Coronavirus Hoax

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 09, 2020 10:23 pm

phyllo wrote:It's not that farfetched:
This month’s edition of Men’s Health delves into that question in an article titled “Which Stooge Are You?” Senior Editor Ron Geraci asked psychologists if the Three Stooges might represent some basic personality types found in men. When Geraci called them, the psychologists howled at first. But then they saw some truth in the Men’s Health thesis: Men are all variations of Moe, Larry or Curly.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

And I'm not particularly insulted by it.


Well, that settles it then. Without even having read it, you are now Moe. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby phyllo » Sat May 09, 2020 10:30 pm

Either you're not familiar with the characteristics of the stooges or you don't recognize the characteristics in "your three stooges".

:confusion-shrug:

Did you watch their movies or TV shows?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun May 10, 2020 5:31 am

iambiguous wrote:On the contrary, I never exclude my own point of view here from my own point of view. Me calling anything a calamity [in the is/ought world] is no less a function of "I" as an existential fabrication/contraption.

After all, that's where the part about "I" -- my own -- being "fractured and fragmented" is derived. Meanwhile, your own still incomprehensible rendition of pragmatism [from my point of view] is just not something "I" am able to grasp.

Just as you clearly do not grasp my own perspective yet. Instead, you only insist that you do. And then proceed [in about as close to an objectivist frame of mind as I have come to understand it] to preach the gospel to the choir.

Duh, I have commented on your disclaimers and position hundreds of times and also explained the problems with your cake and eat it too version.

Here we have a person who believes that people with objectivist positions make the world a worse place according to your values, which you do not consider objective.

So, how does he work with his values, in order to make things where people are more likely to use compromise and negotiation.

He blames people for causing the problems in the world, labels them as a group (here objectivists) and then sometimes adds in his disclaimer that he might be wrong. Above he did not, but readers are presumed to know his position. I do, others won't.

What does this non-objectivist do, often, after? He then implies that he is better than them because he doesn't claim to know whereas they do. So, first he labels them, blames the problems on them, then claims a superior ground because he does not actually claim to know. Or rather, he writes exactly the same types of sentences and then often adds in that post a disclaimer.

This miraculously leads to more compromise and negotiation. But wait...give a shot at demonstrating that.

But even more important...you don't need to write down your values and then add disclaimers.

You could simply challenge objectivists to demonstate theirs. That would be role modeling and would not be the double insult approach you take. Give a shot at demonstrating that your choice to insult, then say, gosh for all I know my insult is wrong, is a better approach than just challenging them on their objectivism. Good luck with that.

And, as I wrote, I believe years ago, no rational person would fall for this crap on the interpersonal level.

You fucked up the kids with your sick capitalist values.
Hej, fuck you, that's not what's happening.
Well, as I often say, I can't be sure. However it's fucked up that you think the values you give them simply are right.
You seem sure of that.
No, no. You just haven't really taken in my little lectures about my view of dasein.


Given the simple option of NOT presenting your damning judgments of people that you think you can't know anyway are the case, you decide to dump and disclaim. It makes no sense at all.

But cake and eat it too makes a lot of emotional sense. You like that don't you.

Now am I sure that's what you are doing: being passive aggressive? No, I'm not sure.

But you go ahead and demonstrate how your method actually leads to your values being taken up or even being considered.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sun May 10, 2020 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2985
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun May 10, 2020 6:08 am

iambiguous wrote:After all, that's where the part about "I" -- my own -- being "fractured and fragmented" is derived. Meanwhile, your own still incomprehensible rendition of pragmatism [from my point of view] is just not something "I" am able to grasp.
I know, it's hard for you. I have preferences, as other do. I try to make it so that things are more like I like them to be and less like I don't like them to be. Calling it pragmatism is a fancy ass way of describing it. Call it practical instead. Does that help?

People are like this at work or with a hobby. What do I want? I want a ship in that bottle. Hm. How do I get that to happen? What skills do I need what actions do I need to take? Perhaps I realize it will take time from something I prioritize higher (because I like it more) so I drop the hobby of trying to get little ships in a bottle.

