It's true. In the US anyways you have people that won't vaccinate their kids, or they stockpile guns, or won't live near power lines, or won't take western medicine. Entire towns refuse to floridate their water!
Conspiracy theory affects lots of people. Sometimes it's not so much tin foil hat stuff as a general mistrust of science in general, or of the government, or corporations. All of which is perfectly understandable... Which is why I think it is good to be skeptical and follow what the evidence supports.
I only believe in "conspiracy theories" that are evidently true.
.
Honest question. Without evidence, how do you determine what is 'evidently true'? How do you check for confirmation bias? Or is it more of a "that sounds true so it is true" kind of gut decision?
To put it another way, of something is evidently true to you, but to me it sounds evidently false, then do you ever wonder "how do I know I'm right and everybody else is wrong?"
I wouldn't say I'm a conspiracy theorist, and quite frankly most of the conspiracy theories out there just seem batshit crazy, but I certainly understand why they exist.
When our government lies or is caught doing some shady shit, it breeds mistrust and most conspiracy theories involve our government.
Let's take Sandy Hook as an example. Do I believe this was a "false flag" arranged and played out by our government...Hell no. Do I believe this was some sort of hoax and children weren't actually killed.....Hell no. Do I believe Adam Lanza was "programmed" through some MK-Ultra shit and used as a pawn to advance some gun control agenda.....Fuck no.
But.....
I see video of one of the parents of a deceased child literally laughing seconds before the TV cameras are rolling on him and then almost on cue he gets distraught and cries when the cameras role and I think...WTF that seems weird as shit. Then I read about how the government has "actors" that they use in cases like these and I think "well that did seem like an actor and our government has done sleazier shit than that" and a sliver of doubt creeps in. Then human nature takes over and you go looking for other things that don't add up.
I only believe in "conspiracy theories" that are evidently true.
.
Honest question. Without evidence, how do you determine what is 'evidently true'? How do you check for confirmation bias? Or is it more of a "that sounds true so it is true" kind of gut decision?
To put it another way, of something is evidently true to you, but to me it sounds evidently false, then do you ever wonder "how do I know I'm right and everybody else is wrong?"
Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?
Here's a case where half the country believes he did and half believes there were others involved.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
Gary said:
In the US anyways you have people that won't vaccinate their kids
You have them everywhere, not just the US. They're easy to spot; they're the ones who talk about how herd immunity is a myth as they try to cure their kid's whooping cough (which the kid has since given to all the other kids at playgroup) by sending them to bed with an onion in a sock under their pillow.
The stats outlining the rise in childhood diseases previously thought to have been eradicated are, of course, falsified and part of an organised worldwide campaign by Big Pharma and them to hoodwink people into taking up more of these vaccines.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Gary said:
HarveyCanal said:
I only believe in "conspiracy theories" that are evidently true.
.
Honest question. Without evidence, how do you determine what is 'evidently true'? How do you check for confirmation bias? Or is it more of a "that sounds true so it is true" kind of gut decision?
To put it another way, of something is evidently true to you, but to me it sounds evidently false, then do you ever wonder "how do I know I'm right and everybody else is wrong?"
Again, how can you ask this question as if you aren't doing the same thing?
We each decide what we think is correct. And the ones who do it best aren't so driven by what the peanut gallery dictates.
I'm not doing the same thing. To the best of my ability I check for logical fallacies, bias (especially confirmation bias), and evidence. I don't decide what I think is correct. I feel compelled to accept evidence for something. And if there is enough evidence which contradicts what I believed I feel compelled to abandon that belief.
That is the exact opposite of believing something despite the lack lack evidence. That's called "faith". I do not believe that to be rational. Herd mentality has nothing I do with it because the herd is highly irrational. The herd is swayed by emotion more often than logic and evidence.
