Right wingers less intelligent

[Meltingpot]

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

Exaggeration perhaps, but it feels that way at the moment.

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.

If that was actually what was happening here, there might be a case for it although I'd still say you don't get the best out of posters when they're having to fend off attacks from several posters at once (I've been in that situation here several times myself, so I'm talking from experience). But if you look at what's actually happened here, everyone's completely forgotten what the thread was originally about and it's all become about what a looney Icke is and how he's derailing serious political discussion and organisation.

Just to get things back on track; Roger Scruton isn't stupid, nor was Quentin Hogg, Keith Joseph or Enoch Powell. Right wingers all (although Scruton used to deny that he was right wing and said that a simplistic right - left division ruined political discussion in the 1980s).

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.

Well, Icke has praised John Pilger's work in one of his books, calling him "outstanding", so there is at least some common ground. My impression though is that most of Icke's followers wouldn't sign up for any serious political movement anyway - they're iconoclasts by nature and wouldn't accept any party discipline.

 

[Blagsta]

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.

Another out of context quote.

 

[Blagsta]

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

returned oh teacher!

Your defensiveness about icke and continued inability to see evidence right in front of you of his anti-semitism leads me to believe the only one with cognitive dissonance going on here is you.

 

[Roadkill]

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.'

It's not seemingly ridiculous: it is ridiculous. Unless everything we know about how the universe works is wrong, there is no way we can be ruled by bloodlines of shape-shifting reptiles. Why should anyone believe Icke over the accumulated weight of knowledge built up over centuries which flatly contradicts most of his views? He's either a lunatic or a charlatan, or perhaps both.

Tbh it's profoundly frustrating when people who take him seriously (and given that you've spilled a lot of ink defending him it's hardly unreasonable to conclude you do) refuse to engage with this question at all. You're not the first and almost certainly won't be the last. No wonder some people are getting a bit shirty with you: it's like trying to shovel smoke.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

I hate it when people insist on throwing around terminology inappropriately.
There's no cognitive dissonance involved in treating someone like shit, yet believing yourself to occupy the moral high ground. That's merely a standard manifestation of an individual's personality and identity.

 

[Citizen66]

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.'

I see:

Joe Rogan - Comedian
David Icke - Comedian?

Gotcha.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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's not cognitive dissonance, so it can't be put into context.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Was Friedman stupid then?

The people who think that markets are unquestionable, that everything can be boiled down to supply and demand, seem either self serving or stupid. Possibly both.

That doesn't make the father of the theory stupid by any means. As time goes on there is less excuse for going along with wrongheaded thinking and often more stupidity required.

 

[faux pas]

I'd still say you don't get the best out of posters when they're having to fend off attacks from several posters at once (I've been in that situation here several times myself, so I'm talking from experience).

That means so much, but I don't think some here would ever accept it. Butchersapron said some remark in the Icke thread to the effect of 'we're five steps ahead of you'.. but, of course, overlooked the words I've put in bold. Imagine sitting in an actual room with a group of people all verbally attacking you and insulting you at the same time. All I can say is... don't get so fucking chuffed.

 

[frogwoman]

imagine sitting in a room with someone trying to convince you people with your "bloodline" were scum and responsible for all the worlds evils and you should open your mind and become free man. And that there was nothing wrong with this because we're all beings of eternal consciousness. And acting the cringing victim when they were called on it.

 

[faux pas]

It's not cognitive dissonance, so it can't be put into context.

It is and it was
See I can just state things too.

 

[krtek a houby]

That means so much, but I don't think some here would ever accept it. Butchersapron said some remark in the Icke thread to the effect of 'we're five steps ahead of you'.. but, of course, overlooked the words I've put in bold. Imagine sitting in an actual room with a group of people all verbally attacking you and insulting you at the same time. All I can say is... don't get so fucking chuffed.

TBF, it's a handful of posters who behave like this. They'll suck the very marrow out of your bones if you let them.

Not saying I agree with you, mind.

 

[butchersapron]

That means so much, but I don't think some here would ever accept it. Butchersapron said some remark in the Icke thread to the effect of 'we're five steps ahead of you'.. but, of course, overlooked the words I've put in bold. Imagine sitting in an actual room with a group of people all verbally attacking you and insulting you at the same time. All I can say is... don't get so fucking chuffed.

