[Humour] Obama is a satanist, HM The Queen is a giant murderous lizard!

[Swansman]

Nah, think I'll pass up on that thanks !

I thought so.

Trying to ridicule others based on blind trust for authorities, while being to lazy too investigate it yourself. Very common.

 

[Mental Lental]

Its all out there though. Probably not on Youtube as you drown in the sensationalist bullshit. Make your own investigation. Start with the leaked Podesta email that started the "rumour", take a deep look at him, then move on to Comet Ping Pong, Besta Pizza and James Alefantis. Do your own research, read up and avoid mainstream media as they couldnt report on it even if they wanted to.

Best of luck. Feel free to PM me when you've done a bit of research and perhaps want more information.

I googled it. This NY Times article was on the first page of results:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html

I like the NY Times. I think over the years they've done some pretty good journalism. So I read it.

It says the whole thing is bollox. Which was my first initial gut feeling as it usually is with conspiracy theories. Now, the problem with the internet age and the perpetuation of misinformation on social media is a "false equivalency" with regards to certain sources of information.

To iterate, usually right-wing leaning, conspiracy theorist nut jobs do what I just did. Google "pizzagate" and browse the results. But then what these nut jobs do is despite the reputation of such venerable journalistic institutions such as The New York Times or Washington Post, they somehow dismiss the robust, fact checking reporting from these institutions because they think they are too "mainstream". Instead they move on to dark latter pages of google and god knows what other parts of the dark web and pick up on blogs, articles, youtube vids, tweets and Facebook posts that support the Conspiracy Theory.

Now, where the false equivalency lies is in the fact that somehow these people think that an unknown dude on Youtube or Twitter, or fake news sites like Breitbart are as much viable sources of information as an article written by professional journalists (with references and cited sources) published in The New York Times.....

Now here's the bombshell. They're not. They are NOT THE SAME. My source is better due to the reputation of the newspaper, which has won over 130 Pulitzer prizes since 1918 (more than any other newspaper) and which employs a large number of professional journalists who have investigated this and decided that it is nonsense.

Case closed.

 

[BadFish]

Nah, its pretty pointless. Once people have made up their mind, they have made up their mind. Look at the Republican party, half of them still thinks they won the election. Or the average voter anywhere, getting lied to every fourth year and then heading off to vote again. But for me to post things here wouldnt do anyone any good as people are cognitively unable to process information that is a) very repulsive and b) not confirmed by authorities (celebrities, media, 'experts', politicans etc.).

Its all out there though. Probably not on Youtube as you drown in the sensationalist bullshit. Make your own investigation. Start with the leaked Podesta email that started the "rumour", take a deep look at him, then move on to Comet Ping Pong, Besta Pizza and James Alefantis. Do your own research, read up and avoid mainstream media as they couldnt report on it even if they wanted to.

Best of luck. Feel free to PM me when you've done a bit of research and perhaps want more information.

If it is not confirmed by authorities, then who is it confirmed by?

Personally, I like my facts and information confirmed by an authority in the relevant field?

Otherwise, how does one judge if the person delivering the information is qualified to process, interpret and deliver that information?

I have done my own research into this and am satisfied with the outcome. The only way to change that is for someone to present compelling evidence that proves the contrary. Call me a daft old sheeple but one of the first things I check is said person's qualifications in the field. I find that this method gives starkly different results to starting one's investigation with the notion that the mainstream explanation must be wrong and any documentation that suggests it isn't is not to be trusted.

Personally, I have heard a number of different explanation for the existence of conspiracy theories. I would not suggest that any of them really cover it but I did find this interesting the other night. Its a bit sneery, a bit sarcastic and a bit long but it is entertaining and makes some interesting points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b_eHBZLM6U

 

[Swansman]

I googled it. This NY Times article was on the first page of results:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html

I like the NY Times. I think over the years they've done some pretty good journalism. So I read it.