Conspiracy theory to me is the same. If it isn't driven by evidence then what? It must be the instinctive or emotional part of the brain that makes these theories seem so convincing.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Gary said:
I'm not doing the same thing. To the best of my ability I check for logical fallacies, bias (especially confirmation bias), and evidence. I don't decide what I think is correct. I feel compelled to accept evidence for something. And if there is enough evidence which contradicts what I believed I feel compelled to abandon that belief.
That is the exact opposite of believing something despite the lack lack evidence. That's called "faith". I do not believe that to be rational. Herd mentality has nothing I do with it because the herd is highly irrational. The herd is swayed by emotion more often than logic and evidence.
Conspiracy theory to me is the same. If it isn't driven by evidence then what? It must be the instinctive or emotional part of the brain that makes these theories seem so convincing.
Okay, you are right back to being a dick.
There's really no difference in the way you and "conspiracy theorists" decide what's correct.
You just don't have the same experiences as others that makes them less trusting of information that we all know is manipulated before it gets to us.
But for you to continue to portray it as other people are irrational to your iron clad exercise in perfect rationality is what gets you the gas face.
Plus, you don't even know any "conspiracy theorists" in real life which kinda makes you a extremely weird shut-in (or something of the sort) who has no right to be talking about said people one way or another.
And yes, plenty of people were "conspiracy theorists" before the internet.
I think you are taking issue with the idea that believing in something for which there is no evidence- ie "faith" is irrational.
Belief in pink unicorns is irrational. Why, if not for lack of evidence for such a thing existing? Is there some other reason that this would be described as irrational? No. Lack of evidence is what makes belief in pink unicorns irrational, period.
And of you were to say that it isn't lack of evidence that makes a belief irrational, then by what standard do you determine a blew if to be rational or irrational?
Again, that is a serious question. By what standard do you personally define something to be rational or irrational?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Gary said:
I think you are taking issue with the idea that believing in something for which there is no evidence- ie "faith" is irrational.
Belief in pink unicorns is irrational. Why, if not for lack of evidence for such a thing existing? Is there some other reason that this would be described as irrational? No. Lack of evidence is what makes belief in pink unicorns irrational, period.
And of you were to say that it isn't lack of evidence that makes a belief irrational, then by what standard do you determine a blew if to be rational or irrational?
Again, that is a serious question. By what standard do you personally define something to be rational or irrational?
You persisting to claim that you somehow have "evidence" that others don't have is about the most irrational thing I've run into in a while.
Have people been watching the news out of Ukraine?
Here is a good example of people being fed news, and most excepting it, that is clearly biased.
When the protests started the protesters were described as protesters. Which was accurate.
And pro-democratic. Which was inaccurate.
The government was described as corrupt. Which was accurate.
The government was never (in the press I read and heard) ever described as democratically elected and constitutionally legit. How many people went beyond what was given to them to ferret that out?
The people who are protesting now are described as militants. Though no more violent or anti-democratic than the other protesters.
The US press is clearly playing favorites and failing to report unbiased news.
Yet, the NYT devoted thousands of words the other day about how the Russian press is using biased reporting about Ukraine.
And please don't get me wrong, I am not saying the old Ukraine government was good, or Russia is good.
Nor am I saying there is any conspiracy here.
I am saying we are fed, regularly, biased reporting, and most people accept it.
I think you are taking issue with the idea that believing in something for which there is no evidence- ie "faith" is irrational.
Belief in pink unicorns is irrational. Why, if not for lack of evidence for such a thing existing? Is there some other reason that this would be described as irrational? No. Lack of evidence is what makes belief in pink unicorns irrational, period.
And of you were to say that it isn't lack of evidence that makes a belief irrational, then by what standard do you determine a blew if to be rational or irrational?
Again, that is a serious question. By what standard do you personally define something to be rational or irrational?
So you believe Unicorns exiast, just not pink ones?
New species are discovered every month. Hell, new species are evolving right now..
Who among us can say with certainty that pink unicorns are not foraging freely beneath Gary's humble abode?
