People are generally close minded to things that can disrupt the way the view the world. It's hard for some people to see raw facts and proven conspiracies with data proving they are true to acknowledge them.
Also if you are too wrapped up in something you always should take a step back and maybe look at it through their perspective.
It's a common psychological reaction - cognitive dissonance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance.) Basically what's happening is one's grown (programmed) neural net can't process information that's not within its model. So the person is inclined to violently reject the information. It's easier to do than to tear your model down. It's a very common response.
All things grow and develop according to the Decorator pattern. They accumulate new aspects and integrate them, becoming a new thing. This is the same concept as the Hegelian Dialectic, Fibonnaci/phi. For a neural network which is just a pattern recognition system this manifests as strongly believing what you've been programmed since youth to believe. For example, the concept that most hierarchical systems are corrupt (which is a design inevitability of sorts and can logically be demonstrated) is almost inconceivable to the people affected with this problem. To communicate with a "pattern recognition system"/mind that's rejecting certain ideas you have to hack the "pattern recognition system"/mind such that your communication uses concepts the mind isn't biased against. You have to speak in a language that isn't blocked. It's a challenge, but it can be done. It's more effectively communicated if you're friends and the message is delivered with good intentions. Love decorates the message better, that is.
Personally I don't think it's Slack to try to convince people of things. I prefer to go with the flow. I find it's rewarding and exciting to stumble upon those who share similarly odd ideas! So rare! And I try to synergize around that.
That said, perhaps we live in times when Slack plays it too safe.
Some people will never change their point of view until everyone around them do it first. A 100% conformist personality. It may bother you and you may waste a lot of time on them, but they won't change.
You will need to be patient and walk away. Spend your time on others who are more open minded. Eventually, someday, things will change.
And how do you explain people that spend hours looking into this theory from an objective standpoint and they quickly realize there's 0 reason to believe the earth is flat?
This comment gets downvoted, but it is a legitimate point, and one I wish people on this sub took more seriously.
You can't complain about people refusing to change their opinions or cognitive dissonance if you aren't first willing to accept that you are affected by these things too.
I'm with you buddy people are totally retarded. They seem to be unable to even have a conversation about things that don't gel with their worldview. It drives me nuts but I don't mind arguing at this point in my life and I'm not scared of anyone's opinion of me.
One trick I used to deal with very difficult people is as soon as the conversation turns negative I simply asked them to back up what they're saying or give me examples and some proof or definition and that's when they lose because most of these people really don't know what they're talking about and I do. But the trick in these situations is to ask them difficult questions and not sit there and lecture them as it's guaranteed that they won't be listening to anything you say. Just ask them for proof and if they can't give it they lose and you barely have to say a word.
I find that these same people are also full of it when it comes to established, known subjects where there's generally no disagreement.
First off they'll try and change the subject and steer the conversation away from any conspiracy that implicates any established authority, so go with it and pick art their statements. You'll find that they're full of shit and since the subject won't be factually controversial you'll have plenty of reference material to back you up.
Now that you've destroyed their credibility you can turn the conversation back to the conspiracy and throw it in their face. They might turn red or get violent so be prepared to defend yourself.
This happened to me camping with a bunch of people last week! Talking politics and war, I was criticizing NATO, and one of the tards there was arguing that NATO does a lot of good for many countries. Simple statement, ok, please give me an example. His response...they build things. Me: really, like what....him:ummm....ahhh....bridges. Me: really, where, please give me an example.....ah...nothing. He couldn't back up his world view with anything...NOT ONE EXAMPLE. So I kept going with my point and backed up every point I made with examples. He got up and left angry with me. In truth though, I handled it perfectly and didn't even get slightly annoyed. He was annoyed because I just showed him how ignorant he was and he didn't like that.
I read your previous comment and saw that you were looking for examples of good things that NATO has done, or is doing. I went on reading your comment to see that you were disappointed that your friend didn't know of any specific details and couldn't share any specific examples with you.
Now, I linked a page that explicitly describes what NATO has done in the past, is currently involved in, and what some of the future plans for NATO may be.
And I pointed out the article was written by NATO and because of that lacks credibility, but putting that aside, I did not read anything on that page that comes across as a example of good things NATO has done. Listing "what NATO has done in the past, is currently involved in, and what some of the future plans for NATO may be" is not an argument. I asked you to be more specific, does that make sense to you? Do you understand how your link isn't an argument? Doesn't prove anything?
Let me give you an example. Say I'm trying to argue Hitler was a good guy. If I link to an article by him stating "what Hitler has done in the past, is currently involved in, and what some of the future plans for Hitler may be" does that prove that Hitler was a good guy? Maybe in your world it does...
Originally I was going to add this note to my previous comment, but I ended up leaving it out because I thought it was amazingly obvious..
"I'm not saying that all of these examples are simply 'good things'. I won't decide for you which things are 'good' and which things are 'bad', that is for you to decide, you know, subjectively. I'm simply providing you with an explicit list of activities and operations that NATO has either completed, is currently working on, or plans to initiate in the future."
On to your other point; you asked me to be more specific in explaining exactly what it was that I was trying to show you with that article. Again, I assumed this was obvious.. the activities of NATO.
Remember the above note, I'm not trying to convince you of what is 'good' or sway you in any way, I'm simply providing specific details for you to examine for yourself so that you may come to your own conclusions. Once you understand this, you will realize that I'm not trying to 'prove' anything.
Moving on, did you as actually read the article? Did you make an effort to understand the goals and aims of NATO, and how it works to achieve those goals? Thes are honest and serious questions considering that you have already stated "I did not read anything on that page that comes across as an example of a good thing that NATO has done."
I'd wager she had already been contemplating some of the issues that you'd brought up and was very disturbed about the implications. Most victims of confidence scams never report their losses to the authorities, due to shame and embarassment. Now, imagine, after decades of believing the teevee, the stress incurred by realizing that it is pure propaganda and always has been.
Don't let it get you down. Roughly half the world of humanity is unsalvageable and it has probably always been so -- day/night, light/darkness, man/woman, good/evil, etc., etc. Just the way of the world.
Also good to remember this great quote from "Heaven's Gate" -- "You can't force salvation on people, Jim."
Some people can be nudged. Some people want to listen. Some people hunger for the melody of the divine. Others are locked into this material world and hunger only for possessions and status. Again, it's always been this way.
My personal experience is more and more people are increasingly curious about hidden truths, because they see how fucked up everything is and the official stories of why that is don't convince them any more. I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet.
Interesting. I find that atheists usually have the more elementary and irrational stance in these debates. But your obvious orientation is noted with amusement, appreciating the irony.
Was she old? Because she sounds old.. And if so, don't worry too much. she'll be dead soon, and with a little luck, some day people will be frustrated by how dense our generation is.
If people would just objectively consider "What if this is true?" and did some digging, they could see so much more of the bigger picture. Sadly, most people are happy swallowing the bullshit that they are shovel fed by mainstream media and the gov. I believe the majority truly are beyond help, but we still fight the good fight in order to reach the ones that will listen, those that are not programmed imbeciles and can actually rationalize for themselves. At this point though, I'm kind of hoping for something big to wipe us all out and be done with it. Sad, but true.
You gotta take baby steps. Unloading a bunch of unknown info to someone new is a lot to take in. Try finding things you know they're interested in, and aren't going to be too touchy. I dont test someone's beliefs unless I know they're willing to change opinions when presented facts.
With all of the craziness going down, it's instances like those you're describing where you get to see to what extent the average pleb is cowardice, hypocrisy and/or stupidity embodied.
It's on moments like those you think to yourself that when push comes to shove you're all on your own, much better off bunkered in with every window boarded up, not giving the slightest fuck about who'll be knocking on your door. Ultimately they will betray you, so don't you ever for a nanosecond cave in and betray yourself by trying to be a hero.
Shut up, keep on trucking and if all of the nonsense they vomit becomes simply too much, make up an excuse and go look for your own peace and quiet. That's what I have to do at work if I don't want these spayed zombiesheep to get under my skin with their incessant bleating about the worms in their stool.
I'm not a sadist, I don't derive any Schadenfreude from good/innocent people's misfortunes, but I'll gladly make an exception for the vast flocks of these arrogant, nasty, egotistical, semi-cognizant sacks of waste-of-space. FUCK EM ALL.
As someone who is not really a conspiracy theorist:
People do this because "mainstream" conspiracy theorists are stupid as fuck. The stuff we see every day on Facebook like the sun being 5000 miles away or the world being flat. They just straight up paint you guys as stupid people so nobody is interested in having a real conversation.
If it werent for forums like this one where people actually show at least a tiny bit of proof and reason, I wouldnt talk to any conspiracy theorists either.
I think the same applies to those "mainstream" MSM viewers in a similar way. These people will more-or-less parrot what they hear in the news, without actually digging in to see whether it makes sense or is supported by evidence. It's too sides of the same spectrum, but it some sense, the problem is the same: taking others' word for the truth (whether MSM or the AJ's of the world) instead of investigating it themselves.
Unfortunately, most people are so heavily brainwashed from a lifetime of intensive conditioning they are no longer capable of independent thought and objectivity, with cognitive dissonance and irrational biases often coming into play.
At times, it's almost too easy for TPTB to manipulate the masses because of this. All one has to do is label any controversial topic a "conspiracy theory" for example and the thought-terminating reaction it tends to induce begins to take effect, in the majority who are susceptible to such a tactic, essentially shutting down any scholarly debate or further research into the subject.
The same phenomena can be observed here regularly, on reddit, as well as in r/conspiracy, with some subjects and key words considered "taboo" by the hive mind and thoughtlessly downvoted almost compulsively without due research or consideration..
You may be interested to know the popularization of the phrase "conspiracy theory" was due to none other than the CIA, who in 1967 disseminated a dispatch to their various assets and members of the media instructing them to "debunk" or rather manipulate the conversation when debating any critics of the Warren Commission tasked with investigating the JFK assassination.
Abby Martin talks to Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida State University professor and author of 'Conspiracy Theory in America', about some of the US' most controversial events and how labeling truth-seekers as 'conspiracy theorists' damages democracy.
For further reading, here is an excerpt from Kevin R. Ryan's excellent article, Do we need another 9/11 conspiracy theory?
"The use of “conspiracy theory” to deter citizens from investigating historic events is paradoxical, to be sure. It suggests that those who commit criminal conspiracies can only be relatively powerless people who happen to live on the most strategically important lands, and conspiracies among rich, powerful people are impossible or absurd.
Basically, our entire legal system is based on the idea of conspiracy. Despite this fact we have been conditioned by the government and the media to blindly accept the official reports and to treat any questioning of those reports as “conspiracy theorizing.” That is, you are a conspiracy theorist if you don’t believe the government’s conspiracy theory.
This cultural phenomenon goes back to 1967. At that time, in response to questions about the Warren Commission Report (which President Ford helped create), the CIA issued a memorandum calling for mainstream media sources to begin countering “conspiracy theorists.” In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase “conspiracy theory” appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or about once per week.
Before the CIA memo came out, the Washington Post and New York Times had never used the phrase “conspiracy theorist.” After the CIA memo came out, these two newspapers have used that phrase 1,118 times. Of course, in these uses the phrase is always delivered in a context in which “conspiracy theorists” were made to seem less intelligent and less rationale than people who uncritically accept official explanations for major events.
President George W. Bush and his colleagues often used the phrase conspiracy theory in attempts to deter questioning about their activities. When questioned by reporters about an emerging scandal in September 2000, Bush said the idea that his presidential campaign was flashing subliminal messages in advertisements was absurd, and he added that “conspiracy theories abound in America’s politics.” When in 1994, Bush’s former company Harken Energy was linked to the fraudulent Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) through several investors, Bush’s spokeswoman, Karen Hughes, shut down the inquiry by telling the Associated Press — “We have no response to silly conspiracy theories.”
Because Bush’s campaign had, in fact, been flashing subliminal messages in its advertisements, and Harken Energy was actually linked to BCCI, people began to wonder what Bush and his colleagues meant when they made diversionary comments about conspiracy theories. More importantly, that track record raised questions about Bush’s statement after the 9/11 attacks, in which he said in a televised speech — “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”
There is no question that criminal government-sponsored conspiracies exist. History is replete with them and they usually involve the government claiming that the country was under attack from “terrorists.” This was true of Hitler’s Reichstag fire and it was true of the attacks that occurred in 20th century Western Europe under the guise of Operation Gladio. An example more relevant to 9/11 was the conspiracy behind Operation Northwoods, a plan drafted and approved in 1962 by the highest levels within the U.S. military.
Author James Bamford wrote of Operation Northwoods that it called “for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. [This would provide] the public and international backing they needed to launch their war.” The signed documents are available to everyone today and because of this we know that high level U.S. government representatives do conspire, on occasion, to commit crimes against the American people for the purpose of starting wars.
The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967
Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.
The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.
Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:
Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy
Have people friendly to the CIA attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports
Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable
Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”
Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active
Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate
Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated
Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories
In other words, the CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations.
Use the religious wars from the Protestant Reformation as your own narrative in order to explain how the Ruling Class back then manipulated the narative same way they do today.
Today's conspiracy theorist = Heathen/Heretic/Satan Worshiper etc. from back then, just cause they were PROTESTING AGAINST THE POPE (Thus PROTESTANT CHURCH). Here's a list of heresy's practiced by the Catholic church and to some degree by the orthodox one.
majority are sleepwalking, and women especially don't want their bias bubbles popped. Next time, make sure you get the guy by himself so the wife isn't trying to manipulate her man. Women want their men in check and no questioning things, they want to be good providers for their household and children, so they know in the subconscious that rocking the boat of the status quo threatens the bread winning of the household, so they speak out against it but don't exactly know why.
You have to plant seeds, subliminal, tiny bits here and there. Have him check out a youtube vid, or show him how the news lies, how MSM is dying, about critical thinking, ties to money, how the MSM is owned by 5 ompanies. Show him the Conan O'Brien video of the reporters all using the same scripted lines and how its all programs.
I read your previous comment and saw that you were looking for examples of good things that NATO has done, or is doing. I went on reading your comment to see that you were disappointed that your friend didn't know of any specific details and couldn't share any specific examples with you.
Now, I linked a page that explicitly describes what NATO has done in the past, is currently involved in, and what some of the future plans for NATO may be.
Interesting. I find that atheists usually have the more elementary and irrational stance in these debates. But your obvious orientation is noted with amusement, appreciating the irony.
43 comments
24 websiteisgarbage 2016-06-26
People are generally close minded to things that can disrupt the way the view the world. It's hard for some people to see raw facts and proven conspiracies with data proving they are true to acknowledge them.
Also if you are too wrapped up in something you always should take a step back and maybe look at it through their perspective.
Reality is subjective to ones consciousness.
20 AccurateLinguist 2016-06-26
It's a common psychological reaction - cognitive dissonance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance.) Basically what's happening is one's grown (programmed) neural net can't process information that's not within its model. So the person is inclined to violently reject the information. It's easier to do than to tear your model down. It's a very common response.
All things grow and develop according to the Decorator pattern. They accumulate new aspects and integrate them, becoming a new thing. This is the same concept as the Hegelian Dialectic, Fibonnaci/phi. For a neural network which is just a pattern recognition system this manifests as strongly believing what you've been programmed since youth to believe. For example, the concept that most hierarchical systems are corrupt (which is a design inevitability of sorts and can logically be demonstrated) is almost inconceivable to the people affected with this problem. To communicate with a "pattern recognition system"/mind that's rejecting certain ideas you have to hack the "pattern recognition system"/mind such that your communication uses concepts the mind isn't biased against. You have to speak in a language that isn't blocked. It's a challenge, but it can be done. It's more effectively communicated if you're friends and the message is delivered with good intentions. Love decorates the message better, that is.
6 [deleted] 2016-06-26
[deleted]
7 AccurateLinguist 2016-06-26
Personally I don't think it's Slack to try to convince people of things. I prefer to go with the flow. I find it's rewarding and exciting to stumble upon those who share similarly odd ideas! So rare! And I try to synergize around that.
That said, perhaps we live in times when Slack plays it too safe.
11 WannaBeAlBundy 2016-06-26
Some people will never change their point of view until everyone around them do it first. A 100% conformist personality. It may bother you and you may waste a lot of time on them, but they won't change.
You will need to be patient and walk away. Spend your time on others who are more open minded. Eventually, someday, things will change.
1 Pistacheeo 2016-06-26
And how do you explain people that spend hours looking into this theory from an objective standpoint and they quickly realize there's 0 reason to believe the earth is flat?
-5 My_PW_Is_123456789 2016-06-26
Yeah like 99% of everyone that is considered a conspiracy theorist, like everyone here rofl
7 3thernet 2016-06-26
Can't go backwards.
1 tbilisicat 2016-06-26
This comment gets downvoted, but it is a legitimate point, and one I wish people on this sub took more seriously.
You can't complain about people refusing to change their opinions or cognitive dissonance if you aren't first willing to accept that you are affected by these things too.
7 Gorkildeathgod 2016-06-26
I'm with you buddy people are totally retarded. They seem to be unable to even have a conversation about things that don't gel with their worldview. It drives me nuts but I don't mind arguing at this point in my life and I'm not scared of anyone's opinion of me.
One trick I used to deal with very difficult people is as soon as the conversation turns negative I simply asked them to back up what they're saying or give me examples and some proof or definition and that's when they lose because most of these people really don't know what they're talking about and I do. But the trick in these situations is to ask them difficult questions and not sit there and lecture them as it's guaranteed that they won't be listening to anything you say. Just ask them for proof and if they can't give it they lose and you barely have to say a word.
2 flat_bastard 2016-06-26
I find that these same people are also full of it when it comes to established, known subjects where there's generally no disagreement.
First off they'll try and change the subject and steer the conversation away from any conspiracy that implicates any established authority, so go with it and pick art their statements. You'll find that they're full of shit and since the subject won't be factually controversial you'll have plenty of reference material to back you up.
Now that you've destroyed their credibility you can turn the conversation back to the conspiracy and throw it in their face. They might turn red or get violent so be prepared to defend yourself.
7 Gorkildeathgod 2016-06-26
This happened to me camping with a bunch of people last week! Talking politics and war, I was criticizing NATO, and one of the tards there was arguing that NATO does a lot of good for many countries. Simple statement, ok, please give me an example. His response...they build things. Me: really, like what....him:ummm....ahhh....bridges. Me: really, where, please give me an example.....ah...nothing. He couldn't back up his world view with anything...NOT ONE EXAMPLE. So I kept going with my point and backed up every point I made with examples. He got up and left angry with me. In truth though, I handled it perfectly and didn't even get slightly annoyed. He was annoyed because I just showed him how ignorant he was and he didn't like that.
-2 zENrandoM 2016-06-26
I found a few examples.. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm
3 Gorkildeathgod 2016-06-26
Of what? You linked to an article written by NATO about what it does. What specifically are you trying to show me with that article?
0 zENrandoM 2016-06-26
I read your previous comment and saw that you were looking for examples of good things that NATO has done, or is doing. I went on reading your comment to see that you were disappointed that your friend didn't know of any specific details and couldn't share any specific examples with you.
Now, I linked a page that explicitly describes what NATO has done in the past, is currently involved in, and what some of the future plans for NATO may be.
Does this make sense to you?
5 Gorkildeathgod 2016-06-26
And I pointed out the article was written by NATO and because of that lacks credibility, but putting that aside, I did not read anything on that page that comes across as a example of good things NATO has done. Listing "what NATO has done in the past, is currently involved in, and what some of the future plans for NATO may be" is not an argument. I asked you to be more specific, does that make sense to you? Do you understand how your link isn't an argument? Doesn't prove anything?
Let me give you an example. Say I'm trying to argue Hitler was a good guy. If I link to an article by him stating "what Hitler has done in the past, is currently involved in, and what some of the future plans for Hitler may be" does that prove that Hitler was a good guy? Maybe in your world it does...
1 zENrandoM 2016-06-26
Originally I was going to add this note to my previous comment, but I ended up leaving it out because I thought it was amazingly obvious..
"I'm not saying that all of these examples are simply 'good things'. I won't decide for you which things are 'good' and which things are 'bad', that is for you to decide, you know, subjectively. I'm simply providing you with an explicit list of activities and operations that NATO has either completed, is currently working on, or plans to initiate in the future."
On to your other point; you asked me to be more specific in explaining exactly what it was that I was trying to show you with that article. Again, I assumed this was obvious.. the activities of NATO.
Remember the above note, I'm not trying to convince you of what is 'good' or sway you in any way, I'm simply providing specific details for you to examine for yourself so that you may come to your own conclusions. Once you understand this, you will realize that I'm not trying to 'prove' anything.
Moving on, did you as actually read the article? Did you make an effort to understand the goals and aims of NATO, and how it works to achieve those goals? Thes are honest and serious questions considering that you have already stated "I did not read anything on that page that comes across as an example of a good thing that NATO has done."
1 Gorkildeathgod 2016-06-26
I did read it. Here's one for you http://www.businessinsider.com/sandy-jadeja-interview-technical-analysis-dow-jones-market-crash-forecasts-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T&utm_content=bufferbfbb1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
1 [deleted] 2016-06-26
[deleted]
1 zENrandoM 2016-06-26
Dude.. what the fuck are you talking about..?
1 Gorkildeathgod 2016-06-26
Oups wedding person
7 HS_00 2016-06-26
I'd wager she had already been contemplating some of the issues that you'd brought up and was very disturbed about the implications. Most victims of confidence scams never report their losses to the authorities, due to shame and embarassment. Now, imagine, after decades of believing the teevee, the stress incurred by realizing that it is pure propaganda and always has been.
5 IanPhlegming 2016-06-26
Don't let it get you down. Roughly half the world of humanity is unsalvageable and it has probably always been so -- day/night, light/darkness, man/woman, good/evil, etc., etc. Just the way of the world.
Also good to remember this great quote from "Heaven's Gate" -- "You can't force salvation on people, Jim."
Some people can be nudged. Some people want to listen. Some people hunger for the melody of the divine. Others are locked into this material world and hunger only for possessions and status. Again, it's always been this way.
My personal experience is more and more people are increasingly curious about hidden truths, because they see how fucked up everything is and the official stories of why that is don't convince them any more. I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet.
5 SokarRostau 2016-06-26
Identical behaviour can be seen when a creationist is confronted by an atheist, or when people argue over gun control.
5 Apoplecticmiscreant 2016-06-26
Or telling a nationalist that this country aint that great.
1 Cerehectus 2016-06-26
Interesting. I find that atheists usually have the more elementary and irrational stance in these debates. But your obvious orientation is noted with amusement, appreciating the irony.
5 returnofN 2016-06-26
The brain literally shuts down its called cognitive dissonance, the Socrates method bypasses it which is why Socrates w as made to drink hemlock
3 CloudyMN1979 2016-06-26
Was she old? Because she sounds old.. And if so, don't worry too much. she'll be dead soon, and with a little luck, some day people will be frustrated by how dense our generation is.
3 Apoplecticmiscreant 2016-06-26
You witnessed her cognitive dissonance in action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
It's a feeling that internally causes pain, because they don't want to accept what you've said.
2 Tinkerino64 2016-06-26
That's what makes it all so scary. When you realize 99% of people are so utterly brainwashed... that's when you know 'their' plan is working.
2 make_mind_free2go 2016-06-26
used to happen, i rarely bring up the subject unless the person asks or mentions something.
i realize that that each person has to find their own path. imo, they have to want to know.
2 daddie_o 2016-06-26
What books did you suggest?
2 TheAtomic1 2016-06-26
If people would just objectively consider "What if this is true?" and did some digging, they could see so much more of the bigger picture. Sadly, most people are happy swallowing the bullshit that they are shovel fed by mainstream media and the gov. I believe the majority truly are beyond help, but we still fight the good fight in order to reach the ones that will listen, those that are not programmed imbeciles and can actually rationalize for themselves. At this point though, I'm kind of hoping for something big to wipe us all out and be done with it. Sad, but true.
2 newharddrive 2016-06-26
If she does not like your books, offer her some more mainstream stuff, which still has enough truth in it to blow her mind. Maybe Zinn or something?
2 cmit8916 2016-06-26
You gotta take baby steps. Unloading a bunch of unknown info to someone new is a lot to take in. Try finding things you know they're interested in, and aren't going to be too touchy. I dont test someone's beliefs unless I know they're willing to change opinions when presented facts.
2 SteakindaBoot 2016-06-26
With all of the craziness going down, it's instances like those you're describing where you get to see to what extent the average pleb is cowardice, hypocrisy and/or stupidity embodied.
It's on moments like those you think to yourself that when push comes to shove you're all on your own, much better off bunkered in with every window boarded up, not giving the slightest fuck about who'll be knocking on your door. Ultimately they will betray you, so don't you ever for a nanosecond cave in and betray yourself by trying to be a hero.
Shut up, keep on trucking and if all of the nonsense they vomit becomes simply too much, make up an excuse and go look for your own peace and quiet. That's what I have to do at work if I don't want these spayed zombiesheep to get under my skin with their incessant bleating about the worms in their stool.
I'm not a sadist, I don't derive any Schadenfreude from good/innocent people's misfortunes, but I'll gladly make an exception for the vast flocks of these arrogant, nasty, egotistical, semi-cognizant sacks of waste-of-space. FUCK EM ALL.
2 stormplss 2016-06-26
As someone who is not really a conspiracy theorist:
People do this because "mainstream" conspiracy theorists are stupid as fuck. The stuff we see every day on Facebook like the sun being 5000 miles away or the world being flat. They just straight up paint you guys as stupid people so nobody is interested in having a real conversation.
If it werent for forums like this one where people actually show at least a tiny bit of proof and reason, I wouldnt talk to any conspiracy theorists either.
1 CelineHagbard 2016-06-26
I think the same applies to those "mainstream" MSM viewers in a similar way. These people will more-or-less parrot what they hear in the news, without actually digging in to see whether it makes sense or is supported by evidence. It's too sides of the same spectrum, but it some sense, the problem is the same: taking others' word for the truth (whether MSM or the AJ's of the world) instead of investigating it themselves.
2 itsthesalsa 2016-06-26
I've seen this happen over and over first hand. Oh, but if it's on their facebook feeds, it must be true! So tired of close minded people!
2 quantumcipher 2016-06-26
Unfortunately, most people are so heavily brainwashed from a lifetime of intensive conditioning they are no longer capable of independent thought and objectivity, with cognitive dissonance and irrational biases often coming into play.
At times, it's almost too easy for TPTB to manipulate the masses because of this. All one has to do is label any controversial topic a "conspiracy theory" for example and the thought-terminating reaction it tends to induce begins to take effect, in the majority who are susceptible to such a tactic, essentially shutting down any scholarly debate or further research into the subject.
The same phenomena can be observed here regularly, on reddit, as well as in r/conspiracy, with some subjects and key words considered "taboo" by the hive mind and thoughtlessly downvoted almost compulsively without due research or consideration..
You may be interested to know the popularization of the phrase "conspiracy theory" was due to none other than the CIA, who in 1967 disseminated a dispatch to their various assets and members of the media instructing them to "debunk" or rather manipulate the conversation when debating any critics of the Warren Commission tasked with investigating the JFK assassination.
From an article on the subject:
From another piece regarding the dispatch itself:
You can view the actual dispatch here and here.
1 Red_Vagabond 2016-06-26
It is never too late to change.
1 stupidshit420 2016-06-26
people hold onto their opinions like they are a part of them, instead of changing them when presented with new facts
1 umbrajoke 2016-06-26
What goes around comes around.
0 Red_Vagabond 2016-06-26
Correct. Everyone will receive when they have given and everyone will pay when they have taken. It is as simple as that.
1 Jedy_hacker 2016-06-26
Use the religious wars from the Protestant Reformation as your own narrative in order to explain how the Ruling Class back then manipulated the narative same way they do today.
Today's conspiracy theorist = Heathen/Heretic/Satan Worshiper etc. from back then, just cause they were PROTESTING AGAINST THE POPE (Thus PROTESTANT CHURCH). Here's a list of heresy's practiced by the Catholic church and to some degree by the orthodox one.
Some material
Study the reformation and inform your friends of this precedent and you will gain many supporters , it's really effective on atheists.
1 Dontmindthemess 2016-06-26
Don't bring up the martial law thing on July 25, when 10k black people March on the DNC.
1 cannibaloxfords 2016-06-26
majority are sleepwalking, and women especially don't want their bias bubbles popped. Next time, make sure you get the guy by himself so the wife isn't trying to manipulate her man. Women want their men in check and no questioning things, they want to be good providers for their household and children, so they know in the subconscious that rocking the boat of the status quo threatens the bread winning of the household, so they speak out against it but don't exactly know why.
You have to plant seeds, subliminal, tiny bits here and there. Have him check out a youtube vid, or show him how the news lies, how MSM is dying, about critical thinking, ties to money, how the MSM is owned by 5 ompanies. Show him the Conan O'Brien video of the reporters all using the same scripted lines and how its all programs.
Eventually he'll come around
0 zENrandoM 2016-06-26
I read your previous comment and saw that you were looking for examples of good things that NATO has done, or is doing. I went on reading your comment to see that you were disappointed that your friend didn't know of any specific details and couldn't share any specific examples with you.
Now, I linked a page that explicitly describes what NATO has done in the past, is currently involved in, and what some of the future plans for NATO may be.
Does this make sense to you?
5 Apoplecticmiscreant 2016-06-26
Or telling a nationalist that this country aint that great.
1 Cerehectus 2016-06-26
Interesting. I find that atheists usually have the more elementary and irrational stance in these debates. But your obvious orientation is noted with amusement, appreciating the irony.