Right wingers less intelligent

[Meltingpot]

Anyway surely for the brave enlightened truthseekers there are greater things to fear, such as bohemian grove human sacrifices and the wrath of the ZOG machine than being called a cunt by someone on the internet. So why worry about the words of us sheeple?

Because EVERY OTHER damn thread in this section seems to be turning into a rant about Icke, even ones which aren't about him at all. Check the thread. Faux Pas didn't mention Icke (and perhaps wouldn't have done) until Butch came along and raised the subject, and then everyone else joined in. Can't anyone leave the guy alone?

I honestly think this board's got an Icke obsession at the moment, and it's getting way past a joke.

 

[frogwoman]

You posted stuff about Icke and were ridiculed for it, that's not treating you like shit.

If you don't agree with what I've said to you about Icke and what other posters have said then tell me exactly why. Go on, tell me why Icke is so great, why he's not anti-semitic and what you disagree about in what I posted above. Not this whiny "I'm being repressed!!" shit.

 

[frogwoman]

You've got life all sewn up, so I guess that would be a valid question for you.

i never claimed to have it all sewn up and have all the answers. icke did. so go on, tell us why he's right and i'm wrong.

 

[Meltingpot]

You posted stuff about Icke and were ridiculed for it, that's not treating you like shit.

If you don't agree with what I've said to you about Icke and what other posters have said then tell me exactly why. Go on, tell me why Icke is so great, why he's not anti-semitic and what you disagree about in what I posted above. Not this whiny "I'm being repressed!!" shit.

Not in this thread he/she didn't until the subject was raised by someone else. Read my post above.

 

[danny la rouge]

The cognitive dissonance that allows you to treat people like shit yet think you have the moral high ground, is quite interesting, actually.

I love it when people learn phrases like that and use them everywhere. Cognitive dissonance. Well done. Now put it in some fucking context.

 

[faux pas]

I love it when people learn phrases like that and use them everywhere. Cognitive dissonance. Well done. Now put it in some fucking context.

It has a context: hypocrite posters.

 

[frogwoman]

Answer my question please. No whining.

 

[faux pas]

Answer my question please. No whining.

I have told you why. I summarised it earlier.

 

[frogwoman]

Where?

 

[danny la rouge]

It has a context: hypocrite posters.

Yes, but the way you used it shows you don't understand it. It means the opposite to what you think it does. If I was marking your essay, I'd give it back and give you an extension. Oh, and it's pretty funny you should use the term since it was coined by a psychologist looking at loonspuds who believe in UFOs.

 

[butchersapron]

Because EVERY OTHER damn thread in this section seems to be turning into a rant about Icke, even ones which aren't about him at all. Check the thread. Faux Pas didn't mention Icke (and perhaps wouldn't have done) until Butch came along and raised the subject, and then everyone else joined in. Can't anyone leave the guy alone?

I honestly think this board's got an Icke obsession at the moment, and it's getting way past a joke.

50% of the threads in here are about Icke? Really?

You really think people don't place other posters views within some kind of wider framework and then try work out where they're coming from? That they shouldn't? I think they should, i think it's required if we're to have proper informed discussion or critique.That's what i tried to do and the turn to icke came from faux pas' petulant reaction to that. One of the reasons i did so was because of the heightened visibility of these people over the last 6 months - and the damage they have done and are capable of doing to serious oppositional politics. The twats.

 

[faux pas]

Check the thread. Faux Pas didn't mention Icke (and perhaps wouldn't have done) until Butch came along and raised the subject, and then everyone else joined in.

You're right about that. I started a thread about mashed potatoes and someone thought it appropriate to bring up Icke. I don't mind, btw, but that doesn't mean I'm responsible for derailment.

 

[faux pas]

Yes, but the way you used it shows you don't understand it. It means the opposite to what you think it does. If I was marking your essay, I'd give it back and give you an extension. Oh, and it's pretty funny you should use the term since it was coined by a psychologist looking at loonspuds who believe in UFOs.

Here's wiki for you: 'holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously'

Yep, just what I meant, but thanks for the extension anyway.

 

[frogwoman]

If Icke's views stand up to scrutiny you should be able to defend them without passive aggressive attacks on other posters.

I'll try again: What makes Icke's theory of how the world is run and social relations better, more able to stand scrutiny, etc, than that of the idea that it's the system of capitalism that's at fault? Tell me how I'm wrong please?

 

[danny la rouge]

Here's wiki for you

Now you've had your reference section returned, too.

Why? 1. Using Wiki. 2. Not even understanding what it says.

You wrote: "The cognitive dissonance that allows you to [...]" etc.

Cognitive dissonance does not allow you to. That's the point of it.

 

[faux pas]

If Icke's views stand up to scrutiny you should be able to defend them without passive aggressive attacks on other posters.

