The "Awakening"... and the future of opinions.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2012, 03:26 PM
The "Awakening"... and the future of opinions.
Wether you believe in them or not, wether you love them or hate them ... it would appear that more and more people are starting to question the world around them and how it operates. I would say that the internet has had a lot to do with this, the sharing of information and opinions in a way that cant easily be controlled by the people who govern you

When I was growing up in the 80s and late 90s there was no such information out there, in fact the way you accessed information was a lot different (through buying books, visiting the library, going to school etc etc) and whilst I understand conspiracy theorists were out there at that time .... I never knew about them until I started looking into these realms myself.

The kids growing up today have access to massive amounts of information via the internet, they are growing up with it and almost no matter where you go now on the net, the chances are you will find a conspiracy theorist or someone who isnt prepared to accept the official story or who have doubts.

I have watched so many investigative journalists rise on the internet, you can look up "we are change" on the internet and see them asking some real tough questions that the mainstream would NO WAY cover.

The news provider "Russia Today" have some very interesting programmes on, they cover subjects and interview people who again... the mainstream would no way cover.

Heres a taster of a few programmes what im talking about.







Its gonna be interesting to see how people opinions pan out over the next ten years.
Thoughts?

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2012, 07:12 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2012 07:28 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: The "Awakening"... and the future of opinions.
I'm only going to address the first video since economics isn't my forte.

I'm not convinced from watching that video alone that the US military has ACTIVELY targeted helpless children to execute. Doesn't sound like our MO, nor would we have any really good reason to do so as OFFICIAL policy. Now, if it was SOMEHOW figured out the child had a bomb strapped to them (not an easy thing of course since it would probably be hidden underneath their clothes), then yeah, your individual goal isn't to win the fucking war as a soldier but to protect the buddies next to you. If the kid is coming near you to blow the device up (again, hypothetical scenario) do you think those soldiers are going to give a fuck about "oh children aren't enemy combatants under any circumstances?" It doesn't really matter to them at that moment, they need to eliminate the threat before it gets closer.

Anyway, the other thing to keep in mind is that civilians FREQUENTLY get caught in the crossfire regardless of whether or not you were trying to avoid hitting them. When enemy combatants are firing bullets, throwing grenades and other high explosives, firing artillery shells, and what not, chances are there is going to be some collateral damage amongst by standers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also, yes, you have your occasional sadistic fuck or overstressed soldier who snaps and goes on shooting rampages. Hell, even just cases of mistaken identities where random dudes are mistaken for terrorists. However, I would need more proof shown than just what somebody on RT is saying that it was adopted as OFFICIAL policy to target civilians whenever you damn feel like it, whether they be children or adults. On the other hand though, I wouldn't be surprised if the military were detaining minors for extended periods of times under meager conditions. I'd like a bit more evidence shown about the reality of the situation, but that sounds much more plausible.


Now I would like to address this whole "conspiracy theorist" issue. A conspiracy theorist is not somebody who is somewhat skeptical of the official story, who asks questions as to whether perhaps there are some details being left out that could reveal a bit more of what is going on. A conspiracy theorist is commonly now a denotation for somebody who is completely off their fucking rocker who views the world through a lens of obsessive and unhealthy paranoia. They IMMEDIATELY reject the official version and instead concoct some deluded schizophrenic "the world/government is out to get us all the time" nonsense. A lot of them are just talking out of their ass and have legitimate psychological/neurological defects, others purposely distort information, others employ multiple severe logical fallacies, and sometimes even just outright lying.

To be honest, this type of conspiracy thinking is extremely similar to the faulty rationality of religious fundies. Evidence that us sane people can agree upon more often than not tears most conspiracy claims to shreds, but the conspiracy nuts are so balls deep in their psychosis that they don't realize their elaborate findings are little more than paranoid delusions fueled by fallacies, misinformation, and flat out lies packaged into a heaping bundle that has little basis in reality or fact.

From what I have seen of you, although I haven't really spent much time reading over your posts on these topics, you don't seem to fall under conspiracy lunatic, but you like to ask a slew of questions you want to get to the bottom to on such issues. If that is indeed a correct, then you just take a double dose of skepticism compared to the rest of us, but that doesn't make you a whacko loon. Honestly, the lengths that some of these people go to coddle their god of the gaps like arguments (really a lot of conspiracy theories are like this, for as where you like to ask questions, the whacko conspiracy nut looks at the questions and goes "THESE SKETCHY CONDITIONS OF X and/or Y COMPLETELY VALIDATE MY FAR-FETCHED, OVERLY COMPLEX HUMONGOUS WEB OF CONSPIRATORS THAT HAS FLIMSY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT) are absurd, and remind me of the religious.

