Again, you keep validating the results of the studies. Thanks! Another example is that the studies point out that people who believe in 1 conspiracy theory almost always believe in multiple theories, even if they may be mutually contradictory. So you are sure that google is a conspiracy, the psychologist are part of a conspiracy theory, and, of course, your original "they're gonna kill us all" theory. That's 3 in one post. And you in no way discredited either article, since you offered zero proof of you allegations. But you are unable to see that. Again, this isn't about me- it's about what the science shows us are the common traits of folks of believe in these theories. And you keep proving them right. Weak attempts to attack me simply add to that proof. Have a great day.
lol - I think I just heard you say "Uncle". Really, all I wanted to do is to point out what is known about folks who believe in conspiracies, and what common traits they typically have. It is not personal attack at you. I've read dozens of articles/paper about the topic over the years, which I have found helpful in understanding their behavior.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceu...nies-that-control-everything/?sh=63166ee05105 The 147 Companies That Control Everything Bruce Upbin Oct 22, 2011,09:37am EDT This article is more than 10 years old so does that mean things are better now? Three systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide and analyzed all 43,060 transnational corporations and share ownerships linking them. They built a model of who owns what and what their revenues are and mapped the whole edifice of economic power. They discovered that global corporate control has a distinct bow-tie shape, with a dominant core of 147 firms radiating out from the middle. Each of these 147 own interlocking stakes of one another and together they control 40% of the wealth in the network. A total of 737 control 80% of it all. The top 20 are at the bottom of the post. This is, say the paper's authors, the first map of the structure of global corporate control.
You think I said 'Uncle'? I said go away because you're boring the **** out of me with your craven cowardice and need for comforting conventionality and your inability to see the world as it is. Once again. Go away. Obscenity removed. Please, do not use this kind of language. In fact, when you find yourself feeling the need to, you're probably becoming overly annoyed. -- Admin
Gee, have I made you angry by pointing out the obvious? My bad. Really, your post just keeping proving the articles are correct. How far down that rabbit hole are you gonna go?
Dood. I'm not going down any rabbit holes but I will apologize to you. I have somewhat of a bad temper that I often regret. We've each made some insulting remarks to the other and I regret those I've made to you. We will probably not ever agree on various things but I have this stupid guilt thing about being mean. Sincerely, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, but anyone who can't see bias in Google's policies and algorithm has their eyes closed, intentionally or otherwise.
google isn't the issue. Did you read either of the two articles about the psychological profiles of people who believe in conspiracy theories, and if you did, do you agree or disagree with them? If you prefer, I can find the same articles searching with duckduckgo or probably aol or yahoo All websites have biases in policies and administration, including this one.
I am 100% certain that there are conspiracies, and that Google figures prominently in some of the most dangerous ones.
Hmmm. Well, I guess you didn't bother to read the links, Okay. I just googled "forums for seniors" and this site is pretty close to the top. So does that mean you are a part of the great google conspiracy?
That's irrelevant. If you are unable to find references from a wide variety of sources on Google's censorship, including its willingness to work with governments all around the world to censor the Internet, then you must have restricted your searches to Google because just in the first few pages of results from an only slightly more reliable search engine, I'm finding them from US News, DC Enquirer, NY Post, Search Engine Watch, The Federalist, Fox Business, Fox News, Huffington Post, and to books written by Google insiders and leaked documents from Google. Of course, you probably won't believe any of it until the Washington Post, CNN, and the NY Times turn on them. Well, they probably won't because they're on the same side, although they have published plenty of stuff about Google's censorship efforts in China, only because it's okay for them to do that.
Well, no it isn't but I can certainly understand why you don't want to discuss. I have no interest in how much google or this web site or any other sites edit/restrict/censor the content, and your assumptions about what I do are ill founded, and reflect your own biases. Here's a couple more links: Found this one on duckduckgo https://psychcentral.com/blog/conspiracy-theories-why-people-believe#whats-a-conspiracy-theory Found this one on dogpile: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...t-makes-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories
Ken, I posted most of the following to you in private discussion but then thought that I may as well make it public. Nominal privacy is gone, they can find out what they want to and I'm certainly not afraid of these people. I get the feeling that our man Hoot is a plant of some sort from somewhere. Note that he cites his research into SOC as one of the best senior's forums, as if it were a suitable target for the spread of mainstream misinformation. Also, his skills at argument are spooky. He will not respond to argument, but distracts, misdirects, obfuscates, and uses personal attack, all of which he then immediately accuses his opponent of. It seems to me his object is to arouse anger, which he can then cite as evidence of his opponent's lack of credibility or measured reason. I'm a perfect victim here because I'm impatient with nonsensical argument passing as debate. He's a tricky customer. Perhaps a way to deal with him is to stubbornly stick to the subject under discussion and insist he respond to one's own points being made and cite evidence or documentation of his viewpoint, meanwhile not getting upset at his veiled personal insults and various attempts to sidetrack the discussion. Personally, I'm going to ignore his comments as I'm too easily angered by what are, essentially, his irrational statements disguised as debate. Mind control training occurs to me when I encounter these people. My apology to him was not to him as such but to the forum at large for my angry statements and allowing myself to lose my cool. I should have worded it as such. I could never be a moderator. I do not suffer fools gladly.
I don't know who Hoot Crawford is but I do believe that there are people on every forum who are there to promote disunity. They seem to be on political forums to incite Republicans to say violent things. Like kill ***** , they ain't taking my guns, I'll kill them, civil war. Stupid stuff. And, sadly, sometimes the Rs fall for it. Anybody with half a brain knows that a civil war would be disastrous for all of us.