Message added by william.scherk
Reading lists, go-to books, Amazon wishes, new on the block editions: MSK and William's recommended books about conspiracy theories ... make perfect Judeo-Christmas non-altruistic gifts! 'Tis the Season (of Reason). From the blurb of Suspicious Minds:

"We’re all conspiracy theorists. Some of us just hide it better than others.

Conspiracy theorists do not wear tin-foil hats (for the most part). They are not just a few kooks lurking on the paranoid fringes of society with bizarre ideas about shape-shifting reptilian aliens running society in secret. They walk among us. They are us. Everyone loves a good conspiracy. Yet conspiracy theories are not a recent invention. And they are not always a harmless curiosity. In Suspicious Minds, Rob Brotherton explores the history and consequences of conspiracism, and delves into the research that offers insights into why so many of us are drawn to implausible, unproven and un-provable conspiracy theories. They resonate with some of our brain’s built-in quirks and foibles, and tap into some of our deepest desires, fears, and assumptions about the world."

brothertonbook.png

 

Reading: "Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories"


william.scherk

8,756 views

I want to recommend a book I just started reading last night: "Suspicious Minds," by Rob Brotherton. As is usual, I read first the chapter that stuck out -- Chapter 5, The Paranoid Fringe. It takes a useful critical look at the seminal article by Richard Hofstadter -- "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" -- and also runs to ground a plausible origin of 'tinfoil hats.' 

The book is written in a wry conversational tone, and is not on the surface a ''scholarly" read thick with endless footnotes, but it also contains a very useful reference list by page number -- as well as a full index at the back.  (My copy is from our local library, but I am going to order it from Amazon so I always have it on hand as a reference book.)

Here is an excerpt from the first page that might whet OLer's appetite for more ...

Quote

allisnitasitseems.png

In a fit of recursion, I include this bit of commentary from earlier this month. It suggests that I am bound by ingrained prejudice/s, which may or may not be true ... yet leaves the door open to further friendly discussion.

On 10/15/2017 at 1:12 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For those who still don't know how to process conspiracy theorists, I left the following comment over at William's blog the other day (see here). He didn't agree that it was a valid approach (it's hard to let go of a prejudice once ingrained :) ), but that is the way listening to conspiracy theorists works with people like me. And from the looks of things, it works that way with a shit-ton of people all over America.

-- for those who like to check out reviews before purchasing or borrowing from a library, here's a selection -- which I thought remarkable. Remarkable in the sense of "how many reviews do not mention Donald Trump?"

New York Times review by Adrian Chen
Inside Higher Education review by Scott McLemee
Brief Scientific American review by Maria Temming

-- for the benefit of Dear Leader, I found the book is available at his local library too!

MSKevanstonLibarySuspiciousMinds.png

220 Comments


Recommended Comments



1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

MMFA is partisan, deeply so. Does that mean the person in question is a liar on this particular issue, by your lights? 

William,

Liar in this case?

Nah...

Just all other times.

:evil: 

If I started posting stuff from Richard Spencer in a similar circumstance and acting sanctimonious about it, you would probably wonder what I was up to.

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

-- if you haven't been to Gab.ai, or DTube or Bitchute, they are all full of unusually stupid and hateful people.

And these platforms have some great people on them, too. 

I mean, isn't that your exact point by highlighting and defending a post from a stupid and hateful bigoted Media Matters toadie?

After all, this is what free speech looks like.

Right?

Michael

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

MMFA is partisan, deeply so. Does that mean the person in question is a liar on this particular issue, by your lights? 

Liar in this case?

Nah...

Just all other times.

Ah.

Quote

If I started posting stuff from Richard Spencer in a similar circumstance and acting sanctimonious about it, you would probably wonder what I was up to.

Intriguing analogy, on its face, but argument by analogy is not always persuasive. In this case, the analogy seems to equate Richard Spencer with Cristina Lopez G.  One being a Nazi-sympathizer, holocaust denier, hopeful of a white homeland, author, businessman and public figure ...

I think we need a bit more work on the analagous front.

Be that as it may, if you brought up a Richard Spencer article (or Gab.ai posting), presumably it would not be to glorify him, but to highlight his claim. If so, then we could check his claim against reality. That's generally what we do here at Objectivist Living, or attempt to do. It isn't always easy.

Quote
15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

-- if you haven't been to Gab.ai, or DTube or Bitchute, they are all full of unusually stupid and hateful people.

And these platforms have some great people on them, too. 

Thank you. I am on Gab.ai here: https://gab.ai/wsscherk. I have 23 followers. I don't know if they are all great people yet ...

Quote

I mean, isn't that your exact point by highlighting and defending a post from a stupid and hateful bigoted Media Matters toadie?

Ha!  My main point was to highlight the gen from Cristina, which suggested Andrew Anglin was in favour of shitposters flagging (in his eyes) loser Kayak Joo Youtube accounts who weren't sufficiently lit to defend his freeze peach 'rights.' 

Quote

After all, this is what free speech looks like.

Right?

If you want to moderate, restrict posting privileges, refer to OL community guidelines, warn, issue strikes, ban --  this is your website.  The website even has a "flag" function on each comment to apprise staff of possible offences against the Guidelines, though who knows if any staff pay attention.

Anyway, what is the latest scuttlebutt from the world of free-speech and great people?  First, David Seaman is tired of this world:

seamanPublicLife.png

Andrew Anglin has a suggestion for his followers. 

anglinSJWdeplatform.png

LIES!

Meanwhile, if you get a chance, watch Infowars Marathon Whinge-Fest today:

operationPaulRevere.png

And one for the ladies of OL (amazing what soy-based mantranceuticals can do):

sexyAlex.jpg

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Intriguing analogy, on its face, but argument by analogy is not always persuasive. In this case, the analogy seems to equate Richard Spencer with Cristina Lopez G.  One being a Nazi-sympathizer, holocaust denier, hopeful of a white homeland, author, businessman and public figure ...

I think we need a bit more work on the analagous front.

William,

It's called abstraction.

Bigotry, irrational prejudice, hatred, etc. apply to both. And a conceit that they own the One True Truth for Humanity.

They just have different targets to look down their noses and spew hatred at. But they are both the same kind of animal.

Anti-critical thinkers who claim to be critical thinkers, so to speak.

So, no. No work at all needs to be done on the analogous front. In fact the analogy is clearer than normal. Showing that Cristina Loipez G. is actually the same as a Nazi sympathizer (but with a different target) highlights the ickiness of her corrupted soul and mental processes.

But, hey, she's your gal for reasoned discourse, not mine.

:) 

21 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

If you want to moderate, restrict posting privileges, refer to OL community guidelines, warn, issue strikes, ban --  this is your website.  The website even has a "flag" function on each comment to apprise staff of possible offences against the Guidelines, though who knows if any staff pay attention.

I rarely do that. The soy boys and similar ilk at the social media giants are going hog wild, though. Check this one out:

Facebook Threatens Satire Site Babylon Bee over CNN Story That Snopes Rated 'False'

What was the Babylon Bee story Snopes fact-checked and Facebook used for warning?

CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News Before Publication

cnn-1024x580.png

They actually took this story as a real story.

:)

The current batch of Facebook censors and social justice warrior fact-checkers have more zeal than eyesight.

Message to Facebook: If you want to hire censors and/or fact-checkers and even pretend to do good, it would be helpful if you didn't hire flaming idiots.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment

It takes him a while to get going, but dirty-trickster Roger Stone has some information about the Hope Hicks resignation.  

This may be taken from a longer segment, in which the trickster comments on items in the news. below.  Did he mention the Myooler investigation's latest burger toppings, the Hope Hicks testimony on Capitol Hill, the Jared Kushner saga (lost Top Secret clearance, iffy White House meetings with lenders for his troubled companies), the McMaster departure rumours, the Myooler witchhunt's interest in Ivanka Trump's double-dealing, the Jeff Sessions Kabuki-Twitter whoopee) ...?

