Remember to open-mindedly comment on subs with differing narratives!

submitted by happysmash27 from (self.SaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Zombi 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

I agree 100%. I actually JUST posted in a conspiracy thread. I myself am very skeptical of conspiracies and I find myself very opposed to most of them (mostly due to logical flaws and giving speculation waaaay too much merit). One fear I had while making the post was the possibility for being banned. I will most likely make more contrarian posts on that sub and my fear is that I will be seen as "An MSM shill" and thus banned from posting. It's the most worrying with conspiracy theorists as they tend to easily shut out and completely disregard anyone who agrees with any kind of MSM narrative, no matter how justified/backed up it is.

I hope we can all just realize we're all people with our own lives. We all are just trying to speak our minds and converse. We aren't some stereotype or some strawman. People rarely do things in malice and on the contrary most people disagree because they think what they believe will be best for other people and themselves; they just have different routes towards the same goal.

I hope we can all understand those simple facts and learn from each other. I hope others have the critical thinking the prove when they are right and the strength to admit when they are wrong.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I'm seen as a MSM shill by some users of the site (despite not even knowing what MSM meant when I joined the site – turns out it means "mainstream media" which is a nebulous term meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean). This, however, doesn't matter; others, like /u/JasonCarswell, have got a more accurate idea of who I am and what my motives are (which actually conflicted with my own self-image, leading to introspection and hopefully self-improvement). It turned out to be a net-positive, in the end.

I say go ahead. Don't care who calls you a shill; they're just trying to push you out and shut you up just the same as when they're calling people SWJs or "from the_donald" or "brainwashed by religion". You are, in other words, not blindly accepting what they say, and they don't know how to deal with such an unexpected phenomenon (or, worse, know exactly how to deal with an expected one).

If they don't like what you're saying, and you're higher up than them on the pyramid of debate, they're free to leave. But don't listen to them when they tell you to.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not so worried about being seen as a shill as some sort of insult, I'm more worried by the logic that would follow if I was deemed a shill. It would make sense that if you see someone as a puppet designed to spout malicious rhetoric that you'd just want to ban them because what they're saying is lies regardless of if their logic is based on facts or not. I'm being a bit paranoid, I know, but I'd be lying if it didn't cross my mind when I comment over there. It will most likely be fine and there's no way it would actually stop me from speaking my mind, but I guess I'm mainly worried that people won't even give me the time of day because of the label and even worse: ban me because of it.

Like I said, most likely me being overly cautious, but I can't help feeling that way either.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Them calling you a shill is merely a self-defence mechanism against thinking too hard. When you start making good points, they start to stop calling you a shill. (I learned that the hard way; I had to actually make good points instead of just bad points about Correct Things™.)

[–]SundogsPlace 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

wizzwizz People will take you more seriously when you stop posting untrue things that you make up. For example, you post > "mainstream media" which is a nebulous term meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean." <-

This is untrue, it does not mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. As per the Oxford living dictionary, mainstream media means

"treated as singular or plural Traditional forms of mass communication, such as newspapers, television, and radio (as opposed to the Internet) regarded collectively." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/msm

So you see, the statement you made above put you pretty low on the pyramid of debate you've just bragged about your position on because you made it up. In my experiance people who post untruths that they make up to make their point are often shills.

Also, you mention you have a motive for being here. Would you care to enlighten the rest of us, or is it a secret motive only yourself and Jason are privy too?

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

As per the Oxford living dictionary, mainstream media means

And yet many people would say that articles posted on the CNN website are part of the mainstream media. I find that people generally use it to mean "the big scary entity that's out to get me" and that depends on what their opinions are. Some things count as mainstream and others don't depending on whether they agree or disagree with them. I'm not saying you use it like that, but it's probably a term to either avoid or clarify each time you use it.

So you see, the statement you made above put you pretty low on the pyramid of debate

Being wrong doesn't put you further down the pyramid of debate. That's just silly. Otherwise I could argue that you're low down on the pyramid of debate, because I think you're wrong, and then it becomes a useless measure of anything.

you've just bragged about your position on

Where? I said "if". And anyway, I myself don't have a position on the pyramid. Only my words do. That was shorthand, aka sloppy writing, on my part.

In my experiance people who post untruths that they make up to make their point are often shills.

That's a dangerous road. I don't think this is true → this person is a shill → what they have written is not true after all. This can amplify any feelings of distrust you have into an outright rejection of everything they say. If I were a shill, I could use this to slowly back you further and further away from certain beliefs simply by slowly growing to espouse them.

Also, you mention you have a motive for being here.

As do we all.

Would you care to enlighten the rest of us,

I would if I could. Unfortunately, I'm under a Non-Disclosure Agreement. This is a bad joke.

[–]SundogsPlace 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Some things count as mainstream and others don't depending on whether they agree or disagree with them. I'm not saying you use it like that, but it's probably a term to either avoid or clarify each time you use it.

That is again false information. Your definition is just a definition that you made up. It is not the true definition of mainstream media as per the dictionary so why would anyone need to clarify each time they use it? You are the one using a made-up definition so I can see where you may need to clarify.

As for the pyramid of debate. You posted an untrue made up definition of mainstream media. Therefore YOU are wrong. You can THINK I'm wrong all day long, that doesn't change the fact that you indeed are wrong and posted made up information. If I am wrong, please, by all means, link the dictionary source of your definition to prove your position is correct. Oh, wait.. you can't do that because you made it up.

As for shills, you said you have a motive here and don't care to enlighten us because you signed a nondisclosure agreement.

Please see the below definition of a shill

-> A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

So by definition, you just admitted you are a shill. I have a screenshot of this entire conversation for the world to see. You can make up whatever you want this to mean, but it will never change what it is.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd say that he's either a retard or a retarded shill but I can't because of the Debate Pyramid, so I won't. But I'll be thinking it every time he spouts nonsense and utterly terrible nonsense logic and wastes our time. Too bad there isn't a good filter to keep his good ideas.

Maybe if /u/wizzwizz4 would just re-read all his comments 2 or 3 times before submitting them tediously unfiltered.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That NDA comment was a joke… If I were under a NDA, then surely that fact would also be under the NDA? Unless I'm misunderstanding what an NDA is.

[–]SundogsPlace 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Many NDA's allow a person to disclose they've signed an NDA. It's a little late for "It was a joke."

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Huh. I didn't know that. Of course, it's obvious _now_… Retracted.

[–]SundogsPlace 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Doesn't work that way.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Noted.

Ok, you want to know my real motives? Well… honestly, my motives when I first came here were along the lines of "oh look; people are Wrong™, and I can show how clever I am by telling them they're wrong." This technique, of course, only works if you're surrounded by similarly-thinking people who are similarly sheep-like, and I completely understand why the people I was shitposting at were not graciously accepting my "words of wisdom".

(He told me not to bring him into it, but) JasonCarswell very kindly pointed out to me that I was doing this, and I have resolved not to do this again. (I've also continued doing it, but that's besides the point; at least I'm doing it less and stopping more quickly.) As such, I am now wandering around fairly aimlessly, trying not to be too obnoxious, and waiting quite a bit before I definitively decide that I've found an area where I can contribute, because I try to make new mistakes instead of repeating the old ones.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What's this NDA about? I don't believe you.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good; it was a joke.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Keep me out of it.

FYI This week we tediously argued as /u/wizzwizz4 said "elite" is a misunderstood term too. MSM is not misunderstood, though maybe only if you use the initials.

I have been kind to wizz explaining why he comes across wrong sometimes. He's certainly annoyed the fuck out of me too. But we all have weaknesses and limits. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks he's not a shill because I suspect he's autistic. His "motives" are fucking annoying sometimes trying to reinvent the wheel to drill down with some flawed logic.

As annoying as he is, I deal with him case by case, and he often offers good insights too.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

What was your conspiracy post?

If you ever want some insight on conspiracies give me a shout. I'll give my honest take on it and don't mind explaining it to newbies. Everyone didn't know stuff until they learned about it. And SOOOOO much they won't teach in school, intentionally. "They" want a good worker class distracted by trivial television, not an educated mass that realize how shafted we all are rise up and establish a fair system.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

https://saidit.net/s/DepopulationWatch/comments/ig6/due_to_health_concerns_brussels_stops_5g/w2j

For context we were talking about whether 5G is bad for you and the environment. I'm making the case that we don't really know and not knowing doesn't mean it's going to cause mass genocide like this user is saying.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think one of the greatest problems with the 5G thing is that we don't know because they WON'T do the proper testing, like with vaccines, and that automatically raises a LOT of red flags.

How can we say yes if we don't know and they won't let us know?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is the real question. Great point.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Can you think of a legit reason to deploy 5G on a global scale; without evaluating the risks, or asking for input from the public?

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Faster data speeds, really. As far as evaluating the risks goes, I completely agree testing must be done. If you read my post my issue is with needless speculation and fear mongering, not whether the technology should be tested before implementation.

Public opinion can be a tricky thing. Like I said in my post, people jump to conclusions and spout conspiracies with little to no actual evidence. I feel the public should be informed, but sometimes the public has no fucking clue what they're talking about as well.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My question has nothing to do with data transfer rates.

Can you think of a legit reason to avoid testing, and avoid providing testing methods and test results to the public?
Note: Any reasonable answer should include some theorized rationale, which could justify avoiding safety testing.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No I cannot which is why I've said repeatedly that testing is certainly something we should do. Who knows why they don't want to test it, it could be for some mundane reason or it could be to cover something up, my point is that we do not know yet here people are acting as if they do.

[–]cyber_burn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

i don't know the answer to this and it's too late for me to go down a research hole, but did they do this kind of safety testing for telephone lines, internet lines, 4G, etc?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don’t Hold Your iPhone Too Close to Your Head, Apple Says So.

Most (all) cell phone manuals indicate that you shouldn't hold your phone next to your head.

[–]SundogsPlace 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Can you think of a legit reason to deploy 5G on a global scale; without evaluating the risks

They never publically evaluate the risks when they know there are risks to be found.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's it man, straight out of the Monsanto playbook. If they refuse to do studies, they can say we have no evidence that X happens.