Discussion » Current Events » do you believe in CONSPIRACY?

  • 马克
    马克 wrote:

    if you have seen tom cruise movie EYES WIDE SHUT, then you might get what am talking about..

    madonna, lady gaga, raihana, george bush, clinton, britney spears, the british queen and very famous politicians and US senators are a member of elite group called ILLUMINATI, represented by a single eye

    Illuminati is a name that refers to several groups, both real and fictitious. Historically, it refers specifically to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment era secret society founded in the late eighteenth century. However, in modern times it refers to a purported conspiratorial organization which acts as a shadowy power behind the throne, allegedly controlling world affairs through present day governments and corporations, usually as a modern incarnation or continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati. In this context, Illuminati is often used in reference to a New World Order (NWO). Many conspiracy theorists believe the Illuminati, or the "Illuminated ones", are the masterminds behind events that will lead to the establishment of such a New World Order. Confusing the issue further is the fact that there are also several modern fraternal groups which include the word "Illuminati" in their names.

    i really wana know how chinese people take it?

     

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Unprovable conspiracy theories about secret societies are for people with nothing worthwhile to contribute to civilized political discourse. 

    My paternal grandfather was a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Freemason. He died a full decade before I knew enough to ask him about it, but he never even told my dad about all the secret handshakes and rituals.

    I grew out of this nonsense after having read a humorous reference book called Conspiranoia when I was in high school. I've heard nice things about Robert Anton Wilson's The Illuminatus! Trilogy, too. If you've got an actual academic interest in this sort of thing, read that shit. Literature satirizing conspiracy theories is almost always researched better than the ramblings of actual conspiracy theorists.

    Chinese cadres completely demystify the entire phenomenon. Everyone knows about the Shanghai clique. It's not a secret. Who cares?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Conspiracy literally means "to breath together" in Latin and its modern usage means to work together to promote a secret (often evil) plan (i.e. a means to accomplish a political objective). "上海帮" was originally coined in a pejorative usage, so there's your 'evil' part. And as I said, the difference between this organization and western conspiracy theories is that it is not secret.

    So what's your problem that makes this statement so difficult for you to understand? Is it lazy reading or flat-out faulty logic? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter.

    I think the fact that no one other than me has bothered to respond to this post speaks volumes for how much Chinese folks give a shit about conspiracy theories. They didn't get very much of a say in who their leaders are in the first place, so why would they have to invent unsubstantiated and speculative stories to explain why their country is so fucked up? In the US, we believe this shit because we still cling to the illusion of democracy and can't swallow that bitter pill that we are actually controlled by a handful of well-financed special interest groups.

    Conspiracy theories are for fools who want to avoid the very real socio-political phenomenons of war profiteering, the prison-industrial complex and corruption-called-lobbying. Instead of trying to explain anything (such as unchecked crony capitalism and a religious devotion to the idea that human greed has redeeming qualities), they just ask unanswerable questions.

    The philosopher Karl Popper defined pseudoscience as any untestable hypothesis. I don't have answers to your questions, and quite frankly, they don't excite me, and I have an extremely excitable curiosity for all manner of trivial intellectual bullshit. This Illuminati shit is about as interesting as day-old dumplings.

    I said that people who believe in conspiracy theories are part of an anti-intellectual tradition, wherein journalists disobey common rules like citing information with footnotes or properly attributing information sources. If you want to take it as a personal insult, that's your deal. For all I know, your interest in the subject could be more from curiosity than mental laxness.

    But hey, thanks for confirming my suspicions.

    But if you expect me to take this shit seriously, then I'm going to do three things: first, I'm going to point out that the Roman numeral MDCCLXXVI does not equal 666, but 1776, the year America declared its independence. Fucking duh! The 666 notion comes from splitting the Roman numeral into three parts MDC CLX XVI, but this is not an operation that is particularly common in any established numerological tradition.

    Then I'm going to flatly dismiss everything else you've presented as a complete and total waste of time, because when you're making "arguments" based on total speculation, your reasoning is like a chain, which is only as strong as its weakest link. One of your sources is contains an error, so I'm going to throw out the rest of it because it demonstrates that you lack a capacity to think critically about the information you consume.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Third, I'm going to point out that you're a motherfucking shit-drinking subliterate sack of shit, because a) I never insulted you, but rather people who uncritically accept nonsense, rumor, and hearsay as fact; that you willingly include yourself in that category is your error, not mine. And b) You owe me a far warmer "thank you" for bumping your insipid, meaningless trainwreck of a thread to the top of the queue.

    You're welcome.

  • Simen Wangberg

    "and one thing, explain the meaning behind the video of madonnas song "frozen"...?"

    No one here is going to explain "Frozen" until YOU explain "Like A Virgin".

    So get crackin', then.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    If I'm a loser, that would make you a sub-loser. You can't lay a finger on my reasoning, so instead you weakly attack my character. At least I instruct while I insult.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    It's not my fault if you still can't wrap your tiny little mind around why I would note the Shanghai clique. As I said from the very beginning, it has all of the hallmarks of being a conspiracy, except it's not secret. You countered by saying it's not an example of a conspiracy because it's not secret. Hadn't I just said precisely that?

    How are you not embarrassed by such an obvious fuck-up in your own reasoning? I know I'm a little more difficult to understand than the works of J.K. Rowling to which you are accustomed to regard as challenging, but I don't think that the density of my writing warrants completely ignoring everything I say and throwing a tantrum like a petulant child.

    Whining? On the contrary, U MAD; rather, I'm having fun with this. Nothing pleases me more than seeing some thin-skinned twattish crosstitute conceding the high ground because he's incapable of reining in his emotions. This is just a repeat of the religion thread where you said the same lame shit about me because you didn't have anything intelligent to say.

    So bring it on, Mark. Your insults can't really irritate me if they're no worse than my own self-deprecative observations; since I humbly refer to myself as unsuccessful in my own profile, what makes you think that I'm going to be bothered when you say the same thing less eloquently?

    Surely you can do better than "HURP DERP DANDO IS A LOSER," as like I said, it reflects more poorly on you that you are constantly being outwitted so spectacularly by someone as wretched as I. And you expect us to believe that you're a medical student? Don't make me laugh. You haven't got the capacity for objective or scientific reasoning. Moreover, your English isn't nearly good enough to study medicine.

    Enjoy that lucrative career assisting an accupuncturist in sterilizing his needles.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I reckon you don't need anyone's approval to be a janitor at an abortion clinic.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    As unglamorous as my life is, I still don't have the time to visit the Hebei Homeopathic Douche-Tasting Academy to check in on some illiterate chimp who can't open his mouth without vomiting up a few grade-school insults.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    The "fake birth certificate" myth was proven false quite a while ago. You don't read the news, do you?

    Conspiracy theories are indicative of a sort of callous anti-intellectualism. Rather than finding real reasons for the world's problems, people try to dream up imaginary ones, and then when asked for proof they supply nothing but conjecture.

    The whole affair is rather disrespectful to journalists and academics who go through great difficulty to check their facts and cite reputable sources of information. Not all journalists and intellectuals are worthy of respect, and the institutions they represent are certainly flawed, but it's not like conspiranoiacs have any suggestions for reform besides rounding up and slaughtering all the evil mystery men.

    Grow up, kids.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Yokozuna pinning Hulk Hogan was my end of innocence.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Lao Lee, Yes, it's very important to correctly diagnose the sources of the world's suffering. It's only the most important issue in the world, and you're reducing it to being an argument between "imaginative" people and "others"? That is the worst attempt to force a dichotomy that I've ever seen. As Scott points out, conspiracy theories contradict one another, so there's certainly more than two sides to this issue.

    Are you saying it doesn't make any difference if we blame "neoliberal capitalism, greed, and corruption" or simply "the Jews"?

