Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on April 05, 2020, 03:19:03 PM
-
I love every word,every letter of this book.
Everyone should read it
“The premise of this book is very simple. These false conspiracy theories are a problem. They hurt individuals by affecting their life choices, in terms of money, health, and social interactions. They hurt society by distracting from the very real problems of corruption and decreasing citizens’ genuine participation in democracy. False conspiracy theories are real problems and we can and should do something about them. This book discusses the nature of the problem, why people get sucked in, how they get out, and what pragmatic things can be done to help individuals escape the conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
The key themes of this book are:”
• Understanding the conspiracy theory rabbit hole
• Realizing that conspiracy theorists are just normal people
• Developing a clear understanding of what they are thinking and why
• Fostering trust and mutual respect
• Finding areas of agreement and recognizing their genuine concerns
• Identifying mistakes in their beliefs, or areas where they lack information
• Exposing them to new information to help them gain a more fact-based perspective
• Doing it all with honesty and openness
• Giving it time”
-
Give it to gmail andgarlic
-
There is no getting around conspiracy theories if we no longer have a shared facts. It’s an unbridgeable chasm IMO. It’s quite terrifying this power to shape thought.
-
There is no getting around conspiracy theories if we no longer have a shared facts. It’s an unbridgeable chasm IMO. It’s quite terrifying this power to shape thought.
You need to read the book.
To some extent everyone is a conspiracy theorist, only the intensity matters
-
There is no getting around conspiracy theories if we no longer have a shared facts. It’s an unbridgeable chasm IMO. It’s quite terrifying this power to shape thought.
You need to read the book.
To some extent everyone is a conspiracy theorist, only the intensity matters
I'll see where I can find it. The library is closed.
I think conspiracy theories and persecution complex are an item. Where you find one, the other one is there - lurking sometimes, but usually openly.
-
There is no getting around conspiracy theories if we no longer have a shared facts. It’s an unbridgeable chasm IMO. It’s quite terrifying this power to shape thought.
You need to read the book.
To some extent everyone is a conspiracy theorist, only the intensity matters
I'll see where I can find it. The library is closed.
I think conspiracy theories and persecution complex are an item. Where you find one, the other one is there - lurking sometimes, but usually openly.
The Left-Right divide is a study in applied conspiracy theory. My take is while the alt-Right's persecution complex is unparalleled, most of the hard Left is equally unhinged. You are right it's a chasm no handshake or BBI can salvage. Time will take care of it along with everything else.
-
Here's the book.
Please give it a try and I'm sure you attitude towards conspiracy theories will change.
-
Mine is complicated. I agree with Robina except for how we might define the hard left.
I mean, yes, the cancel culture/SJW college/high-school kids are unhinged, I agree. But alt-right is in a league of its own, IMO. Those guys want a Whites-only state. No one on the cultural left goes that crazy, IMO, and I say this as a severe critic of the cultural left, whom I consider often dangerous but not in the sense I consider the Alt-right dangerous. That's why they have things like mass-shootings among adherents. They are only comparable to actual terrorist groups, like Al-shabaab et al, IMO. Not other political fringes, not even the Tea-Party/Far-Right. Even the worst left identitarians on the Democratic side, whom I genuinely loathe and who weaponized woke politics (the weaponizers are typically mainstream too, btw, not 'hard left' at least in the economic sense), cannot be accused of anything on the level of 'White women ain't having babies coz evil Jews,' and 'Blacks/Browns shouldn't exist in this country.' If they are not genuinely insane, these guys are evil. Mungiki level.
I think the problem is many on the Left go so far as to class all Republicans secret alt-righters. But that's a mistake: Just like on the left, there are many different interests on the Right who vote for Trump or the Right in general for distinct reasons, and many who belong to just one or two of these camps. Trump was just wily enough to give each of them something to get them to back him enthusiastically before or after the 2016 general (he has since consolidated some Tea-Party and Corporate Never-Trumpers since 2016, I know this for sure), i.e. He has delivered something for these four interest camps: (1) The Corporatists/Mainstream/Warmongers, (2) Christian Conservatives, (3) Tea-Partiers (the true 'Far-Right' or 'constitutional conservatives' as they call themselves), and (4) Alt-Righters. The wall was for the Alt-Righters, the SCOTUS and Federal judges were for both Christian Pro-lifers and Tea-Partiers, and the war-posturing and tax-cuts have been for the Corporate-backed, warmongering political mainstream.
