What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

[Otterly]

I can't help feeling like this is orchestrated. What next, and what late 70s-early 80s event will it rhyme with?

Please lord not the miners strike or disco. If we can have REM and inspector morse please? Pretty pretty please?

haven't really ever seen anybody speculate much on there being an agenda of any kind to drive people to a breakdown of their perceptions of the fundamental way things are.

I have thought this too. It was the eggs that first made me think this. I saw within a few months articles in the same paper that;
- an egg a day prevent diabetes
-more than two eggs a week doubles your risk of diabetes
- go to work on an egg!
-never eat eggs. Eggs bad
- x number of eggs a day is associated with cancer
Etc. even the comments under the articles noticed it. It’s just the same stuff to drive people into a constant sense of fear and disquiet so you can manipulate them.
Very few people have a morality developed enough to obey it even if it causes harm to them, most people obey purely because they will be punished if they dint or ‘government says so.’ But what if you know the government are wrong? For example our lack of freedom of expression? Do you keep speaking or just shrug and assume daddy gov is right? Most do the latter.
. When you can rock the foundations of what people believe to be absolute truth, you destabilise their morality further. Nothings real and so truth is whatever you’re told it is. Reality is what you’re told it is.

If there really are conspiracies in science, then when do college students get initiated into the conspiracy, or why is there no security clearance to get in?"

That’s a daft argument. They’re indoctrinated from the word go by what they’re taught. All you have to do is set the teaching syllabus and the rules on who gets funding and you’re golden.
Look at the Covid ‘pcr’ tests. People in labs got sent kits, and SOPs. They diligently and honestly followed them. They diligently reported the data. But the whole setup was wrong. Were the lab techs inducted into a conspiracy? No of course not, they just loaded the samples and pressed go.
People are getting taught that men can turn into women, and people are being taught that anthropogenic climate change is an absolute fact. The former is demonstrably false and the latter needs a whole load more data. Yet both are the orthodoxy.
All you need is a few people setting the SOP. Everyone else believes what they’re told, and falls into line. Maybe 10-15% of people question and think they should hold to a higher truth.

 

[Serbian Peacekeepers]

So I'm reading the official LVMPD reports regarding the Las Vegas shooting, one day I might make a effort post or bite the bullet (metaphorically) and make a Youtube video about it.
While I was reading the report however, one piece of evidence really stood out to me.
From 102 of "LVMPD Criminal Investigative Report of the 1 October Mass Casualty Shooting" Link

Blue plastic hose with funnel, fan, and scuba mouthpiece attached.

Any of you have a theory of what this was for? It was found in the same room as the majority of the Firearms and shell casings. My guess is maybe some sort of impromptu gas-mask, but Paddock shot himself before police even tried to breach his room.

 

[AnOminous]

I have thought this too. It was the eggs that first made me think this. I saw within a few months articles in the same paper that;
- an egg a day prevent diabetes
-more than two eggs a week doubles your risk of diabetes
- go to work on an egg!
-never eat eggs. Eggs bad
- x number of eggs a day is associated with cancer

This is why you ignore this kind of bullshit story. Eat eggs. They're scientifically proven to be awesome and yummy.

 

[Screamer_2]

This is why you ignore this kind of bullshit story. Eat eggs. They're scientifically proven to be awesome and yummy.

 

[Otterly]

This is why you ignore this kind of bullshit story. Eat eggs. They're scientifically proven to be awesome and yummy.

I love eggs, and eat them regularly. I also pay no mind to what’s in the news except as a kind of barometer of knowing what we are ‘supposed’ to believe which can be informative in and of itself.
I may do quiche for dinner …

 

[Kapros]

Otterly probably really is an actual otter. I mean, think about it. If you were an otter on the internet, wouldn't you larp as an otter to throw off suspicion? People would say, "If she were one, then wouldn't she pretend not to be one?" It's the perfect disguise.

 

[regginknurd]

There's a guy I am forced to encounter regularly who shows up to official functions wearing ancient Tevas and bare feet. Dressed normally and appropriately from the ankles up. The whole room shifts uncomfortably and averts their gaze when he shows up with his rickety old sandals and long, tentacle-like toes flapping in the breeze. No one should have to see a grown man's toes in a business environment.

Someone must have spoken with him about it, as the next time he showed up wearing these. Worse. Somehow worse.

I know this is late, but I have a legitimate question that'll start with a bit of a soliloquy. I am a 9-5er, and have always worn steel-toe work boots or dress shoes to work. I hate work boots and dress shoes, I have Fred Fuckstone feet, and as a hillbilly I've spent most of my life without shoes unless I was out somewhere in public (beach, camping, or backyard - no shoes; in public? Fuck you, wear shoes. Anyone in sandals is a faggot unless they're jesus or on a boat). Is there a shoe or style of shoe where I can splay my toes in a business sense without looking like a dirty hippy? I'm curious.

Also, thread tax:

Havana Syndrome. I fully believe the things I feel in my body are because of old age, alcohol and drug abuse, and schizophrenia; but holy shit does this hit every single marker on the nose in the same way that only a BPD chick must think fibromyalgia hits all of her cases of the adult "owies." (Fibromyalgia is fake, you're just dying and can't get used to it - take some more oxy).

And all the things I feel related to Havana Syndrom happened all at once. I, as a crazy person, know my crazy. A little at a time that I ignore until I can't. But all at once. At one time, without a build up? Like I said, I know it's no true, and believe it's not true... but in my bones there's something they'll go "Aha, I fukken told you!" when it's proven to be true.

 

[Otterly]

Otterly probably really is an actual otter. I mean, think about it. If you were an otter on the internet, wouldn't you larp as an otter to throw off suspicion? People would say, "If she were one, then wouldn't she pretend not to be one?" It's the perfect disguise.

Darn it, rumbled.

 

[The Taco Santo!]

Otters are very very cool.

 

[Ewan McGregor]

Otters have been sentient for a while now. They are sending plants to human hotspots to monitor our behaviour, and they have chosen the Kiwi Farms because that's where they more easily can document our flaws as an species.

Lidl Drip called it out, but because she's so disliked nobody cared.

We have all been played.

 

[The Taco Santo!]

I wish I could laze around all day eating clams off my tummy and being so adorable people let me get away with it.

 

[Return of the Freaker]

I've long been convinced that something was going on along these lines with rock stars in the early 90s "alternative" scene. Like alrighty, yes, heroin is highly addictive, but doing drugs was not a new thing for rock stars. And yet the rock stars of the boomer era did not die early at this kind of rate:

Kurt Cobain (obviously)- 1967–1994
Chris Cornell- 1964–2017
Layne Staley- 1967–2002
Scott Weiland- 1967–2015
Dolores O'Riordan- 1971–2018
Elliott Smith- 1969–2003

To the point where the only "leader" of the movement that survived to retirement age is Eddie "CIA" Vedder.

And then you find out that these people had spoken out about experiencing child abuse in some form or another...

Hmm...

You're reminding me about Chester Bennington speaking out about child abuse/trafficking and being abused. And then right before he died he was in the same area as Tony Podesta. Admittedly my memory here is a bit hazy so I could be off

 

[JustSomeDong]

Otters have been sentient for a while now. They are sending plants to human hotspots to monitor our behaviour, and they have chosen the Kiwi Farms because that's where they more easily can document our flaws as an species.

Lidl Drip called it out, but because she's so disliked nobody cared.

We have all been played.

Its only a matter of time...

 

[The Nothingness]

Believers: Bigfoot is an intelligent and elusive ancient species of primate that has survived for thousands of years.

Skeptics: Bigfoot is not real as it would need a sizable population to last this long and no body has been presented.

Me, an intellectual: Bigfoot is the dominant species of a parallel Earth that has developed the technology to travel to our world just to mess with us for their entertainment.

 

[Flan Handler]

Believers: Bigfoot is an intelligent and elusive ancient species of primate that has survived for thousands of years.

