Current Affairs How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

[mill]

Why do conspiracy theorist always have this thing about being in the know or enlightened or imply everyone else are sheep?

They’ve always got to prove their worth or intelligence or whatever. It’s like a weird inferiority complex.

And they are always obsessive about it.

 

[dholliday]

Why do conspiracy theorist always have this thing about being in the know or enlightened or imply everyone else are sheep?

They’ve always got to prove their worth or intelligence or whatever. It’s like a weird inferiority complex.

And they are always obsessive about it.

Who's doing that? The video? Me?

It's just debate, mate. I don't feel superior to anybody at all. I get a lot of replies so i guess it's a fun debate for us all to have, despite differences.

I don't think the video's creator feels superior, either. His tone is analytical rather than judgemental.

 

[tsubaki]

Interpret it exactly how I wrote it.

But you also wrote: Fox News/Daily Mail etc are a bastion of tolerant journalism...which i never said nor implied.

Strawman stuff.

Fox, Daily Mail et al are questionable entities themselves, but they don't share the insidious synchronised ideology that 'lefty' media organisations share.

This video from 1984 (arf!) can be useful to help understand the distinction:

this sentence is almost beyond parody

 

[dholliday]

this sentence is almost beyond parody

I'm not saying anything exotic or original...my interpretations of things may even be in the majority. GOT's Current Affairs is as much of an echo chamber as a Qanon forum.

I notice this when on read-only mode: the threads on here often swing only one way, despite the real wider world out there begging to differ.

 

[tsubaki]

I'm not saying anything exotic or original...my interpretations of things may even be in the majority. GOT's Current Affairs is as much of an echo chamber as a Qanon forum.

I notice this when on read-only mode: the threads on here often swing only one way, despite the real wider world out there begging to differ.

I know you aren't saying anything exotic or original - you rarely do - but it is demonstrably a fact that right wing media outlets have a much more synchronized ideology than "lefty" (which of course mostly aren't anything of the sort) outlets do.

 

[dholliday]

I know you aren't saying anything exotic or original - you rarely do - but it is demonstrably a fact that right wing media outlets have a much more synchronized ideology than "lefty" (which of course mostly aren't anything of the sort) outlets do.

demonstrate it then.

 

[PaddyJames]

That video has only been out two weeks and is a sensation considering the heavy subject matter: almost 3m views, over 23,000 comments (the vast majority of which also seem to align with my own thoughts).

Grand Old Team Current Affairs is as niche, even as cultish, as protective of shared ideology, as Qanon forums. Most of yous are way off what most sensible folk are thinking.

And again, i note you not engaging with anything specific...you're just making a vague pronouncement about "unfounded leaps" and 'internet intellectuals'.

Not much substance there, soft lad.



Not really. The dedicated forums aren't even busier than GOT. They get ridiculed by their conservative (less fantastically-minded) peers, who have much busier forums and aren't shy of denouncing Qanon logic.

Lest we forget, Q himself stopped posting in December, a documentary came out in the Spring which made a convincing case Q was merely a trollish roleplay by 8chan admins. I've looked into so-called 'Q-proofs' and they're mostly a ridiculous leap of random pattern-recognition. No substance, really. As the months go on, Qanon activities tire out.



Fascist thinking.


nope.

Not really, tho' they are unfairly maligned by cultish leftists like many on here. I openly supported Corbyn the last two GE's. LibDems before that.

Lest you forgot: the Tories have been in control for most of all your lives, and Britain is a fine place to live: culturally rich, progressive, and relatively at peace. Most people in non-western nations would love the chance to live in the UK.

The Tories can't be that bad, ay.



I don't love politicians.


I understand the vote for Brexit. Do you?


See linked video in the first post: it's about how mass psychosis affects perception...


I support anyone's choice to wear a mask or take the vaccine. I don't support mandates for everyone to do so.


only girls who cry after petty arguments like that sort of thing.


i shed a solitary manly tear when Arthur regained his strength after drinking from the Holy Grail in Excalibur.

Stoic strength in adversity > crying at getting filled in.



See E & F.


Cocoon was his finest work.

You don't understand the vote for Brexit because nobody who voted for it knew what they were voting for.

 

[dholliday]

You don't understand the vote for Brexit because nobody who voted for it knew what they were voting for.

Disagree. They voted to get outside the EU's sphere of influence. They got what they wanted.

 

[tsubaki]

demonstrate it then.

Well for a start the Mail, the Murdoch papers, the Telegraph, the Express, the Spectator and others (and now GBN) all employ the same sort of commentators (indeed many of them went to the same Brexit celebratory dinner), have the same focus on "common sense" (ie: whatever they deem as such"), make the same arguments against the same things (like "the woke" or BLM recently, "health and safety" etc in the past) and (usually) support the same party when it really matters.

They are almost all owned by the same sort of person too, though there are exceptions. They will collectively protect their friends (like Whittingdale, or Gove at the moment) despite rarely showing that level of restraint anywhere else, even in the worst of circumstances (such as the recent tragedy in Plymouth, where the local paper actually told its readership that it would not be harassing the families of the bereaved so that people would know the national papers would be doing that).

What is more journalists and increasingly commentators can flit between any one of them (Quentin Letts for example, or Harry Cole more recently) without ever really changing how they look at things, or the tone of their output; politicians can also dip in and out of that world (Johnson and Gove being obvious ones here, but also Farage).

When a journalist does step out of line and does something indicating they think critically (like Oborne when asked why so many outlets were uncritically publishing lies told by No.10 during an election) they usually find themselves on the outside.

edit: I should add that I have zero expectation of anything other than a multi-quote response from you where you straw-man every response (and possibly even get the triangle out again), but in case anyone else was interested I thought I'd post it

 

[dholliday]

Well for a start the Mail, the Murdoch papers, the Telegraph, the Express, the Spectator and others (and now GBN) all employ the same sort of commentators (indeed many of them went to the same Brexit celebratory dinner), have the same focus on "common sense" (ie: whatever they deem as such"), make the same arguments against the same things (like "the woke" or BLM recently, "health and safety" etc in the past) and (usually) support the same party when it really matters.

They are almost all owned by the same sort of person too, though there are exceptions. They will collectively protect their friends (like Whittingdale, or Gove at the moment) despite rarely showing that level of restraint anywhere else, even in the worst of circumstances (such as the recent tragedy in Plymouth, where the local paper actually told its readership that it would not be harassing the families of the bereaved so that people would know the national papers would be doing that).

What is more journalists and increasingly commentators can flit between any one of them (Quentin Letts for example, or Harry Cole more recently) without ever really changing how they look at things, or the tone of their output; politicians can also dip in and out of that world (Johnson and Gove being obvious ones here, but also Farage).

When a journalist does step out of line and does something indicating they think critically (like Oborne when asked why so many outlets were uncritically publishing lies told by No.10 during an election) they usually find themselves on the outside.

edit: I should add that I have zero expectation of anything other than a multi-quote response from you where you straw-man every response (and possibly even get the triangle out again), but in case anyone else was interested I thought I'd post it

This is a really good post, tsu.

and also agree on Oborne, he's one of the few who seems balanced on both sides.

i'm sure you already know this, but for anyone curious here's a bunch of Oborne's articles:

Home

openDemocracy is an independent international media platform covering current affairs, ideas and culture. We seek to challenge power and encourage democratic debate

www.opendemocracy.net

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

This study examining Covid conspiracies is worth a read.

The epic battle against coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy theories

Analysts are tracking false rumours about COVID-19 in hopes of curbing their spread.

www.nature.com

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

I have not watched the Academy of Ideas (AoI) video but it is worth noting the source and those behind AoI.

Claire Fox interview: infamy's child

Stuart Jeffries finds Claire Fox still takes joy in riling the liberal left.

www.theguardian.com

Academy of Ideas - Tobacco Tactics

Background The Academy of Ideas (formerly known by its trading name the Institute of Ideas) is a UK think-tank that forms part of a pro-corporate libertarian network. Pro-Smoking People affiliated with the organisation have consistently taken a pro-smoking stance: In January 2017, Rob Lyons...

tobaccotactics.org

 

[dholliday]

I have not watched the Academy of Ideas (AoI) video but it is worth noting the source and those behind AoI.

Claire Fox interview: infamy's child

Stuart Jeffries finds Claire Fox still takes joy in riling the liberal left.

www.theguardian.com

Academy of Ideas - Tobacco Tactics

Background The Academy of Ideas (formerly known by its trading name the Institute of Ideas) is a UK think-tank that forms part of a pro-corporate libertarian network. Pro-Smoking People affiliated with the organisation have consistently taken a pro-smoking stance: In January 2017, Rob Lyons...

tobaccotactics.org

noted...they seem to like a smoke lol

 

[tsubaki]

I have not watched the Academy of Ideas (AoI) video but it is worth noting the source and those behind AoI.

Claire Fox interview: infamy's child

Stuart Jeffries finds Claire Fox still takes joy in riling the liberal left.

www.theguardian.com

Academy of Ideas - Tobacco Tactics

Background The Academy of Ideas (formerly known by its trading name the Institute of Ideas) is a UK think-tank that forms part of a pro-corporate libertarian network. Pro-Smoking People affiliated with the organisation have consistently taken a pro-smoking stance: In January 2017, Rob Lyons...

tobaccotactics.org

TBF I am not sure this is the same people, though they do seem to share a similar pro-establishment contrarianism outlook to the worlds most successful entryists.

 

[Blue 1]

I have not watched the Academy of Ideas (AoI) video but it is worth noting the source and those behind AoI.

Claire Fox interview: infamy's child

Stuart Jeffries finds Claire Fox still takes joy in riling the liberal left.

www.theguardian.com

Academy of Ideas - Tobacco Tactics

Background The Academy of Ideas (formerly known by its trading name the Institute of Ideas) is a UK think-tank that forms part of a pro-corporate libertarian network. Pro-Smoking People affiliated with the organisation have consistently taken a pro-smoking stance: In January 2017, Rob Lyons...

tobaccotactics.org

Laughed at how Claire Fox kept saying in that interview that while Pfizer (among others) fund her think tank they don't influence it. Aye, Claire. That wouldn't be because you say exactly what they'd want you to say anyway, would it? They've no bloody need to.