According to the crazies, it's a false flag of sorts. They speculate they dude is a fall guy, if they think he even died at all. Somehow AT&T is related to the Dominion voting stuff in Georgia even though that's a different state and it makes no sense why. I don't get how conspiracy theorists can rightly point out some credibility issues of mainstream media, but then tell you to watch an unsourced youtube video from some anonymous person or point to secondhand twitter information as gospel. Other notable "news" from that neck of the woods is that the nurse who fainted after getting the covid vaccine died and was replaced by a double, CIA director Gina Haspel died in a raid on some facility in Germany, and Rep. Adam Schiff was secretly arrested.
i posted a cool article that touches on conspiracy thinking and the paranoid sensibility in the main d&st chats thread.
Yup well that was a myth too. They're all radio waves and we've been shooting those all over the place for close to a century now. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that they're totally safe within certain energy levels and frequencies, which are regulated. 5g included.
there is also a small amount of scientific dissensus about 5G, which is precisely what i am talking about as being worth mentioning. consensus-making often implies some level of dissension, too. i know that's a novel concept for an EU stan.
i am not a 5G skeptic, by the way, as if that needs to be pointed out. i am totally in line with the consensus you mention. but my point is that any emerging technology is going to sow seeds of doubt amongst paranoid conspiracy nuts, if anyone is at all honest about the scientific method.
i am not a 5G skeptic, by the way, as if that needs to be pointed out. i am totally in line with the consensus you mention. but my point is that any emerging technology is going to sow seeds of doubt amongst paranoid conspiracy nuts, if anyone is at all honest about the scientific method.
Last edited by uziq (2020-12-28 07:36:42)
There's also a small scientific dissensus about global warming. Or about the pandemic, look to that idiot doctor in Marseille.
yes there is, of course. are you somehow missing the part where i said conspiracy thinkers don't actually care about the scientific discourse on a topic, in any case. they self-select what suits them. the scientific working out and dissensus is often just their tipping point.
Last edited by uziq (2020-12-28 07:54:16)
Devil's advocacy aside, ongoing research into the effects of 5G probably doesn't involve much looking into how it transmits covid-19.
God help us if such a thing ever came into our reality.
God help us if such a thing ever came into our reality.
yes, i think my point was lost there. probably my fault. what i'm trying to say is that lots of our current understanding of any cutting-edge technology comes from a fair amount of dissension and skepticism. i am not referring to climate change denialists or 5G alarmists; there's a spectrum from 'crank' to legitimate scientific caveat. the process of testing and working out new technology then seeds loony conspiracy thinking. i probably haven't explained it very well. i read the letters pages of journals all day long and see the constructive back-and-forth that takes place in comments/replies, letters to editor, etc.
I wasn't calling your post into question, it was a spin-off.
I've read a lot of language with words like "possibly" and "varies" and "raises questions" in health articles connected to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. I would hazard (heh) that it would be more of a danger to RF technicians than someone with a cell phone in their pocket at all times.
I've read a lot of language with words like "possibly" and "varies" and "raises questions" in health articles connected to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. I would hazard (heh) that it would be more of a danger to RF technicians than someone with a cell phone in their pocket at all times.
If they persist in using invisible needles to inject people with mind control chips then yes - obviously.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
So I'm reading that the RV bomb suspect was a 5G conspiracy theorist. I don't know if that's true, but still … great. /s
What next. Car bombing vaccine labs?
How many times have we been told "this is perfectly safe, no risk at all!" only to find out "yes we knew there was some risk, based on 20 minutes testing on hamsters, but the companies involved paid us a lot of money so we decided the short term benefits outweighed the long term hazards, whatever they may be - we don't actually know - anyway, its your problem now"I've read a lot of language with words like "possibly" and "varies" and "raises questions" in health articles connected to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. I would hazard (heh) that it would be more of a danger to RF technicians than someone with a cell phone in their pocket at all times.
There's a whole lot of difference between being exposed to barely detectable long wave radiation and holding a poly-frequency microwave emitter to your head.Larssen wrote:
Yup well that was a myth too. They're all radio waves and we've been shooting those all over the place for close to a century now. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that they're totally safe within certain energy levels and frequencies, which are regulated. 5g included.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-12-28 21:07:20)
Fuck Israel
Well Dilbert good thing there's regulation and standardisation wrt radio frequencies no? Your neighbourhood 4g mast isn't emitting high powered microwaves into the surroundings.