Skeptics: Bigfoot is not real as it would need a sizable population to last this long and no body has been presented.

Me, an intellectual: Bigfoot is the dominant species of a parallel Earth that has developed the technology to travel to our world just to mess with us for their entertainment.

The grays and reptilians obviously use Bigfoot as manual labour. He’s only brought into our dimension to carry heavy shit around the forest, maybe some light forklift work if he’s lucky.

 

[liquid nitrogen]

I will replying to you all, in series, due to the capricious whims of my generous soul. <3

I know there's the whole "Evidence suggests..." / "Experts claim..." / "Research may reveal..." meme, but it's really starting to drive me nuts. [] Why is it that every single thing online these days is so contradictory these days? I haven't really ever seen anybody speculate much on there being an agenda of any kind to drive people to a breakdown of their perceptions of the fundamental way things are. I don't know. Maybe it's just a me thing. But it's not just from the -Steins, or the -Bergs, or even the -Shekelheimerwitzes. It seems like every single place you can get information from makes an effort to be contrarian to what is generally understood to be acceptable proof

Etc. even the comments under the articles noticed it.

Not to glow or dox myself but I am one of the experts with the decorative papers from fancy schools and a secret double life as an internet tard. Yeah this is a problem. It's caused by
1) newspapers being shit at reporting science and great at hyping up whatever schizophrenic dream the writer in question had that day.
2) the average news writer having zero scientific literacy (there being a scientific paper about it doesn't make it true! scientists can be retards! That's why we write meta-analyses about each other and get into 10 year long shit fights!)
3) A lot of scientific methods being hot fucking garbage even by the standards of related fields. As an example I'll give you the entire psychiatric genetics field, which is basically using statistics unacceptable to a statistician to analyze genetics in a way unacceptable to a geneticist to make claims about the models of the psyche unacceptable to a psychologist. Or fucking studies with a sample size of less than 1000 and less than 5 samples per person. I don't fucking care how much it costs. Prove your research is worth the fucking grant money you goddamn useless piece of shit. Rant aside scientific literacy is important so you can look at a paper and be like "yeah this is a nothingburger" because there's a lot of nothingburgers. Due to this unfortunately the aformentioned schizophrenic journalist can say whatever he goddamn pleases and find a paper to support it.
4) More generally the issue of there being a lot of data vs not enough theory to cover it AND a lot of theory and not enough data to cover it. eg. troons basically still exist because we haven't established a modern spin on jung that encapsulates them even though we all know that they're just offbrand narcissists. Everyone has a theory they will fight for until they are conclusively proven wrong and that's the standard for science but in the past the general public didn't get to see that. pros and cons of the internet I guess
5) basically if I had to give the average person advice it would be to watch for the word "correlation" being grievously abused to mean "causation". They didn't prove causality for shit. If someone's saying "correlation" and using it like "causation" they're a fuckhead pushing a dogma. Don't trust any paper before 2000 (unless you're in math in which case fuck you). Don't trust a sample size under 1000. [both of these are low standards and many would aim for 2015/5000]. And Highly Suspect everything else. a proper scientist is conspiritard-made so you're closer to it than the average 100 IQ psychology major whose mommy always believed they would be super special so they have 200k in debt and are working to prove women aren't real while being drugged on 24124 pharma-shilled barely-provable pills that are supposed to fix their "conditions" that are actually "my brain is complaining I'm a useless loser who's scared of exercise and contributing to society " disorder

these people exist because we should be forcing highschoolers to take calc 2 and some sort of difficult literary analysis before being allowed to apply to undergrad. If you can't pass it without tutors or daddy paying off the teacher you don't need a degree. Yes especially arts majors.

t. dogmatic puritan

Is there a shoe or style of shoe where I can splay my toes in a business sense without looking like a dirty hippy? I'm curious.

They're called square toebox shoes or barefoot shoes and are really popular with terminal gymbros so there's a lot of options. you just have to check the sole shape to make sure it's square shaped. anything with the toe curving in are fucking posers. I also make sure mine are made in america or europe but that's because I refuse to fund the browns. You could also get water shoes for like 30$ on amazon, they're mostly square toe too

 

[Flan Handler]

4) More generally the issue of there being a lot of data vs not enough theory to cover it AND a lot of theory and not enough data to cover it. eg. troons basically still exist because we haven't established a modern spin on jung that encapsulates them even though we all know that they're just offbrand narcissists. Everyone has a theory they will fight for until they are conclusively proven wrong and that's the standard for science but in the past the general public didn't get to see that. pros and cons of the internet I guess

From the outside, peer review looks broken. To me it looks like we still might have some smart people making progress, but in a sewer of corrupt funding, paper mills, and I’m sure plenty of chatbot output. Plus, the idea of sharing your innovations with “peers” aka competition only works in a high trust environment.

The idea of these papers wasting everyone’s limited, valuable time makes me {REDACTED}. A

 

[liquid nitrogen]

From the outside, peer review looks broken. To me it looks like we still might have some smart people making progress, but in a sewer of corrupt funding, paper mills, and I’m sure plenty of chatbot output. Plus, the idea of sharing your innovations with “peers” aka competition only works in a high trust environment.

The idea of these papers wasting everyone’s limited, valuable time makes me {REDACTED}. A
[snip]

Peer review & the academic journal system are fucked up
known issues:
- the selected 'peers' don't know what you're doing (subfield too niche) (arxiv with comments would fix this, so does academic twitter - basically your actual peers getting to have takes. also write clearer, dumbass)
- the selected 'peers' are your competitors but usually that's okay bc if they're reviewing something they're working on you've basically scooped them already if you resubmit fast enough. It's not too bad if you're the reviewer bc then you're ahead of the knowledge curve of where to pivot your work, but if it's groundbreaking or in a breakneck field, L for u.
- the selected 'peers' hate you and want to tear you apart (actually a W for peer review, that's what they're for)
- academic journals are a business. we pay to access papers, pay to publish them, and review for free, in exchange for them basically being field filters, which is a scam
- paper mills
- tbh the ai stuff is great imo because its a very convenient way to identify what fields are hot garbage and what writers don't know english BUT running your work though openAI/etc which has next to no security against corporate espionage is not great and something we're going to have to face sooner than later

benefits:
- organize work into fields
- the reputable ones filter for quality, you just have to ignore bullshit ones. people know the reputable ones in their field. for an outsider, usually the number of citations is a clue, but nature/science are the gold standard & you can google field specific ones (aside from nature "field", science "field")

alternatives:
-arxiv - downside: nearly no filter - they have the endorsement system but it only takes one bad egg to ruin that - also it's very hard to tell what's going to be impactful without reading it (which is the benefit of nature/science/etc, you can gauge impact by how many people they've managed to convince) - arxiv refuses to do a rating system unfortunately, with valid concerns but it's annoying
-conference-centered publication (you have to be selected by people running the conference and if your work is shit you'll be torn into by everyone at the conference, but niche conferences are word of mouth)
-there's also open source/open access data quality reviewers which I want to give a shout out to

essentially we all hate having to pay + do work for publishing companies, but arxiv doesn't provide the filtering/structure & conference-centered is kinda niche. Open Access enjoyers do both. good news is yeah these are 100% problems being worked on and I expect scientific publishing as we know it to be undermined in my lifetime. good because fuck those guys

 

[JustSomeDong]

Its hard to see the forest when someone puts all those fucking trees in the way, I guess. Science is dead, long live Soyence!

 

[Agent Sandoval]

I'm not proposing any real question here, but I wanna hear some thoughts on this. What do you guys think?

I think our conception of knowledge is just kind of broken. Having knowledge about a subject beyond a basic level of competence doesn't actually move you towards agreement. I think it's because there's simply too much to know about any given subject and which selection of facts you're exposed to and the order you come upon them dictates your disposition.