Yes, posters who know that Icke talks shit, that the protocols of the elders of zion are bullshit and so on are five steps ahead of you. Tough.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is and it was
See I can just state things too.

I did actually explain why it isn't in another post, but I see you ignored that in order to try and score a point.

Well done!

 

[ViolentPanda]

TBF, it's a handful of posters who behave like this. They'll suck the very marrow out of your bones if you let them.

You wish!

 

[faux pas]

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.

Of course I do, but I also acknowledge the backdrop to that is the point Joe Rogan tries to make.

But maybe you prefer Decartes - 'I think therefore I am'. That's all he was left with.. yet, of course, you've got it all sewn up nice, right?

 

[krtek a houby]

You wish!

mmm, marrow

 

[chilango]

I think this thread has answered itself...

 

[faux pas]

I hate it when people insist on throwing around terminology inappropriately.
There's no cognitive dissonance involved in treating someone like shit, yet believing yourself to occupy the moral high ground. That's merely a standard manifestation of an individual's personality and identity.

and you somehow distinguish 'personality and identity' from someone's 'ideas, values, emotional reactions', which you're entitled to do, but doesn't make me wrong, of course.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course I do, but I also acknowledge the backdrop to that is the point Joe Rogan tries to make.

But maybe you prefer Decartes - 'I think therefore I am'. That's all he was left with.. yet, of course, you've got it all sewn up nice, right?

That's not what you argued. You argued that you will not discount anything whatsoever because some other things sound unlikely yet are true. This logic cuts a gaping great hole in your argument as it suggests that we can know that some things are true (your example of the earth etc) and that we have developed methods to test them against evidence and so on to reach this conclusion. And when this tested method is used to investigate Icke's bollocks or the provenance of the Protocols of the elders of Zion it destroys them. In the same way that you just destroyed your own argument.

 

[frogwoman]

and when this tested method is used to investigate Icke's bollocks

I'd rather not thanks

 

[faux pas]

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

Well, on here, it would include at least those calling 'right-wingers' either evil or stupid. One minute such terms are suitable, the next...

 

[butchersapron]

Well, on here, it would include at least those calling 'right-wingers' either evil or stupid. One minute such terms are suitable, the next...

How would you characterise people who - on at least two threads - wildly generalise about the left whilst finger wagging about such wild generalisations (and even starting a thread attacking such heinous behaviour now i remember it)? Hypocrites? Twats? Gullible fools?

 

[Idris2002]

Well, on here, it would include at least those calling 'right-wingers' either evil or stupid. One minute such terms are suitable, the next...

 

[ViolentPanda]

and you somehow distinguish 'personality and identity' from someone's 'ideas, values, emotional reactions'...

I haven't distinguished between them, you're doing that by inferring that I have.

Cognitive dissonance is contextual and particular, what you talked about was neither. You used the phrase in an attempt to gloss, that's all.

which you're entitled to do, but doesn't make me wrong, of course.

Not necessarily, no. Contextually, though? Wronger than Wrong Wrong McWrong of the Ayrshire Wrongs.

 

[krtek a houby]

How would you characterise people who - on at least two threads - wildly generalise about the left whilst finger wagging about such wild generalisations (and even starting a thread attacking such heinous behaviour now i remember it)? Hypocrites? Twats? Gullible fools?

Straw men?

 

[butchersapron]

Straw men?

Whiny babies desperate to be attacked?

 

[Santino]

Of course I do, but I also acknowledge the backdrop to that is the point Joe Rogan tries to make.

But maybe you prefer Decartes - 'I think therefore I am'. That's all he was left with.. yet, of course, you've got it all sewn up nice, right?

You've never read Descartes.

 

[faux pas]

I haven't distinguished between them, you're doing that by inferring that I have.

Cognitive dissonance is contextual and particular, what you talked about was neither.

Yes it was. See I can just state things too

 

[ViolentPanda]

You've never read Descartes.

Perhaps faux pas is referring Stravinsky's "Jeu de cartes"?