of literature that does address the psychology of conspiracy theories, much of which is actually cited, and this is a pretty fair distillation of all of them. You want me to explain the differences in what a brain had to deal with 100 years ago, or 1,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, compared to now? I guess you can call it pop, sure, cos it's some guy's medium article, maybe that's kind of the point. quote:Keeping in mind I bailed early on your article so I could be doing you dirty Ah ok well that makes some sense. Would love to hear your thoughts if you read the whole thing. quote:The article doesn't talk about the psychology of conspiracies in a credible way, about the social, economic or personal factors that make some people more vulnerable to them, some people reject them, how people can be recruited into them, how people leave them, with references to actual researched scientific literature. Again, there is plenty of that already out there, which the piece does reference and touch on itself. It's all reasonably well understood. What there isn't, is any explanation of how Q started, which is what we're doing here. quote:the final thing is the accessibility of the article is god awful. It's a huge wall of text without even a table of contents so far as I could see. Even just as basic courtesy to your expected reader, the article should be broken down into sub articles talking about specific periods, so that a reader can pick it up, read a part, think about it, then come back and read more. IMO it's actually not necessary for a reader to learn about the illuminati or a book from the 1920's if they just want to know who is pushing the buttons now, the article should accommodate that by being split up. Did it have the 15 sections when you read it? Cos you're right, but it has sections now, which hopefully makes it more digestible. And surely it's a well-illustrated wall of text at least. The main question is whether people feel that the screenshots of the Q-watching journalists being dickheads about all this distracts from the rest of the story. Because it's all true and important, but I think it's a bit of an albatross that gets in the way with the controversy. But maybe you need to be pretty involved with the scene to recognise any of it anyway. Anyway appreciate the feedback and glad to know there's no actual errors found.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Hello, Auspol. Please shut the hell up about QAnon and conspiracy theories. Thank you. ~The management our politics have been affected by conspiracy-based propaganda so it a completely reasonable thing to discuss
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 13:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
Yeah but if you wanna use the thread as a instant chat room you could atleast join discord or something to discuss your authorship. Don't wanna drown out events such as Scott Morrison fleeing to Italy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 13:28
|
|
