That's fucked upI suspect you were more fun when you were drinking?
General Epstein "commits suicide"
- Thread starter Toelocku
- Start date
i am all for a good conspiracy but it is quite common for chomos to commit suicide. i would like to see the story that come out over the nxt few weeks before i form an opinion one way or the other but for right now im going to bask in the glory of the clinton memes
This would be a sensible post, except for how many times we've caught 'authorities' under the guise of manufactured 'experts' outright lying about shit.
That's the crux of it for me, once you've seen evidence that the authorities (upon whose words our reality is built upon) have totally lied to you about major shit, covered up horrific crimes etc etc etc... when at what point does it become simply foolish to continue believing them about anything anymore? And then the dreaded question naturally arises; What ELSE have we been lied to about?
Of course this has potential to blow the doors to paranoia wide open, if you suddenly suspect that everything is a lie then reality indeed loses all stability whatsoever. But the basic question still stands and I think should totally be taken seriously.
IMO, Splinty's very rational and otherwise intelligent view of how to judge reality and what/who to believe etc seems to fall on a simple assumption that for the most part, authoritarian sources are basically trustworthy and are looking out for our best interests. It assumes that truth totally outweighs lies and that if 'experts' have consensus on things they are probably all good people with no agenda that just want to bring you the truth because they care etc
I just don't think any of that is so anymore. Really, why should I take their word for anything anymore? I think Cooper was right; don't believe shit until you can really prove it to yourself convincingly. If this means discovering that I can't prove shit, and will 'know' very very little, well I will take that reality of unknowing over believing a bunch of shit from known liars. I don't mind being uncertain about almost everything at all.
GREAT thread, this is a huge story.
I am away and not having much time for forums or conspiracy digging but I just caught up with this thread gladdest to see folks keeping an eye on it.
@Outlaw Shit is dropping some schooling in here folks, nice posts listen up.
Last edited:
I didn't lump you in with the crowd that automatically takes the official narrative as gospel, but they absolutely do exist and it is common for people to dismiss legitimate skeptics of official narratives as conspiracy theorists. There is this thing called propaganda, and it works. And when propaganda or official lies are challenged, then those who challenge them are dismissed as conspiracy theorists in an attempt to discredit them. This is not groundbreaking insight I'm delivering here.
Understand what I'm saying here: there is this 'CT community'' that you speak of - I just call them 'retards'. We're not in dispute on that. But 'conspiracy theory' has become a term of control and it gets abused. I was just using your post to make a point about the need to delineate between a 'CT community' member and a skeptic when dealing with limited information in cases like these.
Someone who says "Epstein was definitely killed by Mossad in league with the Clintons" - retard. Someone who says "hmm, this is pretty suspicious, I'd like to see some evidence before I categorically accept that this was a suicide but I am willing to accept that it was" - perfectly rational person. I'm sure you agree.
I put a smiley face I was joking.
I picked MK Ultra because of how outlandish it was, not that I could prove contemporaneous conspiracy theories existed. That's why I followed up with this sentence - "it doesn't mean at one point they weren't or couldn't have been labeled 'conspiracy theories." The first person talking about MK Ultra could've easily been dismissed as a crank because it sounds so ridiculous, whether or not they actually were
I can't prove that it was a known and dismissed conspiracy theory before the New York Times got hold of it (because I can't be fucked searching archives of 1970s conspiracy websites,if I even knew where to look), but then again you can't prove that it wasn't - just like you can't prove that Epstein wasn't a shape-shifting Gorgamac intent on stealing all of the world's cheddar cheese, can you? Got you there.
1
1031
Guest
You've said it perfectly; and why should anyone take their word for anything , anymore?This would be a sensible post, except for how many times we've caught 'authorities' under the guise of manufactured 'experts' outright lying about shit.
That's the crux of it for me, once you've seen evidence that the authorities (upon whose words our reality is built upon) have totally lied to you about major shit, covered up horrific crimes etc etc etc... when at what point does it become simply foolish to continue believing them about anything anymore? And then the dreaded question naturally arises; What ELSE have we been lied to about?