Someone attacks my wife in the street. I try to stop that.

Empathy is also a factor. and not just for those closest to me.

This is hard stuff, I know.

I see this in other people, all of them, though some seem to lack empathy or have talked themselves out of it. Being practical may be hidden underneath a moral system, but it's there. I tend to think it is what really underlies and drives the moral system.

It's not easy, because life presents a lot of problems, obstacles, suffering. I am heartily challenged, like everyone else. Life isn't easy regardless. I don't have the objectivist goal of putting my preferences in objective morals. Being objectivist leads to F&F because generally people then have to live up to their objective morals, and parts of them will not want to. So they get splits.

I also don't share your project of finding out 'how one ought to live' or of trying to find unresistable moral arguments that will convince all humans.' I think those lead to F & F, but sure, I could be wrong. I think it is setting you up to judge your preferences since you can't know they are the preferences all rational people should have. That's a split right there, it seems to me. You can't choose an approach to improve things for yourself based on your preferences, it has to be one everyone would follow.

But hey, You could be more F &F than me because of trauma - I've gone through trauma both as a child and as an adult, but it was likely different traumas from yours, or perhaps I got lucky in the support I chose or had available - or perhaps your F and F is based on long term disappointment or any of a number of things. Where your dna met your experience led to more F & F than where my DNA met my experiences. Could be a simple as me having the right friend at the right time, where you didn't get that. Could be a genetic tendency to brooding over certain things. Could be that following one's intuition regarding an approach to feeling better, rather than taking a universal up in the clouds 'everyone should be convinced it is the right approach way of choosing things is a better approach to helping oneself. But it's certainly not like I know what might make you feel less F & F. I don't really know what causes that in you. I do understand what you think causes it, but people are notoriously poor, in many instances, when it comes to self-evaluation.

You are also practical. You choose to do things out of likes and dislikes. In this sense any human, or even mammal/animal, is practical. Humans can add all sorts of things to being practical and striving for what they want and trying to minimize what they wish there was less of (around them, in the world). But at root, they do what I do in many facets of their lives.

A hornet is flying around in their car while they are on the highway. They open the windows, they pull over and try to force it out.
They are hungry, they go get a meal.
Since we are humans these 'projects' can be incredibly complicated and involve things a goat could not consider. But it's the same practicalness in essense. There's a wolf over there, get in a tight pack with the others. I want that ewe, going to have to challenge Bruno for her.

I know you must do this - not with the ewes but you know what I mean. So it's like that. Trying to get things better using those resources one has.

You keep mulling over it. I think you'll get it. Unless you have some agenda that makes it unpleasant to want to understand it, say. For example. Or perhaps something else will get in the way and does now. Who knows?

Fortunately you're not being able to understand something is just your not being able to understand something.

And just so it is clear, like most mammals, I seem to like expressing myself, engaging passionately in certain activities, being close to people (other mammals of my species and even other species' members). It is not problem solving from waking to sleeping. There is an expressive set of likes. There are, not as often as I would like, moments where spontanaity works. Or where I can simply express, rather than try to change things. I don't have an overriding philosophy name for this or the combination of enjoying expressing being part of certain 'things' and also the problem solving facet of life.

A long time ago in a post I called it a pragmatism. You ran with this for a long time and here you bring it back. It was a best shot in that moment at a shorthand name for what we all do. I then took many posts explaining that it was not a philosophy and you could stop trying to make it one. It's simply something all creatures do only I don't have what many humans add on to this, which both you and the objectivists do.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2985
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun May 10, 2020 10:40 am

Iambiguous,
Let’s put this in terms of this thread, back on topic and all that. What is KT doing? KT has a skepticism about what governments (and corporations for that matter) say they are doing in relation to what they are doing. I see a history where in fact governments can do really quite horrible things – I mean, the Holocaust was at one time a conspiracy theory. I am sure even very aware Jewish people in Germany – iow aware of systemic German anti-semitism – poo pooed the idea the idea that genocide was on the way. Especially vulnerable were likely well assimilated Jews who identified as German first. Any idea moving in the direction of the conclusion that they might be herded into slaughterhouses was dismissed by many. We know this. That there was much to fear, sure, but not anything like that.