The mind control chips will have to contend with the toxobrains of cat owners.
If in some parallel universe 5G turned out to be instant cancer, good luck to the Mirror Americans trying to sue Mirror Telecoms.
That's not what I've been reading all along though. I've read that the effects aren't fully understood but studies indicate they're harmless in low amounts.How many times have we been told "this is perfectly safe, no risk at all!" only to find out "yes we knew there was some risk, based on 20 minutes testing on hamsters, but the companies involved paid us a lot of money so we decided the short term benefits outweighed the long term hazards, whatever they may be - we don't actually know - anyway, its your problem now"
If in some parallel universe 5G turned out to be instant cancer, good luck to the Mirror Americans trying to sue Mirror Telecoms.
So the FBI dropped the ball on this guy? They were warned he was making bombs a year ago and did nothing?
At least he was right on this
At least he was right on this
The suspect had reportedly made statements about a "lizard people" conspiracy theory which claims politicians and celebrities such as Justin Bieber and the Obamas are lizards with alien origins which are now taking over the world.
Fuck Israel
that’s david icke.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3934
So if the guy was angry at the lizard people then AT&T was in fact the target. Do you remember that movie "They Live"? How did it end? The heroes destroyed the broadcasting dish that disguised the aliens. Guy tried to do the same thing to AT&T.
If the lizard people are infecting us with Covid via the 5g network then taking out AT+T makes perfect sense.
Fuck Israel
It turns out that advancing all these wild conspiracy theories isn't just a bit of completely cute and harmless fun after all. Imagine if the guy hadn't issued any warnings.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3934
Reading a book "Characteristic of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders of Children and Youth" for a class on Behavioral Disorders. In the chapter regarding culture there is a lot about violence and media. One such:
First off, the statements regarding the connection between violence and media have a lot of citations. But seeing all of those citations annoy me since I know that even if you bring all of this up in a Reddit thread about media and violence they are going to ignore it in favor of something they found off of Google. I am also annoyed that such people would accuse me of being a gay who is squeamish.
The second interesting thing about the statement is that it argues that violent media also tends to make kids more afraid of their surroundings. I assumed violent media normalized violence but I never thought it would make kids nervous about their safety. And this makes me think of the Capital Hill riot. How many people there grew up watching violent macho bullshit (because books are gay) and when they became adults they have paranoid ideas regarding their what is going on in the country?
A lot of thoughts about this statement.Book wrote:
“Watching a lot of TV violence apparently dramatically increases the risk that a child will grow up to exhibit violent interpersonal behavior in adulthood. Violent media actions appears to instigate antisocial acts in some cases, to desensitize children to acts of aggression (i.e., to make them more apathetic to displays of aggression and less likely to help others), and to perceive their environment as a more aggressive and dangerous place.”
First off, the statements regarding the connection between violence and media have a lot of citations. But seeing all of those citations annoy me since I know that even if you bring all of this up in a Reddit thread about media and violence they are going to ignore it in favor of something they found off of Google. I am also annoyed that such people would accuse me of being a gay who is squeamish.
The second interesting thing about the statement is that it argues that violent media also tends to make kids more afraid of their surroundings. I assumed violent media normalized violence but I never thought it would make kids nervous about their safety. And this makes me think of the Capital Hill riot. How many people there grew up watching violent macho bullshit (because books are gay) and when they became adults they have paranoid ideas regarding their what is going on in the country?
I've seen studies going back and forth on this for a long time. I think the key word shouldn't be so much "will" as "could." I think it's easy for readers to to ignore a lot of other circumstantial and societal causation out there, that people doing the media violence studies are aware of but do not address within their scope. The difference between percentages of people who played Doom who didn't go on violent rampages, and the percentage of people who played Doom who did, is probably vast.
I think people get defensive because the media and certain politicians pick up on exploratory studies and crank the sensationalism up out of context to them being ticking time bombs for playing Quake or watching Robocop. It's easy to see why in response, people would point out all the unaddressed or ill-addressed violence at home and at schools. Small element: I remember at high school you could get in trouble for being in a fight even if you didn't throw a single punch or kick. Still suspended, and on your record. Since strictly self defense is just as bad as instigating, it's like the lesson is "you're screwed anyway, so put the hurt down while you can." Zero tolerance policies are retarded sometimes.
