Recognising the flaw in the "That's just what they want you to think" defence and its similar variants.

[Mythic Suns]

I know I say stuff like this at the start of a lot of my posts but if this is in the wrong category I'm willing to move it to another category.

But onto the subject of this thread: One common defence I've often seen used by conspiracy theorists is the "that's just what they want you to think" defence which, if you're unaware of it, is a defence that can sound quite terrifying because it prays on your sense of doubt and causes you to feel as if you missed something obvious because you were being naive when in reality you missed absolutely nothing.

As the title suggests there are many countless versions of this defence but the one inherent flaw in this defence, no matter what form it takes, is simply the fact that it can be used to accuse anyone of anything without the need for any definitive evidence; you could accuse your next door neighbour of secretly being a nuclear weapons dealer and if anyone argues against you then all you have to say is "that's just what my neighbour wants you to think" and maybe even sprinkle a few grains of truth into the mix (maybe your neighbour used a Tor browser to go on some hidden sites at one point or another, or maybe their bank statements have some irregularities on them that show that a lot of money was withdrawn on certain days) and before you know it you're suddenly a whistleblower in the eyes of those who don't recognise the flaw in your argument. In reality your neighbour is actually a local drug dealer who was dumb enough to use just a single bank card for everything and the supplier was overcharging him....ok I didn't think this analogy through but hopefully the point is clear.

Grains of truth aren't the only thing that can make the defence seem strong, another, which I won't go too deep into because I don't want to go too off subject, is the fact that it's also vulnerable to the stopped clock effect; the stopped clock effect is the idea that someone who is known for doing something wrong or saying something wrong can occasionally say something right or do something right (it gets its name from the fact that a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day) and sadly there are occasions where people have suspected that something malicious is going on but couldn't provide evidence at the time but were later proven right (the two big ones that often get mentioned are the whistles getting blown on M.K Ultra and the NSA tapping everyone's phones). But this is where statistics come into the matter and you have to take into consideration how often someone is proven right about a conspiracy theory and also learn to recognise the difference between someone being proven right and someone believing that they have been proven right when in reality they haven't.

Basically any statement that can't be proven true has the potential to be proven true at a later date or time, but that doesn't guarantee that it'll be happen and when it gets to conspiracy theories the theory is more often than not proven false but the theorist will try their hardest to make it sound true, often times with a version of the "that's just what they want you to think" defence.

Another kind of funny flaw in this defence is that any conspiracy theorist who uses it is pretty much admitting that their original statement is potentially wrong because they've stated that the conspirator is capable of misleading the general public which includes the conspiracy theorist in question. In short: "that's just what they want you to think" can be retorted with "that's just what they want you to think". To some this is frightening but I like to believe it leaves the door open to the possibility that [insert shadowy organisation here] is secretly planning a nice birthday surprise with cake and presents and just wants the general public to believe that they're evil.

 

[Ann K]

It's a natural offshoot of the cry of "Fake news!" The message is that you can't believe what you hear, with the contradictory subtext "so believe what I tell you instead." It sets people up to follow a personality cult instead of trusting information from multiple sources, and it uses one thing (either true or untrue) to cast aspersions upon a second, rather than considering the facts of the second case by themselves.

Here's an example from this morning's news feed. The Republican Attorneys General from eleven states are filing an amicus brief in support of Donald Trump's complaints about documents being removed from Mar-A-Lago.

Instead, the GOP officials list a wide array of grievances against the Biden administration, including how it handled immigration law enforcement and its response to the coronavirus pandemic, that do not appear directly related to the case. They argue that the administration's "questionable conduct" in policymaking and litigation means courts should treat the Justice Department's appeal with caution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/21/trump-gop-amicus-brief-mar-a-lago-fbi/

In other words "We don't trust them on items X and Y, therefore we don't trust them on Z". The matter is not addressed directly, the well has been poisoned, and no facts concerning Z make any difference to such an argument against Z.

 

[Mendel]

Why should I trust what you want me to think?

"That's what they want you to think" builds on distrust. If instead you do trust "them", then what they want me to think is what's in my best interests: what my doctor tells me, my teachers told me, etc. It's really benign if "they" are your friend.

You have to already have a willingness to be a little paranoid to be receptive to "that's what they want you think"; and experience shows that in the majority of cases, the con man is in fact sitting in front of you speaking this phrase—because that's how he gets others to think the way he wants. (Also applies to con-women.)

 

[Mythic Suns]

experience shows that in the majority of cases, the con man is in fact sitting in front of you speaking this phrase—because that's how he gets others to think the way he wants. (Also applies to con-women.)

The sad part in the case of conspiracy theorists is that they often don't realise that they're committing a con. As far as they're concerned they're the heroes.

 

[FatPhil]

As the title suggests there are many countless versions of this defence but the one inherent flaw in this defence, no matter what form it takes, is simply the fact that it can be used to accuse anyone of anything without the need for any definitive evidence;
...
Basically any statement that can't be proven true has the potential to be proven true at a later date or time, but that doesn't guarantee that it'll be happen and when it gets to conspiracy theories the theory is more often than not proven false but the theorist will try their hardest to make it sound true, often times with a version of the "that's just what they want you to think" defence.

My main problem with the conspiratorial "that's what they want you to think", and other more general "they would say that, wouldn't they" excuses (which are what they are, they aren't actual arguments, they're an excuse for not having an actual argument), is that they are almost always not *disprovable*. Often that's mixed in with some kind of "lack of evidence implies evidence of a cover-up" trope, which basically shuts the door on rational discussion.

 

[Mythic Suns]

Often that's mixed in with some kind of "lack of evidence implies evidence of a cover-up" trope, which basically shuts the door on rational discussion.

Pretty much. If lack of evidence is evidence of anything then the sky is a pumpkin and the mountains are made of cheese. Now all I need is a convoluted explanation that I can use to "prove" that this is the case.

 

[April.]

I see this line coming from non conspiracy theorists more than I do conspiracy theorists/truthers. The "that's what they want you to think" line is honestly just a stereotype. Most people in the conspiracy culture recognize that there is an "official narrative" (which is the thing theorists stand against), and often alongside a "controlled opposition" which is another "official narrative" that stands in opposition to the main one, creating a false dichotomy. For a good example of this, see: democrats vs republicans. Dems being official narrative, gop being controlled opposition. The public is pressured to pick between the two parties that make up the singular democratic-republican party, and to ignore (and oppress) the actual parties ran by non-elites such as green, libertarian, peoples', or forward. To present an alternative narrative, you must first point out the problems with the narrative that's popularly held. Yes, it's "what they want you to think", which is why it's publicly endorsed by the rich, by the media, by governments, by large corporations, by organizations, and so forth. The official narrative being what the rich want you to think isn't rhetoric, it's a fact. If it weren't, we wouldn't see establishment democrats pushing so hard to oppress the green party and kick greens off the ballot, when ideologically greens are more similar to dems than gop is! This reveals an *actual* conspiracy, by democrats, to restrict democracy, but then they hypocritically claim that if you don't vote dem, democracy is at risk? They're the ones preventing me from voting for my preferred party? Its gaslighting at it's finest, and really proves what conspiracy theorists/truthers are pointing out: the rich lie and oppress the little guy.
If "they" are my friend, why are they trying so damn hard to make the rich richer, the poor poorer, to oppress minorities such as transsexuals, to repeal racial equality, to kick greens off the ballot, and to not push sensible economic policies like ubi, deregulating zoning and making walkable cities, and enacting single payer healthcare like every other developed nation? Instead the democrats choose to elect a pedophile president who wants to fund wars overseas? So instead of ensuring people get healthcare, they wanna murder people. And y'all are trying to say they are my friend? Fuck that.

 

[NoParty]

I see this line coming from non conspiracy theorists more than I do conspiracy theorists/truthers. The "that's what they want you to think" line is honestly just a stereotype. Most people in the conspiracy culture recognize that there is an "official narrative" (which is the thing theorists stand against), and often alongside a "controlled opposition" which is another "official narrative" that stands in opposition to the main one, creating a false dichotomy. For a good example of this, see: democrats vs republicans. Dems being official narrative, gop being controlled opposition. The public is pressured to pick between the two parties that make up the singular democratic-republican party, and to ignore (and oppress) the actual parties ran by non-elites such as green, libertarian, peoples', or forward. To present an alternative narrative, you must first point out the problems with the narrative that's popularly held. Yes, it's "what they want you to think", which is why it's publicly endorsed by the rich, by the media, by governments, by large corporations, by organizations, and so forth. The official narrative being what the rich want you to think isn't rhetoric, it's a fact. If it weren't, we wouldn't see establishment democrats pushing so hard to oppress the green party and kick greens off the ballot, when ideologically greens are more similar to dems than gop is! This reveals an *actual* conspiracy, by democrats, to restrict democracy, but then they hypocritically claim that if you don't vote dem, democracy is at risk? They're the ones preventing me from voting for my preferred party? Its gaslighting at it's finest, and really proves what conspiracy theorists/truthers are pointing out: the rich lie and oppress the little guy.
If "they" are my friend, why are they trying so damn hard to make the rich richer, the poor poorer, to oppress minorities such as transsexuals, to repeal racial equality, to kick greens off the ballot, and to not push sensible economic policies like ubi, deregulating zoning and making walkable cities, and enacting single payer healthcare like every other developed nation? Instead the democrats choose to elect a pedophile president who wants to fund wars overseas? So instead of ensuring people get healthcare, they wanna murder people. And y'all are trying to say they are my friend? Fuck that.

Wow. You know a lot more about the dastardly Dems than I do!
(I haven't even seen the quality sources on Biden's supposed pedophelia! [could you share?])
I couldn't begin to unpack all this within the Metabunk rules...
I did go back and read your old posts, so at least--in that context--I understand your
pro-conspiracy lean. I'm still trying to peace together why you seem green, but see the
GOP as the lesser enemy of that :0 ...but, well, like I said, I couldn't address all this
and remotely stay within the rules.

 

[April.]

Wow. You know a lot more about the dastardly Dems than I do!
(I haven't even read see the quality sources on Biden's supposed pedophelia! [could you share?])
I couldn't begin to unpack all this within the Metabunk rules...
I did go back and read your old posts, so at least--in that context--I understand your
pro-conspiracy lean. I'm still trying to peace together why you seem green, but see the
GOP as the lesser enemy of that :0 ...but, well, like I said, I couldn't address all this
and remotely stay within the rules.

For context I identify as a conspiracy theorist/truther/whatever and am registered democrat, vote green, and hold conservative socialist political stances. DNC/GOP are two wings of the same bird, like coke and pepsi. None of the parties are perfect. GOP are just overtly evil, but at least they're honest and try to appeal to sensibilities. Dems pretend to be as progressive as actual real humans, but then backstab, rig, lie, and cheat any chance they get, and end up pushing both capitalism and postmodernist nonsense progressivism. If you're interested in witnessing Pedo Pete's pedophilia first hand you can check out https://joebiden.info/ which shares all of the things that make the creep absolutely repulsive to any left-leaning person. It's shocking to me that millions of people voted for this guy, if we are to believe the election (which was probably rigged anyway). Groping young girls, raping women, pushing tough on crime policy, launching and supporting many wars, overtly racist policies, and just so so much more.
People wonder why I'm a conspiracy theorist, but honestly all you gotta do is look at the president. If that doesn't send shivers up your spine you don't have a soul.

 

[econ41]

Wow @April. Where to start?

Well you have given us a sketch of where you are coming from - here's a bit about me.

I'm Australian (English by birth, came here at age 11 in 1952). Civil and Military engineer by qualification and career experience with a law degree gained at age 60. And for a handful of reasons I've had an interest in the evolution of the US Constitution and its supporting systems including elections. I became involved in on-line debate in 2007 when a colleague asked me to comment on the CD of the WTC Towers. I laughed before I realised he was serious and for reasons of professional credibility in a small town I needed to give him a professional explanation >> subsequent online activities motivated me to need to understand US law and constitution. (The prompt was the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage initiative in Ca - I was a moderator on a forum where it was a current hot topic. )

Politically I'm centralist on what I see as the world spectrum of "Left v Right". And, from my perspective US politics as pragmatically practised has no "Left" The Dems in policy are centralists - I suspect many would want to go further left but the realities of US culture won't allow it.

