| Now, where have we seen this before? 02:09 - Jul 2 with 2410 views | DJack |
"Especially pernicious is the way that false conspiracies absolve their followers of engaging with the truth. Citizenship in a conspiracy-society doesn’t require evaluating a statement of proposed fact for its truth-value, and then accepting it or rejecting it accordingly, so much as it requires the complete and total rejection of all truth-value that comes from an enemy source, and the substitution of an alternative plot, narrated from elsewhere."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/01/edward-snowdon-conspiracy- |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |  |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 02:53 - Jul 2 with 2389 views | Dr_Parnassus |
The Russian involvement and voting fraud in the election that made the Republicans win in 2016?
Have they admitted that was nonsense yet? |  |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 08:35 - Jul 2 with 2347 views | Catullus |
That was a good read from someone who's been inside the system we woory about most, surveillance. Surely we see some of this...
"Citizenship in a conspiracy-society doesn’t require evaluating a statement of proposed fact for its truth-value, and then accepting it or rejecting it accordingly, so much as it requires the complete and total rejection of all truth-value that comes from an enemy source, and the substitution of an alternative plot, narrated from elsewhere."
...on here with the Trump conspiracy theorists?
One of my favourite rants is about the banking system, the money men. How can nearly every country in the world be in debt, in debt to each other and to a bank and then as I posted a fair while back, part of the UK's debt is owed to.....the UK? If every country that owned another countries debt got together and started towrite off debts a massive chunk would disappear. Then if countries that owed "themselves" money wrote that off the world debt would plummet overnight. National debt is a scam used to control the masses.
Just look at how banks treat the individual, those who can easily afford to borrow get lower interest rates, those who would struggle a bit get higher interest rates, the latter only reinforcing the money troubles of the poor. Is it to keep them in their place? To ensure the poor stay poor?
No doubt there will conspiracy theories that Snowdon is still part of the system and being used to defelct attention from the real issues. That's the thing about conspiracy theorists they are always looking for a different answer, a different reason, anything besides what is accepted by the majority. |  |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 09:33 - Jul 2 with 2321 views | Professor |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 02:53 - Jul 2 by Dr_Parnassus |
The Russian involvement and voting fraud in the election that made the Republicans win in 2016?
Have they admitted that was nonsense yet? |
No one will ever know, as its impossible to fathom how people were influenced by clear, as shown the GOP-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, interference supporting the Republicans and Trump. There were clearly attempts at disrupting the process of the election, but seems unlikely there was direct fraud. The reports imply the Trump campaign welcomed the support, but is seems unlikely they were actively involved to any significant extent. But since Trump acted to redact many sections of reports through Executive Order, we may never know.
But to imply there was no Russian interference is wrong. Not that the US has ever interfered in the electoral process themselves of course. | | | |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 10:28 - Jul 2 with 2307 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 09:33 - Jul 2 by Professor |
No one will ever know, as its impossible to fathom how people were influenced by clear, as shown the GOP-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, interference supporting the Republicans and Trump. There were clearly attempts at disrupting the process of the election, but seems unlikely there was direct fraud. The reports imply the Trump campaign welcomed the support, but is seems unlikely they were actively involved to any significant extent. But since Trump acted to redact many sections of reports through Executive Order, we may never know.
But to imply there was no Russian interference is wrong. Not that the US has ever interfered in the electoral process themselves of course. |
Well that was often cited as the reason the Republicans won, those that voted for them were a small minority of racists and bigots padded out by mass Russian interference.
Until half the country voted in record numbers in the following election proving that the notion was utter nonsense, not just the notion itself but the horrific and stupid inference that anyone voting must be some sort of bigot.
Economically and socially it made sense for many people to vote Republican, race does not come into it. It was framed horrendously by the media, quite intentionally so. It is not racist to be against illegal immigration, which of course was the party line for so long.
BLM has died a death too as predicted, it's all so so fraudulent. Well at least for another 4 years anyway. | |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 10:33 - Jul 2 with 2306 views | Catullus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 09:33 - Jul 2 by Professor |
No one will ever know, as its impossible to fathom how people were influenced by clear, as shown the GOP-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, interference supporting the Republicans and Trump. There were clearly attempts at disrupting the process of the election, but seems unlikely there was direct fraud. The reports imply the Trump campaign welcomed the support, but is seems unlikely they were actively involved to any significant extent. But since Trump acted to redact many sections of reports through Executive Order, we may never know.
But to imply there was no Russian interference is wrong. Not that the US has ever interfered in the electoral process themselves of course. |
Now see, the Trump supporters never mention the Senate intelligence committee. They always make out the whole system was against Trump.
The usual thing is to say Trump did better than 2016 when yes he got more votes BUT it was a record turnout, Biden got a record number of votes too.
Every debate these days, it is very quickly polarised with two sides each pushing their own story and seemingly unable to see anything other than their version, usually followed by some conspiracy claims. | |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 10:40 - Jul 2 with 2300 views | Professor |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 10:28 - Jul 2 by Dr_Parnassus |
Well that was often cited as the reason the Republicans won, those that voted for them were a small minority of racists and bigots padded out by mass Russian interference.
Until half the country voted in record numbers in the following election proving that the notion was utter nonsense, not just the notion itself but the horrific and stupid inference that anyone voting must be some sort of bigot.
Economically and socially it made sense for many people to vote Republican, race does not come into it. It was framed horrendously by the media, quite intentionally so. It is not racist to be against illegal immigration, which of course was the party line for so long.
BLM has died a death too as predicted, it's all so so fraudulent. Well at least for another 4 years anyway. |
Usually by the media. The DNC is fairness agree there is no way of ascertaining the degree the interference impacted on the vote. Trump sold himself as an alternative against the mainstream, people believed and still believe that. Though in reality he actually did little to facilitate change for most. Like Obama and Bush before him. | | | |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 11:22 - Jul 2 with 2285 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 10:40 - Jul 2 by Professor |
Usually by the media. The DNC is fairness agree there is no way of ascertaining the degree the interference impacted on the vote. Trump sold himself as an alternative against the mainstream, people believed and still believe that. Though in reality he actually did little to facilitate change for most. Like Obama and Bush before him. |
I think the weight of the vote in the second term, despite 4 years of continuous and horrific media attack confirms that anything other than the vote being the result of the will of the people is just fanciful nonsense.
I give it as much credence as those that think there was mass voter fraud, as should anyone else wishing to be consistent in their views. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 23:54 - Jul 2 with 2189 views | DJack |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 11:22 - Jul 2 by Dr_Parnassus |
I think the weight of the vote in the second term, despite 4 years of continuous and horrific media attack confirms that anything other than the vote being the result of the will of the people is just fanciful nonsense.
I give it as much credence as those that think there was mass voter fraud, as should anyone else wishing to be consistent in their views. |
This part of the quote is where you fit in... "so much as it requires the complete and total rejection of all truth-value that comes from an enemy source, and the substitution of an alternative plot, narrated from elsewhere." | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 00:12 - Jul 3 with 2185 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 23:54 - Jul 2 by DJack |
This part of the quote is where you fit in... "so much as it requires the complete and total rejection of all truth-value that comes from an enemy source, and the substitution of an alternative plot, narrated from elsewhere." |
No such thing as an enemy source to me. To have an enemy you have to have a side.
My side is common sense.
So I suppose any source that is not common sense may be classed as the enemy. From memory you did use to fall foul of that often. Maybe that’s what you mean? [Post edited 3 Jul 2021 0:31]
| |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 00:21 - Jul 3 with 2179 views | DJack |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 00:12 - Jul 3 by Dr_Parnassus |
No such thing as an enemy source to me. To have an enemy you have to have a side.
My side is common sense.
So I suppose any source that is not common sense may be classed as the enemy. From memory you did use to fall foul of that often. Maybe that’s what you mean? [Post edited 3 Jul 2021 0:31]
|
Nah mate, you are talking rubbish. You are as biased as the worst of us and as for your projection it was as silly before as it is now. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 00:25 - Jul 3 with 2177 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 00:21 - Jul 3 by DJack |
Nah mate, you are talking rubbish. You are as biased as the worst of us and as for your projection it was as silly before as it is now. |
I have a bias towards common sense, please don’t tar us all with the same brush you clearly have just tarred yourself with. | |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 00:58 - Jul 3 with 2171 views | DJack |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 00:25 - Jul 3 by Dr_Parnassus |
I have a bias towards common sense, please don’t tar us all with the same brush you clearly have just tarred yourself with. |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
not! | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 03:24 - Jul 3 with 2163 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 00:58 - Jul 3 by DJack |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
not! |
Riiiiight  | |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 03:51 - Jul 3 with 2159 views | DJack |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 03:24 - Jul 3 by Dr_Parnassus |
Riiiiight |
It's apt that you use the confused smiley as it describes you perfectly. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 04:26 - Jul 3 with 2146 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 03:51 - Jul 3 by DJack |
It's apt that you use the confused smiley as it describes you perfectly. |
That's why I used it, it is the idea of emojis.
When someone is talking utter gibberish it often leads to confusion, the emoji as you say was a perfect description.
I don't think this thread worked out how you planned did it?  | |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 14:08 - Jul 3 with 2095 views | DJack |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 04:26 - Jul 3 by Dr_Parnassus |
That's why I used it, it is the idea of emojis.
When someone is talking utter gibberish it often leads to confusion, the emoji as you say was a perfect description.
I don't think this thread worked out how you planned did it? |
No gibberish was spoken. You talked some arrant nonsense but that is par for the course.
I wil leave you space to have the last word, as is usual
. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 01:42 - Jul 4 with 2057 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 14:08 - Jul 3 by DJack |
No gibberish was spoken. You talked some arrant nonsense but that is par for the course.
I wil leave you space to have the last word, as is usual
. |
Cheers. What a waste of space this thread was.
Thanks on behalf of the forum... thanks for your continued fascinating contribution.  | |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 10:26 - Jul 4 with 2013 views | KeithHaynes |
 |  |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 10:39 - Jul 4 with 2011 views | Catullus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 00:21 - Jul 3 by DJack |
Nah mate, you are talking rubbish. You are as biased as the worst of us and as for your projection it was as silly before as it is now. |
The P in Dr P, it's not Parnassus surely, wouldn't Predilection, Prepossession or Prejudice be more appropriate?
His obsessive belief that he isn't biased and always uses common sense along with his complete inability to accept when he's wrong display a complete lack of self awareness OR he's a complete mickey taker! | |
| |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 10:49 - Jul 4 with 2008 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Now, where have we seen this before? on 10:39 - Jul 4 by Catullus |
The P in Dr P, it's not Parnassus surely, wouldn't Predilection, Prepossession or Prejudice be more appropriate?
His obsessive belief that he isn't biased and always uses common sense along with his complete inability to accept when he's wrong display a complete lack of self awareness OR he's a complete mickey taker! |
If you would like to point out some bias I would be happy to take a look?
You seem desperate to put me in the right wing box, I suppose if I am not in there then its harder to ignore what I say?
I am afraid P will have to stand for proof on this occasion. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