Of course this has potential to blow the doors to paranoia wide open, if you suddenly suspect that everything is a lie then reality indeed loses all stability whatsoever. But the basic question still stands and I think should totally be taken seriously.
IMO, Splinty's very rational and otherwise intelligent view of how to judge reality and what/who to believe etc seems to fall on a simple assumption that for the most part, authoritarian sources are basically trustworthy and are looking out for our best interests. It assumes that truth totally outweighs lies and that if 'experts' have consensus on things they are probably all good people with no agenda that just want to bring you the truth because they care etc
I just don't think any of that is so anymore. Really, why should I take their word for anything anymore? I think Cooper was right; don't believe shit until you can really prove it to yourself convincingly. If this means discovering that I can't prove shit, and will 'know' very very little, well I will take that reality of unknowing over believing a bunch of shit from known liars. I don't mind being uncertain about almost everything at all.
GREAT thread, this is a huge story.
I am away and not having much time for forums or conspiracy digging but I just caught up with this thread gladdest to see folks keeping an eye on it.
From what I've observed, the main reasons people allow themselves to be lied to by authorities (politicians, media, religious heads) are: simple gullibility; a need to believe in something; the more complex one is that a lot of people can't psychologically accept they are powerless to do anything about the pervasive corruption and lies they are fed.
This would be a sensible post, except for how many times we've caught 'authorities' under the guise of manufactured 'experts' outright lying about shit.
That's the crux of it for me, once you've seen evidence that the authorities (upon whose words our reality is built upon) have totally lied to you about major shit, covered up horrific crimes etc etc etc... when at what point does it become simply foolish to continue believing them about anything anymore? And then the dreaded question naturally arises; What ELSE have we been lied to about?
Of course this has potential to blow the doors to paranoia wide open, if you suddenly suspect that everything is a lie then reality indeed loses all stability whatsoever. But the basic question still stands and I think should totally be taken seriously.
IMO, Splinty's very rational and otherwise intelligent view of how to judge reality and what/who to believe etc seems to fall on a simple assumption that for the most part, authoritarian sources are basically trustworthy and are looking out for our best interests. It assumes that truth totally outweighs lies and that if 'experts' have consensus on things they are probably all good people with no agenda that just want to bring you the truth because they care etc
I just don't think any of that is so anymore. Really, why should I take their word for anything anymore? I think Cooper was right; don't believe shit until you can really prove it to yourself convincingly. If this means discovering that I can't prove shit, and will 'know' very very little, well I will take that reality of unknowing over believing a bunch of shit from known liars. I don't mind being uncertain about almost everything at all.
GREAT thread, this is a huge story.
I am away and not having much time for forums or conspiracy digging but I just caught up with this thread gladdest to see folks keeping an eye on it.
@Splinty was compromised on his trip to florida. @conor mcgregor nut hugger got to him and turned him into a biden supporter and establishment shill
Alright let's see how skeptical we are here.
Within your reality at the 90% confidence...
Is the earth possibly flat?
Did we fake the moon landing?
Was Kennedy killed by a second gunman?
Was Epstein assassinated?
Did Ewing get chosen by a frozen envelope?
Within your reality at the 90% confidence...
Is the earth possibly flat?
Did we fake the moon landing?
Was Kennedy killed by a second gunman?
Was Epstein assassinated?
Did Ewing get chosen by a frozen envelope?
All no’s for me. Shocking I know.
These positions do not benefit your YouTube career.
No, it's a cube. Flat earthers can't see the other sides. Their math works because of cuboid shape. But they are getting close!
No we have had alien tech since Ben Franklin came up with his lightning cover up story.
No body double. Kennedy lived in Cuba until his 80's where he passed away quietly.
Same. Trump had to get him out and that's why Trump is pinning it on the Clinton's. Trump didn't know her age.
No, the Ewing envelope was a bent corner. You can see that. A cold envelope wouldn't be cold long enough. They just experimented with it.
I’m waiting for the first video.
I think you bring up some decent points about the difficulty of believing "experts" and "authority," as we've seen distortions, outright lies, and in some cases, just getting things completely wrong from a lot of people who should have known or done better. That said, there's a difference between active doubt vs. informed skepticism. By active doubt, I mean the attitude that I will not believe anything unless it is personally proven to me based on whatever my own arbitrary standards are and then and only then will I be satisfied that I know the Truth. Informed skepticism instead is greeting any claim with a basic critical toolkit that includes knowledge of logical reasoning, rhetorical moves, psychological manipulations, political economy, and historical precedent. In other words, does this make sense, how is it being said, what feeling does it evoke, how does this sustain or disrupt power structures, and does this sound familiar? This schema is pretty reliable, but requires some training to master. Realistically, we use some version of it to get through everything we experience.This would be a sensible post, except for how many times we've caught 'authorities' under the guise of manufactured 'experts' outright lying about shit.
That's the crux of it for me, once you've seen evidence that the authorities (upon whose words our reality is built upon) have totally lied to you about major shit, covered up horrific crimes etc etc etc... when at what point does it become simply foolish to continue believing them about anything anymore? And then the dreaded question naturally arises; What ELSE have we been lied to about?
Of course this has potential to blow the doors to paranoia wide open, if you suddenly suspect that everything is a lie then reality indeed loses all stability whatsoever. But the basic question still stands and I think should totally be taken seriously.
IMO, Splinty's very rational and otherwise intelligent view of how to judge reality and what/who to believe etc seems to fall on a simple assumption that for the most part, authoritarian sources are basically trustworthy and are looking out for our best interests. It assumes that truth totally outweighs lies and that if 'experts' have consensus on things they are probably all good people with no agenda that just want to bring you the truth because they care etc
I just don't think any of that is so anymore. Really, why should I take their word for anything anymore? I think Cooper was right; don't believe shit until you can really prove it to yourself convincingly. If this means discovering that I can't prove shit, and will 'know' very very little, well I will take that reality of unknowing over believing a bunch of shit from known liars. I don't mind being uncertain about almost everything at all.
GREAT thread, this is a huge story.
I am away and not having much time for forums or conspiracy digging but I just caught up with this thread gladdest to see folks keeping an eye on it.
Our own life experiences and material circumstances also help shape how we engage with the world. So once we evaluate a message we receive, we also have to question our own commitments to things being one way or the other. Historically, information was more limited and so the need for institutions to undergo a few or most of these processes on our behalf was high, but today some things are much more readily available. As such, as long as we know the protocols, we can safely make up our minds based on the evidence and still sometimes be wrong, but it could be due to distortions in the information we've received or due to our own failed process. Skepticism means being most skeptical of your own conclusions.
Active doubt is more like watching the UFC and being like, "no, that's fake BS" until you can personally challenge Jon Jones to a fight. Informed skepticism is going to train in BJJ, boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, etc and then watching a fight with a new set of eyes. So Joe Rogan's breakdown helps, but you can probably mostly follow what's going on.
These things may or may not have happened in a countless amount of ways depending on which universe we are currently in as evidenced by the Mandela effect.
Great post
Agreed, it is up to us where on this scale we choose to exist.
However ‘informed skepticism’ is still a relative term, depending from whom one is being ‘informed’.
Folks may watch CNN, or read the Washington Post everyday and this consider themselves ‘informed’, but at the same time thus never even heard of WTC7 for example. Information comes from many vastly different places and experiences, and none are complete. Be informed about one thing is usually to be ignorant of another
I personally am counting on a scenario where the disinfo gets so thick that it will become completely impossible to trust or believe anything anymore, and out of evolutionary survival we develop a new sense where we are clearly able to distinguish truth from lies as we would differentiate the smell of a rose from the smell of shit.
Last edited:
