How Absurd: 8 Crazy Reactions, Ridiculous Conclusions, and

[Canadian_watcher]

I see that you could apply this to McGowan in a loose way if you believe that he is oppressing or destroying others with his research, and you seem to be arguing that that is the case with your conviction that he is in essence 'revictimizing the victims.' I can understand why you would say that, and I agree that this type of research treads a thin line - the doubt that is raised as to the authenticity of the victims can be labeled as dehumanizing. However I argue that we can't shy away from these questions just because they are awkward. It would be too easy, then, for tyrants to shut down debate claiming that it might hurt someone who is innocent.

would you feel comfortable coming to Boston and asking people on the street to seriously consider McGowan's contention that the individuals injured in the marathon bombing are not actually victims but instead imposters?

or is that something you would shy away from?

I would not feel comfortable doing that, no. I'm sure that it was pretty awkward and at times dangerous for people to advance the argument for the equality of women in certain company, too, at one time. And Galileo had to choose whether or not he was going to expose his radical theories in front of anyone who might report him to the Church - he chose to go after truth and was punished. Lots of civil rights workers were jailed for going forward into territory that was unfriendly, as well.

I also wouldn't wear a bikini into a Mexican biker bar. I wouldn't hold hands with my girlfriend in Saudi Arabia. etc, etc.

I don't see how being aware that there are groups of people who are rabid in their beliefs should stop anyone from pursuing the truth.

[dbcooper41]

i'm not getting into any fake victim accusations but i gotta ask, what is the guy in the grey hoodie doing to jeff b's leg in the attached pic?
it looks to me like he's rolling on, or perhaps rolling off, a stocking.
also in the gif barracuda posted look at jeff's legs(i feel like we're old friends by now) when he appears to swing them in the air. honestly they look like unblooded spikes.
finally in the gif what's up with the guy running

jeff b.jpg

away with his pants torn to shreds and no apparent injury, as well as the guy with his pants torn away who seems to hurl himself on the ground.
the quality is pretty poor in thorndikes pics and the GIF looks like it has been cleaned up a little so all of this is probably just illusion.
and please spare me the "wtf", "offcs" etc bs.
i'd really like honest opinions on my obsevations.
thank you.

[Canadian_watcher]

and also, where's all the blood? it's an honest question. The three in the pile with Jeff ought to be covered in blood - his legs are already gone, so the blood ought to be everywhere.

I think the person who gets up and runs out of the scene does so because they are meant to distract from the other stuff that's happening.

[ShinShinKid]

Anyone up for a free trip to Bean town?

[IanEye]

I see that you could apply this to McGowan in a loose way if you believe that he is oppressing or destroying others with his research, and you seem to be arguing that that is the case with your conviction that he is in essence 'revictimizing the victims.' I can understand why you would say that, and I agree that this type of research treads a thin line - the doubt that is raised as to the authenticity of the victims can be labeled as dehumanizing. However I argue that we can't shy away from these questions just because they are awkward. It would be too easy, then, for tyrants to shut down debate claiming that it might hurt someone who is innocent.

would you feel comfortable coming to Boston and asking people on the street to seriously consider McGowan's contention that the individuals injured in the marathon bombing are not actually victims but instead imposters?

or is that something you would shy away from?

I would not feel comfortable doing that, no. I'm sure that it was pretty awkward and at times dangerous for people to advance the argument for the equality of women in certain company, too, at one time. And Galileo had to choose whether or not he was going to expose his radical theories in front of anyone who might report him to the Church - he chose to go after truth and was punished. Lots of civil rights workers were jailed for going forward into territory that was unfriendly, as well.

I also wouldn't wear a bikini into a Mexican biker bar. I wouldn't hold hands with my girlfriend in Saudi Arabia. etc, etc.

I don't see how being aware that there are groups of people who are rabid in their beliefs should stop anyone from pursuing the truth.

The people in this image getting sprayed by firehoses aren't actors, they are genuine.
The people in this image getting sprayed by firehoses aren't cowards, they are going after truth.

You are not genuine or seeking truth.

Fuck off.

[compared2what?]

You are, again, misreading me, which I regret but am powerless to change.

well, let me see. You posted this:

After further review, I have a number of questions about this shot, beginning with why, given that the media establishment was clearly on a mission to traumatize us with the most graphic images available, do we have only one shot of this particular scene - and an out-of-focus, poorly exposed one at that? And why is this the only view we have of the hollowed-out leg guy, who we can't even recognize from this angle and distance? Given the numerous graphic, very bloody images we have of Jeff, why didn't this guy get equal time? Were his prosthetics and make-up not as convincing as Jeff's? Where are the close-up shots of him lying in a pool of his own blood? And where is his iconic wheelchair shot?

Does anyone else see the problems with this line of questioning?

Yes. It's such a short step from what he's doing to

[PICTURE OF LYNNDIE ENGLAND DELETED FOR LENGTH}

that I'm not sure there is one at all.

I mean, he's literally conditioning his readers to respond to slaughter in the streets by jeering at the victims and feeling good about themselves for doing it. And if that's not the same problem outlined here in a slightly different configuration, I don't see how.

People think they're not capable of it. But that's why they are.

I realize how annoying that is, fwiw. Sorry. If I could think of something to do about it besides say it, I would.
______________

Edited for typos.

Which to me seems to be saying that the way McGowan wrote his article is one step behind what certain soldiers did to prisoners in Abu-Ghraib prisoners in terms of its dehumanization.


Am I incorrect in my interpretation? Please correct me if I am.

Yes. But it's my fault. I wasn't clear.

