Friday, December 21, 2012
They are the Tyrone Biggums of Interest Groups: On Political Crack, Post-Sandy Hook the NRA's Solution is More Guns Equals Less Crime
I hope you will all be having a restful holiday weekend. I send you well-wishes and good energy for the New Year and I appreciate all of the kind folks who contribute to our conversations here on WARN. I have two great podcasts on the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, race, masculinity, and America's gun culture, that I will be sharing after the holiday. Do look out for them.
The NRA has finally chimed in on the Newtown Shooting. The public is exhausted by our "national" conversation about mass shootings and "gun rights." The NRA's timing was great insofar as most folks are distracted by the holidays and will not be watching the news. Fate has a dark sense of humor: the NRA conference devolved into a spectacle; and as timing would have it, there was a shooting in Pennsylvania, leaving four people dead, that coincided with said event.
The NRA's solution to the epidemic of gun violence in the United States and the unique scale of its mass shootings (a crime committed overwhelmingly by white men, but where race and gender will never be interrogated as variables) is more guns. The empirical data on gun violence does not support their argument.
The common sense regarding the matter does not support their hypothesis either. The United States is a country awash with guns. But more guns will somehow reach a tipping point where our children and others will be made safe from gun violence...I riddle you that one. To eliminate "gun free zones" as a solution to gun violence is simply one more example of the magical thinking common to the Right in contemporary America.
As I pointed out here, it is extremely difficult for trained personnel to respond to an armed assailant in a situation such as Columbine or Newtown; to suggest that a teacher or rent-a-cop would not make matters worse is right out of a comic book. Superman can fly and punch holes through walls. Joe and Jane Q. Public are not going to be able to effectively respond to an armed shooter who has the tactical initiative and is determined to kill everyone around him or her. A fully armed public--what are really vigilantes--that the NRA wants to create, are not the Punisher.
The NRA is unwilling to pursue common sense gun solutions because there is no political, economic, or moral consequence for them not doing so. Gun companies are indemnified from lawsuits. As such, there is no consequence when guns are used to kill dozens of people because said weapons worked as designed. And ultimately, too many Americans actually believe that they are Minutemen in waiting, and have the ability to balance the State's monopoly on force.
The Gun Right is stuck on a type of path dependence in their thinking about public safety and the violence caused by firearms. Guns, guns, and more guns are the only solution to the problem; their magical fetish object made of plastic and metal is a universal tool that can be used to solve all problems.
The Gun Right and the NRA are like crackheads where the solution to any problem is another hit from the glass pipe. They are Tyrone Biggums, chasing the next thrill from the guns which they worship at the expense of the public's safety. Tragically, Tyrone Bigguns and folks like him tend to only hurt themselves. By comparison, the Gun Right has the blood of many thousands more on their hands.
When is the NRA going to enter rehab?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
It is sort of like religion: they create the problem, and then sell you the solution, which turns out to be more of the problem.
I'm convinced that the NRA and its supporters actively desire more violence, more death. I'm not sure what the endgame is, but a "race war" started by armed white men is a likely outcome.
@Improbably. The NRA is bought and paid for by the gun industry. Talk about a moral hazard re: the public's interest, no? The NRA is taking insurance out on their neighbor's house and then setting it on fire.
CDV,
Am I mistaken or did you say in an earlier post that you are about to become a gun owner?
No one's mind is likely to change on this but at the very least we should remember people like Robert F. Williams and consider that there are very good reasons that state officials shouldn't necessarily have a monopoly on force.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves. Many of the government officials talking about gun control are themselves protected by serious men with guns. The Federal AWB had little to no impact on crime. Most homicides are after all, committed with handguns.
I am not an NRA member and would never consider joining. But I do own guns. There won't be any reasonable discussion on gun control because many gun owners believe (and in Bloomberg's case I believe rightly) that the true goal of the other side remains banning and confiscation.
I will consider "reasonable" gun control precisely when the Federal government admits that it does not in fact have the right to indefinitely detain American citizens, execute them based on "kill lists" and no judicial process, spy on people without warrant or start wars without Congressional approval.
Weird. Why is everyone ignoring this? Too blatant to be believed? Why is this not rather enormous news?
When a "parent of a slaughtered child" in a big ticket "news" event is caught out as a (not very good) actor, is it not *noteworthy frigging* news? WWGOD*
Watch the guy laugh very casually (sort of "top of the world" body language there) and get into character as he approaches the podium. He obviously thought the beginning would be edited out later (call it an Imperial Blooper). He damn sure ain't "in shock", as some Dupe-Drones put it; shock doesn't make you smile like Sinatra on a Vegas stage.
Isn't this the FIRST thing we should be analyzing here?
If you don't consider this video to be a game-changer, please make a reasonable case for your Bizarro position. All ears. And, please, no goofy "how dare you, children have died!" gambit. Let's try to be scientific here.
Cui bono?
*(what would george orwell do)?
this version shows more of the prespeech demeanor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKWgCRBR5qE
@Nomad
Good one! I originally meant to link to THIS one
but yours is slightly better (with the longer lead-in)
So: come on, people. This is what they call a (sorry) SMOKING GUN
And does anyone recall the berserker shooting from the previous week? Very strange as well.
http://www.federaljack.com/?p=178573
Hey, don't forget the "miraculous" Gabby Giffords and her relation to THIS ONE ... another godawful DRY TEAR performance of "Grief" (as imagined by psychopaths) from another bizarrely-animated victim of a fresh shooting (like, less than a week before the interview: she supposedly took bullets in her legs, stomach and pelvis); someone who witnessed, at the same time, the supposed killing of a beloved 9-year-old... and there she is, all shot up but full of pep, no redness of eye or wetness of cheek, cracking little jokes (these people really put the "laughter" in "slaughter")... I think perhaps she attended the same drama school as Robbie Parker. Or perhaps Robbie was a pupil of hers at the CRYPTOCON GUN-CONTROL ACTING ACADEMY.
Hey, guess what? They only try this blatant bullshit because so many Supa-Dupes *fall for it*. By not calling them OUT on this nonsense, you lay the groundwork for "bigger and better" events... I only wish I believed that *nobody* died in these little Passion Plays... because I'm afraid some of the victims are quite real. Judge Roll, for example... *his* ass they waxed. Fo Sho. And some of the kids at Sandy Hook, probably, too. My heart bleeds for those little martyrs to political Evil.
Cui bono? indeed. That's the most logical question to ask when deception is detected. The smoking gun of a psychological operation and mass manipulation. These are some strange shootings by some unlikely individuals (except for Tucson). They seem to be patsies or mind controlled assassins. What assassin runs through the mall shouting the obvious? "I'm the shooter! I'm the shooter! Case there might be any doubt, let me just confess this now, cause I'll be dead in a minute!" Turns out that they held a dress rehearsal for the shooting at Clackamas Town Center a month before.
errrr...Steven?
Did you take the red or the blue pill?
@CS. Yup. And I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons that can be owned, that people should have to be trained properly, have gun insurance, and get a certificate of mental sanity.
@Shady. One of the problems with the Gun Right is that they fundamentally believe that they should have weaponry to "balance" the gov't---a dream btw, and still want the state to secure their "rights." Can't offer a Hobbessian view of the world but then appeal to the sovereign to protect said rights.
@nomad:
It was mauve, actually!
@CdV:
No comment on the smoking gun? It's an extraordinary video. Are you only allowed to comment on the safer elephants in the room?
@SA. I will let you corner the market on such hypotheses.
Why? We've got some compelling evidence here. How many times have I read "White" commenters show up on WARN and summarily dismiss an argument of yours without bothering to engage the evidence, only because your conclusion(s) displeased them... or fell too far out of their comfort zones? And now you do the same?
Why not respond to this (the best version yet: 1:21 is where Mr. Parker makes his entrance)?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vIlo-Avhd4
The video is 8 minutes long. Easy to watch the whole thing. I'm curious about your take on it.
the easy-click version: HERE
Some much-needed rational analysis of the emotionally-manipulative aura preventing a frank discussion of this Event
Even more to the point
"Why? We've got some compelling evidence here."
Why? Doesn't fit the 'letsgetthemwhiteboysguns' program.
I wonder, though. Is that really the psyop here? Maybe this is reverse psychology. Because its having the opposite effect. The gun nuts is buying up even more guns. Maybe that's what the Powers That Shouldn't Be want. After all, the more guns they have, the more reason the gummint has to target them. The more reason for consummating the burgeoning police state.
@nomad
Remember: the people at WACO were heavily-armed, too; didn't save them; *nobody* is more heavily armed than the US Gubmint. I think the stockpiling of weapons falls right into the plan, in fact, because it gives the Gubmint a legitimate excuse to send in the tanks in certain hotspots. And Duh Masses will cheer.
aha, sorry, misread you at first. We basically agree. But that's all conjecture. What we have that is *valuable* is the FACT of this actor giving a press conference about someone he isn't exactly grieving over. This is a serious blooper. That, plus the ABSURD inconsistencies in the overall story being "reported", may not tell us how things are, exactly, but it definitely tells us how things AREN'T...
...the Hugstorm of Propaganda notwithstanding.
Or maybe it's just a diversion, something to keep the public occupied while Obama and his cronies in both parties rip apart the social safety net and inaugurate Euro-style austerity.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-we-have-to-look-forward-to.html
Heck, we just kickin possibilities around. That's what you have to do when the gummint and its propaganda dept (MSM) is not credible. They lost that credibility with 911. "Kite plane must hit steel". WTF?
We are being manipulated on a massive scale. Isn't there some kind of law against the Security Industrial Complex using psychological operations against its own people?
Anybody else get the suspicion that the mission of President Obama from the getgo was to gut Soc.Security? Who sent him on this mission and look how black leaders and liberals, as well as the black population in general, has acquiesced to it. It almost seems like it was a mass brainwashing project. And look how well it worked.
@Nomad-
Weird thing is, we're commenting on one of their Propaganda Feeds (its existence seems coterminous with BHO's mission). The question: is this a Collateral Feed or a Dedicated Feed? Is it Amateur or Pro? Is CdV a direct beneficiary or a hapless cheerleader?
I prefer to think of CdV as a hapless cheerleader, caught up in Identity Politics to the exclusion of his critical thinking. Seems like a nice guy. But "the path to hell" (aka the Techno-Fascist-Imperium), as they say...
'Propaganda Feeds' lol.
"I prefer to think of CdV as a hapless cheerleader"
Me too. My response, however, would be the same.
BWWAAAHAHAHAHA...
"Look, we got all these white men goin berserk with semiautomatic weapons; we therefore have to inaugurate the police state."
Kinda like. "We got all these Islamo-terrorists tryin to suicide bomb us; we therefore have to inaugurate the surveilance state."
"Long live Big Brother!Long live Big Brother, disguised in a virtually invisible suit he calls democracy!"
"We don't know who attacked us on 911, but hey. We gotta bomb somebody! Long live yadda yadda..."
As I posted elsewhere on the matter (and you know, btw, these comments stand a very good chance of being hoovered right out of here; I'm just aiming at the in-boxes of people subscribed to the thread, at this point):
"Dissident Intellectuals behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War had it easy: they *knew* the newspapers were full of baldfaced Propaganda and they learned to read between the lines of the official stories. But in our "Free" Society, we buy the bullshit Hook, Line and Sinker... doesn't matter how illogical and self-contradicting the Bullshit is, if it comes to us from a handsome guy with a mellifluous voice, wearing a business suit, with a concerned look on his face: we buy it. We Believe. We never fucking Question.
When Czech Dissidents wanted to converse frankly in '68 they only had to turn up the radio and whisper... but *We* have lost any urge to converse frankly. We self-censor before a taboo thought can even form; we self-censor because we don't want to be "negative" or "inappropriate" or feel "crazy". No taboo thoughts, no frank discussions, no need to turn the radio up and whisper.
Nothing beats Smiley-Faced Totalitarianism."
There is a great advantage to training people to self-censor. You don't have to worry about hiding anything from them. You can hide it in plain sight. They won't see it.
Crazy stuff, Steven and Nomad. Just tuning in and hadn't seen that video until this morning.
Something's wrong. I hate conspiracy theories, shit I think Oswald shot JFK, but something's wrong there.
@SA. "I prefer to think of CdV as a hapless cheerleader, caught up in Identity Politics to the exclusion of his critical thinking. "
I am lots of things. I have never been described as "hapless" or lacking "critical thinking."
Huh? Just because I do not subscribe to conspiranoid thinking about how people "should" react after hearing their kids were shot dead at school is exactly an example of my critical thinking. I have just watched you and Nomad spin your tinfoil hat silliness over a video of a man who you do not know and where you impose your very poor analyses--like the others on that thread over at Youtube--onto a person in shock. From here you cook up some fiction about gun confiscation and other silly-talk. That is not going to happen on a practical level in a country with almost 1 gun for every citizen the consequences would not be the trouble.
Re: the Newtown shooting, do you know how you would respond in that instance? Have you thought about the range of responses? Heck I have laughed and smiled at a funeral and others thought I was crazy.
If you want to find conspiracies everywhere you will. The conspiracy theory is a common human reaction to Power and a sense that there must be some huge game afoot. Moreover, for smart folks like you and Nomad it is catnip. Have at it.
It ain't that complicated though. There are resource wars afoot, there is a crisis over relative and absolute privilege here in the U.S. between different populations, this country is a corporatist market democracy, social security and other programs are going to be cut, the submerged state will be pruned, etc. etc.
And yes, the national security state is real, heck the Wapo and NYtimes among others had a great piece about how the NSA has been keeping files on millions of people who are innocent "just in case."
This is not that hard to understand. You do not need secret decoder rings and bad movies like Zeitgeist or Loose Change.
As I have said many times. I choose to write about what I am interested in. There is no great plot afoot here. Some will like it, others won't. These Internets be a big place.
You and Nomad should continue though, there is nothing good on TV.
@CdV:
Nonsense. You're either not very bright or less than genuine. On which count have I been chronically overestimating your mediocre butt?
"Re: the Newtown shooting, do you know how you would respond in that instance?"
Like an actual *parent*. Got that?
And: re: "Zeitgeist": like too many of the half-educated strutters 'n bluffers I've tangled with online, you project your own limits on your "opponent".
For the record, if you want to impugn my taste in "conspiracy" material, you'll have to try pissing a mile upward on, e.g., Parenti, Pilger, Vilém Flusser, Glenn Ford, Godard, Fromm, Mark Curtis, John Young, Bruce Sterling, Harold Brodkey, Mark Lombardi, Paul Virilio, et al... or in the snake pit of primary sources authored by, e.g., Zbigniew Brzezinski, Zizek, Assange and Karl Marx (in the original) and so on.
I have no interest in pulp like "Loose Change" or "Zeitgeist"... though I'm all for anything that inspires intelligent young thinkers to question the ugly Hegemony you witlessly trumpet (or is that "trombone"? laugh).
What's important is for the curious to read/view the material and evaluate it *before* passing judgment and then to move on to the next rung up the ladder. Otherwise they'll end up like you: stuck, not at the very bottom of the ladder but certainly not far from it. You seem to believe yourself to scaling toward the *top* of it... but you're merely peering straight into the ass of some way-more-successful suckup. That's probably Skip's browneye winking way down at you. Get used to it.
"I am lots of things. I have never been described as 'hapless' or lacking 'critical thinking.'"
Indeed you are and indeed you have. But I'll make the following very quick and relatively painless (consider that "delete" button the trigger on your morphine drip). You might even like it!
The full 8+ minute video I posted shows a man who is very clearly 1) laughing/ casual then 2) getting into character and 3) doing a very amateurish job of presenting (scripted) Grief for the camera. Only a sufferer from Autism, a moron or a shill would miss that or argue otherwise.
It's just too telling, how you've gone from being able to read Mitt Romney's mind (as we all could) to this sudden, convenient, Candide-like obtuseness. Don't really care to bite the Fascist hand you kind of hope will feed you, eh? Kapos gotta eat.
"These Internets be a big place."
Most of it filled with dull chatter, sadly.
But, hey, arguing with CnU made it worth the price of admission! Arguing with *you* is... demeaning.
I told you this would be fun!
SA
@SA. What meanness today. What is wrong?
""Re: the Newtown shooting, do you know how you would respond in that instance?"
Like an actual *parent*. Got that?"
There are many ranges of grief. It is expressed by people differently. Unless you have lost a child that way do not presume to project your behavior onto others. If you have tragically lost a child that way, even then do not presume to judge how someone else would act in the same situation.
"For the record, if you want to impugn my taste in "conspiracy" material, you'll have to try pissing a mile upward on, e.g., Parenti, Pilger, Vilém Flusser, Glenn Ford, Godard, Fromm, Mark Curtis, John Young, Bruce Sterling, Harold Brodkey, Mark Lombardi, Paul Virilio, et al... or in the snake pit of primary sources authored by, e.g., Zbigniew Brzezinski, Zizek, Assange and Karl Marx (in the original) and so on. "
You are wasting your energy by over analyzing a man in a video, when what you offer up there is much more substantial and useful. You have some grade A evidence and talent you can make appeals to, but instead just want to play with bush league silliness over one man's reaction to his kid being slaughtered. I don't get it. Are you bored?
"What's important is for the curious to read/view the material and evaluate it *before* passing judgment and then to move on to the next rung up the ladder. Otherwise they'll end up like you: stuck, not at the very bottom of the ladder but certainly not far from it. You seem to believe yourself to scaling toward the *top* of it... but you're merely peering straight into the ass of some way-more-successful suckup. That's probably Skip's browneye winking way down at you. Get used to it."
That is just mean spirited, unfair, and odd to be frank. Again, where is your grumpiness coming from today? I am not always going to agree with you or others. Nor should I be expected to. But, you really show your hand as someone petty and perhaps processing other issues when you make such claims.
Where am I scaling up to? What is this grand vision you have? I am one person, who does something online, because I enjoy it.
Are you disappointed about something? Who is in your ear today? Why the hate today? It is the holidays be merry and not so grey.
Do you miss Cnu and are just lashing out? I am not interested in arbitrating the types of conspiracy claims you are attracted to. Some I will agree with, others I will not. No biggie. Don't take it personal.
Nothing personal, I'm just done with your Room Temp Shillage, fella.
I've said what I had to say.
Thanks for the platform...!
SA
@SA.
"Room Temp Shillage"
Okay. based on what? now I am really curious. what would you like to me say that i have not? what position have i not staked out that you would prefer?
I don't know that I would pin the totality of the blame for what is obviously a pervasive societal sickness solely on the NRA. But definitely something has curdled in our national life, in just the past few decades. Compare & contrast:
http://bit.ly/Rb5BBo
http://bit.ly/UR36BR
"The conspiracy theory is a common human reaction to Power and a sense that there must be some huge game afoot."
Look at the way this is framed. The implication is that there is no game afoot. Do you believe that? Was our gummint straight with us about Pearl Harbor? 911? Who killed JFK, MLK and RFK? Iran Contra? For from being something that rarely happens, conspiracy is our gummint modus operandus. And if a psylitician's mouth is moving he's lying. The best way to hide information from the public is the label sensitive inquiry as "conspiracy theory" and ridicule it. It's the first step in manipulating public opinion. Bush II gave you guys your marching orders: "Let us never tolerate conspiracy theories." You, CD, and the other sheeple are just conforming to the wishes of the state.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, in that I have not invested in any theory in particular about the really crazy stories our gummint asks us to follow. However, I am a conspiracy theory theorist. Because I do have a theory that the label “conspiracy theory” acts as a cloaking device to dissuade serious examination through the stigma attached to the term itself. You don’t have to hide what you can train people to ignore and ridicule under that rubric.
should be
"the really crazy stories our gummint asks us to swallow"
@nomad. what did black pete get your for xmas or the other related holidays?
you wrote:
"The best way to hide information from the public is the label sensitive inquiry as "conspiracy theory" and ridicule it. It's the first step in manipulating public opinion. Bush II gave you guys your marching orders: "Let us never tolerate conspiracy theories." You, CD, and the other sheeple are just conforming to the wishes of the state"
And why do you think I disagree with you? I am not one of the sheeple. Save that for the troglodytes and other assorted mouth breathers. I know a good deal about what the game is. I know a great deal about said game and choose not to discuss it for there are others more well qualified to do so. I have staked out my territory. No biggie. As I keep saying, the Internet is a big place.
These matters are happening right in front of us. Most people choose to live in denial for it is much more comfortable.
I understand the managing and massaging of public opinion...and support said necessary evils.
Many "conspiracy theories" are true. Much of it is bs that is a distraction. As I said, I support your speaking truth to power. I only hope that you spend your ammo wisely and not on fool's errands such as psychologizing a dead kid's parents. There is so much else out there that should be of fundamental concern.
Tom Brady does not play pee wee football as he should not for it is a waste of his valuable time. You, given your obvious intelligence, should make the same decision.
CdV:
"I only hope that you spend your ammo wisely and not on fool's errands such as psychologizing a dead kid's parents."
A) You've had no problem "psychologizing" Mitt Romney and a host of others, yes? In fact, most of WARN amounts to "psychologizing" others and you are often forced to parry that critique when new "White" commenters accuse you of seeing imaginary racism everywhere.
When it suits you, you can be perceptive. Just as, when it suits you, you sag to the same entry-level idiocy of Duh Masses who alibi the shill in that video with moronic and/or sophomoric theories on "shock". Shock NEVER looks "relaxed, casual, in control". Shock doesn't do "getting into character". Most ADULTS know this.
B) It's damning evidence in what *should* be a murder investigation (instead, it's a National Emotion Event).
And why shouldn't we, the readers/viewers, be interested? Do YOU expect us to be as PASSIVE as THEY do? You're writing about Gun Control, and there is, in this video and others, very powerful evidence that Duh Masses are being emotionally manipulated into accepting new levels of Gun Control. Need help with that?
Disclosure: I HATE guns. But the Truth is the Truth. I don't shut my brain down, or disable my sense of ethics/morality/humanity, when it's convenient. When will you develop the same integrity?
Ideological Intransigence has lowered the IQ of many a Believer... but, in your case, it's not even Ideology. You follow BHO and all that he entails (including sinister back-door deals that would make Machiavelli throw up) because of his *color*... period. So the IQ-diminishing blinders you wear when looking at this *outrageous* video of an actor manipulating Duh Masses (to get that box on BHO's agenda ticked) are not even as "noble" as a Cause.
Unless, of course, your "Cause" is... YOU.
Oh, wait.
Contrary to what Duh Masses believe (after learning *so much* from watching, uh, TV), "shock" does not manifest itself with utterly random behavior in which the affective possibilities are infinite. There is a baseline. You can read hundreds of professional descriptions of clinical psychological shock, and not ONE will mention, "relaxed, breezy, confident behavior". Sorry.
Two samples:
****What Are the Symptoms of Psychological Trauma?
"Many people have strong emotional or physical reactions following experience of a traumatic event. For most, these reactions subside over a few days or weeks. For some, the symptoms may last longer and be more severe. This may be due to several factors such as the nature of the traumatic event, the level of available support, previous and current life stress, personality, and coping resources.
Symptoms of trauma can be described as physical, cognitive (thinking), behavioural (things we do) and emotional.
