4 ms·

>So my comment was incorrect in the specifics... You were completely wrong WRT what you were trying to assert with that comment. >...transcript is an indicati

>So my comment was incorrect in the specifics... You were completely wrong WRT what you were trying to assert with that comment. >...transcript is an indication that mass hysteria is still a perfectly plausible option... But, rather than reconsider your position upon discovering that you were mistaken, you immediately pivoted to finding other ways to justify your conclusion. And, you do so with this really odd, rambling epistle of footnotes that essentially amounts to, "it's possible". Sure, anything's possible, but I prefer proof along the lines of the altered brain matter findings in many of the sufferers. Do these physical findings affect your conclusion? It's really odd that you're working so hard to dismiss this. Are you aware that if this is an attack, the attackers would want people to dismiss it as hysteria or otherwise? Are you aware that they'd push propaganda to that effect? Does that fact impact your eagerness to dismiss it?

dundarious 5y ago
No, I misremembered exactly how I came to my conclusion. It was from listening to that exact podcast. There's no pivot. I didn't seek out any alternative sources to back up my original claim. I found the original source and noted where it differed from my recollection. I think your argument that I'm falling prey to foreign propaganda is pretty weak. Nevermind that the same logic applies in the other direction as well. We can all scream "CIA/KGB stooge!" at each other, or we can look at specific claims and require specific evidence. Especially from organizations that have every means to provide it.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >your argument that I'm falling prey to foreign propaganda is pretty weak. Nevermind that the same logic applies in the other direction as well. We can all scream "CIA/KGB stooge!" at each other, or we can look at specific claims and require specific evidence... My "conclusion" leaves open the possibilities and looks at the evidence. Your conclusion is that this is likely mass hysteria, which you "supported" with a wall of text that is essentially a statement of possibilities, masquerading as evidence. This, after invalidating prior info I presume you'd relied on. In all you are, in effect, working really hard to hold a specific line and prove a negative, which in itself is odd. Why do you think that is? No. The logic does not apply in the other direction. For one, if these are attacks, then there is motivation for the attackers to propagandize in exactly the manner you are demonstrating/repeating here. OTOH, the idea that the U.S. is somehow propagandizing here means...what, exactly? They've made no definitive claims beyond acknowledging these incidents exist and that they are investigating them. They've even allowed that mass hysteria is a possibility they've considered. So, no, your vague "both-sides" allusions that I am equally likely being manipulated by U.S. officials doesn't hold up. The thing about propaganda is that we're all susceptible to it and, by definition, it primarily works without our awareness. But, there are things we can do to filter and identify to protect ourselves, even if it's by likelihood versus by certainty. So, applying that, I'm saying that while I'm not certain you've been had, it seems pretty likely at this point. And, whether or not you care to acknowledge that, one thing you cannot deny is that your premature, dismissive conclusions here are in lockstep with the propaganda known to be promulgated by guilty parties.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >They've even allowed that mass hysteria is a possibility they've considered. Correction: They've investigated the possibility of a psychosomatic etiology. I've not seen any official U.S. acknowledgment of the specific phrase "mass hysteria", which denotes something qualitatively different.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    My wall of text was the citation you were looking for! You’re getting kinda worked up here, man. The transcript is kindof long, and I’m not really a big fan of the jokey vibe of the show, so I tried to save you having to find the relevant section. When I copied it in, it copied in all the cite numbers, and they seemed apt and as a happy accident, the numbers were all immediately following the two I had made myself (links to show and transcript). That’s not a rambling epistle, I was being nice (having got lucky with the numbers). And I don’t have a strong conclusion, I can’t do psychology from behind a keyboard and I’m not trained anyway. I said Sabine’s assumptions about mass hysteria type events are wrong, and that it’s actually pretty plausible in this case given the circumstances. Think about all the stories of cops “overdosing” after touching fentanyl powder. “Serious” establishment media are slavishly cooperative with the security state, and they publish these articles all the time, even though you can ask any doctor or do a literature review and find it’s impossible. Havana syndrome has a better chance of being true, but it’s in the same ballpark. And I think the idea that the propaganda argument doesn’t go two ways is laughable in 2021. Have you not seen the last 5 years of brinkmanship with Russia and China, most of which is bullshit (Steele dossier kompromat, bounties on soldiers in Afghanistan)? And Havana syndrome got money in a bill recently! Seems like the best way to get healthcare in the US is to be a smol bean in the CIA.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
>But, rather than reconsider your position upon discovering that you were mistaken, you immediately pivoted to finding other ways to justify your conclusion Are you aware that even the government report that ruled microwaves as the "most likely" cause says that all available evidence fits a psychogenic cause? Nobody needs to justify that conclusion, nor do they need foreign propaganda to believe it. They misremembered some of the details, but the broad strokes of "a few people had issues, and then there was a meeting telling them they were in danger" was still true. That creates the perfect environment for hysteria.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  You know, it's really remarkable the lengths you guys are going to to push this narrative. Comical, actually. I see another comment of yours on this thread that suggests neurologists don't train to identify neurological damage that results from psychosomatic disorders. Right. So, even the physical evidence that has been detected you write off as the result of psychosomatic damage. These people are showing up with detectable brain injuries and you're declaring here on the internet that they're psychosomatic and neurologists just aren't trained to understand it. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It's hard to imagine mere dupes pressing the agenda this hard. But maybe you're just trolling. Either way, I'm going to stop debating reality with you and your friend now.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    > that suggests neurologists don't train... That asks a question. I have no idea how much training neurologists have about psychogenic illnesses. All the study showed was the differences in the measurements, it does not mention any potential cause or really whether those differences explain the symptoms. >So, even the physical evidence that has been detected you write off as the result of psychosomatic damage. These people are showing up with detectable brain injuries First, psychosomatic illnesses can cause physical evidence. Besides that, something like three people had detectable injuries, the rest of the ~40 did not. There could be a very banal cause for that. Again, the US government's own report says that that a psychogenic cause completely fits the available evidence. Suggesting that is the cause isn't trolling nor have I been duped into this position. Your complete denial of it makes no sense, I fully admit further evidence may show me to be wrong but you refuse to see it as a possibility.

dundarious 5y ago

No, I misremembered exactly how I came to my conclusion. It was from listening to that exact podcast. There's no pivot. I didn't seek out any alternative sources to back up my original claim. I found the original source and noted where it differed from my recollection. I think your argument that I'm falling prey to foreign propaganda is pretty weak. Nevermind that the same logic applies in the other direction as well. We can all scream "CIA/KGB stooge!" at each other, or we can look at specific claims and require specific evidence. Especially from organizations that have every means to provide it.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>your argument that I'm falling prey to foreign propaganda is pretty weak. Nevermind that the same logic applies in the other direction as well. We can all scream "CIA/KGB stooge!" at each other, or we can look at specific claims and require specific evidence... My "conclusion" leaves open the possibilities and looks at the evidence. Your conclusion is that this is likely mass hysteria, which you "supported" with a wall of text that is essentially a statement of possibilities, masquerading as evidence. This, after invalidating prior info I presume you'd relied on. In all you are, in effect, working really hard to hold a specific line and prove a negative, which in itself is odd. Why do you think that is? No. The logic does not apply in the other direction. For one, if these are attacks, then there is motivation for the attackers to propagandize in exactly the manner you are demonstrating/repeating here. OTOH, the idea that the U.S. is somehow propagandizing here means...what, exactly? They've made no definitive claims beyond acknowledging these incidents exist and that they are investigating them. They've even allowed that mass hysteria is a possibility they've considered. So, no, your vague "both-sides" allusions that I am equally likely being manipulated by U.S. officials doesn't hold up. The thing about propaganda is that we're all susceptible to it and, by definition, it primarily works without our awareness. But, there are things we can do to filter and identify to protect ourselves, even if it's by likelihood versus by certainty. So, applying that, I'm saying that while I'm not certain you've been had, it seems pretty likely at this point. And, whether or not you care to acknowledge that, one thing you cannot deny is that your premature, dismissive conclusions here are in lockstep with the propaganda known to be promulgated by guilty parties.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >They've even allowed that mass hysteria is a possibility they've considered. Correction: They've investigated the possibility of a psychosomatic etiology. I've not seen any official U.S. acknowledgment of the specific phrase "mass hysteria", which denotes something qualitatively different.
- dundarious 5y ago
  My wall of text was the citation you were looking for! You’re getting kinda worked up here, man. The transcript is kindof long, and I’m not really a big fan of the jokey vibe of the show, so I tried to save you having to find the relevant section. When I copied it in, it copied in all the cite numbers, and they seemed apt and as a happy accident, the numbers were all immediately following the two I had made myself (links to show and transcript). That’s not a rambling epistle, I was being nice (having got lucky with the numbers). And I don’t have a strong conclusion, I can’t do psychology from behind a keyboard and I’m not trained anyway. I said Sabine’s assumptions about mass hysteria type events are wrong, and that it’s actually pretty plausible in this case given the circumstances. Think about all the stories of cops “overdosing” after touching fentanyl powder. “Serious” establishment media are slavishly cooperative with the security state, and they publish these articles all the time, even though you can ask any doctor or do a literature review and find it’s impossible. Havana syndrome has a better chance of being true, but it’s in the same ballpark. And I think the idea that the propaganda argument doesn’t go two ways is laughable in 2021. Have you not seen the last 5 years of brinkmanship with Russia and China, most of which is bullshit (Steele dossier kompromat, bounties on soldiers in Afghanistan)? And Havana syndrome got money in a bill recently! Seems like the best way to get healthcare in the US is to be a smol bean in the CIA.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>But, rather than reconsider your position upon discovering that you were mistaken, you immediately pivoted to finding other ways to justify your conclusion Are you aware that even the government report that ruled microwaves as the "most likely" cause says that all available evidence fits a psychogenic cause? Nobody needs to justify that conclusion, nor do they need foreign propaganda to believe it. They misremembered some of the details, but the broad strokes of "a few people had issues, and then there was a meeting telling them they were in danger" was still true. That creates the perfect environment for hysteria.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
You know, it's really remarkable the lengths you guys are going to to push this narrative. Comical, actually. I see another comment of yours on this thread that suggests neurologists don't train to identify neurological damage that results from psychosomatic disorders. Right. So, even the physical evidence that has been detected you write off as the result of psychosomatic damage. These people are showing up with detectable brain injuries and you're declaring here on the internet that they're psychosomatic and neurologists just aren't trained to understand it. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It's hard to imagine mere dupes pressing the agenda this hard. But maybe you're just trolling. Either way, I'm going to stop debating reality with you and your friend now.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  > that suggests neurologists don't train... That asks a question. I have no idea how much training neurologists have about psychogenic illnesses. All the study showed was the differences in the measurements, it does not mention any potential cause or really whether those differences explain the symptoms. >So, even the physical evidence that has been detected you write off as the result of psychosomatic damage. These people are showing up with detectable brain injuries First, psychosomatic illnesses can cause physical evidence. Besides that, something like three people had detectable injuries, the rest of the ~40 did not. There could be a very banal cause for that. Again, the US government's own report says that that a psychogenic cause completely fits the available evidence. Suggesting that is the cause isn't trolling nor have I been duped into this position. Your complete denial of it makes no sense, I fully admit further evidence may show me to be wrong but you refuse to see it as a possibility.