Concerned about dismissing the concept of flase flags in general.

Gary Cook

Active Member
I am concerned that people are being led to believe that there is no such thing at all such as "false flags" and even "war wariness". Surely the objective is about discerning what is bunk and what isnt. Not effecting people believes in the capacity for bad people to do bad things.

I do not believe this to be intentional but more a result of the focus of the forum.

Some people do genuine research and hard work trying to protect others. Including people in the government who are genuine about their role as public servants.

It would be wrong for me to moan without offering a potential solution so I should say that I would like to see more clear guidelines about how to present rebuttals to claims of evidence made by members that the replyer doesnt believe to be true/precise.

I say all this with respect and gratitude though of course.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
I don't think anyone dismisses the concept of "false flag" - there are many well attested cases throughout history, and it certainly is possible.

However to say that something is "false flag" requires evidence - not just belief, wishful thinking or paranoia.

And it is on the evidence that people here are supposed to concentrate. I say supposed to because some times discussion can get strayed miles off topic - we are all guilty of it.

But if someone sincerely thinks they have the evidence then they should be bringing people back to examining the evidence too - and not letting the discussion stray - it behooves both "sides" to do so IMO.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I am concerned that people are being led to believe that there is no such thing at all such as "false flags" and even "war wariness". Surely the objective is about discerning what is bunk and what isnt. Not effecting people believes in the capacity for bad people to do bad things.

I do not believe this to be intentional but more a result of the focus of the forum.

Some people do genuine research and hard work trying to protect others. Including people in the government who are genuine about their role as public servants.

It would be wrong for me to moan without offering a potential solution so I should say that I would like to see more clear guidelines about how to present rebuttals to claims of evidence made by members that the reply doesnt believe to be true/precise.

I say all this with respect and gratitude though of course.
I've seen many instances where when the "claim" is not bunk, the debunkers don't debunk it.
 

NoParty

Senior Member
I am concerned that people are being led to believe that there is no such thing at all such as "false flags" and even "war wariness". Surely the objective is about discerning what is bunk and what isnt. Not effecting people believes in the capacity for bad people to do bad things.

I do not believe this to be intentional but more a result of the focus of the forum.

Some people do genuine research and hard work trying to protect others. Including people in the government who are genuine about their role as public servants.

It would be wrong for me to moan without offering a potential solution so I should say that I would like to see more clear guidelines about how to present rebuttals to claims of evidence made by members that the reply doesnt believe to be true/precise.

I say all this with respect and gratitude though of course.
Hi Gary. I think you might have the cart before the horse:
I think many arrive in this "forum" looking for rationality and level headedness…
(in other words, I don't think it's the forum making them skeptical).

We've got a straw man right off the bat: The title refers to dismissing the concept of false
flags in general…a pretty reasonable default position since YouTube videos appear 10
minutes after every newsworthy event, claiming--before even the basic facts are straight--
that it is a "false flag." :rolleyes: But wariness, re. that kind of nonsense is not the same as believing "there is no such thing at all such as 'false flags'" which is what your first post says.

History has seen a few genuine false flags, but the current hysteria of calling every
damned
thing a false flag does not deserve to be taken seriously.

p.s. Elsewhere you asserted a belief in "war weariness" but here it's "war wariness"
I'm not sure which you mean. War weariness is a subjective opinion of a psychological state…
an interesting theory, but not quantifiable in any meaningful way.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Metabunk is not a forum to discuss societal problems. It is a forum to remove bunk. This thread IMO does not meet the posting guidelines and should be deleted.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Metabunk is not a forum to discuss societal problems. It is a forum to remove bunk. This thread IMO does not meet the posting guidelines and should be deleted.
Some claims on the forum are bunk therefore surely admin should be grateful for me trying to rebut them.

Please do not presume I am trying to be divisive if you are.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I was just reacting then. My point is not about false flags as much as it is about unbiased admin and allowing people to rebut points as to get to the truth, so to speak. Ie, genuine debunking.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Some claims on the forum are bunk therefore surely admin should be grateful for me trying to rebut them.

Please do not presume I am trying to be divisive if you are.
If there is something wrong on this site point it out and bring evidence. Don't do a 'why oh why' piece. Let's keep the personal comments to zero. Politeness policy.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I was just reacting then. My point is not about false flags as much as it is about unbiased admin and allowing people to rebut points as to get to the truth, so to speak. Ie, genuine debunking.
Maybe you would be more comfortable on a site like GLP.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
If there is something wrong on this site point it out and bring evidence. Don't do a 'why oh why' piece. Let's keep the personal comments to zero. Politeness policy.
I was advised to post feedback here by Mick so I did. I am generalising but fairly. It is impossible that every comment on this forum is correct and I am merely feedbacking that I think the process for highlighting it needs explaining better as I shouldn't feel afraid for posting genuine rebuttals.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
you shouldn't feel afraid to post genuine rebuttals - but I think it's possible your rebuttals just weren't as 'genuine' as you think; or maybe Mick just has had low patience lately.
If your deleted comments were just your opinion on the possibilities of nefarious doings based on history of project X, Y, and Z, that usually doesn't have much value on here.
Keep trying, maybe one will slip through, or you'll get better at bringing evidence to the table.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
you shouldn't feel afraid to post genuine rebuttals - but I think it's possible your rebuttals just weren't as 'genuine' as you think; or maybe Mick just has had low patience lately.
If your deleted comments were just your opinion on the possibilities of nefarious doings based on history of project X, Y, and Z, that usually doesn't have much value on here.
Keep trying, maybe one will slip through, or you'll get better at bringing evidence to the table.
Thanks. Mick was fine. I understand he likes to keep things objective. Just hard as a mere mortal to match his standards sometimes. =)
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I would like your list of things you don't feel are well enough debunked? other than 9/11.
Why other than 9/11 conspiracy? The whole theory isn't debunked. Just aspects of it but I wasnt talking about on that level. I am talking more about some comments I read from members generally that are just opinions. There seems to be a bias towards opinions supporting debunking than rebutting debunking claims and also not enough clarity on how to debunk debunking for the sake of objectivity. I know I have made mistakes and I have been awkward but when I have been sticking to the rules even I feel like I have faces hostility here. Nothing personal to anybody. I like this forum or I wouldn't be here and I agree with most of the debunking just not the apparent willingness to encourage disbelief of all conspiracy theories even based on opinion compared to the same for debunking. It just comes across as a bit biased in my opinion and that isnt helping anybody. Since I have picked up on so would general members of the public who would of otherwise become valuable members to the community. Some comments read like, "Stupid conspiracy theorists. Proved wrong again. Idiots".
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
There seems to be a bias towards opinions supporting debunking than rebutting debunking claims and also not enough clarity on how to debunk debunking for the sake of objectivity
I'm not going to pretend I was able to follow your opinion in meaning, but you debunk debunking the same way you debunk bunk. If the debunking is bunk, then debunk it.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I'm not going to pretend I was able to follow your opinion in meaning, but you debunk debunking the same way you debunk bunk. If the debunking is bunk, then debunk it.
I went in to one a bit I admit but just trying to get my point across about seemingly biased administration. It is understandable but more apparent then I think admin realises. Sometimes it take external constructive criticism to highlight something.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I went in to one a bit I admit but just trying to get my point across about seemingly biased administration. It is understandable but more apparent then I think admin realises. Sometimes it take external constructive criticism to highlight something.
perhaps you can gather some evidence and present it. in a neat format people can understand.
 

Sarcastro

Member
I went in to one a bit I admit but just trying to get my point across about seemingly biased administration. It is understandable but more apparent then I think admin realises. Sometimes it take external constructive criticism to highlight something.
Is this about the AP Hill training facility thread? That one got listed as debunk for a pretty obvious reason. There was no evidence that it was built to be used to train the troops for martial law. Moving the goalposts to "it could be used to train troops for martial law" doesn't mean the claim is no longer debunked.

Much like if you said "Bob bought a Honda to use for a bank robbery." Sure, Bob could use that new Honda in a bank robbery, but that doesn't mean he will or has any intention to, and thus we really shouldn't be convicting Bob of bank robbery.

Just because something is possible doesn't mean that it's fact.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I went in to one a bit I admit but just trying to get my point across about seemingly biased administration. It is understandable but more apparent then I think admin realises. Sometimes it take external constructive criticism to highlight something.
Perhaps some examples would be useful here? Your complaint seems a little general.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Perhaps some examples would be useful here? Your complaint seems a little general.
I will find which examples it is ok to use and post them here. I dont want to pick on people though. Just making a point based on a appreciation of this forum being a serious one and not some cheap pop culture phenomenon. You have been quite fair to me if a little abrupt but that is understandable as some people give guys like me a bad name and I have been a bit testing at times, as is my nature and this is all only my opinion of course. Maybe I am a little narcissistic too. I wouldn't deny that.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
I was just reacting then. My point is not about false flags as much as it is about unbiased admin and allowing people to rebut points as to get to the truth, so to speak. Ie, genuine debunking.
Please show where people have not been able to rebut points. Also will you clarify what your point is. You appear to have changed tack since your OP.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I asked you yesterday for some things. You didn't answer. I specified not 9/11, because until someone comes up with something new, I see no reason to keep hashing the SAME points over and over and over.

Several folks have asked and you are dancing around like jewelry box ballerina.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I asked you yesterday for some things. You didn't answer. I specified not 9/11, because until someone comes up with something new, I see no reason to keep hashing the SAME points over and over and over.

Several folks have asked and you are dancing around like jewelry box ballerina.
There is no need for any ad hominem comments. I am thinking of a concise objective reply.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am concerned that people are being led to believe that there is no such thing at all such as "false flags" and even "war wariness". Surely the objective is about discerning what is bunk and what isnt. Not effecting people believes in the capacity for bad people to do bad things.
I think the problem here Gary is that your premise is flawed. Nobody said there's no such thing as false flags. People have just pointed out that various claims about various events that people claim to be false flags appear to be bunk. The objective here is "discerning what is bunk and what isn't". Nobody is trying to make you think that the government is full of purely good intentions.

You can't come up with examples because there are none. So maybe reconsider what your feelings here really indicate. Why do you feel put-upon?
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I think the problem here Gary is that your premise is flawed. Nobody said there's no such thing as false flags. People have just pointed out that various claims about various events that people claim to be false flags appear to be bunk. The objective here is "discerning what is bunk and what isn't". Nobody is trying to make you think that the government is full of purely good intentions.

You can't come up with examples because there are none. So maybe reconsider what your feelings here really indicate. Why do you feel put-upon?
That was a bit harsh and not completely true.

I am not going to make examples out of not wanting to pick on people and I get your point. I just wanted to offer feedback. Not trying to effect others political views.

It has been said anybody can rebut claims as long as it is with evidence so I hope that works both ways of course. In the spirit of getting to the truth about bunk so to speak.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
That was a bit harsh and not completely true.

I am not going to make examples out of not wanting to pick on people and I get your point. I just wanted to offer feedback. Not trying to effect others political views.

It has been said anybody can rebut claims as long as it is with evidence so I hope that works both ways of course. In the spirit of getting to the truth about bunk so to speak.
Feel free to use my post and highlight the bunk within or were anyone has been blocked from making a rebuttal.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Feel free to use my post and highlight the bunk within or were anyone has been blocked from making a rebuttal.
I feel there was some censoring there but my own ranting did not do me or my point any favours.

Also, Mick said to PM him with feedback or complaints but I did once and there was no reply. Its all good but at the same time a bit frustrating.

I am not trying to be anybody and I have corrected my paranoid thinking a lot by being here but I know how the mind of bunkers work so I am just giving my opinion about ways to assimilate them effectively.
 
Last edited:

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
Gary, I think you've made your point. It really seems like you are trying to be much more objective, but let's move on.

I don't think we're here to 'win' arguments or assimilate anyone. So let's move forward and focus on debunking the bunk or debunking the debunkers or whatever. We'll address your future objections as they come up and when we have some concrete examples to deal with.

How does that sound?
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Gary, I think you've made your point. It really seems like you are trying to be much more objective, but let's move on.

I don't think we're here to 'win' arguments or assimilate anyone. So let's move forward and focus on debunking the bunk or debunking the debunkers or whatever. We'll address your future objections as they come up and when we have some concrete examples to deal with.

How does that sound?

I did not see your comment until Just now. That is a productive, diplomatic and simply nice attitude. Thanks and I concur. =)
 
Top