You will have to watch/listen to the whole dang thing.  That's the hardest part about keeping an eye on Truth.  Time.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Infowars to have its Youtube main channel unplugged?

If so, I think this will not turn out cleanly for anyone. Whether or not it's a ploy, the result will be headaches and jowl-flapping outrage and jig-dancing ... or so it seems to me.

I have not dug into the details deliverable from Infowars, so can't pass along what the "notice" said.

2231 people were talking about this at the time of posting.

UPDATE: Things are not always what they seem ...

Mind you, we haven't yet estimated the ickiness level of his soul and corrupted mental processes. 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
9 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Mind you, we haven't yet estimated the ickiness level of his soul and corrupted mental processes. 

William,

I have.

There is huge moral difference between Alex Jones and the people who work at Media Matters. Alex goes overboard. He overreacts. But he sincerely believes what he says at the time he says it. For example, in reality, he is under assault by the administration and employees of YouTube, as are many right wing content creators.

(I personally believe fear of lawsuits and mass exodus of users keeps things from exploding with Infowars, but there is no doubt at all in my mind that the majority of YouTube's management and employee base loathe Alex Jones. I'll go into this later but there is one aspect that is simple to verify and understand. Eric Schmidt hired an enormous amount of young activist Hillary Clinton supporters when he was helping her run her campaign during the presidential election. Life was supposed to be good after she got sworn in. Then the wrong guy got elected. Now life ain't so good for the company. Even discounting the cracks in the government-corporation cronyism and loss of unearned money and power, when about 70% of the people who work for you loathe the President and those who support him, it's hard to fix this and get things back on track. Your own people will constantly sabotage those they hate even when you tell them not to.)

On the other hand, the Media Matters journalists tell bald-faced lies to their own public and know they are lying when they do it. A lot of the stuff they say doesn't even have a tangential connection to reality and they know they are making it up. Their core public doesn't mind most of the time because the lies fit their beliefs. This is what journalism people of that ilk call "controlling the narrative." Also, they do crummy things like use a massive number of fake accounts on social media to sockpuppet bomb the advertisers of prominent right-wing celebrities. The idea is to create a false impression to the advertisers. In other words, they don't want to win an intellectual war. They just want to take power and remove those who disagree with them by any means possible.

I call this ickiness of soul and corrupted mental processes. If you don't like those terms, I can come up with others. Selling out. Hanky-panky. Intellectual swindling. And so on.

I don't call what Alex does the same thing. He's right about a hell of a lot, but sometimes he goes off the rails. Sometimes he's goofy. Sometimes he rants way too much like a hellfire and brimstone backwater preacher. Sometimes he's overly paranoid. But that's an entirely different animal.

Let me see if I can find a good metaphorical comparison...

Um... Let's see...

Morally, Alex Jones is rough unpolished ore and will probably never get refined. The Media Matters folks are putrid rotting garbage not worth salvaging.

There.

Is that clear or is it too nuanced?

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Mind you, we haven't yet estimated the ickiness level of [Charlie Warzel's] soul and corrupted mental processes. 

I have.

There is huge moral difference between Alex Jones and the people who work at Media Matters.

Charlie Warzel doesn't work at Media Matters.

 

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Charlie Warzel doesn't work at Media Matters.

William,

What does that have to do with anything I said? I don't even know who that guy is.

Are you having trouble tracking?

You echoed a comment of mine about a Media Matters employee (who I cited as such) to apply it to Alex Jones.

I suggest you look just a few posts above and see who I was talking about in that comment. 

Helpfully,

:)

Michael

 

btw - I just now looked at Charlie Warzel's Twitter account to see who he was. He works at Buzzfeed, for God's sake. That's another beauty of an organization, a real bastion of integrity that is. Pure political toadiness to the ruling class elitists. Except they add an overdose of clickbait and other marketing and behavioral science manipulations to their ickiness and mental corruption. 

Anyway, YouTube and other tech giants should probably be more worried about the following than anything, since a growing swarm of lawsuits has started and this is a very interesting legal theory.

I happen to love what is happening because it opens a slew of opportunities to newcomers in social media. I expect these current tech giants to go the way of MySpace since they are making the same fundamental mistake MySpace did--that is, mistreating their users. Some very competent people who don't play so nice are even noticing the opportunities.

Link to comment

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Charlie Warzel doesn't work at Media Matters.

What does that have to do with anything I said? I don't even know who that guy is.

I thought that you had rushed to assign Warzel to a great Icky Blob of Moral Badness, attributing to him the sins of the loathsome Blob encompassing all that is Evul, MMFA.  My attribution error is exposed, thank you for bringing it forward ...

I also thought -- perhaps quite mistakenly -- you may have missed the import of Warzel's fact-checking Alex Jones's misleading announcement.

As it turns out, I think someone was indulging in Blobnative before Cognitive.  Above, one of your generalizations struck me as hasty and without specifics ...

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On the other hand, the Media Matters journalists tell bald-faced lies to their own public and know they are lying when they do it. A lot of the stuff they say doesn't even have a tangential connection to reality and they know they are making it up.

If only I had this power of clairvoyance. I am not able to so easily descry minds.  Do you have any tips?  

Quote

You echoed a comment of mine about a Media Matters employee (who I cited as such) to apply it to Alex Jones.

"The Media Matters folks are putrid rotting garbage not worth salvaging."

Quote

I suggest you look just a few posts above and see who I was talking about in that comment. 

The Blob?

Quote

btw - I just now looked at Charlie Warzel's Twitter account to see who he was. He works at Buzzfeed, for God's sake.

Hmmm.  It may be a difference in our cognitive styles. Knowing he works at Buzzfeed is one thing, checking out and verifying/refuting his specific claim another, at least to my mind. It may serve us well to assign to a Blob, thinking fast, thinking slow, but I would argue that one should first scrutinize a particular claim ... independently of prejudices.

In this case, Warzel was correct, Jones was bullshitting.  All the dozen or so Youtube channels under his rubric or control are ticking over nicely today. False alarm!

I kind of enjoy the talking down to me, and the combative one-upmanship.  It keeps me sharp and seems to give you energy to fight on ... against The Blob. It is mildly disturbing that you forbore comment on the warrants I dug up supporting Blob Woman's gen, adduced above.  The tangential connection to reality and all that.


Here is an example of Infowars staff (in this case, Owen Shroyer) doing what I consider zero due diligence.  It is disheartening to me that no attempt was made to weigh evidence.  I wonder what other Objectivist Living members and guests glean from a Narrative such as this. Is it persuasive? Are there questions, concerns, skeptical impulses?

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I am not able to so easily descry minds.  Do you have any tips?  

William,

Actually you convinced me.

I think we should bow down before our betters and just do whatever they tell us to do.

And if they are less than truthful, well.. let's just give them a pass. They know better than we do so they probably have good reasons for lying like low-down scum in our faces. Over and over and over and over and over.

Beeseyedz, them beddernmee folks shore due have sum preddy propagander...

And then there's this. I certainly don't know how to make my own choices in life.

Thank God they exist to tell me.

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Link to comment
7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

In this case, Warzel was correct, Jones was bullshitting.

And how, pray tell, do we know that?

Did YouTube tell you? Did YouTube issue a statement?

Nooooooooooooooooo....

Warzel told you. He said so himself. It's right there. Written and all.

On Twitter at that.

So it's gotta be true, right? I mean, the guy said it... And he said YouTube said it. Or at least someone at YouTube said it. That is, said it to him. Or maybe not. That part's kinda iffy...