The idea that a supposed Western democracy – in fact in general oligarchies – would not do such a thing is a conclusion based on intuition.
I think in general it is good to consider the possibility that a conspiracy is present, for example, in situations where massive power shifts are taking place: wartime, the various wars, like the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the rise of surveillance capitalism and government (NSA), and now in a pandemic. I have a preference for being very open-minded and not letting people dismiss things out of hand. The whole WOMD into gulf war two is a fairly wrapped up conspiracy, iow the MSM has more or less acknowledged the core of it. They haven't paid much attention to the way it privitized the military and reconstruction. Wikileaks and Snowdon demonstrated a vast unconstitutional conspiracy or really a couple, and one guy has to live in Russia and the other will likely die in prison.

So, when I read someone say that China is an ally as part of a reasoning process that thinks there is nothing odd with the US funding what was illegal research at the time (gain of effect research on diseases) in a lab in China (a country considered to be a significant world threat by the mainstream media, by the US government, by all intelligence services in the US) where the research is on the precise type of illness and on the precise species of bat that is said to be the original host of the disease AND that the lab was said by US officials to be unsafe AND yet more money was approved for that lab to do even MORE dangerous research AND that the person who sent the money to this lab ALSO predicted that Trump would face a Pandemic,

I think this is an example of a glitch. The part of framing China as an ally. I tried to make this clear here...
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=195585&p=2765698&hilit=homeland#p2765698
especially after finding us relations with china being compared to Norway's relations to Canada. (it was after a specific argument about a specific kind of tension, but seemed to me, so hysterically disconnected to reality as presented in mainstream media that I felt it showed a serious glitch. And since mainstream media was considered the source to be trusted as opposed to other sources.)

Do I know that the lab leaked or was used to leak the virus? No.

But when I see someone say that China is a US ally as part of their debunking, I know they are reaching for something due to the discomfort of the possibility. We all do this. And it certainly does not mean I am right. But it is precisely these glitches I want to look at. Where ideas are dismissed out of hand (though Carleas does not do that in general on this issue) and by others it is considered evil to even question dominant narratives.

And especially in a society that compared to when you and I were young has a highly centralized news media. It is much easier now to marginalize or even shut down stuff. And it is not just conspiracy theories that get labelled such. This includes Chomsky-type positions and everything Project Censored tries to get into public view. It takes place at local levels and at national levels.

I am interested in general in this issue, the irrational dismissal. How the mind suddenly makes a detour and assumes it is rational, when it is really about something else.

Which is often taken as meaning that the MSM is always wrong or everything is a neat little conspiracy according to me, because everyone is so damn binary. If you disagree with them or point out problems in their thinking then you must believe the opposite is true, for example.

Now in truth Carleas is a great interlocutor because he really tries to keep track of his own biases. I don’t think he succeeds all the time, but I think he genuinely tries. That’s very rare when you positions are supported by the mainstream. Let me say that again. It’s very rare when your positions are supported by the mainstream . Now of course conspiracy theories are often very intransigent also. But that’s actually good.

Minority positions have never been under so much fire as they are now. Freedom of speech and rhetorically violent marginalization of ideas have never been so strong in my lifetime. We have active censorship, whereas before it was more like Chomsky’s manufacturing of consent only. Now we have that manufacturing of consent PLUS direct censorship. And given that the media is run by fewer and fewer companies, this also limits what we even get to look at

before using our intuition. Most people do not seem to like admitting how much intuition affects their positions.

So people who are labeled antisemitic evil killers crazy the moment they question the mainstream, need to hang tight. It’s good if some of them show a more open, flexible position also, but these more flexible people do exist. However it is necessary that very stubborn people also hang on to minority positions with the same tenacity official narratives are believed in (like the Bible, they are believed in tenaciously), or they will simply disappear. And some of them are going to be right. And this marginalization benefits those will every increasing power. These people are certainly wrong sometimes. But, gosh, I prefer a society that can have a diversity of opinions. Especially when there has been a radical shift toward an even clearer oligarchy in the last few decades.
So my preferences related to privacy, less centralized power, less exceptional powers for law enforcement and government, freedom to express and explore, more gap in power, lead to me striving on the small scale I strive in. My preferences.

Would a panopticon Brave New World society be objectively wrong?

Not what I am saying. I’d hate it. And actually, I find much of it present to already hate.

There, now I have recently, a couple of times, laid out how I approach things, with specific not up in the clouds examples. In three different posts. Don't ever ask me again to do this or forget that I have. If you need a little clarification, well, go for it.

It seems to me your recent posts imply that if people were more like you - non-objectivist - things would be better.

Demonstrate that so all rational people will agree. And if you can't demonstrate that to all rational people, why do you allow yourself to do it?

Oh, look, Iamb can engage in long projects without being able to convince every rational person, and hence himself, that his course is the right one.

How did that happen?

And yes, I know, you are not saying that everyone should do what you do: but here's the rub: you have strongly implied that there is no reason for you to try things unless someone can convince you that every rational person should. Well, who did this to you about posting online? How did you manage to convince yourself?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2985
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 10, 2020 7:22 pm

phyllo wrote:Either you're not familiar with the characteristics of the stooges or you don't recognize the characteristics in "your three stooges".

:confusion-shrug:

Did you watch their movies or TV shows?


I told you above: Not to worry. It's just something I made up. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 11, 2020 7:55 pm

Note to others:

Can you fucking believe this!!!

Somehow I manage to trigger barrage after barrage after barrage of invective from him. And not just on this thread.

Nope, no way am I going to wade through it all.

But, for those who have, is there anything below that might be construed as an actual response by him to this request from me:

Again, and again and again: note a particular context in which you and I can explore our respective reactions to behaviors in conflict over moral narratives and political agendas at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political economy. As the discussion unfolds you can point in particular to things that confirm your assessment of me and the accusations you make about me above.

Also, would you note for me what you deem to be the strongest arguments he has made here against me?


Edit:

Here's the thing. Over the years I have often gotten this sort of reaction from the objectivists. And that makes sense. After all, if my frame of mind is found to be a reasonable one, they risk losing whatever objectivist font they have come to rely on in order to anchor I to the conviction that they are at one with the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". They risk thinking like "i" do here instead.

For others -- the religious objectivists -- they risk the comfort and consolation that comes from believing in both immortality and salvation.

But KT? To the best of my knowledge, he does not believe in either God or objective moral and political value judgments.

I'm just basically curious as to why he does not think like me then. Why does he not share the points I raise in my signature threads?

Only in regard to an actual context in which we share the components of our respective moral philosophies.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:On the contrary, I never exclude my own point of view here from my own point of view. Me calling anything a calamity [in the is/ought world] is no less a function of "I" as an existential fabrication/contraption.

After all, that's where the part about "I" -- my own -- being "fractured and fragmented" is derived. Meanwhile, your own still incomprehensible rendition of pragmatism [from my point of view] is just not something "I" am able to grasp.

Just as you clearly do not grasp my own perspective yet. Instead, you only insist that you do. And then proceed [in about as close to an objectivist frame of mind as I have come to understand it] to preach the gospel to the choir.

Duh, I have commented on your disclaimers and position hundreds of times and also explained the problems with your cake and eat it too version.

Here we have a person who believes that people with objectivist positions make the world a worse place according to your values, which you do not consider objective.

So, how does he work with his values, in order to make things where people are more likely to use compromise and negotiation.

He blames people for causing the problems in the world, labels them as a group (here objectivists) and then sometimes adds in his disclaimer that he might be wrong. Above he did not, but readers are presumed to know his position. I do, others won't.

What does this non-objectivist do, often, after? He then implies that he is better than them because he doesn't claim to know whereas they do. So, first he labels them, blames the problems on them, then claims a superior ground because he does not actually claim to know. Or rather, he writes exactly the same types of sentences and then often adds in that post a disclaimer.

This miraculously leads to more compromise and negotiation. But wait...give a shot at demonstrating that.

But even more important...you don't need to write down your values and then add disclaimers.

You could simply challenge objectivists to demonstate theirs. That would be role modeling and would not be the double insult approach you take. Give a shot at demonstrating that your choice to insult, then say, gosh for all I know my insult is wrong, is a better approach than just challenging them on their objectivism. Good luck with that.

And, as I wrote, I believe years ago, no rational person would fall for this crap on the interpersonal level.

You fucked up the kids with your sick capitalist values.
Hej, fuck you, that's not what's happening.
Well, as I often say, I can't be sure. However it's fucked up that you think the values you give them simply are right.
You seem sure of that.
No, no. You just haven't really taken in my little lectures about my view of dasein.


Given the simple option of NOT presenting your damning judgments of people that you think you can't know anyway are the case, you decide to dump and disclaim. It makes no sense at all.

But cake and eat it too makes a lot of emotional sense. You like that don't you.

Now am I sure that's what you are doing: being passive aggressive? No, I'm not sure.

But you go ahead and demonstrate how your method actually leads to your values being taken up or even being considered.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:After all, that's where the part about "I" -- my own -- being "fractured and fragmented" is derived. Meanwhile, your own still incomprehensible rendition of pragmatism [from my point of view] is just not something "I" am able to grasp.
I know, it's hard for you. I have preferences, as other do. I try to make it so that things are more like I like them to be and less like I don't like them to be. Calling it pragmatism is a fancy ass way of describing it. Call it practical instead. Does that help?

People are like this at work or with a hobby. What do I want? I want a ship in that bottle. Hm. How do I get that to happen? What skills do I need what actions do I need to take? Perhaps I realize it will take time from something I prioritize higher (because I like it more) so I drop the hobby of trying to get little ships in a bottle.

Someone attacks my wife in the street. I try to stop that.

Empathy is also a factor. and not just for those closest to me.

This is hard stuff, I know.

I see this in other people, all of them, though some seem to lack empathy or have talked themselves out of it. Being practical may be hidden underneath a moral system, but it's there. I tend to think it is what really underlies and drives the moral system.

It's not easy, because life presents a lot of problems, obstacles, suffering. I am heartily challenged, like everyone else. Life isn't easy regardless. I don't have the objectivist goal of putting my preferences in objective morals. Being objectivist leads to F&F because generally people then have to live up to their objective morals, and parts of them will not want to. So they get splits.

I also don't share your project of finding out 'how one ought to live' or of trying to find unresistable moral arguments that will convince all humans.' I think those lead to F & F, but sure, I could be wrong. I think it is setting you up to judge your preferences since you can't know they are the preferences all rational people should have. That's a split right there, it seems to me. You can't choose an approach to improve things for yourself based on your preferences, it has to be one everyone would follow.

But hey, You could be more F &F than me because of trauma - I've gone through trauma both as a child and as an adult, but it was likely different traumas from yours, or perhaps I got lucky in the support I chose or had available - or perhaps your F and F is based on long term disappointment or any of a number of things. Where your dna met your experience led to more F & F than where my DNA met my experiences. Could be a simple as me having the right friend at the right time, where you didn't get that. Could be a genetic tendency to brooding over certain things. Could be that following one's intuition regarding an approach to feeling better, rather than taking a universal up in the clouds 'everyone should be convinced it is the right approach way of choosing things is a better approach to helping oneself. But it's certainly not like I know what might make you feel less F & F. I don't really know what causes that in you. I do understand what you think causes it, but people are notoriously poor, in many instances, when it comes to self-evaluation.

You are also practical. You choose to do things out of likes and dislikes. In this sense any human, or even mammal/animal, is practical. Humans can add all sorts of things to being practical and striving for what they want and trying to minimize what they wish there was less of (around them, in the world). But at root, they do what I do in many facets of their lives.

A hornet is flying around in their car while they are on the highway. They open the windows, they pull over and try to force it out.
They are hungry, they go get a meal.
Since we are humans these 'projects' can be incredibly complicated and involve things a goat could not consider. But it's the same practicalness in essense. There's a wolf over there, get in a tight pack with the others. I want that ewe, going to have to challenge Bruno for her.

I know you must do this - not with the ewes but you know what I mean. So it's like that. Trying to get things better using those resources one has.

You keep mulling over it. I think you'll get it. Unless you have some agenda that makes it unpleasant to want to understand it, say. For example. Or perhaps something else will get in the way and does now. Who knows?

Fortunately you're not being able to understand something is just your not being able to understand something.

And just so it is clear, like most mammals, I seem to like expressing myself, engaging passionately in certain activities, being close to people (other mammals of my species and even other species' members). It is not problem solving from waking to sleeping. There is an expressive set of likes. There are, not as often as I would like, moments where spontanaity works. Or where I can simply express, rather than try to change things. I don't have an overriding philosophy name for this or the combination of enjoying expressing being part of certain 'things' and also the problem solving facet of life.

A long time ago in a post I called it a pragmatism. You ran with this for a long time and here you bring it back. It was a best shot in that moment at a shorthand name for what we all do. I then took many posts explaining that it was not a philosophy and you could stop trying to make it one. It's simply something all creatures do only I don't have what many humans add on to this, which both you and the objectivists do.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:Iambiguous,
Let’s put this in terms of this thread, back on topic and all that. What is KT doing? KT has a skepticism about what governments (and corporations for that matter) say they are doing in relation to what they are doing. I see a history where in fact governments can do really quite horrible things – I mean, the Holocaust was at one time a conspiracy theory. I am sure even very aware Jewish people in Germany – iow aware of systemic German anti-semitism – poo pooed the idea the idea that genocide was on the way. Especially vulnerable were likely well assimilated Jews who identified as German first. Any idea moving in the direction of the conclusion that they might be herded into slaughterhouses was dismissed by many. We know this. That there was much to fear, sure, but not anything like that.

The idea that a supposed Western democracy – in fact in general oligarchies – would not do such a thing is a conclusion based on intuition.
I think in general it is good to consider the possibility that a conspiracy is present, for example, in situations where massive power shifts are taking place: wartime, the various wars, like the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the rise of surveillance capitalism and government (NSA), and now in a pandemic. I have a preference for being very open-minded and not letting people dismiss things out of hand. The whole WOMD into gulf war two is a fairly wrapped up conspiracy, iow the MSM has more or less acknowledged the core of it. They haven't paid much attention to the way it privitized the military and reconstruction. Wikileaks and Snowdon demonstrated a vast unconstitutional conspiracy or really a couple, and one guy has to live in Russia and the other will likely die in prison.

So, when I read someone say that China is an ally as part of a reasoning process that thinks there is nothing odd with the US funding what was illegal research at the time (gain of effect research on diseases) in a lab in China (a country considered to be a significant world threat by the mainstream media, by the US government, by all intelligence services in the US) where the research is on the precise type of illness and on the precise species of bat that is said to be the original host of the disease AND that the lab was said by US officials to be unsafe AND yet more money was approved for that lab to do even MORE dangerous research AND that the person who sent the money to this lab ALSO predicted that Trump would face a Pandemic,

I think this is an example of a glitch. The part of framing China as an ally. I tried to make this clear here...
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=195585&p=2765698&hilit=homeland#p2765698
especially after finding us relations with china being compared to Norway's relations to Canada. (it was after a specific argument about a specific kind of tension, but seemed to me, so hysterically disconnected to reality as presented in mainstream media that I felt it showed a serious glitch. And since mainstream media was considered the source to be trusted as opposed to other sources.)

Do I know that the lab leaked or was used to leak the virus? No.

But when I see someone say that China is a US ally as part of their debunking, I know they are reaching for something due to the discomfort of the possibility. We all do this. And it certainly does not mean I am right. But it is precisely these glitches I want to look at. Where ideas are dismissed out of hand (though Carleas does not do that in general on this issue) and by others it is considered evil to even question dominant narratives.

And especially in a society that compared to when you and I were young has a highly centralized news media. It is much easier now to marginalize or even shut down stuff. And it is not just conspiracy theories that get labelled such. This includes Chomsky-type positions and everything Project Censored tries to get into public view. It takes place at local levels and at national levels.

I am interested in general in this issue, the irrational dismissal. How the mind suddenly makes a detour and assumes it is rational, when it is really about something else.

Which is often taken as meaning that the MSM is always wrong or everything is a neat little conspiracy according to me, because everyone is so damn binary. If you disagree with them or point out problems in their thinking then you must believe the opposite is true, for example.

Now in truth Carleas is a great interlocutor because he really tries to keep track of his own biases. I don’t think he succeeds all the time, but I think he genuinely tries. That’s very rare when you positions are supported by the mainstream. Let me say that again. It’s very rare when your positions are supported by the mainstream . Now of course conspiracy theories are often very intransigent also. But that’s actually good.

Minority positions have never been under so much fire as they are now. Freedom of speech and rhetorically violent marginalization of ideas have never been so strong in my lifetime. We have active censorship, whereas before it was more like Chomsky’s manufacturing of consent only. Now we have that manufacturing of consent PLUS direct censorship. And given that the media is run by fewer and fewer companies, this also limits what we even get to look at

before using our intuition. Most people do not seem to like admitting how much intuition affects their positions.

So people who are labeled antisemitic evil killers crazy the moment they question the mainstream, need to hang tight. It’s good if some of them show a more open, flexible position also, but these more flexible people do exist. However it is necessary that very stubborn people also hang on to minority positions with the same tenacity official narratives are believed in (like the Bible, they are believed in tenaciously), or they will simply disappear. And some of them are going to be right. And this marginalization benefits those will every increasing power. These people are certainly wrong sometimes. But, gosh, I prefer a society that can have a diversity of opinions. Especially when there has been a radical shift toward an even clearer oligarchy in the last few decades.
So my preferences related to privacy, less centralized power, less exceptional powers for law enforcement and government, freedom to express and explore, more gap in power, lead to me striving on the small scale I strive in. My preferences.

Would a panopticon Brave New World society be objectively wrong?

Not what I am saying. I’d hate it. And actually, I find much of it present to already hate.

There, now I have recently, a couple of times, laid out how I approach things, with specific not up in the clouds examples. In three different posts. Don't ever ask me again to do this or forget that I have. If you need a little clarification, well, go for it.

It seems to me your recent posts imply that if people were more like you - non-objectivist - things would be better.

Demonstrate that so all rational people will agree. And if you can't demonstrate that to all rational people, why do you allow yourself to do it?

Oh, look, Iamb can engage in long projects without being able to convince every rational person, and hence himself, that his course is the right one.

How did that happen?

And yes, I know, you are not saying that everyone should do what you do: but here's the rub: you have strongly implied that there is no reason for you to try things unless someone can convince you that every rational person should. Well, who did this to you about posting online? How did you manage to convince yourself?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby MagsJ » Fri May 15, 2020 10:56 am

Gloominary wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Gloominary wrote:I think there's only one reason for the lockdown, it's a technocratic and Marxist takeover, and it's mostly negative.
We do need to get rid of the crony capitalists and either replace them with real capitalists like Maxime Bernier in Canada and Rand Paul in the US, or with social democrats, not with technocrats and Marxists, which's what this is.
You mean since D Trump became Pres, or a continuation of the takeover process without having had a reprieve?

Isn’t the US Government accountable in fulfilling their manifesto to a certain degree, or percentage of it? I don’t think they can govern with might-is-right, and how can a more Socialistic governance style be implemented via a Republican one? A mixed one perhaps.. sure.
Ultimately It's up to the American people to decide whether they want social healthcare or not democratically, it's not something that should be forced on them along with radical leftwing agendas.

I guess that if an economy is looking to transit from a Capitalist one to a Mixed one, then any change would seem radical to that society lol, but obviously only socio-beneficial changes should be made.

Gloominary wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Gloominary wrote:The people making these changes to our society are globalists, not nationalists, even tho it makes sense to shut down borders under their plandemic narrative, they're finding excuses to keep borders open, shut down our local food production or divert it overseas and replace our local food with food from the 3rd world.
They're using this as much as they can to promote globalism, not nationalism.
A’la EU stylee, and look how that worked out.

They obviously want to build links and be inna with these countries, at the expense of the US people and industries.. they want a piece of that Third-world economical-growth pie. Trade-blocking China from building major roads and whatnot, but it would be a happier picture if US citizens were also benefiting from these new trade deals and changes. That aspect is crazy, I agree..
It didn't work out for them but only because we pushed back, just as we must push back now.
For me the bottom line is, I don't want meat from the 3rd world.

The “Buy local” mantra will be echoing off the lips of American citizens soon, if not already.. like it was here for many years, when the EU decided to swap British produce for mainland-European ones.

Brits were also getting screwed-over on land and property deals gone bad.. especially in Spain, and those governments did nothing about it, but do you think that would be allowed vice versa? Such insanities and one-sided policies must end, and hopefully have by now.

Gloominary wrote:
Meno_ wrote:MagsJ wrote:

"A’la EU stylee, and look how that worked out.

They obviously want to build links and be inna with these countries, at the expense of the US people and industries.. they want a piece of that Third-world economical-growth pie. Trade-blocking China from building major roads and whatnot, but it would be a happier picture if US citizens were also benefiting from these new trade deals and changes. That aspect is crazy, I agree.."

{I can't agree more
Euro centrism of say, 1500 plus years of dominance , can not be that easily whisked away.}
More like 500 years, the middle ages were more Islamocentric and Sinocentric.

And of course much of Europe's involvement in the 3rd world, didn't benefit the 3rd world, nor the working people of Europe, but increasingly international and supranational corporations and institutions, which's why globalization should largely be opposed.

I used to see the benefits in globalisation, but when all those raised third-world funds are swimming about, those funds will get diverted to pockets not aid, and then mad dictators are created from the on-going swindling of funds.

The next few weeks and months are going to be a very revealing time indeed, in where and how humanity is progressing and heading..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ


Nobilis Est Ira Leonis | Om Surya Devaay namah | Manus justa nardus
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 19652
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …Surya.. the sun

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby Meno_ » Fri May 15, 2020 3:57 pm

For sure. The bio-economic-political crossroads face the ultimate question: how to distinguish the material -the seemingly opportunistic motives from the ideological /factual - hidden objectives; where the former thrives on the obvious propaganda, while the latter , on the forest that hides the view of the trees.

The New World Order is the forest , hiding the deceptive ways with which the trees can be augmented, but the means can always be justified by the ways , albeit retroactively.

Mostly it is difficult. to reach such partially fractured cubist forms of preception, at any rate, who can understand modern art even nowedays ? For sure it's not how you get there, and not even the cost -( Trump has reversed on the second multi trillion stimulus package) , but the absolute assurance that you will get there.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Coronavirus Hoax

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 28, 2020 12:01 am

The hoax now reaches gigantic proportions!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... Fstory-ans

'One hundred thousand Americans dead in less than four months.

It’s as if every person in Edison, N.J., or Kenosha, Wis., died. It’s half the population of Salt Lake City or Grand Rapids, Mich. It’s about 20 times the number of people killed in homicides in that length of time, about twice the number who die of strokes.

The death toll from the coronavirus passed that hard-to-fathom marker on Wednesday, which slipped by like so many other days in this dark spring, one more spin of the Earth, one more headline in a numbing cascade of grim news.

Nearly three months into the brunt of the epidemic, 14 percent of Americans say they know someone who has succumbed to the virus. '
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users