It says the whole thing is bollox. Which was my first initial gut feeling as it usually is with conspiracy theories. Now, the problem with the internet age and the perpetuation of misinformation on social media is a "false equivalency" with regards to certain sources of information.

To iterate, usually right-wing leaning, conspiracy theorist nut jobs do what I just did. Google "pizzagate" and browse the results. But then what these nut jobs do is despite the reputation of such venerable journalistic institutions such as The New York Times or Washington Post, they somehow dismiss the robust, fact checking reporting from these institutions because they think they are too "mainstream". Instead they move on to dark latter pages of google and god knows what other parts of the dark web and pick up on blogs, articles, youtube vids, tweets and Facebook posts that support the Conspiracy Theory.

Now, where the false equivalency lies is in the fact that somehow these people think that an unknown dude on Youtube or Twitter, or fake news sites like Breitbart are as much viable sources of information as an article written by professional journalists (with references and cited sources) published in The New York Times.....

Now here's the bombshell. They're not. They are NOT THE SAME. My source is better due to the reputation of the newspaper, which has won over 130 Pulitzer prizes since 1918 (more than any other newspaper) and which employs a large number of professional journalists who have investigated this and decided that it is nonsense.

Case closed.

View attachment 130568

Its pretty much what I highlight as the issue. Blind trust in the establishment. I dont care about Pulitzer prizes, I dont care if the newspapers are venerable and I dont care if the journalists are professional or not. I only care about information and relevant circumstances. I dont read the New York Times or Washington Post to make up my perspective. I read released or leaked documents, I track down accused/involved people's social medias looking for one clue or another, I read leaked emails, and on occasion blogs or similar that provide information that provides links to i.e. relevant emails (or whatever it may be).

Its two different mindsets. "I trust these and need nothing else" vs "I dont trust them and need to investigate it myself". Why would I trust elite run/owned media when I know about Operation Mockingbird? When I've read everything Carl Bernstein from a time with less ownership concentration of the media? When I've read William Blums books while doing Peace and conflict studies at the university? When I know about the laws protecting classified information and the implications of revealing something that could harm national security?

To me it makes no sense to believe big business media in sensitive subjects. Historically as well as today these gigantic media corporations serves two purposes: to propagandise us in certain directions, and to polarize us into different, weakened corners to make sure that things look far more progressive than they really are.

You've found yourself a nice little picture there saying that I lost but as you probably understand I simply dont agree. I just have a different way of seeing things and a different relation to the value of being considered "winning prizes", "being reputable" etc. To me, all of that lack instrinic value.

If it is not confirmed by authorities, then who is it confirmed by?

Personally, I like my facts and information confirmed by an authority in the relevant field?

Who would you say is "an authority in the relevant field" in this case?

 

[Mental Lental]

Its pretty much what I highlight as the issue. Blind trust in the establishment. I dont care about Pulitzer prizes, I dont care if the newspapers are venerable and I dont care if the journalists are professional or not.

Herein lies the problem. You think you know better than the experts because the experts are "establishment" and you have provided absolutely no evidence or reason as to why your investigations are better than theirs. Look, come on. I've provided a source and maintain that it is a better source than.......well you and your little keyboard warriorings. It's up to you to convince me otherwise. To say it again for the cheap seats:

The NEW YORK TIMES is a BETTER source of information on this subject than YOU. And if your only reply to refute this claim is to say that they are "establishment" and you are "not"......well then you make yourself look like a bit of a dinlow.

 

[Eeyore]

Herein lies the problem. You think you know better than the experts because the experts are "establishment" and you have provided absolutely no evidence or reason as to why your investigations are better than theirs. Look, come on. I've provided a source and maintain that it is a better source than.......well you and your little keyboard warriorings. It's up to you to convince me otherwise. To say it again for the cheap seats:

The NEW YORK TIMES is a BETTER source of information on this subject than YOU. And if your only reply to refute this claim is to say that they are "establishment" and you are "not"......well then you make yourself look like a bit of a dinlow.

