4 ms·

Good. This conspiracy theory idiocy about 5G is actively harmful to public infrastructure and it has to stop. My only complaint is that Icke wasn't demonetized

Good. This conspiracy theory idiocy about 5G is actively harmful to public infrastructure and it has to stop. My only complaint is that Icke wasn't demonetized over this. He should be banned from the platform entirely. He's actively harmful to society.

gridlockd 7y ago
I disagree completely. David Icke is responsible for the major conspiracy theory innovation that the Zionists controlling the world are actually shape-shifting Reptilians, effectively letting the Jews off the hook. That means a set of people who could've otherwise ended up in classic Nazi conspiracy circles end up in something closer to a science fiction fanclub. Yet another set of people who dipped their toes into conspiracy theories might actually start to question whether it's all bullshit, upon finding that the Pope is supposedly a lizard. The 5G thing on the other hand is something that a lot of people think is probably dangerous, whether they're conspiracy theorists or not. Of course conspiracy theorists picked it up, but if it wasn't 5G, it would be fluoride, or contrails, or literally anything else that might somehow be polluting water, ground or air.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > The 5G thing on the other hand is something that a lot of people think is probably dangerous, whether they're conspiracy theorists or not. If you think 5G is dangerous, and that there's a conspiracy to harm the public through wanton disregard for public health, you are a conspiracy theorist, it's just a matter of degree.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    Yes, but if you think 5G is dangerous, but don't think that there's a conspiracy to harm the public, then you are not a conspiracy theorist. I don't understand the point of your comment.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      What non-conspiracy theorist source is telling people that 5G is dangerous?
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        There's actual scientists doubting that it is safe: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... Now, they're not explicitly saying that 5G is dangerous, but that's not my point. Rolling out a potentially unsafe technology is dangerous, even if the technology is harmless. Pulling the trigger on a gun that might be loaded is dangerous, even if it isn't loaded.
        mullingitover 7y ago
        I have a Scientific American blog post too, which takes yours to task on the weak evidence the author is citing. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-... > Not only was the paper’s result weak, but the same analysis showed that male rats in the high-RF group lived significantly longer than the unexposed rodents. It would, of course, be utterly and equally fallacious to claim that RF exposure increases life span. Yet the fact that anti-5G activists are happy to gloss over this detail shows an alarming degree of cherry-picking afoot. > The most reliable data come from large and robust trials, with careful controls and large sample groups. The 13-country INTERPHONE study is one example: its unequivocal conclusion was that there was no causal relationship between phone use and incidences of common brain tumors such as glioblastoma and meningioma. The dose-response curve from this undertaking is telling, because it clearly does not betray any obvious signs of correlation. A similar Danish cohort study also did not reveal any obvious link between phone usage and tumor rates. Now, you're saying: > Rolling out a potentially unsafe technology is dangerous, even if the technology is harmless. So great news, the evidence that 5G is potentially unsafe isn't really there. Heck, there's evidence that it could make you live longer, so maybe we're being irresponsible by waiting to deploy it.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Except when Icke says "the aliens" sometimes he means aliens and sometimes he means "The Jews". Anti-Semitism is part of his beliefs. See for example this. https://twitter.com/davidicke/status/667764406466441216 https://twitter.com/davidicke/status/667764406466441216
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    Icke's theory does not differentiate between Zionists, Illuminati, the Rothschilds, the royal family, the pope and so on. They are all reptilian shapeshifters from another universe, sometimes posing as Jewish leaders, sometimes as Christian or secular leaders, but it's never "the Jews" as a people. The reason this distinction is important is because if you believe "your enemy" is really reptilians from another dimension, you don't have a reason to be hating or threatening the jews next door. It's strictly better than you becoming a Neonazi ready to pick up where the "final solution" left off, which is another possible trajectory. Bottom line, if you have the predisposition to believe in "secret group controls the world" stuff, I'd much rather have you believe in Icke's theories. If you don't have that predisposition, you're not going to believe in any of that stuff either way. You don't need to be "protected".
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      This is absurd. Saying "famous Zionist are reptiles" doesn't protect non famous Zionists. It promotes violence because it's a lot easier to set fire to a synagogue than assassinate a Prime Minister.
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        Jews and Zionists are not the same. A lot of Jews aren't Zionists, in fact some of the most Jewish looking Jews are anti-Zionist: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FKplabTRuak/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FKplabTRuak/maxresdefault.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zioni... Furthermore, a huge amount of leftists are openly anti-Zionist. I'm not saying the alien lizard theory is "protecting" anyone, I'm saying it's the better alternative to whatever Nazi conspiracy theory you're going to buy into otherwise.