Anyway, Warzel said it and that is the Popperian falsification standard for truth in knowing what other people we don't have access to do. After all, he's from Buuuuuuuuuuuzzzzzzzfeeeeeeeeeeeeedddd...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?

Or is there a bit of an epistemological thingie here that needs to be checked?

Michael

Link to comment

This is just for pissing off folks.

Kim's cool.

:)

Michael

Link to comment

Recursion!

On 02/03/2018 at 10:47 AM, william.scherk said:

Did [dirty trickster Roger Stone] mention the Myooler investigation's latest burger toppings, the Hope Hicks testimony on Capitol Hill, the Jared Kushner saga (lost Top Secret clearance, iffy White House meetings with lenders for his troubled companies), the McMaster departure rumours, the Myooler witchhunt's interest in Ivanka Trump's double-dealing, the Jeff Sessions Kabuki-Twitter whoopee) ...?

The barrage of Sky-is-Falling histrionics from Infowars over the last couple of panic cycles** has sort of pushed out reporting on The Myooler-Burger Menu, so I haven't caught Stone or the other crisis actors discussing the latest from the Blob. To your nothing-burger add a scoop of nada:

 

Quote

You will have to watch/listen to the whole dang thing.  That's the hardest part about keeping an eye on Truth.  Time.

Axios is an interesting site.  The format is brief, brief reports, rarely more than 600 words.  For example:

axiosBriefGhoutaMar5.png


** -- in light of Michael's and my mutual love and respect, I think the best way for me to illuminate my concerns is with a re-analysis of the Emergency Transmission3 STRIKES AGAIN, and What is going on Youtube? videos from the Alex Jones stable of accounts.

I use technical aids, as I think I have mentioned before. I download the entire videos and separately download their corresponding subtitle files.  The first is accomplished with the online service Clip Converter and the second with a little application called Google2SRT.

Once I have the raw subtitle files in hand (automated captions written on the fly via Youtube's voice-recognition facility), I am almost able to read them.

In another application, Subtitle Edit, I then clean up the errors in time-codes and remove all extraneous formatting. Subtitle Edit has a variety of outputs, among which a plain-text.  I can then save a simple text file that retains timecodes.

All this for what? To avoid what I don't like about a lot of online channels:  people shouting at me from the screen, the emotional manipulation, the histrionics. If you are a reader like me, it is far quicker to skim/read/absorb than to listen, even at 2X speed. Having a text allows for a more timely analysis, recursion, an ability to quickly find key words, concepts, assertions and claims -- and in the end perhaps a more sober analysis. (believe it or not, this is how I watch most television programmes, with subtitles on, muting the music and shouting and emotionalism where it gets tiresome)

Reading in place of listening/watching may be kind of analogous to Show 'n' Tell.  Arguments are there in black and white. 

-- Subtitle Edit has another useful function: it allows you to embed the downloaded video within the application. This allows the editor (me) to quickly locate the events/assertions and mark excerpts I wish to feature in a subsequent video assemblage. 

That longwinded technical dweebery done, here is the plaintext with timecodes for the first video of the three I link to, which contains the claims one goo-finger of the Blob took issue with on Twitter:  EMERGENCY!

[locked till I get back from obligations ... wanted to add in links and sass ]

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

While we are waiting for Show 'n' Tell, here's Roger Stone on Infowars talking about Sam Nunberg's splash-out on various outlets yesterday.  Not much meat, but hey ... in a nutshell, Nunberg got a subpoena from the Myooler-Burger stand (that scoop of nada from Axios), and decided to get mildly famous for a panic cycle. One of his various points was that Myooler-Burger was targeting Stone, who was his mentor.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
On 06/03/2018 at 11:31 AM, william.scherk said:

in a nutshell, Nunberg got a subpoena from the Myooler-Burger stand (that scoop of nada from Axios), and decided to get mildly famous for a panic cycle. One of his various points was that Myooler-Burger was targeting Stone, who was his mentor.