I think that he sees them as crisis actors because he's making the same mistake that enabled soldiers in Abu-Ghraib to take wacky photos of themselves torturing prisoners. So I'm not sure there's even one degree of separation there.

I don't think it's the same as torture. That's decidedly an additional step, though on the same continuum.

The article that you linked to in the second part of your post is about new thinking with regards to the banality of evil. A short exerpt:

People do great wrong, not because they are unaware of what they are doing but because they consider it to be right. This is possible because they actively identify with groups whose ideology justifies and condones the oppression and destruction of others.

I see that you could apply this to McGowan in a loose way if you believe that he is oppressing or destroying others with his research, and you seem to be arguing that that is the case with your conviction that he is in essence 'revictimizing the victims.' I can understand why you would say that, and I agree that this type of research treads a thin line - the doubt that is raised as to the authenticity of the victims can be labeled as dehumanizing. However I argue that we can't shy away from these questions just because they are awkward. It would be too easy, then, for tyrants to shut down debate claiming that it might hurt someone who is innocent.

I don't see how the prospective ease with which tyrants will be able to shut down debate in the future could possibly be very greatly affected one way or the other by my arguing that innocent people should not be hurt now, then or ever.

But since I can't see the future, I'm willing to take a chance on that. Because they shouldn't be.

Incidentally, that tyrant thing is exactly what Zimbardo hypothesizes leads to situational evil -- ie, it's enabled by that kind of alteration to the power dynamic

The quote from the article, above, can be applied another way, though. It can be applied to the people trying to shame others into not looking into hard to look in to areas - ie the use of actors and props and other propagandistic tools at the scenes of world events.

And that is too. Even more so.

I'm not trying to shame you. I don't see a cause for shame. I sincerely believe you're making a mistake.

To be blunt, your association (however slyly attempted) of McGowan and his 'methods' with the vague, shadowy world of Kabbalah followers and then the monstrous soldiers who took joy in torturing prisoners at Abu-Ghraib can be seem in the light of someone doing 'great wrong because she considers is to be right. It is possible for you to do this because you actively identify with groups whose ideology justifies and condones the oppression and (character) destruction of others."

I do not. You identify me with them.

Also, the Kabbalah thing was an entirely different point. And there was nothing sly about it. I was wrong to say there was a causal association. But it was an honest mistake. That might be to my discredit. Bu it didn't discredit the basic argument -- ie, that the crisis-actor pitch is very similar to the introductory pitches made by cults -- at all.

Quit slinging mud at me, please.

[barracuda]

Was that clear? It's an important point to me to make, for non-judgmental, non-hostile reasons.

Sure it was, and I get it. At some point during my reading of McGowan's first essay, I came to the conclusion that there wasn't really any original thinking in it, and that he had clearly borrowed his ideas from the earlier web articles proposing crisis actors and fakery. Or maybe I should say, he was clearly infected by them.

Maybe I'm just not quite as ready as you are to dilute personal responsibility with large doses of excuses regarding the susceptibility of good-hearted impulses of human nature to being twisted by misdirection. The buck actually stops somewhere. I read similar or the same articles and looked at similar and the same images as McGowan and conniption and Canadian Watcher, but for some reason I wasn't infected by the disease. Beyond simple photo-analysis, I'd like to think the reasons for that have to do with understanding my responsibility to the innocent, and probably the possession some degree of empathy differing from their own.

[Iamwhomiam]

Conniption, You've brought this McGowan bullshit to this arena, in what is it two or 3 threads.

I've never read anything the guy wrote and aside from knowing his name I knew nothing more about him. I assure you I will never read anything he's published based solely upon my limited experience with what you've brought us.

Ask yourself, where did all of the undamaged clothing go to they were wearing prior to the explosion?

I said it before, this is the most disgusting of anything I've seen or written here and I resent you littering RI with this particular shit. Repeatedly.

And you've posted and linked his site many times. So thanks again for only once again linking to it. Are you the fuckhead McGowan?

Do you have any experience confronting such trauma? Of course not. I can't wait till "Jeff" sues his balls off.

db, you have heard of tourniquets?

fish, "It boils down to narcissism." and page views.

[ShinShinKid]

To Ian Eye:



I was going to offer to pay for trips, too!

[barracuda]

and also, where's all the blood? it's an honest question. The three in the pile with Jeff ought to be covered in blood - his legs are already gone, so the blood ought to be everywhere.

You mean this blood?



Is that enough blood for you?

How about this shot of an Iraqui child:



Where's all the blood? Fake?

I think the person who gets up and runs out of the scene does so because they are meant to distract from the other stuff that's happening.

What stuff?

[OP ED]

Beyond simple photo-analysis...

you don't really need anything else. the guy's theory is clearly idiotic to anyone who thinks it even halfway through. why would someone go to the trouble of faking injuries at a bombing? that's just stupid. really stupid.
wouldn't it be easier just to, um, well, bomb something?

then there would be real injuries and you wouldn't have to waste time, energy, and resources training "amputee actors" or whatever such nonsense.

christ, i can't believe this lasted so long here.

[Wombaticus Rex]

You are not genuine or seeking truth.

Fuck off.

Let us moderate. Together.

[barracuda]

i'm not getting into any fake victim accusations but i gotta ask, what is the guy in the grey hoodie doing to jeff b's leg in the attached pic?

His name is Christian Williams, not "guy in the grey hoodie". Let's try not to further depersonalize these people, if possible.

Interview with Jeff Bauman.

[OP ED]

What stuff?

obviously he's running off to set up the holographic projectors so that people will see a plane flying into the other building instead of the missle that actually...

oh wait. sorry. wrong thread.

[barracuda]

Close enough.