-
9 Attachment(s)
Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
George Carlin ~ on The American Dream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken.
INTRODUCING THE RED PILL ROUNDTABLE (here)
Hi, I’m Alex, creator and moderator of The Red Pill Roundtable. I'd like to share an account of how my personal journey has led to my interest in starting this new discussion forum, a description of the subject matter and the type of participant it is being created for. I think George Carlin might have approved.
THE RED PILL, ME, AND THE GATHERING QUESTIONERS
Like many in my boomer generation, I began breaking family traditions in my teens by questioning many religious and social paradigms that didn't feel right. This essay is about how astoundingly wide the schism between my former and current views has now grown, but also about how the internet has provided a place where many worldwide who asked the same questions and revised the same views are gathering to talk about it.
Giving up the illusions of comfort and security of herd mentality as an unquestioning member of mainstream society by revisiting and challenging all it's foundational belief systems with an open mind and accepting any new truths regardless of any scorn and isolation it causes you in return is referred to as taking the Red Pill. I'll call this group the Questioners.
After waking up, the formerly absurd, impossible or sci-fi becomes conventional fact, and the formerly mundane like the trusted nightly news a bizarre, surreal and often creepy script. Aggressive manipulation jumps out at you relentlessly like in the 80‘s
B-movie They Live within news, advertising, music, movies, politics, govt/big pharma/military/industrial complex propaganda, mass produced foods, outdated science/physics/history/archaeology teachings, organized religion including many facets of the 'new age' movement and more...
Questioners soon realize that the machine (Matrix) has been a very healthy monster for a long time with limitless resources, long-term agendas and great determination to develop extremely advanced technology for use to ruthlessly deceive, damage and keep their unfair advantage. The unraveling web of deception 
You may wonder why I spend time pursuing all these subjects when I could live without bothering. The answer is, because it makes 100% difference in nearly all choices I make from what soap I use, what I ingest, inject, avoid, spend money on, what views and habits I choose to flood my body and health with, and much more. Though the proverbial rabbit hole keeps getting deeper constantly reminding me I am still in knowledge kindergarten and has forced me to consider that the big picture may be greater than my human mind can grasp, it is empowering to feel less and less ignorant and vulnerable as verifications pour in. I no longer have any doubt that boldly facing even the ugliest truths is far less costly to my soul than staying blind and asleep.
The most difficult thing to live with becomes the closed minds you walk among and their apathy to the glaring signs, 
Questioners ask from a new lonely void.... what can I do about it?
A common starting place is choosing to first stop being part of the problem as much as possible, then joining other Questioners to continue to dig, expose, compare and truth-test to both benefit your own evolution and hopefully the grand collective somehow as contributors to the primary stage of positive change - knowledge.
Questioners’ roundtables are very active and rapidly multiplying for these reasons, are getting very good at fitting puzzle pieces together and despite agreeing how big the monster is, do not complain, whine or use the language of being a victim. It's inherently understood that standing up to the monster begins with becoming informed, taking back your own mind and sovereignty, and especially not perpetuating the illusions of the Matrix any further.
For example, the Red Pill community long ago stopped debating the following foundational concepts except for details. Seemingly separate, these topics are ultimately connected for all leading to the same concepts within the true nature of reality and all represent opportunities to either wake up and free your mind, or remain an unquestioning Blue Pill member of the Matrix dutifully helping reinforce illusions:
1. 9-11 was an inside job - like countless other false flags. If you're looking for someplace to start, start here. The tentacles of 9-11 lead everywhere past, current and future - political, financial, techonological, historical, scientific, military, corporate, international, and much, much more.
2. Tax dollars primarily fund covert Corporate/Industrial/Pharmaceutical/Scientific/Technology Industry/Military/and shockingly unethical Black OPS agendas very contrary to public benefit.
3. All organized religions are oppressors with hidden creators, agendas and violent, manipulative practices and histories very contrary to their altruistic public face.
4. The true history of the Earth and Human Beings is far different, longer, richer and advanced than taught in school.
5. We are not alone.
Truth is the achilles heel of the Matrix. You're especially invited to also share your story of before and after waking up. I'm looking forward to sharing ideas with other Questioners within our community at The Red Pill Roundtable and extend a very warm welcome to all local brave, inquisitive and open minded thinkers, adventurers and truth seekers.
Alex
Red Pill Roundtable Creator and Moderator
NOTICE:
ACTION NEEDED TO RECEIVE Red Pill Roundtable posts IN YOUR DIGEST:
The new category will be available for anyone to visit and read online, but to reiterate, the intention is that ONLY those who consider themselves having taken the Red Pill should participate. The category posts will only included in your digest if you opt in - and this applies to everyone.
