|
Nolanar posted:Glad you're back, PJ. Your posts are always enlightening. Oh god yes. It's horrible, the entire movement is at each other's throats whenever there isn't something big enough going on to keep everyone'should attention. In that vein let me present one of the very choicest bits of hilarity that the Trutherism movement has ever produced. (Phoneposting so I can't quote.) The back story on this article is that Jessie Ventura tried to interview David Icke for his TV show. The interview did not go well as both men are unhinged egomaniacs and they wound up in a legendary screaming match. This article is David Icke writing his side of the story. It reads like an immature 7th grader doing a decent takedown of their equally immature classmate. I present to you in all its glory Jesse Ventura: Pet Detective. I recommend savoring it with a fine scotch.
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I realise that when we're talking about 'evidence' for something as far out as this, there aren't exactly going to be peer researched papers in Nature or something, but what specifically leads people to settle on 4th dimensional reptilian aliens as an antagonist rather than something more mundane and credible. Where is the evidence for aliens specifically rather than say, "it's all Masons|Jews|Bilderbergers|etc"? It depends largely on the individual's personal tastes. Which form the ultimate puppetmaster behind the while conspuracy takes is more a matter pf personal conveniance than anything else. I was raised in a doomsday cult that taught me that demons were real, so making the switch from demons to Reptilian Aliens as the ultimate evil was pretty natural. It isnt about evidence, it is about confirmation bias. There isn't any better evidence for Reptilian Aliens than there is for any of the other nonsense that gets bandied about in the movement. It's all about each person constructing their own personal tapestry of a variety of conspiracy theories.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
If you want to feel some completely justified outrage at the conspiracy crowd then I would direct your attention to this here video of Alex Jones wherein he explains that the LGBT community has the blood of these innocent victims on their hands. He explains that this attack has been caused by the fake persecution that the LGBT community has pretended that it lives under. No, seriously, that is his justification. (He claims early in the video that this attacker killed more LGBT people than all homophobia in the United States has killed in the last 50+ years combined) I recommend a strong whiskey sours to accompany this video and heartily discourage anyone from taking the health risk of viewing it while sober. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53nxo-KQ-Sc
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Quift posted:You are right. I don't mean people who are actually atheists that claim some sort of "satanist contrarian philosophy" which are most people that claim they are satanists, occultism etc. Nor do I refer to pagans who are generally polytheistic or animist. As a diagnosed schizophrenic all I can say is that this is exactly how I used to think pre medication and therapy. My first account on this form used to make post exactly like this actually, and got deservedly probated quite a bit for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Did you ever see any of the Kyoon posts? Is that style of thinking familiar to you? He seemed text book paranoid schizophrenic, buuuut I'm not a shrink so yeah Honestly I never made it more than a paragraph into a kyoon post before thinking "there but for the grace of God goes Prester Jane". So I can't really comment very much on him, outside of saying that he certainly wrote like a schizophrenic to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Your basic argument here seems to be that because this individual is able to derive a mathematical formula here, then there must be some sort of universal underlying mathematical formula that ties all things together, even if this particular example perfectly complete. This argument allows you to claim all kinds of wild things as evidence or proof for your thesis, whilst ignoring whenever a particular piece of "evidence" whenever it does not turn out to be true because you're not trying to prove the individual claim of a particular piece of evidence, you're trying to prove that because there's so many different pieces of evidence they all must mean something . This faulty structural logic that underlies your argument is what I feel that many in this thread are objecting to, Quift. You are essentially taking a position wear whatever evidence you offered to support it does not actually have to pan out to be true, you think that the simple act of being able to offer any form of evidence whatsoever proves your general thesis. As a result meaningfully disagreeing or debating with you is impossible, because you don't actually care whether your evidence is correct or not. You only care that some form of what you consider evidence exists, and you're not trying to prove a specific mathematical formula so much as you're trying to prove that there must be one. Also your belief structure seemingly carries the imolication that if one could understand and recognize this underlying mathematical formula then one would have access to incredible insight into the world. Or rather, some sort of Godlike power is possible if one only understands the formula that God used to create the world. Many posters will perceive this as an example of magical thinking. With all that said Quift please allow me to add to the chorus of voices who are encouraging you to seek professional Mental Health help. I'm coming from this as a diagnosed schizophrenic that sees a great deal of the same type of logic and belief structures in your writing as what my own belief structure and arguments word before I was formally diagnosed and sought treatment. Although there are a few people trolling you here, (as you should expect from an internet message board), I would say that their are also a good number of posters in this thread that are genuinely concerned for you, and are suggesting you seek professional help in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
blowfish posted:hey now, we the goons of the something awful internet kkkomedy forums have been very proactive about warning about the world about the internet (which makes you stupid), by producing several moderately well known forums murderers and pedos, slenderman, and 4chan Lets not forget that time we accidentally created the hacktivist branch of anonymous.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
blowfish posted:While it's generally included in 4chan, when was that? Back during the early days of Chanology the website that wound up becoming the most central place for coordinating the effort (Enturbulation.org) was run by goons. A fair bit of Goon culture and technical knowhow was used to turn the incredibly rough nature of the early 'chans into an organized/competent force with decent PR.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:.... are you calling me a dummy? Extremely intelligent people can be just as good of marks as dumb ones. In point of fact the highly intelligent are much easier better targets for manipulation overall because once you hook them they will do a surprising amount of the necessary lying for you, all on their own. Source: My Father was a confidence man. Edit: Dog Jones posted:Why are you eager to throw someone in prison when you don't know if they are guilty or not? We are eager to see a man stand trial for potentially raping two women, it is up to the Swedish Courts whether he goes to prison or not. 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. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Thanks, though that article was worthless I did find some other interesting describing what an rear end in a top hat Assange is. A person like my Father would take you for everything you have. Like I said above, when intelligent people bite the hook they do a bunch of the necessary self deception for you. Also Assange could have turned himself in at the start of this all and avoided the entire thing. Your entire objection is basically you doing a quick re-write of history. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
As it turns out the post was also too long to read. Seriously, if you are going to strait up admit that you do not care enough about your work to bother with 5 minutes of proof-reading then it is obvious your work is not worth my time as a reader.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Come on cut me some slack man I'm trying to talk to a ton of people at once. I think it should be perfectly readable! I'm only holding you to my own posting standards. I have had a number of large threads over the years that were primarily the entire thread responding to me and frequently my responses were about probably quadruple the length of the post in question here. Edit: Granted, sometimes my own proofreading was a bit lacking, but I never ended a post with "fuckit, this is too long to proofread". Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Jones' time is coming, he's only lasted this long because he's so good at adapting to new situations. 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.) 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 06:16
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Dog Jones is making really low quality arguments but the rest of you are just arguing in bad faith. I'm gonna go with "rational scepticism" of anyone even knows what the gently caress they are talking about regarding Assange. May I ask how specifically I am arguing in bad faith?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:You brought up your dad being a con man to invoke authority on the subject of Dog Jones being an easily conned gullible idiot. 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. Mercrom 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. So again I ask you, can you provide an example of where I argued with Dog Jones in bad faith?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Like I said earlier, highly intelligent people will often do most of the confidence man's work for him once they have bitten onto the hook.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
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:
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:\ 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
|
|
|
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.) 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I have also been in the situation he's in to a lesser extent. Trying to argue with every point leads to no focus and ultimately no argument. Like this: Mercrom posted:]b\I don't feel like fully reading all his posts so you might be right.[/b] But he brings up points that look good at face value, and since they aren't answered, they look even better. But then again I don't even know what the discussion is about. It seems to revolve around Assange's decision making, the explanation to which I think seems simple. He doesn't know if he'll be okay if he steps outside the embassy. The next natural question is if you are not even fully reading a conversation that you admit you know almost nothing about, why are you trying to participate in it? Mercrom posted: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. And yet you admit that you haven't actually read what Dog Jones is posting nor do you understand enough about the situation to appreciate the context of the responses addressed to him. What more is there really to say in addressing your posts in this discussion? (Not trying to be an rear end here) You started off by declaring that everyone debating Dog Jones was doing so in bad faith and then a few posts later conceded you have neither fully read the conversation nor have any understanding of the topic under discussion. You readily admit have no grounds for your blanket judgment of everyone debating with Dog Jones but went ahead and posted it anyways. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:more meaningless Assange was facing rape allegations in Sweden. When he learned of this he fled Sweden for the UK. While in the UK he was arrested because of the allegations he was facing in Sweden. Assange begged his supporters for bail, and as soon as the money was raised he skipped bail and went into hiding in the Ecudorian embassy. Just because you want to pretend that his choices were made "under duress" does not remove his agency nor excuse his actions. Assange chose to run from rape allegations and you are choosing to defend that decision. Using your logic every single person charged with something could justifiably go into exile because they are "under duress". (That duress being the fact that there are allegations against them.) Just because you and "many observers" all want to circle jerk each other and pretend that Assange's hand was forced does not make it a reasonable position to hold, it just makes you all collectively wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
If I took the time to disprove one of your base assumptions you would simply claim that was never actually one of your assumptions. It would be a waste of my time, let me show you why. (I could actually do this all day because you constantly contradict your own underlying assumptions about things and even misrepresent your own words when the mood suits you, but let me whip out a couple quick examples.) Take a look at these quotes where you contradict yourself both on the whether or not the rape allegations are false AND whether or not Assange has agency in his actions.Dog Jones posted:Thanks, though that article was worthless I did find some other interesting describing what an rear end in a top hat Assange is. Dog Jones posted:Assange and his supporters view exile as the only alternative to facing extradition and imprisonment at the hands of fabricated rape charges and possible extradition to the US to face even more damning criminal charges which could result in life in prison or even execution. Dog Jones posted:Why do you say Assange's motivating factor is his certainty that he will be convicted? I think you just made that up. Like I said I'm pretty sure the idea that Assange and his supporters put forth is that the rape charges are baseless and the real concern is extradition to the US Dog Jones posted:Assange's exile is not the result of the mechanisms of any individual society, it is the result of geopolitical factors. You're right that it is not Assange's personal conviction which is allowing him to avoid detention by the Swede's, instead it is the result of the geopolitical situation he is immersed in. Dog Jones posted:First of all I'd like to point out the disturbing fact that you seem to think that rape and consensual sex are equivalent. Second, I was not claiming that the rape charges are fabricated. I was illustrating to you that from the point of view of Assange and his supporters, he is not in willing exile. From their perspective, Assange has been forced into exile by arbitrary attempts by authority figures operating in bad faith to imprison and kill him. Dog Jones posted:
Engaging in a deep discussion with you is inherently worthless because your goal is not interlocution, your goal is to exhaust your opponent with nonsense and endless contradictions. You seek to win some sort of victory here by sandbagging everyone who responds to you rather than engage in a fruitful discussion. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
As soon as Assange was out on bail he fled to the embassy. That makes his begging for bail money a scam. You see the idea of bail is that you give the courts a sum of money that they will return to you once you have stood trial so that you do not have to incarcerated while awaiting trial. If you skip on bail that is a crime. If you beg people for bail money and then skip bail then you scammed the people who paid your bail. Now lets see you address my previous post where I illustrate how readily you contradict yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Good stuff. I just wanted to say fishmech that over the past few months your posting has dramatically improved. Posts like the one above are a really great example of your strengths as a writer and a thinker. I just wanted to voice a bit of public appreciation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
The Chairman posted:What the gently caress is going on His Inner Narrative is starting to leak out because his Outer Narrative has been thoroughly shattered. Its basically the forums equivalent of what you see happening in these two videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upteyG0ZykM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60nC_3RQZqo Fake Edit: boner confessor posted:
Basically this, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:You are wrong Prester Jane, your lack of imagination has led you to neglect a universe of possibilties which would necessarily mean that the bail-campaign was not a scam even in light of the argument you provided. Your argument is worthless, due to this obvious logical oversight: Actually his actions are all the evidence I need to prove that the bail begging was a scam. He skipped bail the first moment he could, that is all the evidence I need. I don't need a crystal ball to know that he intended to skip bail the moment he could or that his donors were flabbergasted and angered by his choice. Let me put it this way, if I shoot someone in cold blood and they die then I have committed a violent crime. Whether I intended for them to die from the bullets I was shooting at them is actually irrelevant. Intentions mean jack poo poo, actions and decisions are what I study. And the actions of Assange are very clear and not really open to interpretation, as soon as he made bail he fled. Therefor he scammed the people who paid his bail. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
The contradictions are that you argued that the rape allegations might be false, then you backpeddled and claimed you had never argued that. You also argued that Assange had been forced into exile by geopolitical circumstances beyond his control and was mostly a powerless victim in his situation, and then you later argued that you had never tried to downplay the agency Assange had in this situation. You change your argument and your base assumptions the moment someone tries to pin you to specifics. You make constant inferences but almost never directly take a real stance so that you can keep playing your Glenn Beck-esque game of "just asking questions". (And even when you do take a direct stance on something you will pretend that never happened the moment it is convenient for you to do so.) That is why engaging you with anything more than short post pointing out the most obvious contradictions in your arguments is worthless. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
I mean what you are saying would be pretty uncontroversial at godlikeproductions or Breitbart or maybe even Freep, but it seems like here on SA what you are saying is pretty controversial. Dog Jones posted:This isn't surprising to me because I can't imagine Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy solely to avoid the rape charges. And here you unintentionally reveal the faulty a priori assumption that all of your arguments have been based on: "I can't imagine that my hero would do something bad like hide from rape allegations, so therefor he could not possibly be in the wrong. QED." Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Dog Jones is juuuuuuuuust about to the "bowl of spaghetti-logic" stage where he posts a bunch of incomprehensibly strange ramblings that contradict themselves in the same sentence while insulting everyone who dared to disagree with his stunning intellect. I can't wait to see what gold his meltdown will bring the forums. In fairness though, Dog Jones really should not be permitted to clog the thread with his nonsense for much longer. While he is being a useful example of how conspiracy theorists think and why it is worthless to engage them with facts, he is also shutting down all non Dog Jones oriented conversation in the thread and will eventually make the thread unreadable if this continues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:The fact that you are able to do poo poo like that with a straight face and then go on to talk authoritatively on the quality of discourse and the way any group of people thinks about the world is an embodiment of the lie of your self-esteem and your remarkable determination to avoid introspection. With projection like that I could make "Project Blue Beam" a reality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Speaking of lizard people, does anyone know when David Icke started pushing the lizard people conspiracy? I know he became famous for it in the 90's but wonder if he'd started spreading it earlier. Like say just after hit SF mini series V had stopped its original run. Icke first started with the reptilian stuff in his book "The Robots Rebellion" published in 1994, about 4 years after his famous appearance on the Wogan show where he declared himself a "son of the godhead". Although Icke is by far the person who has done the most to spread the reptilian material, he is not really the inventor of it so much as he is the person who created the most viral form of the theory. Reptilian Conspiracy theories were nothing new before David Icke, they were however rather rare. (Even amongst the oldschool UFO types the whole reptilian thing was regarded as the territory of fringe nuts.) The version of the theory that Icke peddles is mostly lifted from Credo Mutwa, a man who claims he is the last true Zulu Shaman and the keeper of the true history of the human race. Credo had created his own version of the reptilian theory long before Icke came onto the scene, but he and his theory were mostly a local sideshow in South Africa. And then one of the students of Credo noticed similarities between Icke's theories and Credo's invented fables and the result of that was this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apWOUNOx64 The entire thing is over 6 hours long and is so non-stop nutty that it really isn't even possible to mention any highlights, it is all batshit. The above video however is the single most important source for the current version of the reptilians theory. Other more minor conspiracy theorists ( most notably Jordan Maxwell, Michael Tsarion, and Alex Collier) If you want a good example of a full blown high-compaction Narrativist from the Paranoid Cluster, then you really can do no better than this video right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP4-ZFo6qAs Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Modrasone posted:Alex Jones has had to do a calm-the-gently caress-down Pizzagate video after this, which pretty shows how nuts it's all getting. So where are we at now? The Internet is capable of speeding up compaction cycles to such an extent that the process of compaction and its accompanying development of the Inner Narrative can be now observed in real time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
To return this thread to its original intent I pressent to you all a big hokning hit of the good poo poo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEUHfDz2ZEY You can literally skip to any portion of this video and you will find an equally hilarious stream of nonsense which exists in complete discoennection to any other stream of nonsense you will otherwise stumble upon. If you don't believe me then play this game with yourself: Skip forwards or backwards randomly 4-6 times, landing upon any point in this video you like. You will find a completely novel stream of nonsense being confidently explained to you by the most sanctimonious bullshit artist you have ever heard at every point, and you will furhter have no idea how any of them are supposed to tie together into some sort of theme. Michael Tsarion is truly a treat for the connoisseur of conspiracy snakeoil- only someone well versed in a variety of conspiracy theorists can truly appreciate just how good this rear end in a top hat is at reading and manipulating his target audience into believing that they are incredible geniuses for sitting there and nodding in agreement with every irrational statement he makes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 04:22
|
|