Philosophy Now Forum

I dedicate this to Acellafine, seeker of rational (impersonal) truth, and one of most NOBLE posters ‘round these parts.

(Personal question retracted.)

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 2:28 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 1:46 pm How serious are these conspiracy theories?

[…]

But I don't follow the loonisphere the way you do. So what's the deal there?

I see it differently. Yes, there are certainly “loons” out there. Granted. But I came to the conclusion that — for everyone in fact, you as well as all of us — we are in information darkness and yet we are forced to “interpret”. And so much depends on the quality of the mind interpreting, and naturally their differing sets of pre-established predicates.

This guy goes at things methodically. So far, he offers a picture that is still inconclusive, but he discounts the official story. He describes his interpretations of elements in degrees of certainty.

One

Two

How serious? You mean how much verity do they have? All I can say is that I tend to agree (based only on what I have been presented with) that the official narrative seems rather unbelievable.

If you mean How serious is the social and cultural phenomenon of masses of people who begin to perceive they are living on a Stage where weird things happen and are said to be thus-and-such, but are really something else completely — I’d say quite serious.

Hmmm, those videos are in very much the same vein as the stuff I saw on Reddit, but like ten times longer. I can't argue ballistics with a gun toting hunter, but I did think he was a little misled in his understanding of digital imaging in the first video. Somebody had clearly explained some of that to him before the second video, mainly to do with the lack of apparent shadow on the oversaturated white roof. But he could face a technical debunking on his interpretation of that cavitation image as well, because he seems to think the image is captured all in an one instant, but it is actually scanned line by line, so there can be quite a significant time lapse between the capture of one end of an image and the other.

But I still must admit, the swivel-eyed loons might have a point at least about the gun itself. The bullets fired probably do impart too much energy for the wound in question in the absence of some miraculous intervention, the timeline for the dismantling of the long, non-collapsible hunting rifle so it could be hidden in a very small bag while the shooter ran away apparently involves another couple of miracles. It seems right now as if the shooter, when it goes to trial, will have a fairly easy time persuading at least one juror to disbelieve that evidence should he plead not guilty. Perhaps he will have to Epstein himself while he awaits trial... or perhaps when actually presented in court it will turn out the real evidence is less like the as seen on tv version than we have been expecting.

One thing I find surprising is that everybody seems to agree Charlie Kirk was a big deal. But he was a fringe nutter really, most people didn't know much about him, accelafine, who consistently re-broadcasts right wing twitter talking points here claimed not to know who he was at all when he first got shot. I can't seriously buy into the idea that foreign governments, let alone rogue CIA units in cahoots with the Treasury Dept and the Witchfinder General of Olde London Town colluded to gun him down. He wasn't particularly important until he got made a martyr upon death. He is America's Horst Wessel.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 11:25 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 2:28 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 1:46 pm How serious are these conspiracy theories?

[…]

But I don't follow the loonisphere the way you do. So what's the deal there?

I see it differently. Yes, there are certainly “loons” out there. Granted. But I came to the conclusion that — for everyone in fact, you as well as all of us — we are in information darkness and yet we are forced to “interpret”. And so much depends on the quality of the mind interpreting, and naturally their differing sets of pre-established predicates.

This guy goes at things methodically. So far, he offers a picture that is still inconclusive, but he discounts the official story. He describes his interpretations of elements in degrees of certainty.

One

Two

How serious? You mean how much verity do they have? All I can say is that I tend to agree (based only on what I have been presented with) that the official narrative seems rather unbelievable.

If you mean How serious is the social and cultural phenomenon of masses of people who begin to perceive they are living on a Stage where weird things happen and are said to be thus-and-such, but are really something else completely — I’d say quite serious.

Hmmm, those videos are in very much the same vein as the stuff I saw on Reddit, but like ten times longer. I can't argue ballistics with a gun toting hunter, but I did think he was a little misled in his understanding of digital imaging in the first video. Somebody had clearly explained some of that to him before the second video, mainly to do with the lack of apparent shadow on the oversaturated white roof. But he could face a technical debunking on his interpretation of that cavitation image as well, because he seems to think the image is captured all in an one instant, but it is actually scanned line by line, so there can be quite a significant time lapse between the capture of one end of an image and the other.

But I still must admit, the swivel-eyed loons might have a point at least about the gun itself. The bullets fired probably do impart too much energy for the wound in question in the absence of some miraculous intervention, the timeline for the dismantling of the long, non-collapsible hunting rifle so it could be hidden in a very small bag while the shooter ran away apparently involves another couple of miracles. It seems right now as if the shooter, when it goes to trial, will have a fairly easy time persuading at least one juror to disbelieve that evidence should he plead not guilty. Perhaps he will have to Epstein himself while he awaits trial... or perhaps when actually presented in court it will turn out the real evidence is less like the as seen on tv version than we have been expecting.

