3 ms·

So, it happens that I have been indulging myself in watching flat earth videos on Youtube for the past few days. And I'm astonished that anybody can watch thes

by jMyles 9y ago

So, it happens that I have been indulging myself in watching flat earth videos on Youtube for the past few days. And I'm astonished that anybody can watch these and come to the belief that they're accurate. For example, no video explains the simple matter of how, in a "flat earth" model, seasons can occur without the sun traveling at different speeds across the sky through the year. Or how retrograde motion can be observed. These are obvious, glaring flaws. On the other hand, I have found that there is a wealth of good information about the JFK assassination (although some whacky fringe bullshit too). In this case, I do think that the "establishment" narrative (if it's even reasonable to call the "lone nut" theory that anymore) is demonstrably false, and that Youtube provides good resources for showing it. In other words: if you conclude, as I do, that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy but that the earth is not flat, then I think that the resources on Youtube does a good job of buttressing reasonable study on these matters.

soneil 9y ago
I'm not nearly well versed enough on the JFK assassination to comment. But flat-earthers are pretty much the stereotype of what I had in mind with my original comment. If you go into it disbelieving, you find something verging on absurdist comedy. If you go into it believing, you come out armed with theories and explanations to reinforce your belief. What I do find interesting, is without knowing enough to form my own take on the JFK incident .. this same model also fits the experience you just described. You go in with your mind made up, and you come out with evidence. Whether you're right or wrong, you'll find exactly what you want to hear. But to my original comment - would a wiki summary describing the "establishment narrative" have swayed you at all?
- jMyles 9y ago
  I went into the flat earth stuff absolutely ready to believe anything. I found some of the flat earthers to be surprisingly rational. But at the end of the day, there are easy-to-observe phenomena (as I say, seasons and retrograde motion) which break their theory. And diving into the explanations of them drives the viewer much more directly into the insane and fringe elements of the group (you can confirm this yourself by searching "flat earth seasons" and comparing it to the results you get from searching simply "flat earth"). And while it's true that I already had a sense that the JFK murder was the result of a conspiracy, I wasn't certain when I started combing Youtube; I was prepared to accept evidence of any sort, pointing to any conclusion(s). I remember finding "Rush to Judgment", a documentary-ish piece of media made just a year after the murder, and realizing how lucky I was to have a resource to find such a piece of media. Were my parents, who were just barely not yet born during this event, able to gain access to this media when they were my age? Of course not. And then on the specifics: I think that if there are similarly challenging facts to be found regarding the JFK assassination, on wikipedia or anywhere else, that I will be happy to accept them and change my mind. And I think that I'm fairly typical in this regard. On the other hand, the lone-nut theory needs to overcome some basic facts that it can't explain, like the Sylvia Odio incident. And similarly, searching for explanations of this that fit into the lone-nut theory drives the viewer directly into the irrational and ad-hominem-driven portions of the available media.

by jMyles 9y ago

soneil 9y ago

I'm not nearly well versed enough on the JFK assassination to comment. But flat-earthers are pretty much the stereotype of what I had in mind with my original comment. If you go into it disbelieving, you find something verging on absurdist comedy. If you go into it believing, you come out armed with theories and explanations to reinforce your belief. What I do find interesting, is without knowing enough to form my own take on the JFK incident .. this same model also fits the experience you just described. You go in with your mind made up, and you come out with evidence. Whether you're right or wrong, you'll find exactly what you want to hear. But to my original comment - would a wiki summary describing the "establishment narrative" have swayed you at all?

jMyles 9y ago
I went into the flat earth stuff absolutely ready to believe anything. I found some of the flat earthers to be surprisingly rational. But at the end of the day, there are easy-to-observe phenomena (as I say, seasons and retrograde motion) which break their theory. And diving into the explanations of them drives the viewer much more directly into the insane and fringe elements of the group (you can confirm this yourself by searching "flat earth seasons" and comparing it to the results you get from searching simply "flat earth"). And while it's true that I already had a sense that the JFK murder was the result of a conspiracy, I wasn't certain when I started combing Youtube; I was prepared to accept evidence of any sort, pointing to any conclusion(s). I remember finding "Rush to Judgment", a documentary-ish piece of media made just a year after the murder, and realizing how lucky I was to have a resource to find such a piece of media. Were my parents, who were just barely not yet born during this event, able to gain access to this media when they were my age? Of course not. And then on the specifics: I think that if there are similarly challenging facts to be found regarding the JFK assassination, on wikipedia or anywhere else, that I will be happy to accept them and change my mind. And I think that I'm fairly typical in this regard. On the other hand, the lone-nut theory needs to overcome some basic facts that it can't explain, like the Sylvia Odio incident. And similarly, searching for explanations of this that fit into the lone-nut theory drives the viewer directly into the irrational and ad-hominem-driven portions of the available media.