Use my code MARS10 and link: https://bit.ly/curioBKMar22 to get 10% off (save up to $47!) your own authentic Japanese subscription box from Bokksu! Don't mis...
we are going to have a lovely discussion about this video >:3
really wish these youtube creators would stop making these exhausting 2+ hour videos. Not because the length is bad (I think Folding Idea's NFT video was really well done) but because of how they usually turn out.
If you're making a video about conspiracy theories, you probably don't need to talk about how much of a dingdong Caleb Maupin is for 45+ minutes. That's just padding runtime.
I promise you don't need to have costumed side-characters to create some kind of aesthetic metaphor that confuses what you're trying to say in the video. Everyone wants to do this Contrapoints/Jacob Geller thing where you kinda have two ideas dance around each other in some kind of vague dialogue, but its just confusing and muddies whatever point you were trying to make in the first place.
Third, it makes it so that people won't watch, will assume what the content of the video is, and respond to the made-up video they just imagined in their heads. That's what 90% of this thread is. And that's as much sophie's fault as it is yours, dear reader.
people won’t watch, will assume what the content of the video is, and respond to the made-up video they just imagined in their heads. That’s what 90% of this thread is.
You hate-watched the video, and rather than engaging with any of the arguments presented in the video, you got red, mad and nude at the examples she uses to illustrate her point. Ironically, I think you've really supported her claim that most conspiracy theories are not arrived at with factual knowledge, but with emotional truth. From what you've posted, it seems like if the main narrative of something has been proven false, you've lept to a single conclusion based on insufficient information either way. and none of this is even to say that you're wrong about any given point but rather you're mad because the truth you've arrived at is personal and emotional because it supports a story you agree with, and when you uncharitably took this video as some attack on your positions, it really illustrated that
Sorry, that was unnecessarily combative. Look, when I think about the conspiracies I believe in, I realize there are huge gaps in knowledge in order to reach the conclusion I've come to, but I believe it because A) not falsified by available information but more importantly B) supports a story that I believe. gladio and 9/11 all have an emotional truth to me, but as long as I'm honest with myself about it, I can keep myself grounded.
To my point of 2+hour videos though: they're bad. Its hard to see what argument Sophie is even advancing through much of the video since there is so much weaving around and setting up examples.
I'd just like to add that I started the video with an open mind and actually enjoyed the parts which were about the academic theory of conspiracies. I didn't contest any of those arguments because I actually agreed with her; I only posted about the stuff that triggered me. As I said in one post, after I ragequit the video, I picked it up again ten minutes later because I found it thought provoking, and I was curious to see what she had to say in full about the gas attacks that would falsify my beliefs. She's correct that there is not absolute proof one way or the other, but I found it to be a little bit pedantic because IMO there are only two explanations that are likely to be true in this case: either Assad did it, or the other side (the US) did it/faked it. If the former possibility has been falsified, which I believe it has, then it's not irrational to jump to the latter possibility. Is it proof? No, because bigfoot could have dropped them too, or maybe the residents of Duma thought it would be funny to gas themselves, or maybe the canisters could have been holograms all along, etc. We still haven't falsified those possibilities or any thousand of other possibilities, but like I said that seems rather pedantic to me. It seemed to me that she was using these academic theories to support her own emotional distrust of anti-imperialists. That's why I got mad. 100% proof of anything is pretty rare. As long as one maintains an open mind with regards to the possibility of new evidence arising, I don't think it's wrong to move forward with the most likely possibility.
Sure, I don't disagree with you on any of this, and obviously you don't need to watch or comment according to what I think would be a productive conversation. However the video wasn't about whether or not the gas attacks were true. the argument she was making was that Dore was using the one time he was right (maybe) as a cudgel against everyone he disagrees in order to isolate him as the sole purveyor of truth in all media. I just think it's more worthwhile to engage in the arguments the video is trying to make. the video wasn't about the veracity of gas attack facts, so i just let it slide ya know? but who am I to say what is the correct way to watch and comment on a video i guess. and yeah, her calling all these cranks and weirdos "anti-imperialists" really left a bad taste in my mouth too
IMO Sophie arguably committed the same sin when she dismissed the conspiracy theory of the Mauripol theater shelling despite there being practically no evidence either way.
All mammals are guided by emotions; there is no such thing as a person guided purely by reason. The human's neocortex is built on top of, and serves at the pleasure of, the limbic (emotional) system. As David Hume said, " reason serves the passions (emotions)".
really wish these youtube creators would stop making these exhausting 2+ hour videos. Not because the length is bad (I think Folding Idea's NFT video was really well done) but because of how they usually turn out.
If you're making a video about conspiracy theories, you probably don't need to talk about how much of a dingdong Caleb Maupin is for 45+ minutes. That's just padding runtime.
I promise you don't need to have costumed side-characters to create some kind of aesthetic metaphor that confuses what you're trying to say in the video. Everyone wants to do this Contrapoints/Jacob Geller thing where you kinda have two ideas dance around each other in some kind of vague dialogue, but its just confusing and muddies whatever point you were trying to make in the first place.
Third, it makes it so that people won't watch, will assume what the content of the video is, and respond to the made-up video they just imagined in their heads. That's what 90% of this thread is. And that's as much sophie's fault as it is yours, dear reader.
:I-was-saying: I watched the video.
You hate-watched the video, and rather than engaging with any of the arguments presented in the video, you got red, mad and nude at the examples she uses to illustrate her point. Ironically, I think you've really supported her claim that most conspiracy theories are not arrived at with factual knowledge, but with emotional truth. From what you've posted, it seems like if the main narrative of something has been proven false, you've lept to a single conclusion based on insufficient information either way. and none of this is even to say that you're wrong about any given point but rather you're mad because the truth you've arrived at is personal and emotional because it supports a story you agree with, and when you uncharitably took this video as some attack on your positions, it really illustrated that
Sorry, that was unnecessarily combative. Look, when I think about the conspiracies I believe in, I realize there are huge gaps in knowledge in order to reach the conclusion I've come to, but I believe it because A) not falsified by available information but more importantly B) supports a story that I believe. gladio and 9/11 all have an emotional truth to me, but as long as I'm honest with myself about it, I can keep myself grounded.
To my point of 2+hour videos though: they're bad. Its hard to see what argument Sophie is even advancing through much of the video since there is so much weaving around and setting up examples.
Good point, comrade.
I'd just like to add that I started the video with an open mind and actually enjoyed the parts which were about the academic theory of conspiracies. I didn't contest any of those arguments because I actually agreed with her; I only posted about the stuff that triggered me. As I said in one post, after I ragequit the video, I picked it up again ten minutes later because I found it thought provoking, and I was curious to see what she had to say in full about the gas attacks that would falsify my beliefs. She's correct that there is not absolute proof one way or the other, but I found it to be a little bit pedantic because IMO there are only two explanations that are likely to be true in this case: either Assad did it, or the other side (the US) did it/faked it. If the former possibility has been falsified, which I believe it has, then it's not irrational to jump to the latter possibility. Is it proof? No, because bigfoot could have dropped them too, or maybe the residents of Duma thought it would be funny to gas themselves, or maybe the canisters could have been holograms all along, etc. We still haven't falsified those possibilities or any thousand of other possibilities, but like I said that seems rather pedantic to me. It seemed to me that she was using these academic theories to support her own emotional distrust of anti-imperialists. That's why I got mad. 100% proof of anything is pretty rare. As long as one maintains an open mind with regards to the possibility of new evidence arising, I don't think it's wrong to move forward with the most likely possibility.
Sure, I don't disagree with you on any of this, and obviously you don't need to watch or comment according to what I think would be a productive conversation. However the video wasn't about whether or not the gas attacks were true. the argument she was making was that Dore was using the one time he was right (maybe) as a cudgel against everyone he disagrees in order to isolate him as the sole purveyor of truth in all media. I just think it's more worthwhile to engage in the arguments the video is trying to make. the video wasn't about the veracity of gas attack facts, so i just let it slide ya know? but who am I to say what is the correct way to watch and comment on a video i guess. and yeah, her calling all these cranks and weirdos "anti-imperialists" really left a bad taste in my mouth too
Agreed. :meow-hug:
IMO Sophie arguably committed the same sin when she dismissed the conspiracy theory of the Mauripol theater shelling despite there being practically no evidence either way.
All mammals are guided by emotions; there is no such thing as a person guided purely by reason. The human's neocortex is built on top of, and serves at the pleasure of, the limbic (emotional) system. As David Hume said, " reason serves the passions (emotions)".