One thing I find surprising is that everybody seems to agree Charlie Kirk was a big deal. But he was a fringe nutter really, most people didn't know much about him, accelafine, who consistently re-broadcasts right wing twitter talking points here claimed not to know who he was at all when he first got shot. I can't seriously buy into the idea that foreign governments, let alone rogue CIA units in cahoots with the Treasury Dept and the Witchfinder General of Olde London Town colluded to gun him down. He wasn't particularly important until he got made a martyr upon death. He is America's Horst Wessel.

'Right wing blah blah'. 'Right' doesn't mean 'Right wing', idiot. In what way exactly am I 'right wing'? Feel free to clarify (which of course you won't). You are such a fuckturd. I had genuinely never heard of Kirk. I would have detested him if I had. Doesn't mean I should rejoice at his horrible murder in front of his family and a salivating public. I don't know why it's being referred to as an 'assassination'. It was a murder, and what is taking place is a murder investigation and they take a lot of time even when it's pretty much cut and dried. The word 'assassination' is only being used to score political points, which is disgusting in itself. So all you 'instant gratification' conspiracy wankers who only exist on social media will just keep churning out your conspiracy garbage because your brains have shrunk to the point of no return.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 11:25 pm One thing I find surprising is that everybody seems to agree Charlie Kirk was a big deal. But he was a fringe nutter really, most people didn't know much about him, accelafine, who consistently re-broadcasts right wing twitter talking points here claimed not to know who he was at all when he first got shot.

I can't seriously buy into the idea that foreign governments, let alone rogue CIA units in cahoots with the Treasury Dept and the Witchfinder General of Olde London Town colluded to gun him down. He wasn't particularly important until he got made a martyr upon death. He is America's Horst Wessel.

A few points. I always stress them because I do not think that most who write on this forum, coming as they do from eccentric, highly ideological positions (most on the Lefty-Marxian pole) can really grasp ‘what is going on and why’. Poor Accelafine! Poor Gary! Acellafine has fallen into irrational bitterness and anger that completely clouds her perception. Gary is angry at “God” for having allowed such a world to exist.

Notice please the interpretive structures. In this sense “conspiracy theory” is the primary activity: how to make sense of things when a rational analysis does not serve that process. (See A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America by Michael Barkun). If you do not have the capacity to realistically grasp what goes on in this world, you resort to interpretive overlays. And there is where the imaginary fun begins. Tucker Carlson, bless his heart, is now delving into demonology on his shows. While simultaneously and on other topics his analysis is at least sounder.

To the degree that over-heated emotionalism infects mental order and the imagination, is the degree that people go off the rails. And then add in social hysteria …

You would know of Charlie Kirk if you were among his cohort. Acellafine does not study contemporary society. She seems to be an elder, bitter lady who has extremely limited views of the world and events. However, there is a cohort in NZ who knows of Charlie Kirk. One could talk about what that cohort is and why they are attracted to Kirk’s messaging. But who here is capable of the balance needed (the intellectual distance) to see without interjecting hysterical content?

Now, if you actually desire to understand why Kirk has manifest (and has been nourished and supported by powerful factions and players) I believe on could begin to make inroads. You see him (this is ‘ideological imposition’) as a rightwing nutter but Kirk was centrist! You are so far in some other ideological camp that you see him as extreme but his position is simply that of the multitude just a couple of decades back. He tries to claw his way back to a vanished ‘moral’ world. There is much that could be said about him and all of this …

Kirk’s assassination has left a vacuum though. And into that vacuum the views, position and rhetoric of another extremely potent player in the Culture Wars becomes manifest, gains influence.

Fuentes has far more in common with the original America First of the Interwar period than Kirk.

My suggestion? Drop all posturing, all non-helpful lenses that are operated by overheated ideological positions none of which serve “you” (a reference to a generality not you specifically) or anyone. For the philosophically minded there is no other option.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 2:05 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 11:25 pm One thing I find surprising is that everybody seems to agree Charlie Kirk was a big deal. But he was a fringe nutter really, most people didn't know much about him, accelafine, who consistently re-broadcasts right wing twitter talking points here claimed not to know who he was at all when he first got shot.

I can't seriously buy into the idea that foreign governments, let alone rogue CIA units in cahoots with the Treasury Dept and the Witchfinder General of Olde London Town colluded to gun him down. He wasn't particularly important until he got made a martyr upon death. He is America's Horst Wessel.

A few points. I always stress them because I do not think that most who write on this forum, coming as they do from eccentric, highly ideological positions (most on the Lefty-Marxian pole) can really grasp ‘what is going on and why’. Poor Accelafine! Poor Gary! Acellafine has fallen into irrational bitterness and anger that completely clouds her perception. Gary is angry at “God” for having allowed such a world to exist.

Notice please the interpretive structures. In this sense “conspiracy theory” is the primary activity: how to make sense of things when a rational analysis does not serve that process. (See A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America by Michael Barkun). If you do not have the capacity to realistically grasp what goes on in this world, you resort to interpretive overlays. And there is where the imaginary fun begins. Tucker Carlson, bless his heart, is now delving into demonology on his shows. While simultaneously and on other topics his analysis is at least sounder.

To the degree that over-heated emotionalism infects mental order and the imagination, is the degree that people go off the rails. And then add in social hysteria …

You would know of Charlie Kirk if you were among his cohort. Acellafine does not study contemporary society. She seems to be an elder, bitter lady who has extremely limited views of the world and events. However, there is a cohort in NZ who knows of Charlie Kirk. One could talk about what that cohort is and why they are attracted to Kirk’s messaging. But who here is capable of the balance needed (the intellectual distance) to see without interjecting hysterical content?

See, what I am finding absurd is the comparison people have been making to the assassinations of JFK, MLK and in some cases Jesus, on behalf of this right wing podcaster. You didn't have to be in any special orbit to know who Martin Luther King was when he got assassinated, everybody knew. Kirk just does not compare.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 2:05 pm Now, if you actually desire to understand why Kirk has manifest (and has been nourished and supported by powerful factions and players) I believe on could begin to make inroads. You see him (this is ‘ideological imposition’) as a rightwing nutter but Kirk was centrist! You are so far in some other ideological camp that you see him as extreme but his position is simply that of the multitude just a couple of decades back. He tries to claw his way back to a vanished ‘moral’ world. There is much that could be said about him and all of this …

Kirk’s assassination has left a vacuum though. And into that vacuum the views, position and rhetoric of another extremely potent player in the Culture Wars becomes manifest, gains influence.

Why did you link to notorious white supremacist Nick Fuentes' video entitled "EXPOSING the Jewish Control Matrix"...? You know I consider you a nazi, I have criticised you on that grounds in part because of your tendency to promote Fuentes. You know that nobody needs a nazi to tell us what the centre grounds is. It is a decision that makes no sense.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 2:05 pm Fuentes has far more in common with the original America First of the Interwar period than Kirk.

My suggestion? Drop all posturing, all non-helpful lenses that are operated by overheated ideological positions none of which serve “you” (a reference to a generality not you specifically) or anyone. For the philosophically minded there is no other option.

Good idea. Everybody should find a nazi to punch today, but nobody should shoot you.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 5:04 pm See, what I am finding absurd is the comparison people have been making to the assassinations of JFK, MLK and in some cases Jesus, on behalf of this right wing podcaster. You didn't have to be in any special orbit to know who Martin Luther King was when he got assassinated, everybody knew. Kirk just does not compare.

I have no reason not to agree. But you are failing to see that people will invent martyrs, or doctor them up, as is needed. There is a Culture War going on and 'all is fair in love and war'. I could explain to you how people come to conceive of these things, because I unofficially 'study' them and what they think, but I do not think you are interested in understanding. You have other objectives that are driven by your ideological position.

Why did you link to notorious white supremacist Nick Fuentes' video entitled "EXPOSING the Jewish Control Matrix"...? You know I consider you a nazi, I have criticised you on that grounds in part because of your tendency to promote Fuentes. You know that nobody needs a nazi to tell us what the centre grounds is. It is a decision that makes no sense.

Of course I know all that. My objective is helping people to better understand the present and why what is happening, is happening. You are free naturally to characterize me as you desire to, and what I will say to you is that you do this because of desire. You are driven by ideological predicates and these control your motives and your actions. You are thus within the matrix and cannot step out of it, even for a moment! And this is what interests me, as I never tire of saying. You live in a culture of conspiracy but you do not understand this. You lack circumspection.

I link to the video of Fuentes because Fuentes is having a tremendous influence in our present on how people conceive of the present. I doubt you have paid attention. Any why would you? There is a huge, consequential battle going on in America today about America's support for Israel, and there are myriad 'interpretive models' that are being tossed up. I suggest understanding them dispassionately.

Is this that hard for you? You baffle me. Is it that you cannot examine what people think? Are you unaware of the extremes of idea and opinion in the Culture Wars? Why do you choose ignorance when knowledge is possible, and can illuminate?

It is you and nearly everyone writing on this forum. You have no distance. You cannot even will yourself to have suitable distance from the topics of concern that (seem to) dominate your attention.

Good idea. Everybody should find a nazi to punch today, but nobody should shoot you.

The fact is that your view -- punch a Nazi -- is what motivates multitudes to celebrate the murder of Charlie Kirk. And to have doxxed, banned, censored and demonetized over the course of more than a decade. That is, let's be honest, your side of the political polarity that did this. You can both define *the Nazi* in any way you desire to, and then justify hitting, or killing, that Nazi. You will soon have to be far more careful though about what you say.

I have just made an accurate statement about your position. You will justify it because your ideology demands that you do so.

Battle lines are being drawn. Take for example the presence of the military in Portland. My view? It can all be looked at from a distance.

At the same time become aware of this: soon people are going to begin to come after you, Mr Dangerpants. You are going to become a target in the precise degree that you made others a target. You see? The tide is turning. Make of this observation what you will.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 5:55 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 5:04 pm See, what I am finding absurd is the comparison people have been making to the assassinations of JFK, MLK and in some cases Jesus, on behalf of this right wing podcaster. You didn't have to be in any special orbit to know who Martin Luther King was when he got assassinated, everybody knew. Kirk just does not compare.

I have no reason not to agree. But you are failing to see that people will invent martyrs, or doctor them up, as is needed. There is a Culture War going on and 'all is fair in love and war'. I could explain to you how people come to conceive of these things, because I unofficially 'study' them and what they think, but I do not think you are interested in understanding. You have other objectives that are driven by your ideological position.

OK. So do you agree with FDP that people are making an absurd comparison when they compare the assassination of Kirk to something like JFK or MLK?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 5:57 pm OK. So do you agree with FDP that people are making an absurd comparison when they compare the assassination of Kirk to something like JFK or MLK?

You define it as *absurd*. Because of a whole set of predicates that drive your perception Gary! You are a man who lacks sufficient capacity to self-analyze. You live in your tiny cardboard house, hardly get outside, and have no idea how to interpret the world! Poor Gary!

Now, what you ask of me is to agree or disagree with you on a moral plane about Kirk's political activism.

I think that Kirk represents a rising tide of opposition to (what I have called many times) hyper-liberalism and its excesses. Do I think Kirk is equal in scale to JFK or MLK, obviously not. But he is an American social phenomenon.

Also you do not mean 'to something like' you mean precisely 'as'.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 6:02 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 5:57 pm OK. So do you agree with FDP that people are making an absurd comparison when they compare the assassination of Kirk to something like JFK or MLK?

You define it as *absurd*. Because of a whole set of predicates that drive your perception Gary! You are a man who lacks sufficient capacity to self-analyze. You live in your tiny cardboard house, hardly get outside, and have no idea how to interpret the world! Poor Gary!

Now, what you ask of me is to agree or disagree with you on a moral plane about Kirk's political activism.

I think that Kirk represents a rising tide of opposition to (what I have called many times) hyper-liberalism and its excesses. Do I think Kirk is equal in scale to JFK or MLK, obviously not. But he is an American social phenomenon.

Also you do not mean 'to something like' you mean precisely 'as'.

So do you think it's absurd to compare Charlie Kirk to MLK?

Absurd is your adjective. I think overblown is more realistic. But you see, Gary, what you seek is a statement from me that you can moralize.

My suggestion is that you begin to consider why “those people” feel the need to create a martyr for their cause — for themselves really.

Have you or have you not ever savored matzo ball soup? Yes or no. This is the third time I have asked you politely!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 6:26 pm Absurd is your adjective. I think overblown is more realistic. But you see, Gary, what you seek is a statement from me that you can moralize.

My suggestion is that you begin to consider why “those people” feel the need to create a martyr for their cause — for themselves really.

Have you or have you not ever savored matzo ball soup. This is the third time I have asked you politely!

I don't know what matzo ball soup tastes like, therefore I have never savored it nor do I now.

Would you please consider asking your mother to prepare it for you? I will guide you in the process. Will you first order matzo on Amazon? Let me know when you have it. We’ll proceed from that point.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 6:31 pm Would you please consider asking your mother to prepare it for you? I will guide you in the process. Will you first order matzo on Amazon? Let me know when you have it. We’ll proceed from that point.

I'm not going to follow your instructions.

Working from a published recipe is fine.

Flash? Do you want to get in on this?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 6:34 pm Working from a published recipe is fine.

I'm not going to "work from a published recipe" either.

So you think it's overblown to compare Charlie Kirk to Martin Luther King? Is that correct?