Yeah, big rant there, sorry about that. Anyway, from what I have SEEN so far of you I think you ask the questions but are careful to not quickly jump to the conclusion that it MUST be a vast conspiracy just because a few things don't add up. After all, when it comes to the government, they don't ALWAYS have to bullshit EVERYTHING (just a lot of it). Plus, they aren't necessarily the smartest of the pack. Quite frankly, what some are quick to write of as malicious or diabolical in intent might just as easily be attributed to incompetence.

So yeah, I'm not quite sure where you stand on the issue of "conspiracy theories", but that's what I have to say on it. Btw, those really weren't conspiracy theory videos so to speak that you were showing. Just thought I'd point that out as well, but yeah, not really stuff that would be covered by mainstream. (although admittedly I didn't watch the third so I'm not sure what it was about. I just know it was something to do with finances and billionaires so I figured it wasn't an area I could put much input into anyway.)

Final thing: yeah, the internet has allowed easy access to information, but not all of it is equally reliable. The trick is figuring out which is sound and which is misinformation intentionally packaged to seem reasonable but isn't really that trustworthy.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
12-12-2012, 07:25 PM
RE: The "Awakening"... and the future of opinions.
(12-12-2012 03:26 PM)bemore Wrote:  ...
When I was growing up in the 80s and late 90s
...

So the early 90s... no growing then?

Tongue

ps... nice post.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
13-12-2012, 03:11 AM
RE: The "Awakening"... and the future of opinions.
(12-12-2012 07:12 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Now I would like to address this whole "conspiracy theorist" issue. A conspiracy theorist is not somebody who is somewhat skeptical of the official story, who asks questions as to whether perhaps there are some details being left out that could reveal a bit more of what is going on. A conspiracy theorist is commonly now a denotation for somebody who is completely off their fucking rocker who views the world through a lens of obsessive and unhealthy paranoia. They IMMEDIATELY reject the official version and instead concoct some deluded schizophrenic "the world/government is out to get us all the time" nonsense. A lot of them are just talking out of their ass and have legitimate psychological/neurological defects, others purposely distort information, others employ multiple severe logical fallacies, and sometimes even just outright lying.

To be honest, this type of conspiracy thinking is extremely similar to the faulty rationality of religious fundies. Evidence that us sane people can agree upon more often than not tears most conspiracy claims to shreds, but the conspiracy nuts are so balls deep in their psychosis that they don't realize their elaborate findings are little more than paranoid delusions fueled by fallacies, misinformation, and flat out lies packaged into a heaping bundle that has little basis in reality or fact.

I agree with you on this to some degree. I cant deny that there are people who believe things based upon very little knowledge with no personal experience, faith based beliefs which quite rightly so can be compared to religion. On the flipside though, with respect to your beliefs do you not think you may be stereotyping a whole range of people? Do you immediately roll your eyes when something like this is brought up, do you think this is viewpoint is beneficial to you or not? Im not trying to convert you or say that you are wrong, because your not.

(12-12-2012 07:12 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  From what I have seen of you, although I haven't really spent much time reading over your posts on these topics, you don't seem to fall under conspiracy lunatic, but you like to ask a slew of questions you want to get to the bottom to on such issues. If that is indeed a correct, then you just take a double dose of skepticism compared to the rest of us, but that doesn't make you a whacko loon. Honestly, the lengths that some of these people go to coddle their god of the gaps like arguments (really a lot of conspiracy theories are like this, for as where you like to ask questions, the whacko conspiracy nut looks at the questions and goes "THESE SKETCHY CONDITIONS OF X and/or Y COMPLETELY VALIDATE MY FAR-FETCHED, OVERLY COMPLEX HUMONGOUS WEB OF CONSPIRATORS THAT HAS FLIMSY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT) are absurd, and remind me of the religious.

Yeah, big rant there, sorry about that. Anyway, from what I have SEEN so far of you I think you ask the questions but are careful to not quickly jump to the conclusion that it MUST be a vast conspiracy just because a few things don't add up. After all, when it comes to the government, they don't ALWAYS have to bullshit EVERYTHING (just a lot of it). Plus, they aren't necessarily the smartest of the pack. Quite frankly, what some are quick to write of as malicious or diabolical in intent might just as easily be attributed to incompetence.

