Civilian COINTELPRO: Pseudo-rationalism, or the Wikipedia School of Rhetoric, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times


reply posted on 24-4-2012 @ 08:41 PM by djmarcone
reply to post by petrus4


1. You do realize there are paid shills on here, right? I think that's a large part of the problem you mentioned in your OP.

2. I don't know why Christians attempt to come on here (or anywhere else) and argue, how can someone convince someone else to believe something? Structured doctrinal denominational Christianity (religion for religion's sake) is undoubtedly dying, and good riddance.

3. Personally I think Icke has a surprising amount of credibility in spite of his reptilian beliefs. I mean, Alex Jones has him on regularly, that's saying something since Jones used to think he was nuts.

Whoops, I just mentioned Jones, bring it on, shills!

With regards to the OP someone needs to develop an algorithm that will take all of someone's posts and run them through an analytical filter like a spam filter and then assign the person's account a shill quotient. Have that appear on the left in their avatar area along with the other metrics.

The shills definitely do fit a pattern....


reply posted on 24-4-2012 @ 09:21 PM by stanguilles7
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by petrus4


So, basically, you find it disturbing when someone asks you where you heard about some "fact" and also disturbing when they want to stick to science as we know it, not as you want it to be.

Got ya.


Just as an example, this is what the OP does when asked for proof or when shown the flaws in his logic:

Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by stanguilles7
You have supplied your opinion, but provided nothing resembling proof.

Breitbart would laugh at you.





reply posted on 24-4-2012 @ 09:56 PM by Xcalibur254
First of I want to say S&F for a well written thread. It's always nice to see someone put time and effort into laying their thread out in an organized manner.

Now onto the actual message. I don't agree with it. While I know this isn't what you were going for it comes off as almost anti-intellectual. As someone that regularly asks for someone to provide their sources there's always a reason behind it. First, I'm legitimately interested in seeing where they got their information from. If you check my posting history you will see that I generally fall on the "mainstream" side of things but this is only after researching all available data. So if someone is making a claim I have never heard before I like to try to chase it down and find out its origin. The other main reason, and I admit that I can come off as hostile when I do this, is get the other person thinking about their beliefs. The most common examples I do this with is the claim that the "Mayan Calendar" ends on December 21, 2012 or that other cultures mentioned 2012. These are beliefs that many people on this site hold yet not a single one can provide actual sources for these claims. If I simply tell them they're wrong regarding these beliefs they'll become defensive and any hope at a productive discussion becomes impossible. However if I task them with actually supporting these beliefs they may actually come to discover that they are not based in reality. I may also come across as hostile because it becomes frustrating to create well written and sourced threads only to have them ignored and have to repeat the information contained within them over and over.

As for the emphasis on science there's a reason for that as well. First, it truly does have a great method for weeding out the false information. While it's not fool proof it does do a good job. On the other hand fringe writers have no kind of checks against what they write. As long as something resonates with someone's beliefs their books will be bought. On top of that another reason why I lend more credence to science is because it requires all sources to accurately and concisely cited. This then allows for a person to easily see where their hypotheses and rationale are coming from. Then of course there's just experience that science is more reliable. I'll go ahead an use an example I've used in the past. At least once a year somebody will claim that a comet or asteroid is going to impact with Earth and kill us all. The best example of this being Elenin. These claims generally get a lot of attention in our community. Rather quickly the claim will emerge that NASA is lying about this event not occurring. People will agree and say things like NASA always lies. Now I have a pretty good memory so I think I would remember if the world ended dozens of times due to asteroid/comet impacts. So, what we're left in this example is the people who rely on science having a perfect track record whereas the people who rely on numerology and coincidence have never been right.

I'm guilty of most if not all of the points made in your OP but I'm not goal isn't any kind COINTELPRO. My reasons for my actions are perfectly rational. What I desire above all I else is the truth. However, I recognize that the truth cannot be discovered unless we critically examine sources and their methods. I have also come to realize that the evidence tends to point to the mainstream explanation being closer to the truth than the alternative explanation. This doesn't mean that I think the mainstream explanation is necessarily right but it best fits the current data.


reply posted on 25-4-2012 @ 12:44 AM by Timing
reply to post by petrus4


It's more talking points and a way to push an agenda. If you cruise to other popular sites you will see it there too with other topics. I think a few are paid to push a certain agenda then most of the others just jump in because it sounds good not realizing that a lot of it doesn't make any sense.

A few of the topics you will see this on is Global Warming, Social Security, Abortion, etc. usually what is considered "hot button issues". Here on this site when it comes to UFO's and Aliens I think it's more about people wanting to believe than it has to do with trolling.


reply posted on 25-4-2012 @ 05:51 AM by petrus4
Originally posted by coyote66
reply to post by petrus4


Magnificant post, if you ask me! Makes perfect sense.

But I still need a litle while to absorb this, since it to be very alien in its nature. However, you have my full support, Sir. Cheers


When you say it's very alien, coyote; I'm curious as to what you mean. Can you explain?


reply posted on 25-4-2012 @ 06:35 AM by Chadwickus
reply to post by petrus4


I don't ask for sources very often any more, since many blogs and "news" sites tend to pick up a story, cherry pick the information they want and then re-title it for their intended audiences.

To be honest, you are doing it yourself with the myriad of threads you've started, appealing to the majority and thusly getting the kudos and back pats you're after.

I understand, it's an ego thing.

Anyway, I'd like to present an example of what I'm talking about above...

This thread Study: whooping cough outbreak linked to vaccinated children was started today citing this article carrying the same title.

If this isn't a title to catch the eye of a conspiracy website follower, then I don't know what is.

The majority of the information has been lifted from this reuters article titled Whooping cough vaccine fades in pre-teens: study

Interesting, no?

So there is a massive discrepancy here, the digital journal article implies that because of whooping cough vaccines, whooping cough is on the rise. Yet according to Reuters, whooping cough vaccine fades in pre-teens has led to a rise in whooping cough cases.

Now let me digress from that and onto this thread, specifically where you seem to have an issue with people asking for credible sources.

This isn't an act of cointelpro, or peseudo-rationalism or even rhetoric it is the mark of someone who wants to get to the truth.

You laud people asking for sources to make sure that the story holds up? I applaud it..BUT...and this is why I don't bother to ask much these days, it's easier to trawl through...say for example digital journal then on to Reuters where I finally come to the truth...the actual study than it is to try to get someone who's mind is already made up on a topic to act rational or impartial.

It's the very reason why such an article can be turned from "fading vaccines causing an increase in whooping cough" (an actual real issue in itself) into "vaccines are linked to whooping cough"

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this, since if I'm picking up what you're putting down correctly (here's your get out of jail card where you can spin this on me misinterpreting your motives) you are quite content with misinformation and fear mongering (and potential life threatening) threads to go on unchallenged.

I'm not.






edit on 25/4/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 25-4-2012 @ 01:51 PM by AlchemicalBinoculars
Originally posted by djmarcone
reply to post by petrus4


1. You do realize there are paid shills on here, right? I think that's a large part of the problem you mentioned in your OP.


How much do they receive?


reply posted on 25-4-2012 @ 06:14 PM by petrus4
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by petrus4

To be honest, you are doing it yourself with the myriad of threads you've started, appealing to the majority and thusly getting the kudos and back pats you're after.

I understand, it's an ego thing.


While I'm entirely willing to acknowledge the fact that, yes, I am a narcissist, appealing to the majority isn't my goal to the extent that you perhaps think. If you look at my posting history, you'll find several threads which have been largely ignored; and truthfully, this thread has actually had a much larger impact than I was expecting.

So no, I don't primarily post threads because I'm a star and flag whore. Recognition is nice, certainly, and I'm not going to deny that; but if my focus was purely on playing to the crowd, then I wouldn't take the sort of stand on a number of issues that I do. Some of the threads I've had which have made a splash, have actually done so primarily because of the number of people who've felt motivated to tell me that I'm wrong, that I'm naive, that I'm an idiot, etc. Having a spine, in moral terms, is not popular; because most people these days don't.

As another point; I personally believe that disempowerment, and the willingness to remain part of the "silent majority," is one of the main reasons why humanity is currently faced with potential extinction. 90%+ of the contemporary human population view themselves as worthless, and are also utterly terrified of expressing themselves. So I actually feel adamant that one of the most important things for me to do, is to make as much noise as I can, and encourage anyone else to do likewise.

The people here who try and shut me up, are themselves generally either servants or (in very rare cases) direct members of the psychopathic/Service to Self (informally referred to as "evil,") 4-7% of the population...and said 4-7% know exactly who they are. The most vitriolic responses I get, are generally from the lackeys of said demographic; they know how important it is to silence people like me.

You might think that's a delusion of grandeur; but again, the way I tell the difference between legitimate criticism and the above, is whether or not the poster in question is actually trying to silence me. Someone who disagrees with you in legitimate terms, will disagree; but they won't use psychological warfare or engage in a vendetta spanning multiple threads, in an attempt to shut you up completely. There is a big difference.

Now let me digress from that and onto this thread, specifically where you seem to have an issue with people asking for credible sources.


A very large part of the problem, is the fact that the word "credible," generally has an entirely arbitrary, implicit, and unstated definition, where sources are concerned. What does "credible," mean? Wikipedia includes the mainstream/corporate media as part of its' definition of credibility; do we?

I think another chronic problem, is the fact that Wikipedia's policy itself, (at least from what I've seen) has started to become the online standard of rational argument. This is a huge issue, since Wikipedia is a proverbial wretched hive of scientistic, materialistic, pro-establishment shills; people who are fantastic at making themselves sound like the living personification of logic, but who in reality are the complete opposite.

This isn't an act of cointelpro, or peseudo-rationalism or even rhetoric it is the mark of someone who wants to get to the truth.


Identifying someone who wants to get to the truth, as opposed to someone who simply wants to troll, is generally fairly simple. A good example of someone wanting to get to the truth, was the moderator who replied to me earlier in this thread. He disagreed with me, but he made his case extensively and in a civil manner.

The sort of person I am talking about with this thread, however, doesn't have legitimate disagreement as their goal; although they want the other people watching to think that they do.

The real goal, however, is shaming or psychologically wounding their opponents into silence. They won't really read your arguments, and they don't ask for sources because they've actually read them. They will ask for sources because what they're really seeking a potential source of, is ridicule or an additional basis for attack. I've had people on other sites use my mention of this site as a means of ridiculing me before.


reply posted on 8-6-2012 @ 08:41 PM by Furbs
Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by Furbs
This is yet another unsupported list of anecdotes. You have compiled the list, why not cite it with information to back up what you are saying?


While I can't speak for the person you're quoting, people who give me the credible sources troll, generally get ignored. The BS that you've presumably learned at university, ain't going to cut it here, son.

Civilian COINTELPRO: Pseudo-rationalism, or the Wikipedia School of Rhetoric
edit on 8-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)


This thread is simply anti-intellectualism.

The above quote came from another thread, the thread that led me to this one, actually. He is not faulting me for being a jerk, as the OP of this thread claims is his issue, he is faulting me because of his apparent bias against people that have university level educations.


reply posted on 18-6-2012 @ 07:11 PM by Dookie Master
As fortunate or unfortunate as it is for me, I live by peer reviewed writings, mostly journals. The basic idea behind this is that studies are published for the review of professionals(think New England Journal of Medicine). Any wacky can publish findings, but if it is not accurately repeatable then it cannot be considered true. This is the crux of scientific study, not western, but ALL scientific study. Basically, one person states the outcome of an experiment and leaves it to the greater scientific community to prove it wrong. Once the method is studied by the "peers" then it is proven or questioned on the methods that were used in the original experiment. This is why journals not only have to publish findings, but also the exact experiment used, so others can test the model. This is why we have scientific method, so results can be repeated.

Faith based arguments cannot be tested because they are faith, more than not, blind faith because no one is advertising miracles they have committed for scientists to study the outcome. This is the beauty of all religions, to truly believe we must have faith in something we cannot see or test. We must be able to rest our heads at night believing or not. It is that simple.

I do not trust any media. I use media to find the actual study and see the method for myself. If the topic is in the realm of physics or one of the many other fields I cannot understand, I must have confidence that the rigor of peer view is strong enough to prove or disprove the topic. Most recently we have seen this in the neutrinos go faster than the speed of light, it was a testing failure due to inaccurate machinery and the project head resigned shortly after the findings were found false. More times than not, incorrect studies lead to embarrassment within the community.

Respectfully, we cannot discount scientific discovery.

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Isaac Newton


reply posted on 19-6-2012 @ 01:54 AM by Dookie Master
reply to post by petrus4


In this sense you and I agree completely. There have been many instances of "scientists" twisting the outcomes to meet the theory. I have no time for this kind of "science".

Respecting 9/11, I was a sophomore/junior in college and my mother called me and told me the first place had hit. I woke my roommates and we three together watched the second plane strike. I have no idea if what I saw was a hologram, an act of a terrorist nation or a government plan to initiate an invasion of the middle east. I only know how I felt when I saw it happen.

I do not know if there has been a peer reviewed paper on the subject, if so I would love to see the method!
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Are You Offended??? SO WHAT!!!
  Posted 9 days ago with 97 member flags
The Image of Baphomet: Upsetting Folks Since 1855.
  Posted 9 days ago with 39 member flags
New Scientific Report Destroys Global Warming!
  Posted 7 days ago with 32 member flags
Al Azif: Is The Necronomicon Real?
  Posted 8 days ago with 25 member flags
What The Hell Is This?
  Posted 5 days ago with 9 member flags
How copyright enforcement robots killed the Hugo Awards
  Posted 7 days ago with 4 member flags