Nunberg appears to have listened to counsel and decided to fully cooperate with the Special Burger ...

nunbergBacktracks.png

Here's a bit of Blobbery from summer 2016 when Nunberg got slapped with a lawsuit from Trumpworld:

Nunberg, through his association with longtime Trump political adviser Roger Stone, advised Trump amid his flirtation with a presidential run in 2012. And when Trump began preparing his 2016 bid, Nunberg was again at his side, making early preparations for a potential campaign.

But late last summer, racially charged posts that Nunberg posted on Facebook surfaced and the campaign fired him.

Since then, Nunberg has been fiercely critical of Trump and his campaign staff, particularly Lewandowski, who is now a CNN contributor.

-- according to the Blob, Nunberg fed it some information about an on-the-street slanging match between Trumpworld insiders Hope Hicks and Corey Lewandowsky. This triggered the lawsuit.

Elsewhere:

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[T]he mainstream fake news media put a source who is not anonymous on primetime to take the lion's share of time on their live broadcasts without a smidgen of verification

It isn't clear how media outlets should have behaved when Nunberg identified himself as the subject of Axios's scoop subpoena and called in to tell his story of woe and annoyance.  Should his willingness to explain have been rebuffed?  He seemed on a mission ...

Ought we use similar standards of intellectual hygiene with a blob of Truther Media?

I invite speculation on just what Sam Nunberg has to offer the Myooler-Burger stand, if anything.  And how would Nunberg communications with Roger Stone help uncover any further lurking mysteries (not to mention the other contacts from the campaign he must divulge)?

Here is the man of the hour, doing his level best to spin the Gary Cohn resignation ... I wonder when Infowars will get busy with the Stormy Daniels whoopup; Jim Hoft, at the unreliable reliably Trumpist Gateway Pundit sez:   Washed Up Porn Star Stormy Daniels Sues Donald Trump Over Unsigned Hush Agreement

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

It isn't clear how media outlets should have behaved when Nunberg identified himself as the subject of Axios's scoop subpoena and called in to tell his story of woe and annoyance.

William,

It's perfectly clear. If you are a media company without a shred of integrity, you bombard your programming with the dude and spread fake news all over the place. Maybe set up panels of experts to discuss it ad nauseum. Bring on other experts to make dire predictions about President Trump's future. Pontificate and make demands. Blah blah blah...

If you are a media company with integrity, you run checks and verifications and only present what you know to be fact. (duh...)

Unfortunately, the mainstream fake news media no longer knows what integrity means.

What's worse, the modern-day audience has grown used to fake news as a default, so there's little outrage over such shoddy, crooked and incompetent programming.

Like a comment I read out there somewhere (I forget who said it), I simply cannot imagine Walter Cronkite prostituting his show like the current mainstream media does. He was a professional journalist. The modern folks are propagandists and toadies.

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

He seemed on a mission ...

I know lots of people on a mission. So the guy's on a mission. Does that mean he scheduled himself to eat up an entire broadcast day on the different channels of the mainstream fake news media?

Heh...

Man would these other folks on a mission love to get the media exposure that guy got. Somehow being on a mission isn't enough.

I wonder what makes it all happen, I wonder...

(Nah... I don't really wonder...)

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If you are a media company without a shred of integrity, you bombard your programming with the dude and spread fake news all over the place.

Like what? What false reporting do you have in mind? The lack of specifics is sort of blobberish.

Quote

If you are a media company with integrity, you run checks and verifications and only present what you know to be fact.

That's not how it works on Infowars. In any case -- running checks on what? Verificate what? If you cited/referenced something specific from the Nunberg Show episodes, readers might be able to find the bones within the fudgy claims. 

I mean, what is at dispute? You cannot see much detail when you fly at ten thousand kilometres above events.

Quote

Unfortunately, the mainstream fake news media no longer knows what integrity means.

Blob!

Quote

What's worse, the modern-day audience has grown used to fake news as a default, so there's little outrage over such shoddy, crooked and incompetent programming.

You don't speak for anyone but yourself, right?

Quote

The modern folks are propagandists and toadies.

Blob!

Quote

I know lots of people on a mission. So the guy's on a mission. Does that mean he scheduled himself to eat up an entire broadcast day on the different channels [?]

Axios had a scoop with the subpoena. Nunberg came forward with the revelatuon that the subpoena was directed at him, and made himself available for live questioning on air to vent about it. News? True? 

During his mission to explain his reaction, he said he would not comply with the M-Burger subpoena, and castigated a number of people, assumptions, bloated claims of collusion, and generally ran on at the mouth about his aggravation at the "ridiculous" demands from the burger stand. News? Worthy of comment?


I have a word, hoopla. I apply it to the churn among various outlets when an item of news hits the waves. For example CNNBLOB supplies studios full of contract correspondents and subject-area junkies, Democraticish go-tos, and others, and overlards any story with their blabbery. Jeffrey Toobin, Gloria Borger, and it seems a stable full of paid reactors all pop in and out of panels, sometimes in a variation on Manic Hollywood Squares, yammer, shout, overtalk, opine, grizzle, whinge, flapgummery. 

Quote

Man would these other folks on a mission love to get the media exposure that guy got.

Sam Nunberg is a special case of I Love To Talk. It might be a New York thing. I notice he did not get an interview with Infowars, with his mentor, Stone. I wonder why not.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Does Tucker Carlson suggest I Love To Talk was a 3D chess sort of triumph? At least the guy had the jam to go live. Not something Jared would do. The subpoena is a piece of a greater machinery; the larger factory should be kept in mind, the hugely expensive Witchburgh, the phony Russia Russia Russia conspiracy theory theory.

So, Tucker. Did the Nunberger moves reveal a naked non-burger? Where's your beef?

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Like what? What false reporting do you have in mind? The lack of specifics is sort of blobberish.

William,

Not in today's context.

If your arguments are at this level, this isn't even worth discussing. It's kinda clueless...

Here's the difference between your use of fake news sources and my use of conspiracy theory oriented news sites.

You take the fake news as true by default with a few minor exceptions. Places like CNN are respectable to you. They are not to me. They lost my respect.

On the other end, I have said, many times--including in the Conspiracy Theory thread many times--that I have to check everything I come across on places like Infowars. They are great for bulldozing into the culture and uncovering things the powerful prefer to remain hidden. They don't get everything right, but that's part of their nature. So it's no use pretending I read those sites in the same manner you read sites like CNN.

I don't.

But if I do that checking with Infowars, imagine my disgust when I look at the crap CNN puts out. I used to respect that organization. But now? CNN rains fake news shit all over the place 24/7, it has been doing that for a few years now, we have constantly discussed the respective issues here on OL, and now you're asking for examples of this shit as if this is a gotcha.

Dayaamm!

:) 

Michael

Link to comment

TL;DR: I think Charlie Warzel was right. Have I been eaten by the BLOB?

On 3/4/2018 at 5:35 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 3/4/2018 at 2:34 PM, william.scherk said:

I would argue that one should first scrutinize a particular claim ... independently of prejudices.

In this case, Warzel was correct, Jones was bullshitting.  [Un-truncquoated: ll the dozen or so Youtube channels under his rubric or control are ticking over nicely today. False alarm!]

And how, pray tell, do we know that?

Did YouTube tell you? Did YouTube issue a statement?

This isn't my first time at the Evidence Bar. Which means I have seen and listened to and noted other Youtube whingers showing off their 'penalty' notifications, either screenshots or printouts. Seaman and Nemos and Sather and others have done his kind of show 'n' tell. With the Infowars tweet and video, Jones was claiming something else -- and not providing a screenshot or email or print-out. Moreover, he did not make it clear throughout which channels in his stable he was talking about. There were no visual aids. It was a crisis actor panic performance, in my opinion. 

Let's look at what he claimed in his tweet, which is what triggered a teapot storm ...

The Alex Jones channel with billions of views is frozen. We have been told it will be deleted tomorrow and all 33 thousands videos will be erased.

"We have been told" is where he goes off the rails. Nothing in the video supports this. Who?

My opinion is that Alex was exaggerating and misstating a perceived siege situation, and that I don't believe he got an exceptional message from Youtube. 

Now, for readers who wondered what the BLOB had to say about this claim, again ...

I reached out to YouTube about this - it’s not true. Been informed there’s no plan to erase the channel tomorrow, as Jones says. 

 and

YT DID tell Jones that advertisers reached out and asked to be removed from channel. But YT didnt tell Jones what he claims. Furthermore, YT says this isn’t even how the account termination process happens (getting advance warning)
 

So, to set aside the BLOB, we have to assume these last bolded statements must be untrue,  so there was no actual "reaching out" (the BLOB has no knowledgeable contacts within Youtube) , so  what BLOB sez YT says is untrue and no fanfare or digging out posts can change that. This is double-plus un-truth: "There is no plan to erase the channel tomorrow. This isn't even how the account termination process happens." 

And yet ...

One path where I go with the BLOB -- I've had a (since removed) strike on my account (a Diana Mertz Hsieh DCMA takedown). There is a place on your account (each channel) where your strikes are there for show 'n' tell, with details.  The whingers and whiners noted above highlighted these pages from their accounts. Here is an example.

UrxwC44aNIheh6GufO9Ei0sdrxuMzvZTPrCQ4eTg

Note that the process is even more laboriously laid out at the support pages for Youtube. Eg, 

strikeBasics.png

The last bit of warrant for the BLOB version of How Things Are ... is that no channel Alex Jones controls was disappeared.  

The way I look at it, the genesis of the panic broadcast was perhaps that one of his channels had two strikes on it, which meant that he could juice up the Sword Of Damocles moment, leveraging the inventive spin that Doom was set to descend overnight, that Youtube would unplug his empire the following day. 

Anyhow, I posted the transcripted subtitle file above, along with the full Emergency! video. Here I include a highlight reel, where I have tried to extract the verifiable or unprovable claims made pertinent by his Twitter Freak Out.

Ahead on the horizon is the same process for the second and third videos I noted comprised the rolling crisis actor performances tied to the original claim. What will excite Friends and Foes visitors is that Alex puts screen grabs and/or printouts on the screen in the succeeding videos!  Sneek peek later.

Thinking slow, thinking fast, thinking in Blobs.  Black and white thinking.  The excluded middle. Overladen and yet fey canoes. Histrionics and performance art and Them.

"If you are a media company with  he has integrity,  you run he runs checks and verifications and only presents what he knows to be fact."

On 3/4/2018 at 5:35 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

After all, he's from Buuuuuuuuuuuzzzzzzzfeeeeeeeeeeeeedddd...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?

Or is there a bit of an epistemological thingie here that needs to be checked?

Fast or slow!? Details or no?!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Fast or slow!? Details or no?!

William,

To boil all your hard work down, here's what I get.

If Charlie Warzel says it, to you it's true.

If Alex Jones says it, to you it's false. 

I wish your research had some relevance to why one is true and the other not, but it's just tangential filler. And something about a blob.

:) 

Here's a thought for you. Maybe Alex Jones has had some communication with YouTube that is not public. (Like he said, for example. :) ) 

Michael

Link to comment
On 11/26/2017 at 3:42 PM, william.scherk said:

What is so neat about social contagion, weird things, un-reason, disagreeable assholism, irrational beliefs,  sham and fake inquiry  -- it can happen across the above-mentioned tribes. The book I recommend  hammers home the lesson. It's not them, it's us. A tendency to connect dots, impute malice, spy out large menacing things moving in the distance, it's part of the human equipment. Note the signs in members of your own 'tribe' ... help steer each other clear of the shoals. Do your best to hold on to reason and objectivity.

It's not "them," it's us.

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now