So if they agree with your fundamental presumptions, they're sincere. If they don't, they can be dismissed out of hand as not worth listening to? Well, I'll give you one thing, it sure sounds convenient.

All this does is make explicit what conspiracy theorists (and to be fair, everyone else) have always done: attack the presumed motives of the speaker rather than the facts, with no evidence that those motives are true besides your own bad faith. Congratulations, you've added another layer of jargon and rationalization to garden-variety confirmation bias.

Of course, everything you've written above can be used just as easily to dismiss me as a shill (FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a reptoid sympathizer, and do look forward to the extermination of humanity), so I do have to at least admire the tautological efficiency of your theory.

Listen, I consider myself politically "upwing," I distrust all hierarchical systems intensely, and I consider myself a pretty sharp critic. But I also have no patience for pseudo-rational tactics. So let's think about the implications of this for a second. A simple thought experiment. Imagine someone with a totally outlandish conspiracy theory, like, I don't know, "butterflies control the media."

You innocently attempt to point out that butterflies don't even have the neural complexity to understand human language, much less create a shadow government. They accuse you of "justifying the system" of butterfly control, despite all their carefully piled (and subtly obfuscated) evidence, because you won't pick up a net and help them chase the culprits. They dismiss you as willfully blind and actively stupid, too cynical and apathetic to accept that the REAL power behind CNN, Fox, and the BBC is a hive of psychic insects from Mars. They call you a pseudoskeptic. Any attempt to point out that these are only labels and are immaterial to the facts about butterflies fall on deaf ears.

How exactly, if you are genuinely unpersuaded that telepathic lepidoptera broadcast anti-mammal propaganda through the major networks, would you go about even communicating with, much less persuading a True Believer? Are you really left with any alternative than to dismiss them as Just Too Far Gone and leave them to gibbering at innocent moths? If our Butterfly Believer is wrong, how they can receive the relevant evidence without dismissing it, when everyone who contradicts them has already been defined out of existence as Doubleplusbad Moththink?

How, in short, do the principles you laid out not work just as well to defend false theories as true ones?

(I am NOT attempting to say any specific conspiracy hypothesis is incorrect by comparing it to this outlandish theory. I am agnostic about all theories until I have seen overwhelming and logically consistent proof. I'm just trying to point out that the above principles could be applied trivially easily to defend ideas that are patently absurd, and pad genuinely delusional or propagandized people against reality. You HAVE to have some internal model for the "honest enemy" if you want your belief system to turn into anything but an echo chamber. You HAVE to at least provisionally entertain the chance you might be wrong.)

[Actual full disclosure: I'm an ex-Christian, ex-Objectivist, ex-Marxist, ex-SJW, and ex-neopagan. I have had to run screaming from people's ossified dogma so many times, and I would never have escaped had my critics not ultimately worn me down and shown me how far up my own ass my head had gone. So I don't trust ANYBODY who tells me they know the Secret Truth us ordinary dupes don't understand. I've been stuck down other people's ideological rabbit holes before, and I'm never, ever going back. I am not currently receiving any financial remuneration from the Reptoids.]

His main point is don't be so judgmental. Talk about facts, don't close yourself off to talking to someone because they appear ignorant.

Question: Lets apply this to climate change. Is the "system" defined by those who think the status quo of operating as we have in society, with the same levels of industrial output, and that climate change is not a big deal, OR is it defined by the generally accepted science supporting global warming? I dont know what the system is anymore...

Climate change is a good defining litmus test for this litmus test. That is, is the debate or dispute of "climate change" really fitting for this well-thought out test.

As I see it, we have a problem running "climate change" through this test (as to whether or not one is a climate change believer, a non-believer, or simply supporting the system). a very important qualification for any topic that is to be analyzed by this test is whether or not their exists an "official narrative" on the topic. With climate change, I do not believe there is one.

To me, you have to acknowledge that with climate change—unlike say 9/11 Truth—an intelligent debate is, at minimum, allowed,without one side being ridiculed by the mainstream media and government. Therefore while a debate over "climate change" may be of value to the system as a distraction (irrespective of its existence), it's not exactly suitable for the test set forth in the OP.

When thinking about climate change, the system is defined not by whether we accept that there is a problem (or potential/future problem), but rather by the solution that is promoted. If the solution leads to more control of the population and an increase in wealth inequality e.g. the ultra wealthy profit from the solution and the middle class pays for the solution, then that is the system solution.

Therefore, if middle class and poor citizens promote said solution, then OP's test would apply.

Or is "global warming" just a method of controlling the masses into a sense of hopelessness? We have free and renewable energy; they just keep getting squashed out of existence.

Generating the electricity isn't difficult; it's storing the energy generated that is costly. We've been generating energy with water, wind, and sun for decades. What it comes down to is that if the public can generate their own electricity and store it (via Tesla Powerwall or something of the like), there's suddenly no need for coal, oil, or nuclear. We've built our society on making money. There's no money to be made if the public has access to natural, renewable resources.

This economy is all about building a profit. This is why you see fast food chains resorting to serving breakfast (like Taco Bell) or serving breakfast all day (like McDonald's). Because the public is waking up and realizing that it's shitty junk food and their profits were down because people started supporting small, farm-to-table restaurants. That's why you see big companies like Anheuser-Busch (AB InBev now) making "craft" beers and buying microbreweries. Their profits are down and they're getting desperate.

If the public can make behemoths like AB InBev and McDonald's desperate like that, imagine what we can do when it comes to energy and shelter.

Amusing that you quote Tesla Powerwall. The biggest customers for tesla batteries are utility companies making huge battery farms to assist with load balancing.

Always a bummer when companies sell out. It's like when your favorite band signs to a shitty label for a fast paycheck and they are never like they were before.

Everything you have stated can be applied to any "system" or as I call it, group. We as humans are faulty. Some are born corrupt, some become corrupt and exactly opposite, some are born good and some become good, and the other 90% fall dead smack in the middle. What the real problem is the lack of ability of the more recent generations to think freely and for themselves, whether it be a conspiracy or just general news. People believe what they are being told, because it lines up with what they think would explain the current situation and dig in. Screw facts or logic after that. Because someone believes in a system doesn't make them a sheeple. The system has advanced society and technology to wonderful places. If "they" were all out to get us, do you really think we would still be here? If they are as powerful and deadly as people say they are, why didn't they just nuke NYC? They control the people and information. What, killing 10 million people instead of 3000 would have had a different impact? Our response was to kill 10s of millions of people, destroy nations, create ISIS and a whole group of other bad effects. And this makes them safer?

Honestly, I believe there are a number of things people and systems cover up, but really what impact directly have you had from 911? Shit, for me, literally nothing. Still get paid, still have my house, still do safely what I have been doing safely for decades. Literally, zero impact. I can say, neighbors and people in the hood have caused me and my family 1000 times more damage then any government agency or system ever will. Humans suck, and they run the system. That's why it sucks, not because there is a huge conspiracy against everyone.

I can't meet a family member who flies in at the gate anymore. I can't take a can of Starbuck's Doubleshot in with me past the TSA sons of bitches for some lame reason. Don't tell me there hasn't been any impact.

Minor interruptions at best. Ever flown Israeli?

Our response was to kill 10s of millions of people

well wrt 911 it looks to be around 6 million, but point taken

Did you hear about the Italian chef that died? He pasta way.

Seems that way. They won't be back. ;)

Great post BTW.

Usually by being a mod or an admin.

AE9/11 Truth has to focus on the pros and cons of the engineering aspect of the towers, they cannot openly advocate the CGI aspect of 9/11, they prove the BS of the official collapse story.

the rest of us can point out the CGI of 9/11 and what that means for the whole fairy tale.

1) The etymology of the word "system" doesn't matter, we all know what you mean.

2) When you say "The system is corrupt" you are generalizing too much. You mean everyone that works for the US federal government has their own corrupt agenda? Or just people at the top? Or do you mean some secret cabal that actually calls the shots? What about local government, or certain congresspeople, or certain judges?

3) some people will accept that there is some corruption in the government, but will feel that you exaggerate the spread of corruption, or they will think that some corruption is unavoidable, and that the current situation is acceptable, especially compared to other systems.

4) the existence of corruption does not mean that everyone believes your conspiracy theories. You are certainly right that somewhere in "the system", people are corrupt. That doesn't mean all your theories are true.

I just wanted to throw in there that "the system" or "Them" are often treated as a generic, unidentified bad guy, and that people should be more specific. Sounds like you are way ahead of me there.

And the etymology analysis is bullshit that i hate hearing, like words are magic things with secret meanings that tell you about the world.

But what i want to make more clear, is that i think it is silly to create a "litmus test" where you essentially say you dont want to hear/talk with people that disagree with you, because you know the Truth (the system is fucked, 911 is a conapiracy). You say you dont want to hear from people that dont agree with you on that, but at the same time you say that people who have already made up their minds/ live in an echo chamber arent worth listening to. Dont you see that you have already made up your mind, youre closed minded about your 911 theory, and your litmus test is essentially a way to lock yourself in an echo chamber?

My characterization that you dont want to hear from ppl that disagree with you is based on this, from your earlier reply:

... 9/11 [is] the only one I care about. And it is a conspiracy, no theory. If you don't believe that, stop talking to me immediately.

And i am not denying that many or most politicians are corrupt in some ways, see my last two points in my original reply. It pisses me off that so many politicians are in the pocket of wealthy lobby groups, etc. But you are way too general in your claims, and saying "the system is fucked", if true, would mean to me "fucked beyond all repair", meaning lets throw it all out, start a revolution, or else mean live outside the system, ignoring all laws and serving your own interests. I think that is too drastic. I feel like many problems could be improved without saying fuck it all, and that it is impossible to prevent all corruption, that a utopia is impossible, but that an imperfect system of government can still be good enough if it has checks and balances that prevent domination by a single party.

So yeah, i am "justifying the system", in the sense that i feel that the US govt, and most western govts in general, are more bad than good, and have institutions in place that would allow us to improve their function over the long term, as long as people take an interest in what their voted officials are doing. After all, we have gotten rid of slavery, extended suffrage to blacks and women, created academic and business environments that have pioneered amazing innovation in science and technology. We have maintained a pretty strong protection for free speech and gun ownership. There are also many points where we failed, too. But key point here-- our government often admits when it screws up. Like you mentioned in your reply, the US government declassifies and releases lots of the documents that show their fuck-upery. How many systems in the history of the world have had anything like the FOIA?

But what alternative do you suggest? Can you imagine a hypothetical world where r/conspiracy users and the readers of infowars and abovetopsecret somehow overthrew the government and eliminated all the secret cabals they imagine pull the strings? They select delegates and hold a constitutional convention, and create a new system. Would it be perfect? I imagine the same tendencies that led to corruption in the current system would prevail again: greed, self interest, fear and desire to protect power. And i imagine a whole new crop of suspicious people would crop up, and declare USA 2.0 totally fucked.

Tl;dr: you said previously you dont want to talk to people that disagree about 911; i concede that there is much corruption in govt, while still maintaining that it works good enough most of the time

Ways that you may be justifying the system. Being cynical and apathetic. "They have too much power" "Our votes don't count" "Can't fight city hall"

I don't view that as justification, I view that instead as the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. There is a reason why things are the way they are, and it does not stem from a lack of optimism. Millions of Americans have protested the system, but largely to no avail, and mostly just surface reform like that seen from the Vietnam era has been accomplished.

The masses, not just 1 million, but the overwhelming majority of Americans would be needed to unite and demonstrate as one. The logistics of getting a movement of that size...is, well, Herculean and is seemingly unfeasible.

We must realize, and accept, that utopia is not something we can have.

The barrier is one of body count. We may have hundreds of Corbett-like folks on the Internet, but their contributions, no matter how truthful or informative, is not equating to people in the streets en masse protesting. In the early 1980's, a million people protested the arms race. What was the result? Hundreds were arrested and the arms race continued. Occupy Wall Street had similar results. The only way to get change is if we (as I said before) band together. However, the deck is entirely stacked against us from accomplishing that.

Taxes are automatically deducted from pay checks. And for the everyday protester that made up the Occupy Movement, there was no 'opt out' option for taxes available to them other than not working. And considering that the overwhelming majority of them are working-poor, skipping shifts would likely end up putting them out on the street, particularly in NYC where prices are outrageous. So, in other words, not a viable option.

As George Carlin once said, "They've got us by the balls!" And they do.

Not a matter of giving up, just the recognition of the odds baring down on us. Until we can generate support en masse, our tires will continue to spin.

This is the first intelligent thing you've said.

Very interesting observations. Reminds me of another thread where someone was discussing the overarching dichotomy in society is actually authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian.

Quality post, chap.

The video for WIllful ignorance is kind of stupid though.

This post is idiotic, Judy Woods and no-planers are clearly cointelpro yet you want them to be considered legitimate opposition? Hilarious.

I think you are closed minded and you are cointelpro.

I think you just convinced me you're not worth talking to, if that's all the evidence that you need that someone's a MiB-or-whatever. Enjoy communing with your psychic butterfly enemies on the space radio, and enjoy your unfalsifiable propositions.

Yeah, hum, no... Anyone with functioning eyes and amateur knowledge of video encoding and compression (which is basically anyone who knows how too use a computer and has dabbled around with various programs, or youtube, or twitch, or, etc etc etc) can debunk any no-planer theory so easily that anyone who believes this sort of crap is either way too gullible to be called a normal functioning adult, or is simply not honest.

I don't which you are but you're doing a terrible job at it either way.

Any idiot with even basic knowledge of video encoding and compression knows that no planers are shills or too stupid to be taken seriously. The fact that I know how to prove that something is bullshit does not make me closed minded, on the contrary, I took the time to learn, and to apply this knowledge.

The fact that you don't want to take the time to learn to differentiate legitimate theories from bullshit tells me you're a moron. Therefore I don't give a shit about what you're saying, you've already proven your ignorance.

Judy Woods is crazy, a shill? only maybe, "dustification" say no more.

How are you certain that the official story is wrong? What evidence lead you to that conclusion? I assume you've done a real concerted investigation.

[deleted]

Well I'm not making any claims. /u/911bodysnatchers322 claimed he was certain the official story was wrong. He also claimed he thought it was wrong to conclude anything without a real concerted investigation. Therefore, he must have made a real concerted investigation to come to the conclusion that the official story was wrong.

I have stated nothing about my conclusions, thus I need not state anything about my possible investigation.

There is merit to saying "where did all the mass go".

no, there really isn't. between the sub-levels/basin and the inches thick layer of dust and debris all over N.Y.

Being distrustful of those who are clearly not justifying the system by inventing dragons and 'cryptosubplots' with flimsy evidence; ignoring the 'awareness of gov wrongdoing' they are creating

cant say i agree with that - you lose some valuable details and allow yourself to be corralled into a box by glomming onto whatever 'resistance' organization has the shiniest presentation.

Good stuff. I have ODD that's good enough for me. :) Thanks to DSM V.

Of course it doesn't exist exceptnin the minds of those who created it. I was having fun. I like your post for sure. Lots of ways to sniff out the fakes and phoneys. Ample opportunity every day on this sub to hone ones skills at doing so.

That's when I just play by Golf rules and realize the lowest score wins :)

Especially since I deleted my 7 year account here when it got too frustrating. Being a mini nuke no plane no moon landing vegan on reddit is not easy :)

Hey there, I love nutritional yeast, sprinkle it like Parmesan cheese on things, it has plenty of b-12.

The missing energy is very interesting indeed. May be a Joule thief afoot.

Thanks. :)

The funniest are the pro Vax crowd. Pharmaceuticals are pretty much the most corrupt industry on earth, paying billions on top of billions in fines, buying Congress, buying regulators, killing hundreds of thousands every year, addicting millions, marketing lethal drugs, manufacturing study outcomes, corrupting science and doctors, and no cures anywhere in sight.

But vaccines, oh those are perfect. Pharma nailed those cause they love you, just disregard literally every other detail that fully illustrates their complete disregard for your health and safety.

Always a bummer when companies sell out. It's like when your favorite band signs to a shitty label for a fast paycheck and they are never like they were before.