He may well not have had a mouse handy, but he certainly made use of the Rat haus in Vienna in '38.
Off Topic Conspiracy Thread
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Apparently Australia is fake an all. It doesn’t exist and everyone who says they’re in Australia are all paid actors. **** knows where I am then because I moved here nearly 7 years ago.
Exactly. According to them you flew in circles for hours and are now living in a remote part of the US. Just drive west far enough and you’ll get to LA. Man, even typing it hurts.
K
Kalman
Guest
Okay...
I'm in my 20s with no underlying health conditions so I'm low on the list anyway.
That's not actually true as I understand it. There has been no advice to mix and match vaccines. That's coming from the NYT article which TC quoted.
Which has been refuted by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) which does not make any recommendation to mix and match.
In fact the BMJ asked the NYT to issue a retraction.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55519042
No wonder people are confused.....
Exactly - the danger of "fake news". I'm surprised that the NYT didn't check the validity of their source of the UK statement. Seems some hack "made it up".
Also, not quoting a source on a post on here is likely to mislead.
Good. The **** him
The fate of Alex Jones is a small battle won in the war against alternative facts
Tom Chatfield
The trial of Alex Jones, the far-right conspiracy theorist, who for years propagated the lie that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, has produced some remarkable moments over the past week, not least when Jones was told that his own attorney had accidentally released two years’ worth of Jones’s text messages to his legal adversaries. For sheer schadenfreude, however, it’s hard to beat an exchange between Jones and judge Maya Guerra Gamble in which she reminded him that “you must tell the truth while you testify”.
“I believe what I said was true,” Jones answered. The judge’s riposte has since been shared hundreds of thousands of times: “You believe everything you say is true, but it isn’t. Your beliefs do not make something true. That is what we’re doing here. Just because you claim to think something is true does not make it true.”
This was life as scripted by Aaron Sorkin: a self-serving liar being told, to his face, that the reality-denials from which he has built a staggeringly lucrative empire have no force in the courtroom (one of the messages handed over by Jones’s attorney revealed that his Infowars website had been making as much as $800,000 a day from its online store). Who hasn’t fantasised about the truth finally catching up with those trading in alternative facts: the scammers, bullshitters, fanatics and demagogues for whom the 21st century often seems a paradise of shameless self-gratification?
Although Jones has since claimed that the trial was a “victory”, albeit one whose current bill runs at more than $49m, even he was forced during its course to admit that the Sandy Hook attack was “one hundred per cent real”. For the millions who followed these humiliations on social media – not to mention the bereaved parents who have suffered years of appalling threats and abuse thanks to the conspiracies Jones promotes – this was a painfully overdue vindication of the hope that truth can defeat deceit. How far, though, does the resounding declaration that “your beliefs do not make something true” suggest some kind of precedent is also being set?
“stop the steal” and the attempted insurrection of 6 January 2021, it has never been easier to mobilise mass sentiment around rival realities. Yet truth retains at least one advantage: that reality itself can be counted on to support it. In contrast, every lie requires further lies to stay alive. If I falsely claim that (say) I never received a particular text message, I need to shield this claim from every scrap of contradictory evidence. If I were telling the truth, an honest investigation would vindicate me. However, preserving a fiction means weaving further fictions around inconvenient facts.
Unfortunately, although all of this is beautifully applicable when it comes to empirical inquiry, it has little to do with how and why most people arrive at beliefsin the first place. “I believe what I said was true,” Jones told Gamble. Her response, that this doesn’t make anything true, was magnificently correct. But it also contained an implicit counterpoint. Truths cannot, by themselves, make people believe anything. And in order to grasp what does, we need to look beyond bare facts towards the claims of value, purpose and identity that mobilise these into stories about what matters – and why.
There’s something brutally precise about the name “Infowars” in this context. Browsing its headlines on the day of the verdict, I learned that Jones was the victim of a “show trial”, that the prosecuting lawyer told the jury to “take him out” and that problems with global supply chains will persist because “the system is being sabotaged”. It’s a heady mix of paranoia, selective quotation and counter-narrative. But it’s also an amplified exemplum of the ways in which, to some degree, all of us make sense of the world: by seeking patterns and connections amid overwhelming complexity; by following the guidance of others who give form and focus to our frustrations; by becoming part of communities that promise to defend “us” against an alien, malevolent “them”. You may nod at this description but the newspaper you’re reading, right now, does a version of this very thing. And while you and I may feel certain we are on the right side, it’s an uncomfortable truth that we hold this belief for reasons that are as much tribal and cultural as rational.
None of this diminishes the ethical or practical importance of disinterested truth-seeking but it does suggest that, for all its force, it is also an exercise that can only take place after certain norms, practices and boundaries have been accepted by all involved. This is precisely why we have courtrooms, judges, lawyers and juries in the first place and why it’s vital that their sifting of truth from belief remains a last recourse. If the kind of common ground that enables us to engage with reality can be defended only by legal coercion, we are in a dangerous place.
Like millions of my tribe, I watched Jones’s humbling with relish and relief. At last, righteous justice was not only being done, but being dignified by the drama and rhetoric it deserved! When it comes to the larger scheme of things, however, I worry that the most important lesson is precisely the opposite of what I might wish it to be.
Belief is a battleground and conspiracies thrive not so much upon irrationality as upon division, condescension and the sheer profitability of unaccountable untruth. As is painfully true of our planetary context, the lessons we most urgently need to learn are ecological rather than argumentative, systematic rather than self-righteous.
They’re about the incentives embedded in information systems and the divisions and mistrust that these feed on. In the grander scheme of things, the last thing any of us can afford is to believe that simply being right will save us.
Tom Chatfield is an author and philosopher. His latest book isHow to Think
The fate of Alex Jones is a small battle won in the war against alternative facts
Tom Chatfield
You must log in or register to see images
The trial of Alex Jones, the far-right conspiracy theorist, who for years propagated the lie that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, has produced some remarkable moments over the past week, not least when Jones was told that his own attorney had accidentally released two years’ worth of Jones’s text messages to his legal adversaries. For sheer schadenfreude, however, it’s hard to beat an exchange between Jones and judge Maya Guerra Gamble in which she reminded him that “you must tell the truth while you testify”.
“I believe what I said was true,” Jones answered. The judge’s riposte has since been shared hundreds of thousands of times: “You believe everything you say is true, but it isn’t. Your beliefs do not make something true. That is what we’re doing here. Just because you claim to think something is true does not make it true.”
This was life as scripted by Aaron Sorkin: a self-serving liar being told, to his face, that the reality-denials from which he has built a staggeringly lucrative empire have no force in the courtroom (one of the messages handed over by Jones’s attorney revealed that his Infowars website had been making as much as $800,000 a day from its online store). Who hasn’t fantasised about the truth finally catching up with those trading in alternative facts: the scammers, bullshitters, fanatics and demagogues for whom the 21st century often seems a paradise of shameless self-gratification?
Although Jones has since claimed that the trial was a “victory”, albeit one whose current bill runs at more than $49m, even he was forced during its course to admit that the Sandy Hook attack was “one hundred per cent real”. For the millions who followed these humiliations on social media – not to mention the bereaved parents who have suffered years of appalling threats and abuse thanks to the conspiracies Jones promotes – this was a painfully overdue vindication of the hope that truth can defeat deceit. How far, though, does the resounding declaration that “your beliefs do not make something true” suggest some kind of precedent is also being set?
“stop the steal” and the attempted insurrection of 6 January 2021, it has never been easier to mobilise mass sentiment around rival realities. Yet truth retains at least one advantage: that reality itself can be counted on to support it. In contrast, every lie requires further lies to stay alive. If I falsely claim that (say) I never received a particular text message, I need to shield this claim from every scrap of contradictory evidence. If I were telling the truth, an honest investigation would vindicate me. However, preserving a fiction means weaving further fictions around inconvenient facts.
Unfortunately, although all of this is beautifully applicable when it comes to empirical inquiry, it has little to do with how and why most people arrive at beliefsin the first place. “I believe what I said was true,” Jones told Gamble. Her response, that this doesn’t make anything true, was magnificently correct. But it also contained an implicit counterpoint. Truths cannot, by themselves, make people believe anything. And in order to grasp what does, we need to look beyond bare facts towards the claims of value, purpose and identity that mobilise these into stories about what matters – and why.
There’s something brutally precise about the name “Infowars” in this context. Browsing its headlines on the day of the verdict, I learned that Jones was the victim of a “show trial”, that the prosecuting lawyer told the jury to “take him out” and that problems with global supply chains will persist because “the system is being sabotaged”. It’s a heady mix of paranoia, selective quotation and counter-narrative. But it’s also an amplified exemplum of the ways in which, to some degree, all of us make sense of the world: by seeking patterns and connections amid overwhelming complexity; by following the guidance of others who give form and focus to our frustrations; by becoming part of communities that promise to defend “us” against an alien, malevolent “them”. You may nod at this description but the newspaper you’re reading, right now, does a version of this very thing. And while you and I may feel certain we are on the right side, it’s an uncomfortable truth that we hold this belief for reasons that are as much tribal and cultural as rational.
None of this diminishes the ethical or practical importance of disinterested truth-seeking but it does suggest that, for all its force, it is also an exercise that can only take place after certain norms, practices and boundaries have been accepted by all involved. This is precisely why we have courtrooms, judges, lawyers and juries in the first place and why it’s vital that their sifting of truth from belief remains a last recourse. If the kind of common ground that enables us to engage with reality can be defended only by legal coercion, we are in a dangerous place.
Like millions of my tribe, I watched Jones’s humbling with relish and relief. At last, righteous justice was not only being done, but being dignified by the drama and rhetoric it deserved! When it comes to the larger scheme of things, however, I worry that the most important lesson is precisely the opposite of what I might wish it to be.
Belief is a battleground and conspiracies thrive not so much upon irrationality as upon division, condescension and the sheer profitability of unaccountable untruth. As is painfully true of our planetary context, the lessons we most urgently need to learn are ecological rather than argumentative, systematic rather than self-righteous.
They’re about the incentives embedded in information systems and the divisions and mistrust that these feed on. In the grander scheme of things, the last thing any of us can afford is to believe that simply being right will save us.
Tom Chatfield is an author and philosopher. His latest book isHow to Think
I’ve missed this thread. Always an entertaining read even if I don’t always agree with what’s posted
For the UFO geeks. New documentary on the Varginha incident in 1996...
You must log in or register to see media
You must log in or register to see images
.
Sums up the madness that is the USA imo.
First of all he's meant to pay up $50-odd million dollars. Where does that figure even come from? The case against him, brought by one affected family, was for $150m. Where does that figure come from? How can you put a realistic value on the murder of your child? They were eventually awarded $4m. Why such a huge discrepancy?
Then shortly before the case was concluded he withdrew $60m from his business and put it god knows where, then he applied to put his business into bankruptcy under some weird US law. Chances are there'll be even law work to find that money and get him to pay.
Seems to me that everything in the US has to be monetarised otherwise they just don't understand what's good, bad or indifferent. The bloke's lost his case, he's a **** of the highest order, stick him in jail for a long time. Don't let him out to either disappear somewhere with his money or just find means to avoid paying his fines whilst carrying on with the same old crap as he was before.
The place is full of lunatics.
The damages have nothing to do with the loss of their child, it was a libel trial and the damages are for the years of abuse the families received from morons who believed Jones’ ridiculous claims.
Because it's in Texas and they have law which caps payouts at 2x the settlment fee plus £750,000 dollars.
Alex Jones makes roughly $800,000 dollars a day scamming people into buying vitamins and other bullshit that appeals to Doomsday preppers and he's being doing it for pretty much as long as the Internet has been mainstream. You wouldn't get away with it in this country because our populous isn't as gullible (for the most part), but over there the grift is genuine. Not to get political (simply explaining how the grift works), but it's a core concept of how the Republican party raises funding. During live broadcasts of Trump's speeches, outlets like OAN (****ety bye to them) and Newsmax would offer the sale of "Trump Gold Coins", which in the advertisement claimed Trump was going to use as actual currency, but when the link was followed, the website clearly stated that it was memorabilia and not real currency. It also wasn't real gold either. They were selling for $149.99, if you got a million people to buy one of those coins, you've sorted a lot of campaign funding.
Any sightings of shape-shifting aliens emerging from secret nuclear bunkers?
Prepping and emergency preparedness is big business in the USA, I listen to quite a few American podcasts and radio channels, the amount of endorsements and advertorials is non-stop. I am still surprised at the amount of money that Jones is alleged to have made, I am taking it with a pinch of salt.
Would you believe it, Alex Jones did a midnight "emergency broadcast" to his followers where he declared victory.
Presumably he did this via tin cans on a string.
Presumably he did this via tin cans on a string.
His show gets hundreds of thousands of views, his website gets a decent amount of daily hits, it's not beyond the realms of impossibility that through ad revenue and sales he can generate that much.
If you go to the website Knowledge Fight, there's a group of people dedicated to smashing his bullshit into little tiny pieces. Which is not only hilarious, but also very, very important work. They literally scrutinise every word he says for accuracy, follow up every claim and then publish their findings. They even have a podcast, it's great stuff.
- Status