barracuda wrote:I don't hate anything. I feel sorry for people when they mindlessly repeat fascist talking points, iterate obviously poor analysis as if it were The Golden Key, and throw open the door to the wolf with a knowing wink.
Why is it that the only people on this board screaming about gate-keeping, thought-policing and special privileges for the few are the same people who regularly indulge in the same?
Why not use arguments to fight back, instead of trying to silence those who disagree by casting aspersions on their motives, insinuating they're fascists, sock-puppets or gate-keepers, and posting vague bullshit instead of straight answers? Or is that too hard?
Canadian_Watcher, please stop complaining and back-up your need to insist there were no victims in Boston. If that's not your contention, then please clarify. So far, all I've seen you do in reaction is claim that no one here will allow talk of "false flags", which is, and forgive me but, a ridiculous assertion given the history of this board, and a strawman defense if there ever was one. EVERYONE on this board, that I know of, accepts that there are false flag events. The issue in contention here, in relation to the Boston bombing, is fake victims. Please refer to the OP. Faking an entire event is not equivalent to carrying out a false flag event which may contain many and various elements that are real or faked. I personally would be appreciative if you stopped characterizing everyone who raises an objection to the idea as someone who will not allow discussion of false flags. I would also appreciate it greatly if you attempted to understand the ethical and intellectual stances of your opponents rather than simply screaming that you're a victim of gatekeepers. Thank you.
compared2what? wrote:FWIW, the primary thing that concerns me about seeing people subscribe to this particular belief is that some of the video-makers/etc. pushing it appear to have learned everything they know about story-telling while taking the first step towards being deceptively inducted into cooperating with a confidence trick of some sort that was taking the cast-a-wide-net approach to trolling for marks.
Because it's exactly the same formula -- ie, an appeal to ego that explicitly and emphatically equates being more astute than others with the ability to see the belief being pointed at as true, while simultaneously preemptively degrading, deriding, and generally inciting extreme hostility towards every and any conceivable source of potentially countervailing information -- such as (in this case) news reports, photographs, people who think their advanced degrees, years of experience and extensive body of knowledge in relation to some relevant specialty area mean that they know more than you do, etc.-- by lumping them all together into a single, undifferentiated enemy class.
It's kind of like a disproportionate emphasis on preventative critic-proofing, basically. Red flag, imo.
Yep, reminds me somewhat of a cult mindset, and advertising strategies as well.
Really, this propensity to blow the conspiracy angle way out of proportion, there's a side of me that wonders if everyone has gone mad? Again, do we not have enough verifiable tradecraft to explore without extrapolating to entirely different, and completely untenable in this case, levels?Notice: this post is a set of arguments and opinions, not instructions for anyone to shut up.
(Unless of course you're a paid shill with an inoculation brief, in that case, yeah, shut up.)
Gawd, this board, it has fallen so low.