Physical:
Excessive alertness, on the look-out for signs of danger
Easily startled
Fatigue/exhaustion
Disturbed sleep
General aches and pains
Cognitive(thinking):
Intrusive thoughts and memories of the event
Visual images of the event
Nightmares
Poor concentration and memory
Disorientation
Confusion
Behavioural:
Avoidance of places or activities that are reminders of the event
Social withdrawal and isolation
Loss of interest in normal activities
Emotional:
Fear
Numbness and detachment
Depression
Guilt
Anger and irritability
Anxiety and panic
Another version:
****Physical symptoms
Lack of focused eye contact; stuporous or fixed gaze (zoning out)
Vacant or distant look (preoccupied)
Molded skeletal or muscular cranial/facial features
Fixated postures and/or movements
Body numbness
Cold, clammy hands and feet
Immobility
Restlessness
Amnesia: inability to remember blocks of time, patchy or absent memories of childhood
Over- or under-tense musculature (hyper- or hypotonic)
Nervousness or tremors
Loss of speech; change in speech pattern
Very fast or very slow speech pattern
Fainting or dizziness when aroused or stressed
Pupils fixed (very large or small)
Dryness in eyes
Dry mouth
Tight jaw
Chronic muscle tension
Shallow breathing
Difficulty breathing
Frequent sighs
Chronically tired
Poor general health
Speedy, racy, hurried
Extreme precision in physical movement; physically cautious
Contrast and Compare: GO TO 3:00
You know, I don't think I would mind being manipulated so much, if the ultimate objective didn't seem to be my enslavement/destruction and poisoning the environment. That's a big turn off. So I keep an eye out. The people doing the manipulation seem to be villains right out of James Bond movies. "Do you expect me to vote for you?" "I expect you to DIE, Mr. Bond!"
The one thing the manipulators seem to require is public consent. Don't give it to them. You can inaugurate fascism. I have no power to prevent it. Except the revealing of the plot and the withholding of my consent.
Why do conspiracy buffs think that they are worth conspiring against?
Did you read something in this thread suggesting that a commenter believes someone is conspiring against her/him specifically?
"Did you read something in this thread suggesting that a commenter believes someone is conspiring against her/him specifically?"
He might have meant this:
'the ultimate objective didn't seem to be my enslavement/destruction'
@The Sanity Inspector
I'm speaking collectively here. Enslave me, yes, but you too. Unless, of course, you are the elite. But then again, if you were the elite, you wouldn't really exist. You'd just be a conspiracy theorist's delusion.
@Sa. "When will you develop the same integrity?" again, out of pocket and off base. do provide some evidence. simply because i disagree with you does not mean a deficit in either one.
I just don't get the logic behind your false flag operation re: Newtown. There is not going to be gun confiscation. There is not going to be meaningful gun reform.
Working with your line of reasoning, who paid this operative to be an actor? Does he have a kid there? If he doesn't it is pretty easy to figure out. Assuming he has a child who was killed at the school, did he and others offer up their children as pawns in some gun control gambit?
How was adam lanza recruited? Did the powers that be condition him for years, ostracizing him in school, giving him various mental health issues, and then waiting until the politically vulnerable moment to unleash him on unarmed kids? Heck, if he was an operative why didn't he keep killing, why not have a better rifle like an hk-16, etc. etc.
I agree with you on how the masses are manipulated. As you likely have, go back to walt lippman's writing about the media and public opinion from many decades ago.
again, "You follow BHO and all that he entails (including sinister back-door deals that would make Machiavelli throw up) because of his *color*... period."
what are you talking about? am i part of some plot afoot! am i an apparatchik? am i working for some nebulous payoff that i will receive in 20 years because i talked to him once at a reception?
@CdV:
"Working with your line of reasoning, who paid this operative to be an actor?"
You're working with a very common Logical Fallacy here, suggesting that the right to doubt The False Real depends on having a Plausible Alternative ready as a substitute. The first is in no way contingent on the second and the transition between the two is a process called (in this case) a Murder Investigation. This Fallacy you're reaching for is not only sort of sophomoric but doubles as a folk method for discouraging dissidence/ skepticism. "If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then who did?" That's not the rhetorical showstopper you seem to think it is, though I'm sure it works in bars.
Those questions you affect to want answered are for detectives (and related professionals); isn't that standard in a murder investigation? I have no detailed idea what the situation *is*, but the evidence (under discussion) makes it clear what it *isn't* (as I've articulated up-thread).
What it is NOT: a (nobly, bravely) grieving father giving a press conference about the recent death of his beloved daughter.
Falling for such sloppily-blatant theater says more about its Dupes than it does about its Perps. I suppose you fell for Jimmy Swaggart's tears of contrition, too. Well, only a few million did, eh? You're in great company.
"what are you talking about? am i part of some plot afoot! am i an apparatchik? am i working for some nebulous payoff that i will receive in 20 years because i talked to him once at a reception?"
No, it's simply that you're brainwashed and/or operating from a kind of focused self-interest that neutralizes your (hypothetical) Ethics. The system relies heavily on the work of brainwashed (or unethical) volunteers to maintain the shape of its Imaginary Normal. We see it modeled in pop/fashion fads all the time; it's a corporate necessity, in fact: if every shill were on the payroll, that would cut into profits.
Technically, CdV, you're more Judas Goat than Kapo, though it can be hard to distinguish the respective behaviors.
