People dynamics

[Screwdriver]

I was directing that comment at Potter as the thread starter. I'm not at all sure why you would think it was directed at you. It very definitely wasn't.

I missed the furore over the other thread, came back to find it closed then gone. I could see who had posted last but not what they said. I think I can safely assume my name was mentioned.

But yeah, I am a bit on edge currently regarding what is and is not allowed to be spoken.

[Cousin Jack]

Just chill mate

In the great scheme of things you may be right about stuff, convincing us of that truth is not going to solve anything.

[Screwdriver]

They may of course just think you're talking out of your arse and say so...

Yes, they do but they never pin it down to any specific item. That is not helpful and remember, I am merely responding with my opinion in amongst any number of other opinions that may be out there. So if I am joining in a discussion regarding say CBDC, it is relevant to keep an eye on what WEF are saying about it no?

Just saying, you're talking bollocks or "conspiracy theory" is unhelpful to say the least. It's the same as saying "your opinion is invalid because I say so".

It's similar to what Snopes does. It "debunks" an entire dissertation on the grounds that one tiny element **might be **unproven.

[Noggin]

They may of course just think you're talking out of your arse and say so...

Yes, they do but they never pin it down to any specific item. That is not helpful and remember, I am merely responding with my opinion in amongst any number of other opinions that may be out there. So if I am joining in a discussion regarding say CBDC, it is relevant to keep an eye on what WEF are saying about it no?

Just saying, you're talking bollocks or "conspiracy theory" is unhelpful to say the least. It's the same as saying "your opinion is invalid because I say so".

It's similar to what Snopes does. It "debunks" an entire dissertation on the grounds that one tiny element **might be **unproven.

So ignore those people that don't want to hear what you are saying? It saves every topic going ot a full blown row??

[Yorick]

Also, this isn't a political platform, a school or any such environment to 'educate' people. This is a place for friends to meet and chat bollox, be silly, and laugh.

Someone intent on educating his fellow man is always going to get kick back.

For me there is one seriously contentious topic for the last few years. It has had a massive effect on a LOT of people I know. However, I'll make the odd comment but I won't labour the point. Why should I bang on about it. People here don't want to hear it.

This is somewhere to kick back, chat motos, and take the piss out of mates.

I suspect that is why the "I'm gonna educate you whether you want to be or not" will often get some bad responses. More so when it's a case of - listen harder so you understand!!

100% true. We don't want anyone ramming "the truth" down our throats. !

What makes so sure you speak for all of us, as implied by your 'We'? Have you asked us all individually?

The WE was me and Noggers so maybe you should wind your neck in a bit?

Or is that your version of 'the truth' you don't want rammed down anyone's throat.

You obviously don't like Screwdriver's posts. Put him on ignore and move on. I like most of what Screwdriver posts, it's one of the reasons I stay here.

I've lost track of the times he's called me a pervert and a few days ago he impliet that I wanted to shag Mr Tack's cousin. So, I will choose who I ignore

[Screwdriver]

Just chill mate

In the great scheme of things you may be right about stuff, convincing us of that truth is not going to solve anything.

That is not the issue. The problem is that I express an opinion and I'm just told "it's a conspiracy theory, therefore you are wrong".

I genuinely would like to know people's opinion on stuff because if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck what else am I to think. I used to worry that I was literally being played for a fool by conspiracy theorist nonsense but each and every one eventually turned out to be "true". I don't want to list them because, here's the crux of your question, I would then be falling into the trap of going off topic and discussing a political issue when the actual issue in question is whether or not there is substance to the allegation or it's a "conspiracy theory".

I suspect what is happening is that a lot of the things I opine on are indeed associated with right wing conspiracy nutjobs. But of course even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut so just because the loony tunes right wing element might also subscribe to a view, doesn't automatically invalidate that conjecture. Debanking and Farage springs to mind. Yes he's a worm, yes he "deserves it" but no, that does not mean the banks haven't recently decided they are a political authority.

[mangocrazy]

They may of course just think you're talking out of your arse and say so...

Yes, they do but they never pin it down to any specific item. That is not helpful and remember, I am merely responding with my opinion in amongst any number of other opinions that may be out there. So if I am joining in a discussion regarding say CBDC, it is relevant to keep an eye on what WEF are saying about it no?

Just saying, you're talking bollocks or "conspiracy theory" is unhelpful to say the least. It's the same as saying "your opinion is invalid because I say so".

It's similar to what Snopes does. It "debunks" an entire dissertation on the grounds that one tiny element **might be **unproven.

If people want to engage and discuss, then they will do. If they're not interested, or what you propose triggers a negative response then you'll either be ignored or get an 'it's all bollocks' response. It's simply the nature of the beast. You doubtless want to converse and propose your opinions but I'd suggest that the way you do that can often trigger an unhelpful response.

The only analogy I can offer is that of Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door. You may feel inclined to discuss or you may wave them away with a 'sorry mate, not interested' response, but it's no real skin off your nose. However if they turned up every day with their 'message' you'd start to get the hump pretty quickly, I'd suggest.

[Noggin]

The WE was me and Noggers so maybe you should wind your neck in a bit?

