rigorousintuition.ca

<stepping in it>

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:I know that 'UFOs From Outer Space' is a fascist psyop

(emphasis mine)

Hugh, now really, in terms of good discussion, you logically and honestly just can't say the above, if only because it means proving a negative, i.e. that there cannot be any real 'UFOs From Outer Space'. And you just can't know that!

This has been pointed out many times, and your persistence in stating such absolutes really hurts your chances of getting people to listen past it.

You could say, "I believe that..." or, "I am convinced that..." but when you tell us that you know that there are no 'UFOs From Outer Space' it means you've stopped thinking, that your mind is closed to new information and perspectives.

I'm just sayin', I for one am inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater as soon as I see a sweeping certainty like the one example, "I know that 'UFOs From Outer Space' is a fascist psyop."

I read your posts for two contrasting reasons: first, because you're onto some interesting subjects, yes those psyops manuals are real, they didn't write them for no reason, and so on; second, to witness the ridiculous degree (frankly, in my opinion) to which you stretch everyday obscure coincidences to fit your model. Unfortunately, the former gets buried in the latter, and, together with your frequent and unreasoned absolutes and your scorn for any kind of critique, the result is that we really learn nothing more about real, knowable psyops practices.

So to get on with it, Hugh, you'll get a lot less spittle spray your way by using a humbler approach and showing a more open mind.

Consider an RI blog, you'd get plenty of readers!


To all: I'm afraid I'm just adding to the noise, and apologies if this isn't the place for it.

</stepping>

Elvis, thanks. I appreciate that you totally disagree with my totally disagreeing with you. Been that way a long time now.
But Certainty is a real thing, not a symptom of craziness.

I lalways learn more from reading what I negate (know ahem to be false due to research and evidence) rather than simply ignoring it altogether. How others think. What they've been exposed to. How covert ops are designed to stay unbelievable.
I keep reading and thinking about what is posited. Like oxygen over gills.

Some folks can handle cognitive dissonance and some just can't. I learn from it and encourage others to keep their cognitive noses to the grindstone.
Guess that's why I posted in this thread despite knowing that someone going ape-ballistic against my presence is why Jeff started it in the first place.

"Disruption?" "Ruining the board?" These accusations are abused very badly at this board. I want THAT to stop.

Honestly debate. Acknowledge history. Acknowledge social science. Acknowledge whistleblowers.
Countering fascism is worth it.
Lives are at stake. Our species. Nazis Rule. So far....but this could change by exposing their methods...

Jeff's board slogan: "What you don't know can't hurt them."
guess I'm clinging to that.

crikkett wrote:

barracuda wrote:Which is why it is colloquially known as "The Ignordic Button".

That was good! Very good!

Okay I have to confess something. 2 or 3 days ago I put HMW on ignore. He's only the 2nd person I used it on (the first was Lupercal, back when the Norway massacre thread was going). But now, when I see one of those ignored posts from HMW, I am tending to click on them to have their content revealed. Why? Because you really can't make that shit up! I am now reading him for the entertainment value, which is cruel, but so be it.

I was going to do a parody of him a few days ago but I found it impossible. I am not that creative.

I remember once a few years back, someone -- can't remember who -- did a brilliant parody post. Would love to find that again.

Oh wait -- this thread might not be about HMW, right? So sorry, just ignore me.

Nordic wrote:[
.....
So sorry, just ignore me.

I thought your post about militarized ABC New Years was pretty damn good. Right on the nose. Good stuff. I was impressed.
So you must've had the ignore function on and missed my supporting post of Steve Kangas' article on ABC being bought by the CIA's Cap Cities.

This is why I think the ignore function is not a good option.
It's as final as a death penalty with much more evidence to be considered.

It's hard enough to catch all the posts here without creating a blind spot deliberately.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote: But Certainty is a real thing, not a symptom of craziness.

To be clear, I don't think you're "crazy" and I hope no one inferred it from my post.

Thanks for the replay, but you're still not acknowledging the unknowable-ness of your absolutes.

...we have much work to do.




(Edited to change 'replay' typo to 'reply', but am going to let it stand.)

Nordic wrote:I was going to do a parody of him a few days ago but I found it impossible. I am not that creative.

I remember once a few years back, someone -- can't remember who -- did a brilliant parody post. Would love to find that again.

If I recall right, Nathan24 (sp?) did some HMW parodies that had me in stitches. A little search mojo could perhaps find some.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:you totally disagree with my totally disagreeing with you

Again with the totalities! See?---I don't totally disagree with you, I merely disagree with you, mainly with your more finely-drawn examples.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote: Jeff's board slogan: "What you don't know can't hurt them."
guess I'm clinging to that.

My 2012 corollary: What you think you know can hurt you.

Jeff wrote:What you think you know can hurt you.

Let's auction that one off as a signature line. Bidding starts at fifty quatloos.

barracuda wrote:

Jeff wrote:What you think you know can hurt you.

Let's auction that one off as a signature line. Bidding starts at fifty quatloos.

Its a repro, but i bid 75 quatloos anyway.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Daggonnit, frowny emoticon,
I edited out things I meant quite sincerely to assist the 'lets get on with it for the sake of the kidz'-vibe.

The Children are Our Future! (kisses baby)

Bwahahahha!!

Hugh this made me snort salad out my nose!!!

It's weird that Jeff's OP hasn't had a single response yet. Am I the only one who doesn't have him on 'ignore'?

MacCruiskeen wrote:It's weird that Jeff's OP hasn't had a single response yet. Am I the only one who doesn't have him on 'ignore'?

You can't ignore a mod or admin. Pay attention.

Stephen Morgan wrote:

MacCruiskeen wrote:It's weird that Jeff's OP hasn't had a single response yet. Am I the only one who doesn't have him on 'ignore'?

You can't ignore a mod or admin. Pay attention.

You can dismally fail to get a joke. Pay attention.

Here's the deal: I've found ignore marginally useful as a reminder to self ("don't waste time with idiots and bad actors"). But no system works completely. Ignore doesn't hide new threads by "foes," and it shouldn't; usually I have no trouble passing those over myself. If a foe posts in a thread I started or am involved in, what am I going to do? Of course I'm going to look at that, since it affects discussion. At least the next time I load the page the foe is hidden again, and easier to scroll over.

In life there is no solution to the problem of annoying people. Meditation and self-discipline remain important.