07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @finneganVery much so.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia
Worth considering
Max Igan has been another source of prophetic warning on this very topic.
In my house, we (okay: I) instituted "Media-Free Sunday" because I observed our seeming hypnotic reliance on those damn phones or any/everything else media-related.
No phones.
No computer.
No movies.
They can have classical music playing (I know) but that's it.
It wasn't to make them suffer, but to make us all think: what am I missing by not being in the stream?
They hated it at first, but found themselves looking forward to the silence, to the sanctity of their own individual thoughts.
I've challenged them to gain more ground in the area, conquer back more of themselves instead of checking out while gliding away on the conveyor belt of distraction.
Work in progress, but once you get a taste of freedom, you realize it's a work we all desperately need to put our hands to... and fast.
Originally posted by @freakykbhGood plan. You seem terribly susceptible to Youtube videos like this one, pushed under your credulous nose and sidestepping your capacity for critical thinking.
Very much so.
Max Igan has been another source of prophetic warning on this very topic.
In my house, we (okay: I) instituted "Media-Free Sunday" because I observed our seeming hypnotic reliance on those damn phones or any/everything else media-related.
No phones.
No computer.
No movies.
They can have classical music playing (I know) but that's it.
...[text shortened]... ste of freedom, you realize it's a work we all desperately need to put our hands to... and fast.
or maybe
Everything you've been taught about ancient history is a lie
Then you get all cross when nobody else is equally convinced. How could they not understand this important message pushed under their noses by no less an authority than the Youtube algorithm? IT MUST BE TRUE!
And there are more - so many more, at last revealing to us the TRUTH, after so many lies. Oh blessed day!
The fools the fools, they ignore these videos, they are ignorant, they fail to watch them through, they miss the messages. Only I can see them. Maybe I have been selected by the algoritm, Maybe they are not able to see them, blinded by their folly, their prejudice, their bigotry, their conventionality, their subservience. They do not know because they do not want to know - the fools, the fools!
So who is pushing these altruistic videos out onto the web and how are they targetting their audience? Is this not a marvellous philanthropic project seeking to set us all free from the lies and deception of .... of who? ....of what? Is there another video telling us the answer to these new questions?
Keep watching. The algorithm will keep feeding us more. The algorithm will make us free. Just sit there, prop your eyes open with matchsticks, dull your mind to the slow, almost inactive state of passivity in which to absorb what you are told, cancel all appointments, remove all distractions, pay attention, because maybe now is the moment when the final video will arrive, and the final TRUTH be revealed.
At last. Big Brother is our friend.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @finneganThere were similar feelings about television: it rots people's brains, spreads immorality, gives bad ideas to young people, was too addicting, etc. This claim has now died out, especially with the rise of the internet, which is now replacing TV.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia
Worth considering
Human beings will always be addicted to pleasure and entertainment. The programmers in the article should focus more on making people aware of the addicting aspects of social media rather than how "bad" the platform is. Instead of suggesting minimal social media use, they should further discuss "like" buttons being engineered to foster addictions.
I saw a report discussing phone apps deliberately designed to advantage of human psychology. Certain pleasant-sounding tones would go off whenever there were comments or likes to a person's profile. Some of these alerts would only go off when users accessed the site, causing a positive, excited feeling whenever they logged on. This would cause a kind of "high" to register in a person's brain, keeping them addicted to checking their account, or making new posts for people to like. Many Facebook games were designed in similar fashion, used to keep people hooked.
I don't use Twitter, Snapchat or Reddit (and I'm rarely on Facebook), but this was quite an eye-opener. Knowing the mechanisms used to keep one addicted to a site helps remove the allure and effectiveness of tools used to keep people addicted to a site. If you know you're being manipulated, it makes it harder fall for it. The article only briefly mentions such tactics (from the Facebook programmer). The word really needs to be spread about this. The more people are aware of these tricks, the less people will be addicted to social media or the internet in general.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @finneganAre you okay?
Good plan. You seem terribly susceptible to Youtube videos like this one, pushed under your credulous nose and sidestepping your capacity for critical thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDmosJI6b2Q
or maybe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us-7d1x_9RM
Everything you've been taught about ancient history is a lie
Then you get all cross ...[text shortened]... inal video will arrive, and the final TRUTH be revealed.
At last. Big Brother is our friend.
Your rant is more off than usual.
Oh.
Wait a tic.
You think you're being funny!
Don't you!
I'll play your little game one step and one step only.
See if you have the honesty to stay with the game.
Q. Do conspiracies exist?
Take your time and best of luck, finnegan.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhCertainly conspiracies exist.
Are you okay?
Your rant is more off than usual.
Oh.
Wait a tic.
You think you're being funny!
Don't you!
I'll play your little game one step and one step only.
See if you have the honesty to stay with the game.
[b]Q. Do conspiracies exist?
Take your time and best of luck, finnegan.[/b]
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhI believe sir it is your propensity and apparent willingness to accept almost all conspiracies at face value that is the problem.