Even with transparency and perfect information, people still act irrationally. Once I figured that one out, I gave up worrying about the ways in which the Space Alien Corpo Industrial One Galaxy Government Complex affects my life. Even if they revealed themselves to me I'd still fuck it up.
That said, I know that they made skateparks to ban street skating more easily. And the entire USA bike industry is on some secret collabo bullshit.
People who are not nuts, who have looked at the JFK evidence, and looked at the Warren Report, often think that the Warren Report got it wrong.
Looking at the wounds, many think that a single bullet is highly improbable, and a single shooter also unlikely.
At this point you have to think to NDT's answer to Are there UFOs?
Even though there are unidentified (or yet to be ided) objects in the sky does not prove, or even suggest, there are aliens buzzing the planet.
Just because the Warren Report was a whitewash does not prove any larger conspiracy.
It certainly does not prove that Cuba/Mafia/KKK/CIA/Jews/Pope/Masons/Ancient Egyptians/Aliens/Atlantisians were behind the assassination.
In fact none of those groups benefited from the assassination.
The person who benefited was LBJ. Where was he when the shooting was going down?
I think you are taking issue with the idea that believing in something for which there is no evidence- ie "faith" is irrational.
Belief in pink unicorns is irrational. Why, if not for lack of evidence for such a thing existing? Is there some other reason that this would be described as irrational? No. Lack of evidence is what makes belief in pink unicorns irrational, period.
And of you were to say that it isn't lack of evidence that makes a belief irrational, then by what standard do you determine a blew if to be rational or irrational?
Again, that is a serious question. By what standard do you personally define something to be rational or irrational?
You persisting to claim that you somehow have "evidence" that others don't have is about the most irrational thing I've run into in a while.
Woah! When did I make a claim like that???
What evidence do i have that others don't have? Be specific, please.
I only believe in "conspiracy theories" that are evidently true.
.
Honest question. Without evidence, how do you determine what is 'evidently true'? How do you check for confirmation bias? Or is it more of a "that sounds true so it is true" kind of gut decision?
To put it another way, of something is evidently true to you, but to me it sounds evidently false, then do you ever wonder "how do I know I'm right and everybody else is wrong?"
Also, if it's true isn't no longer a conspiracy theory. This speaks to the point we are all making that government agencies lie and cover stuff up so it's not always easy to determine what's true and what's not in real time. Often the suspected truth doesn't come out until years later.
Yea,it's info wars but it's pretty much accurate as far as I know.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Gary said:
HarveyCanal said:
Gary said:
I think you are taking issue with the idea that believing in something for which there is no evidence- ie "faith" is irrational.
Belief in pink unicorns is irrational. Why, if not for lack of evidence for such a thing existing? Is there some other reason that this would be described as irrational? No. Lack of evidence is what makes belief in pink unicorns irrational, period.
And of you were to say that it isn't lack of evidence that makes a belief irrational, then by what standard do you determine a blew if to be rational or irrational?
Again, that is a serious question. By what standard do you personally define something to be rational or irrational?
You persisting to claim that you somehow have "evidence" that others don't have is about the most irrational thing I've run into in a while.
Woah! When did I make a claim like that???
What evidence do i have that others don't have? Be specific, please.
You keep saying how you are evidence based while a "conspiracy theorist" is not.
Yet, neither of you have any evidence at hand.
I've said this like 4 times already in this thread.
Harvey I must have misread when you said that you had no evidence that Boston and sandy hook were staged.
So let's take a look at the evidence. I'm a rational person, if there is solid evidence that it was staged then I will change my mind.
I mean real evidence of course. Not anecdotal, no appeal to motive, no appeals to coincidence, no "I'm just asking questions", or any other fallacies. Just good old fashioned evidence. Like a document or recording or anything that cannot be explained by anything other than conspiracy.
Of you are evidence based then provide the evidence. Otherwise concede that this belief is not evidence based and therefore irrational. I think that's fair and not Just being a dick.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
LaserWolf said:
I am saying we are fed, regularly, biased reporting, and most people accept it.
Or...
We are fed whatever the news-gathering organisations have been able to make sense out of, from what their trusted sources on the ground (and their sources, and so on) have been able to furnish them with.
Who remembers Bin Laden getting whacked or the Boston bombings, when the most basic "more news as we get it" aspect of a breaking/developing news story was spun by tinfoil-hatters everywhere as incontrovertible proof that they were manipulating the story before our very eyes? "They keep changing the story!"
Of course there are instances of vested interests controlling content, suppressing stories, etc. But equally there are plenty of instances where things are pretty much exactly what they appear to be. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Of course there are instances of vested interests controlling content, suppressing stories, etc. But equally there are plenty of instances where things are pretty much exactly what they appear to be. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I think there's a difference between instances of bias and patterns of bias. Once the latter have been established, it's not unreasonable to begin, conversationally at least, painting with a broad brush.
I am saying we are fed, regularly, biased reporting, and most people accept it.
Or...
We are fed whatever the news-gathering organisations have been able to make sense out of, from what their trusted sources on the ground (and their sources, and so on) have been able to furnish them with.
Who remembers Bin Laden getting whacked or the Boston bombings, when the most basic "more news as we get it" aspect of a breaking/developing news story was spun by tinfoil-hatters everywhere as incontrovertible proof that they were manipulating the story before our very eyes? "They keep changing the story!"
Of course there are instances of vested interests controlling content, suppressing stories, etc. But equally there are plenty of instances where things are pretty much exactly what they appear to be. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
In my post I pointed out bias.
When NPR calls one group of people "protesters" and an other "militants", when they are both doing the same thing, that is bias.
It has nothing to do with what they are fed by sources.
I am saying we are fed, regularly, biased reporting, and most people accept it.
Or...
We are fed whatever the news-gathering organisations have been able to make sense out of, from what their trusted sources on the ground (and their sources, and so on) have been able to furnish them with.
Who remembers Bin Laden getting whacked or the Boston bombings, when the most basic "more news as we get it" aspect of a breaking/developing news story was spun by tinfoil-hatters everywhere as incontrovertible proof that they were manipulating the story before our very eyes? "They keep changing the story!"
Of course there are instances of vested interests controlling content, suppressing stories, etc. But equally there are plenty of instances where things are pretty much exactly what they appear to be. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
In my post I pointed out bias.
When NPR calls one group of people "protesters" and an other "militants", when they are both doing the same thing, that is bias.
It has nothing to do with what they are fed by sources.
Harvey I must have misread when you said that you had no evidence that Boston and sandy hook were staged.
So let's take a look at the evidence. I'm a rational person, if there is solid evidence that it was staged then I will change my mind.
I mean real evidence of course. Not anecdotal, no appeal to motive, no appeals to coincidence, no "I'm just asking questions", or any other fallacies. Just good old fashioned evidence. Like a document or recording or anything that cannot be explained by anything other than conspiracy.
Of you are evidence based then provide the evidence. Otherwise concede that this belief is not evidence based and therefore irrational. I think that's fair and not Just being a dick.
In the mind of a hard core conspiracy person things just don't happen. Everything is part of some grand Illuminati scheme. You just don't get it! Why wouldn't the government kill a bunch of kids. It makes total sense if you just think about it. (JK)
Or maybe it was a crazy person who went on a killing spree. Was the KKK guy that just killed three people in Kansas City a MLK Ultra operative? Most likely he was just a hateful moron. The 3 people he killed weren't even Jewish further proving how stupid the killer is.
I firmly believe the government lies and covers things up and even starts war for the betterment of the military industrial complex. This really isn't a secret in fact it's pretty well documented. But I have no idea what they gain by staging civilian murders like Sandy Hook or Aurora Colorado. All that did was get people wanting gun control which the military industrial complex is totally against.
Staged mass shootings, we are told, are done to take our guns away.
Ironically (or maybe I should say sadly) they did nothing to further the control of weapons.
CO did briefly tighten some gun laws, but the politicians behind that were recalled, and now the climate is even worse for gun control there.
So the geniuses behind these elaborate conspiracies fail almost every time to further their objectives.
Harvey I must have misread when you said that you had no evidence that Boston and sandy hook were staged.
So let's take a look at the evidence. I'm a rational person, if there is solid evidence that it was staged then I will change my mind.
I mean real evidence of course. Not anecdotal, no appeal to motive, no appeals to coincidence, no "I'm just asking questions", or any other fallacies. Just good old fashioned evidence. Like a document or recording or anything that cannot be explained by anything other than conspiracy.
Of you are evidence based then provide the evidence. Otherwise concede that this belief is not evidence based and therefore irrational. I think that's fair and not Just being a dick.
In the mind of a hard core conspiracy person things just don't happen. Everything is part of some grand Illuminati scheme. You just don't get it! Why wouldn't the government kill a bunch of kids. It makes total sense if you just think about it. (JK)
Or maybe it was a crazy person who went on a killing spree. Was the KKK guy that just killed three people in Kansas City a MLK Ultra operative? Most likely he was just a hateful moron. The 3 people he killed weren't even Jewish further proving how stupid the killer is.
I firmly believe the government lies and covers things up and even starts war for the betterment of the military industrial complex. This really isn't a secret in fact it's pretty well documented. But I have no idea what they gain by staging civilian murders like Sandy Hook or Aurora Colorado. All that did was get people wanting gun control which the military industrial complex is totally against.
Actually gun sales skyrocketed after Sandy Hook and the NRA is more entrenched than ever in anticipation of gun regulations (which for the most part never came). I think any ideas that it was staged is totally bonkers, though.
I see video of one of the parents of a deceased child literally laughing seconds before the TV cameras are rolling on him and then almost on cue he gets distraught and cries when the cameras role and I think...WTF that seems weird as shit. Then I read about how the government has "actors" that they use in cases like these and I think "well that did seem like an actor and our government has done sleazier shit than that" and a sliver of doubt creeps in. Then human nature takes over and you go looking for other things that don't add up.
What the fucking fuck did I just read?
I know family members of one of the kids who died that day. Not the parents, but very close to them.
I don't know what the provenance of this bullshit video is or what the context is, but I nearly threw up in my fucking mouth reading it.
There weren't any motherfucking actors. There were a score of dead kids and hundreds of devastated family members who continue to be derided by right-wing NRA jerkoffs to this day.
You really want to lend a voice to those people, Rich?
Comments
It has nothing to do with attempting to create order out of chaos.
It's not a religion nor a mental illness.
It's merely paying attention without assuming that good cop in the good-cop, bad-cop dynamic is actually trying to help you.
Conspiracy theory affects lots of people. Sometimes it's not so much tin foil hat stuff as a general mistrust of science in general, or of the government, or corporations. All of which is perfectly understandable... Which is why I think it is good to be skeptical and follow what the evidence supports.
Honest question. Without evidence, how do you determine what is 'evidently true'? How do you check for confirmation bias? Or is it more of a "that sounds true so it is true" kind of gut decision?
To put it another way, of something is evidently true to you, but to me it sounds evidently false, then do you ever wonder "how do I know I'm right and everybody else is wrong?"
When our government lies or is caught doing some shady shit, it breeds mistrust and most conspiracy theories involve our government.
Let's take Sandy Hook as an example. Do I believe this was a "false flag" arranged and played out by our government...Hell no. Do I believe this was some sort of hoax and children weren't actually killed.....Hell no. Do I believe Adam Lanza was "programmed" through some MK-Ultra shit and used as a pawn to advance some gun control agenda.....Fuck no.
But.....
I see video of one of the parents of a deceased child literally laughing seconds before the TV cameras are rolling on him and then almost on cue he gets distraught and cries when the cameras role and I think...WTF that seems weird as shit. Then I read about how the government has "actors" that they use in cases like these and I think "well that did seem like an actor and our government has done sleazier shit than that" and a sliver of doubt creeps in. Then human nature takes over and you go looking for other things that don't add up.
Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?
Here's a case where half the country believes he did and half believes there were others involved.
You have them everywhere, not just the US. They're easy to spot; they're the ones who talk about how herd immunity is a myth as they try to cure their kid's whooping cough (which the kid has since given to all the other kids at playgroup) by sending them to bed with an onion in a sock under their pillow.
The stats outlining the rise in childhood diseases previously thought to have been eradicated are, of course, falsified and part of an organised worldwide campaign by Big Pharma and them to hoodwink people into taking up more of these vaccines.
Again, how can you ask this question as if you aren't doing the same thing?
We each decide what we think is correct. And the ones who do it best aren't so driven by what the peanut gallery dictates.
That is the exact opposite of believing something despite the lack lack evidence. That's called "faith". I do not believe that to be rational. Herd mentality has nothing I do with it because the herd is highly irrational. The herd is swayed by emotion more often than logic and evidence.
Conspiracy theory to me is the same. If it isn't driven by evidence then what? It must be the instinctive or emotional part of the brain that makes these theories seem so convincing.
Okay, you are right back to being a dick.
There's really no difference in the way you and "conspiracy theorists" decide what's correct.
You just don't have the same experiences as others that makes them less trusting of information that we all know is manipulated before it gets to us.
But for you to continue to portray it as other people are irrational to your iron clad exercise in perfect rationality is what gets you the gas face.
Plus, you don't even know any "conspiracy theorists" in real life which kinda makes you a extremely weird shut-in (or something of the sort) who has no right to be talking about said people one way or another.
And yes, plenty of people were "conspiracy theorists" before the internet.
Belief in pink unicorns is irrational. Why, if not for lack of evidence for such a thing existing? Is there some other reason that this would be described as irrational? No. Lack of evidence is what makes belief in pink unicorns irrational, period.
And of you were to say that it isn't lack of evidence that makes a belief irrational, then by what standard do you determine a blew if to be rational or irrational?
Again, that is a serious question. By what standard do you personally define something to be rational or irrational?
:hi:
You persisting to claim that you somehow have "evidence" that others don't have is about the most irrational thing I've run into in a while.
Here is a good example of people being fed news, and most excepting it, that is clearly biased.
When the protests started the protesters were described as protesters. Which was accurate.
And pro-democratic. Which was inaccurate.
The government was described as corrupt. Which was accurate.
The government was never (in the press I read and heard) ever described as democratically elected and constitutionally legit. How many people went beyond what was given to them to ferret that out?
The people who are protesting now are described as militants. Though no more violent or anti-democratic than the other protesters.
The US press is clearly playing favorites and failing to report unbiased news.
Yet, the NYT devoted thousands of words the other day about how the Russian press is using biased reporting about Ukraine.
And please don't get me wrong, I am not saying the old Ukraine government was good, or Russia is good.
Nor am I saying there is any conspiracy here.
I am saying we are fed, regularly, biased reporting, and most people accept it.
So you believe Unicorns exiast, just not pink ones?
Who among us can say with certainty that pink unicorns are not foraging freely beneath Gary's humble abode?
That said, I know that they made skateparks to ban street skating more easily. And the entire USA bike industry is on some secret collabo bullshit.
Looking at the wounds, many think that a single bullet is highly improbable, and a single shooter also unlikely.
At this point you have to think to NDT's answer to Are there UFOs?
Even though there are unidentified (or yet to be ided) objects in the sky does not prove, or even suggest, there are aliens buzzing the planet.
Just because the Warren Report was a whitewash does not prove any larger conspiracy.