I've mostly given up attempting to engage in online discussion of US politics - I prefer to put it in "compare and contrast" with other countries practices and that seems t be a no go path. And the extent of US polarisation and stubborn adherence o party loyalty in face of any sense of objective reality is "foreign" to me. (Excuse the play on words.) The few occasions I tried commenting tended to attract hostile personal attacks questioning either my legitimacy in debating US affairs ("How dare you??) or my intelligence (How could you a mere foreigner even pretend to understand US Constitutional laws") and of course the absolute "no go territory" of why the British Westminster derived systems are not worthy of comparison with the presumed overall US superiority.

So I retreat to the safe territory of explaining in detail why the WTC Towers collapsed without ending help from explosives.

There are about 10 themes in your"forthright comments" which interest me. (I haven't parsed them or counted them - yet!) But too much of a Gish Gallop to take them all on at once. Before I am told to "butt out and go back to chasing Kangaroos".

Let's see what discussion develops.

 

[April.]

I agree with much what you've written here. It's obvious there is blind loyalty, not only to the two establishment political parties, but to authority, the government, media, tech giants, etc. in general. I definitely agree that there's no left-wing party. Greens come the closest but still fall short, and end up with a bunch of progressive nonsense as well. Regardless my comment wasn't meant to strike a partisan political debate, but rather to point out the sheer cruelty, hypocrisy, and "evil" of the rich who run things. The underlying point is that if they were good, the world would be very different. It's no surprise to me that the USA has a military budget larger than the next 10 countries combined. Funding purely for murder. Yet you want me to believe that these people want the best for the world? If I were in charge, such an insane military budget would not exist. We would not be invading other countries. Am I somehow jesus-tier "good" simply because I do not wish to invade other countries and murder people? Is that the metric for "neutral" these days? Regardless of your political beliefs, surely we can agree murder is wrong?

You mentioned 9/11 which is a topic I don't really focus on but I do have some "conspiracy theory" views on it. You mention the controlled demolition idea, and I do think that is true to some extent. Each part of 9/11 has it's own details that need to be focused on. WTC7, the pentagon, and the crashed 4th plane are the interesting parts to me, rather than the twin towers themselves.

My introduction to 9/11 theories was the Zeitgeist documentaries, though I can't remember much of what's in them now (it was over a decade ago that I saw them). WTC7 I do know was not hit by a plane, and yet it fell, while the plane that was allegedly supposed to hit it, crashed out in a field somewhere. It's obvious what's up: the plane was meant to hit wtc7, and thus have it collapse like 1 and 2. The plane crashed elsewhere by mistake, but they demolished the building nonetheless and downplayed it hoping no one would notice. But if you think about it, it's obvious. Likewise, there was a mistake in airing the announcement on BBC. The announced wtc7 collapsed a whole 20 minutes before it did, they caught their mistake live, cut the feed, and then reluctantly put up an "apology" explanation admitting that this happened, trying to downplay it saying "mistakes happen"???

The pentagon is equally as suspicious. Most focus is around the plane and the shape of the hole in the building, which I agree is suspect. But the real tell here is that there's only one video that is publicly available. And it turns out the government went around to all the nearby stores and offices and seized their footage that would show the pentagon, and have classified it so that we may not see it! Whatever the truth is, the government and authorities are lying in their usual fashion, which is a key tell that the official narrative is false.

We also see crisis actors, which I'm not a big believer in that theory, but it's obvious for 9/11. One particular "witness" immediately identified the cause of collapse "the fires are way too intense!" within mere minutes of the buildings collapsing. It's an obvious script, and in the video we can see his handler (who the press mistakenly tried to interview and were promptly shut down).

The live footage of the two towers is also suspicious. There's only a single video footage shown on every single channel simultaneously, and none of the channels show the entire clip uncut. It's like they were each assigned a part of the video to air. It's only later that other video footage came out (plenty of time to prepare it).

The date of 9/11, along with some details, are an obvious saturnian occult ritual. 9/11 in roman numerals being IX/XI, or IXXI, which is the sigil of saturn. Likewise the towers memorial has black cube symbolism, as well as other nearby buildings having such as well. These sorts of mass ritualistic sacrifices are common for saturnian worship.

Finally, we have the case of the followup. Miraculously, the passports of the hijackers was the only thing that survived the crash, and we find out they are saudi arabian terrorists. Or so the story goes. Okay, so if we're gonna invade someone, it's gotta be saudi arabia, right? Turns out no, instead we're gonna invade afghanistan, iraq, syria, literally everywhere in the middle east except where the hijackers are from, really??? Also it turns out, saudi arabia is an american ally!! Kinda obvious, USA and Saudi Arabia team up to stage the saturnian ritual, and then use that as an excuse to launch further war in the middle east. People say it's for oil, but nah. It's more occult stuff. the middle east having significant occult symbolism and significance. This is also why israel (our greatest ally) is located there.

oh btw, the wmds were a lie, the increased airport security is just theater and didn't stop any attacks, and 9/11 was used to pass legislation that further infringes on our freedom. But sure, the people running the gov are definitely the good guys. You kidding me? The mission statement is right on the us dollar: an undertaking for a new order of the ages (the saturnian age of aquarius). It's been an occult ritual in progress for the past 200 years.

People are dumb af. Democracy dies in darkness indeed. I see so many "9/11 debunks" yet none address the facts of the matter. They all just bicker about the physics of demolitions. Even if we grant it was a genuine plane crash, it's obvious the whole thing was planned from the start.

 

[Mythic Suns]

Before I am told to "butt out and go back to chasing Kangaroos".

Let's see what discussion develops.

Man, you guys get all the fun stereotypes. I'm a Brit who honestly feels pretty clueless when it gets to homeland politics let alone American politics so the equivalent for me would be "butt out and go back to drinking your tea and watching Eastenders, oh, and get your teeth sorted out!". Sadly I do have bad teeth so at least the stereotypes were spot on about that one.

To me the key lies in knowing and understanding the core principles of the parties as originally stated by the first party officials and then looking into any official changes made in the future. Motivation of the changes will be stated by the parties and can then be compared to the core principles to see if they've ever swayed from those principles.

I'm a little crap at analogies but i'll try my best on this one: lets say there was a party whose core principle was to make cheese the most popular food item in the country but then later on altered their principle to make dairy items as a whole the most popular food items with the officially stated intention being to modernise with the times and recognise the existence of more dairy products, the voter could then base their decision whether or not to vote for the party on whether or not they feel dairy products as a whole becoming more popular goes against cheese on its own becoming more popular or if they even consider dairy products a priority over any other issues in the country that might be tackles by other parties.

Where I find things tend to get complicated is when people start to speculate on alternative reasons why a party has made such a shift in their principles, these alternative reasons can be true or false but the issue is that you can only agree with the ones that don't contradict each other which leads to a situation where you have to analyse every alternative reason that humanity can imagine which is nigh on impossible. Party officials can try and debunk those alternative reasons but as human beings there's only so many they can pay attention to which means there will always be some that get missed.

To me the solution there lies in keeping up to date with recent events that have happened in relation to the party from whatever source you consider the most reliable and coming to your own educated conclusion about the party's motivations.

Politics isn't a simple issue so a lot of this is just me trying to think of a logical way to understand what's going on in the world of politics.

 

[April.]

Politics isn't a simple issue so a lot of this is just me trying to think of a logical way to understand what's going on in the world of politics.

Politics is only hard when you believe politicians aren't lying hypocritical scumbags who want to oppress people and benefit the rich. Take California governor Gavin Newsom, for example. Ranked choice voting was put on his desk after much hard work from activists. A long-time goal of leftists finally coming to realization here in california, home of the democrats. And democrats openly say they support democracy! This should be a no brainer to enac- oh, he vetoed it. He gave some lame excuse of "voters are too stupid to know how to do ranked choice voting". But it's obvious that if he enacted it, it'd be signing away the exclusive power democrats have over california, and would allow 3rd parties to stand a chance.

We also saw medi-cal for all and ubi bills die before they could be enacted. This is in a state where republicans have no presence, and democrats have openly stated they wish to support m4a and wealth redistribution. Turns out they're all lying crooks.

 

[econ41]

@April. and @Mythic Suns - a word of caution - this forum is for good reasons firm with "on topic" rules. You may need to consider setting up another thread - or asking @Landru @Mick West to start one and transplant these last few posts.

This should be a no brainer to enac- oh, he vetoed it. He gave some lame excuse of "voters are too stupid to know how to do ranked choice voting". But it's obvious that if he enacted it, it'd be signing away the exclusive power democrats have over california, and would allow 3rd parties to stand a chance.

You are preaching to the Choir. It ain't perfect but our AU systems have many advantages. OUR "ultra right" mob is a minority alternate party. Has influence but is not inside and in defacto control of our nearest equivalent of the GOP.

Let's leave it to see if @Admin wants a separate thread.

We also saw medi-cal for all and ubi bills die before they could be enacted. This is in a state where republicans have no presence, and democrats have openly stated they wish to support m4a and wealth redistribution. Turns out they're all lying crooks.

The sort of thing that would send be bonkers.

 

[Mythic Suns]

@April. and @Mythic Suns - a word of caution - this forum is for good reasons firm with "on topic" rules. You may need to consider setting up another thread - or asking @Landru @Mick West to start one and transplant these last few posts.

sorry, my point was that I can't really get much into how the phrase ties into politics because my political knowledge isn't really up to it.

 

[April.]

Fair enough. This thread was meant to be on the phrase, not a political/9/11 debate. My point is that the idea of "wanting people to think something" is just a natural result when you illustrate a majority view painted by authorities, as opposed to a minority view that is not. It's not some rhetorical technique, but just a natural extension of things.

 

[Mythic Suns]

Politics is only hard when you believe politicians aren't lying hypocritical scumbags who want to oppress people and benefit the rich. Take California governor Gavin Newsom, for example. Ranked choice voting was put on his desk after much hard work from activists. A long-time goal of leftists finally coming to realization here in california, home of the democrats. And democrats openly say they support democracy! This should be a no brainer to enac- oh, he vetoed it. He gave some lame excuse of "voters are too stupid to know how to do ranked choice voting". But it's obvious that if he enacted it, it'd be signing away the exclusive power democrats have over california, and would allow 3rd parties to stand a chance.

We also saw medi-cal for all and ubi bills die before they could be enacted. This is in a state where republicans have no presence, and democrats have openly stated they wish to support m4a and wealth redistribution. Turns out they're all lying crooks.

I'll be honest, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong about anything you say I'm in no position to prove it either way because I don't understand a lot of the subject matters that you cover and trying to dumb it down for me could force you to leave out important details.

Also, you sound a lot like a friend of mine who managed to unintentionally put me into a state where I temporarily felt suicidal which makes it even harder for me to get into any points that you might bring up. I know you would never intend to make anyone feel like that (or at least I hope you wouldn't) but my point is that I'm the wrong person to talk to about the points you're going to make because I don't fully understand them and they could potentially have a triggering effect. Saying that, you haven't yet shown his more pessimistic views on life but hopefully you can understand why i'm cautious to debate such subjects.

 

[April.]

I'll be honest, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong about anything you say I'm in no position to prove it either way because I don't understand a lot of the subject matters that you cover and trying to dumb it down for me could force you to leave out important details.

Also, you sound a lot like a friend of mine who managed to unintentionally put me into a state where I temporarily felt suicidal which makes it even harder for me to get into any points that you might bring up. I know you would never intend to make anyone feel like that (or at least I hope you wouldn't) but my point is that I'm the wrong person to talk to about the points you're going to make because I don't fully understand them and they could potentially have a triggering effect. Saying that, you haven't yet shown his more pessimistic views on life but hopefully you can understand why i'm cautious to debate such subjects.

My apologies. The truth of the matter is incredibly depressing as you mention. And I don't blame you at all for wanting to avoid any such triggering things. I have a fairly pessimistic view on life as you suggest, and pretty much have given up any hope of human society ever improving. People are too brainwashed and pacified to do anything about it.

I've run myself into existential depression, suicidal ideation, and psychosis many times in my pursuit of the truth. I've given up social standings, financial wellbeing and security, reputation, and my mental health, simply because I wish to pursue the facts and truth of the matter of the situation I find myself in, whatever that might be. I don't blame people for not walking this same path.

 

[Mythic Suns]

My apologies. The truth of the matter is incredibly depressing as you mention. And I don't blame you at all for wanting to avoid any such triggering things. I have a fairly pessimistic view on life as you suggest, and pretty much have given up any hope of human society ever improving. People are too brainwashed and pacified to do anything about it.

I've run myself into existential depression, suicidal ideation, and psychosis many times in my pursuit of the truth. I've given up social standings, financial wellbeing and security, reputation, and my mental health, simply because I wish to pursue the facts and truth of the matter of the situation I find myself in, whatever that might be. I don't blame people for not walking this same path.

I know this is going to sound like vague fridge magnet style rubbish but its the best I can personally do: don't give up hope, the universe has a surprising way of changing.

I know I probably just sound innocent and naive but I don't make this statement blindly, in fact i've seen people who would agree with everything you say who have still found ways to be optimistic about the future of humanity, the human mind, like the universe, is also full of surprises.

I'll leave it at that as I don't want to steer too off topic, I just know that depression absolutely sucks.

 

[April.]

I know this is going to sound like vague fridge magnet style rubbish but its the best I can personally do: don't give up hope, the universe has a surprising way of changing.

I know I probably just sound innocent and naive but I don't make this statement blindly, in fact i've seen people who would agree with everything you say who have still found ways to be optimistic about the future of humanity, the human mind, like the universe, is also full of surprises.

I'll leave it at that as I don't want to steer too off topic, I just know that depression absolutely sucks.

oh, you've misunderstood. I'm not depressed, though I've definitely been through that. I've made my peace knowing that the world is burning and the nwo will eventually come (if society doesn't collapse first). In the meantime I'm just prepping for the afterlife in order to escape the reincarnation cycle pushed by archons, and to reach gnosis. Absolutely no optimism, but I'm just minding my own business. I tried to help, people didn't want it. I'm more than happy to share what I know, but people would rather mock and laugh. So it's whatever. I'mma do me.

 

[econ41]

@April. and @Mythic Suns - Folks these issues are interesting BUT way off topic for this thread. I recommend a
few hours patience to see what admin/mods want to do about the off topic. @Landru

 

[Mendel]

I wish to pursue the facts and truth of the matter of the situation I find myself in, whatever that might be.

Have you ever considered that you might be bad at that?

 

[Ann K]

I've given up social standings, financial wellbeing and security, reputation, and my mental health, simply because I wish to pursue the facts and truth of the matter of the situation I find myself in, whatever that might be. I don't blame people for not walking this same path.

Essentially, the aim of healthy skepticism is to get people to try to ascertain whether their "facts and truth" are indeed true. I get the distinct impression that you've already decided to pick a side, and have not been as scrupulously well-informed as you might have been. Perhaps you should question your sources of information more carefully.

 

[deirdre]

Folks these issues are interesting BUT way off topic for this thread.

not really, the topic is what "they" want you to think. you're the one that brought up 9/11 which resulted in post #11.

 

[econ41]

not really, the topic is what "they" want you to think. you're the one that brought up 9/11 which resulted in post #11.

It must rank as the easiest unintended derail I ever created.... More fool me offering to discuss any of the ten themes in the Gish Gallop post.

 

[deirdre]

It must rank as the easiest unintended derail I ever created.... More fool me offering to discuss any of the ten themes in the Gish Gallop post.

you can quote that comment and paste it in another thread. then respond.