What's Happening? It? (TRIGGERS UPON TRIGGERS)

[norton ash]

I just scan the many posts by AD, Frun, and SLAD and only read what catches my fancy and that seldom has anything to do with the thread topic.

That said I still like and enjoy the posters as individuals and would rather have their copy-pasta here than not as I find some of interest.

Oh, me too, PufPuf. My point was more that attacks on specific posters should be avoided, otherwise it's paste what thou wilt and let the faithful reader sort it all out.

[Burnt Hill]

I agree that it is logically inconsistent to dismiss, on the one hand, the idea that artists and their patrons bear any responsibility for the impact of their work/passion (it's "dangerous" to suggest that) while on the other hand to assert that anyone who so much as discusses Pizzagate bears responsibility for the actions of one lone gunman. It speaks to some cognitive dissonance in play.

They are two separate ideas taken to their extreme that don't deserve to be juxtaposed.
It seems perfectly fine to ascribe to some aspect of both, without being hypocritical.

[slomo]

I agree that it is logically inconsistent to dismiss, on the one hand, the idea that artists and their patrons bear any responsibility for the impact of their work/passion (it's "dangerous" to suggest that) while on the other hand to assert that anyone who so much as discusses Pizzagate bears responsibility for the actions of one lone gunman. It speaks to some cognitive dissonance in play.

They are two separate ideas taken to their extreme that don't deserve to be juxtaposed.
It seems perfectly fine to ascribe to some aspect of both, without being hypocritical.

Fair enough. But how these ideas translate into action is interesting. On the one hand, we are told that art is sacrosanct and that it is dangerous to assign culpability to artists or their patrons (I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint, by the way). On the other hand, we are asked to not even discuss the implications of Pizzagate simply because it might cause a random wacko to pop off.

Yes, I'm all for applying rigor to the discussions of pizzagate. Justice is more likely to happen if there is hard evidence. But while I do think that circumstantial evidence is prone to certain biases, I still think it's worthy of discussion because it opens the way towards more direct evidence and therefore a tighter case (either for guilt or for innocence). As I mentioned on another thread, my current opinion is that pizzagate is a psyop based on real events that may or may not have anything to do with Comet and/or Alefantis directly. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing because CP is a real thing, torture and murder are really happening, and these evils are being protected by powerful actors. And, there is an effort to clamp down on free speech precisely so these things cannot be discussed and reach the light of day.

[Burnt Hill]

Let me tell you a little story about science. My most highly cited work is a paper that is considered seminal. Everybody in the field knows the paper, because it changed the way things are done. The idea for it started in a conference room, where I said to my colleagues, "you know... it's possible that [the hypothesis that was eventually published and is now accepted]." One co-author of the paper fought me bitterly for months, he simply did not believe that what I was proposing was "real". Of course, he made me jump through more and more hoops to satisfy him. Eventually he conceded that I was probably right. More hoops were presented in the review stage of the work. All of these challenges of course made the paper better.

None of this drama is evident in the published version of the paper. It's presented as if we conceived of X, Y, and Z, in that order, from the very start.

This is totally normal, it's the way things are done.

I do know how science works, but that's a good story.
Thanks.

[slomo]

Let me tell you a little story about science. My most highly cited work is a paper that is considered seminal. Everybody in the field knows the paper, because it changed the way things are done. The idea for it started in a conference room, where I said to my colleagues, "you know... it's possible that [the hypothesis that was eventually published and is now accepted]." One co-author of the paper fought me bitterly for months, he simply did not believe that what I was proposing was "real". Of course, he made me jump through more and more hoops to satisfy him. Eventually he conceded that I was probably right. More hoops were presented in the review stage of the work. All of these challenges of course made the paper better.

None of this drama is evident in the published version of the paper. It's presented as if we conceived of X, Y, and Z, in that order, from the very start.

This is totally normal, it's the way things are done.

Thanks.
I do know how science works though, but that's a good story.

As in "cool story bro"? Whatever.

[Burnt Hill]

Let me tell you a little story about science. My most highly cited work is a paper that is considered seminal. Everybody in the field knows the paper, because it changed the way things are done. The idea for it started in a conference room, where I said to my colleagues, "you know... it's possible that [the hypothesis that was eventually published and is now accepted]." One co-author of the paper fought me bitterly for months, he simply did not believe that what I was proposing was "real". Of course, he made me jump through more and more hoops to satisfy him. Eventually he conceded that I was probably right. More hoops were presented in the review stage of the work. All of these challenges of course made the paper better.

