6 ms·

Right, _now_ they believe that. This is my whole point! Previously if you said that a powerful man who became a finance billionaire with nobody in industry know

Right, _now_ they believe that. This is my whole point! Previously if you said that a powerful man who became a finance billionaire with nobody in industry knowing him had a secret island where he hosted presidents, royalty, billionaires, intellectuals and they did drugs and raped kids those same people would have dismissed it as "conspiracy theory"

anonymouse008 4y ago
There's a new possibility that many of these 'crazy' conspiracies are intentional misdirections. Elon is king of this, as learned through his press releases with Tesla. One could almost back-test many of the crazy, stupid ideas, like the pizza parlor and now this most recent Balagencia deal, as all misdirections for what actually takes place.
ethanbond 4y ago
I think what you’re describing is people being skeptical of claims without evidence and then being convinced of those claims by evidence. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Edit: Just to be crystal clear given that surely there was some evidence of his misdeeds prior to the recent blow up (e.g. his Florida arrest and subsequent soft handling by Acosta etc.), what you're seeing is a rough correlation between the % of people who believe a claim and the volume/credibility of the evidence in support of that claim. So yeah, when there was little evidence few people believed it. Now that there's a lot, everyone takes it as fact. The only thing shocking here is how utterly reasonable it is.
notahacker 4y ago
Now they believe that because some victims came forward and didn't get dismissed, and the mainstream media reported on it. The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Now they believe that because some victims came forward and didn't get dismissed, and the mainstream media reported on it. https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ > The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
  - notahacker 4y ago
    Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false, and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then, it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... [1]https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false... "Touching" a story (True/False) is not the same as a story being reported on in a proper manner. Printing one story in the middle of one newspaper technically satisfies "touched". (Note: I have not made a claim that only one story on Epstein was printed, I am only describing what would be required to satisfy "touched"). Also: while choosing a maximally absurd complaint (that isn't even believed by conspiracy theorists) is an excellent rhetorical technique, it may not be so useful for engaging in truthful, good faith discussion. > ...and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then... Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not? Please explicitly state the person or organization that performs this duty that you are referring to. > ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... Can you explain what the intent of this is, and what it is you are referring to by "Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions" and "before he was involved in cheese pizza" and ""that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form"? My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

anonymouse008 4y ago

There's a new possibility that many of these 'crazy' conspiracies are intentional misdirections. Elon is king of this, as learned through his press releases with Tesla. One could almost back-test many of the crazy, stupid ideas, like the pizza parlor and now this most recent Balagencia deal, as all misdirections for what actually takes place.

ethanbond 4y ago

I think what you’re describing is people being skeptical of claims without evidence and then being convinced of those claims by evidence. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Edit: Just to be crystal clear given that surely there was some evidence of his misdeeds prior to the recent blow up (e.g. his Florida arrest and subsequent soft handling by Acosta etc.), what you're seeing is a rough correlation between the % of people who believe a claim and the volume/credibility of the evidence in support of that claim. So yeah, when there was little evidence few people believed it. Now that there's a lot, everyone takes it as fact. The only thing shocking here is how utterly reasonable it is.

notahacker 4y ago

Now they believe that because some victims came forward and didn't get dismissed, and the mainstream media reported on it. The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously

mistermann 4y ago
> Now they believe that because some victims came forward and didn't get dismissed, and the mainstream media reported on it. https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ > The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
- notahacker 4y ago
  Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false, and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then, it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... [1]https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false... "Touching" a story (True/False) is not the same as a story being reported on in a proper manner. Printing one story in the middle of one newspaper technically satisfies "touched". (Note: I have not made a claim that only one story on Epstein was printed, I am only describing what would be required to satisfy "touched"). Also: while choosing a maximally absurd complaint (that isn't even believed by conspiracy theorists) is an excellent rhetorical technique, it may not be so useful for engaging in truthful, good faith discussion. > ...and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then... Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not? Please explicitly state the person or organization that performs this duty that you are referring to. > ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... Can you explain what the intent of this is, and what it is you are referring to by "Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions" and "before he was involved in cheese pizza" and ""that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form"? My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]