"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the labor of thinking."
– Joshua Reynolds
"Most people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
– Betrand Russell
The issue Chang, is not my belief (amply demonstrated) that the very rich and powerful are actively working to maintain their position to the rest of humanity's detriment. The issue is your automatic flat rejection – in totality – of the thesis.
The way I have expressed myself (i.e. my automatic flat rejection) is not automatic (though it seems that way). I don't intend to bore people here (or elsewhere) with the nitty-gritty details that goes into thinking before I arrive at conclusions.
Hence, people don't get to see all the steps (and effort) that my mind makes in critically thinking about the situation - they only see the end result - which is the conclusion. Hence the impression that my response is "automatic".
Critical thinking is NEVER automatic - it is deliberative, cognitively demanding, and energy draining (for the specifics of this I refer you to Daniel Kahneman's book - Thinking Fast and Slow). But people only ever get to observe the end results (i.e. the conclusions) of the though process - hence the appearance of "automatic or haphazard or incomplete" thinking.
If I were to explain all the details of WHY the probabilites are exceedingly low (low enough to discard the false-flag hypothesis) for this event to be a 'FALSE FLAG' event, it would take several pages - and NO ONE is interested in that (or has the patience or time for it). No one here is interested in reading detailed, researched, analysis - of this or anything else. That is ONE of the problems/limitations of online discussion arenas/spaces - it doesn't give one the depth needed to really examine discourses in adequate detail.
Your stupidity has NO depths/limits does it Jenny Stokes? You like butting into other people's conversations, don't you? All YOU do is assume, instead of working on your critical thinking skills.
Please take care of your OWN insecurities Jenny Stokes and stop making a fool of yourself. Or don't if you prefer everyone to acknowledge you for your cognitive limitations.
I don't really worry about what anyone says - I'm more interested in how they think and the 'thought processes' involved - which is abysmal on substack.
For instance, you seem to subscribe to "mothman777’s Newsletter" - whom I consider to be a nut-case and full-blown conspiratorial-thinking hallucinator with extraordinary imagination powers (but little critical thinking).
You can follow from there how we are likely to disagree on a lot of things...
Just because I subscribe to people like Mothman doesn't mean I agree with or believe, everything they post... Amongst over a dozen others, I also subscribe to Craig Nelsen and Binky LaRue (https://craignelsen.substack.com/archive and https://binkylarue.substack.com/archive) They have a similar perspective to Mothman but they're far more articulate and nuanced.
That said, you are correct, at least now and then: Shit really does occasionally come flying out of a clear blue sky, and smack you right in the face, for no reason at all... 🤔
PS How were you able to figure out I subscribe to Mothman? 🤯
"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the labor of thinking."
– Joshua Reynolds
"Most people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
– Betrand Russell
The issue Chang, is not my belief (amply demonstrated) that the very rich and powerful are actively working to maintain their position to the rest of humanity's detriment. The issue is your automatic flat rejection – in totality – of the thesis.
I give up.
>>"The issue is your automatic flat rejection"
The way I have expressed myself (i.e. my automatic flat rejection) is not automatic (though it seems that way). I don't intend to bore people here (or elsewhere) with the nitty-gritty details that goes into thinking before I arrive at conclusions.
Hence, people don't get to see all the steps (and effort) that my mind makes in critically thinking about the situation - they only see the end result - which is the conclusion. Hence the impression that my response is "automatic".
Critical thinking is NEVER automatic - it is deliberative, cognitively demanding, and energy draining (for the specifics of this I refer you to Daniel Kahneman's book - Thinking Fast and Slow). But people only ever get to observe the end results (i.e. the conclusions) of the though process - hence the appearance of "automatic or haphazard or incomplete" thinking.
If I were to explain all the details of WHY the probabilites are exceedingly low (low enough to discard the false-flag hypothesis) for this event to be a 'FALSE FLAG' event, it would take several pages - and NO ONE is interested in that (or has the patience or time for it). No one here is interested in reading detailed, researched, analysis - of this or anything else. That is ONE of the problems/limitations of online discussion arenas/spaces - it doesn't give one the depth needed to really examine discourses in adequate detail.
That's all well and good and I'm glad your critical faculties are functioning. Just remember with any and all factoids:
1. Who is telling you this? and
2. Why are they telling you?
The old Roman adage applies: "Cui bono?"
You're assuming that my critical thinking is that shallow that I have not considered these (and many other) points?
YOU do NOT assume Chang!
Your stupidity has NO depths/limits does it Jenny Stokes? You like butting into other people's conversations, don't you? All YOU do is assume, instead of working on your critical thinking skills.
Please take care of your OWN insecurities Jenny Stokes and stop making a fool of yourself. Or don't if you prefer everyone to acknowledge you for your cognitive limitations.
I'm words on your monitor, Chang. You do you, and don't worry about me and what I say too much.
I don't really worry about what anyone says - I'm more interested in how they think and the 'thought processes' involved - which is abysmal on substack.
For instance, you seem to subscribe to "mothman777’s Newsletter" - whom I consider to be a nut-case and full-blown conspiratorial-thinking hallucinator with extraordinary imagination powers (but little critical thinking).
You can follow from there how we are likely to disagree on a lot of things...
Just because I subscribe to people like Mothman doesn't mean I agree with or believe, everything they post... Amongst over a dozen others, I also subscribe to Craig Nelsen and Binky LaRue (https://craignelsen.substack.com/archive and https://binkylarue.substack.com/archive) They have a similar perspective to Mothman but they're far more articulate and nuanced.
A useful anodyne regarding "Conspiracy" for you might be "180 Degrees: Unlearn the Lies You Were Taught to Believe" by Feargus O'Conner Greenwood (https://www.amazon.com/180-Degrees-Unlearn-Taught-Believe/dp/1915236002/ref=sr_1_). He's much less extreme than Mothman. Another one might be "The Underground History of American Education" by John Taylor Gatto (https://www.amazon.com/Underground-History-American-Education-Investigation/dp/0998919101/ref=sr_1_1). What he reveals about the public education gulag is mind-blowing.
That said, you are correct, at least now and then: Shit really does occasionally come flying out of a clear blue sky, and smack you right in the face, for no reason at all... 🤔
PS How were you able to figure out I subscribe to Mothman? 🤯