TO OPT IN,
- Goto the WaccoBB.net website
- Make sure you are logged in (see upper right of the website)
- Scroll down to the Red Pill Roundtable category, the default setting will be "No Email"
- Click where it says "No Email" in the right column
- Change that selection to "Daily Digest"
If you need help, here's a video demo of how to do so.
See you there!
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Alex,
I appreciate and share your quest for truth, but if you are at all interested in sharing this truth and spreading awareness then why is this category not included in the daily digest? ... why is it necessary to opt in to receive these messages, unlike other categories?
Also, is posting in this category voluntary or compulsory? ... I noticed that a couple of my posts were moved here and I'm wondering why? ... since this category is not included in the daily digest this feels like low level censorship,.. but then I've grown accustomed to the attempts to hide my information, probably because it shines a spotlight on government corruption, ..... so maybe I'm over-reacting ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
...
NOTICE:
ACTION NEEDED TO RECEIVE Red Pill Roundtable posts IN YOUR DIGEST:
The new category will be available for anyone to visit and read online, but to reiterate, the intention is that ONLY those who consider themselves having taken the Red Pill should participate.
The category posts will only included in your digest if you opt in - and this applies to everyone.
TO OPT IN,
- Goto the WaccoBB.net website
- Make sure you are logged in (see upper right of the website)
- Scroll down to the Red Pill Roundtable category, the default setting will be "No Email"
- Click where it says "No Email" in the right column
- Change that selection to "Daily Digest"
If you need help, here's a
video demo of how to do so.
See you
there!
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Alex,
I appreciate and share your quest for truth, but if you are at all interested in sharing this truth and spreading awareness then why is this category not included in the daily digest? ... why is it necessary to opt in to receive these messages, unlike other categories?
Also, is posting in this category voluntary or compulsory? ... I noticed that a couple of my posts were moved here and I'm wondering why? ... since this category is not included in the daily digest this feels like low level censorship,.. but then I've grown accustomed to the attempts to hide my information, probably because it shines a spotlight on government corruption, ..... so maybe I'm over-reacting ...
Thanks for asking. It's not me making those decisions. Requiring any interested party to have to physically make an effort to get the posts in their digest was Barry's requirement of starting this category..... and you are correct, a certain amount of censorship and cleaning house by moving any 'controversial/conspiracy' subject matter posts to this category was one of Barry's main interests in starting this category and will continue. So I guess you could call it compulsory.
It may take a while for all interested parties to figure out how to get on board, but I am still very grateful to get going and have a protected territory for unhindered and anti-ridicule free speech for a change. There are plans for keeping the full membership reminded of what is being discussed however, so it's not like being shoved aside and ignored.
Hang on...
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Alex,I appreciate and share your quest for truth, but if you are at all interested in sharing this truth and spreading awareness then why is this category not included in the daily digest? ... why is it necessary to opt in to receive these messages, unlike other categories?
Hi Arthunter,
I am trying to run an efficient and effective bulletin board service for the progressive community of Sonoma County. A key part of our service is our Daily Digest email. While the digest is customizable, most people accept the default settings. If the digest contains lots of information the reader is not interested in, or worse yet, they object to, they will stop reading, and the whole community is diminished. Additionally, the larger the digest is, the bigger the strain it puts on our server (which I've upgrade several times in the last year) and the more likely it will be marked as spam.
My first attempt at the this was the Censored and Uncensored category. which similarly was not included in the digest. As you may remember, I had required you to post all your stuff there at point. (That changed along the way, but I forget why.)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Also, is posting in this category voluntary or compulsory? ... I noticed that a couple of my posts were moved here and I'm wondering why? ... since this category is not included in the daily digest this feels like low level censorship,.. but then I've grown accustomed to the attempts to hide my information, probably because it shines a spotlight on government corruption, ..... so maybe I'm over-reacting ...
Use of this category will be determined first by the posting user's choice, and secondarily by me based on the content of a particular post and the general topic of most of a user's posts.
In your case, you post a vast amount of stuff (1,139 posts!) much of it, but not all, is exactly the kind of information that The Red Pill Roundtable was set up to handle - conspiracy theories, including gang stalking, and other contrarian views. So I'm asking you, and other like minded posters, to post the more fringe articles to the Red Pill Roundtable.