IMO, there's no Left equivalent for the Alt-Right. The Tea-Party 'enemies' on the left would be the Economic populists. Interestingly, they both oppose both the Dem and Rep corporatist warmongers (who in reality are each others' friendly rivals, not enemies, like they pretend to be to get votes), while the cultural left, you might say, are opposed to/by Christian or just Traditionalist cultural conservatives (I've actually found there are many non-Christian Traditionalists, even from other religions, supporting the Right on the same basis). When you find non-Whites on the Right, they are typically in one or two or all these three camps. Which is why I say the Alt-Right has no left counterpart: their 'enemies' are literally non-White people. It's not just an ideological/policy fight where they take the opposite stances as some left policy, they literally just want the U.S. to be an ethnostate. And like Al-Qaeeda, et al, their ambitions are pretty global: Just anywhere there are white people, these guys want everyone else to vanish. It's no wonder they have so many shooters and lone-terrorists. The best thing is they are fringe even on the right, in the sense that many will not want to publicly get labeled one. The worst thing is they've moved pretty steadily towards the mainstream since 2015, which is super scary.
-
There is no getting around conspiracy theories if we no longer have a shared facts. It’s an unbridgeable chasm IMO. It’s quite terrifying this power to shape thought.
You need to read the book.
To some extent everyone is a conspiracy theorist, only the intensity matters
I'll see where I can find it. The library is closed.
I think conspiracy theories and persecution complex are an item. Where you find one, the other one is there - lurking sometimes, but usually openly.
The Left-Right divide is a study in applied conspiracy theory. My take is while the alt-Right's persecution complex is unparalleled, most of the hard Left is equally unhinged. You are right it's a chasm no handshake or BBI can salvage. Time will take care of it along with everything else.
I can’t think of any Left conspiracy theories though. I am sure there are some. But agreed, the right has devolved into a cult and has been one in the making for some time.
-
Here's the book.
Please give it a try and I'm sure you attitude towards conspiracy theories will change.
Muchisimas thanks.
-
There is no getting around conspiracy theories if we no longer have a shared facts. It’s an unbridgeable chasm IMO. It’s quite terrifying this power to shape thought.
You need to read the book.
To some extent everyone is a conspiracy theorist, only the intensity matters
I'll see where I can find it. The library is closed.
I think conspiracy theories and persecution complex are an item. Where you find one, the other one is there - lurking sometimes, but usually openly.
The Left-Right divide is a study in applied conspiracy theory. My take is while the alt-Right's persecution complex is unparalleled, most of the hard Left is equally unhinged. You are right it's a chasm no handshake or BBI can salvage. Time will take care of it along with everything else.
I can’t think of any Left conspiracy theories though. I am sure there are some. But agreed, the right has devolved into a cult and has been one in the making for some time.
I think a good chunk of 911 theories came from the left
-
Simply put: IF YOU DISAGREE WITH anything the mainstream public/media/governments CLAIM AS FACT/TRUTH then you are a conspiracy theorist. It is generally used to label any arguments/claim which is disagreeable.
According to Paul Craig Roberts, https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/24/the-term-conspiracy-theory-was-invented-by-the-cia-in-order-to-prevent-disbelief-of-official-government-stories/ the term was promoted by the CIA to silence whoever did not believe official report on JFK death. He states;
In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press showed that the term “conspiracy theory” was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission’s report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA. https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theory-America-Discovering/dp/0292757697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471971025&sr=1-1&keywords=Conspiracy+Theory+in+America
And of course those who disagree with him would label such claims as conspiracy theory!