    Forget about the true believers upstairs. That you can just fence-sit and act impartial on something so critical is more offensive by several orders of magnitude.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    "All I see is a battle between the imaginitive and the 'others" I was refering to a black Vs white argument where one side argues light gray, the other dark gray and noone conceades an inch....."

    Black is dark grey and white is light grey? So you're saying you're having trouble distinguishing between the entire black-white spectrum? This is utterly incomprehensible nonsense. And that's not another riposte at your linguistic faculties, but the obvious question begging and circular reasoning you're engaging in.

    To wit: "there could be truths hidden in the lies....." Like what? Okay, Lee. I agree that there are some things in the world which are true, and some things in the world which are false, and they're all mixed together. It's a meaningless aphorism. Do you have a point, or are you just trying to fill column inches?

    I'll tell you the terms of concession: when conspiracy theorists start playing by the same rules as mature journalists and academics by doing little things like providing footnotes or submitting articles for peer review, then they will become worthy of serious consideration.

    These are not unreasonable expectations of people who claim to be fighting against the evil empire. But as they can't even do that, they're utterly unworthy of respect.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    "Theory: America knew the japanese were coming to pearl harbour yet did nothing to avoid disaster as they needed a reason to use the A bomb"

    ...which hadn't been invented yet.

    Try again. That example sucked. There's nothing unreasonable about demanding proof and evidence to back up assertions, and it's entirely possible to do so in this case by examining historical records.

    There's absolutely nothing unreasonable about someone who "completely disregards anything unproven". I find your attempts to force a dichotomy here to be utterly and laughably fatuous.

    Like I said, I'll concede once someone provides an example of a "possible fact" which is presently unknown. Because explicating it would mean it's no longer just a potential fact, but rather...

    (Wait, this may be a real surprise to you, so I hope you're sitting down. Actually, I don't want to ruin the surprise, so I wont' spoil it: highlight the black box at the end of this post.)

    A fact.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I'm suddenly reminded of a gem of wisdom from George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld:

    There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Perhaps there is an invisible pink unicorn ejaculating ephermeral equine spunk onto your keyboard. You can't prove that it doesn't exist, so go wash your hands.

    The first S1 meetings of the Manhattan Project were not until after Pearl Harbor. Before this time, nuclear weapons were in theoretical stages. We can reject your conspiracy theory a priori because it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that the US would bait Japan into a war so they could use a weapon that didn't exist yet.

    This doesn't even qualify as a conspiracy theory, because if it were true it would be accidental, not planned.

    "but the fact of the matter is that the people who believe the conspiracy theories (obviously) don't!"

    The world has no shortage of people who will believe any rumor they hear without thinking critically so long as it confirms their preconceptions. Are you suggesting that the reality-based community should do more to accommodate this faith-based community by relaxing their expectations of proof?

    That's preposterous. No, the intelligent and rational people of the world are not going to lower their standards of proof to accommodate people who have no interest in the truth unless it confirms what they already want to believe.

    I'm not saying that these people should be shot and buried in shallow graves, but neither am I going to speak to them as anything other than children. And I daresay you're placing yourself in that category of unreasonable and fact-disinterested people when you pontificate that because you are so enlightened to be able to recognize two sides of the issue, the truth must therefore be somewhere between the two extremes.

    Eh, no, buddy. That's a transparently self-serving way of trying to appear as though you're "above" the debate. Come back down to earth, spaceman.

    "The conversation lacks cognative dissonance"

    I don't think you know what cognitive dissonance actually means. It's not a property of a conversation. It's a psychological state wherin one is having difficulty coming to terms with two contradictory thoughts or values.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Lao Lee, "I am suggesting educating someone to the truth requires tact and patience.... No relaxing of expectations required."

    I'm still waiting for an example of an "unproven fact," but my patience is wearing very fucking thin. As for tact, that's for people who've earned it by arguing honestly and honorably.

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc