Episode 54 – Mia Bloom and Sophia Moskalenko: Pastels and Pedophiles

deirdre

Senior Member.
and just for the record... (in case the authors are reading) the title is inappropriate and unfortunate. I know they think they coined a new term, but with a title like that the book should be about modern culture encouraging and celebrating the sexualizing of children. Like Jon Benet and that little transvestite boy who dances for grown men on Good Morning America. or that Netflix movie that was sexualizing the young actresses.

(uh oh... i wonder if this is the beginning of the q rabbit hole! :O)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Movements change with time, even BLM is not what it was when it first started. so do we analyze it as if it is still what it was originally, or do we look at it as it is today. and tomorrow.

So true. When I lived in the States in the 90s it was all about public land use and didn't seem at all like it does today.

I think I can find my own coat, thanks. :)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
So true. When I lived in the States in the 90s it was all about public land use and didn't seem at all like it does today.
Anyone who does not get this reference might want to look up https://www.blm.gov/ .
The old (and present) meaning of BLM is "Bureau of Land Management", a government agency admistering federal lands; the new meaning of BLM is the "Black Lives Matter" movement.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
An effective counter-conspiracy theory campaign would include inoculating messages on social media. These would micro-target people vulnerable to disinformation, warning them about nefarious groups seeking to recruit “people just like them.” For example, a white, suburban woman browsing pastel-colored Instagram posts might see a banner alerting her that “some of this content was created by Russian trolls to manipulate opinions of American white, suburban women.”

Bloom, Mia; Moskalenko, Sophia. Pastels and Pedophiles (p. 129). Stanford University Press. Kindle Edition.

OMG. I just listened to the interview. I did so because they say right here in print that they think lying is an honorable strategy (which i've heard people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Rubin say, but figured they were being dramatic), so i wanted to hear how this 'honorable strategy' would play out in their interviews.

WTF?! Everything Tim Poole, and Rubin and that australian girl i listen to sometimes (you need 20 min vids to listen to when doing jigsaw puzzles online) say about the the left is true!! I agree some Q people (like that marjorie greene and the gun-on-hip rep) need therapy, but oy so do these woman. smh.

You know what pushes people into political rabbit holes? When the opposite side confirms the "crazy ideas".
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
I might be missing some info here so I'm wondering: are you saying "all lying is bad" or "lying to people who may be susceptible to paranoia is bad (irresponsible, not smart) because if they find out they've been lied to (before they're in a position to see why) it may fuel the paranoia and/or drive them deeper down the rabbit hole"? Or something else?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I might be missing some info here so I'm wondering: are you saying "all lying is bad" or "lying to people who may be susceptible to paranoia is bad (irresponsible, not smart) because if they find out they've been lied to (before they're in a position to see why) it may fuel the paranoia and/or drive them deeper down the rabbit hole"? Or something else?

Pretend it was Flat Earth or healing/yoga beliefs.

And then Mick, who CTists already think is a government shill, wrote in his book " We need Facebook and social media to put a flag on every such post, saying “some of this content was created by Russian trolls to manipulate opinions of gullible English males".
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
OMG. I just listened to the interview. I did so because they say right here in print that they think lying is an honorable strategy (which i've heard people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Rubin say, but figured they were being dramatic), so i wanted to hear how this 'honorable strategy' would play out in their interviews.

WTF?! Everything Tim Poole, and Rubin and that australian girl i listen to sometimes (you need 20 min vids to listen to when doing jigsaw puzzles online) say about the the left is true!! I agree some Q people (like that marjorie greene and the gun-on-hip rep) need therapy, but oy so do these woman. smh.

You know what pushes people into political rabbit holes? When the opposite side confirms the "crazy ideas".

Did Mick actually say lies could/should be used in such counter-conspiracy theory campaigns, or did he only offer an example of a red flag appearing on screens containing warnings of real disinformation campaigns the content is part of?

In either case, I'm more in favour of education, discussion and prevention rather than automated red flags and warnings failing to address the root susceptibility of gullible people.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Did Mick actually say lies could/should be used in such counter-conspiracy theory campaigns, or did he only offer an example of a red flag appearing on screens containing warnings of real disinformation campaigns the content is part of?
sorry i changed the reply quote to reflect it wasnt Mick who said that. he had posted an excerpt fromt he book.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Pretend it was Flat Earth or healing/yoga beliefs.

And then Mick, who CTists already think is a government shill, wrote in his book " We need Facebook and social media to put a flag on every such post, saying “some of this content was created by Russian trolls to manipulate opinions of gullible English males".

That's an interesting analogy. I will find a gullible English male with unusual beliefs and ask him what effect that would have on him. ;)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
OMG. I just listened to the interview. I did so because they say right here in print that they think lying is an honorable strategy (which i've heard people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Rubin say, but figured they were being dramatic), so i wanted to hear how this 'honorable strategy' would play out in their interviews.

WTF?! Everything Tim Poole, and Rubin and that australian girl i listen to sometimes (you need 20 min vids to listen to when doing jigsaw puzzles online) say about the the left is true!! I agree some Q people (like that marjorie greene and the gun-on-hip rep) need therapy, but oy so do these woman. smh.

You know what pushes people into political rabbit holes? When the opposite side confirms the "crazy ideas".
I spy two double standards in your argument:

1) "the other side must be perfect, or we won't respect them"

2) "the spreaders of conspiracy theories can lie, but those who oppose them must never tell a falsehood".

Any engagement on either of these terms is a losing proposition from the outset. They're unfair and unacceptable.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
From her response to me though, it seems she's more saying "don't mess with mentally unstable and/or paranoid people's minds - they're already messy enough."

Which I think is a point that has lots and lots of merit. I mean, if you get lucky they come back to reality and understand why you did what you did and it's all good. But I think the odds for that are slim compared to other possible outcomes.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I spy two double standards in your argument:

1) "the other side must be perfect, or we won't respect them"

2) "the spreaders of conspiracy theories can lie, but those who oppose them must never tell a falsehood".

Any engagement on either of these terms is a losing proposition from the outset. They're unfair and unacceptable.

nice job making stuff up.

From her response to me though, it seems she's more saying "don't mess with mentally unstable and/or paranoid people's minds - they're already messy enough."

no. I think it's funny (though not esp. surprising) that you two have so much trouble with this concept. They've been talking about it in the news for 4 months in regards to minorities and vaccines. Biden has said "they need to hear it from people they trust", Fauchi has said "They need to hear it from people they trust", the community outreach people have said "they need to hear it from people they trust".

I said "minorities" above, because if i said "conservatives" you wouldn't be able to think straight, and really digest what the experts and officials are telling us.

Article:
New York City data shows the city's vaccine uptake is lowest among certain demographics, particularly Black residents that account for the lowest, with only 31% reported as fully vaccinated. Latinos fare a bit better at 42%, while White residents are 46% fully vaccinated.








i'll add a blast from the past
If I think of conspiracy theorists I've met, I don't necessarily think of them as paranoid and delusional, rather ill-informed and gullible - in much the same way many of my very lovely New Age friends are. It doesn't stop them being nice and funny and good company - or, indeed, in being smart and rational in other ways.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
"don't mess with mentally unstable and/or paranoid people's minds - they're already messy enough." Which I think is a point that has lots and lots of merit.
The idea, though, is very specific. It's to inoculate these minds by telling them: look, a lot you see on the Internet originates with people who are manipulating you to their ends, and they present themselves as your friends but really aren't.
That's the basic message you need to get across re: social media.

It's the opposite messaging of what populists everywhere are getting out, be it Trumpers in the US or Querdenker in Germany, which is that the traditional media are not to be trusted (but they're actually more legally liable!). The problem is that social media is like multi-level-marketing, the last step in the distribution chain is always personal and comes with pre-existing trust.

A better and more empowering approach is the MediaWise program that teaches people to do some minimal vetting on the news they share, but to get to that point where you do that, you *have* to start questioning the information flows on the Internet, and accept that even people you trust help spread misinformation because they don't know any better.

So, messaging these people that the pastel stuff is not trustworthy would be great, if it works. If it raises awareness that "hey, I might be part of a misinformation campaign if I spread this". If they get to "yes, everyone I know is spreading this, but maybe we're being manipulated". Because *that* is actually true; that's the point of the book.

(If, to that end, you claim to know where that misinformation originates when you really don't, that's an unimportant point.)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
no. I think it's funny (though not esp. surprising) that you two have so much trouble with this concept. They've been talking about it in the news for 4 months in regards to minorities and vaccines. Biden has said "they need to hear it from people they trust", Fauchi has said "They need to hear it from people they trust", the community outreach people have said "they need to hear it from people they trust".

I'd like to point out that I:

a) haven't watched or read US news for at least the last four months
b) haven't heard anything Biden's said since at least before the election
c) haven't heard anything Fauci's said for even longer
d) don't know anything about 'community outreach people'

Remember when I said "I might be missing some information", hence why I asked for clarity? (And even though I didn't really receive any I thought my interpretation of what you replied with seemed quite reasonable.)

I said "minorities" above, because if i said "conservatives" you wouldn't be able to think straight

I mean, please. :rolleyes:

i'll add a blast from the past

That quote is about people I've met and how I've generally thought of them. Not sure if the context is the same. And I presume there was some point to digging it up, so perhaps you could explain what.

Likewise, if you could elaborate on "the concept" and why exactly you think "lying" in this case is "bad" perhaps Mendel and I would have less of a struggle. ;)

I know I asked for an explanation earlier but it seems good to ask again. And if you could answer in your own words rather than with a peculiar analogy whose meaning isn't obviously clear I think that would work better.

I think we can make headway here. :)
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
messaging these people that the pastel stuff is not trustworthy would be great, if it works.

I'm sure I agree, but what I thought we were talking about was "lying" - ie, telling them that the content they're looking at was created by Russian trolls when it wasn't. For example:

The idea, though, is very specific. It's to innoculate these minds by telling them: look, a lot you see on the Internet originates with people who are manipulating you to their ends

I get that - but that isn't what they wrote in their book. They didn't suggest accompanying Q content with a banner that said "a lot of what you see on the internet is put there by Russian trolls" but rather "some of this content was made by Russian trolls" when it wouldn't necessarily be the case, therefore "lying" and misleading and doing exactly what they suspect the media/The Powers That Be of doing in the first place.

I spy two double standards in your argument:

1) "the other side must be perfect, or we won't respect them"

2) "the spreaders of conspiracy theories can lie, but those who oppose them must never tell a falsehood".

Any engagement on either of these terms is a losing proposition from the outset. They're unfair and unacceptable.

I wouldn't see them as double standards but rather as 'the way things are'. The spreaders of conspiracy theories can lie, because their goal is to spread conspiracy theories and lying helps that. People seeking to help other people become more trusting, however, may find that goal impeded by lying to those they're trying to help.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
That quote is about people I've met and how I generally think of them. Not sure if the context is the same. And I presume there was some point to digging it up, so perhaps you could explain what.
the point is you havent met any of these suburban pastel q supporters.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
the point is you havent met any of these suburban pastel q supporters.

Okay, so that's useful - I could have interpreted the inclusion of that old quote in any number of ways (that wouldn't have been one of them).
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Okay, so that's useful - I could have interpreted the inclusion of that old quote in any number of ways (that wouldn't have been one of them).
bridging the male vs female brain when communicating is definitely a disability for me. that's why i'm trying analogies :)

i'm not sure if "that's useful" is sarcasm... so you do know i'm saying that " these pastels might be nice and sweet and smart (not mentally unstable or paranoid, as you used) in most areas too. Just like the ones woo believers you actually have met"
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Yep, I can see that - and I'm sure it's true.

Actually, I don't think I ever said the pastel Q women were "mentally unstable" or "paranoid" - where I've used those words it was either my interpretation of what you were saying or what the authors of the book said (I think right at the start of the interview they said one of the most common traits of Q believers was that they had mental health issues).

I should scroll up though and see if I did say that. ;)

Also, they might be "nice and sweet and smart" and "mentally unstable or paranoid". Why not both? ;)

Can we rewind to here please?

Were you saying "all lying is bad" or "lying to people who may be susceptible to paranoia is bad (irresponsible, not smart) because if they find out they've been lied to (before they're in a position to see why) it may fuel the paranoia and/or drive them deeper down the rabbit hole"? Or something else?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
(I think right at the start of the interview they said one of the most common traits of Q believers was that they had mental health issues).
yea but they can't be trusted, because they think lying for a good cause is honorable :)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Can we rewind to here please?
you already know what i'm saying, you told Mendel quite accurately in post #55.

They didn't suggest accompanying Q content with a banner that said "a lot of what you see on the internet is put there by Russian trolls" but rather "some of this content was made by Russian trolls" when it wouldn't necessarily be the case, therefore "lying" and misleading and doing exactly what they suspect the media/The Powers That Be of doing in the first place.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
they can't be trusted

Is that sarcasm? I can't tell. :D

you already know what i'm saying, you told Mendel quite accurately in post #55.

Ah. So sometimes my interpretations are okay; that's good to know. Though in my head it's not so different from #51.

Perhaps my use of terms like "mentally unstable" and "paranoid" comes across as stronger than intended? Like I don't imagine them as raving loons, just with pretty standard levels of less-than-perfect mental health. I can see that words like "paranoid" or "delusional" can be more triggering than, say, "distrusting" or "incorrect" (or something).
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Perhaps my use of terms like "mentally unstable" and "paranoid" comes across as stronger than intended? Like I don't imagine them as raving loons, just with pretty standard levels of less-than-perfect mental health. I can see that words like "paranoid" or "delusional" can be more triggering than, say, "distrusting" or "incorrect" (or something).
i disliked your post because you attributed it to ME saying those things. why would i call normal suburban conservatives "mentally unstable and paranoid"? the women i "know" from my FB games are not mentally unstable or paranoid. They are actually right, they just think it's a bigger problem than i do. I wouldn't label Mick as mentally unstable or paranoid, just because his Call to Arms Op was a tad dramatic for me. And these woman arent THAT dramatic.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Well I guess that's a good example of why it's better to answer questions clearly and in our own words rather than supplying open-to-interpretation analogies that compare our subjects to people who do often seem to be "mentally unstable" and "paranoid" (ie, flat earthers).

But that's my fault there: rather than follow up your analogy with something of an "in-joke" (that probably didn't work) I should have just said, "sorry, I don't get what you're saying there. Can you be more explicit please?"
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Also, are you saying you only know these women from your FB games online and have never met them in real life?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
that compare our subjects to people who do often seem to be "mentally unstable" and "paranoid" (ie, flat earthers).
fair enough. i thought you would understand what i meant by Flat Earthers since you wrote that whole essay ( i cant find now) on the guys you met and how they were good and decent people. I'll try to make less assumptions in the future.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Also, are you saying you only know these women from your FB games online and have never met them in real life? :O
yes. ive never met a q supporter in real life.


PS. My mom thought they were like the new tea party, when i asked her if she heard of the sex ring blood sucking thing. She had heard of Pizzagate when i reminded her and knew that was connected to sex rings. But she didnt realize that was connected to "Q". Then she asked me "what ever happened to the tea party" and i said "the same thing that will happen with q, it faded away and got absorbed."
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Your mom's one up on me: I haven't heard of the tea party either. At least, I don't think I have. Unless it was a militia thing out west somewhere. Guns and hicks and maybe a stand-off or something.

I hope you're right that none of the women you play FB games with are paranoid or mentally unstable in their personal and/or inner lives. That would be cool. :)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I hope you're right that none of the women you play FB games with are paranoid or mentally unstable in their personal and/or inner lives. That would be cool. :)
well one is like 65-70 and has 3 large dogs that she has to bathe like twice a week. this wouldnt be so bad but she has a semi invalid husband and 4 horses she cares for by herself. i mean, it's not like they HAVE to sleep inside ..where she lives is mild weather most of the year. Or get rid of a dog or two! or a horse or two (they are gorgeous and sweet).

That's a bit batty, if you ask me.

Unless it was a militia thing
don't quote me, but not that i know of. they were for smaller government and fiscal conservatism. Basically all they did was split the Repub party causing Romney to lose. Which is what Q does, split the repub party. (so it not like im against these leftists trying to "cure" the Q's, i just think they havent a clue how to go about it)
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
On a more serious note, lying for a good cause is the archetypal ends-justify-means MO. Trust is the basis of authentic human relationships and institutional legitimacy both of which begin to deteriorate the very moment it's lost. To suggest obscurantism can be cured by obscurantism of a different kind is self-deception of the highest order. Hence I fully second the main beef of @deirdre.

Overall, however, those ladies presented many valuable points despite coming across a tad Karenish and wokish which may have triggered my friend a little.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
despite coming across a tad Karenish and wokish which may have triggered my friend a little.

first, to call them Karenish is rude.
second, i don't get "triggered" by political silliness. If i did, i'd be "triggered" 24/7 for the last 30 years.

[reprimand removed because he answered his wife correctly below]
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
No.

Her: does my bum look big in this?
Him: I love your bum
Her: that wasn't the question - and by your evasion I can only assume that you think it does look big
Him: baby, I love your bum. I mean it. It's the best. Come here and -
Her: get away from me.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and by your evasion
it wasnt an evasion. she doesnt have to assume anything, we already know he is saying "yes, but..."

evasion is when you say "what!? you're worried about other men approving of your butt!?"
 
Top