If your content contains links to widely respected media (New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, etc.) I'll consider it for inclusion in one of the categories included in the digest by default.
I've also asked Alex, who has volunteered to moderate The Red Pill Roundtable, to post a short weekly summary of the action in the Roundtable with links to the more notable posts to give them some wider visibility.
Alex has requested that Red Pill skeptics not be included in The Red Pill Roundtable, so if a debate breaks out between a "questioner" and a skeptic, I'll also host that in one of the digest categories as well.
This is all part of a larger category reorganization I'll be announcing soon that will be including other opt-in digest categories.
Thanks for your cooperation and participation!
Barry
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Thank you both for explaining things ... it hardly matters to me as I access the information on this site by coming to the site and clicking on "Recent Posts" and I suspect that many others do the same ... and I do understand that there are behind-the-scene complexities and pressures which I am not aware of and do not understand ...
I suspect that the Wacco community could have a very lengthy debate about what constitutes theory and what constitutes fact and which news links are reliable and which are controlled by big money, so I won't even go there ... personally, I have been extremely careful about sources, trying to present opinions of credible witnesses, and perhaps that's how I got out of the "censored" category ... thank you for that, Barry ... yes, I am a prolific contributor, but only because I care about this community and want to preserve the freedoms that we all have all come to expect ...
I do believe that it is a time of truth and exposure and I want to thank all of those members who have fearlessly contributed to this trend ...
As they say, it will all come out in the wash ...
Peace to all ....
-
A Bitter Pill
I have read the introduction to the Red Pill Forum and the rationale for putting it in a separate space. As I understand it the rationale is that people who believe in, or want to discuss, the conspiracy theories (such as 9-11 trutherism) want to have a 'safe space' in which to speak and interact.
I am uneasy about this. First, the way the introduction to the forum divided people into blue pill people and red pill people strikes me as at best simplistic, and I suspect that it is deliberately structured to make those who sign on to the conspiracies listed feel good about themselves. The way this division is put forth is that there are those who accept consensus reality and there are those who have questioned that consensus (the red pill people). What this kind of division leaves out is the possibility that there are those who have questioned consensus reality AND do not accept the validity of the conspiracy theories listed (such as 9-11 trutherism). Such people would be neither blue pill nor red pill people. And that is what bothers me most about the structure of this forum. It isn't actually open to opposing views or the full range of possibilities.
This kind of conceptual division creates a closed system of thought wherein all people are divided into two groups and any new information must be placed in one of those two categories. This is typical of ideological thinking. It is my view, however, that the world is more complex than a binary division can encompass.
The second aspect that makes me uneasy is the idea that discussions about red pill conpiracy theories need a 'safe space' or forum. This is all the rage right now -- everyone wants a 'safe space' for their pet theory and view and if they don't get it, and if you don't provide it, that makes you some kind of oppressor. The result of this strategy is to seal yourself off from information that might undermine the view you currently hold. The 'safe space' becomes a hall of mirrors. My view is that it is a good thing to enter into the rough and tumble of contrary views and opinions. I wonder, actually, if the red pill forum isn't simply a strategy for those who believe in this list of conspiracies to keep critical thought, and critiques in general, at bay. If it is I don't think that is a good idea.
In closing I want to mention in passing that I am not apriori opposed to conspiracy theories. There are many successflu conspiracies in history such as the assassination of Julius Caesar, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the Reichstag Fire, et al. My view is that wherever there is political power there are groups that are organized to take it, and there are groups organized to hold on to it, and it is likely that some of these groups are secret cabals. That's just the nature of the human desire for power; it happens all the time.
Having said this, that does not give a blank check for any conspiracy theory that comes down the pike. Accepting the reality of conspiracies does not entail accepting the reality of any specific conspiracy theory. There needs to be evidence, objective evidence, along with inference that are actually tenable and follow the established rules of inference (that is to say, they are logical; either empirically or deductively so). In my opinion many conspiracy theories do not live up to these requirements. And it is my opinion that those theories are best discussed in the open rather than in a gated community among those who are already convinced.
Thanks,
Jim
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
The Carlin video is a very cynical view of our culture, although there is some truth in what he says. Unfortunately, he does not recognize other forces at work for truth.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Tommy, what's changed is the internet ... we can now share ideas and information in an instant and though there are a lot of attacks on this freedom, they have not yet been able to shut it down ... I am in touch with around 3000 activists from around the world including constitutional lawyers, ex-government whistle blowers, authors, etc. etc ... it amazes me ... when I was contacted by mainstream media and radio hosts for an interview, I realized the power of this medium ...
