Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 49 of 49

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #31

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    RPR Report #1

    My intention for Red Pill Roundtable was to be a place for people to actually discuss valid questions about controversial topics ultimately crucial to all our lives and escape the ratwheel arguing with those just messenger attacking and nutjob calling.

    It's obvious however, that RPR is stalled in the March 24 starting gate with no hope for momentum for being excluded from the digest, which I now realize is isolation and censorship by one of the nutjob callers who is deciding for 12,000 what they should and shouldn't see from the diversity of the community as they are used to.

    As Shandi questioned in an RPR post today: "Although this is in the RPT, it seems like it should also be in the regular section, so more eyes can see it. Can we post in both places?"

    I think she's stating what everyone who would otherwise be interested in participating in the category is feeling.

    Barry has urged me to make a bunch of threads to stimulate activity, but I think it would be a turn off to appear to be one person's soapbox, and don't think it will alleviate the feeling of pointlessness of posting there with no one looking. I also think it was a significant deterrent that everyone had immediately been informed that the new category was likely going to just attract the 'loonies and nutjobs'.

    "...There's always been a tension on WaccoBB and in the larger progressive community as to whether the conspiracy theorists are the true progressives, seeing the unseen web that connects what is truly going on, or just left-wing Wacko loonies and nutjobs..."

    The quick, first dump confirmed the writing on the wall for me. Barry removed - a (ambiguously titled, but valid content) post on the March 17 Sonoma County Board Of Supervisors action OK'ing possible future forced 'energy saving' property upgrades against Unincorporated Sonoma County homes and 16% interest rate PACE loans/property liens for them - from General Community into no-digest RPR effectively killing the thread. I don't blame anyone for being unmotivated to post in the one wacco category withheld from distribution.

    My intention for RPR was the absolute opposite of heavy handed censorship. I don't get how a motto of 'Connecting Conscious Community' means those trying to openmindedly question and respectfully discuss controversial subjects with facts and intelligence are shoved to a wasteland in favor of creating a supportive atmosphere for those dismissive, closedminded to, and disrespectful to these messengers.

    I have now multiple times asked Barry to include RPR in the digest, and to see it as separated enough for the nutjobs to be 'over there' in their own category and he doesn't have to worry we'll ever think it means he's one of us.
    Last edited by Alex; 04-21-2015 at 04:49 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  3. TopTop #32
    phredo's Avatar
    phredo
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Not being familiar with all the ins and outs of using WACCO, I don't quite understand all the posting distinctions. But I agree that the whole idea is a tough sell, with "Red Pill Roundtable" being a step of two below "Free Speech Zone" in "consumer acceptability"!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Alex: View Post
    RPR Report #1

    My intention for Red Pill Roundtable was to be a place for people to actually discuss valid questions about controversial topics ultimately crucial to all our lives and escape the ratwheel arguing with those just messenger attacking and nutjob calling.

    It's obvious however, that RPR is stalled in the March 24 starting gate with no hope for momentum for being excluded from the digest, which I now realize is isolation and censorship by one of the nutjob callers who is deciding for 12,000 what they should and shouldn't see from the diversity of the community as they are used to....
    Last edited by Barry; 04-21-2015 at 05:08 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #33
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    As the author of the popular thread entitled "Unity Needed", I am trying to live by that sentiment, so I continue to post in the shared categories and deal with any criticism which might come up with patience and more research. I do favor debate as a learning tool for all of us ( including me ) and that's difficult to achieve in a group which is comprised of like-minded individuals. I actually welcome criticism for this reason as it forces me to dig deeper to prove my point of view. Most of us have realized that the real truth is somewhere in the middle ....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. Gratitude expressed by:

  6. TopTop #34

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    LIkeminded as intended for RPR does not at all mean only people that already agree. It means people that are openminded - period - and actually take the time to really understand why the other feels their point is valid and willing to change their mind if proven wrong, caring more about the truth than their ego. There's always plenty details to debate.

