"Like Jerky; he must be be extremely innocent since he is so deeply offended."
That's uncalled for, Nordic and a very low blow.
"That's not our fault and it's not our problem."
The fuck it isn't. How would you feel if suddenly some gaffer got arrested for abusing a child and the next thing you knew was you too were dragged into, the "movie makers pedophilia scandal?"
Real hard to deny because the 'evidence' is so overwhelming. That's a kind of taint one cannot just shrug off as someone else's problem.
Please try putting yourself in someone else's shoes before leveling such barely disguised loathful charges.
The fuck it isn't. How would you feel if suddenly some gaffer got arrested for abusing a child and the next thing you knew was you too were dragged into, the "movie makers pedophilia scandal?"
Real hard to deny because the 'evidence' is so overwhelming. That's a kind of taint one cannot just shrug off as someone else's problem.
Please try putting yourself in someone else's shoes before leveling such barely disguised loathful charges.
What, Jerky can dish it out but he can't take it? He needs you to defend him?
My argument is pretty simple. Unless you're the one with the gun or making the threatening phone calls you haven't done anything wrong by RESEARCHING this shit. WTF is wrong with you. You're advocating censorship and fucking mind control.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
My argument is pretty simple. Unless you're the one with the gun or making the threatening phone calls you haven't done anything wrong by RESEARCHING this shit. WTF is wrong with you. You're advocating censorship and fucking mind control.
What Jerky dishes out has zero relevance to the subject of this thread, and "But He's Doing It" isn't an admissible defense outside of playground law.
I agree that it's a bit much to implicate people posting in this thread with generating stochastic terrorist attacks on pizza parlors. But I also know there's no calculus that can fully absolve us from the consequences of our actions.
You got all that from what I wrote? You missed my point. Perhaps someone else might explain it for you.
I voted for Stein.
You are an essential part of the Hollywood machine. You know its foulness. What are you doing to combat it? Of course you won't do anything because you enjoy working in the industry. It would be quite easy to be drawn into a situation you really had nothing to do with.
You all but called Jerky out for being a pedophile, something you cannot possibly know to be factual. I, through an analog, showed you an example of how indefensible certain allegations can be once they've been lodged I though you could relate to.
Sorry I've shaken your sensibilities. I can only imagine your words impact upon Jerky.
edited to add, I missed Nordic's first reply and cross-posted with Wombat.
Nordic » 09 Dec 2016 20:06 wrote:Listen all of this crap we're arguing about is due to one thing: the complete lack of actual journalism in the US.
Journalism is dead. Everybody knows it. It's all "fake news" now.
Which means we're all trying to figure SHIT out on our own. This is literally a crowd investigation. And the vast majority of the people investigating it are terrible at it.
Imagine, if we had journalism, we all might be willing to step back and let the pros handle it.
But that's not gonna happen. There are no pros.
We're on our own.
There's gonna be collateral damage. That's just a reality.
I agree with that.
But if you wade thru people's lives on a personal mission from god to save the children (or the world) the path you take will be strewn with collateral damage and if you don't care/think the only people you will effect are guilty anyway then the only difference between your lack of consideration for others while you fulfill your desires and that of the people you think are evil is a matter of scale and that's not as big a difference as you might think. That is why its a principle of a democracy to only investigate crimes, not people.
If you want to investigate shit do it properly. if you are an amateur, study and get good at it first. Don't just wade thru shit with your critical thinking skills switched off.
We're all amateurs. And we're all on our own. We research things. We're trying to make sense of what's going on in the world.
As long as we're not making threatening phone calls, showing up with guns, or otherwise disrupting the lives of people who may actually not be guilty, we haven't done anything wrong.
There's this apparent assumption in the air with some folks that we shouldn't be investigating these things because it might somehow offend innocent people. Like Jerky; he must be be extremely innocent since he is so deeply offended.
Seriously, as long as you yourself aren't hurting anyone, there is zero problem with investigating this fully.
