Robert Bonomo on how 9-11 Truthers defeated Hillary |336|

Except Trump and the far right (alt-right) are massively into identity politics and spread their own fake news. The fake news isn't limited to one political ideology.
Doesn't a claim like that need to have some examples to make it sound plausible?

David
 
Sure, classification of a hierarchy as good or evil based on subjective assessments of reported "facts" which are not fully available to everyone leads to a lot of disagreement and nuance. I'm dealing (as I usually do) in the realm of generalities, omniscience, and ideal platonic forms.

This is why crowd-sourcing and networking can have a symbiotic relationship with hierarchy: all of that disagreement and nuance can develop into beneficial resolutions to problems that the top of the hierarchy might ignore or exacerbate... thereby refining and steering the hierarchy towards the good.

Is there an example of the bold?

There seems to be this idea that if people - or rather the real commons or whatever people like to call it - had all the information they would all choose the same response.(Though I am not sure this is what you're saying, I might be misunderstanding.)

I'm not convinced? It seems people can have the same facts but still make different decisions? This in turn suggests people aren't going to disagree on the appropriateness of any hierarchy's enforcement?
 
Is there an example of the bold?

There seems to be this idea that if people - or rather the real commons or whatever people like to call it - had all the information they would all choose the same response.(Though I am not sure this is what you're saying, I might be misunderstanding.)

I'm not convinced? It seems people can have the same facts but still make different decisions? This in turn suggests people aren't going to disagree on the appropriateness of any hierarchy's enforcement?

Sure, people can disagree even with the same facts. I'm just saying that when you make the info widely available and aggregate all the disagreements together the synthesis is a reformation of the hierarchy into something that is more beneficial and more benevolent and more just to the bottom half of it. This is because most people have a conscience and have empathy and have a sense of justice.
 
Compare the world(view)s of Infowars and Alternet - these two groups of people appear to have not just differenmt interpretations and evaluations, but different perceptions as well - what is accepted as "fact" by one of them, will likely be dismissed as "fake" by another. Like if they were literally living in two different realities...
This is the human condition. The big illusion is that there is an actual reality, and that when people disagree it is because one is 'right' and the other 'wrong'. But what if all are 'right'? This is the interface between observer and observed writ large.
 
re the differences between infowars and alternet:

For me the human world is a noosphere - a mind created realm
There is an objectively real natural world within which our mind-made human world arises and upon which it relies for life support and the physical resources to construct the human world
The objectively real natural world is the basis for what we call natural science
The noosphere or the mind-made human world has its own objective physical basis too - our buildings and various infrastructures and gadgets etc

The human world is mind-made out of the resources of the natural world and requires a human mind to utilize
But humans dont live primarily in either the objective natural realm nor in the objective human constructed world
We live in our own mental realm of meaning and interpretation - our personal world
In other words, the objectivity of the world is not what is uppermost for us, but rather its significance or meaning for us personally

Perception is interpretation
and people interpret their perceptions in very different ways and have very different personal worlds

My own belief is that the differences of interpretation are partly based in soul differences; and partly in upbringing and educational differences; and partly in personality differences
In general a person's fundamental perception of the world is non-rational, or intuitive. We live mostly by intuition and habit
Rational arguments for one's perception or interpretation of the world are constructed post hoc
Most people assume that their personal interpretation of the world is identical with objective reality and is the way the world actually is
So naturally they believe they are 'right' and people with a different interpretation are 'wrong'

Science is a methodology which endeavours to approach the world in the opposite manner - ie led by reason, subsequently tested in objective reality
It is extremely difficult for people to do this successfully and requires a lot of discipline and checking and cross-checking
Even sincere and competent scientists can get things wrong
It should be no surprise that science is neither infallible nor immune to corruption
But this is not the fault of science per se; it is the fault of scientists
 
Most people assume that their personal interpretation of the world is identical with objective reality and is the way the world actually is
So naturally they believe they are 'right' and people with a different interpretation are 'wrong'
I certainly sympathise with this view, I sometimes wonder about those people who are considered 'evil'. Do they consider themselves 'right' and society which passes judgement as wrong? (I offer no answer).

Science is a methodology which endeavours to approach the world in the opposite manner - ie led by reason, subsequently tested in objective reality
The big question though, is this. Is either method exhaustive?

That is,
if the personal interpretation is extended to its limit, would it encompass all that is?
and
if the scientific method is extended to its limit, would it encompass all that is?


My own view is that ne'er the twain shall meet. That is to say, neither approach encompasses all.
 
it's all very strange and interesting. Pizzagate seems like a very important data point. I don't take everything Pieczenik says seriously, but I do think there was some kind of coup within the intel agencies. I can see how the Pizzagate evidence could be a tipping point for a lot of go-along-to-get-along-ers.

Then again, imagine how hard some of these pedos in high places will fight to protect full disclosure of these horrors.

I'm sorry, I just can't believe this. Why would a 70-year old woman (almost) want to fly to the Bahamas to have sex with minors?
 
Yeah. At first blush, one might think that the kinds of people who are great Skeptiko fans (well into the paranormal, spirituality and all that woo-woo kind of stuff) would all be New Age hippie types, and be especially careful with the political correctness thing. But apparently quite a lot of us aren't -- if anything, we're a shade the other way.

I find it immensely encouraging that there are others who by and large think in a similar way to me without us ever having got together to construct a party line. It kinda offers independent validation, if you get my meaning.
agreed. it is kinda encouraging.

my additional observation is that 9-11 seems to be the centrifuge that separates those interested in this paranormal weirdness. the first chasm is materialism... the next is the conspiracy :)
 
I certainly sympathise with this view, I sometimes wonder about those people who are considered 'evil'. Do they consider themselves 'right' and society which passes judgement as wrong? (I offer no answer).