None of this drama is evident in the published version of the paper. It's presented as if we conceived of X, Y, and Z, in that order, from the very start.

This is totally normal, it's the way things are done.

Thanks.
I do know how science works though, but that's a good story.

As in "cool story bro"? Whatever.

Bro, are you mad at me? slow down, I am doing two things at once.

[slomo]

^^^^ No, not mad at all. But I'm trying to grok your meaning.

[barracuda]

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that Sorcha Faal was presenting credible information, I was showing that she is also playing the "IT'S RUSSIA" card.

My mistake then. I misread your intention as to imply that Braverman's life was and is threatened by mechanics working for the Clinton's, and that this might be an insight into the status of the Weiner investigation.

There is enough evidence of corruption for the FBI to investigate the Clinon Foundation, however reluctantly.

...
Again, I am not interested in the US's phony Blue/Red political theatre. This is about powerful people doing crime. Perhaps child trafficking for $$, power and control ie blackmail. Trump is not exempt

Agree. And neither is the FBI.

[Burnt Hill]

Art doesn't pretend to be science.

And so the moral culpability is different? Please.

Ultimately? Maybe not.
But ultimately art doesn't need to ascribe to someone elses sense of morality.
And science shouldn't.

And I edited the other comment in an attempt to sound less dismissive. Sorry.

And ultimately art and science merge. They are both just children.

[slomo]

Art doesn't pretend to be science.

And so the moral culpability is different? Please.

Ultimately? Maybe not.
But ultimately art doesn't need to ascribe to someone else sense of morality.
And science shouldn't.

Actually, I think science does need to pay attention to morality on some level. Or at least its funders do.

Here's a project I'm interested in, for the sake of science: I'd like to use CRSPR/cas-9 technology to edit the genomes of certain pathogens so that they can attack certain molecular regulatory mechanisms involved in hematopoietic differentiation. I will identify the molecular basis of these mechanisms using ENCODE and similar functional genomics resources. Also, I intend to tune the attacks so that they will find success only along stretches of the genome that contain genetic variants specific to Ashkenazi Jews, using data from sources such as HGP and HapMap. As a side project, I might also create another line that targets the YRI (West-African) haplotypes.

This is OK, right? It's for the good of science, after all. I'm just proving that it can be done.

[Burnt Hill]

Art doesn't pretend to be science.

And so the moral culpability is different? Please.

Ultimately? Maybe not.
But ultimately art doesn't need to ascribe to someone else sense of morality.
And science shouldn't.

Actually, I think science does need to pay attention to morality on some level. Or at least its funders do.

Here's a project I'm interested in, for the sake of science: I'd like to use CRSPR/cas-9 technology to edit the genomes of certain pathogens so that they can attack certain molecular regulatory mechanisms involved in hematopoietic differentiation. I will identify the molecular basis of these mechanisms using ENCODE and similar functional genomics resources. Also, I intend to tune the attacks so that they will find success only along stretches of the genome that contain genetic variants specific to Ashkenazi Jews, using data from sources such as HGP and HapMap. As a side project, I might also create another line that targets the YRI (West-African) haplotypes.

This is OK, right? It's for the good of science, after all. I'm just proving that it can be done.

For me that pretty much describes the science of the research being done at 4chan.

[Burnt Hill]

^^^^ No, not mad at all. But I'm trying to grok your meaning.

All I meant is that guruilla made a faulty comparison.

[Cordelia]

Let me tell you a little story about science. My most highly cited work is a paper that is considered seminal. Everybody in the field knows the paper, because it changed the way things are done. The idea for it started in a conference room, where I said to my colleagues, "you know... it's possible that [the hypothesis that was eventually published and is now accepted]." One co-author of the paper fought me bitterly for months, he simply did not believe that what I was proposing was "real". Of course, he made me jump through more and more hoops to satisfy him. Eventually he conceded that I was probably right. More hoops were presented in the review stage of the work. All of these challenges of course made the paper better.

?

Though know you can't, of course. Most likely above my level anyway.

[slomo]

Not trying to suggest anything about my "talents" other than the fact that I've operated in the field (and do so now, nominally). I was actually kind of a one-hit wonder, sad to say.

[seemslikeadream]

slomo I wanted to make sure you saw my answer to your question...yes I believe Wikileak emails are real and I am waiting very patiently for the Trump and RNC leaks