    Again, RPR is purely a place to get off the rats wheel of repeatedly being forced to choose between engaging with/or ignoring people that only come back with messenger hating, nutjob calling and mainstream propaganda for 'proof' like in the two sides of the Sandy Hook thread that never evolved into actual debating based on any actual mutual listening and response based on understanding. In that case, as many others like chemtrails, vaccines, 9-11 and extreme and organized govt corruption, just the simple foundational truth of these premises are very threatening to the closedminded and are not in the middle. We have never even once gotten to an actual, factual debate in serious consideration of one simple non-mainstream premise with the messenger haters. That's the reason for RPR.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by arthunter: View Post
    As the author of the popular thread entitled "Unity Needed"....
    Last edited by Barry; 04-21-2015 at 09:43 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  7. Gratitude expressed by:

  8. TopTop #35
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    I don't think it's necessary to criticize in order to disagree or dispute, with other information and facts. But if you welcome it as a way to force you to dig deeper, than it must work for you, and maybe others also. It puts me off, and doesn't seem to be a truly "conscious" contribution to mutual discovery, but that's just my perception. I've never actually been involved in a group that encouraged criticism as a method to discover the facts of various points being debated. I know that Barry doesn't encourage this, but it seems like it's here to stay, especially since members continue respond to it. I remember one put down several years ago that I just simply ignored. I see it as a form of "bullying", so I just walked away, rather than fight. Most of the time when people want to put me down, they do it in a private email, which is very respectful....I guess! Although my recent "reprimand" got posted, accidentally. That's a heads up to slow down....

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by arthunter: View Post
    ... and deal with any criticism which might come up with patience and more research. ....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  9. Gratitude expressed by:

  10. TopTop #36
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Perhaps criticism was the wrong word ... I'm really just talking about healthy debate ... if someone gets insulting then I agree, it tends to shut down the discussion and it's no longer constructive ... Because I've attempted to expose some hidden evils in our community and country, I have had to develop a thick skin ... Now if someone insults me ( rather then just disagreeing with me ) I feel that it says more about them than me ...

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Shandi: View Post
    I don't think it's necessary to criticize ...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  11. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  12. TopTop #37
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Alex: View Post
    We have never even once gotten to an actual, factual debate in serious consideration of one simple non-mainstream premise with the messenger haters.
    This is really untrue. Please go back and read some of the threads about Chemtrails and Fukushima, as just two examples. Most of the challengers of the "conspriacy theories" around those issues offered substantial facts along with reliable, credible sources that were unable to be effectively countered by the proponents, who then resorted to personalizing the debate. This has happened often.

    I am not entirely anti-censorship in that I wholeheartedly support a forum that enforces civility and respect, where ideas can be rigorously challenged on the facts and sources but personalizing the debate or insults are not accepted. Is it being proposed that the Red Pill Roundtable will not censor challenges and debate about ideas and facts as long as name calling and insults are not part of the discussion?

    Scott
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  14. TopTop #38
    Jim Wilson's Avatar
    Jim Wilson
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    A few observations:

    One month isn't long enough to see if the new structure works. I think it needs a longer trial as people get used to the structure. Some people stop by Wacco only now and then, some stop by daily. For those who only come by, say, on a weekly basis, it will take more time to get how the RPR works and what it is about.

    The lack of posting on the RPR may relfect a lack of interest in the focus of that group. It may not be the fault of being excluded from the Digest. Instead, it may be that most Waccovians are just not interested. I realize that might feel frustrating for those who have the RPR point of view, but it is worth considering.

    I want to second Scott's observation that threads with an RPR view have received due consideration by those who do not agree. I can recall numerous posts that provided well reasoned opposition.

    I am frustrated by the dichotomy that RPR has set up; the idea that there are red pill people and blue pill people. As I previously posted, it is entirely possible for someone to have studied these topics and to reach conclusions which differ from those that the red pill people hold.

    My suggestion; give the RPR another month or two. It might take that long to attract the kind of attention its members are looking for.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  16. TopTop #39
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    This is exactly why I object to the RPR ... I wrote to Alex personally to state "it's my aversion to labeling or classifying information as red or blue" ...

    Folks, we have a mainstream media that is owned by 6 corporations ...

    https://www.businessinsider.com/thes...america-2012-6

    and anyone who challenges the official story is labeled as a "conspiracy theorist", which by the way was started by the CIA in 1967 ...

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...-who-challenge

    Can we please get past the labeling?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown: View Post
    This is really untrue. Please go back and read some of the threads about Chemtrails and Fukushima, as just two examples....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. TopTop #40

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by arthunter: View Post
    Can we please get past the labeling?
    There's inappropriate labeling, and there's calling a spade a spade, accepting it and dealing with it.

    Your hugely significant, correct foundational fact #1: "The mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations"
    Your hugely significant, correct foundational fact #2: "Anyone who challenges the official story is labeled as a "conspiracy theorist", which by the way was started by the CIA in 1967."

    In 1500? posts have you made the slightest dent in getting Edward, Scott, Barry, Pod, Sara, any vaccine supporters, any chemtrail deniers, any 9-11 deniers, any false flag deniers to acknowledge the significance of your two huge foundational facts and the ramifications to their thinking? Have you gotten them to stop citing these propaganda machines as supposed proof of their fiercely defended mainstream beliefs that you have mega-repeatedly pointed out the fallacy of??