...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tommy:
The Carlin video is a very cynical view of our culture, although there is some truth in what he says. Unfortunately, he does not recognize other forces at work for truth.
-
Re: A Bitter Pill
well said, Jim ...
I think that debate is important and I know that the debates that I have been involved in on this forum have only benefited me by forcing me to search deeper and verify facts which I present ... I actually welcome this ...
https://idebate.org/about/debate/why
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:
I have read the introduction to the Red Pill Forum and the rationale for putting it in a separate space. ...
-
Re: A Bitter Pill
I think that since we now have a RedPill category, it doesn't mean that people can't continue to do as they've always done, including hurling insults at people who believe differently than they do. But having a clear place to share and discover without getting side tracked spending time defending one's opinions and beliefs makes sense to me. I see the RedPill category as "continuing education", and I'm glad to see it.
I'm not sure what makes you "uneasy". What's the worst possible scenario that you imagine? For those who don't see themselves as potential members of the RedPill, it's easy enough to opt out, and continue on as always.
I feel uneasy when I see name calling and divisive remarks from this conscious community. I always equated conscious with kind, but it appears not to be so in reality.
People will always gravitate to kindred spirits, and in my opinion, that's what the RedPill category provides. Do you hang out at places where you don't feel safe?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:
I have read the introduction to the Red Pill Forum and the rationale for putting it in a separate space. As I understand it the rationale is that people who believe in, or want to discuss, the conspiracy theories (such as 9-11 trutherism) want to have a 'safe space' in which to speak and interact.
I am uneasy about this. ...
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
A brief reply to some comments on my post:
Shandi, actually, I do hang out in cyberspaces at sites that I don't agree with. I visit both dailykos and the American Conservative sites. I visit antiwar.com (a libertarian site) and truthdig (a liberal site). Regarding insults in cyberspace, it is a serious problem; though I think Barry does a fine job in checking that kind of drift. I think the prevalence of insults in cyberspace is a result of the disembodied nature of the communication. Many people report having the experience of saying something in cyberspace that they would not say to that same person face to face. The internet is very new; less than a full generation of usage, and it is going to take some time to develope a cyberetiquette that facilitates good interaction without at the same time suppressing the free exchange of ideas.
What I have noticed, and others have as well, is that the internet actually facilitates conceptual isolation. This is counterintuitive and I was surprised when I first noticed this. What appears to be the case is that people gravitate to sites that reflect their already held views and opinions. Conservatives tend to spend their time at conservative sites, progressives at progressive sites, libertarians at libertarian sites, etc. What this means is that views that would have remained fringe and eccentric can now find companions on the world wide web. Prior to the web, people had to regularly interact intellectually with their neighbors, people at work, or at the store, or free-time associations, who did not share their views. Now such interaction is taking a backseat to cyberinteraction and because we self-select our cyberworld, we no longer are placed in situations of intellectual challenge; or at least we do so far less.
My concern with the new forum is that it reflects this tendency towards intellectual isolation. What I am beginning to realize is that when people use the term 'safe space' more and more they mean a space where they do not have to engage with anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest -- that seems to me to be what 'safe' is coming to mean and embody. I don't think that is a good thing and ultimately leads to a kind of intellectual atrophy.
Perhaps I am exaggerating. After all, Waccovians are pretty decent people. Nevertheless, I remain uneasy about this tendency to build up online communities that consist of only those with whom one agrees.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Once again, I have to agree with you Jim ...
I've asked myself why I resist this tiny little change on an online community board ... after all, it's hardly earth shattering ... but then again it is significant in some way ...
Our community is diverse, with lots of people expressing lots of different opinions ... yes, there have been some lively debates, but that's as it should be in a normal society which claims to be a "conscious community" where people are listened to and taken seriously by their neighbors ...
Further to that, the joy of this forum, and all forums, has always been that all opinions were allowed ... I certainly have read some posts which I didn't agree with, but I would never suggest that the poster should be restricted to a certain "category" of beliefs ...
Information and ideas are naturally fluid ... one person says something, which prompts someone else to say something and on it goes ... to insert "flood walls" into the process to control the flow just seems counter-productive to me ...
The attempt to classify people, information, research, ideas? ... this is a judgement call best left up to each individual because our real system of beliefs is a fluid one ... it changes, it mutates, as we interact with each other .... this is how change happens ... hopefully, we don't stay in our cubicle of beliefs, but we actually affect one another ...
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Some further comments about the Red Pill Roundtable and safe spaces...
Note that WaccoBB.net itself is a "safe space" (well, at least on good days :wink: ) for the progressive community. Because it is focused on the progressive community, the content and tenor of the discussions here are much different than on other sites, such as the PD. So I think there is a good case to be made for online communities that share roughly the same values, where we can talk among ourselves.... free from the ridicule and rudeness that sometimes escapes from otherwise well meaning people who don't share those values.
Since we all loosely share the same set of values, the conversations here feel more relevant and are a greater interest to all of you who have self-selected to join us. As the conversation drifts to less relevant topics people tend to self-unselect.
The RPR takes that concept one step further. 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 nutjobs.
I have my own personal opinions about that, but as moderator I've tried to stay neutral on the matter. Some interesting conversations have ensued as the allegations are explored. However the nature of those conversations is that of skeptic vs believer, which is a fine thing. But there is also a need for a place for believers to discuss the finer points, without being challenged by non-believers, just as we might discuss the questionable policies of the Democratic Party, without be challenged by Tea Partiers.
And there is value for bringing skeptics and believers together for a debate. I see that happening in this new paradigm that includes the RPR as either a reply to one of the weekly updates of the action on the RPR that I have asked to be posted to WaccoTalk, or perhaps a new thread started by a skeptic in WaccoTalk that quotes a RPR post.
There are certain topics that fall on the line between Red Pill and Blue Pill people (Vaccines and Chemtrails come quickly to mind), that I can easily see active conversations happening in both RPR (without skeptics) and in the other categories with skeptics.
Exactly how all this will work will get worked out over time. I'll be monitoring the RPR category as it goes along. But I think the premise of an digest-opt-in a believer only zone is valid and worth a try.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Jim,
I appreciate your response, and find it interesting. I have to admit I'd never spend time reading or watching conservative or religious programs. It just doesn't seem to serve my intellectual or spiritual development. And, I have a limited amount of time, as we all do.
I remember hearing this as a child..."No discussion of politics or religion". I think there was one other, but I can't recall right now. (Sex?) I understand the reasoning behind this, was to prevent heated conversations, which could actually get serious. At least, online, we are a bit safer from having to deal with that "in person" threat.
The wonderful thing about all offerings is that we can choose to participate or not. And if not enough people choose to join the Red PIll Roundtable, it won't survive. So, it's up to the majority.
And meanwhile, there are plenty of discussions where people can agree to dis-agree. Or "admonish" people through private emails, as a recent Wacco contributor meant to do with me, but it got posted in public. That must have been a little "embarrassing"!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:
Shandi, actually, I do hang out in cyberspaces at sites that I don't agree with...
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Barry,
I appreciate your position on this, I really do, and I realize that your job as moderator on this forum can sometimes be difficult, and you've done an excellent job of it ... thank you from all of us ...
While I think that it's a fine idea to have a place where members can go to discuss the more controversial subjects without as much opposition, there is one thing that bothers me about all of this, and that is that the decision to go there is not voluntary ...
Most members who post their concerns about chemtrails, vaccines, government harassment, Fukushima, etc, etc, etc, do so because of their concerns for the safety of our community. They are trying to warn people ... "hey look at this, this might be dangerous to your life" .... I put myself in that category ... trying to expose government corruption? ... I pay for these posts, and there are many others in this community that know exactly what I mean by that ... but I do this to warn others ...
Mandating that these posts must be contained within a group which already believes in such things ... well that is just preaching to the choir ...
So let's say that we have a real threat in our community and someone posts about it ... it is determined to be "Red Pill" information and because of that lots of others don't see it ... this is my concern ... throughout history there have been folks running around warning other folks of dangerous circumstances below the surface ... some of them have been correct ... President Kennedy put out some very vocal warnings before he was murdered ... does this make him a conspiracy theorist?
I'm just being honest here and these are my concerns ... you are in a difficult position and trying to keep everyone happy and I realize this ... thank you, once again, for all that you do ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Some further comments about the Red Pill Roundtable and safe spaces...
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
.... However the nature of those conversations is that of skeptic vs believer...
I think your post is fair, but can we please use accurate labels from now on.
Things are being stirred up by the questioning going on, not the face value following going on.
People siding with consensus reality - people not questioning - are the face-value followers/believers.
People questioning mass media consensus reality - are the people being the skeptics first.
So calling non-questioners 'skeptics' is saying they're the skeptics of the skeptics....
Would you please from now on refer to the duality accurately as the 'followers vs questioners'.... or 'non-questioners vs questioners.'
Much appreciation.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
I think your post is fair, but can we please use accurate labels from now on.
Things are being stirred up by the questioning going on, not the face value following going on.
People siding with consensus reality - people not questioning - are the face-value followers/believers.
People questioning mass media consensus reality - are the people being the skeptics first.
So calling non-questioners 'skeptics' is saying they're the skeptics of the skeptics....
Would you please from now on refer to the duality accurately as the 'followers vs questioners'.... or 'non-questioners vs questioners.'
Much appreciation.
If I engage in skeptical questioning of, say, the assertion on this forum that the US Government staged or committed the Sandy Hook School massacre in Newtown Connecticut in order to pass gun control legislation (which I do question and have been called out personally in this forum for questioning it) I would not feel that an accurate label for myself would be "follower", which clearly is a pejorative as it is being proposed.
Perhaps those on the side of the debate they are on should be able to pick their own label, if, indeed, there needs to be one. Therefore, in such cases I propose the label for myself to be "realist". Those on the other side of the debate can choose "questioner" or whatever label they want.
Scott
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
I want to second Scott's observation. If I am skeptical of the assertion that the earth is flat (and there are people who believe this) does that make me a 'follower'? I don't think so. This way of classifying the two sides is simply a strategy of dismissal, so that one side, the red-pill people, don't have to listen to those who disagree with their analysis. This does not further discussion.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:
..... I propose the label for myself to be "realist". Those on the other side of the debate can choose "questioner" or whatever label they want. Scott
We're looking for a neutral description of the people who accept the status quo face value and don't look any further in 'conspiracy' topics - 'realist' implies a pre-disposed conclusion that you see things for 'real' and the others don't. Again you may be 'skeptical' of the questioner's questions, but you don't deserve the label of skeptic because you are not being the first vocal, skeptical challengers - at all.
Ya, follower is wrong, I don't think we've found the right word yet. Mainstream could be it.
Mainstream vs Questioners is not superior to or derogatory of either side.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
.....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 nutjobs........
I can't ignore how disdainful and insulting that is to me and all the wacco members you are insinuating with superiority are nutjobs... and pretty much lets the cat out of the bag about what side you consider yourself on. Can we stop pretending your strong predilection doesn't show and be transparent about it?
Regulars have long known how far on the Blue Pill side about you are from lots of right wing posts, derision of the left and other nutjob calling (can we call you BlueBarry?) and we clearly get that you do think the RPR community are mostly loonies without a point and have been a longtime big thorn in your side.
No, you're not anywhere close to understanding or being one of the RPR community especially with that language, but I appreciate that the door is creaking open a bit more and you're making an effort to extend more of an olive branch...albeit at arms' length... and live with us peacefully too.
So you're outed and have lots of company, but here's to no exceptions to the no ridicule or rudeness rule for anyone.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Fact:
These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
https://www.businessinsider.com/thes...america-2012-6
Also, do a search for "disinformation agents" and "controlled opposition" ... the links are too numerous to list here ...
Sorry, but I would hardly label those who accept mainstream reporting as "realists" ... I think that "mainstream/questioners" might be accurate without stepping on any toes ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:
..Therefore, in such cases I propose the label for myself to be "realist". Those on the other side of the debate can choose "questioner" or whatever label they want.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Alex,
You can not argue for the validity of your opinions and then blast someone else for their opinions. We all get to express our opinions openly ... period. The ideas that Barry expressed here are honest and I support his right to express them, and even though I try to keep an open mind I also see information that causes me to question the intent of the poster.
One has to realize that the goal of disinformation agents is to take factual information and pervert it so that it looks crazy thus confusing everyone ... so an attack on our freedoms suddenly becomes about UFOs, etc .....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
I can't ignore how disdainful and insulting that is to me and all the wacco members you are insinuating with superiority are nutjobs...
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
First, regarding terms, I don't know that we need to agree on terms for the differing world views. The terms of "questioner" and "skeptic" have relevancy but both only have meaning when related to another point of view (ie skeptical of what? The government or the conspiracy theorists.)
Mainstream is less ambiguous, but also borders on pejorative being that so many things that are held as mainstream are roundly derided in progressive community.
For the moment, I'll use the "questioner" and "mainstream terms below to be clear avoid additional controversy.
Moving on...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
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 nutjobs. ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
I can't ignore how disdainful and insulting that is to me and all the wacco members you are insinuating with superiority are nutjobs... and pretty much lets the cat out of the bag about what side you consider yourself on....