@SA. If you are going to argue against the most basic explanation, i.e. that man is a child's parent who was killed and there is not some great plot afoot the burden of evidence is on you.
If you are going to be a professional contrarian then yes, you need to close the circle and offer up some alternative explanation that has some cogency to it.
Judas Goat. Lord. Very dramatic today. As I said last time, what is really going on? Holiday season grumpiness? Black Pete got you?
CdV:
Level here too low.
Again: thanks for the platform.
@SA. Come now. Offer up something more substantial than that.
"If you are going to argue against the most basic explanation, i.e. that man is a child's parent who was killed and there is not some great plot afoot the burden of evidence is on you."
Why is this so hard to engage? What am I missing?
More "substantial"? "Hard" to "engage"? Chuckle. If you can't understand the c. 5,000 painstakingly-lucid words I've already posted in this thread, that's not my responsibility. You just keep on campaigning to get BHO elected to a third term and don't you worry too much about any of that fancy old "logic" stuff, k?
Now please excuse me while I go argue Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox with Bob and Doug Mackenzie.
@SA. Has been fun. I simply was curious about your basic standards of evidence.
It seems that you are falling a trap akin to the fallacy which comes with asking folks to disprove a negative. You offer up a provocative claim that defies traditional reason and then expect your claim to be the default as opposed to having to demonstrate and argue its legitimacy.
I was curious as to how you would argue that proposition in a compelling way with some basic appeals to standards of reasonable evidence.
CD,
I'm surprised to see you talking about "burden of proof" and claiming that there's a somehow a fallacy necessarily involved in challenging someone to disprove a negative.
Those two ideas are no part of logic. Propositions in logic are proved, unproved, or disproved; there's no 'burden of proof.' And there are plenty of ways to prove a negative in logic; for example see modus tollens. There's no content in those two internet-era "folk fallacies" -- they're just bits of rhetoric and snares for the unwary.
@Tom. I love to surprise. I am not omniscient. Do teach me something then. I thought, and I recall such things from intro philosophy classes years ago that you cannot disprove a negative. As I said, those were into classes from memory, do teach and share.
What would be a better way of phrasing it or working through the logic? Agent x asserts y, against all conventional wisdom and evidence available to the contrary, when queried, agent x reverses argument by saying that they do not need a proof and/or that the burden is actually on the traditional wisdom/accepted/Occam's razor explanation to prove itself correct.
As I said, this is interesting to me. How would one work through the fancy logic symbols and such?
CD,
I'm confused about what you are even objecting to.
Can we start with my last comment? I'm saying a 'negative' like any other statement simply requires proof or disproof before we know whether it's true.
You said it's a 'fallacy' to require disproof of a negative. No! A 'negative' is a statement. If we don't have a proof or a disproof of the statement then we dunno.
There's an internet meme that challenging someone to disprove a negative is somehow off-base because proof of a negative might be difficult. That internet meme is simply the "appeal to lack of evidence." The fact that it might be hard to disprove X does not make X false!
If you want to try to take the internet meme you introduced, and turn it into a rule of logic, you're welcome to try to find a reference of your own. A quotation from your old philosophy textbook would be a great start.
Occam's razor (i.e., preferring the simplest hypothesis) can be a nice heuristic.* It isn't a rule of logic. I can't prove or disprove anything using Occam's razor. Or by appealing to the beliefs of a majority of people. Those are logical fallacies.
---
*Einstein improved it: everything should be simplified as far as possible -- but no further than that!
@Tom. Not objecting. Trying to learn something is all. What is the example then about "prove to me that something--flying unicorn with 10 heads--have never existed?" Isn't the trick that the person advancing the claim can say that you simply haven't found proof of my counter-intuitive claim yet, so therefore it stands until proven otherwise?
You can see that stuff always confused me.
I appealed to Occam's razor in the general sense that parsimony and best, simplest explanations with the highest degree of probability are likely the best bet. Not always right of course, but a great place to start.
Great points< Tom. I'm bookmarking that.
I tend not to see the bad acting job in isolation. It is part of a pattern. When the dots are connected the outline of a grand conspiracy does take shape. If you like, you can think of it as springing forth spontaneously from the interaction of similarly minded people in positions of power. A product of evolution in the socio-cultural dimension; corresponding to the type of evolution that happens in the natural world. However it emerged, like evolution in nature, it is real. The Powers That Should Not Be.
We've been living with gummint deception for a long time. It's difficult to grasp, apparently, that 2000 represents an intensification of it. A new order of deception. A tipping point was reached in a clandestine coup. A treacherous cabal now rules this nation. Its modus operandus is mass deception.
