Yup. Another build-up period in which radio talk show hosts such as Alex Jones were saying, "I feel something is building. I can feel it." And nothing happens. Again. Three or four talk show hosts said the same thing. People were posting it here. "Ooooh, something dark and evil is approaching." Except, nothing. Again. Like all the other times.
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Well, I suppose it is authorised but the media quite literally does use the threat of violence and intimidation on a daily basis to further political aims.
By that standard anyone here calling for mass action could be interpreted as terrorism. It doesn't make sense there and it doesn't make sense here either.
This is not a serious discussion. There are plenty of problems with modern media and plenty of ways to talk about it. Equating it to terrorism is not one.
For one thing it's beyond stupid, but that's personal. It's also the most adolescent possible response, equating a relatively free press to suicide bombings, mass shootings etc.
It's silly and childish and that's how you get top comment here at /r/edgy
Yes, it does. The MSM uses violence and intimidation to create political change. They fit the definition I provided, which is the definition of terrorism.
Call it childish all you want, you have not refuted the fact that the main stream media does in fact meet the definition of terrorism.
If you believe that terrorism is only suicide bombs, planes flying into buildings and mass shootings then that is on you. Terrorism can take many forms, the MSM is one of those forms.
Yes, it does. The MSM uses violence and intimidation to create political change. They fit the definition I provided, which is the definition of terrorism.
By "uses" you mean "talk about and display". The definition you supplied is, in my view, perfectly clear in that "uses" means "employs".
Do you mean to say that discussing or showing images of violence in order to create political change equates to terrorism?
That is unless your idea is based on mainstream media committing violent acts, if so please say so.
Also, source that definition please. It's getting more wobbly by the second.
Call it childish all you want, you have not refuted the fact that the main stream media does in fact meet the definition of terrorism.
That's really neither here nor there, considering the way you're interpreting that definition.
It meets your definition, according to your interpretation of the word "uses". I think a violent and intimidating act needs to have some violence in it. You clearly state that talking about violence is enough to count as a violent act. Going by your interpretation of your definition, of course.
As I see it it's childish and almost incomprehensibly stupid to lump media discussion of violence under the same heading as actual violence.
If you believe that terrorism is only suicide bombs, planes flying into buildings and mass shootings then that is on you.
I never said that. Don't be that guy.
Terrorism can take many forms, the MSM is one of those forms.
How? You said terrorism is violence and intimidation. Where's the violence committed by the media?
The definition is from the Oxford English dictionary. Since we are talking in English I assumed the actual definition of the word we are using would be sufficient.
It's clearly not sufficient as I've asked a bunch of questions about your interpretation which you've avoided by pointing to the definition again. A definition that supports multiple views.
It's almost like words can be interpreted in different ways. Oh my God the world is collapsing.
I'll ask it straight up then - do you consider the discussion and broadcast of violent events to be terrorism?
That's what your interpretation of the definition suggests and I find this interpretation absurd.
If I'm misunderstanding please say so.
And yes, it uses violence, in the definition it did not use the word employ, it used the word uses.
Again, what do you mean by "use". I've told you what I consider it to mean, tell me if I'm wrong.
Multiple interpretations can exist, but hiding behind ambiguous definitions is really boring.
The mainstream media no longer just reports the news, it is used to shape opinion and that is obvious to anyone with a brain.
That differs between outlets. For some true, for others not. This is not terrorism.
For me, terrorism has to include the commission of a violent act by the terrorising party. Do you agree? Previous comments indicate you don't.
I don't see that the MSM simply broadcasts and discusses the violence. They are selective in what they broadcast to fit a narative. If they were broadcasting violence for the sake of informing then of course it isn't terrrorism, but that isn't what they are doing. They broadcast these images, videos etc to create political change through nurturing a culture of fear. It is the purpose of the broadcasting that makes all the difference.
And I don't see how I can be clearer in this, I see that the MSM USES violence, which fits the definition. You are the one changing the definition to perpetrates violence, not me.
EDIT. Obviously I don't agree, I stated that the MSM doesn't commit violent acts yet I stated that I believe they fit the definition of terrorists. You are the one selectively interpreting the definition, not me.
Kinda like how /r/conspiracy does the same thing by posting that a "false flag attack is gonna happen anytime now to distract us from blah blah blah." Or " a drill scheduled somewhere at sometime? Something is definitely gonna happen then!"
Government/media: to keep that drivel in your head.
It wouldn't have been a truly American 4th if we didn't have the subtle fear in the back of our heads that all the violence we dish out is at some point coming back to us.
I listen and watch conspiracy talk every single day, most of my youtube subs and podcast subs are all conspiracy related.
But I have to wonder.... who the hell you are talking about? Who was afraid yesterday? Certainly not me, I had a wonderful day chowing down and drinking and having fun.
I don't believe any of you, or anyone at all, was afraid yesterday of anything.
My message is that the powers that be want us to be afraid so we are dependent upon them. So they can take away more of our rights.
“An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland.”
I'm quite willing to bet those people were likely not afraid of anything either. Probably hanging out and enjoying the day same as any other normal person.
Nobody is actually afraid of these things, that is why every single time something happens every person interviewed always says "I never even imagined this could happen"
I think they convinced Most of usthat they already won a few years ago. But the tide still has time to change. They want people who know about this to think this is inevitable. But It is not. Yet.
Exactly what I was wondering with the posts this weekend. I can't think of a single event where everyone, including the MSM, said "something will happen on x date" and something actually happened. It's too on-the-nose. Surprise is a huge part of the fear they want to cause.
Same. Every year it seems like the internet forums have been saying "the big event is coming, nuclear weapons, martial law, the end of the world, etc" but it never happens. Same with threats. All the attacks/incidents whether you think they are false flags or legit have been surprises.
When they do their false flag, they aren't going to notify us ahead of time; at least not in an ordinary way. I guess there is that weird Illuminati thing, where they have to announce what they are doing and receive consent, but not necessarily in a way that people can understand.
I guess there is that weird Illuminati thing, where they have to announce what they are doing and receive consent, but not necessarily in a way that people can understand.
Interesting, would you mind expanding on this? Who do they announce to, and where has the information come from that this is actually a practice?
Well, there are occurrences of what some have termed "predictive programming," which just a term for conditioning/priming the mass conscience using media laced with subconscious "clues" which are, as some believe, the Elite's way of "warning" the public of catastrophic events. A good example of such a phenomenon is Family Guy, a show perfect for subconscious brainwashing due to its off-the-wall, seemingly "random" nature, correctly "predicting" some major occurrences, such as the Boston Marathon bombings and Bruce Jenner's transition into Caitlyn. Saturday Night Live has also supposedly been used to push secret agendas (including that of the 9/11 attacks) before they had come to full fruition. If anyone else has more info/examples, I'd certainly appreciate it.
Source: Betsy McGee on YouTube. Please check out her channel; she's a bona fide, homework-doing badass.
Yeah there's no hard evidence of anything in her videos about family guy at all though. It's merely her picking tiny coincidences and making them into what she claims is evidence of the elite warning people of an event. I don't know why you'd choose to believe anything she says, let alone actually telling people about it.
I never said I believe her every word, just that she does her homework and is a pretty swell analyzer. She seems intelligent and open-minded to me, so while I may not end up siding with her on everything, we still share a similar (and in my opinion healthy) distrust of government and mass media. Her striking analysis of Family Guy's "prediction" of Robin Williams' death is what really got to me.
this is a bit interesting regarding the clandestine agency covering for the sandy hook psy-op, while this about a mass casualty event involving children is highly suspicious.
I never said I believe her every word, just that she does her homework and is a pretty swell analyzer. She seems intelligent and open-minded to me, so while I may not end up siding with her on everything, we still share a similar (and in my opinion healthy) distrust of government and mass media. Her striking analysis of Family Guy's "prediction" of Robin Williams' death is what really got to me.
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Well, I suppose it is authorised but the media quite literally does use the threat of violence and intimidation on a daily basis to further political aims.
By that standard anyone here calling for mass action could be interpreted as terrorism. It doesn't make sense there and it doesn't make sense here either.
This is not a serious discussion. There are plenty of problems with modern media and plenty of ways to talk about it. Equating it to terrorism is not one.
For one thing it's beyond stupid, but that's personal. It's also the most adolescent possible response, equating a relatively free press to suicide bombings, mass shootings etc.
It's silly and childish and that's how you get top comment here at /r/edgy
Yes, it does. The MSM uses violence and intimidation to create political change. They fit the definition I provided, which is the definition of terrorism.
By "uses" you mean "talk about and display". The definition you supplied is, in my view, perfectly clear in that "uses" means "employs".
Do you mean to say that discussing or showing images of violence in order to create political change equates to terrorism?
That is unless your idea is based on mainstream media committing violent acts, if so please say so.
Also, source that definition please. It's getting more wobbly by the second.
Call it childish all you want, you have not refuted the fact that the main stream media does in fact meet the definition of terrorism.
That's really neither here nor there, considering the way you're interpreting that definition.
It meets your definition, according to your interpretation of the word "uses". I think a violent and intimidating act needs to have some violence in it. You clearly state that talking about violence is enough to count as a violent act. Going by your interpretation of your definition, of course.
As I see it it's childish and almost incomprehensibly stupid to lump media discussion of violence under the same heading as actual violence.
If you believe that terrorism is only suicide bombs, planes flying into buildings and mass shootings then that is on you.
I never said that. Don't be that guy.
Terrorism can take many forms, the MSM is one of those forms.
How? You said terrorism is violence and intimidation. Where's the violence committed by the media?
45 comments
18 4to6 2015-07-05
Yup. Another build-up period in which radio talk show hosts such as Alex Jones were saying, "I feel something is building. I can feel it." And nothing happens. Again. Three or four talk show hosts said the same thing. People were posting it here. "Ooooh, something dark and evil is approaching." Except, nothing. Again. Like all the other times.
2 IgnoreTheTwoof 2015-07-05
Until something DOES happen, like another crazy idiot with a gun shoots a bunch of people and then all the fear mongers will go, "SEE! I TOLD YOU SO!"
-5 tight_lips_tony 2015-07-05
All those shootings are fake, so.......
14 IgnoreTheTwoof 2015-07-05
Right. They're all just false flags. Every incident that ever takes place in the US is secretly staged by the government for...reasons.
-3 tight_lips_tony 2015-07-05
Not every but most
15 GreatNorthernHouses 2015-07-05
If something happens - it's a false flag
If nothing happens - it's government scare tactics
Talk about painting yourself into a win-win situation
12 prizzaparty 2015-07-05
The media has become the definition of terrorism.
-7 Tchocky 2015-07-05
I cringed reading that.
5 PM-me-your-glutes 2015-07-05
Terrorism:
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Well, I suppose it is authorised but the media quite literally does use the threat of violence and intimidation on a daily basis to further political aims.
-4 Tchocky 2015-07-05
By that standard anyone here calling for mass action could be interpreted as terrorism. It doesn't make sense there and it doesn't make sense here either.
This is not a serious discussion. There are plenty of problems with modern media and plenty of ways to talk about it. Equating it to terrorism is not one.
For one thing it's beyond stupid, but that's personal. It's also the most adolescent possible response, equating a relatively free press to suicide bombings, mass shootings etc.
It's silly and childish and that's how you get top comment here at /r/edgy
6 PM-me-your-glutes 2015-07-05
None of what you just said changes the fact that the main stream media fits that definition of terrorism.
-4 Tchocky 2015-07-05
No it bloody well doesn't fit.
You posted "violence and intimidation".
You can make a case for intimidation, I don't agree but there's certainly a discussion there.
But where is the media carrying out violence to further political aims?
Do you see how stupid this is?
1 [deleted] 2015-07-05
[deleted]
1 Tchocky 2015-07-05
Oh, come on. This is childish.
None of this meets the definition of terrorism you provided above.
If they didn't show images of actual wars, actual police raids etc they would not be reporting the news.
Straight up - do you think that current media activities deserve the label of "terrorism"?
Terrorism != scary pictures.
0 PM-me-your-glutes 2015-07-05
Yes, it does. The MSM uses violence and intimidation to create political change. They fit the definition I provided, which is the definition of terrorism.
Call it childish all you want, you have not refuted the fact that the main stream media does in fact meet the definition of terrorism.
If you believe that terrorism is only suicide bombs, planes flying into buildings and mass shootings then that is on you. Terrorism can take many forms, the MSM is one of those forms.
1 Tchocky 2015-07-05
By "uses" you mean "talk about and display". The definition you supplied is, in my view, perfectly clear in that "uses" means "employs".
Do you mean to say that discussing or showing images of violence in order to create political change equates to terrorism?
That is unless your idea is based on mainstream media committing violent acts, if so please say so.
Also, source that definition please. It's getting more wobbly by the second.
That's really neither here nor there, considering the way you're interpreting that definition.
It meets your definition, according to your interpretation of the word "uses". I think a violent and intimidating act needs to have some violence in it. You clearly state that talking about violence is enough to count as a violent act. Going by your interpretation of your definition, of course.
As I see it it's childish and almost incomprehensibly stupid to lump media discussion of violence under the same heading as actual violence.
I never said that. Don't be that guy.
How? You said terrorism is violence and intimidation. Where's the violence committed by the media?
0 [deleted] 2015-07-05
[deleted]
2 Tchocky 2015-07-05
It's clearly not sufficient as I've asked a bunch of questions about your interpretation which you've avoided by pointing to the definition again. A definition that supports multiple views.
It's almost like words can be interpreted in different ways. Oh my God the world is collapsing.
I'll ask it straight up then - do you consider the discussion and broadcast of violent events to be terrorism?
That's what your interpretation of the definition suggests and I find this interpretation absurd.
If I'm misunderstanding please say so.
Again, what do you mean by "use". I've told you what I consider it to mean, tell me if I'm wrong.
Multiple interpretations can exist, but hiding behind ambiguous definitions is really boring.
That differs between outlets. For some true, for others not. This is not terrorism.
For me, terrorism has to include the commission of a violent act by the terrorising party. Do you agree? Previous comments indicate you don't.
0 PM-me-your-glutes 2015-07-05
I don't see that the MSM simply broadcasts and discusses the violence. They are selective in what they broadcast to fit a narative. If they were broadcasting violence for the sake of informing then of course it isn't terrrorism, but that isn't what they are doing. They broadcast these images, videos etc to create political change through nurturing a culture of fear. It is the purpose of the broadcasting that makes all the difference.
And I don't see how I can be clearer in this, I see that the MSM USES violence, which fits the definition. You are the one changing the definition to perpetrates violence, not me.
EDIT. Obviously I don't agree, I stated that the MSM doesn't commit violent acts yet I stated that I believe they fit the definition of terrorists. You are the one selectively interpreting the definition, not me.
6 AppleSlut 2015-07-05
Kinda like how /r/conspiracy does the same thing by posting that a "false flag attack is gonna happen anytime now to distract us from blah blah blah." Or " a drill scheduled somewhere at sometime? Something is definitely gonna happen then!"
Government/media: to keep that drivel in your head.
/r/conspiracy: just asking questions.
4 freedomfan 2015-07-05
My base is still in bravo. And of course my stupid peers still think there is something to be afraid of.
4 TTT_33333 2015-07-05
It wouldn't have been a truly American 4th if we didn't have the subtle fear in the back of our heads that all the violence we dish out is at some point coming back to us.
3 gha671 2015-07-05
You will find the "ISIS operatives" laying under the pool tables at the FBI crisis centers, still drunk from the celebrations of yesterday.
Like we all should be :-)))
3 tight_lips_tony 2015-07-05
You need to be afraid.
Just be really afraid, okay?
There is no threat.
But be scared.
3 Bohemos 2015-07-05
I listen and watch conspiracy talk every single day, most of my youtube subs and podcast subs are all conspiracy related.
But I have to wonder.... who the hell you are talking about? Who was afraid yesterday? Certainly not me, I had a wonderful day chowing down and drinking and having fun.
I don't believe any of you, or anyone at all, was afraid yesterday of anything.
1 tight_lips_tony 2015-07-05
My message is that the powers that be want us to be afraid so we are dependent upon them. So they can take away more of our rights.
“An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland.”
1 digdog303 2015-07-05
Did you miss the several dozen posts in this sub about how a false flag was imminent? Plenty of people here wouldn't shut up about it.
1 Bohemos 2015-07-05
I'm quite willing to bet those people were likely not afraid of anything either. Probably hanging out and enjoying the day same as any other normal person.
Nobody is actually afraid of these things, that is why every single time something happens every person interviewed always says "I never even imagined this could happen"
2 [deleted] 2015-07-05
Oh, there's a threat alright.
It's just not coming from the direction we're told to expect it to come from.
2 upboatbot3 2015-07-05
I think they convinced Most of usthat they already won a few years ago. But the tide still has time to change. They want people who know about this to think this is inevitable. But It is not. Yet.
2 TeenageSurvey 2015-07-05
has there ever been an attack where all the mainstream media was talking about the threat ahead of time? Or have they all been surprises?
1 RchrdJ28 2015-07-05
Exactly what I was wondering with the posts this weekend. I can't think of a single event where everyone, including the MSM, said "something will happen on x date" and something actually happened. It's too on-the-nose. Surprise is a huge part of the fear they want to cause.
1 TeenageSurvey 2015-07-05
Same. Every year it seems like the internet forums have been saying "the big event is coming, nuclear weapons, martial law, the end of the world, etc" but it never happens. Same with threats. All the attacks/incidents whether you think they are false flags or legit have been surprises.
2 5triangles1pentagon 2015-07-05
Gotta keep the siege mentality going.
2 TypoKnig 2015-07-05
Actually read the predictions here first.
1 s70n3834r 2015-07-05
When they do their false flag, they aren't going to notify us ahead of time; at least not in an ordinary way. I guess there is that weird Illuminati thing, where they have to announce what they are doing and receive consent, but not necessarily in a way that people can understand.
6 ___WE-ARE-GROOT___ 2015-07-05
Interesting, would you mind expanding on this? Who do they announce to, and where has the information come from that this is actually a practice?
0 sorg_o 2015-07-05
Well, there are occurrences of what some have termed "predictive programming," which just a term for conditioning/priming the mass conscience using media laced with subconscious "clues" which are, as some believe, the Elite's way of "warning" the public of catastrophic events. A good example of such a phenomenon is Family Guy, a show perfect for subconscious brainwashing due to its off-the-wall, seemingly "random" nature, correctly "predicting" some major occurrences, such as the Boston Marathon bombings and Bruce Jenner's transition into Caitlyn. Saturday Night Live has also supposedly been used to push secret agendas (including that of the 9/11 attacks) before they had come to full fruition. If anyone else has more info/examples, I'd certainly appreciate it.
Source: Betsy McGee on YouTube. Please check out her channel; she's a bona fide, homework-doing badass.
5 ___WE-ARE-GROOT___ 2015-07-05
Yeah there's no hard evidence of anything in her videos about family guy at all though. It's merely her picking tiny coincidences and making them into what she claims is evidence of the elite warning people of an event. I don't know why you'd choose to believe anything she says, let alone actually telling people about it.
-1 sorg_o 2015-07-05
I never said I believe her every word, just that she does her homework and is a pretty swell analyzer. She seems intelligent and open-minded to me, so while I may not end up siding with her on everything, we still share a similar (and in my opinion healthy) distrust of government and mass media. Her striking analysis of Family Guy's "prediction" of Robin Williams' death is what really got to me.
5 ___WE-ARE-GROOT___ 2015-07-05
She is very well spoken, and she is certainly skilled at laying out her arguments, but she lacks any actual evidence of anything.
3 tight_lips_tony 2015-07-05
I think this is a really great example of foreknowledge, but what do I know.....
1 sorg_o 2015-07-05
Wow… that is extremely unsettling, not unlike looking over similar presentations regarding NSA data mining. Thank you.
1 tight_lips_tony 2015-07-05
this is a bit interesting regarding the clandestine agency covering for the sandy hook psy-op, while this about a mass casualty event involving children is highly suspicious.
1 TheAmericanPharaoh 2015-07-05
I thought the hype was for the entire 4th of July weekend?
0 csehszlovakze 2015-07-05
It would have been way too trivial.
-1 tight_lips_tony 2015-07-05
Such a letdown!
Lousy terrorists.
Terrorists just aren't what they used to be.
0 [deleted] 2015-07-05
It's a shame really. I was kinda hoping there would be at least on pathetic "plot" instigated by the FBI "foiled at the last minute" this 4th of July
1 tight_lips_tony 2015-07-05
I know. I had my beer ready and everything.
I was ready to shout "USA! USA!" but it never arrived.
September is not so far off.
-1 sorg_o 2015-07-05
I never said I believe her every word, just that she does her homework and is a pretty swell analyzer. She seems intelligent and open-minded to me, so while I may not end up siding with her on everything, we still share a similar (and in my opinion healthy) distrust of government and mass media. Her striking analysis of Family Guy's "prediction" of Robin Williams' death is what really got to me.
5 PM-me-your-glutes 2015-07-05
Terrorism:
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Well, I suppose it is authorised but the media quite literally does use the threat of violence and intimidation on a daily basis to further political aims.
-4 Tchocky 2015-07-05
By that standard anyone here calling for mass action could be interpreted as terrorism. It doesn't make sense there and it doesn't make sense here either.
This is not a serious discussion. There are plenty of problems with modern media and plenty of ways to talk about it. Equating it to terrorism is not one.
For one thing it's beyond stupid, but that's personal. It's also the most adolescent possible response, equating a relatively free press to suicide bombings, mass shootings etc.
It's silly and childish and that's how you get top comment here at /r/edgy
-4 Tchocky 2015-07-05
No it bloody well doesn't fit.
You posted "violence and intimidation".
You can make a case for intimidation, I don't agree but there's certainly a discussion there.
But where is the media carrying out violence to further political aims?
Do you see how stupid this is?
1 Tchocky 2015-07-05
By "uses" you mean "talk about and display". The definition you supplied is, in my view, perfectly clear in that "uses" means "employs".
Do you mean to say that discussing or showing images of violence in order to create political change equates to terrorism?
That is unless your idea is based on mainstream media committing violent acts, if so please say so.
Also, source that definition please. It's getting more wobbly by the second.
That's really neither here nor there, considering the way you're interpreting that definition.
It meets your definition, according to your interpretation of the word "uses". I think a violent and intimidating act needs to have some violence in it. You clearly state that talking about violence is enough to count as a violent act. Going by your interpretation of your definition, of course.
As I see it it's childish and almost incomprehensibly stupid to lump media discussion of violence under the same heading as actual violence.
I never said that. Don't be that guy.
How? You said terrorism is violence and intimidation. Where's the violence committed by the media?