What a joy to hear that phrase again. Haven't heard it for many moons.

 

[BadFish]

Who would you say is "an authority in the relevant field" in this case?

Well, the NY Time article post by Mental Lental is pretty well researched and referenced. If I compare that to the contrary position .....

well, let's just say its winning.

I can't and won't say for certain what is fact and what is fiction but I really can't be doing with this 'do your own research' bullshit. If you've got compelling evidence from a worthwhile source, post it and let's discuss it.

All this 'I know something you don't know' reminds me of being at work.

 

[sydney]

I thought so.

Trying to ridicule others based on blind trust for authorities, while being to lazy too investigate it yourself. Very common.

just look what the establishment did to bryan harvey .........john lydon knew what was going on years ago but was savvy enough to keep his gob shut , bryan not so .......hatchet job.

 

[The Clamp]

****sake you are something else aren't you .....

Steady, you’re drifting into the arena of the unpleasant.

 

[Swansman]

Herein lies the problem. You think you know better than the experts because the experts are "establishment" and you have provided absolutely no evidence or reason as to why your investigations are better than theirs. Look, come on. I've provided a source and maintain that it is a better source than.......well you and your little keyboard warriorings. It's up to you to convince me otherwise. To say it again for the cheap seats:

The NEW YORK TIMES is a BETTER source of information on this subject than YOU. And if your only reply to refute this claim is to say that they are "establishment" and you are "not"......well then you make yourself look like a bit of a dinlow.

What "experts"?

Anyway, not much I can reply to here. I have provided plenty of good reasons not to blindly agree with what they are saying despite all their nice awards and great reputation. While I dont remember the article you are referring to in great in detail (I read it in 2016 but its behind a paywall now) I remember that they omitted relevant information and context while also using common argumentative fallacies that most people swallow with hook, line and sinker.

As for NYT being a better source than me, that is your opinion and you've made it clear. I explained in my first reply to you some of the reasons why I prefer to dig into sensitive subjects myself rather than just swallow anything they have to say.

And I was also pretty clear about that I dont really care if they have fancy cylinder hats while I'm just "a bit of a dinlow" (whatever that is) - its not relevant. I dont get a boner off power and reputation. I dont turn into someones little pet just because they are rich, powerful and high status. I want the information, the core, I dont give a shit about the wrapping, the reputation or the majority perspective. It means nothing to me.

I know you see it in a different way and thats fine.

 

[Swansman]

Calm down cupcake, you’re drifting into the arena of the unpleasant.

Are you sure you really need to use those master suppression techniques all the time? I mean, feel free but I dont really see the purpose. It works poorly against people with thick skin.

 

[Mental Lental]

I really can't be doing with this 'do your own research' bullshit.

This is another good one too. Why should I assume that MY research would be better than that of trained professionals? Hey while I'm at it shall I tell the pilot of the plane I'm flying on to **** off cos I'd rather land the plane myself? Imagine it.....

"That pilot.....he's proper "establishment". He went to government sponsored flight school, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. **** that guy better to land this plane myself I've played Microsoft Flight Simulator should be a piece of piss......"

 

[Mental Lental]

(I read it in 2016 but its behind a paywall now)

Really? There was no pay wall for me when I accessed it a few hours ago. I'll put it here again just in case you want to read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html

Edit:

Yep, no pay wall from what I can see.

 

[The Clamp]

Are you sure you really need to use those master suppression techniques all the time? I mean, feel free but I dont really see the purpose. It works poorly against people with thick skin.

What on earth are you blathering on about? I’m not sure you’re really in much of a position to give advice on posting etiquette. You’ve made an absolute **** of yourself on here. As with all the conspiracy theory tosspots that have tried to convince us of their nutjob theories on here in the past, you’ve failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. You haven’t even posted links to your “research”, just told us that you’ve done your own “investigation”.
I suggest you investigate the possibility of attempting not to be such an irritating, gullible, plonker?

 

[Swansman]

This is another good one too. Why should I assume that MY research would be better than that of trained professionals? Hey while I'm at it shall I tell the pilot of the plane I'm flying on to **** off cos I'd rather land the plane myself? Imagine it.....

"That pilot.....he's proper "establishment". He went to government sponsored flight school, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. **** that guy better to land this plane myself I've played Microsoft Flight Simulator should be a piece of piss......"

Anyone can turn into a great researcher, all it takes is time, effort, experience and intelligence. Its not comparable with being a pilot. Autodidactism works better in some areas than others for reasons you could probably find out yourself.

 

[Mental Lental]

Anyone can turn into a great researcher, all it takes is time, effort, experience and intelligence.

Well done you! Can you point me to some of the articles you've published? I'd very much like to read and compare.

 

[Swansman]

Really? There was no pay wall for me when I accessed it a few hours ago. I'll put it here again just in case you want to read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html

Edit:

Yep, no pay wall from what I can see.

If I click "Continue" it says "Register, you little fecker."

What on earth are you blathering on about? I’m not sure you’re really in much of a position to give advice on posting etiquette. You’ve made an absolute **** of yourself on here. As with all the conspiracy theory tosspots that have tried to convince us of their nutjob theories on here in the past, you’ve failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. You haven’t even posted links to your “research”, just told us that you’ve done your own “investigation”.
I suggest you investigate the possibility of attempting not to be such an irritating, gullible, plonker?

Most of the time, with a few exceptions, I discuss the subjects. Personal attacks and condescending words, and that type of things... rarely how I do it. Etiquette is more about how you express your opinions rather than what you actually express, according to my definition. But you probably have a different take and if it makes you happy, keep going.

As for showing what I've found, its pointless as previously said. Really. Lets say I link to some blog about it - there is a couple - people would either immediatly say "this is a blog and it didnt win any Pulitzer prizes so I'm not gonna bother read it" or judge it from a detail or two they didnt find convincing regardless of whatever else is presented. But what really kills the purpose is that a majority of people can not cognitively process information that goes outside of their usual perception. Hence the recommendation "do your own research" as it generally allows you to be less prejudicial: as an example, compare finding music on your own to being forcefed by some stranger at some afterparty.

 

[Swansman]

Well done you! Can you point me to some of the articles you've published? I'd very much like to read and compare.

While you can find hundreds if not thousands of my articles on the Internet, I dont think I've published or written any about Pizzagate (thought about it though). Sometimes I research things without writing about it.

 

[The Clamp]

View attachment 130570



If I click "Continue" it says "Register, you little fecker."



Most of the time, with a few exceptions, I discuss the subjects. Personal attacks and condescending words, and that type of things... rarely how I do it. Etiquette is more about how you express your opinions rather than what you actually express, according to my definition. But you probably have a different take and if it makes you happy, keep going.

As for showing what I've found, its pointless as previously said. Really. Lets say I link to some blog about it - there is a couple - people would either immediatly say "this is a blog and it didnt win any Pulitzer prizes so I'm not gonna bother read it" or judge it from a detail or two they didnt find convincing regardless of whatever else is presented. But what really kills the purpose is that a majority of people can not cognitively process information that goes outside of their usual perception. Hence the recommendation "do your own research" as it generally allows you to be less prejudicial: as an example, compare finding music on your own to being forcefed by some stranger at some afterparty.

“Research”

You mean trawling the internet and gawping at other loons on YouTube. Brilliant.

Take your hands out of your pants and go down and give your Mum a hand in the kitchen.

“Research”. Haha! Brilliant.

Please could you provide a link to some of your articles?

 

[BadFish]

just look what the establishment did to bryan harvey .........john lydon knew what was going on years ago but was savvy enough to keep his gob shut , bryan not so .......hatchet job.

Who did what to Brian Harvey? Genuine question, I've got no idea.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk