- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 4Chan found the playbook on spinning vax narrative
Posted on 1/11/23 at 11:17 am to Powerman
Posted on 1/11/23 at 11:17 am to Powerman
quote:
Do you morons actually think that this is something nefarious?
It seems to be written rather benign-ish. Let's say these slides did indeed come from the WHO and let's also say the WHO was benevolent and truly knew the shot was the best answer and they felt charged to coerce for the greater good. In that scenario, the talking points seem somewhat reasonable albeit creepy as shite.
Now let's take a different view in light of the world around us as it is increasingly becoming apparent to be (as believed by many of us at least). There really isn't a reliable source of guidance or information anymore. In absence of good information we are increasingly being tasked to step outside of the box and look for information elsewhere. Acquiring new data sources is perilous and fraught with bad leads, red-herrings, falsities, grifters etc... What choice is there though? At this point many of us accept the risk and do the best we can. Non-ideal for sure, but unavoidable nonetheless.
So with all that being said, we are very much used to plausibly deniable positions coming from established power structures and have a diminished tolerance for it. So are the slides well intended? Well I don't see a choice anymore but to press X for doubt.
And one final note: if one believes/accepts that vax injuries are being suppressed and the WHO probably should have known better than to push them, then you can infer that they indeed did know better. With that notion, you have a reasonable path forward to make inferences about the motivations for the content in the slides.
Figured a non-flaming explanation would illuminate the positions many take. No reason to fight about shite, I guarantee that low level progressives and low level conservatives have way more in common with each other than any have with DC and others of the sort. We have the same things to lose in the end (sorta i guess).
Edit: Are those slides legit? Hell if I know, no choice but to put it in the back pocket as possible. Hopefully more info comes out. Can't count on it though.
This post was edited on 1/11/23 at 11:34 am
1
Posted on 1/11/23 at 11:22 am to ItNeverRains
I just have a hard time believing anything from 4chan....
Posted on 1/11/23 at 11:50 am to luvdoc
quote:
link broken?
I was just able to open it, so maybe try again.
Posted on 1/11/23 at 12:21 pm to oldskule
quote:
I just have a hard time believing anything from 4chan....
They are every bit as reliable as any Major Network News organization.....and that's not praise for 4Chan....
Posted on 1/11/23 at 12:31 pm to oldskule
quote:
I just have a hard time believing anything from 4chan....
Yeah they did trick the normies into free-bleeding and believing that the OK sign is a secret white power signal.
This post was edited on 1/11/23 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 1/11/23 at 12:38 pm to IceTiger
First base.
Posted on 1/11/23 at 12:49 pm to DerkaDerka
quote:
if one believes/accepts that vax injuries are being suppressed and the WHO probably should have known better than to push them, then you can infer that they indeed did know better. With that notion, you have a reasonable path forward to make inferences about the motivations for the content in the slides.
Good post and a good point that dovetails with bass's post on the last page. One's priors about the trustworthiness of an information-source are going to affect the credence they'll put into the information, so documents like this serve as Rorshachs for your priors.
quote:
There really isn't a reliable source of guidance or information anymore. In absence of good information we are increasingly being tasked to step outside of the box and look for information elsewhere. Acquiring new data sources is perilous and fraught with bad leads, red-herrings, falsities, grifters etc... What choice is there though?
There has been a "Great Endarkenment" in that increasing amounts of technical information and sheer numbers of sources make things difficult for justifying trust, but there are still ways of getting at this. Philosophers of science and epistemologists refer to evaluating how "well-structured" an epistemic community and evaluating whether its research program is bearing fruit or not over time to help distinguish between more reliable and less reliable markers. There hasn't been a lot of time with a novel disease, but you can compare epistemic communities. There are also some heuristics you can use to gauge plausibility of conspiracy theories, though conspiracies are notoriously difficult to rule out entirely.
This post was edited on 1/11/23 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 1/11/23 at 1:17 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
There has been a "Great Endarkenment" in that increasing amounts of technical information and sheer numbers of sources make things difficult for justifying trust,
You are a fking moron, but I'm totally stealing "Great Endarkenment".....
Posted on 1/11/23 at 1:23 pm to oogabooga68
It's catchy. I wish it was mine, but it comes from The Great Endarkenment: Philosophy for an Age of Hyperspecialization
Posted on 1/11/23 at 1:30 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
It's catchy. I wish it was mine,
thanks
Posted on 1/11/23 at 1:43 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
t's catchy. I wish it was mine, but it comes from The Great Endarkenment: Philosophy for an Age of Hyperspecialization
Seems legit. It has been shown historically that individuals who are able to be cross-disciplinary have had significant impact on the times in which they live.
Posted on 1/11/23 at 1:51 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
There has been a "Great Endarkenment" in that increasing amounts of technical information and sheer numbers of sources make things difficult for justifying trust, but there are still ways of getting at this. Philosophers of science and epistemologists refer to evaluating how "well-structured" an epistemic community and evaluating whether its research program is bearing fruit or not over time to help distinguish between more reliable and less reliable markers. There hasn't been a lot of time with a novel disease, but you can compare epistemic communities. There are also some heuristics you can use to gauge plausibility of conspiracy theories, though conspiracies are notoriously difficult to rule out entirely.
Is all this in that book you linked? Seems like a good path to dig in to.
Posted on 1/11/23 at 2:05 pm to Powerman
quote:
Do you morons actually think that this is something nefarious?
Flow Chart
Did it come from someone inside the US Government------------->(YES)---------->(NO) '
' '
' '
' '
' '
Maybe Not ABSOLUTELY
ETA: DAMN YOU FORMATTING. It was glorious on the create message screen.
This post was edited on 1/11/23 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 1/11/23 at 2:16 pm to DerkaDerka
Yes, some of it is in the Millgram book, though it really focuses on the problems with individuals as individual reasoners trying to justify knowledge in an age where even if you're a specialist you can only independently evaluate a tiny fraction of the information you'd like to be able to justify. It's a book mostly describing the problem, sort of like your first post above.
Even better for understanding justifying beliefs in our modern age are Bad Beliefs: Why they Happen to Good People and The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth
Even better for understanding justifying beliefs in our modern age are Bad Beliefs: Why they Happen to Good People and The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth
Posted on 1/11/23 at 2:20 pm to TigerDoc
Dangit, up to 3 books now. The ole, "can't take everything in" premise rearing its ugly head. Pretty on point for the topic.
Posted on 1/11/23 at 2:34 pm to Bard
quote:quote:
So, who created the docs in question?
Yes.
So Yes created the docs in question?
/Abbot & Costello bit
Posted on 1/11/23 at 2:47 pm to DerkaDerka
Absolutely - we used to call it "trying to drink out of a fire hydrant" in med school.
Gathering together and sharing suspiciousness has its risks, though. It's easy for suspicion in a particular claim to go from partially warranted to become a blind conviction and then it's hard to get un-pilled.
Gathering together and sharing suspiciousness has its risks, though. It's easy for suspicion in a particular claim to go from partially warranted to become a blind conviction and then it's hard to get un-pilled.
Posted on 1/11/23 at 2:52 pm to TigerDoc
Heard a history buff explain how he determines whether or not to read a book. He reads last chapter first as it is the most effective way to get the premise and to assess biases. If worthy, then reads the whole book.
Posted on 1/11/23 at 3:06 pm to DerkaDerka
That's an interesting idea. Everybody can and should improve their critical skills to try to judge better, but there's still so much information out there that you get 2nd, 3rd, or Nth hand, that you can't even figure out where to go to evaluate a particular claim and don't try. Like people asking today, "what are even the sources of documented vaccination deaths?" People both don't know and despair of the possibility of knowing, so they just speculate to each other about conspiracies to obscure knowledge.
This post was edited on 1/11/23 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 1/11/23 at 3:13 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Gathering together and sharing suspiciousness has its risks, though. It's easy for suspicion in a particular claim to go from partially warranted to become a blind conviction and then it's hard to get un-pilled.
Totally bruh. Walter Cronkite is gone though, so "look what they made me do." Similar to as you illustrated, it is hard to assess your beliefs and self correct when hard-facts are actually soft or otherwise lost in a sea of shite. Not saying it is the case, but seems pretty darn easy to intentionally put the population in a state of stupification by overloading them with data of all varieties of credibility and all varieties of perspectives on a particular topic.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News