Are you okay?
Your rant is more off than usual.
Oh.
Wait a tic.
You think you're being funny!
Don't you!
I'll play your little game one step and one step only.
See if you have the honesty to stay with the game.
[b]Q. Do conspiracies exist?
Take your time and best of luck, finnegan.[/b]
Sure, some conspiracies have some credibility behind them. Most don't. This really should be your default setting when exposed to a new one.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeLet's give your one-man conspiracy theory a test then, shall we, sir?
I believe sir it is your propensity and apparent willingness to accept almost all conspiracies at face value that is the problem.
Sure, some conspiracies have some credibility behind them. Most don't. This really should be your default setting when exposed to a new one.
I have put forth the following suggestions as legitimate conspiracies, not including any which have been openly admitted and acknowledged by the governments and/or people involved.
• The murder of JFK by both outside and inside rogue agents of the US government (although this one "kinda" doesn't qualify, since the House Select Committee on assassinations found that a conspiracy actually transpired, whilst inexplicably falling short on taking it even a step further).
• Use of false flags/hoaxes and/or staged events on the part of shadow governments within elected governments of the world (again, this one is a bit of a teeter-totter, too, since nearly all of their plots and actions eventually come out; it just takes a long time to get the truth), including but certainly not limited to 9/11 and Sandy Hook.
• Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama's lack of qualification on account of citizenry to be elected into the office of president.
• The shape of the earth/NASA's lies.
• The rigging of professional sports.
• The existence of warring ruling parties who influence from both inside and outside of elected governments for their own agendas, irrespective of the impact on people involved otherwise.
That's six of them, but--- really--- the first two have been proven, established and accepted as a matter of historical record, albeit not the complete story on all points.
Number three is open to interpretation, although his birth certificate was scientifically proven to be fraudulent.
Number four still stands as an open challenge, heretofore still unmet.
Number five has been proven in courts of law and public opinion repeatedly for well over a century.
Number six is also open to interpretation, but I am not going to be bothered to argue the point with anyone who thinks they can prove a negative or is so naïve to believe such cabals don't exist.
Are there really only six conspiracy theories out there?
Or did I leave something out?
Sure, some reports from the media have some credibility behind them.
Most don't.
This really should be your default setting when exposed to a new one.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhWow, you named one that actually sometimes happens!
Let's give your one-man conspiracy theory a test then, shall we, sir?
I have put forth the following suggestions as legitimate conspiracies, not including any which have been openly admitted and acknowledged by the governments and/or people involved.
• The murder of JFK by both outside and inside rogue agents of the US government (although this one " ...[text shortened]... behind them.
Most don't.
This really should be your default setting when exposed to a new one.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraOh, he has more, depend on that. It is his religion and as such there is nothing anyone can do or say to dissuade them. For instance, if Elon Musk was to give him a trip to the moon like Musk says he will do in the next few years (good luck) and Freak was to see for himself footprints on the moon of the Apollo astronauts he would say it was just done with robots.....
Wow, you named one that actually sometimes happens!
In other words, moving the goalpost is his MO on ANY of these conspiracy theories.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI named six that have been and can be demonstrated.
Wow, you named one that actually sometimes happens!
But don't let that stop your bandwagon-ing.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhOf course, of course. They can be demonstrated by browsing the Internet and finding that someone claimed it at some point. What more evidence could one need?
I named six that have been and can be demonstrated.
But don't let that stop your bandwagon-ing.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhYour post is a statement not a question, though it has within it some question marks. So there is nothing for me to do here.
Let's give your one-man conspiracy theory a test then, shall we, sir?
I have put forth the following suggestions as legitimate conspiracies, not including any which have been openly admitted and acknowledged by the governments and/or people involved.
• The murder of JFK by both outside and inside rogue agents of the US government (although this one " ...[text shortened]... behind them.
Most don't.
This really should be your default setting when exposed to a new one.
As a general consideration, you seem to have wandered off into some distracting alleys.
What is a conspiracy? When people get together to form a plan without making it public, really. So for example, the Democratic National Committee makes arrangements for the selection of candidates to represent the party (or to have the party's support). In so far as many of its communications and meetings are private that could be considered a conspiracy, but what is more often considered a conspiracy arose when they set about manipulating the process to favour Hillary Clinton over Saunders. Actually, as I understand it, they have been manipulating the process for decades to secure candidates acceptable to the backers - the people with big money who buy influence. Things were no different when Bill Clinton got the nomination. Britain's Labour Party has a comparable internal organisation, working to secure candidates of what we call the Blairite tendency in preference to "Left" candidates. So in both cases, we see Third Way Politics as a conspiracy on the part of wealthy funders to buy up parties that on the surface appear to belong to the Left.
Thing is, we can see these conspiracies in plain view and yet they persist with seeming impunity.
Now for a harder case, this conspiracy to lie about ancient history does exist, but not in the form that your YouTube videos suggest. I can describe it if you like. But maybe you think I'm off topic.