    NO.

    Acknowledging reality is not labeling. The lines ARE so drawn, repetitive, boring and stuck in a "my mainstream link is better than your conspiracy nutjob link' rat's wheel. The two sides constantly gratitude each other like tribes nose thumbing each other.

    RPR is purely for people who want to quit hopeless arguing with incurable deniers of your two points. It's a place to completely ignore anything from these 6 corps and the pharma/govt/militarty they're in bed with to live our truth that they are never reliable proof of anything - and even likely the opposite! But you are welcome to stay out of RPR and continue to be the queen of posting endless impersonal 2 line sentences and a link saying this over and over, be 99% ignored and rarely generate discussion. I don't see the return for the effort.

    Red Pill/Blue Pill means people that understand your two huge points and those that don't. There's really no reason to go round and round and round in link wars anymore with people not in the least interested in each other's 'proof' because it's just a lead wall and power struggle, and it's OK to let go of trying to convince others of anything, move on, follow your own path and find friends.

    Does this explain why RedPill/BluePill is not labeling in the negative way you want to label it? I don't see the point of so much projection and pre-criticism before RPR evolves.

    Is 'Lila's Garden Club' BAD because they don't want members who hate their way of gardening?

    Do they get to garden the way they want without surrounding themselves with people criticizing them for it?

    The doors are not locked at RPR, just please come join us if you like the way we garden.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. TopTop #41
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Thanks for your efforts Alex, and thanks for the invitation ... though there are extreme viewpoints on this forum, as in any group, I see most people somewhere in the middle, and I've enjoyed discussions with many of those people ... I also see a whole lot of questioning going on outside of any pre-designated group which encourages such freedoms ...

    But more then anything ... this really is a time for unity, not divisions ... I won't elaborate because I've said it all before ...

    You're sweet to worry about what I post, how I post, and how it's received, but these are my decisions and I'm comfortable with them ... I see many posts which are widely read but receive no responses ... this is the nature of an open forum ...

    Once again, thanks for your concern ...

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Alex: View Post
    There's inappropriate labeling, and there's calling a spade a spade, accepting it and dealing with it...
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-23-2015 at 11:50 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. TopTop #42
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Alex: View Post
    Your hugely significant, correct foundational fact #1: "The mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations"
    Your hugely significant, correct foundational fact #2: "Anyone who challenges the official story is labeled as a "conspiracy theorist", which by the way was started by the CIA in 1967."

    In 1500? posts have you made the slightest dent in getting Edward, Scott, Barry, Pod, Sara, any vaccine supporters, any chemtrail deniers, any 9-11 deniers, any false flag deniers to acknowledge the significance of your two huge foundation facts and the ramifications to their thinking? Have you gotten them to stop citing these propaganda machines as supposed proof of their fiercly defended mainstream beliefs that you have mega-repeatedly pointed out the fallacy of??
    I see that this discussion has now been personalized. And public assumptions have been made about my thinking. I would like to clarify.

    I support the idea of an opt-in forum where like-minded people can exchange their views and not be asked to support their views with evidence. I would not interfere. I do have a problem, however, in an open, public forum when an unsupported claim is made based on false information that, if left unchallenged, creates unnecessary fear.

    This has nothing to do with following "mainstream media" or "mainstream beliefs". It has everything to do with evaluating the validity of the evidence. I have rarely, if ever, quoted mainstream media as a source. I tend to give more weight to the consensus body of scientific evidence that comes from people who have devoted their lives to study in a particular field.

    To give just one example, some time ago some claims were made here on this Wacco forum that the Fukushima incident (which was indeed terrible) had caused virtually all life in the Pacific Ocean to die off and that the entire West Coast of the United States should be evacuated. I know people who read that stuff who were seriously considering evacuating. But when one actually dug into where the Fukushima fear information was coming from, it turned out that some of it was from such sources as one dude on a beach with a Geiger counter with no experience or expertise in that field who had blogged about it. A Geiger counter is not even the correct way to really measure such stuff. The Fukushima incident certainly caused serious problems, and may continue to do so. But what is actually true and what is not actually matters in such situations. And sources matter.

    Many other such examples abound.

    There is a large network of websites, bloggers, and talk radio show hosts -- many of whom are made, it seems, in the image of Alex Jones -- who traffic in, and profit from..fear. It's the fear industrial complex. Which, in my view, preys on those who tend to lack critical thinking skills.

    So now we're being asked here on Wacco to accept any fear-based or non evidence-based claims posted in our face on the Red Pill Roundtable in the public digest, while at the same time we're also being asked to not ever request any evidence to support those claims or respond with any evidence that points to a different conclusion.

    I support the Red Pill Roundtable. But, in my opinion, it should not have it both ways. Either be in the public digest and be open to public interaction that may sometimes challenge beliefs, or don't be in the public digest and do not be open to such public interaction.

    Scott
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  21. TopTop #43
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Scott,

    The RPR isn't actually mainly composed of "views" but cites evidence, and a lot of it. There's another category for "views" and discussion, where evidence isn't needed.

    Even in the RPR, perspectives on evidence presented may be challenged, a recent example is "...Does any dot connecting seem unsubstantiated to you?" Notice, there's no put downs or name calling. It's a simple question, asked in a respectful manner, of someone who submitted information.

    As you state, there are many "fear-based or non evidence-based claims" in some Wacco categories, but no one is forced to "accept" anything. And also, it seems evident that much fear based information "preys on those who tend to lack critical thinking skills". However, I do believe that we have a lot to fear, but fear is not the solution.....awareness and action are the only things that ever lead to personal/group empowerment.

    When information is side-tracked by personal put downs or criticism, it does nothing to produce new evidence, although some admit that they're motivated by these attacks. The RPR provides a place to present information, and is open to evidence which might point to different conclusions.

    Evidence is never the end of a discussion; respectful conclusions, opinions, and perceptions are the valuable pieces of the puzzle.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown: View Post
    I see that this discussion has now been personalized. And public assumptions have been made about my thinking. I would like to clarify....
    Last edited by thedaughter; 04-23-2015 at 11:51 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  23. TopTop #44
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Alex: View Post
    There's inappropriate labeling, and there's calling a spade a spade, accepting it and dealing with it....
    Your hugely significant, correct foundational fact #1: "The mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations"
    Your hugely significant, correct foundational fact #2: "Anyone who challenges the official story is labeled as a "conspiracy theorist", which by the way was started by the CIA in 1967."
    can't you see the flaw here? this is exactly why you don't make a dent.
    You slide effortlessly from fact to assertion without noticing the distinction. #1 is a fact. #2 is an assertion. Your characterization of some ill-defined monolithic media as a "propaganda machine" and inference that those who don't see the apparently self-evident truth of your assertions are "fiercely defend[ing] mainstream beliefs" shows you have just as strong a bias as you assign to others. What's the difference between propaganda and advocacy? Of course mainstream media largely supports the status quo and is hugely influenced by the interests of those with power to create that quo. Of course ideas that challenge mainstream beliefs have a hard time being treated as equivalently valid. One of the ways ideas become mainstream beliefs is that they've overcome skepticism and challenges. There's a big tendency on many people's part to see challenges to the quality of their argument as a refusal to accept it might be right in the end. Scott, of all those you list as undentable, often takes the time to provide details about why he finds the arguments unconvincing. I've yet to see anyone follow those up by explaining why his new points aren't valid - usually if not always they are 'debated' by providing a similarly-sized pile of opposing links.

    I think it's kind of weird to see the undentables being treated as a bunch of hidebound dinosaurs who assert blind conformism is good, the world's flat and the king's in his rightful place. That may describe me, but I don't see it in the rest of that group.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  25. TopTop #45
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Alex: View Post
    The lines ARE so drawn, repetitive, boring and stuck in a "my mainstream link is better than your conspiracy nutjob link' rat's wheel.
    now that is easy to agree with.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. TopTop #46
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Shandi: View Post
    When information is side-tracked by personal put downs or criticism, it does nothing to produce new evidence
    I could not agree more.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Shandi: View Post

    Even in the RPR, perspectives on evidence presented may be challenged, a recent example is "...Does any dot connecting seem unsubstantiated to you?"

    The RPR provides a place to present information, and is open to evidence which might point to different conclusions.


    I'm getting mixed messages about the RPR. Is there consensus?

    Presumably then, if one were to challenge the evidence and to present other evidence pointing to a different conclusion, they would not be labeled a "message hater" or be personally called out and accused of being a brainwashed shill for corporate mainstream media, or whatever.

    I don't have an axe to grind about debunking all things "conspiratorial" (insert appropriate term). There are many issues I have never weighed in on. I don't mind if there is a posting about a controversial "fringe" theory as simply informational that the idea exists for consideration and scrutiny. I do have an issue, however, with fear-based claims that something is absolutely true but is based on very weak or non-existent evidence, or done with intellectually dishonesty.

