Anderson Cooper "Exposing" Newtown Conspiracy Theory 1/11/13

[sunny]

Because that right there is the gateway to "nobody died".

Bullshit. Do not presume to tell me where I stand or where I might stand tomorrow on any given issue. I am not at the gate, I am not even in the vicinity of 'nobody died'. Hey, don't smoke those questions! You might end up a conspiracy junkie.

If you need it spelled out, where I am is questioning the validity of these peoples' identities. I question if they are who they say they are. No, I do not know why, or even IF, fake parents would be trotted out but I would like the right to put the question out there without feeling bullied and patronized.

No parent of a murdered child would behave as these people have and I don't need goddamn internet articles to tell me about the grieving process of family members of murder victims; I've seen it up close and personal. And no, there was no 'screaming in tormented agony' but since I never said this was a requirement for me to take their grief as credible your point is moot.


I realize the atmosphere at RI has changed to one of 'you are not allowed to ask questions that do not fit within the parameters set by a certain clique of posters' but... you know what? Fuck you.

[barracuda]

You're saying exactly the same thing the "nobody died" folks are saying on the RIP Emilie Parker page. Yes, you have the right to ask questions. You've got the right to say whatever you want, really. No one is questioning that right. And I have the right to gently point out just how fucking wrong you really are.

You're not the final arbiter of what grief ought to look like on teevee. Sorry.

you know what? Fuck you.

Choosing love again, I see...

[MacCruiskeen]

Sunny: thanks.

[NeonLX]

One thing I've noted within the 'conspiracy community' is it's participants ability to ingest enormous amounts of tremendously soul-corrupting and often terrifying information, then switching off their PC's to go live their normal daily lives, holding down jobs, raising kids etc.

It's a kind of cognitive dissonance. It's like we are watching a movie that we then come online to discuss. The vast, vast majority of it actually doesn't touch our lives directly and if it does, it's in tiny, incremental amounts.

As more and more conspiracy theory is exposed as conspiracy fact, one has to ask the question - with the machinations of the powerful being unmasked daily, having so much to lose and a vast arsenal of outright owned or complicit media at their disposal, what if a Sandy Hook type incident is exposed as a sham? - a real 'in-your-face', no denying it, level of corruption is truly staggering, 'where does the rot extend to?', the authorities are complicit! - just the kind of awakening that conspiracy theorists urge -

what happens then?

Nothing. Same as what happened when the bankers were exposed in '08. Except conspiracy theorists lose another few degrees of sanity. Perhaps that's the grand plan - weed out those that give a shit and drive them mad.

Wow. I've been trying to put the primary source of my angst into words for years now. You just done it for me, very succinctly. Thanks.

I'm serious.

Now back to the f'ing grind.

[sunny]

You're saying exactly the same thing the "nobody died" folks are saying on the RIP Emilie Parker page. Yes, you have the right to ask questions. You've got the right to say whatever you want, really. No one is questioning that right. And I have the right to gently point out just how fucking wrong you really are.

You're not the final arbiter of what grief ought to look like on teevee. Sorry.

'Gentle' is not how I would describe your efforts to cut off certain questions concerning this event. [and several others, if we're being frank]

No, I'm not the final arbiter of what grief ought to look like on teevee. I question their presence on teevee at all so soon after the event, and looking so pleased with themselves. It is not weird or wrong to think this is suspicious behavior for the parents of a murdered child; it is a perfectly reasonable suspicion to have.-- What IS weird and wrong is that some people are working so hard to convince the rest of us that we're stupid for thinking such a thing.

Questions about the demeanor of involved parties in the wake of tragic and/or suspicious events is SOP for investigators. There is a reason for that. Look it up.

Mac: You're welcome.

[barracuda]

I would encourage you to be as frank as your comfort level permits, by all means, if not more so.

How many parents of the murdered children have you seen in television interviews since the 14th?

[barracuda]

Did you see this appearance? How would you evaluate their grief display? Shine your investigative acumen upon it and relate your appraisal.

[Elihu]

One thing I've noted within the 'conspiracy community' is it's participants ability to ingest enormous amounts of tremendously soul-corrupting and often terrifying information, then switching off their PC's to go live their normal daily lives, holding down jobs, raising kids etc.

It's a kind of cognitive dissonance. It's like we are watching a movie that we then come online to discuss. The vast, vast majority of it actually doesn't touch our lives directly and if it does, it's in tiny, incremental amounts.As more and more conspiracy theory is exposed as conspiracy fact, one has to ask the question - with the machinations of the powerful being unmasked daily, having so much to lose and a vast arsenal of outright owned or complicit media at their disposal, what if a Sandy Hook type incident is exposed as a sham? - a real 'in-your-face', no denying it, level of corruption is truly staggering, 'where does the rot extend to?', the authorities are complicit! - just the kind of awakening that conspiracy theorists urge -

what happens then?

Nothing. Same as what happened when the bankers were exposed in '08. Except conspiracy theorists lose another few degrees of sanity. Perhaps that's the grand plan - weed out those that give a shit and drive them mad.

great post. this is the million swag question isn't it? absolutely nobody works for anybody else other than the man. the tv's won't go off at night because they're related to the work being done during the day. it's the only way anybody can live and pay the bills, anderson cooper and the skeptics alike. it's so obvious that one thing the msmgov is about to do, is not related to another thing the msmgov is reporting on. and yet the tv's won't go off. as regards the law and the bills, there is no other existence. funny thing about humans turning to intuition or induction when facts don't seem to add up. and yet humans cannot live on intuition alone. it must lead to, and coincide with, obvious logical conclusions. glass of milk, glass of gasoline. if consumed today, the gasoline will kill you. and tomorrow it will kill you too. it's ironic, just read this epic blog, and count the sheer number of verifiable factoids intuited and omitted from msmgov narratives. are facts always important? or just sometimes important?

so i think we can deduce a pattern here. the msmgov is able to notify the public that it is about to exert force based on its story, logical, comprehensive, or not. this has probably always been the case, but the cog diss and societal tension of late have increased due to the fantasy level of the tales being told. and they've got the jails, armies and cops to back it up.

so i'm going to conclude this: the msmgov is not intending to obliterate the truth. on the contrary. they intend to obliterate the lies. all lies, forever. but not in the way us un-evolved rabble might logically expect, through proof. cog diss is the tool to shape and mould minds through sheer outrage, warfare and exhaustion, to the point of giving up and surrendering, that the truth is whatever the msmgov says it is. before or after the fact. they can prove it either way. i further conclude that the basis of their actions will be love and caring regardless of who or what is being robbed, stomped on, incarcerated, or blown up. because there will always be skeptical dead-enders. to eradicate them for the good of all will be the only logical thing for the msmgov to do...

[JackRiddler]

Another media factor: Prior to Internet, people who appeared by name on TV for any reason would very frequently get harrassment, crank mail and calls, death threats and love stalkers, etc. Hardly limited to celebrities. The amount of this may not be greater now than before. Just now you hear about it, and people have a public (and also often anonymous) outlet. (As they should. We need to stand by First Amendment absolutism.)

You can absolutely do that without going the oh-whatever-people-get-death-threats route. I mean, you're also absolutely free to do it if you want to. I just think it's less scenic, personally.

Oh I didn't mean it that way - just confused writing. Death threats are wrong, and actionable. Nothing to do with free speech absolutism. What I mean is, there may not be more of this sickness than before (whether it's stupid speech or in the case of threats and stalking actionable speech). And it's amplified by Internet. By absolutism I mean it's essential that everyone continues to publish freely on this medium, no matter how stupid, with the exception of genuine threats and personal harrassment. Because you're going to see those who will seek to broadly define "conspiracy theory" as "hate speech," etc.

[Project Willow]

I'll tell you my honest answer to your first question: 2.

You and one other psychopath.

Hypothetically, a psychopath would not prompt others to be concerned with potential damage to grieving families and innocent bystanders, unless of course he were exceedingly calculating and brilliant, and working in service of some other goal, but that's highly unlikely in this scenario, meaning in the course of casual conversation on an Internet board.

While I'm at this, I'd like to remind everyone that for all we know this fishy dickface might be living under a bridge somewhere or he might be in an ivory tower. who knows??? he likes to pretend hes' a single father who bikes everywhere and makes 'art' - but I mean seriously, what do you know about this fella?

Everyone is capable of being an asshole, even good people, including you, please stop insulting my friends. Thank you.

[Edited for clarity, just in case.]

[LilyPatToo]

Parts of this thread boggle my mind. I try to imagine someone rating me on my "appearance of grief" back in November of 1982 when my only son died and all I can say is that it's so profoundly unempathic and escapist/denial-based that it hurts to think about. Those poor parents, having to bear that outrageous indignity along with their grief. During the first 24 hours after my son died, I went through distinct phases of reaction--hysteria, horror and the shock-induced silence that followed, numb calm and terrible shaking pain and suicidal longing. And I was doing it essentially alone. Had I had other parents grieving with me, I know they would have affected how I looked and sounded--human beings do that if they're empathic--but all those reactions would still have been there, either in public or in private, sooner or later.

And who knows what drugs some of these poor suffering people were given to allow them to continue to function for their remaining family members? I remember someone offered me a valium at one point and I took it to get through the old-fashioned funeral, which included a walk down the main street of the tiny town in W PA, from the funeral home to the cemetery, following the carried coffin past all the residents of the town. Without chemical help I would have collapsed. Did anyone judge me by the fact that my face showed my numbness? How about by the fact that the drug allowed me to interact with the rest of the family and friends without wailing my grief aloud as I walked? Did that count against me?

Sorry to get so personal, but I watched those Connecticut parents and saw their reactions and ALL of them were normal for our culture. I had to say something.

LilyPat

[compared2what?]

I realize the atmosphere at RI has changed to one of 'you are not allowed to ask questions that do not fit within the parameters set by a certain clique of posters' but... you know what? Fuck you.

By whom and how are you not allowed to ask questions?

Because I keep seeing that allegation. But it's always being made by one poster who's using angry, abusive terms (fuck you, bully, asshole, uptight square, monster) to attack someone who usually hasn't done anything more censorious or nasty than disagree with him/her. Initially. I mean, I can't pretend that the nastiness doesn't get to be a two-way street pretty quickly. But that's what happens when you go around cursing at people like, for example, you just did.

Speaking of examples. I never see any of this non-allowing censorship I keep hearing about. So. Maybe we should start here:

As I already said on the first page of the thread:.

There's no right to speech that's exempt from fair criticism. Disagreement on grounds you can't honestly contest is not censorship. And there's a difference between failing to make a good case for what you're saying and the suppression of it.

.

Do you disagree with that?

_______________

Or maybe we should start here:

The last time I asked you a question (on, IIRC, the lesser of two evils thread) you stopped posting for weeks.

It was a fair question. My mind was open to receiving whatever answer was returned to me. My words were courteous. And (in fucking short) I was showing every possible sign that my intentions were ordinarily good. And yet, it seems altogether possible that you more or less unilaterally decided I was not allowing you to speak in ways that didn't fit my parameters.. Distinctly possible. It did even at the time. I felt concerned and distressed, even. But I couldn't think of a single goddamn thing to do.

Any suggestions?

I mean, I certainly have no wish to stop you from thinking of my speaking to you as too great an offense for you to even dignify with a response if that's what you want. But it seems a little harsh to then also be called a bully. It just adds insult to insult..

[compared2what?]

Shorter version: Ninety-nine percent of the time, I can't even figure out what that some-posters-don't-allow-others-to-speak stuff could possibly mean if it doesn't mean "Shut up."

People are funny..

[compared2what?]

Parts of this thread boggle my mind. I try to imagine someone rating me on my "appearance of grief" back in November of 1982 when my only son died and all I can say is that it's so profoundly unempathic and escapist/denial-based that it hurts to think about. Those poor parents, having to bear that outrageous indignity along with their grief. During the first 24 hours after my son died, I went through distinct phases of reaction--hysteria, horror and the shock-induced silence that followed, numb calm and terrible shaking pain and suicidal longing. And I was doing it essentially alone. Had I had other parents grieving with me, I know they would have affected how I looked and sounded--human beings do that if they're empathic--but all those reactions would still have been there, either in public or in private, sooner or later.

And who knows what drugs some of these poor suffering people were given to allow them to continue to function for their remaining family members? I remember someone offered me a valium at one point and I took it to get through the old-fashioned funeral, which included a walk down the main street of the tiny town in W PA, from the funeral home to the cemetery, following the carried coffin past all the residents of the town. Without chemical help I would have collapsed. Did anyone judge me by the fact that my face showed my numbness? How about by the fact that the drug allowed me to interact with the rest of the family and friends without wailing my grief aloud as I walked? Did that count against me?

Sorry to get so personal, but I watched those Connecticut parents and saw their reactions and ALL of them were normal for our culture. I had to say something.

LilyPat

Thank you. And I'm so sorry for your loss.

I agree. As far as I've ever known or seen it, when grief looks like it feels it's private. Or solitary. People mourning publicly typically just look like people, unless they're actively, intentionally putting their sorrow on display for some reason. And not necessarily a bad one, either.Jackie Kennedy, for example.

That kind of compact doesn't exist here, however.

[compared2what?]

just to be clear, you're not one of the assholes, c2w..

Thanks. And if I was being more lecture-y. than I needed to be (which it looks to me like I was), I'm sorry. .

It's just hard to know what to do, sometimes. Not a newsflash, I know.