David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:45 pm

compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:52 pm wrote:
Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:44 pm wrote:
compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:42 pm wrote:
Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:02 pm wrote:2 But I still think David Icke and his pals- basically any person who traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism or denial or might claim that the Protocols are essentially true- brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
is your quote

David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
David Icke and his pals are qualified as indicated


There's a legitimate case to be made that trafficking in Nazi Holocaust revisionism and claiming that the Protocols are essentially true is the kiss of death for any organized political action group that isn't intrinsically dedicated to the premise that Jews are engaged in an evil global conspiracy that makes them functionally omnipotent and have never been all that persecuted.

I'd make that one myself.

Just practical politics.


This point is diversionary - the whole of Searcher's post was not about what this response makes it seem like it was about. The part you have selected to respond to was a foundation stone Searcher laid to attempt to illustrate the larger issue.


It seemed intended as an illustration of the personal accusations of anti-Semitism against other posters that you and others feel AD has been making against you.

So I don't see how pointing out that it's a legitimate political argument with no personal implications is diversionary, unless I'm wrong to read it that way.

Please let me know if I am, and in what way.


CW, that is the correct banana
c2w,

My issue isnt even with the Implication - it is with the starting point
David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

This is creating an equivalence between
'David Icke and his pals' and
Any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

This is from early on in the thread.



ADs second post was
American Dream » 17 Jun 2013 18:13 wrote:
Who wants to drink a big glass of Kool Aid with extra vitamins?
It's at least 50% pure!

Slimmouse said
You see, this is the problem with this kind of discussion. You try to engage with someone about their knowledge of their critic, or better still with the very poster himself ( that would be you AD) and this is where we always end up going.
Its pretty much a waste of time as such.
I mean seriously, this isnt too RI to me.


So what does this actually mean? From Wiki
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" refers to the 1978 Jonestown Massacre; the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications. At Jonestown, Jim Jones' followers followed him to the end: after visiting Congressman Leo Ryan was shot at the airstrip, all the Peoples Temple members drank from a metal vat containing a mixture of "Kool Aid" (actually Flavor Aid), cyanide, and prescription drugs Valium, Phenergan, and chloral hydrate.


So it appears that Kool Aid was not actually even served LOLwhut??!!

Well this is what I took from it :YMMV

AD is suggesting that 'defenders of Icke aka CW/SLAD/SM/S08 have mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications.
Except, again, it is ambiguous - was it directed at 'defenders of Icke'? a random rant?
Again there is no clarity about what is wanted back

Looking at it in the Wiki definition, this is putting Icke in the same camp as a mind-controlled cult leader and his mindless dogma hoovering drones.

If the ADs sources are then looked at and questioned (a VERY RI thing to do) this is labelled as 'avoiding the question'
and that as we say here in London, is total pants.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby brekin » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:53 pm

brekin wrote: What this thread really boils down to is this:

Some people believe Icke, and want to believe Icke without rational reasons. They get mad when tenets of Icke's philosophy is criticized or held to a standard of proof because it is challenging a belief system of theirs that is based on faith. Now, nothing wrong with having a belief based on faith. We all do. But people can't frequent a board where we dissect and pick apart numerous belief systems and then think that a man who believes lizard-human hybrids secretly control the world will be immune.


CW wrote:
for some of us this thread is about more than that.
it is about guilt by association, taboo topics, the different opinions on what constitutes "evidence" and several other ideas and dynamics are at play, too.Of course we can pick apart any belief system. I like to pick apart Scientism and lots of people lose their shit when I do. I've done it here vis a vis the 'what constitutes evidence' strain of the discussion.


Well you can appreciate not over identifying with your beliefs then. Would you appreciate a heavy scientific person reacting to your posts the way you have at times in this thread? Let's be honest if AD or MIB or me (not that our thinking is a monolithic chunk mind you) used the same personal attacks and profanity you have we would have been banned along time ago.

What has got some of us tripped up and is now being exacerbated is the perception that the OP has tried to insinuate that Icke is dangerous and that people who follow him in any way are either willfully blind to that danger or are wrong to not see a danger or, worse - they are racists or deep New Agers themselves.


If you don't like the OP and what it insinuates why don't you address it on those terms and provide reasoning why it is false and believing in Icke is progressive and good? It is so easy to scream "You think I'm a racist! You think I'm a anti-semite! You don't think I'm smart!" instead of dealing with any of the material posted pro or con. The more people have to address you directly and your needs and complaints the more it shows you aren't dealing with the OP, but with your identity in having those beliefs.

Even in your post here, brekin, you seem unable to stop using insult against the people with whom you disagree. That's part of the meta discussion here, too.


What insult? The call for logic and evidence being perceived as tricks? Finding the flow chart harmless? Trust me, at the most I'm being glib and wry. I'm not going to coddle or sweeten artificially. And I'll put my comments next to yours in any thread and we can see who is insulting. (But for the love of God please let's not do it now in this civil war thread.)

CW wrote:
EDIT TO ADD: your timing and "missing things" is unfortunate, shall we say? You seem to miss all of the things that would make my posts meaningful to you and to help you to respond appropriately. For example, I guess you missed SLAD's thread called "I'm Leaving." She did post a few minutes ago, but that's again just unfortunate timing (for me of course. it works for you)


I try to keep up - but there has been pages on this thread that have filled up in 5 minutes. Since it generally has been the same conversation since page 10 I don't think I've missed anything ground breaking. Have I?

I saw slad's thread "I'm Leaving". I also saw her new thread.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:02 pm

brekin wrote:
Well you can appreciate not over identifying with your beliefs then. Would you appreciate a heavy scientific person reacting to your posts the way you have at times in this thread? Let's be honest if AD or MIB or me (not that our thinking is a monolithic chunk mind you) used the same personal attacks and profanity you have we would have been banned along time ago.


not true, profanity in non-banished posters is abundant. I get no special treatment. I've been suspended 5.. maybe 6 times. Holla! Not to mention that I object to your characterization of me: while I do use profanity and insult at times I very often (most often) do not. When I do not you tend to somehow "miss that" as do many others. So yes, I get frustrated and no I'm not proud of it.

brekin wrote:If you don't like the OP and what it insinuates why don't you address it on those terms and provide reasoning why it is false and believing in Icke is progressive and good?


I did, many times. I can go back and get them for you if you want, but you could just click on pages 1 through 6 or maybe 25 and search for my little avatar..

brekin wrote:It is so easy to scream "You think I'm a racist! You think I'm a anti-semite! You don't think I'm smart!" instead of dealing with any of the material posted pro or con. The more people have to address you directly and your needs and complaints the more it shows you aren't dealing with the OP, but with your identity in having those beliefs.


you're right, but I got really fucking tired of saying the same thing over again and reading my cohorts explain very carefully the same things over and over again and getting nowhere. Not to mention the more important point which is: I and others were called racist anti-semite supporters and told more or less that we need to be saved from ourselves. So there's that. Thought stopping you know. Anger inducing.

brekin wrote:What insult? The call for logic and evidence being perceived as tricks? Finding the flow chart harmless? Trust me, at the most I'm being glib and wry. I'm not going to coddle or sweeten artificially. And I'll put my comments next to yours in any thread and we can see who is insulting. (But for the love of God please let's not do it now in this civil war thread.)


Don't play dumb. Your post was insulting. Surely you know that you don't have to say: idiot, asshole, fuckwit, douchebag, asshat, moron, retard, dummy, bitch, bastard, stupid, .. etc in order to insult someone. In fact not saying it directly is raised to an artform on this board. I don't usually bother with it, but sometimes I do. Do you enjoy that type of 'non-insult insult' better? I could start using it on you, it'll just make for longer posts.

brekin wrote:I try to keep up - but there has been pages on this thread that have filled up in 5 minutes. Since it generally has been the same conversation since page 10 I don't think I've missed anything ground breaking. Have I?


that would be your call. But you did miss all the parts that you said you missed, which made the point of your post a little unfair.

brekin wrote:I saw slad's thread "I'm Leaving". I also saw her new thread.
[/quote]

really? well then I guess you just wanted to make me look a fool by saying "SLAD hasn't left! Tosh, what's that claim all about!"
Last edited by Canadian_watcher on Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:17 pm

Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm wrote:
compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:52 pm wrote:
Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:44 pm wrote:
compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:42 pm wrote:
Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:02 pm wrote:2 But I still think David Icke and his pals- basically any person who traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism or denial or might claim that the Protocols are essentially true- brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
is your quote

David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
David Icke and his pals are qualified as indicated


There's a legitimate case to be made that trafficking in Nazi Holocaust revisionism and claiming that the Protocols are essentially true is the kiss of death for any organized political action group that isn't intrinsically dedicated to the premise that Jews are engaged in an evil global conspiracy that makes them functionally omnipotent and have never been all that persecuted.

I'd make that one myself.

Just practical politics.


This point is diversionary - the whole of Searcher's post was not about what this response makes it seem like it was about. The part you have selected to respond to was a foundation stone Searcher laid to attempt to illustrate the larger issue.


It seemed intended as an illustration of the personal accusations of anti-Semitism against other posters that you and others feel AD has been making against you.

So I don't see how pointing out that it's a legitimate political argument with no personal implications is diversionary, unless I'm wrong to read it that way.

Please let me know if I am, and in what way.


CW, that is the correct banana
c2w,

My issue isnt even with the Implication - it is with the starting point
David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

This is creating an equivalence between
'David Icke and his pals' and
Any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)


Yes it absolutely is. His very point is that all people who do those things are equivalently fatal to organized political movements to which they're superfluous that require a broad base of support in order to succeed..

That's a legitimate point. I agree with it. You're free to say otherwise. But if you're saying it on the grounds that what delegitimizes it is that it posits that it posits equivalency where none exists, I'm not sure I follow. Each and all of those things are equivalently fatal, imo.

And if it's EITHER the equivalency between and among various people who are variously implicated by equivalent things, though all are implicated by them OR the likening of them to one another in broadly inclusive and vague terms such as "and his pals" or "any person who" that you find objectionable...

Searcher08 wrote:That whole Skeptinazi cesspit is full of specific people like the FMSF whose actions actually cause real harm to real people, some of whom are on the Board; Pedophile apologist and neoLiberal chickenhawk Aaronovitch; of Sam Harris who wraps his anti-Muslim hate in the flag of ultra pseudoskepticism and gets a pass. Goldacre and Ernst and the people who present the 'we only want to be... rigourous <eye flutter> about alternative medicine and sincerely 'reach out' to practioners while secretly campaigning to fuck them over?


...again, I'm not sure I follow. What AD said was actually more and not less broadly inclusive than that, as well as clearer in specifying under what limited conditions the equivalency applied -- ie, for the purposes of pro-Palestinian activism.

In short, yes. It creates equivalence. And that was bad because...?
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:29 pm

Hi brekin,

Just in case this gets locked I wanted to speak to some of the points you raised.

If there is going to be a meaningful discussion, my position is that it is important to have clear communication channels and acknowledge the limitation of our medium - as a lot of non-verbal information is lost here.

In my experience, it is really important to know what is expected, the context in which the communication takes place. If I submit a paper to an algebraic topology Journal, the context is pretty clear - the people at the journal know I am a postdoc Maths wonk and that I want to get published. I know that the Journal folks will be absolutely dissection what i have to say...

In this thread, we are not in a context that is purely external evidence based, we are also in one where perceptions, the internal maps a person has, are just as important as logic.

If a person is not heard / listened to / empathised with on *their* terms - these needs will not be met and in my experience those are ultimately much more powerful for changing things than case building or adversarial argumentation. The choice of logic used can also be important - for example one can accomodate contradiction in paraconsistent logic. Yes, No and YES AND NO

My favourite scientists, like Feynman or Godel have been people with intense curiousity about the world and were relentless about challenging their own assumptions in their areas; my favouite communicators like John Grinder or Milton Erickson were acutely aware of the importance of congruence in messages between what was said on the surface and what was message of the deeper structure of the communication. If the two turn out to be in conflict, the conversation will tend to reflect that.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby brekin » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:39 pm

CW, in a nutshell, some people in this thread (as well as many others outside the thread in the world) think that David Icke is one or all of the following: frivolous, dangerous, crazy, an intentional or unintentional anti-semite, an intentional or unintentional racist, delusional, a con, a fraud, exploitative, etc

If you are a supporter or fan of David Icke you will also at some point then be thought, wittingly or unwittingly, as one or all of the above. That may not be fair, but it is just a fact. You may have all kinds of supplemental rationales (I only take what is good from him, I see it as a metaphor, I don't rule anything out, he's misinterpreted - he thinks Jews are victims to. etc) but people won't care unless you can prove otherwise. Again, not fair, but true.

CW wrote:
you're right, but I got really fucking tired of saying the same thing over again and reading my cohorts explain very carefully the same things over and over again and getting nowhere. Not to mention the more important point which is: I and others were called racist anti-semite supporters and told more or less that we need to be saved from ourselves. So there's that. Thought stopping you know. Anger inducing.


I say this because the above is going to happen again and again and again. And I'm not talking about this thread. On this thread, in general people have been downright polite regarding this. As far as I know no one has called anyone anything but a proxy supporter of someone (Icke) who may have intentional or unintentional anti-semitic/racist dogma in his creed. But yes, you could interpret this as someone saying you have been duped or you are not aware that the message from Icke you support is in actuality racist and/or anti-semitic. But if you like Wagner's operas and someone says it contains supposedly anti-semitic content, do you blame them for stating that? Does that make you anti-semitic? Of course not, but if you choose to deny the operas are anti-semitic, without backing it up with evidence or examination then it comes across that you want to listen to your Wagner guiltfree without having to consider possible contexts or ramifications of the overall message. Again, still not anti-semitic but just not choosing to engage in the bigger conversation.

I won't rehash the need for evidence regarding lizard-human hybrids ruling the world. But related to the above. If Icke is considered racist/anti-semitic and his explanation is that he's not talking about a specific ethnicity responsible for all the world's ills, but in fact lizard people, then again, we need evidence and proof of the lizards. If none is forthcoming, then again we either have someone who is duplicitous, lying, delusional or possibly just plain lazy.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:43 pm

I guess I only have two things to say:

1. I have learned not to care what certain types of closed minded people think of me, but I do object if they start spreading their misconceptions around as if they've found my dark secret; and
2. I'll get back to you when I've solved the age old riddle of how to prove I'm not a racist.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:50 pm

compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:17 pm wrote:
Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm wrote:
compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:52 pm wrote:
Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:44 pm wrote:
compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:42 pm wrote:
Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:02 pm wrote:2 But I still think David Icke and his pals- basically any person who traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism or denial or might claim that the Protocols are essentially true- brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
is your quote

David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
David Icke and his pals are qualified as indicated


There's a legitimate case to be made that trafficking in Nazi Holocaust revisionism and claiming that the Protocols are essentially true is the kiss of death for any organized political action group that isn't intrinsically dedicated to the premise that Jews are engaged in an evil global conspiracy that makes them functionally omnipotent and have never been all that persecuted.

I'd make that one myself.

Just practical politics.


This point is diversionary - the whole of Searcher's post was not about what this response makes it seem like it was about. The part you have selected to respond to was a foundation stone Searcher laid to attempt to illustrate the larger issue.


It seemed intended as an illustration of the personal accusations of anti-Semitism against other posters that you and others feel AD has been making against you.

So I don't see how pointing out that it's a legitimate political argument with no personal implications is diversionary, unless I'm wrong to read it that way.

Please let me know if I am, and in what way.


CW, that is the correct banana
c2w,

My issue isnt even with the Implication - it is with the starting point
David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

This is creating an equivalence between
'David Icke and his pals' and
Any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)


Yes it absolutely is. His very point is that all people who do those things are equivalently fatal to organized political movements to which they're superfluous that require a broad base of support in order to succeed..

That's a legitimate point. I agree with it. You're free to say otherwise. But if you're saying it on the grounds that what delegitimizes it is that it posits that it posits equivalency where none exists, I'm not sure I follow. Each and all of those things are equivalently fatal, imo.

And if it's EITHER the equivalency between and among various people who are variously implicated by equivalent things, though all are implicated by them OR the likening of them to one another in broadly inclusive and vague terms such as "and his pals" or "any person who" that you find objectionable...

Searcher08 wrote:That whole Skeptinazi cesspit is full of specific people like the FMSF whose actions actually cause real harm to real people, some of whom are on the Board; Pedophile apologist and neoLiberal chickenhawk Aaronovitch; of Sam Harris who wraps his anti-Muslim hate in the flag of ultra pseudoskepticism and gets a pass. Goldacre and Ernst and the people who present the 'we only want to be... rigourous <eye flutter> about alternative medicine and sincerely 'reach out' to practioners while secretly campaigning to fuck them over?


...again, I'm not sure I follow. What AD said was actually more and not less broadly inclusive than that, as well as clearer in specifying under what limited conditions the equivalency applied -- ie, for the purposes of pro-Palestinian activism.

In short, yes. It creates equivalence. And that was bad because...?


Was that the same comment that AD himself called me out on? I remember being angry at seeing for the first time in my experience on RI a specific sets of behaviours (as shown by MiB) that I have only seen on pseudoskeptic forums. I do remember thinking your reply mocked my interest in alternative meds but cest la vie, necessity, invention, mothers and all that...

My issue was not a value judgement on the equivalence, but its existence.

Because AD said it didnt.
I provided evidence the equivalence existed.
You confirmed it.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:52 pm

Searcher08 wrote:This is from early on in the thread.



ADs second post was
American Dream » 17 Jun 2013 18:13 wrote:
Who wants to drink a big glass of Kool Aid with extra vitamins?
It's at least 50% pure!



Slimmouse said
You see, this is the problem with this kind of discussion. You try to engage with someone about their knowledge of their critic, or better still with the very poster himself ( that would be you AD) and this is where we always end up going.
Its pretty much a waste of time as such.
I mean seriously, this isnt too RI to me.


So what does this actually mean? From Wiki
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" refers to the 1978 Jonestown Massacre; the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications. At Jonestown, Jim Jones' followers followed him to the end: after visiting Congressman Leo Ryan was shot at the airstrip, all the Peoples Temple members drank from a metal vat containing a mixture of "Kool Aid" (actually Flavor Aid), cyanide, and prescription drugs Valium, Phenergan, and chloral hydrate.


So it appears that Kool Aid was not actually even served LOLwhut??!!

Well this is what I took from it :YMMV

AD is suggesting that 'defenders of Icke aka CW/SLAD/SM/S08 have mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications.
Except, again, it is ambiguous - was it directed at 'defenders of Icke'? a random rant?
Again there is no clarity about what is wanted back

Looking at it in the Wiki definition, this is putting Icke in the same camp as a mind-controlled cult leader and his mindless dogma hoovering drones.

If the ADs sources are then looked at and questioned (a VERY RI thing to do) this is labelled as 'avoiding the question'
and that as we say here in London, is total pants.


It doesn't seem very ambiguous to me that he's saying he thinks Icke is running a cult-like operation, though not a cult. Because I believe he's said it explicitly.

I agree that the ambiguous suggestion that others have mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications is bound to rankle those who feel implicated by it. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say I can understand why it might piss them off.

Because I can't count the number of times I've been on the receiving end of both ambiguous suggestions and flat-out declarations to exactly that effect on this board, including on both this thread and the one on vaccines during the last week. Happens all the damn time. And not just to me or on those threads. It's regularly the only rebuttal argument anyone offers in response to dissenting posts for pages and pages at a time on those big, busy current-and-breaking-news threads like "Connecticut Elementary School Shooting" or "Two Explosions at Boston Marathon."

I resent it and wish it would stop.

So yeah. That's an annoying suggestion. And in my experience, at least, all the more so when there's no legitimate case to be made that any affiliation with a dogmatic group led by someone who uses cult-like tactics exists.

In this case it does. But I have to admit, that since I'd still probably find it very annoying if I felt I were the object of an ambiguous suggestion to that effect under those circumstances, I can't blame you for objecting to it.

However. I'm still not getting where the personal accusations of anti-Semitism/diagnoses of extreme deficiency/other very offensive and intolerable attacks on you, SLAD, and slim come into play. In fact, I still don't see them.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:56 pm

Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:43 pm wrote:I guess I only have two things to say:

2. I'll get back to you when I've solved the age old riddle of how to prove I'm not a racist.


You will never be able to do that, because you are POISONED by DRINKING THE KOOL AID,
it is in your very cells! You will need to have a complete DNA-level cellular reprogramming.

Bummer.

:mrgreen:
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby brekin » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:57 pm

Searcher08 wrote:
Hi brekin,
Just in case this gets locked I wanted to speak to some of the points you raised.
If there is going to be a meaningful discussion, my position is that it is important to have clear communication channels and acknowledge the limitation of our medium - as a lot of non-verbal information is lost here.

In my experience, it is really important to know what is expected, the context in which the communication takes place. If I submit a paper to an algebraic topology Journal, the context is pretty clear - the people at the journal know I am a postdoc Maths wonk and that I want to get published. I know that the Journal folks will be absolutely dissection what i have to say...
In this thread, we are not in a context that is purely external evidence based, we are also in one where perceptions, the internal maps a person has, are just as important as logic.

If a person is not heard / listened to / empathised with on *their* terms - these needs will not be met and in my experience those are ultimately much more powerful for changing things than case building or adversarial argumentation. The choice of logic used can also be important - for example one can accomodate contradiction in paraconsistent logic. Yes, No and YES AND NO
My favourite scientists, like Feynman or Godel have been people with intense curiousity about the world and were relentless about challenging their own assumptions in their areas; my favouite communicators like John Grinder or Milton Erickson were acutely aware of the importance of congruence in messages between what was said on the surface and what was message of the deeper structure of the communication. If the two turn out to be in conflict, the conversation will tend to reflect that.


I see your point and respect your orientation to the problem. Where we differ though is in relating to different realities. Your approach would I guess work better in building rapport, concensus, and community. For example, lets say everyone in this thread is trapped on island. Some people develop a belief that giant lizards rule the world. Some people resist it. People start bickering, not sharing food, saying they are going to build a raft to leave. O.K. let's pow wow and pass the pipe and just talk about what the belief means to you without judgement, how we can discuss the matter or not to everyone's benefit, etc. Good idea.

O.K. scenario 2. Three years later everyone on the island has been coexisting fine with this new belief system. But some people are tired of waiting around and being exploited by these giant lizards who have been causing all the island's problems. Even though we never see them some decide we need to allocate resources to find these giant lizards. We need action! Enough of all this sitting around complaining about the state of the island. Let's start making weapons and canoes (or if we a pacifists let's chop down some trees and make pamplets to send to other islands to try and raise awareness about the issue). Others balk. They say ok we've listened and empathized with what you believe but if we are going to allocate resources (and time and attention are resources) we need some proof, we need some evidence about these giant lizards. Have you ever seen one? How do we know they aren't just more evil spirit talk?

Thoughts are just plans for actions. I respect people have their own beliefs and they fulfill needs. But if what they believe may effect me and others in the world then I think they have a duty and responsibility to submit their beliefs to logic. I'm not going to force anyone and it is not my job to do it for them. But if you want me to carve a canoe you are going to need and convince me why. If you just want me to sit and smoke the pipe and listen why believing in the giant lizards is important I'll do that to for awhile. But then you'll have to listen to why I don't think there are giant lizards.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:01 pm

still with the giant lizards, eh?
can't get past it to the root of the communication problem, huh?

hint: bringing up lizards at every turn is part of it. tying lizards to anti-semitism/racism is another. using a scenario involved a peace pipe is another.
really, this is so obvious.. it's like, science!
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:17 pm

Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:50 pm wrote:Was that the same comment that AD himself called me out on? I remember being angry at seeing for the first time in my experience on RI a specific sets of behaviours (as shown by MiB) that I have only seen on pseudoskeptic forums. I do remember thinking your reply mocked my interest in alternative meds but cest la vie, necessity, invention, mothers and all that...


I objected to it. And I did not mock you or your interests in any way. What I said was:

Once again, if I may say so mildly:

I find phrases like "Randi et al are cognitive fascists" every bit as problematic as I would "Icke et al are paranoid lunatics."

I'm not saying the opinion's problematic. Without the "et al" and a few other terms -- ("That whole Skeptinazi cesspit is full of specific people like the FMSF" springs to mind) what you're saying and the reasons you give for saying it would be fair as fair as fair. Obviously.

It's just the undifferentiated mass condemnation of people as -- essentially -- no better than pedophile apologists due to some highly non-specific act of discourtesy that two of them committed wrt to some equally highly non-specific alternative medicine practitioners of presumed impeccable innocence and sterling moral character that I take issue with. Because it's prejudicial.

Can we please condemn the sin, not the sinner? Doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult. And it really benefits EVERYBODY. (As opposed to "anybody in particular.")


I was half asking for details, tbh. I mean, I certainly don't put it out of the question that alternative medical practitioners were unfairly criticized by skeptics. But I also don't put it out of the question that they did what they were called out for doing. Either might equally easily be true.

My point was really that you appeared to be presuming that any conflict between skeptics and alternative medical practitioners is an attack by the former on the latter because one group is a priori bad and the other a priori good.

Which was exactly the kind of mass generalization about others on the basis of their beliefs that I was mildly raising an objection to.

But I might also have said that you were positing equivalence among people based on their beliefs and not their actions, unjustified or qualified by circumstance and unbounded by any other limitation.

Because you were.

My issue was not a value judgement on the equivalence, but its existence.

Because AD said it didnt.
I provided evidence the equivalence existed.
You confirmed it.


That's my opinion, based on your representation, yes.

And that was bad of AD in a way that amounted to an intolerable assault on you -- specifically that amounted to calling you and other posters anti-Semites -- because...?
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby brekin » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:19 pm

CW wrote:

still with the giant lizards, eh?
can't get past it to the root of the communication problem, huh?
hint: bringing up lizards at every turn is part of it. tying lizards to anti-semitism/racism is another. using a scenario involved a peace pipe is another.
really, this is so obvious.. it's like, science!


Giant lizards, anti-semitism/racism is what this thread is about. If you don't like that start a new thread about communication. If you want to turn everything into a communications issue (how to communicate with you really) then this probably is not the thread (forum?) for you. Making people bow to your preferred communication style (which seems to be just agreeing with you and not challenging anything you say while allowing you simulataneously attack and play victim) is just a form of dominating the conversation.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:29 pm

hey buddy that whole post was an uncalled for attack.
maybe this forum isn't for YOU.. JREF would like your style.
then again RI is getting more JREF by the day.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests