I read this as Steak and Beer.
Invasion of US Capitol building
- Thread starter El Barto
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
RobinBHM
Established Member
Over the last few days an "election fraud" conspiracist has started making loads of threads on diynot forum.
This is not a new member - he has been on the site years
It really shocked me how brainwashed this person is....honestly the posts were endless and fired off faster than anybody could counter them with facts.
The central theme was "you are just sheep following mainstream media lies"
The guy was posting loads of stuff lifted off Parler, every one either a known conspiracist or had connections to Trump.......
I learnt one thing: irony is totally lost on conspiracists.
Recall the early parts of the russian election thing here in the states? It could've been over in a year. There was nothing there of substance. Lots of stuff found out about guys associated with the president, but they were acting in their own self interest (that's the most likely scenario). It went on for what....three years? My mother still believes that someone from russia calls the US, wires money to the president (but only one of them, not the others) and tells the president what to do and what to look past.
This election stuff is the same way. My mother's view of it (which goes along with these election conspiracies) is "if it keeps coming up, then there must be something to it". My response to her was "if there was something material or substantive, we'd know about it for now. If something keeps coming up, that means people keep clicking on it or donating money paid to people to keep bringing it up". She'd have sent me to my room if she could have.
the conspiracy theories now are much the same. the inner 75% of the population doesn't believe either of the issues was material, but they don't vote with clicks and money. The fringes do. The corporate concerns stay away from the fringe and throw their money at the middle 75%, or causes on behalf of them. The problem with the 12 1/2% on each end (making up numbers, but you get the point) is that they don't realize that they are almost identical to each other. They both want a certain answer without wanting to be burdened by truth. If you can fuel yourself with something that's not proof, you can go for a long time, because who can prove you wrong?
This election stuff is the same way. My mother's view of it (which goes along with these election conspiracies) is "if it keeps coming up, then there must be something to it". My response to her was "if there was something material or substantive, we'd know about it for now. If something keeps coming up, that means people keep clicking on it or donating money paid to people to keep bringing it up". She'd have sent me to my room if she could have.
the conspiracy theories now are much the same. the inner 75% of the population doesn't believe either of the issues was material, but they don't vote with clicks and money. The fringes do. The corporate concerns stay away from the fringe and throw their money at the middle 75%, or causes on behalf of them. The problem with the 12 1/2% on each end (making up numbers, but you get the point) is that they don't realize that they are almost identical to each other. They both want a certain answer without wanting to be burdened by truth. If you can fuel yourself with something that's not proof, you can go for a long time, because who can prove you wrong?
billw
The Tattooed One
I saw this placard and thought it was one of Heston Blumenthal's recipes.
I read this as Steak and Beer.
I think they're teetotalers (a bunch of protestant rural germans - way different than the urban germans in germany). But it's actually true that a lot of the grains that go into beer are up in that part of the country. I think coors is near there and a lot of the grower's contracts are up there, but I wouldn't go so far as to call most of what they make "beer".
Pastured beef is a good guess, though. That's "dryland" area in that part of the country. Enough water to grow grass and wheat and things of the like, but not corn or soybeans. They're grown there only with irrigation. Marginal dryland is great for cattle grazing.
billw
The Tattooed One
This is an interesting read about dealing with conspiracy theorists and some of the reasons that people get absorbed into them.
How should you talk to friends and relatives who believe conspiracy theories? - BBC News
How should you talk to friends and relatives who believe conspiracy theories? - BBC News
I'd not do well with those people...
.."so....aside from what you say is in the vaccine, I hear it's pretty effective, and I'm in!"
I do #3 and #4, but I have to admit that I'm antagonizing rather than trying to solve a conspiracy theorist. Use words like "what's likely" or "what would be more likely than that in this case, and why are we treating several unlikely things linked together, which is really really really unlikely as what they're betting on.
"if rudy has a smoking gun case for mass fraud, which is more likely: 1) he would file it right away, win the case and this would be over, 2) he would tell you that he has something and keep stringing you along with it because people with a point always wait until the last second to actually prove it
If rudy wishes he had a smoking gun case, but is waiting and hoping to find something, which is more likely:
1) he would file it right away and fail showing he has nothing, or 2) above
It seems like it's more likely that he has nothing or he'd be filing it instead of talking about it".
Now, if there are ten other guys just like Rudy saying the same thing - they're sitting on something that would blow this wide open, what are the chances that the first scenario is going on, but they all pick #2.
Wouldn't the one of them who filed and won a case early on stand to gain something? perhaps writing a book, booking paid appearances, fame? How could all of them avoid that?
What's likely is often not convenient, and nobody likes to say "i'll wait and observe everything, and then see what I think the right answer is later". The people who do that are quiet and too busy observing to make a stink. It's nice to be right in the end even if you have to say "I don't know in the interim" and stick to "I think it's more likely that __ and in the absence of proof, I'm going to go with what's likely because that's generally how we get ahead as individuals on the long run....or at least how we avoid very foolish failure."
AJB Temple
Finely figured
By and large, my experience of life so far is once people have established a view, especially if expressed in a forum or similar, they will not change it. The respective sides remain polarised.
You're far ahead of me if you've had better luck with people in real life. I have noticed face to face, people will stand and not object to something and then tell someone else you're an silly person later, even if it's because they believe something that's bonkers.
I'm always open to being proven wrong. It's the benefit of being an independent. There's a term that I heard once - if what you observe generally conflicts with what you expect, then you have to change what you expect to what you observe. It went something like that.
I've noticed other strange patterns (more in person):
* religious people who will say they're skeptical and will only believe what they can see with their own two eyes
* people who claim the latter from above, but tend to not believe what they see with their own two eyes, anyway
My parents are on both ends of the political spectrum (fairly far). They've convinced me to sit in the middle and observe instead. They don't think they've convinced me of that, they both think I don't know enough yet and when I do, I'll adopt their positions, but they've convinced me that observing and waiting to draw a conclusion is better. And anticipating what's likely (whether you like it or not) is a more reliable direction to go.
Just as what the question above is (though I have no real dog in the fight on the answer to that one "if they could've stopped the protesters, why did they let them in? The likely answer is that they chose to. Now from what we've learned, that's the actual answer - they didn't send in reinforcements for 3 hours. Anyone with some curiosity will posit what they think is likely, check later to see whether or not they made a good guess, and accumulate mentally or otherwise what outcomes have been to calibrate anticipating the likely or rational. It sure is nice not to have to waste time on "knowing" something that you don't actually know and being willing to admit you don't know.)
RobinBHM
Established Member
Choice supportive bias.
As a person ages, regulating personal emotion becomes a higher priority, whereas knowledge acquisition becomes less of a powerful motive. Therefore, choice-supportive bias would arise because their focus was on how they felt about the choice rather than on the factual details of the options
billw
The Tattooed One
It'll probably be a pretty safe place to go if you have admittance. But avoiding anything political in life doesn't really result in the "emptiness" that a lot of people think it will. It just requires folks find something else to get angry about if that's what they're really looking for.
This response was predictable, though, and why I made the comment earlier that the idea that things would just shut down and we'd have a coup were goofy. The government didn't respond at all to the first rally as a calculated move. They'll prevent a second one.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Michael Moore's warnings could be on the mark. More stuff on the way but the forces of law and order will turn out, in a way which they conspicuously failed to do on the 6th
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ttorneys-general-association-robocall-capitolhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Capitol-DC-braces-inauguration-protests.htmlhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/11/trump-protests-us-states-fbi-alert-state-capitols
Last edited:
NormanB
Established Member
Arnie Schwarzenegger puts forward his view on theses recent events (and Trump) and I have to say, with the gravitas, credibility and even a bit of humour that Trump never achieved during all his time in office as POTUS - of course ARNIE can never be POTUS and is/has been a member of the Republican Party.
Link
Link
You do realize that Michael Moore's job is to agitate you to get you to look at him. Or you don't realize that? I'd imagine since he's from Canada, the only reason that he's doing it here and not there is because you can make more money doing it here.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
D_W said:
"I'm outta this thread"
"I'm outta this thread"
- Status
