3 ms·

>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 scre

>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.

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.