But TBF, I can scroll by and not get wound up/annoyed by it. Makes life a lot easier (and the forum a bit nicer!!) x

[Screwdriver]

So ignore those people that don't want to hear what you are saying? It saves every topic going ot a full blown row??

I have tried that many times now but one person in particular was following me around, scribbling shite on everything I posted. Weeksy told me not to call names or respond in kind but just tell them to fuck off. Tried that, got banned anyway. After the last occasion where I seriously considered leaving this group, I took everyone off ignore because fuck it, either I can speak or I can not.

I was deeply concerned that the last thread took a highly personal twist which I dared not comment on because when discussing law for example, it is entirely impersonal. That suits me because I am cold and dispassionate but under the circumstances where someone really needs sympathy/empathy, I thought it best to be up front about that and cease commenting. Luckily, it got deleted anyway...

[Noggin]

So ignore those people that don't want to hear what you are saying? It saves every topic going ot a full blown row??

I have tried that many times now but one person in particular was following me around, scribbling shite on everything I posted. Weeksy told me not to call names or respond in kind but just tell them to fuck off. Tried that, got banned anyway. After the last occasion where I seriously considered leaving this group, I took everyone off ignore because fuck it, either I can speak or I can not.

I was deeply concerned that the last thread took a highly personal twist which I dared not comment on because when discussing law for example, it is entirely impersonal. That suits me because I am cold and dispassionate but under the circumstances where someone really needs sympathy/empathy, I thought it best to be up front about that and cease commenting. Luckily, it got deleted anyway...

If the personal twist was me, it was to demonstrate a point that is generally ignored by both men and women. Not for sympathy or to personalise, but to explain WHY.

But hey ho.


Lack of reaction generally doesn't cause an issue - well, it does in a member of my family cos they just shout louder if they get no response. So now we don't interact. Kinda simple really

[Cousin Jack]

I agree with you on many things, like trial by media being a very dangerous. I have in the past tried to start discussions about things like that. Most such threads have just died, people were not interested. C'est la vie, I just drop it, it least on this forum. You can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink.

[irie]

I'm not sure why almost everything has to be contentious on here. Make your point and move on. The interminable "I didn't say that" and "what do you mean by that?" are excruciating. And, to finish, just lighten up - Ukraine, covid vaccines, Biden etc won't be resolved on here ffs.

That is a very interesting reaction. Excruciating.

So let me just pick a topic at random, say somebody refers to someone as "...a well known conspiracy theorist" or someone writes a post on the topic of governmental corruption, corporate greed etc.

On the one hand I think it is entirely reasonable to ask what "conspiracies" are they supporting since the term "conspiracy" has been bastardised to become a de facto insult. On top of that, having dismissed an entire expose on the grounds that "it's just a conspiracy theory" the poster assumes the matter is settled and they do not need to explain how or why any of the subject they so casually dismiss is unquestionably wrong in their opinion. Plus of course, whoever is suggesting this "conspiracy" is obviously a nutjob.

Nine times out of ten, the simple riposte "oh, a conspiracy theorist hey. Ok name ONE of their observations you suggest is obvious nonsense" and the person aggressively denouncing your post is suddenly all "oh I can't be bothered" or "it's ALL bollocks". Nine times out of ten is probably not even close. More like 99/100.

We see this with Br*xit, Climate Change, Biden mafia, C*vid, big pharma, you name it. Stray outside the commonly accepted media narrative and you're a conspiracy theorist. Job done, topic closed.

They do this (imho) because the truth sometimes can be difficult to accept and they would rather not even have to think about it.

People generally do not like to have their cozy world view shattered. It can be "excruciating" to have to accept that say, big pharma will release a dangerous untested drug into the world for the sake of personal enrichment. A shady cabal of developers might hatch a plot to burn out the residents of an entire state to get their hands on prime real estate. The "war" in Ukraine might actually be a money making exercise for the already overwhelmingly wealthy. CBDC might be part of a larger plan to put complete control of the entire capitalist system into the hands of the global elites right down to the level of the individual.

It is overwhelmingly painful to sit here and watch them do it when the response to such observations is "meh, conspiracy theory". Surely you can see how frustrating that is viewed from the other side. Frustrating for me because something I see that I believe to be really obvious (and worrying) might actually be wrong and I just need to be put right.

I played a game many years ago called "the fridge toaster game". I was presenting new technology to a group of BBC execs and Bluetooth had just been invented. I put a ton of words into a hat. Common household items and new technology. Firidge, toaster, Bluetooth, internet, TV etc. The audience were invited to draw two items and productise them. What can you do with a fridge connected via Bluetooth, DV camcorder+internet. All of those technologies (including the rise of the internet!) were new then and the combinations + permutations were extraordinary. You really had to sit and think about the implications of these interconnected things, not the individual item.

So CBDC is not necessarily bad but what about CBDC + A.I. or deep corruption (aka the swamp) in the USA + war in Ukraine, the power grab from WHO + C*vid. When you combine those phenomena, red flags should appear. I tend to make those connection and am constantly being told off for 1. going off topic and/or 2. going on about it. But I suggest these things are fundamentally connected. They open up avenues for exploitation by the rich/powerful/government to introduce more and more restrictions on the individual.

