The Conservative Party

That wasn't how I read Damocles' post, which referenced Jones' ridiculous take on that particular fact as an example of people rejecting the underlying science simply because they dislike the use disingenuous frauds like Jones make of it. That is why it is so important to distinguish between what is fact and what is opinion.

The science, as I understand it, has to be accepted head on. The interpretations that loons like him put on it do not.

Which is totally fair in a lot of cases, but I guess my point is that this particular case isn't really a good example of "not believing the message simply because of who is delivering it". It's more like sensibly questioning the credibility of a factual statement because of the rhetoric and the context into which it's been hard-baked.

If I came along and said "the moon is made of cheese and 5G gives you AIDS, the capital of Mozambique is Maputo and the government are transgender communists" could you blame somebody who wasn't currently equipped with an atlas for doubting whether you should believe that the capital of Mozambique I gave there was actually correct? If I feed you a line that is 90% bullshit and 10% facts, is it fair for you to operate under the assumption I am giving you 100% bullshit, until proven otherwise? Maybe not, but I think that is just how humans work.

You can't divorce the facts entirely from the context within which they are offered. Not everybody is going to have time to go through every scientific study about frogs to verify who is and who isn't lying to them, so people develop a perfectly sensible heuristic based on past-experience. If some statement is baked into a narrative that is clearly nonsense, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

If Jones had come online to have an earnest conversation about the ecological impact of industry on the behaviours of frogs and the harm that humans are doing, I don't think it would be a meme, and I don't think we'd be citing it as an example in the way we are.

Ironically, I do actually agree that too many people online are dismissive of facts because of their source, I just think this a poor example of that.
 
Which is totally fair in a lot of cases, but I guess my point is that this particular case isn't really a good example of "not believing the message simply because of who is delivering it". It's more like sensibly questioning the credibility of a factual statement because of the rhetoric and the context into which it's been hard-baked.

If I came along and said "the moon is made of cheese and 5G gives you AIDS, the capital of Mozambique is Maputo and the government are transgender communists" could you blame somebody who wasn't currently equipped with an atlas for doubting whether you should believe that the capital of Mozambique I gave there was actually correct? If I feed you a line that is 90% bullshit and 10% facts, is it fair for you to operate under the assumption I am giving you 100% bullshit, until proven otherwise? Maybe not, but I think that is just how humans work.

You can't divorce the facts entirely from the context within which they are offered. Not everybody is going to have time to go through every scientific study about frogs to verify who is and who isn't lying to them, so people develop a perfectly sensible heuristic based on past-experience. If some statement is baked into a narrative that is clearly nonsense, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

If Jones had come online to have an earnest conversation about the ecological impact of industry on the behaviours of frogs and the harm that humans are doing, I don't think it would be a meme, and I don't think we'd be citing it as an example in the way we are.

Ironically, I do actually agree that too many people online are dismissive of facts because of their source, I just think this a poor example of that.

But seriously, apart from that?
 
He's not defending Alex Jones, he's making a point your anger can't come to terms with because you're an entrenched idealogue, you know this to be true bob.

You can make the point without referencing Jones. indeed, this point has been a theme for a few days now and I even agreed with the point that the poster made over an interview with a Tory MP and how it was portrayed on social media and said as such.

I agreed with the point and the example because no matter how much (a) I dislike Tories and (b) my reservations about the poster and his fondness for grifters and charlatans like Jones or Peterson the point was a valid one.

What prompted my reply in this instance was not the use of Jones per se, but the assertion that people dismiss him because of his politics. This is key because dismissing Jones because of his politics is to deliberately undersell the reason why Jones should not be used. Jones is a ghoul. He feeds and profits off human misery and compounds peoples grief. It takes a special type of creature to denigrate and abuse those who lost children and attack the children who survived.

So yeah, Jones and Peterson and the rest of the grifting, morally bankrupt cunts can get to fuck, along with all those who ride that train. And yes, I do think the poster is one who happily rides that train.
 
Sunak said the first illegal immigrant has been sent to rwanda like it was a huge achievement when he volunteered and you paid him three grand , lol

and apparently that meant the Rwandans were not obliged to house him. Newspapers have tried to locate him and nobody knows where he is .................. probably already on his way back
 
and apparently that meant the Rwandans were not obliged to house him. Newspapers have tried to locate him and nobody knows where he is .................. probably already on his way back
Not sure if he's got a passport, but £400 flight Kigali to Dublin, and back into the UK....
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.