Almost always, they are. I can say it as an anarchist who is well-acquainted with the argumentation of anti-state militants - the ones who prefer violent resistance to peaceful protest, and, therefore, are described as "extremists" or "terrorists" by the authorities (and a large part of a population). They invariably consider their struggle to be morally justified and socially neccessary. They percieve state authorities as the bunch of villains whose cruel and desctructive activities have to be stopped by force. In their view, it is state elites who are immoral, dangerous perpetrators, offenders against social prosperity and fairness, and they are highly ethical defenders of their victims.

And, if they win - which happened in actual history for many times - their narrative become the dominant one, and they cease to be "extremists"; now they are painted as noble heroes. For example: how do you think American Founding Fathers - a group of idealistic progressives who ignited a violent and bloody civil war against a traditionally legitimate monarchic rule - would have been remebered if they had lost their rebellion, and had failed to found a state (or, more precisely, a union of states) of their own? I suspect, as "terrorists" or something like that...
 
I'm sorry, I just can't believe this. Why would a 70-year old woman (almost) want to fly to the Bahamas to have sex with minors?
I think yr kinda missing the point. I mean, we have little doubt about what Bill was doing on those 27 planes rides with those 14-yr-old girls that Epstein kidnapped and drugged, right? Bill's a sexual predator... no news there. And we should have no doubt about Podesta's role either... I mean, his Pizzagate facebook messages are incredibly incriminating. So, are you trying to point some picture where Hillary was on the plane, and super close to Podesta, but somehow unaware and unconnected to any of this. I think the chances of that are really, really, really low.
 
I certainly sympathise with this view, I sometimes wonder about those people who are considered 'evil'. Do they consider themselves 'right' and society which passes judgement as wrong? (I offer no answer).


The big question though, is this. Is either method exhaustive?

That is,
if the personal interpretation is extended to its limit, would it encompass all that is?
and
if the scientific method is extended to its limit, would it encompass all that is?


My own view is that ne'er the twain shall meet. That is to say, neither approach encompasses all.

Good points
My view is that the default intuitive or personal interpretation process can be almost exhaustive in practice
by which I mean, there are people in whom reason only ever functions in a post hoc supportive role to their personal interpretations

I dont think the scientific method can ever be exhaustive or complete
Human beings cannot be Vulcans (Spock) or computers (and I dont believe computers can ever be human or sentient)
We can only approximate towards an objective viewpoint - but we can never reach it
Our natural senses can only show us the surfaces of things
To get at the structure of things we must use imagination and reason and understanding and testing
Science is a creative and demanding discipline
 
Doesn't a claim like that need to have some examples to make it sound plausible?

David

Pizzagate - Trump supporters and Alex Jones, the alt-right which is so popular here, which lead to a guy showing up with a gun and firing a couple of shots.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.vo.../13842258/pizzagate-comet-ping-pong-fake-news

I thought that saying that fake news is across the spectrum is something anyone could accept, but nope, let's pretend it's just one side!
 
I thought that saying that fake news is across the spectrum is something anyone could accept, but nope, let's pretend it's just one side!

That's the whole point! There's no point in having sides, take a step back and see it from a new viewpoint.
 
Pizzagate - Trump supporters and Alex Jones, the alt-right which is so popular here, which lead to a guy showing up with a gun and firing a couple of shots.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.vo.../13842258/pizzagate-comet-ping-pong-fake-news

I thought that saying that fake news is across the spectrum is something anyone could accept, but nope, let's pretend it's just one side!
have you examined the leaked emails and recovered social media posts from these folks or are you just reading claims that this is all a "totally false conspiracy." this is a real question... have you examined the evidence?

And again, for anyone who is a Hillary supporter, please start with the Republican/Conservative/Right, Franklin Cover-up and the heroic work of former state Senator John DeCamp
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0071PLZX8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
 
I think yr kinda missing the point. I mean, we have little doubt about what Bill was doing on those 27 planes rides with those 14-yr-old girls that Epstein kidnapped and drugged, right? Bill's a sexual predator... no news there. And we should have no doubt about Podesta's role either... I mean, his Pizzagate facebook messages are incredibly incriminating. So, are you trying to point some picture where Hillary was on the plane, and super close to Podesta, but somehow unaware and unconnected to any of this. I think the chances of that are really, really, really low.
I can believe this of Bill, but not of Hillary. Sorry. I'm a woman, and I just can't imagine such behavior coming from a woman. Did she know about Bill's behavior....perhaps. But I can't imagine her joining with him. Sorry. Not there yet. (And I am not and have never been a Hillary supporter.)
 
Sorry. I'm a woman, and I just can't imagine such behavior coming from a woman. Did she know about Bill's behavior....perhaps. But I can't imagine her joining with him.

I don't know whether or not Hillary has anything to do with all this, but some women are in fact pedophiles, even lead pedophile rings. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...philes-Why-women-sexually-abuse-children.html. See also http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...few/female-sex-offenders-are-often-overlooked and http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...nt-says-leading-forensic-psychologist/6428710. Female pedophilia may be more common than realised: not as prevalent as in men, but it definitely does exist.
 
I don't know whether or not Hillary has anything to do with all this, but some women are in fact pedophiles, even lead pedophile rings. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...philes-Why-women-sexually-abuse-children.html. See also http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...few/female-sex-offenders-are-often-overlooked and http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...nt-says-leading-forensic-psychologist/6428710. Female pedophilia may be more common than realised: not as prevalent as in men, but it definitely does exist.
Furthermore, it is a well reported fact that some middle aged women got on trips to Africa, where they are courted by young men, and bedded in return for cash! Not all women lose their sex drive after the menopause.

David
 
Back
Top