Jump to content

'Do your own research / I do my own research' has become code for conspiracy theory followers


Jingthing
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Show me how it answers my question.

Misrepresenting other people's posts, as you have done to mine repeatedly in the last few days, would characterise someone as an "A" personality type rather than a "B" type in Jing's OP diagnosis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackprince said:

Misrepresenting other people's posts, as you have done to mine repeatedly in the last few days, would characterise someone as an "A" personality type rather than a "B" type in Jing's OP diagnosis.

You're still dodging my question and continuing to flame me instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Karl Marx married a Baroness, lived off her money, and had sex with her female servants.

That's undisputed historical fact.

 

The idea of 'exploitation' arises when not paying people fair compensation for their work.

I've always paid the market value for the product, how about you?

1. Why, as a Marxist, are you concerned about "market value"?

2. I pay my ISP 750 Baht per month to read posts like yours and just realized I pay way over market value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Saanim said:

Actually, if I am not wrong, when 2 years ago somebody said the Covid-19 is lab made, he was labelled a "conspiracy theorist".

Has the labelling been corrected? 

No.

Edited by Phoenix Rising
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phoenix Rising said:

1. Why, as a Marxist, are you concerned about "market value"?

2. I pay my ISP 750 Baht per month to read posts like yours and just realized I pay way over market value.

Well, the real value may be for you to be able to post, so that others have to spend the money to read yours.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It seems that Everyone will now need regular vaccinations to be able to function in life .

   An injection every six months in order to be able to live , or sit at home and starve or be jailed . 

I do have some sympathy with this argument. I think if you can get to 90 per cent vaccinated, as is the case where I live, let the other 10 per cent do their thing. I may be wrong but the overall increase in risk to the community must be small. The risk too is that the  10 per cent are going to feel more and more peeved until you get the protests you see now.

Still, the topic had been is the decision on the 10 per cent or in general part of a conspiracy to control or whatever, and I think it clearly is not. Similarly the decision is backed by medical findings to get a needle each 6 months.

Edited by Fat is a type of crazy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to my idea of multiple legitimate narratives.

 

Here's a perfect example of 2 legitimate narratives on a key covid issue from the BBC yesterday.

Mandatory vaccinations: Three reasons for and against

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-59506339

 

The kind of balance seen in this article is rarely if ever seen here because the people at the conspiracy end of the spectrum will refuse to accept one set of arguments in this article. And the people on the militant "progressive" end of the spectrum will refuse to accept the other set of arguments.

 

As a Liberal of half a century's standing I accept both sets of arguments, even if I have a personal preference for 1 of them, I recognise that they are both legitimate.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackprince said:

Going back to my idea of multiple legitimate narratives.

 

Here's a perfect example of 2 legitimate narratives on a key covid issue from the BBC yesterday.

Mandatory vaccinations: Three reasons for and against

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-59506339

 

The kind of balance seen in this article is rarely if ever seen here because the people at the conspiracy end of the spectrum will refuse to accept one set of arguments in this article. And the people on the militant "progressive" end of the spectrum will refuse to accept the other set of arguments.

 

As a Liberal of half a century's standing I accept both sets of arguments, even if I have a personal preference for 1 of them, I recognise that they are both legitimate.

 

 

Those are arguments. They are not competing facts or "alternative truth". In fact, that article demonstrates the balance which BBC is compelled to offer by law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ozimoron said:

or even Conrad Black but that wasn't the answer he was fishing for,

Robert Maxwell also went fishing from his yacht, didn't turn out to good for him though, the pension thief.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

David Icke does 'research' and he is a lunatic. By research they mean baseless rumors and anti scientific gibberish and misinformation. 

 

It means having a world view that gives you comfort, because you know a secret others don't. It means you follow utter charlatans, who are usually pushing their own books and products. And it means actually shutting down your critical thinking skills and accepting any old bs you see or read on social media, as long as it fits the narrative. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, PremiumLane said:

David Icke does 'research' and he is a lunatic. By research they mean baseless rumors and anti scientific gibberish and misinformation. 

 

It means having a world view that gives you comfort, because you know a secret others don't. It means you follow utter charlatans, who are usually pushing their own books and products. And it means actually shutting down your critical thinking skills and accepting any old bs you see or read on social media, as long as it fits the narrative. 

Great observation. It's the fooling of the gullible that made him very rich. He never talks about that. For me personally, when someone attempts to dictate what my thinking should be, with nothing better than supposition, I reject it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Saanim said:

Actually, if I am not wrong, when 2 years ago somebody said the Covid-19 is lab made, he was labelled a "conspiracy theorist".

Has the labelling been corrected? 

No definitive information yet. But most experts say it came from animal to human transmission.  But not 100% known for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Seriously ... Are you blind.  Anything counter to MSM is deleted on AN, and everywhere.  Nothing but pushback.  What is this whole thread about ?

Most anything leaning 'right' is fake or unsubstantiated or from untrustworthy source.

Fact checkers are anything but. IMHO

If all else fails, simply label it as trolling.

 

That is absolutely incorrect.  Learn to use a fact checker.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Saanim said:

Actually, if I am not wrong, when 2 years ago somebody said the Covid-19 is lab made, he was labelled a "conspiracy theorist".

Has the labelling been corrected? 

There's been nothing to suggest that he was mislabeled. If you have anything definitive please pass it on with links. The preponderance of evidence is still that the virus was passed from animals (likely bats) to humans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

No definitive information yet. But most experts say it came from animal to human transmission.  But not 100% known for sure.

There was an old man from wuhan,

Who suspected transmission from human, when the bats came to play, and the institute was away, I can't think of more to say!

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Khabib said:

There was an old man from wuhan,

Who suspected transmission from human, when the bats came to play, and the institute was away, I can't think of more to say!

More innuendo without evidence. This isn't a joke thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

That is absolutely incorrect.  Learn to use a fact checker.

For info, first thing, stop using Google, as they censor info.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fake+fact+checkers&t=h_&ia=web

And I'll wait for every link stating some fact checking is anything but, called unreliable, bias, unsubstantial, and fake sites themselves.

 

I personally, don't trust anything, anywhere ... was raised that way.  Has served me well.  Anything that has the gov't or profits involved, can't be trusted. 

 

Anything humans touch is corrupted.  Start with that thought, and your eyes & mind will open up a bit.

Edited by KhunLA
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a branch of linguistics called "discourse analysis" - it proposes among other things to examine the framing of a proposition.

 

The framing of the proposition of this thread in the OP is that there are two character types - A and B.

 

As a Liberal of half a century's standing who believes in diversity of opinion as a core principle I cannot accept such a simplified binary view of the world.

 

It's obviously not possible to reduce complexity to binary splits such as this.

 

I don't believe that there is only QAnon and angels.

 

Interestingly, QAnon sees a different binary- QAnon and devils.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who sees the irony.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ozimoron said:

More innuendo without evidence. This isn't a joke thread.

Many comments on here are a joke imo, so I joined the party. In any case, it would be a conspiracy to think all that's written here is deadly serious. Please excuse me for enjoying myself. I respect the subject should be serious though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...