While it's true I wouldn't count myself among the "questioners", as you call it, but my characterization of "left-wing Wacko nutjobs", along with "true progressives" was just an identification of the endpoints of the spectrum of the views of "questioners" within the larger progressive community. No ridicule intended. My personal views are someplace between those endpoints.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
...
While I think that it's a fine idea to have a place where members can go to discuss the more controversial subjects without as much opposition, there is one thing that bothers me about all of this, and that is that the decision to go there is not voluntary ...
Most members who post their concerns about chemtrails, vaccines, government harassment, Fukushima, etc, etc, etc, do so because of their concerns for the safety of our community. They are trying to warn people ... "hey look at this, this might be dangerous to your life" .... I put myself in that category ... trying to expose government corruption? ... I pay for these posts, and there are many others in this community that know exactly what I mean by that ... but I do this to warn others ...
Mandating that these posts must be contained within a group which already believes in such things ... well that is just preaching to the choir ...
Your concern is valid, Arthunter. I think what is called for some level of balance, discretion, and dare I say, moderatoration :wink:.
There are several issues at play. For one, I can see the RPR category as being a great resource for the questioners, but it only works if the content is aggregated into a category.
When it comes to the interface between the questioner and mainstream communities, I think it's a question of balance, both in regard to topics and volume/frequency. Some topics are of greater interest and relevance to the wider community (EMF radiation, Fukishima, Vaccines, and Chemtrails) whereas others are less so (Sandy Hook and gang stalking quickly come to mind).
Gang stalking is also an excellent example of excessive "warning". A post or two would be fine, but your almost daily stream of gang stalking posts for a month or three, Arthunter, was way too much. Beyond being ignored, it turns people off and does not reflect well on our larger community.
So my answer to this is to ask you and other questioners, is to primarily use the RPR for your questioning, and then for the moderator of the RPR (or other chosen person) to post roughly once a week a well presented summary of the most important action in the RPR (with links) to WaccoTalk or WaccoReader, so that mainstreamers would choose to read it. I think this handles all the concerns and actually gives you greater mainstream attention.
Like I've said there are many topics that I'm fine with lots of posts outside of the RPR, but for some, I think it's better for the questioner community and the mainstream community if it is organized on how propose.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Alex,
You can not argue for the validity of your opinions and then blast someone else for their opinions. We all get to express our opinions openly ... period. The ideas that Barry expressed here are honest and I support his right to express them, and even though I try to keep an open mind I also see information that causes me to question the intent of the poster.
One has to realize that the goal of disinformation agents is to take factual information and pervert it so that it looks crazy thus confusing everyone ... so an attack on our freedoms suddenly becomes about UFOs, etc .....
The issue I was addressing was the name calling of a faction of wacco members nutjobs and loonies.
I don't see why it isn't an example of the rudeness and ridicule from the same essay reminding everyone not to ridicule or be rude. I didn't say anything about not expressing opinion AT ALL.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Well...
My first impression is that the "RPR" is very like a "free speech area" that is fenced off away from the event being protested. It seems to be a passive-agressive attempt to control others by creating an unnecessary division, and then enforcing that division by outright separation. How utterly "progressive". Yuck!
As for the terms used to define the "sides" of the division (mainstream vs. questioner, realist vs. nutjob, conspiracist v. believer), etc., perhaps it could be reduced to statists vs. individualists.
Or even, to put a finer point on it, Those who (psychotically) want, and feel they have a right, to control others vs. those who feel no need to control others, and would for the most part, just like to be left alone.
Those who resort to name calling when they cannot make their case simply lose their respectworthiness.
While intentionally hurtful, it isn't really damaging, and it's certainly nothing a strong, self-respecting individual needs protection from.
We'll see... Need more data before a decision can be taken. Good Luck.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
I don't see the RPR as an area to protest events, like an anti-war march. I see it as education for those of us who want to learn more from those who've done the research to become more informed on controversial topics, and a way to learn "the other side of the story". Many people look to mainstream media as their source for information. I think about people who pay over $100 a month to Comcast to watch "the news", so they "know what's going on". The news is the main reason why many people won't cut the cord with cable; most of these people tend to be seniors who've watched the news all their lives, and couldn't image a day without it. I think it's pretty sad, but there's no convincing them to give it up. They believe they're being informed.
Anyway, I find it interesting to read such reactions and accusations to RPR. Is this progressive, conscious, and in the spirit of caring about the community? It's not a closed group; it just has guidelines, like those that Barry has for WaccoBB, like any group has. If someone wants to be part of it, they have to abide by those.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
just one tiny editorial quibble: you really can't call others psychotic and then condemn name-calling.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by handy:
Well...
My first impression is that the "RPR" is very like a "free speech area" that is fenced off away from the event being protested. It seems to be a passive-agressive attempt to control others by creating an unnecessary division, and then enforcing that division by outright separation. How utterly "progressive". Yuck!
As for the terms used to define the "sides" of the division (mainstream vs. questioner, realist vs. nutjob, conspiracist v. believer), etc., perhaps it could be reduced to statists vs. individualists.
Or even, to put a finer point on it, Those who (psychotically) want, and feel they have a right, to control others vs. those who feel no need to control others, and would for the most part, just like to be left alone.
Those who resort to name calling when they cannot make their case simply lose their respectworthiness.
While intentionally hurtful, it isn't really damaging, and it's certainly nothing a strong, self-respecting individual needs protection from.
We'll see... Need more data before a decision can be taken. Good Luck.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
We're looking for a neutral description of the people who accept the status quo face value and don't look any further in 'conspiracy' topics - 'realist' implies a pre-disposed conclusion that you see things for 'real' and the others don't. Again you may be 'skeptical' of the questioner's questions, but you don't deserve the label of skeptic because you are not being the first vocal, skeptical challengers - at all.
Ya, follower is wrong, I don't think we've found the right word yet. Mainstream could be it.
Mainstream vs Questioners is not superior to or derogatory of either side.
I don't consider "Mainstream vs Questioners" to represent how I view or experience this at all. I'm sure you and others do, but it's through your lens. And it is not at all close to neutral.
Rationalists vs Kool-Aid drinkers? (Just kidding) ; )
Scott
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
If it's true, and you say this: "I think the premise of an digest-opt-in a believer only zone is valid and worth a try" ~ then I'm willing to grant that you know a lot more about it than most of your nearly 12 thousand subscribers, and I believe we collectively will figure out how to "do this" as we continue pushing the envelope together! Again, Barry: Good Job!!!
Rev. BE :heart:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Some further comments about the Red Pill Roundtable and safe spaces...
Note that WaccoBB.net itself is a "safe space" (well, at least on good days :wink: ) for the progressive community. Because it is focused on the progressive community, the content and tenor of the discussions here are much different than on other sites, such as the PD. So I think there is a good case to be made for online communities that share roughly the same values, where we can talk among ourselves.... free from the
ridicule and rudeness that sometimes escapes from otherwise well meaning people who don't share those values.
Since we all loosely share the same set of values, the conversations here feel more relevant and are a greater interest to all of you who have self-selected to join us. As the conversation drifts to less relevant topics people tend to self-unselect.
The RPR takes that concept one step further. 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 nutjobs.
I have my own personal opinions about that, but as moderator I've tried to stay neutral on the matter. Some
interesting conversations have ensued as the allegations are explored. However the nature of those conversations is that of skeptic vs believer, which is a fine thing. But there is also a need for a place for believers to discuss the finer points, without being challenged by non-believers, just as we might discuss the questionable policies of the Democratic Party, without be challenged by Tea Partiers.
And there is value for bringing skeptics and believers together for a debate. I see that happening in this new paradigm that includes the RPR as either a reply to one of the weekly updates of the action on the RPR that I have asked to be posted to WaccoTalk, or perhaps a new thread started by a skeptic in WaccoTalk that quotes a RPR post.
There are certain topics that fall on the line between Red Pill and Blue Pill people (Vaccines and Chemtrails come quickly to mind), that I can easily see active conversations happening in both RPR (without skeptics) and in the other categories with skeptics.
Exactly how all this will work will get worked out over time. I'll be monitoring the RPR category as it goes along. But I think the premise of an digest-opt-in a believer only zone is valid and worth a try.
-
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.
-
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:
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....
-
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 ....
-
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:
As the author of the popular thread entitled "Unity Needed"....
-
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....:wink2:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
... and deal with any criticism which might come up with patience and more research. ....
-
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:
I don't think it's necessary to criticize ...
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
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
-
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.
-
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:
This is really untrue. Please go back and read some of the threads about Chemtrails and Fukushima, as just two examples....
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
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.
-
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:
There's inappropriate labeling, and there's calling a spade a spade, accepting it and dealing with it...
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
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
-
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:
I see that this discussion has now been personalized. And public assumptions have been made about my thinking. I would like to clarify....
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
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.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
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.
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
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:
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
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
Re: Introducing a New Category: The Red Pill Roundtable
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:
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'