Well I used to be a hardcore theorist, I have allways tried to stay balanced and level headed with my beliefs but havent been succesfull all of the time with that. I used to post on just conspiracy forums and that is just like preaching to the converted, whilst beliefs within the conspiracy community are divided people are more likely to believe you. I still read conspiracy forums and occasionally post on them, however when I need "logical" thinking or a polarized/neutral/opposite viewpoint for comparison I post it on here. I have been "blown out" or proved wrong in some of the things I have said, which is all good Smile

(12-12-2012 07:12 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Btw, those really weren't conspiracy theory videos so to speak that you were showing. Just thought I'd point that out as well, but yeah, not really stuff that would be covered by mainstream. (although admittedly I didn't watch the third so I'm not sure what it was about. I just know it was something to do with finances and billionaires so I figured it wasn't an area I could put much input into anyway.)

Final thing: yeah, the internet has allowed easy access to information, but not all of it is equally reliable. The trick is figuring out which is sound and which is misinformation intentionally packaged to seem reasonable but isn't really that trustworthy.

Im curious as to why you dont consider those videos to be conspiracy? Is it because it comes from an official "news" source? If I was a brand new member and I came on here and wrote about the things in the video you watched would you consider me a conspiracy theorist?

I agree with you about information on the internet. I believe conspiracy theorists can be their own worst enemy in confronting the "truth". However you only ever hear of the more "crazy" theories in the mainstream media, they dont tell you about all of the others which could possibly hold a grain of truth in them.

(12-12-2012 07:25 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-12-2012 03:26 PM)bemore Wrote:  ...
When I was growing up in the 80s and late 90s
...

So the early 90s... no growing then?

Tongue

ps... nice post.

I blame the illiterati Weeping

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 06:57 AM
RE: The "Awakening"... and the future of opinions.
This is a prime example of what I am talking about........





I cant comment on the film itself as I havent seen it. I have been looking for it for a very very long time with no luck. It would appear that everytime it is uploaded somewhere it promptly gets removed.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 09:14 AM
RE: The "Awakening"... and the future of opinions.
First, in response to RT: RT has an agenda, making America look bad, but that doesn't make them conspiracy theorist per se. Some of what they talk about has real merits, but it is necessary to watch them with a grain of salt since they aren't unbiased in any sense of the word. They may have a tendency to exaggerate or distort some information for their claims. That doesn't make them far off the deep end though.

Now, the point I was trying to make is that there is a huge difference between a skeptical thinker and a conspiracy theorist, and it goes beyond just what claims they have to make, it also covers what method they go about making their claims. A skeptical thinker like you is a debater, a conspiracy theorist (synonymous with whacko nowadays) is a coddler. A skeptical thinker is open to honest debate. A conspiracy theorist is interested in fueling their paranoid ramblings with more paranoid ramblings. They coddle their delusions from the big meanies of logic and factually based statements in the situation of being presented an opposing viewpoint. When presented with cold hard facts, they invent more arbitrary, baseless shit that they pulled out of their ass to continue milking their psychosis based claims. Sometimes, you don't even need to observe their debating style to know they are a coddler, some claims are just simply built off of a "coddling" mindset (i.e: celebrities/politicians are reptilian shape-shifters).

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 09:28 AM
RE: The "Awakening"... and the future of opinions.
Challenging "The Man" is a good thing. But just because something is a challenge to the mainstream way of thinking doesn't mean that the challenge is correct. And that's the risk of the internet. Yes, there is more awareness than ever because of the internet. I think the New Atheism movement is fueled by the Interwebz just as much as the Arab Spring was. Ideas are waiting to be expressed and heard by our fingertips at the keyboard.

But...more information requires more wisdom. Sources need to be reviewed. Statements need to be scrutinized. Arguments need to be carefully understood and debated. And that's the potential danger of the Intertubes. A lot of people don't want to take the time to do the work of the skeptic. Some people will believe what they see and hear and read just because it's presented in a well-produced video. Things sound right because they touch an emotional need in the recipient.

As Fox Mulder was once told, "Trust no one." Challenge the challengers just as much as you challenge the mainstream. That is my challenge. Blink

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Erxomai's post
13-12-2012, 10:35 AM
RE: The "Awakening"... and the future of opinions.
I'd like to add this clip from an old movie:




DISCLAIMER: If you find a message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a message, complain to me and I will be happy to demonstrate.

[Image: tta.php]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: