Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby jakell » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:09 pm

American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:12 pm wrote:I've grown very tired of the poor quality of the conversation here, so I'll say only this: solace has pointed you in a meaningful direction and jakell- given the evidence of his post above- at best, hardly has a clue.


This is quite ironic coming from someone who's actual output consists mostly of variations on "I just stumbled across this...."

I had actually thought of doing a little compilation of these empty 'signpost' phrases, something I had started doing on my previous forum. Zombie Glen Beck came up with the term 'linkspam', which I think sums it up nicely.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:55 pm

BrandonD » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:45 am wrote:
solace » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:08 pm wrote:As long as there are regular posters who support assholes like Atzmon, Icke and all the other sketchy bastards they do, "anti-fascist board," is just a saying. Or maybe a vague goal.


Are there really forum members here who "support" those people? Or are you referring to people who reference them and/or their statements? Is this considered support?

“By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.”

The above is a quote from Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf (according to Google references).

The quote also happens to be a true statement.

If I decide to reference a true statement which happens to have been said by an a$$hole, does this mean I "support" that person?

Must I add a clause in any instance where I might reference this quote that 'I do not condone Hitler's actions'? If I fail to add this clause, does this mean I am supporting Hitler?

Or instead, is it just understood by thinking people that even the worst of us might say factually correct, wise, or even kind words from time to time in our pathetic existence?

I can't help but perceive bullying taking place within this battle against fascism, an attempt to dominate and dictate discussion. Perhaps I am seeing this incorrectly, but it appears that way.

Before I came to this site, I was unaware that Icke was some sort of fascist. This isn't surprising since I don't know a great deal about him beyond some youtube videos, as he is not that interesting to me. He's perhaps said a handful of things that I'd consider to be factual, but his intense and zealous "guru" personality was definitely a put-off for me.

If I were to have discovered on my own that he said some anti-semitic things, for example, is the idea here that my opinions are so malleable that I would simply go along with it because he said one or two true statements at some point in time?

Do I need a group of 'idea guardians' to protect me and my fragile sense of morality?

It's really unlikely that I'd ever quote Icke because any factual thing that he's said has been said better by someone else, but if I were to reference him because a particular quote happened to fit the circumstance for some reason, would this mean that I am now his supporter?

I would like to better understand the stance of people on this site, because honestly it seems really strange. What I would expect to see here is a group of people finding a sense of camaraderie amongst one another because of our mutual deep interests in unconventional subjects, but instead it seems like a bunch of people suspicious of one another. I honestly don't get it.

I've seen forums with a lot of racism and homophobia and religious fanaticism and other objectionable material (such as GLP), and with that point of reference, this place really seems like a flowery meadow in comparison.

And yet by some of the posts here you would think that SS officers are hiding in the rafters.

Is this really the case? How did this begin? Did someone start a racist or anti-semitic thread back in the past and it just set everyone off? Because I just can't seem to see this secret fascist undercurrent running beneath the discussions on this forum.

Or is this simply a case of personality clashes being expressed through a conveniently exploitable social issue that tends to heighten animosities?

Encyclopedia Brown, where are you when we need you?


Is there a benign way to think about fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc? I would suggest no. Trying to rehabilitate such people and their supporters is not a good thing. And yes, I understand the difference between a supporter and something else. It amazes me to learn that some other don't. Actually, they probably do but something else is at work here. I mean knowing what constitutes support is just not that difficult a concept unless one is engaging in what AD has previously referred to as New Age Workshop gobbledygook.
solace
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 11:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:49 pm

I had a look at the educationforum Board Rules and was struck by the lack of tolerance for a lack of civility.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16940

I read it and mulled over it. Initially it seemed a little draconian, then I realised that there were big differences as well:
* they have a very hands-on Board Admin (ours has departed) and a
* team of MODS (we have Willow).

I mulled these over and think, In spite of these differences, it might be worth looking at them

(I am putting them in Quote boxes and Boldening headings for clarity)

When I think back to so many of the (ultimately extremely NON-productive) conflicts that have taken place over here, for myself many of them arose from the growth of a board culture over a long period where civility has been taking a long slow arcing downward dive.

I think there is still time to change course - when I looked a couple of days ago, a large number of individual posters and sets of posters were engaged in 'virtual fistfights' with 'board opponents' In random order

Brekin, Alice, Stefano, Jack Riddler, Spiro, Solace, Seemslikeadream, American Dream, jakell, Sounder, minme, Nordic, slimmouse, Rory, Searcher

Many (though not all) of these came down to the domain of civility.

Food for thought?

The Spirit of the Law

The purpose of all of these rules is to ensure that this forum remains a law-abiding, civil, and congenial place to engage in discussion. That a post complies with that spirit is a greater consideration than whether it can be defended as being within the rules.


Civility and Decorum

Politeness is paramount. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That's fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be civil.

Members are forbidden from questioning the motives of posters, nor should members research abilities be questioned.

At no time may a forum member call another forum member a liar, nor accuse them of posting / telling lies. Infraction of this rule will result in the immediate deletion of the offending post and the immediate moderation of the offending poster. The duration of moderation (or possible expulsion of the member) will be determined by consensus amongst moderators and / or administrators.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators, preferably via the reporting mechanism described here, or by PM or email. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.


Language

No cursing. What is defined as cursing is determined by the best judgment of the moderators and may be amended by moderator or admin consensus. No cursing goes along with being polite. This website is read by school children and young adults - consider that at all time and let it be a guide for you. Attempts to express bad words or phrases in messages or screen names, by any means such as (but not limited to): replacing key letters with different characters, misspellings homonyms, sound-alikes, abbreviations, or any other trick obvious enough to be noticed by a moderator will not be tolerated. Same goes with adult topics -- talk about them somewhere else. If you do need to post something risqué, stick with acceptable terminology. Contact a moderator or administrator if you have any doubts.


Avatars and biographies

All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature

All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar. If you find you have problems with this please contact a moderator and they will help you with this.


References

Wherever possible - especially if an issue or point being made is being disputed - members should attempt to give references or document source material. This will provide assistance to those carry out academic research into the subject matter.


Copyright

Be cautious when posting copyrighted material here. Post small, relevant quotes or sections, and include the URL to the source. Alternatively, if you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further. Posting copyrighted material wholesale without attribution or linking to the source can open the Forum to legal action.


Privacy Issues

Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated. Do not post private email you have gained access to without the express permission of the sender. There are legal and copyright reasons for this, not to mention that doing so is very impolite. The same caveat applies to private messages, whether they're from this forum or anywhere else. If you receive rude or abusive private messages on this forum, you can report them via the same mechanism as inappropriate posts.

However, private messages to a moderator about forum administration issues are an exception to this rule. These may be shared with other moderators (but only with other moderators) unless you have a prior agreement with the moderator not to do so. To put it another way, think of the moderator team as a single entity. A PM to one is a PM to all, at least when it comes to official business.

Note that if you do report a private message that you consider inappropriate, you should provide background information regarding any private discussions that preceded that message, since the moderators (unlike with public message posts) cannot establish context without such information. Members who report inappropriate messages without revealing that they sent messages that might have goaded the sender into writing such a message will be dealt with severely.


Advertising, Solicitation, and Spam

Using the forum to promote your own website, blog or forum is quite acceptable but it is not acceptable to promote nor to sell merchandise (except for scholarly works such as books or documentary videos, etc). These offenses will result in the deletion of the offending posts.

Do not submit threads/posts containing identical text in multiple forum categories; that's considered spamming the board, and likewise will be dealt with accordingly.

If you have any doubts that it may break one of these rules, contact a moderator or administrator first.


Second & Third Party Posting

Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it. Think of them as a copyrighted source: you can quote them in short amounts, but if there is something substantial they want to add, they must do it themselves. The exception to this is if new memberships are temporarily suspended and you have confirmed with the administrators that the third party posting is acceptable. Posting on behalf of a moderated, suspended or banned member is strictly forbidden.


Hotlinking and large images
Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone elses website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on another site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the [IMG] tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly unless you believe it is central to a post you are making. If you really want an image in your post, the preferred option is to put the image in a public site someplace (e.g. Photobucket) and link to it from there. One exception would be from government sites, large corporate sites or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue. If you own the image, then you can upload it to the board yourself.

Additionally, don't embed a huge image (meaning an image that's over 100k or extends beyond the right-hand edge of a typical display) inline using the [IMG] tag but link to it instead. We still have dialup users and others with limited bandwidth for whom downloading a large image would be a significant annoyance.

If you have images which may be considered offensive by some but you feel they are central to an argument or issue you are making, the Forum has a website which can be used to host such restricted images. contact a moderator for further information.


"Hit & Run"
The technique of posting a single provocative statement (or, commonly, a URL to a controversial website) and then never posting again in that thread is greatly frowned upon. This is only a step above trolling. Barely.


Editing & Revisionism

Edit your posts with care. There's no problem with editing a post later to change the tone or to correct spelling and the like. But changing content is not allowed! This is a slippery path that can be seen as revisionism. Also, when quoting other posters, trimming down the text to brief snippets to address something in particular is encouraged, but do not misquote others or alter their content to suggest they've stated things which they haven't.


Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. If you do not wish your credibility to be questioned, you should be prepared to defend your arguments. Direct questions should be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Those that are strong will survive, and be stronger for the process.


Disruptive Behavior

The moderators and administrators reserve the right to take action against a poster who is disrupting the normal flow of the board. This includes violations listed in the other rules (trolling, use of ad hominems, etc.), but may also include behavior we have not yet foreseen. Since this rule is perforce general, we will attempt to correct the problem by warning the violator (via PM, email, or posting in the thread) and giving him/her a chance to explain his/her behavior, and we will take further action only if proven necessary.


Reporting Bad Posts
If you feel a post breaks one of these rules, please report it by clicking the 'report' button. Do not talk about bad posts, start threads complaining about posts or anything else you consider to be inappropriate user behavior in the forum itself nor suggest, speculate on, or threaten what the moderator response should be. All reported posts are reviewed by moderators or administrators, and are treated very seriously (so do not report frivolously). If you have concerns, please PM a moderator or administrator.


Moderator Actions
If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action they believe is required. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, placing a member on moderation and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. Banning of a member will only be taken by collective collaboration of moderators and at least one administrator. If a moderator gives you advice, we recommend you to heed it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. If it's a post by a moderator that you disagree with, you can report the post using the usual mechanism. We will review the case and take action as needed. Complaints can be made in the relevant complaints thread (if one exists) if required but do not start thread complaining about the actions taken about a moderator. Such threads will be deleted without warning.


Rule Additions & Revisions

The administrators reserve the right to modify existing rules and/or add additional rules as they see fit. In many ways, this board is like a living thing, subject to change. Situations sometimes arise which cannot be anticipated, and thus, rules must be added to accommodate them.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby jakell » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:10 pm

Searcher08 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:49 pm wrote:I had a look at the educationforum Board Rules and was struck by the lack of tolerance for a lack of civility.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16940


Unless this is a coincidence, I'm guessing that you ended up on that board by following WR's link on his 'Engagement, Attention and Death' thread

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36405

From some of the stuff said there, and it's lack of complexity (ie, it's short), that looks like a good venue for this sort of discussion. I have (in my lowly 'newcomer' status), tried to nudge this.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:36 pm

solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:55 am wrote:
Is there a benign way to think about fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc? I would suggest no. Trying to rehabilitate such people and their supporters is not a good thing. And yes, I understand the difference between a supporter and something else. It amazes me to learn that some other don't. Actually, they probably do but something else is at work here. I mean knowing what constitutes support is just not that difficult a concept unless one is engaging in what AD has previously referred to as New Age Workshop gobbledygook.


I do agree- especially about rehabilitating fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc. as not a worthwhile project and also that there is a big difference between unapprovingly quoting from a perpetrator of one type or another, and advocating for fascist/anti-semitic/racist type ideas.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:58 pm

American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:36 pm wrote:
solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:55 am wrote:
Is there a benign way to think about fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc? I would suggest no. Trying to rehabilitate such people and their supporters is not a good thing. And yes, I understand the difference between a supporter and something else. It amazes me to learn that some other don't. Actually, they probably do but something else is at work here. I mean knowing what constitutes support is just not that difficult a concept unless one is engaging in what AD has previously referred to as New Age Workshop gobbledygook.


I do agree- especially about rehabilitating fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc. as not a worthwhile project and also that there is a big difference between unapprovingly quoting from a perpetrator of one type or another, and advocating for fascist/anti-semitic/racist type ideas.


What truly extraordinary, deeply inhumane and totalitarian NEWSPEAK comments.

To me, this is an (attempted) Overton Window shift, where the entire discourse place inside R.I. is framed as being needing to be focused on anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial and anti-fascism and the lens through which every post, every comment - and soon every poster is trying to be viewed .
The nonsense about American Dream wanting to doing Jeff's wishes is truly now laid bare.
This is about discourse domination and control.

At least it is out in the open now.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby jakell » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:13 pm

Searcher08 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:58 pm wrote:
American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:36 pm wrote:
solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:55 am wrote:
Is there a benign way to think about fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc? I would suggest no. Trying to rehabilitate such people and their supporters is not a good thing. And yes, I understand the difference between a supporter and something else. It amazes me to learn that some other don't. Actually, they probably do but something else is at work here. I mean knowing what constitutes support is just not that difficult a concept unless one is engaging in what AD has previously referred to as New Age Workshop gobbledygook.


I do agree- especially about rehabilitating fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc. as not a worthwhile project and also that there is a big difference between unapprovingly quoting from a perpetrator of one type or another, and advocating for fascist/anti-semitic/racist type ideas.




What truly extraordinary, deeply inhumane and totalitarian NEWSPEAK comments.

To me, this is an (attempted) Overton Window shift, where the entire discourse place inside R.I. is framed as being needing to be focused on anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial and anti-fascism and the lens through which every post, every comment - and soon every poster is trying to be viewed .
The nonsense about American Dream wanting to doing Jeff's wishes is truly now laid bare.
This is about discourse domination and control.

At least it is out in the open now.



What strikes me is the (repeated) statement that rehabilitating (insert bad guy here), is not a good/worthwhile thing.....

Did I read correctly? What sort of place is this? If these are the underlying attitudes then maybe I can understand the nonsense over the last couple of months surrounding this issue.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:16 pm

American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:36 pm wrote:
solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:55 am wrote:
Is there a benign way to think about fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc? I would suggest no. Trying to rehabilitate such people and their supporters is not a good thing. And yes, I understand the difference between a supporter and something else. It amazes me to learn that some other don't. Actually, they probably do but something else is at work here. I mean knowing what constitutes support is just not that difficult a concept unless one is engaging in what AD has previously referred to as New Age Workshop gobbledygook.


I do agree- especially about rehabilitating fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc. as not a worthwhile project and also that there is a big difference between unapprovingly quoting from a perpetrator of one type or another, and advocating for fascist/anti-semitic/racist type ideas.


I personally can't wrap my head around it. If one wants to make a point about something, there are usually so many good ethical sources to choose from that are NOT from such sketchy types. That being the case, why choose them? What is is to be gained? IMO, it is all about reserving the right to use that source for one's agenda without taking an ethical stand. The enemy of enemy sort of thing. Or unthinking ease of access perhaps.
solace
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 11:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:22 pm

solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:16 pm wrote:
American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:36 pm wrote:
solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:55 am wrote:
Is there a benign way to think about fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc? I would suggest no. Trying to rehabilitate such people and their supporters is not a good thing. And yes, I understand the difference between a supporter and something else. It amazes me to learn that some other don't. Actually, they probably do but something else is at work here. I mean knowing what constitutes support is just not that difficult a concept unless one is engaging in what AD has previously referred to as New Age Workshop gobbledygook.


I do agree- especially about rehabilitating fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc. as not a worthwhile project and also that there is a big difference between unapprovingly quoting from a perpetrator of one type or another, and advocating for fascist/anti-semitic/racist type ideas.


I personally can't wrap my head around it. If one wants to make a point about something, there are usually so many good ethical sources to choose from that are NOT from such sketchy types. That being the case, why choose them? What is is to be gained? IMO, it is all about reserving the right to use that source for one's agenda without taking an ethical stand. The enemy of enemy sort of thing. Or unthinking ease of access perhaps.


Also horrifying is the appropriation of Palestinian voices and/or those of close allies in the service of those who espouse world jewish conspiracy/anti-semitic type beliefs. This is a travesty- not just for anti-racist and anti-colonialist causes in general, but also for the cause of palestinian liberation in particular...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:39 pm

jakell » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:13 pm wrote:
Searcher08 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:58 pm wrote:
American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:36 pm wrote:
solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:55 am wrote:
Is there a benign way to think about fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc? I would suggest no. Trying to rehabilitate such people and their supporters is not a good thing. And yes, I understand the difference between a supporter and something else. It amazes me to learn that some other don't. Actually, they probably do but something else is at work here. I mean knowing what constitutes support is just not that difficult a concept unless one is engaging in what AD has previously referred to as New Age Workshop gobbledygook.


I do agree- especially about rehabilitating fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc. as not a worthwhile project and also that there is a big difference between unapprovingly quoting from a perpetrator of one type or another, and advocating for fascist/anti-semitic/racist type ideas.




What truly extraordinary, deeply inhumane and totalitarian NEWSPEAK comments.

To me, this is an (attempted) Overton Window shift, where the entire discourse place inside R.I. is framed as being needing to be focused on anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial and anti-fascism and the lens through which every post, every comment - and soon every poster is trying to be viewed .
The nonsense about American Dream wanting to doing Jeff's wishes is truly now laid bare.
This is about discourse domination and control.

At least it is out in the open now.



What strikes me is the (repeated) statement that rehabilitating (insert bad guy here), is not a good/worthwhile thing.....

Did I read correctly? What sort of place is this? If these are the underlying attitudes then maybe I can understand the nonsense over the last couple of months surrounding this issue.


I have a definite sense of a shift towards control of all discourse with a figleaf of a steady stream of anti-fascism as a putative cover story.

I was reading a couple of Jeff's blog posts today.
Thought-provoking, humane and funny.

They are a world away from solaceand AD's self-annointed gatekeeper nonsense, with it's thought-stopping weasel words, de-humanisation as a proclaimed value and most noticeable of all, humour-free hectoring apparatchik approach.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby jakell » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:54 pm

Searcher08 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:39 pm wrote:
I have a definite sense of a shift towards control of all discourse with a figleaf of a steady stream of anti-fascism as a putative cover story.

I was reading a couple of Jeff's blog posts today.
Thought-provoking, humane and funny.

They are a world away from solaceand AD's self-annointed gatekeeper nonsense, with it's thought-stopping weasel words, de-humanisation as a proclaimed value and most noticeable of all, humour-free hectoring apparatchik approach.


I'm not too sure about controlling all discourse, but definately of controlling an area of it (a while back I spoke of territoriality), an area which conveniently contains emotive (and therefore controlling) memes of strict light and dark

I'm pretty sure the issue of fascism/anti-fascism is now avoided by a good amount of people here. Not necesarily because of confusion or disinterest, but because it's been increasingly (possibly through deliberation) become a conversational black hole.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:01 pm

solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:43 am wrote:Is there a benign way to think about fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc? I would suggest no. Trying to rehabilitate such people and their supporters is not a good thing. And yes, I understand the difference between a supporter and something else. It amazes me to learn that some other don't. Actually, they probably do but something else is at work here. I mean knowing what constitutes support is just not that difficult a concept unless one is engaging in what AD has previously referred to as New Age Workshop gobbledygook.



You've been peeking...breaking your promise :fingerwag:

Is there benign way to call long time members here fascists anti-Semites racists holocaust deniers etc.? I would suggest no probably not ...the problem you have is that you think long time members here are in need of rehabilition...which of course is another benign :roll: slur

all in a warmhearted good natured way ...indubitably
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:29 pm

American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:22 pm wrote:
solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:16 pm wrote:
American Dream » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:36 pm wrote:
solace » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:55 am wrote:
Is there a benign way to think about fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc? I would suggest no. Trying to rehabilitate such people and their supporters is not a good thing. And yes, I understand the difference between a supporter and something else. It amazes me to learn that some other don't. Actually, they probably do but something else is at work here. I mean knowing what constitutes support is just not that difficult a concept unless one is engaging in what AD has previously referred to as New Age Workshop gobbledygook.


I do agree- especially about rehabilitating fascists, antisemites, racists, holocaust deniers, etc. as not a worthwhile project and also that there is a big difference between unapprovingly quoting from a perpetrator of one type or another, and advocating for fascist/anti-semitic/racist type ideas.


I personally can't wrap my head around it. If one wants to make a point about something, there are usually so many good ethical sources to choose from that are NOT from such sketchy types. That being the case, why choose them? What is is to be gained? IMO, it is all about reserving the right to use that source for one's agenda without taking an ethical stand. The enemy of enemy sort of thing. Or unthinking ease of access perhaps.


Also horrifying is the appropriation of Palestinian voices and/or those of close allies in the service of those who espouse world jewish conspiracy/anti-semitic type beliefs. This is a travesty- not just for anti-racist and anti-colonialist causes in general, but also for the cause of palestinian liberation in particular...


I have no doubt that that goes on to a small degree; however what goes on to a much larger degree (especially on this board) is the appropriation of terms like 'anti-fascism' through "jewish banker conspiracy' to 'Palestinian liberation' by megaphone users practiced in the art of "Six Degress of Contamination from Virulent Anti-Semites".

The logical extension of this will be to label Jeff Wells a virulent anti-semite as his board facilitated discussion of <shock! horror!!> David Icke! (well not really discussion, more the biggest CopyPasta landslide since, well, AD's previous Icke thread).
But doesnt it show the 'sketchy' nature of Mr Jeff 'sketchy' Wells?
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby jakell » Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:39 am

An angle on the whole conspiracy theory thing that I've never really deemed particularly signicant before** is conspiracy theory as escapism. In fact I used to see it as almost a component of it.

Of course, there's nothing new about this, it was basically the idea behind Illuminatus and other lesser known works, it does come to the fore though when a serious researcher runs up against this, and is beset by casual (internet fueled?) dippers looking for entertainment, usually ones who are not particularly affected by the issues and therefore lack a sense of context. If such people are prolific, they could arguably be seen as spammers

In the pursuit of rigour, one of the important initial stages is to find ways to tell these people apart in order to improve the signal to noise ratio. This is not at all easy, because it depends on the tolerance of the environment too, still, I have developed one or two yardsticks.

**as times change, and especially worsen, escapism can become exponentially more popular.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

Postby American Dream » Sun Mar 09, 2014 9:04 am

jakell » Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:39 am wrote:An angle on the whole conspiracy theory thing that I've never really deemed particularly signicant before** is conspiracy theory as escapism. In fact I used to see it as almost a component of it.

Of course, there's nothing new about this, it was basically the idea behind Illuminatus and other lesser known works, it does come to the fore though when a serious researcher runs up against this, and is beset by casual (internet fueled?) dippers looking for entertainment, usually ones who are not particularly affected by the issues and therefore lack a sense of context. If such people are prolific, they could arguably be seen as spammers

In the pursuit of rigour, one of the important initial stages is to find ways to tell these people apart in order to improve the signal to noise ratio. This is not at all easy, because it depends on the tolerance of the environment too, still, I have developed one or two yardsticks.

**as times change, and especially worsen, escapism can become exponentially more popular.


There is a long and ugly history of casual and prolific use of charges of "Zionism" in order to slough off valid critiques of Jewish Banker Theory/Holocaust Revisionism/Elders of Zion Theory- all that crap that goes back through the Reich and through to the era of the Czar, at least.

That is a form of escapism, too...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 166 guests