Again, we're all on our own here, so with a complete collapse of trust in the media and our government figures, there are going to be "incidents". That's not our fault and it's not our problem.
Someone rocking up with a gun at a public place is a consequence of all this attention, even the attention this board is giving. We can't divorce ourselves from that.
About 20% of this whole thing is any kind of investigation. The rest is pointless games of association and the sort of voyeurism that drives tv shows like the Sopranos.
Again, we're all on our own here, so with a complete collapse of trust in the media and our government figures, there are going to be "incidents". That's not our fault and it's not our problem.
I think in the a sense though it is our fault and our problem now to a degree. Like it or not. Look at it is this way, if people are now coming to sites such as this expecting "the truth" or "more truth" because of a supposed complete collapse of trust in the media and our government figures, then one has a greater responsibility than before. And as you said if there are "going to be incidents" knowing that, anticipating that, then you'd want to make sure that whatever you are posting and researching about wouldn't somehow encourage or provoke such an incident.
If you are on the one hand proclaiming the media and government can't be trusted, but are posting content they aren't or with a different spin, you are proclaiming you can be trusted. It's like being a volunteer fire department and saying you can't rely on the city fire department. You may not be pros, but if you are saying the pros can't be relied on, then you better get pro fast as people will be relying on you who agree the pros can't be trusted.
There are a lot of isolated individuals who spend a lot of time on the internet which forms their brain, their whole outlook on reality. It's not like before where one had to leave the house to go to school, to work, to seek entertainment, even shop. You can enter a virtual world that is a mirror maze of constructed realities. And it is pretty easy to get lost. That unapologetic stone cold church shooter Dylan Roof seemed to have radicalized himself on the internet. Maybe he would have done the same or similar without the internet, but the internet sure does work magic on the borderline cases.
The web also influenced his deadly handiwork. "It sounds lame but it was pretty much the Internet," he said.
Like it or not on a public conspiracy theory forum you're a role model for some paranoid and isolated peeps.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
This is actually a really interesting discussion to be having at this point in history.
I will admit that I am a bit brusque and libertarian about it because, believe it or not, I personally try to take responsibility for everything I do. I guess what I'm getting at is that we all need to do that, we all need to act responsibly, but at the same time, anybody can post on the Internet, and anybody can read all of it.
I'm trying to say that each person is on his own to act responsibly. Therefore if something turns into a mob, or some nut goes vigilante, we actually don't have any responsibility for it.
For instance, speaking for myself, I'm pretty sure I have never come out and actually stated that anyone is guilty in this case. Except for Podesta being a corporate prostitute with no moral qualms about who he works for. Which is hardly a stretch -- it's literally his gig.
I have seen examples of the other extreme. The other day some guy went off , on Facebook, on a woman who condescendingly dismissed his talk of Pizzagate and said "you should be raped" to her. That was the first time I'd ever reported someone to the FB cops.
I'm not sure there are any easy answers to this. Really.
If you're a public figure working with the most powerful people in the world, maybe you should have some responsibility about what you post on your Instagram. Maybe if you're in the public spotlight you should think twice about having dinner parties where human blood and sperm Is on the menu.
Maybe you shouldn't act like you're above the law. Even if you're innocent. Because it sure a hell looks bad and might blow back to you in unanticipated ways.
.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
PufPuf93 » 10 Dec 2016 04:37 wrote:It would be interesting to take a list of Silsby's child "clients" (allegedly legal and otherwise already identified as trafficked) and do individual case studies as to where and what they are today (2016).
Nordic » 10 Dec 2016 10:13 wrote: We're all amateurs. And we're all on our own. We research things. We're trying to make sense of what's going on in the world.
As long as we're not making threatening phone calls, showing up with guns, or otherwise disrupting the lives of people who may actually not be guilty, we haven't done anything wrong.
There's this apparent assumption in the air with some folks that we shouldn't be investigating these things because it might somehow offend innocent people. Like Jerky; he must be be extremely innocent since he is so deeply offended.
Seriously, as long as you yourself aren't hurting anyone, there is zero problem with investigating this fully.
Again, we're all on our own here, so with a complete collapse of trust in the media and our government figures, there are going to be "incidents". That's not our fault and it's not our problem.
re the first bolded bit - its not as simple as that. if what you do incites other people to violence you do bear or at least have the potential to bear some responsibility. If you take all care to be as accurate as you can - which is a part of acting in good faith - then that is a very different thing to saying any old shit about people then not caring if it contributes to a climate where people harm others or specifically to a set of information that inspires some people to harm others.
re first italic - we're not investigating crimes, or specific things in this case, we are investigating people.
Its a fundamental democratic principle that states only investigate crimes, not people. While individuals are not states and can do what they want its worth understanding why we limit that power to prevent its abuse when its used by the state - something with a legal right to harm us if we break the law. Its also worth understanding that individuals may be capable of the same abuses and while they may not be legal its a bit late when some prick shoots someone on the basis of bullshit.
This isn't an investigation. even what you said about Freud isn't an investigation. Its the point where an investigation should begin. Freud was accused (and I believe the accusers) of some serious crimes, but there is a difference between an adult male being attracted to a minor who is capable of reproduction and one who isn't. Because the first minor is a child by definition not biology. Throughout history and especially prehistory puberty was the beginning of adulthood whether you are a boy or a girl. its the beginning of a process that lasts several years and ends in full adulthood. I'm not justifying what Freud did either,. he groomed girls as they entered puberty with the purpose of taking sexual advantage of them and violently raped one. He is a criminal scumbag.
But that isn't proof of anything and neither are any of the links between him and the Podestas and possible the McCann girl. The are a point where perhaps you could begin an investigation, but without the ongoing acknowledgement (by the investigators) that such an investigation is a long shot until something more concrete is found then its sus imo.
Again, we're all on our own here, so with a complete collapse of trust in the media and our government figures, there are going to be "incidents". That's not our fault and it's not our problem.
I know. You can't break an omelette without using drones. ...
Should I be flattered or am I being sent to my room?
Seriously, it does seem like a worthwhile avenue to pursue.
brekin wrote:I think in the a sense though it is our fault and our problem now to a degree. Like it or not.
Something i wrote a few days ago in response to a writer who has "personally been accused of endangering women before as a birth control "truther"':
I suppose strictly speaking, speaking about highly unpleasant truths does endanger people insofar as it destabilizes them & the institutions (and illusions) they depend upon. But at what price stability? You never know how people will react. I think we have a responsibility to contextualize information as much as possible within our direct experience, to reduce that risk, the risk of people absorbing too much too soon and not taking the time to process it through the deeper body-soul channels.
I'd say that responsibility is total, as in we are in some sense 100% accountable for our words & actions; but in the end we are always only answerable to ourselves, tho observing the consequences of what we do is still essential.
I mean, are we going to hold Jesus accountable for the Inquisition? & if so, who is doing the reckoning? Maybe that's why Jesus wept?
But having one's words misinterpreted and wrongly applied in a way that turns out to be harmful is quite different from deliberately attacking (verbally or otherwise) people because their views don't line up with our own.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
Should I be flattered or am I being sent to my room?
Neither. You should do at least precursory research before you throw garbage on the floor.
I'd say that responsibility is total, as in we are in some sense 100% accountable for our words & actions; but in the end we are always only answerable to ourselves, tho observing the consequences of what we do is still essential.
I am my brothers keeper, and I am not even Christian.
But where do you draw the line? Do you keep completely mum about everything for fear it might have unintended consequences somewhere down the road?
That would shut down the entire internet and the "professional" media as well. Also the entire entertainment industry and pro sports.
Maybe that wouldn't be a terrible thing but it's a tad unrealistic.
What if some kid is watching the Olympics and decides to do a double back-gainer triple-summersault off a pommel horse after sprinting full speed at it -- and breaks his neck.
What if a kid watches a superman movie and tries flying off his roof with using a beach towel as a cape?
Really, st some point responsibility is up to the person actually doing the action.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