It certainly does not prove that Cuba/Mafia/KKK/CIA/Jews/Pope/Masons/Ancient Egyptians/Aliens/Atlantisians were behind the assassination.
In fact none of those groups benefited from the assassination.
The person who benefited was LBJ. Where was he when the shooting was going down?
Woah! When did I make a claim like that???
What evidence do i have that others don't have? Be specific, please.
Also, if it's true isn't no longer a conspiracy theory. This speaks to the point we are all making that government agencies lie and cover stuff up so it's not always easy to determine what's true and what's not in real time. Often the suspected truth doesn't come out until years later.
http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/
Yea,it's info wars but it's pretty much accurate as far as I know.
You keep saying how you are evidence based while a "conspiracy theorist" is not.
Yet, neither of you have any evidence at hand.
I've said this like 4 times already in this thread.
YOU.DON'T.SEEM.TO.GET.IT.
So let's take a look at the evidence. I'm a rational person, if there is solid evidence that it was staged then I will change my mind.
I mean real evidence of course. Not anecdotal, no appeal to motive, no appeals to coincidence, no "I'm just asking questions", or any other fallacies. Just good old fashioned evidence. Like a document or recording or anything that cannot be explained by anything other than conspiracy.
Of you are evidence based then provide the evidence. Otherwise concede that this belief is not evidence based and therefore irrational. I think that's fair and not Just being a dick.
Or...
We are fed whatever the news-gathering organisations have been able to make sense out of, from what their trusted sources on the ground (and their sources, and so on) have been able to furnish them with.
Who remembers Bin Laden getting whacked or the Boston bombings, when the most basic "more news as we get it" aspect of a breaking/developing news story was spun by tinfoil-hatters everywhere as incontrovertible proof that they were manipulating the story before our very eyes? "They keep changing the story!"
Of course there are instances of vested interests controlling content, suppressing stories, etc. But equally there are plenty of instances where things are pretty much exactly what they appear to be. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I think there's a difference between instances of bias and patterns of bias. Once the latter have been established, it's not unreasonable to begin, conversationally at least, painting with a broad brush.
In my post I pointed out bias.
When NPR calls one group of people "protesters" and an other "militants", when they are both doing the same thing, that is bias.
It has nothing to do with what they are fed by sources.
soldiers/freedom fighters/guerrillas/terrorists
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
In the mind of a hard core conspiracy person things just don't happen. Everything is part of some grand Illuminati scheme. You just don't get it! Why wouldn't the government kill a bunch of kids. It makes total sense if you just think about it. (JK)
Or maybe it was a crazy person who went on a killing spree. Was the KKK guy that just killed three people in Kansas City a MLK Ultra operative? Most likely he was just a hateful moron. The 3 people he killed weren't even Jewish further proving how stupid the killer is.
I firmly believe the government lies and covers things up and even starts war for the betterment of the military industrial complex. This really isn't a secret in fact it's pretty well documented. But I have no idea what they gain by staging civilian murders like Sandy Hook or Aurora Colorado. All that did was get people wanting gun control which the military industrial complex is totally against.
Ironically (or maybe I should say sadly) they did nothing to further the control of weapons.
CO did briefly tighten some gun laws, but the politicians behind that were recalled, and now the climate is even worse for gun control there.
So the geniuses behind these elaborate conspiracies fail almost every time to further their objectives.
Actually gun sales skyrocketed after Sandy Hook and the NRA is more entrenched than ever in anticipation of gun regulations (which for the most part never came). I think any ideas that it was staged is totally bonkers, though.
What the fucking fuck did I just read?
I know family members of one of the kids who died that day. Not the parents, but very close to them.
I don't know what the provenance of this bullshit video is or what the context is, but I nearly threw up in my fucking mouth reading it.
There weren't any motherfucking actors. There were a score of dead kids and hundreds of devastated family members who continue to be derided by right-wing NRA jerkoffs to this day.
You really want to lend a voice to those people, Rich?