Remember there is genuine enquiry/investigation/research into some issue(s) based on "official/accepted" narrative and then presenting alternative version as accurate. In short QUESTIONING "official/generally accepted version". AND then there is OBSESSION with questioning everything and presenting alternative narrative even when it is not necessary to. The latter is unhealthy. The former acceptable and reasonable.
The book seems to dwell on "unhealthy/obsession.." and in the process it becomes another 'conspiracy theory' to silence any inquiry of anything "generally accepted" as self evident truth.
Here's the book.
Please give it a try and I'm sure you attitude towards conspiracy theories will change.
-
You must be joking. Have you seriously gone through 911 truth seekers arguments? Including models? Including professionals in such field as architect, engineers, demolition experts and so many others?
I think a good chunk of 911 theories came from the left
-
You must be joking. Have you seriously gone through 911 truth seekers arguments? Including models? Including professionals in such field as architect, engineers, demolition experts and so many others?
Who hurt? You are a nut job.
I think a good chunk of 911 theories came from the left
-
Simply put: IF YOU DISAGREE WITH anything the mainstream public/media/governments CLAIM AS FACT/TRUTH then you are a conspiracy theorist. It is generally used to label any arguments/claim which is disagreeable.
According to Paul Craig Roberts, https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/24/the-term-conspiracy-theory-was-invented-by-the-cia-in-order-to-prevent-disbelief-of-official-government-stories/ the term was promoted by the CIA to silence whoever did not believe official report on JFK death. He states;
In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press showed that the term “conspiracy theory” was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission’s report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA. https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theory-America-Discovering/dp/0292757697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471971025&sr=1-1&keywords=Conspiracy+Theory+in+America
And of course those who disagree with him would label such claims as conspiracy theory!
Remember there is genuine enquiry/investigation/research into some issue(s) based on "official/accepted" narrative and then presenting alternative version as accurate. In short QUESTIONING "official/generally accepted version". AND then there is OBSESSION with questioning everything and presenting alternative narrative even when it is not necessary to. The latter is unhealthy. The former acceptable and reasonable.
The book seems to dwell on "unhealthy/obsession.." and in the process it becomes another 'conspiracy theory' to silence any inquiry of anything "generally accepted" as self evident truth.
Here's the book.
Please give it a try and I'm sure you attitude towards conspiracy theories will change.
The term conspiracy theory was invented decades before the alleged CIA document
This is the problem of feeding on garbage. There’s a paragraph or two about conspiracy theory conspiracy theories
-
You must be joking. Have you seriously gone through 911 truth seekers arguments? Including models? Including professionals in such field as architect, engineers, demolition experts and so many others?
I think a good chunk of 911 theories came from the left
The book takes you less than a day to chew. Why bark over something you’ve never read?
Read the book first
-
I think a good chunk of 911 theories came from the left
Which ones? I don't consider, "911 was used as a pretext for regime-change wars in the ME," a conspiracy theory by any measure. It is emperical fact. If you're referring to "911 was a CIA hoax" variety, I believe I've seen that from Alex Jones and some groups of Musilms, the latter sometimes pushing the "Jews did 911".
Rather, the conspiracy theory Democrats have been pushing mchana kutwa is Russiagate. The idea that Russia somehow cost Hillary the presidency and that Trump is a Putin plant/minion is ridiculous. Respectable people only give it a thought because they hear it from pundits on MSNBC and CNN and can't fathom these guys are not an inch more integral than Fox, so they assume it's been supported, somehow.
-
Mine is complicated. I agree with Robina except for how we might define the hard left.
I mean, yes, the cancel culture/SJW college/high-school kids are unhinged, I agree. But alt-right is in a league of its own, IMO. Those guys want a Whites-only state. No one on the cultural left goes that crazy, IMO, and I say this as a severe critic of the cultural left, whom I consider often dangerous but not in the sense I consider the Alt-right dangerous. That's why they have things like mass-shootings among adherents. They are only comparable to actual terrorist groups, like Al-shabaab et al, IMO. Not other political fringes, not even the Tea-Party/Far-Right. Even the worst left identitarians on the Democratic side, whom I genuinely loathe and who weaponized woke politics (the weaponizers are typically mainstream too, btw, not 'hard left' at least in the economic sense), cannot be accused of anything on the level of 'White women ain't having babies coz evil Jews,' and 'Blacks/Browns shouldn't exist in this country.' If they are not genuinely insane, these guys are evil. Mungiki level.
