Yeah more specifically the thing about just repeating what other people are saying almost exactly.
Also, explain why it sounds implausible, I mean (from what I know) this wouldn't be the first time something exactly like this has happened and it is being broadcast by reasonably valid news services. Now without looking at the specific broadcasters for their history of making stuff up I can't be certain that their legit, but until you do the same you can't safely say they are not, so don't, especially when so many people are repeating exactly the same denial without backing it up. My problem is not with the proposition that this story is made up, it is with the lack of effort you are putting in to proving that it is made up.
Also, explain why it sounds implausible, I mean (from what I know) this wouldn't be the first time something exactly like this has happened and it is being broadcast by reasonably valid news services. Now without looking at the specific broadcasters for their history of making stuff up I can't be certain that their legit, but until you do the same you can't safely say they are not, so don't, especially when so many people are repeating exactly the same denial without backing it up. My problem is not with the proposition that this story is made up, it is with the lack of effort you are putting in to proving that it is made up.
Good morning sweet princess
/off-topic [kinda]
hmmm, not taking into account the veracity (or not) of the information, what disturbs me is how people react to it.
There's a pretty serious cognitive bias that's been growing rather big during the last decade, the "conspiracy theory bias", which makes people reject any information incriminating their government, either thinking the information is 100% garbage from the start or that it would be dangerous to adhere to that view, feels like some peope think "it must probably the fruit of paranoïd people at war against imaginary X-files-like conspiracies" whenever they hear something bad about their government from someone/something that isn't their favorite source of information. That's some pretty serious brainwashing.
Or on the contrary, some people would think something is automatically true if it involves their government doing badshiet stuff because they're all terrible and evil people, and that's not better.
Yes indeed, there's no secret government agenda for a New World Order or phantasmagoric world domination plans, but governments aren't pure and particulary devoted to the people either. Governments are neutral entities made of a multitude of human beings, each with their own sense of moral, ideology (or lack off), and career plans, in a rather ultra-individualistic social environment, often mixed with some nationalist interests with a chaotic geopolitical situation in the background. How could you instantly reject the fact some people might take advantage of that environment/situation for their own profit or for the interest of their country ? It's like leaving a kid in a room for 5h with a jar of cookies and tell him/her "don't eat those cookies", you can be sure a large percentage of kids would.
A lot of people don't really care about the consequences of their choices/actions as long as it doesn't spray them back, it's the same thing among the political caste ; some peeps go by the rules, some don't. You can't say an information is true or false as long has it hasn't been thoroughly verified and/or confirmed by yourself or a group of trustworthy dedicated people. Just like Justice, you need proofs and a serious investigation, not some gut feelings that your brain links to some other unrelated affairs. (someone was talking about JFK or 9/11 above, there are not even remotely connected, if not by that cognition bias).
All you can say is "maybe" and all you can do is keeping your mind open to the fact your first opinion might be wrong, and almost certainly biased (whatever your opinion is). Then, if you're interested in it, you can do your own research and ask yourself basic questions : what are the involved parties ? is there money involved (ofc there always is) ? who profits from that situation the most ? in what ways could that situation evolve ? who would profit those hypothetical changes ? Has it been willingly done or is it an unwanted situation which people can take advantage of ? etc...
Anyway, ignore the emotions, bring the logic. \\\/// (vulcan salute)
hmmm, not taking into account the veracity (or not) of the information, what disturbs me is how people react to it.
There's a pretty serious cognitive bias that's been growing rather big during the last decade, the "conspiracy theory bias", which makes people reject any information incriminating their government, either thinking the information is 100% garbage from the start or that it would be dangerous to adhere to that view, feels like some peope think "it must probably the fruit of paranoïd people at war against imaginary X-files-like conspiracies" whenever they hear something bad about their government from someone/something that isn't their favorite source of information. That's some pretty serious brainwashing.
Or on the contrary, some people would think something is automatically true if it involves their government doing badshiet stuff because they're all terrible and evil people, and that's not better.
Yes indeed, there's no secret government agenda for a New World Order or phantasmagoric world domination plans, but governments aren't pure and particulary devoted to the people either. Governments are neutral entities made of a multitude of human beings, each with their own sense of moral, ideology (or lack off), and career plans, in a rather ultra-individualistic social environment, often mixed with some nationalist interests with a chaotic geopolitical situation in the background. How could you instantly reject the fact some people might take advantage of that environment/situation for their own profit or for the interest of their country ? It's like leaving a kid in a room for 5h with a jar of cookies and tell him/her "don't eat those cookies", you can be sure a large percentage of kids would.
A lot of people don't really care about the consequences of their choices/actions as long as it doesn't spray them back, it's the same thing among the political caste ; some peeps go by the rules, some don't. You can't say an information is true or false as long has it hasn't been thoroughly verified and/or confirmed by yourself or a group of trustworthy dedicated people. Just like Justice, you need proofs and a serious investigation, not some gut feelings that your brain links to some other unrelated affairs. (someone was talking about JFK or 9/11 above, there are not even remotely connected, if not by that cognition bias).
All you can say is "maybe" and all you can do is keeping your mind open to the fact your first opinion might be wrong, and almost certainly biased (whatever your opinion is). Then, if you're interested in it, you can do your own research and ask yourself basic questions : what are the involved parties ? is there money involved (ofc there always is) ? who profits from that situation the most ? in what ways could that situation evolve ? who would profit those hypothetical changes ? Has it been willingly done or is it an unwanted situation which people can take advantage of ? etc...
Anyway, ignore the emotions, bring the logic. \\\/// (vulcan salute)
Last edited by deprav; Jun 1, 2015 at 02:03 AM.