I think people get defensive because the media and certain politicians pick up on exploratory studies and crank the sensationalism up out of context to them being ticking time bombs for playing Quake or watching Robocop. It's easy to see why in response, people would point out all the unaddressed or ill-addressed violence at home and at schools. Small element: I remember at high school you could get in trouble for being in a fight even if you didn't throw a single punch or kick. Still suspended, and on your record. Since strictly self defense is just as bad as instigating, it's like the lesson is "you're screwed anyway, so put the hurt down while you can." Zero tolerance policies are retarded sometimes.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3934
The zero tolerance policies were a correction of the problem of admins playing favoritism. There were many cases were the victim was the one to be punished while aggressors weren't. Obviously it is not ideal for victims to be punished for defending themselves but the previous system of admin discretion was a worse evil than what we have now. "There are no solutions only trade offs"unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I've seen studies going back and forth on this for a long time. I think the key word shouldn't be so much "will" as "could." I think it's easy for readers to to ignore a lot of other circumstantial and societal causation out there, that people doing the media violence studies are aware of but do not address within their scope. The difference between percentages of people who played Doom who didn't go on violent rampages, and the percentage of people who played Doom who did, is probably vast.
I think people get defensive because of the media and certain politicians pick up on exploratory studies and crank the sensationalism up out of context to them being ticking time bombs for playing Quake or watching Robocop. It's easy to see why in response, people would point out all the unaddressed or ill-addressed violence at home and at schools. Small element: I remember at high school you could get in trouble for being in a fight even if you didn't throw a single punch or kick. Still suspended, and on your record. Since strictly self defense is just as bad as instigating, it's like the lesson is "you're screwed anyway, so put the hurt down while you can." Zero tolerance policies are retarded sometimes.
It certainly isn't ideal. It's like the takeaway is that if you're gonna get in trouble anyway and the fight is unavoidable, you might as well strike first and strike hard. Same punishment. Meanwhile teachers and admins still have their favorites that they'll boost in other ways. I feel like another solution should be sought out. At least a footnote on their record stating self-defense.
Can't be fun for a kid who's always getting picked on to always be sent home along with their bullies.
Can't be fun for a kid who's always getting picked on to always be sent home along with their bullies.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3934
Kids who go over board in fights still do get charged with serious crimes. Parents can also sue and press charges independently. This card was charged with attempted murder for instance.
https://old.reddit.com/r/BrutalBeatdown … ly_brutal/
Complaints about 'zero tolerance' school policies smells of Republican talking points. Conservatives upset about Social Justice Warrior blah blah unhappy about a system that is less abused by good old boy networks.
https://old.reddit.com/r/BrutalBeatdown … ly_brutal/
Complaints about 'zero tolerance' school policies smells of Republican talking points. Conservatives upset about Social Justice Warrior blah blah unhappy about a system that is less abused by good old boy networks.
I would be interested to see the sources cited in your book about violence in the media and actual violence. The way you present it makes it sound like something I'd find on conservapedia.
Anyway things must've changed considerably at schools since the 90s. Kids got injured to the point where a doctor was needed, and nobody was arrested. Still sucks that a kid who hasn't thrown a single punch gets in deep shit for it though.
Anyway things must've changed considerably at schools since the 90s. Kids got injured to the point where a doctor was needed, and nobody was arrested. Still sucks that a kid who hasn't thrown a single punch gets in deep shit for it though.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3934
The Conservapedia people and me are part of the same hypocrisy when it comes to violent media. I am sure the vast sum of Republicans disturbed at a school shooting comedy would enjoy a movie where a Sgt. Chad McAllAmerican strangles kills 25 Arabs trying to liberate their country from occupation. This circles back to Rush L. and people being happy about him dying or being mad at people being happy about him dying. Everyone likes to see their enemies die and suffer. The SJWs who wrote the book and studies were probably also hoping Trump died dramatically and televised.
Anyway, yes back to schools. While it may seem ridiculous that kids can get charged with crimes for throttling other kids at school, I see it as increased accountability.
Anyway, yes back to schools. While it may seem ridiculous that kids can get charged with crimes for throttling other kids at school, I see it as increased accountability.