    I believe if one is making a public claim of truth that is outlandishly fear-inducing there is intellectual responsibility to support that claim with some compelling, solid evidence, and be willing to be challenged on the robustness of that evidence. And one should not then take those challenges personally and collapse into name calling. It comes with the territory of making a public claim of truth to be willing to defend it, or, if the challenging evidence is more compelling, be willing to abandon it. Particularly if the claim can create a lot of unnecessary fear.

    Scott
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  28. TopTop #47
    Jim Wilson's Avatar
    Jim Wilson
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Several posts have remarked about the tendency to pack a post with links that support a point of view. What I want to suggest is that we, all of us, have yet to develop a methodology of discernment when it comes to link-style references on the web. In printed media there are footnotes and bibliographies, and these references have a long history. So if someone does not have a bibliography at all, or lists in their bibliography (or footnotes) sources that have been shown to be unreliable, this is taken as a signal that the presentation may not be reliable; or that at least we may want additional corroborating sources before we sign on.

    This kind of discernment has yet to happen on the web. In 2010 James Shapiro, a well known Shakespeare scholar, wrote a book called 'Contested Will'. The book is about the rise of anti-Stratfordians. Anti-Stratfordians are people who believe that the plays of Shakespeare were written by someone other than Will, who was born in Stratford; hence the anti-strafordians. Shapiro talks about how the rise of the internet has given the anti-stratfordians a platform to put forth their views to an uncritical audience. The relevance here is that the anti-Shakespeare views are all based on elaborate conspiracy theories that have been thoroughly debunked, some have been debunked for over a century.

    The tactic of the anti-stratfordians is to give a lot of references, or on the web, links. But the links are only to people who agree with them; never to the sites which debunk, or even question, their theories. Reading these sites is oddly reminiscent of some of the political conspiracy theory sites where references are only to others who agree with their own point of view. As I mentioned in another post, the internet has actually facilitated the ability to isolate one's self from information which might run counter to one's own understanding.

    We have yet to develop methods for evaluating links, online references, or procedures for spotting quote-mining (where someone uses google to find out-of-context quotes which allegedly support their position, but upon examination the quotes have nothing to do with the discussion, or may even, when quoted in full, contradict what is claimed), or selective data listing as they appear on the web. Online search engines are wonderful assists, but they also facilitate the presentation of questionable arguments. Critical thinking courses have yet to take into account how the web facilitates new kinds of fallacies in the form of dubious presentations. This is not confined to one ideology. Rather it seems to be a consequence of how the web works and how we are interacting with it.

    It doesn't take much effort to put up a website arguing for one's point of view. Basically all you have to be is a breathing human being of average intelligence. In some ways this is a very good thing because it allows for minority views to be accessible. Prior to the web significant insights by non-accredited individuals would have had almost no chance to have their say. But there is also a downside. And that is that all these sites look the same and appearances can be deceptive. As a community, I think it is an important task that we increase our awareness of how the web operates and to develop modes of discernment for the information being presented.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. TopTop #48
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    All points mentioned in this thread are valid ... we post information that we have a tendency to believe, perhaps because of the source of the information, perhaps because of what journalists we believe in, or what websites we trust, etc., ....so we put it out there, because as a community, we think that it's important to consider ...

    Usually, there's a response, and that response is usually an intelligent one ... more links are posted, the discussion moves forward with more information ... given an absence of insults, name calling and prejudice, I think that this is good practice as it forces everyone to look at the information from several points of view, to weigh opposing viewpoints, to consider sources and to educate each other regarding those sources and the validity of information ...

    All good ...

    Given the huge volume of information on the internet and the reality of disinformation, we need a community to do the research ... one person is overwhelmed ....

    In the end, we come to our own conclusions according to all of the information presented , and that's as it should be ... the process of debate is valuable ....

    Also, even if we don't agree with the original posting, our awareness of the issue is stimulated ... we might be more likely to do more research or pay attention to the issue ... once again, all good ...

    Once again, unity as a community does not mean that we agree about all information ... but it might mean that we agree about issues that we should be aware of ... issues which require further exploration ...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  31. TopTop #49
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown: View Post
    I'm getting mixed messages about the RPR. Is there consensus?
    One part of the message I get regarding the RPR isn't mixed; it's kind of negative.

    The following quote is from the masthead of a site that, if I understand the proposal correctly, would be used as a model for a new category:
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by on RPR's site they:
    The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy
    it sounds like a brand, basically, used to create a dichotomy between groups based on their level of 'awareness'. It's cute the way 'conscious community' is used in wacco, but RPR seems to be a bit less so. It seems a small step from 'blue-pill abusers' to 'sheeple'
    Last edited by Barry; 04-25-2015 at 02:19 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 11:36 AM

Tags (user supplied keywords) for this Thread

Bookmarks