I am just learning of some stuff like cancel culture. Why do you consider that unhinged? It looks to me like people protesting behavior they consider objectionable. That culture seems fine. You might object to how they go about it, but the concept seems okay.
I think the problem is many on the Left go so far as to class all Republicans secret alt-righters. But that's a mistake: Just like on the left, there are many different interests on the Right who vote for Trump or the Right in general for distinct reasons, and many who belong to just one or two of these camps. Trump was just wily enough to give each of them something to get them to back him enthusiastically before or after the 2016 general (he has since consolidated some Tea-Party and Corporate Never-Trumpers since 2016, I know this for sure), i.e. He has delivered something for these four interest camps: (1) The Corporatists/Mainstream/Warmongers, (2) Christian Conservatives, (3) Tea-Partiers (the true 'Far-Right' or 'constitutional conservatives' as they call themselves), and (4) Alt-Righters. The wall was for the Alt-Righters, the SCOTUS and Federal judges were for both Christian Pro-lifers and Tea-Partiers, and the war-posturing and tax-cuts have been for the Corporate-backed, warmongering political mainstream.
I think you downplay the racist aspect of Republicanism too much. It's out in the open. The only thing not happening are public lynchings. alt-right is the underbelly of the Republican party. There are probably differing degrees of it. But the tolerance for it is almost universal. "I am not a racist, even though I pretend not to see it because I look away when it happens" seems to be in play for a lot of the "moderate" Republicans.
It wasn't this bad during GW Bush, but even then you knew what Republicans are about. No, they won't say their party hates minorities obviously. But they do and say things where you know what they are about, just as surely as any Kenyan knows what Kimunya is about when he says "NSE is not a fish market". The audience understands the polite fiction.
IMO, there's no Left equivalent for the Alt-Right. The Tea-Party 'enemies' on the left would be the Economic populists. Interestingly, they both oppose both the Dem and Rep corporatist warmongers (who in reality are each others' friendly rivals, not enemies, like they pretend to be to get votes), while the cultural left, you might say, are opposed to/by Christian or just Traditionalist cultural conservatives (I've actually found there are many non-Christian Traditionalists, even from other religions, supporting the Right on the same basis). When you find non-Whites on the Right, they are typically in one or two or all these three camps. Which is why I say the Alt-Right has no left counterpart: their 'enemies' are literally non-White people. It's not just an ideological/policy fight where they take the opposite stances as some left policy, they literally just want the U.S. to be an ethnostate. And like Al-Qaeeda, et al, their ambitions are pretty global: Just anywhere there are white people, these guys want everyone else to vanish. It's no wonder they have so many shooters and lone-terrorists. The best thing is they are fringe even on the right, in the sense that many will not want to publicly get labeled one. The worst thing is they've moved pretty steadily towards the mainstream since 2015, which is super scary.
IMO the non-whites on the right are just outliers. In many cases, they serve as useful foils to legitimate accusations of racism.
-
Maybe I will find time and devour your newly discovered Bible on Conspiracy Theory. But just remember it ain't the only one written on the issue. And therefore it has no monopoly on the subject.
The term conspiracy theory was invented decades before the alleged CIA document
This is the problem of feeding on garbage. There’s a paragraph or two about conspiracy theory conspiracy theories
-
Maybe I will find time and devour your newly discovered Bible on Conspiracy Theory. But just remember it ain't the only one written on the issue. And therefore it has no monopoly on the subject.
The term conspiracy theory was invented decades before the alleged CIA document
This is the problem of feeding on garbage. There’s a paragraph or two about conspiracy theory conspiracy theories
Nobody said it was
-
To me, Regardless on who did 911 these guys have raised reasonable, sound and legitimate questions/doubts on the official story. And they have based it on science.
https://www.ae911truth.org/
I think a good chunk of 911 theories came from the left
Which ones? I don't consider, "911 was used as a pretext for regime-change wars in the ME," a conspiracy theory by any measure. It is emperical fact. If you're referring to "911 was a CIA hoax" variety, I believe I've seen that from Alex Jones and some groups of Musilms, the latter sometimes pushing the "Jews did 911".
Rather, the conspiracy theory Democrats have been pushing mchana kutwa is Russiagate. The idea that Russia somehow cost Hillary the presidency and that Trump is a Putin plant/minion is ridiculous. Respectable people only give it a thought because they hear it from pundits on MSNBC and CNN and can't fathom these guys are not an inch more integral than Fox, so they assume it's been supported, somehow.
-
To me, Regardless on who did 911 these guys have raised reasonable, sound and legitimate questions/doubts on the official story. And they have based it on science.
https://www.ae911truth.org/
I think a good chunk of 911 theories came from the left
Which ones? I don't consider, "911 was used as a pretext for regime-change wars in the ME," a conspiracy theory by any measure. It is emperical fact. If you're referring to "911 was a CIA hoax" variety, I believe I've seen that from Alex Jones and some groups of Musilms, the latter sometimes pushing the "Jews did 911".
Rather, the conspiracy theory Democrats have been pushing mchana kutwa is Russiagate. The idea that Russia somehow cost Hillary the presidency and that Trump is a Putin plant/minion is ridiculous. Respectable people only give it a thought because they hear it from pundits on MSNBC and CNN and can't fathom these guys are not an inch more integral than Fox, so they assume it's been supported, somehow.
You’d be surprised by the amount of intellectual dishonesty in these groups that is widely soared as ‘science’. I won’t give you spoilers though, read on.
Thing with CTs is they are a spectrum. 911 theories are no different and in I’m certain there is some serious garbage 911 claims you dismiss without a second thought. I used to be a truther and I recall making DVDs of Loose Change and sharing with my relatives sometimes in 2008 or thereabouts. How much you are sucked in depends on how narrow your source of information is.
-
I am just learning of some stuff like cancel culture. Why do you consider that unhinged? It looks to me like people protesting behavior they consider objectionable. That culture seems fine. You might object to how they go about it, but the concept seems okay.
I took issue with the comparison (between them and alt-right) precisely because I see them as fundamentally different and incomparable. One is essentially overcorrecting, aka, good intentions, whereas the other is literally about causing serious harm to entire groups of people. They'd be counterparts if they advocated, say, the displacement/eviction etc of White people as 'reparation' for historical wrongs done to non-Whites.
That said, there are serious problems with this crowd. Stuff like #metoo tends to a kind of mob justice and in some way, it even seems to target black men a lil more harshly than White guys. But, just as a matter of principle, I consider slogans like "Believe women" to be incredibly dangerous bs. Women lie too, they are not idiots or saints. We came up with courts and the concept of evidence to sort things out when two people make contradictory claims for a reason. Anything else is highly regressive. They even try to cancel comedians for crying out loud: Tried to do it to Chapelle late last year and it backfired bigtime coz he's too popular, but would've destroyed his ability to do comedy if it was someone else.
My other issue with it, besides the capacity for ruining actual lives on someone's word alone, like has happened to many college boys (when girls decide after sex that they weren't into it, after all), is its weaponization. No better example than Elizabeth Warren trying to #metoo Bernie Sanders with that 'He told me women can't win' bs that even MSNBC were like, Come on. Dude asked you to run for president in 2015 and only ran after you refused, campaigned for Hillary, and is on tape decades ago saying women can be president when it wasn't a social score. It's basically a bat people swing disingenuously at opponents in politics. So, no, I do not consider college kids screaming at speakers on their campus or protesting on behalf of minorities to be in anyway comparable to the alt-right, but I have a ton of criticism for them, especially those I consider fake SJWs, as in, using it for political mileage only but don't actually give two cents about minorities.
I think you downplay the racist aspect of Republicanism too much. It's out in the open. The only thing not happening are public lynchings. alt-right is the underbelly of the Republican party. There are probably differing degrees of it. But the tolerance for it is almost universal. "I am not a racist, even though I pretend not to see it because I look away when it happens" seems to be in play for a lot of the "moderate" Republicans.
It wasn't this bad during GW Bush, but even then you knew what Republicans are about. No, they won't say their party hates minorities obviously. But they do and say things where you know what they are about, just as surely as any Kenyan knows what Kimunya is about when he says "NSE is not a fish market". The audience understands the polite fiction.
....
IMO the non-whites on the right are just outliers. In many cases, they serve as useful foils to legitimate accusations of racism.
Yes, it's gotten more mainstream, that's for sure. And it's possible it's older (re the Kimunya fish example), but I also know conservatives who are terrified that if the SCOTUS goes super left, there will be jailings and future persecution for cultural conservatives. For this reason, they'll vote for anyone who promises them conservative judges. Everything else is less important to them. Now, I don't know what percentage this group is, maybe it's just 5%, but they exist. I don't consider people like George Bush racist, for example: his sins are of a different sort, corporatist warmonger is what he is. But dude tried to push immigration reform and did some good things for Africa's HIV fight, and his family have latinos in them.
Re non-White Republicans, besides paid shills like Candace Owens, many non-Whites on the Right are there for either cultural conservative reasons or they are Tea-Party ideologues like Ben Carson (He's obviously both, though), IMO. They aren't the majority group.
-
I would not be surprised. For
I have considered all those avenues. Severally. And no matter what the official narrative is simply unbelievable. But then people can believe anything; even after all the hype that 911 terrorists were Saudi Arabian nationals, George W. and his regime convinced their fellow citizens and beyond that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to it and had WMD, therefore Bush had to invade. Perfect science.
An explanation/narrative for an event can be changed several times and sheeple will believe every version even if they all versions contradict each other. That's the power of mass media...
One of my favourite movie is the MATRIX. For the gist of the storyline captures how majority are manipulated to believe/defend distorted reality and whoever else claim otherwise is a nut job or more fashionably, a Conspiracy Theorist. Mass media is instrumental in that "computer generated reality": the Matrix. As bitmask said one can have "a grudgingly admiration" for that.
You’d be surprised by the amount of intellectual dishonesty in these groups that is widely soared as ‘science’. I won’t give you spoilers though, read on.
Thing with CTs is they are a spectrum. 911 theories are no different and in I’m certain there is some serious garbage 911 claims you dismiss without a second thought. I used to be a truther and I recall making DVDs of Loose Change and sharing with my relatives sometimes in 2008 or thereabouts. How much you are sucked in depends on how narrow your source of information is.
-
I would not be surprised. For
I have considered all those avenues. Severally. And no matter what the official narrative is simply unbelievable. But then people can believe anything; even after all the hype that 911 terrorists were Saudi Arabian nationals, George W. and his regime convinced their fellow citizens and beyond that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to it and had WMD, therefore Bush had to invade. Perfect science.
An explanation/narrative for an event can be changed several times and sheeple will believe every version even if they all versions contradict each other. That's the power of mass media...
One of my favourite movie is the MATRIX. For the gist of the storyline captures how majority are manipulated to believe/defend distorted reality and whoever else claim otherwise is a nut job or more fashionably, a Conspiracy Theorist. Mass media is instrumental in that "computer generated reality": the Matrix. As bitmask said one can have "a grudgingly admiration" for that.
You’d be surprised by the amount of intellectual dishonesty in these groups that is widely soared as ‘science’. I won’t give you spoilers though, read on.
Thing with CTs is they are a spectrum. 911 theories are no different and in I’m certain there is some serious garbage 911 claims you dismiss without a second thought. I used to be a truther and I recall making DVDs of Loose Change and sharing with my relatives sometimes in 2008 or thereabouts. How much you are sucked in depends on how narrow your source of information is.
I have explored all 911 core conspiracy theories. As I said, I was there 11 years ago. To be frank they are all garbage.
Read the book and revert
-
I am just learning of some stuff like cancel culture. Why do you consider that unhinged? It looks to me like people protesting behavior they consider objectionable. That culture seems fine. You might object to how they go about it, but the concept seems okay.
I took issue with the comparison (between them and alt-right) precisely because I see them as fundamentally different and incomparable. One is essentially overcorrecting, aka, good intentions, whereas the other is literally about causing serious harm to entire groups of people. They'd be counterparts if they advocated, say, the displacement/eviction etc of White people as 'reparation' for historical wrongs done to non-Whites.
That said, there are serious problems with this crowd. Stuff like #metoo tends to a kind of mob justice and in some way, it even seems to target black men a lil more harshly than White guys. But, just as a matter of principle, I consider slogans like "Believe women" to be incredibly dangerous bs. Women lie too, they are not idiots or saints. We came up with courts and the concept of evidence to sort things out when two people make contradictory claims for a reason. Anything else is highly regressive. They even try to cancel comedians for crying out loud: Tried to do it to Chapelle late last year and it backfired bigtime coz he's too popular, but would've destroyed his ability to do comedy if it was someone else.
My other issue with it, besides the capacity for ruining actual lives on someone's word alone, like has happened to many college boys (when girls decide after sex that they weren't into it, after all), is its weaponization. No better example than Elizabeth Warren trying to #metoo Bernie Sanders with that 'He told me women can't win' bs that even MSNBC were like, Come on. Dude asked you to run for president in 2015 and only ran after you refused, campaigned for Hillary, and is on tape decades ago saying women can be president when it wasn't a social score. It's basically a bat people swing disingenuously at opponents in politics. So, no, I do not consider college kids screaming at speakers on their campus or protesting on behalf of minorities to be in anyway comparable to the alt-right, but I have a ton of criticism for them, especially those I consider fake SJWs, as in, using it for political mileage only but don't actually give two cents about minorities.
I think you downplay the racist aspect of Republicanism too much. It's out in the open. The only thing not happening are public lynchings. alt-right is the underbelly of the Republican party. There are probably differing degrees of it. But the tolerance for it is almost universal. "I am not a racist, even though I pretend not to see it because I look away when it happens" seems to be in play for a lot of the "moderate" Republicans.
It wasn't this bad during GW Bush, but even then you knew what Republicans are about. No, they won't say their party hates minorities obviously. But they do and say things where you know what they are about, just as surely as any Kenyan knows what Kimunya is about when he says "NSE is not a fish market". The audience understands the polite fiction.
....
IMO the non-whites on the right are just outliers. In many cases, they serve as useful foils to legitimate accusations of racism.
Yes, it's gotten more mainstream, that's for sure. And it's possible it's older (re the Kimunya fish example), but I also know conservatives who are terrified that if the SCOTUS goes super left, there will be jailings and future persecution for cultural conservatives. For this reason, they'll vote for anyone who promises them conservative judges. Everything else is less important to them. Now, I don't know what percentage this group is, maybe it's just 5%, but they exist. I don't consider people like George Bush racist, for example: his sins are of a different sort, corporatist warmonger is what he is. But dude tried to push immigration reform and did some good things for Africa's HIV fight, and his family have latinos in them.
Re non-White Republicans, besides paid shills like Candace Owens, many non-Whites on the Right are there for either cultural conservative reasons or they are Tea-Party ideologues like Ben Carson (He's obviously both, though), IMO. They aren't the majority group.
Sorry, I totally missed this. The layout of the forum can hide a few things. I understand your concerns about the Left's hardnose approach to some issues, e.g. believe women. That said, I think Kavanaugh specifically was guilty and I believe his accuser. But stuff like cancelling comedians, I am okay with that, as long as they do it fairly. Society in general will ostracize people when they have violated certain norms. Norms change from time to time.
About Republicans, George Bush for exmpale. I don't think he is personally a racist. In fact he has always seemed quite the opposite. But he still had to appeal to racists to win. He still had to be "tough on crime". A "law and order" candidate. Cut back on welfare and reward "hard working Americans". That is generally true for a lot of neocons. They have no problem with minorities, being more about American hegemony. But they need the racist masses to win.
-
I started reading it yesterday. I struggled through the introduction section, the one tells me how to read the damn book until I fell asleep. I hope this preamble is worth it.
-
Dismissing conspiracy theories as false, means you have perfect information which is totally impossible in a dynamic and vast universe.
Well researched Out of Shadows documentary is conspiracy to some and fils gaps for others.
-
Dismissing conspiracy theories as false, means you have perfect information which is totally impossible in a dynamic and vast universe.
Well researched Out of Shadows documentary is conspiracy to some and fils gaps for others.
You don't need perfect information to tell truth from lies or bullshiet, you need enough information
-
I started reading it yesterday. I struggled through the introduction section, the one tells me how to read the damn book until I fell asleep. I hope this preamble is worth it.
Conspiracy theories are not everyone's staple especially if you have never dabbled in any or you have never encountered anyone close to you ruined by them.
-
This is a simplistic parameter on judging anything in life. One can be ruined by just about anything. This is the key premise of conspiracy theory; that there are groups of people who choose what we condemn and what we praise.
Processed oils/fat, sugar/sodas, junk food is the shit behind corona deaths but try a health warning on sugar, soda or chips. Conspiracy claiming those on crack or marijuana are doing have space.
I started reading it yesterday. I struggled through the introduction section, the one tells me how to read the damn book until I fell asleep. I hope this preamble is worth it.
Conspiracy theories are not everyone's staple especially if you have never dabbled in any or you have never encountered anyone close to you ruined by them.
-
I started reading it yesterday. I struggled through the introduction section, the one tells me how to read the damn book until I fell asleep. I hope this preamble is worth it.
Conspiracy theories are not everyone's staple especially if you have never dabbled in any or you have never encountered anyone close to you ruined by them.
I will plow on. Still I think some conspiracy theories are harmless, even funny. I have known an otherwise sane and decent guy who believed the Russians had several divisions hidden inside the US ready to strike at any moment with the collusion of the CIA. You could not disabuse him of that idea. But he is okay and functional.
-
I started reading it yesterday. I struggled through the introduction section, the one tells me how to read the damn book until I fell asleep. I hope this preamble is worth it.
Conspiracy theories are not everyone's staple especially if you have never dabbled in any or you have never encountered anyone close to you ruined by them.
I will plow on. Still I think some conspiracy theories are harmless, even funny. I have known an otherwise sane and decent guy who believed the Russians had several divisions hidden inside the US ready to strike at any moment with the collusion of the CIA. You could not disabuse him of that idea. But he is okay and functional.
Agreed. You’ll see the same sentiments there. You lose nothing by being a flat-earth buff other than failing some geography and science units if you are still in school
-
Says whom/what?
This is a simplistic parameter on judging anything in life. One can be ruined by just about anything. This is the key premise of conspiracy theory; that there are groups of people who choose what we condemn and what we praise.
Processed oils/fat, sugar/sodas, junk food is the shit behind corona deaths but try a health warning on sugar, soda or chips. Conspiracy claiming those on crack or marijuana are doing have space.
I started reading it yesterday. I struggled through the introduction section, the one tells me how to read the damn book until I fell asleep. I hope this preamble is worth it.
Conspiracy theories are not everyone's staple especially if you have never dabbled in any or you have never encountered anyone close to you ruined by them.
-
Diabete, Cancer and cardiovascular diseases are pre-existing medical conditions (comorbidities) showing higher death rates. These cormobidities have been linked to processed oils/fat, sugar/sodas, junk food.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30136-3/fulltext
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
Says whom/what?
This is a simplistic parameter on judging anything in life. One can be ruined by just about anything. This is the key premise of conspiracy theory; that there are groups of people who choose what we condemn and what we praise.
Processed oils/fat, sugar/sodas, junk food is the shit behind corona deaths but try a health warning on sugar, soda or chips. Conspiracy claiming those on crack or marijuana are doing have space.
I started reading it yesterday. I struggled through the introduction section, the one tells me how to read the damn book until I fell asleep. I hope this preamble is worth it.
Conspiracy theories are not everyone's staple especially if you have never dabbled in any or you have never encountered anyone close to you ruined by them.