I'll try again: What makes Icke's theory of how the world is run and social relations better, more able to stand scrutiny, etc, than that of the idea that it's the system of capitalism that's at fault? Tell me how I'm wrong please?

Why would I have to? I've never claimed this.

 

[frogwoman]

Why would I have to? I've never claimed this.

So why should I listen to Icke's theories and take them seriously as opposed to whose views i take seriously currently?

 

[faux pas]

Now you've had your reference section returned, too.

Why? 1. Using Wiki. 2. Not even understanding what it says.

You wrote: "The cognitive dissonance that allows you to [...]" etc.

Cognitive dissonance does not allow you to. That's the point of it.

Cognitive dissonance, going through that 'discomfort', would allow you to hold conflicting emotions, ideas, etc.

returned oh teacher!

 

[faux pas]

So why should I listen to Icke's theories and take them seriously as opposed to whose views i take seriously currently?

Never said you should.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You don't know if he was a 'genius' or a 'fairly intelligent person'

There were smarter folk out there than him whose ideas did not take hold in the way his did because they were not congruent with the interests of the powerful. Nonetheless he was clearly pretty smart, if only for being able to effectively communicate his ideas to a mass audience. He was a right proper evil cunt tho like.

 

[frogwoman]

Never said you should.

OK - I'll rephrase that. Why do YOU take him seriously? What do you find convincing in what he says etc that's more convincing than what's said by his opponents on here?

 

[krtek a houby]

You really think people don't place other posters views within some kind of wider framework and then try work out where they're coming from?

In case they're lizards?

 

[faux pas]

OK - I'll rephrase that. Why do YOU take him seriously?

Sorry to sound flippant, but it's at least fair on me, in light of everything, to highlight that I never said I did.

 

[frogwoman]

Sorry to sound flippant, but it's at least fair on me, in light of everything, to highlight that I never said I did.

OK. Why do you defend him on here though if you don't, is it just a devils advocate or something? genuine q btw.

 

[faux pas]

OK. Why do you defend him on here though if you don't genuine q btw.

Because I accept that most of what he says, on the face of it, is seemingly ridiculous, however, in the words of Joe Rogan:

'It's very weird that were on a fucking rock flying through the universe and it hardly ever comes up.'

 

[frogwoman]

Because I accept that most of what he says, on the face of it, is seemingly ridiculous, however, in the words of Joe Rogan:

'It's very weird that were on a fucking rock flying through the universe and it hardly ever comes up.'

That's it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

And what other posters have to say could 'fly in the face of my experience'.

Which brings us to the question of whom we listen to, the mass of individuals representing their experience(s) as X, Y and Z, or the minority of individuals representing their experience(s) as A, B & C?

We're simply just left with how you treat those who believe differently to you. Evidently, according to your 'moral compass', we should treat them like shit.

You missed my point in your haste to have a dig, my point being that you were/are projecting your morality onto others while reproaching them for doing the same to you.

It's true that I'm not tolerant of differing beliefs. I don't see what place tolerance, with it's inevitable air of condescending forbearance, has in matters of belief. I prefer not to tolerate, but to accept. There is, of course, a proviso to my acceptance, which goes like this - make a good case - if you can't, then don't expect acceptance.

Ironic, really, being that the left often like to present themselves as having the moral high ground.

Who in G-d's mouldy cock are "the left"?

Oh, and if you're insinuating that I'm of "the left", you're

But as you allude to, maybe there is no basis for any objective morality, and what is down for me is up for you, and vice versa. Maybe when you're treating them like shit, you do it with a warm heart

Except that I haven't alluded to any such thing (although I can understand that someone might infer that from my post, if they were desperate enough), and that last sentence of yours is projected dreck.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If they believe, as icke does, the protocols of the elders of zion are anything more than anti-semitic shit and refuse to accept alternative views of it they should be treated like shit yes.

Those bolded words are key, in my opinion. If you dogmatically adhere to "doctrine" in the face of good arguments and reasoning to the contrary, and/or dismiss any alternative interpretation as irrelevant, then you will often be treated with scorn.
Of course, for some, this sort of "martyrdom"/"suffering"/"victimisation" actually validates their belief in these minority perspectives. Why else would people be saying you're wrong, except that they're jealous of your open mind/are trying to hide something/are sheeple?

 

[butchersapron]

Because I accept that most of what he says, on the face of it, is seemingly ridiculous, however, in the words of Joe Rogan:

'It's very weird that were on a fucking rock flying through the universe and it hardly ever comes up.'

So you have no critical framework within which you seek to establish what is true and what isn't? What is likely and what isn't? No method. Nothing. You have nothing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Or that Icke adherents are nothing but scifi fans and the politically gullible/lazy.

Although not quite as far gone as Elronners, to be fair, not by a long chalk.