gridlockd 7y ago

I disagree completely. David Icke is responsible for the major conspiracy theory innovation that the Zionists controlling the world are actually shape-shifting Reptilians, effectively letting the Jews off the hook. That means a set of people who could've otherwise ended up in classic Nazi conspiracy circles end up in something closer to a science fiction fanclub. Yet another set of people who dipped their toes into conspiracy theories might actually start to question whether it's all bullshit, upon finding that the Pope is supposedly a lizard. The 5G thing on the other hand is something that a lot of people think is probably dangerous, whether they're conspiracy theorists or not. Of course conspiracy theorists picked it up, but if it wasn't 5G, it would be fluoride, or contrails, or literally anything else that might somehow be polluting water, ground or air.

mullingitover 7y ago
> The 5G thing on the other hand is something that a lot of people think is probably dangerous, whether they're conspiracy theorists or not. If you think 5G is dangerous, and that there's a conspiracy to harm the public through wanton disregard for public health, you are a conspiracy theorist, it's just a matter of degree.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Yes, but if you think 5G is dangerous, but don't think that there's a conspiracy to harm the public, then you are not a conspiracy theorist. I don't understand the point of your comment.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    What non-conspiracy theorist source is telling people that 5G is dangerous?
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      There's actual scientists doubting that it is safe: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... Now, they're not explicitly saying that 5G is dangerous, but that's not my point. Rolling out a potentially unsafe technology is dangerous, even if the technology is harmless. Pulling the trigger on a gun that might be loaded is dangerous, even if it isn't loaded.
      - mullingitover 7y ago
        I have a Scientific American blog post too, which takes yours to task on the weak evidence the author is citing. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-... > Not only was the paper’s result weak, but the same analysis showed that male rats in the high-RF group lived significantly longer than the unexposed rodents. It would, of course, be utterly and equally fallacious to claim that RF exposure increases life span. Yet the fact that anti-5G activists are happy to gloss over this detail shows an alarming degree of cherry-picking afoot. > The most reliable data come from large and robust trials, with careful controls and large sample groups. The 13-country INTERPHONE study is one example: its unequivocal conclusion was that there was no causal relationship between phone use and incidences of common brain tumors such as glioblastoma and meningioma. The dose-response curve from this undertaking is telling, because it clearly does not betray any obvious signs of correlation. A similar Danish cohort study also did not reveal any obvious link between phone usage and tumor rates. Now, you're saying: > Rolling out a potentially unsafe technology is dangerous, even if the technology is harmless. So great news, the evidence that 5G is potentially unsafe isn't really there. Heck, there's evidence that it could make you live longer, so maybe we're being irresponsible by waiting to deploy it.
DanBC 7y ago
Except when Icke says "the aliens" sometimes he means aliens and sometimes he means "The Jews". Anti-Semitism is part of his beliefs. See for example this. https://twitter.com/davidicke/status/667764406466441216 https://twitter.com/davidicke/status/667764406466441216
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Icke's theory does not differentiate between Zionists, Illuminati, the Rothschilds, the royal family, the pope and so on. They are all reptilian shapeshifters from another universe, sometimes posing as Jewish leaders, sometimes as Christian or secular leaders, but it's never "the Jews" as a people. The reason this distinction is important is because if you believe "your enemy" is really reptilians from another dimension, you don't have a reason to be hating or threatening the jews next door. It's strictly better than you becoming a Neonazi ready to pick up where the "final solution" left off, which is another possible trajectory. Bottom line, if you have the predisposition to believe in "secret group controls the world" stuff, I'd much rather have you believe in Icke's theories. If you don't have that predisposition, you're not going to believe in any of that stuff either way. You don't need to be "protected".
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    This is absurd. Saying "famous Zionist are reptiles" doesn't protect non famous Zionists. It promotes violence because it's a lot easier to set fire to a synagogue than assassinate a Prime Minister.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      Jews and Zionists are not the same. A lot of Jews aren't Zionists, in fact some of the most Jewish looking Jews are anti-Zionist: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FKplabTRuak/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FKplabTRuak/maxresdefault.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zioni... Furthermore, a huge amount of leftists are openly anti-Zionist. I'm not saying the alien lizard theory is "protecting" anyone, I'm saying it's the better alternative to whatever Nazi conspiracy theory you're going to buy into otherwise.