The Conspiracy of Everything!

[rvg]

He's a method acting satirist. You never thought he was for real did you?

Many of his guests, especially earlier on, never got that.

This time he was quite different from his usual performance: very abrasive, condescending and downright disrespectful towards his guest. Very unbecoming of him as a host.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Colbert has acknowledged that his character is supposed to be an ass for everyone, but when he is genuinely interested in what someone is saying he tunes it down. Not the best, but he acknowledges his bias and he isn't a journalist in the first place.

[Husar]

Just watched this.... I actually ended up disliking Colbert; he behaved like a total ass. Mudd carried himself with dignity and professionalism.

Dignity and professionalism?
First of all he was on a comedy show, if he didn't know how Colbert does his interviews then he must've done some shabby research for someone from the intelligence community...
And while I somewhat agree with his assessment of the value of TV in a general sense (think reality TV etc.), it was nowhere near polite or professional to say that on a TV show that he was trying to use to sell his stuff.
Then he professionally flip-flopped between "we shouldn't torture (anymore) because the majority of Americans does not want us to" and "we should attack Syria because the majority of Americans are all just cowards afraid to do the right thing". That he thinks torturing is only wrong because a majority of the people who pay his wage says so also tells us a lot about his moral compass.
His arguments might even remind one of Nuremberg except that he's on the victorious side so far.

Oh and I loved how "we're not just american citizens, we're global citizens" resonates with the government's argument of "don't worry about the NSA, they only spy on foreigners". Basically he's bending everything in a way that suits him and his agenda and since he represented the government's agenda for 25 years that says something IMO.

[Myth]

Has anyone actually watched Fisherking's video in the OP of this thread? Does anyone have any comments?

[rvg]

Dignity and professionalism?
First of all he was on a comedy show, if he didn't know how Colbert does his interviews then he must've done some shabby research for someone from the intelligence community...
And while I somewhat agree with his assessment of the value of TV in a general sense (think reality TV etc.), it was nowhere near polite or professional to say that on a TV show that he was trying to use to sell his stuff.
Then he professionally flip-flopped between "we shouldn't torture (anymore) because the majority of Americans does not want us to" and "we should attack Syria because the majority of Americans are all just cowards afraid to do the right thing". That he thinks torturing is only wrong because a majority of the people who pay his wage says so also tells us a lot about his moral compass.
His arguments might even remind one of Nuremberg except that he's on the victorious side so far.

Oh and I loved how "we're not just american citizens, we're global citizens" resonates with the government's argument of "don't worry about the NSA, they only spy on foreigners". Basically he's bending everything in a way that suits him and his agenda and since he represented the government's agenda for 25 years that says something IMO.

He is a CIA guy. People who join the CIA tend to put their moral compass on hold and do whatever needs to be done to further the interests of this country. American interest should be (and apparently is) the only motivation behind this guy's actions. When he had the tools needed to make a terrorist squeal, he used them. All of them. Now that some of his tools have been taken away he vouches to only use what he is allowed to use. Moral or not, there's a high chance that this guy's actions have contributed to us capping Bin Laden. He is not a nice guy, he is a CIA officer, he's not paid to be a nice guy, he's paid to be a guy who gets things done.

[Ethelred Unread]

Has anyone actually watched Fisherking's video in the OP of this thread? Does anyone have any comments?

Man, that video is over 2 hours long. Very little evidence presented unless you can give me time stamps to look at.

Seems to be usual Gish-gallop of ideas without evidence, coincidences and anomaly hunting.

[Husar]

He is a CIA guy. People who join the CIA tend to put their moral compass on hold and do whatever needs to be done to further the interests of this country. American interest should be (and apparently is) the only motivation behind this guy's actions. When he had the tools needed to make a terrorist squeal, he used them. All of them. Now that some of his tools have been taken away he vouches to only use what he is allowed to use. Moral or not, there's a high chance that this guy's actions have contributed to us capping Bin Laden. He is not a nice guy, he is a CIA officer, he's not paid to be a nice guy, he's paid to be a guy who gets things done.

So did Putin, yet he doesn't seem to get a lot of respect for being a professional.

And you agree that the whole "let's be global citizens" thing is just a propaganda tool to lead Americans into the next war that serves American interests? That American interests in this case serve the American population is doubtful though, given that a majority of the population seems to be against it. Mudd even agrees with Colbert that Americans need to be lead in this case, which runs somewhat counter to his point that the populace should decide what the intelligence services do. So do the people decide or do they have to be lead?

Or is there a person or a group in or near the government that decides when to listen and when to lead like a benevolent dictatorship/oligarchy?

[rvg]

So did Putin, yet he doesn't seem to get a lot of respect for being a professional.

Respect? Depends on what you mean by that. What about Putin is worthy of respect? He's an extremely smart guy and basically a natural born politician. He is pragmatic to the extreme and harbors no illusions about dogma, be it political or religious. He crushed an islamist rebellion and brought some semblance of control into an otherwise very shaky and restless region of North Caucasus. Yes, all those things are worthy of respect.
At the same time he presides over a brutal, shameless cleptocracy that robs and oppresses its people, and he does not lift a finger to change things. That is not really anything worthy of respect.

And you agree that the whole "let's be global citizens" thing is just a propaganda tool to lead Americans into the next war that serves American interests? That American interests in this case serve the American population is doubtful though, given that a majority of the population seems to be against it. Mudd even agrees with Colbert that Americans need to be lead in this case, which runs somewhat counter to his point that the populace should decide what the intelligence services do. So do the people decide or do they have to be lead?

In Mudd's opinion America stands to gain something from overthrowing Assad. I happen to disagree with that, but he is entitled to have his opinion and to defend it.

Or is there a person or a group in or near the government that decides when to listen and when to lead like a benevolent dictatorship/oligarchy?

That's how conspiracy theories begin

[Husar]

At the same time he presides over a brutal, shameless cleptocracy that robs and oppresses its people, and he does not lift a finger to change things.

So does every American president. If you think it's not true, ask the opposition party at any given point in time, lately they seem even more convinced on both sides.

In Mudd's opinion America stands to gain something from overthrowing Assad. I happen to disagree with that, but he is entitled to have his opinion and to defend it.

Yes, and every American president who agrees with him robs and oppresses people outside of America in addition to the above. Does that foster respect?

That's how conspiracy theories begin

I'm just drawing conclusions from mister Mudd's words. At one time he says the CIA does what the people want, at another he says the CIA needs to lead the people, what is it now? Or is it just the CIA does whatever it wants until the people accidentally find out and complain?

[rvg]

So does every American president. If you think it's not true, ask the opposition party at any given point in time, lately they seem even more convinced on both sides.

Yes, and every American president who agrees with him robs and oppresses people outside of America in addition to the above. Does that foster respect?

Your statement begs the question.

I'm just drawing conclusions from mister Mudd's words. At one time he says the CIA does what the people want, at another he says the CIA needs to lead the people, what is it now? Or is it just the CIA does whatever it wants until the people accidentally find out and complain?

CIA is the arm of the government. As such it takes orders from the government rather than the people directly. Most of the time the interests of the government coincide with the interests of the people. Most of the time, but not always.

[Fisherking]

CIA is the arm of the government. As such it takes orders from the government rather than the people directly. Most of the time the interests of the government coincide with the interests of the people. Most of the time, but not always.

The interests of the government almost never coincide with the best interests of the people. But the people don’t have a well developed propaganda arm and the public seems often easily fooled. Most of the time, but not always.

The US is also a cleptocracy, if you haven’t noticed. They take from the people and give to corporations who in-turn give back to elected officials to buy your votes.

[rvg]

The US is also a cleptocracy, if you haven’t noticed. They take from the people and give to corporations who in-turn give back to elected officials to buy your votes.

You need a first hand experience with a real cleptocracy.

[Myth]

Man, that video is over 2 hours long. Very little evidence presented unless you can give me time stamps to look at.

Seems to be usual Gish-gallop of ideas without evidence, coincidences and anomaly hunting.

Sources for every subtopic in the entire movie.

Also, check this test out.

[Fisherking]

You need a first hand experience with a real cleptocracy.

Right! cause your friends told you and you saw it on TV.

[rvg]

Right! cause your friends told you and you saw it on TV.

Yeah, what could I possibly know about Russia? I was only born and raised there...

[HoreTore]

Sources for every subtopic in the entire movie.

Also, check this test out.

Hilarious. Simply hilarious.

[lars573]

Complete and utter lunacy from otherwise sane people usually is.

Sources for every subtopic in the entire movie.

Also, check this test out.

Most of that propaganda, sorry "facts", only give half the story to trick idiots and the gullible. And don't get me started on that test. I could take my paranoid schizophrenic cousin off his anti-psychotics and he'd start spouting WAY more sense than that bullshit test.

[Ethelred Unread]

Sources for every subtopic in the entire movie.

Also, check this test out.

It's a good list of logical fallacies, but it isn't proof.

Myth do you have any knowledge or training in critical thinking or logic? This isn't to patronise you (and this may read that way in text which is not my intention).

If we can agree on what "rules" to use to discuss these topics, burden of proof etc then we can have a discussion if you like.

For example - I try and use logic where possible to identify flaws in an argument (but I'm far from perfect). I use logic because this is a system of critical thinking that you can always apply to ideas and evidence.

Can we agree that this system is the one we should apply to these conspiracy theories?

[Myth]

I don't have any formal training. While the entire thrive movement is funded by the Procter & Gamble corporation and ultimately serves dubous ends, I don't think you can dispute the facts.

Is the FED a goverment organization? No.
Does the US borrow worthless dollar bills from it? Yes.
Actually, the value of the dollar also comes from the fact that oil is sold in green bills. The moment someone decides to sell oil in another currency, they get democracised with bombs (Lybia, Iraq). Because if that happens the dollar would tank.
Are the major corporations and banks playing in league? Yes.
Do banks create inflation because they make money out of thin air? Yes.

So what is there to dispute, seriously?

[Ethelred Unread]

Ok, before we get onto specifics, can we go back to first principles and see what we do agree on?

My assumptions:-

1. The physical world is real and not a dream/hallucination.
2. Causes have effects, and the results can be observed.
3. Logical reasoning is the framework we apply to ALL phenomena.

Ok, do we agree on that? I'm not trying to trick you - these are the fundamentals of how I think critically. If you have a different system then we need to gain consensus on that first!

[lars573]

I don't have any formal training. While the entire thrive movement is funded by the Procter & Gamble corporation and ultimately serves dubous ends, I don't think you can dispute the facts.

Is the FED a goverment organization? No.
Does the US borrow worthless dollar bills from it? Yes.
Actually, the value of the dollar also comes from the fact that oil is sold in green bills. The moment someone decides to sell oil in another currency, they get democracised with bombs (Lybia, Iraq). Because if that happens the dollar would tank.
Are the major corporations and banks playing in league? Yes.
Do banks create inflation because they make money out of thin air? Yes.

So what is there to dispute, seriously?

So you're just going to cherry pick 5 things from that list that are somewhat reasonable, and go on and ignore the bat-shit insane stuff? Well that's just great.

[lars573]

~NM

[Montmorency]

3. Logical reasoning is the framework we apply to ALL phenomena.

It's important to keep in mind though that logic is a framework for thinking, and not necessarily a framework for being.

[Myth]

Ok, before we get onto specifics, can we go back to first principles and see what we do agree on?

My assumptions:-

1. The physical world is real and not a dream/hallucination.
2. Causes have effects, and the results can be observed.
3. Logical reasoning is the framework we apply to ALL phenomena.

Ok, do we agree on that? I'm not trying to trick you - these are the fundamentals of how I think critically. If you have a different system then we need to gain consensus on that first!

Yes. Go on.

lars573 well please, pick five of the most insane things and post them.

[Ethelred Unread]

It's important to keep in mind though that logic is a framework for thinking, and not necessarily a framework for being.

I think I agree with you, but can you clarify? I think you mean that logic and emotion don't naturally sit well together?

To clarify my point - yes this is for critical thinking only though you can start a new thread on living philosophically if you want!

Myth excellent! Just a few more things to agree on then we can look at the claims in the video. These next 3 are what I hope puts me in the critical thinker/rationalist/sceptic camp.

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2. The most likely explanation is usually the right one (good old Occam)
3. I'm no expert in any field (except maybe ways to exploit at TW AI) so generally I go with a consensus view so long as it follows all previous points, is peer reviewed and is recognisably science.

That last one is the tricky slippery one, we don't have to agree on that point but this is where we could reach an impasse.

Still with me?

[Montmorency]

I think you mean that logic and emotion don't naturally sit well together?

That is, logic is a layer of abstractions that is successful in explaining the abstractions we can perceive. But no more.

[Ethelred Unread]

That is, logic is a layer of abstractions that is successful in explaining the abstractions we can perceive. But no more.

I don't understand. What more is there than the abstractions we can perceive? Is abstractions we can perceive synonymous with reality?

[Montmorency]

What more is there than the abstractions we can perceive?

The universe?

Is abstractions we can perceive synonymous with reality?

Only in a parochial sense.

Logic is just a means to process what we can perceive. It ignores the fundamental uniqueness of everything. It gerrymanders categories.

[lars573]

lars573 well please, pick five of the most insane things and post them.

Just 5?

-Crop circles
-Electromagnetic fields in crop circles
-Kimberly Gamble on Suppression of Alternative Cancer Cures
-Royal Rife's Cancer Cure and Suppression
-9/11 False Flag

[Beskar]

First crop circle was a joker who used a plank of wood to cause the grain to bend over without breaking it, and it stumped people as they didn't know how it was done until he revealed his secret years later and it can be easily reproduced.