there was a bbc documentary on this and they interviewed the Manchester arena victims. One of the women was imo stalked by one of these CTers. He found out where she worked and turned up there “to prove” her arm injury was real. Fucking whack job.I'm so sorry.
This is why I despise those type of CT arseholes, they cause nothing but pain in their quest to be seen as 'awake'.
Just the dregs of humanity as far as I'm concerned.
Okay which of you are eugenicists too? Do we need to form a sub-committee?I'm another of Poddular's 'vomit victims'. We should start a club, have T-shirts made.
Alas another vom emoji recipient here!Okay which of you are eugenicists too? Do we need to form a sub-committee?
I think I’m the dirty little eugenicist they’re referring to. I spoke recently on another thread about how I’m a carrier of the Cystic Fibrosis gene and want to make sure I don’t ever produce a child with CF who will suffer a short life of pain and misery (I mean, wouldn’t most people want to avoid thisOkay which of you are eugenicists too? Do we need to form a sub-committee?
they vomited a post of mine in the childfree thread where i discussed my deep fears of old age (completely my personal anxiety) so maybe meOkay which of you are eugenicists too? Do we need to form a sub-committee?
Agreed. Whenever I post here, it’s not in response to something on another tattle thread, it’s just about CTs in generalI think it's better to rise above jibes, to be honest, as it just plays into the "they only want to criticise us" accusation, despite this clearly being a place to discuss general CTs and critique them.
There are plenty out there on YouTube, Twitter, vlogs, websites, etc. Other tattle threads are not the main source for me anyway.
I made a joke about Anti Ct’s rating high in eugenic beliefs and it wasn’t based on the situation you have described yourself being in above post, if you wanted a child I can imagine what a difficult decision it is not to have oneI think I’m the dirty little eugenicist they’re referring to. I spoke recently on another thread about how I’m a carrier of the Cystic Fibrosis gene and want to make sure I don’t ever produce a child with CF who will suffer a short life of pain and misery (I mean, wouldn’t most people want to avoid this?). To be honest I don’t even really want to pass on the single mutation as unfortunately many of us who are carriers also suffer symptoms too.
But yeah, what a fucking nazi eh?
It’s yet another example of the ridiculous 2D thinking which is often exhibited by CTists. Many of these people are so utterly incapable of seeing topics like these as anything other than purely black and white, so in their eyes, wanting to prevent a child from being born with an incurable, life shortening, painful disease is the exact same thing as the horrendous ways in which eugenics have been practiced in the past. E.g the compulsory sterilization and murder of thousands of people who were considered unworthy of life by the nazis.
Well luckily for me it’s a recessive condition and my husband isn’t a carrier so I wouldn’t have an issue having kids.I made a joke about Anti Ct’s rating high in eugenic beliefs and it wasn’t based on the situation you have described yourself being in above post, if you wanted a child I can imagine what a difficult decision it is not to have one
I didn’t use the words dirty or nazi alongside eugenic beliefs for the record, people have these views for different reasons personal medical ones like you or more extreme the supremacist or elitist
When a person uses their eugenic beliefs to make decisions for themselves that’s their choice it’s a problem for me when it extends to others
I said to be exact eugenic beliefs are freely shared on this platform that is not complaining it’s my own opinion on what is at the root of certain peoples beliefs and their attitude towards othersWell luckily for me it’s a recessive condition and my husband isn’t a carrier so I wouldn’t have an issue having kids.
And you did specifically complain about seeing anti CTs expressing eugenic beliefs in other threads, not just in general.
As others have said, probably time to put this whole discussion to bed now. This thread wasn’t set up for poking fun at specific members on your thread, it’s set up so that we can laugh about conspiracy theories and theorists in general. So whilst this cross over has been fun, we should probably move on now so as not to piss off the mods!
On the other hand, why shouldn't I comment on a CT just because it's been posted on Tattle rather than somewhere else?Agreed. Whenever I post here, it’s not in response to something on another tattle thread, it’s just about CTs in general
I don’t think anyone is saying you can’t comment on CTs that get posted elsewhere on tattle. More that it’s just best for us not to rise to any more obviously provocative behaviour or attempts to start arguments in future, so as not to let these threads turn into a slanging match against each other.On the other hand, why shouldn't I comment on a CT just because it's been posted on Tattle rather than somewhere else?
I love studies like this, absolutely fascinating. The blurring of the pictures is experiment is so good! It really makes you question how people's minds tick when you don't operate that way yourself.I had a read of this earlier:
Science has finally cracked the mystery of why so many people believe in conspiracy theories
Fall for conspiracy theories isn't driven by ignorance, or isolation, or insanity. It's something far more common — and way, way scarier.www.businessinsider.com
It debunks three CTs in its opening paragraph and highlights that CT discussion has grown on Twitter since Musk took over.
A few interesting quotes from it:
"People who believe in conspiracies tend to be more dogmatic, and unable to handle disagreement well."
"conspiratorial thinkers overindex for their own intuitive leaps — that they are, to put it bluntly, lazy. Most don't bother to "do their own research," and those who do believe only things that confirm their original conclusions"
But the main aspect to the study (by a guy called Gordon Pennycook) is they feel conspiracy theorists are overconfident. It's easy to see Trump and Musk as overconfident and perhaps that's why many conspiracy theorists gravitate towards those sort of personalities and believe them (not all, of course). Another extract:
"Open-minded thinking isn't just engaging in effortful thought," Pennycook observes. "It's doing so to evaluate evidence that's directed toward what's true or false — to actually question your intuitions." Pennycook wanted to know why someone wouldn't do that. Maybe it was simple overconfidence in their own judgment.
But anyway, it's definitely worth a read. I don't buy all of it, as I think it can oversimplify some of the traits CTists show, but it definitely makes some very interesting points.
Yes I thought that was a good test, as the article says, there was no reason for people to be confident in that scenario - yet some still were.I love studies like this, absolutely fascinating. The blurring of the pictures is experiment is so good! It really makes you question how people's minds tick when you don't operate that way yourself.
Really interesting read. Trump and Musk 'failing upwards', operating without accountability and espousing a culture of overconfidence and un-factuality.I had a read of this earlier:
Science has finally cracked the mystery of why so many people believe in conspiracy theories
Fall for conspiracy theories isn't driven by ignorance, or isolation, or insanity. It's something far more common — and way, way scarier.www.businessinsider.com
It debunks three CTs in its opening paragraph and highlights that CT discussion has grown on Twitter since Musk took over.
A few interesting quotes from it:
"People who believe in conspiracies tend to be more dogmatic, and unable to handle disagreement well."
"conspiratorial thinkers overindex for their own intuitive leaps — that they are, to put it bluntly, lazy. Most don't bother to "do their own research," and those who do believe only things that confirm their original conclusions"
But the main aspect to the study (by a guy called Gordon Pennycook) is they feel conspiracy theorists are overconfident. It's easy to see Trump and Musk as overconfident and perhaps that's why many conspiracy theorists gravitate towards those sort of personalities and believe them (not all, of course). Another extract:
"Open-minded thinking isn't just engaging in effortful thought," Pennycook observes. "It's doing so to evaluate evidence that's directed toward what's true or false — to actually question your intuitions." Pennycook wanted to know why someone wouldn't do that. Maybe it was simple overconfidence in their own judgment.
But anyway, it's definitely worth a read. I don't buy all of it, as I think it can oversimplify some of the traits CTists show, but it definitely makes some very interesting points.
The whole article is so interesting.I had a read of this earlier:
Science has finally cracked the mystery of why so many people believe in conspiracy theories
Fall for conspiracy theories isn't driven by ignorance, or isolation, or insanity. It's something far more common — and way, way scarier.www.businessinsider.com
It debunks three CTs in its opening paragraph and highlights that CT discussion has grown on Twitter since Musk took over.
A few interesting quotes from it:
"People who believe in conspiracies tend to be more dogmatic, and unable to handle disagreement well."
"conspiratorial thinkers overindex for their own intuitive leaps — that they are, to put it bluntly, lazy. Most don't bother to "do their own research," and those who do believe only things that confirm their original conclusions"
But the main aspect to the study (by a guy called Gordon Pennycook) is they feel conspiracy theorists are overconfident. It's easy to see Trump and Musk as overconfident and perhaps that's why many conspiracy theorists gravitate towards those sort of personalities and believe them (not all, of course). Another extract:
"Open-minded thinking isn't just engaging in effortful thought," Pennycook observes. "It's doing so to evaluate evidence that's directed toward what's true or false — to actually question your intuitions." Pennycook wanted to know why someone wouldn't do that. Maybe it was simple overconfidence in their own judgment.
But anyway, it's definitely worth a read. I don't buy all of it, as I think it can oversimplify some of the traits CTists show, but it definitely makes some very interesting points.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?