Security Theater ("Crisis Actors")

[American Dream]

It's sad that this sort of Theory gets any traction at all:

The Rise of the Crisis Actor Conspiracy Movement


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To91BJGKr5I

[Jerky]

I know people like Side Thorn and Conspiracy Granny and that other guy (the one without a flashy nickname) IRL. Some of them are okay people when we avoid their trigger topics, but all of them are far more damaged, in a number of different ways, then the average bear. Alcoholism, drug abuse, criminal records, autism-spectrum behaviors, etc. How to fix things? I don't know, man. The Internet feels more and more like the curse of Pandora's Box.

J.

[American Dream]

Yeah, I dunno- the Internet seems more and more like a vile plot to me. Or is it mostly just holding up a mirror to our pre-existing problems?

I certainly don't know the solution.

[Iamwhomiam]

Vile, it is. As was its creators intent. But not quite in the same, vile sort of way. More so, in fact.

[SonicG]

Vile, it is. As was its creators intent. But not quite in the same, vile sort of way. More so, in fact.

I saw the movie - Wasn't the intent to get "Asian Babes"?

[82_28]

Yeah, I dunno- the Internet seems more and more like a vile plot to me. Or is it mostly just holding up a mirror to our pre-existing problems?

I certainly don't know the solution.

"Vile plot" how? I have always held that the Internet is what the user made of it. I for one, chose to respect it because there is so much unknowable about it. What we are experiencing are people who have no idea how this shit worked before it became popularized. It wasn't done so for profit at one point. It was done to see if it worked and to share data. TWENTY PLUS (god help me) years ago the Internet was filled with helpful people. I really wish Google did not do away with their full archive of Usenet shit. You can literally see the corporations begin moving in to a human space as time goes on as you read through. They must still have the archives. . .

I don't have the time now but it appears The Internet Archive has a shit ton of what I am talking about. Google once allowed searching for shit all the way back to like 1983. It is fascinating to see the metamorphosis through the years. But I think that is gone now.

https://archive.org/details/usenet?&sor ... ads&page=3

[American Dream]

Beyond the hyperbole that all the excesses of popular culture inspires in me, I know of course that the Internets are tools for all kinds of things: good/bad/undefinable/unknown etc.

I take it seriously and am looking for meaning and purpose in making use of it.

[American Dream]

What goes around, comes around.

Parents of Sandy Hook victims are suing Alex Jones for defamation




“The statements were a continuation and elaboration of a yearslong campaign to falsely attack the honesty of the Sandy Hook parents, casting them as participants in a ghastly conspiracy and cover-up,” the parents’ lawsuits said.

https://boingboing.net/2018/04/17/paren ... ctims.html

[American Dream]

It's ironic to see such sketchy claims here in the land of "Rigourous Intuition", but incredibly sad given how many children, women, refugees, crippled, torture, bombed, oppressed etc. are suffering. Oh and no way am I going to apologize for the fact that the standard nomenclature for such people is "conspiracy theorists"!

Proof the White Helmets ‘Staged’ a Chemical Attack in Syria?
Images purportedly proving that the White Helmets staged a chemical attack in Syria are actually stills from a movie set.




The belief that the White Helmets or similar groups are staging chemical attacks in Syria is not one exclusively held by conspiracy theorists or the uninformed. It is parroting Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s line that crisis actors were used to stage a terrorist attack in April 2017 and claims that a photograph of a young child in the aftermath of an airstrike on Aleppo had been forged. Assad’s regime also denied using chemical weapons in Douma.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-th ... al-attack/

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Snopes is not a reliable source for research, certainly not as a legitimate means of investigative analysis into the Syrian chemical attacks.

Also - I inquired about this in a prior thread, but my understanding is that there has yet to be any "official" confirmation/corroboration of the claims made by the U.S./UK Re: Assad's role in this attack.


Has anything changed along those lines?

[American Dream]

As a friendly reminder to all, there are only two people currently active who are on my "foe" list- one is Belligerent Savant and one is MacCruiskeen, so that should explain any disconnect here. This has been in place for a long, long time now.

I will keep repeating this message as needed and helpful. This is not intended to "diss" anyone in particular but reflects my own decision regarding what's best for me- and for this board.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

AD: I readily admit I've been 'snarky' as a means to offset my frustration in your general avoidance of direct inquiry. I don't believe I've ever resorted to name-calling, however.

In retrospect, my behavior was clearly not productive to discussion flow, and I take ownership of any distraction caused.

Note, however, that I've never been suspended here, so whatever it is that has me labeled as your "foe" , to this point it hasn't been worthy of suspension (that, of course, is subject to change at a moment's notice, but I've been reflecting on my past responses to your evasive methods, and have resolved to cease and desist snark, and instead, approach disagreement with your content directly, dispassionately, and earnestly).

As such, take another look at my prior post above; friend or foe, a response would be appreciated, as there is no malice in the inquiry.

Regardless of how you choose to label me, the questions posed remain valid, and necessary -- indeed, these questions are not mine alone; I'm confident others share them. They are minimally worthy of consideration and response if we are to discuss this topic objectively, which I believe is what drives most of us in this space to begin with, is it not? A place where pre-set notions and/or existing belief systems are 'checked at the door' in pursuit of valid answers, even -- and perhaps particularly -- when those valid answers are uncomfortable to some of us.

Rigor: my objective here, at its core, is to seek and apply rigor in analysis of events.

[Elvis]

You don't use a slate marker unless you're shooting a script. Thanks, I never saw that photo.

Snopes has started hiring kids to 'fact check' stories, it's pretty meaningless now.

[Jerky]

I have yet to see anything substantial to show that Snopes isn't the single best fact check site operating on the Internet right now. And pretty much everyone I've seen try to smear Snopes... let's just say it's been pretty fucking obvious why they'd want to do that.

J.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I have yet to see anything substantial to show that Snopes isn't the single best fact check site operating on the Internet right now. And pretty much everyone I've seen try to smear Snopes... let's just say it's been pretty fucking obvious why they'd want to do that.

J.

Ah, 'ol pal. I've barely begun my self-imposed reprieve from this place, and here you are, inspiring me to reply. I'll keep it relatively short, however -- it's a lovely day outside.

I have yet to see anything substantial to show that Snopes isn't the single best fact check site operating on the Internet right now.

"single best fact check site operating on the Internet right now." -- there's your problem right there. This is the lazy person's method of analysis; indeed, it's charitable to even refer to it as analysis. An RI member relying on a SINGLE SOURCE on the f'ing INTERNET? Tsk, Tsk. Breaking down the flaw in this mindset would be a waste of time; it should be self-evident by now.

And pretty much everyone I've seen try to smear Snopes... let's just say it's been pretty fucking obvious why they'd want to do that.

Is that so, 'ol pal? And why is that? Please, spell it out for us. Careful though: your bias is beginning to show (I'm being charitable, again. Your bias is on full display each time you post here).

Of course, in your (and AD's) view, there are 'labels' to be affixed, categories to assign, operating within contrived definitions and boundaries. If someone doesn't agree with 'this', they must be 'that'. This tactic maintains discord and minimizes the potential for clarity on a given issue.

Believe what you will, Jerky. Continue to rely on Snopes (which recently partnered with Facebook and the Associated Press, naturally). Continue to rely on it as your single source for "FACT CHECKING".