CD --
I'm confused again. I don't see how the Flying 10-Headed Unicorn contention could possibly stand if we had no proof? Anybody claiming the beast existed without proof, then challenging us to disprove, would be making some kind of statement of faith, not proving anything. So, no, we who don't believe in unicorns with so many heads, we can't play the "burden of proof" card in logic. (Though we could certainly advance it as a heuristic, a rule of thumb.) But the person advancing the Unicorn claim also can't play that kind of 'burden of proof' trick. (Yes the trick is a staple of internet pseudo-debate ... but we all know that the internet is for shit, Professor. I'm sure I've heard you say the same. As a member of a much older institution, in fact you're one of our lines of defense against that problem.)
Possibly what you're trying to do on the CT tragedy is appeal to a rule of thumb, to the effect that the majority opinion is more probably correct than a minority opinion. But as a member of a frequently-slandered ethnic minority yourself, though, surely you don't actually accept the appeal-to-mass-opinion as a proof?
If I can ediorialize for a minute. One reason why classical logic is unpopular is it shows us yawning abysses where we had supposed we saw solid ground. Social proof is much more sensitive to our tender feelings. Unfortunately social proof is bullshit, but until it drops me into the abyss it's fantastically comfortable bullshit.
For example: "We thought North America was created for us English-speaking EuroAfrican types. Everybody learns that in grade school for heaven's sake. Now you say Columbus was a bad guy? That's crazy! Are you telling me you failed grade school?"
Or the recent credit bubble: "We're not sinking deeper into debt, vulnerable to any minor tremor in housing prices. That's crazy! We're putting our homes to work for us. There's no risk. Ask anybody!
Nomad -- thanks for the kind words!
CD
I'll post my own favorite example of a very confident, practical guy (and a genius if there is such a thing) talking about best-guess versus proof. The audience laughs, but Feynman himself is actually very careful not to overstate his case:
Saint Richard Feynman on UFOs
OK. Feynman did not take UFOs seriously as visitors from outer space. He is emphatically not extraterrestrial-UFO-friendly.
Nevertheless! He says outright that that's his opinion. He carefully does not fall into the trap of trying to overstate his case and fall into saying "impossible" or to pretend to "prove" something without evidence. He's also careful not to issue a blanket denial of people's observations. And he doesn't even say there are no UFOs, only that he personally doesn't believe they're extraterrestrial.
@Nomad. "A tipping point was reached in a clandestine coup. A treacherous cabal now rules this nation. Its modus operandus is mass deception."
Question: how will you feel if it was exposed that there is no singular "power elite" and that "they" are a collection of often conflicting interests, that are often wrong in their predictions, limited in ability to control outcomes, and in many ways utterly incompetent? That there is no grand "conspiracy" afoot but a millions of year of old story of people who have power simply consolidating it?
Will that be comforting or upsetting? Just curious.
Happy holidays!
Comforting or upsetting? No. That would be like asking if I found evolution comforting or upsetting. It wouldn't matter how I felt about it. However, rarely do people find reality comforting, so it probably wouldn't comfort me. And truth and only be upsetting if you're invested in dogma. So I doubt that I would find it upsetting since I am not dogmatic.
And, of course, I would question whether the source making the claim was in a position to know that there was no singular power elite. And that's not exactly my claim. It's similar to yours, except that the interests of this multifaceted elite are not conflicting, except in minor details. As I said, the elite are 'similarly minded people in positions of power, a product of evolution in the socio-cultural dimension'. But that was speaking generally.
As far the particular cabal that has taken over our government, there is a lot of evidence that that is the case. All you have to do is look at how the gummint has become completely unresponsive to the will of the people. All you have to do is look at the walls of the police state being erected around you. All you have to do do is look at the forced march to austerity. All you have to do is look at everything that has happened since George Bush was installed as president and his policies normalized by his CIA android successor. The implementation and coverup of 911 is evidence aplenty that a treasonous cabal has taken control of this government. There's probably nothing we can do about it, but we should at least stop living in denial.
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security (gun law reform) will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. - Pres. John F. Kennedy
Those who make peaceful revolution. Impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - Pres. John F. Kennedy
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security (gun law reform) will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. - Pres. John F. Kennedy
Those who make peaceful revolution. Impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - Pres. John F. Kennedy
@Nomad. I may have suggested it before but read Sheldon Wholin's Democracy Inc which came out a few years ago. One of the most important books in years. I am surprised he wasn't disappeared after writing it. The book How Democratic is the U.S. Constitution is great too--short, very readable. You would find it useful.
thanks.
merry christmas, chauncey.
Curiouser and couriouser. Adam Lanza apparently doesn't exist.
'There is something very, very wrong with this whole situation. How is it possible that two different websites show the Lanza family of consisting of only 3 people and neither one has any record of Adam Lanza? Who exactly is Adam Lanza? 20 Children’s lives have been lost and I think we all owe it those children to get the bottom of what really happened at Sandy Hook, because more and more it is looking like the truth is not being told.'
http://www.dailypaul.com/267293/who-is-adam-lanza&sss=1
WTF? Another bad actor and a deeply bent med examiner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avh_icAlonw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JV3KYBS64R8
Post a Comment