No we are not going to "cure" the problem but if people could just resist the "meh conspiracy bollocks it's all wrong" then at the very least you could put my mind to rest. I may be a moron but surely that means anyone should easily be able to shown me where I am going wrong...

You need something in your life other than your keyboard.

[Screwdriver]

If people want to engage and discuss, then they will do. If they're not interested, or what you propose triggers a negative response then you'll either be ignored or get an 'it's all bollocks' response. It's simply the nature of the beast. You doubtless want to converse and propose your opinions but I'd suggest that the way you do that can often trigger an unhelpful response.

The only analogy I can offer is that of Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door. You may feel inclined to discuss or you may wave them away with a 'sorry mate, not interested' response, but it's no real skin off your nose. However if they turned up every day with their 'message' you'd start to get the hump pretty quickly, I'd suggest.

I prefer the pub analogy where we're all already in the same space and not that of an interloper invading a private space.

In that scenario I might join a discussion and suggest 2+2 =4, 5x5 =25, infinity does not exist.

"That's bollocks, you're a conspiracy theorist nutjob."

Doesn't matter one way or the other what my opinion is at that point. It is now about why someone insists my opinion is invalid. Typically (I suggest) it is because it does not blindly parrot the mainstream narrative. So I might ask, "what makes you say that" because either I am actually wrong in which case I'd like to know why, I did not explain myself correctly or the person accusing me of being a "conspiracy theorist" is doing so "because of reasons".

All well and good but if that is happening ALL THE TIME, either I actually am a "conspiracy theorist nutjob" or I am saying things out loud that people just don't want to hear. In which case I respectfully suggest if you are in a thread regarding the war in Ukraine, the topic of Ukraine and war is on the table and if you don't want to hear my opinion, don't listen.

A poster cannot be expected to just sit back and accept the badge of conspiracy theorist without any shred of evidence. Especially when, if pressed, they are able to provide evidence. Then we go around in circles because the accusation then becomes "they keep banging on about the same stuff no one wants to hear" when actually they are questioning the veracity of the information they use to form that opinion.

[Screwdriver]

You need something in your life other than your keyboard.

LOL. Yeah, you're not wrong.

But it's pissing with rain and I was putting a new roof on a shed. At the same time battling with a recalcitrant NAS. It finished reformatting a 12TB raid array and after 90 hours decided it didn't like one of the disks...

[weeksy]

If people want to engage and discuss, then they will do. If they're not interested, or what you propose triggers a negative response then you'll either be ignored or get an 'it's all bollocks' response. It's simply the nature of the beast. You doubtless want to converse and propose your opinions but I'd suggest that the way you do that can often trigger an unhelpful response.

The only analogy I can offer is that of Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door. You may feel inclined to discuss or you may wave them away with a 'sorry mate, not interested' response, but it's no real skin off your nose. However if they turned up every day with their 'message' you'd start to get the hump pretty quickly, I'd suggest.

I prefer the pub analogy where we're all already in the same space and not that of an interloper invading a private space.

In that scenario I might join a discussion and suggest 2+2 =4, 5x5 =25, infinity does not exist.

"That's bollocks, you're a conspiracy theorist nutjob."

Doesn't matter one way or the other what my opinion is at that point. It is now about why someone insists my opinion is invalid. Typically (I suggest) it is because it does not blindly parrot the mainstream narrative. So I might ask, "what makes you say that" because either I am actually wrong in which case I'd like to know why, I did not explain myself correctly or the person accusing me of being a "conspiracy theorist" is doing so "because of reasons".

All well and good but if that is happening ALL THE TIME, either I actually am a "conspiracy theorist nutjob" or I am saying things out loud that people just don't want to hear. In which case I respectfully suggest if you are in a thread regarding the war in Ukraine, the topic of Ukraine and war is on the table and if you don't want to hear my opinion, don't listen.

A poster cannot be expected to just sit back and accept the badge of conspiracy theorist without any shred of evidence. Especially when, if pressed, they are able to provide evidence. Then we go around in circles because the accusation then becomes "they keep banging on about the same stuff no one wants to hear" when actually they are questioning the veracity of the information they use to form that opinion.

You'd have no choice in the scenario above because once you start rambling i'd stand up and walk off. As soon as you started about Ukraine, Biden, Climate, you'd be told to SFTU or go away... the conversation wouldn't even get to where i call you a nutjob... i'd just tell you i'm not interested. None of the conversations would ever 'be on the table' as you would quickly learn it's not happening.

[Screwdriver]

You'd have no choice in the scenario above because once you start rambling i'd stand up and walk off. As soon as you started about Ukraine, Biden, Climate, you'd be told to SFTU or go away... the conversation wouldn't even get to where i call you a nutjob... i'd just tell you i'm not interested. None of the conversations would ever 'be on the table' as you would quickly learn it's not happening.

"Rambling"??

Anyhow it's odd that you would say that in light of the irrefutable fact that those subjects are being discussed. They are already on the table. Are you saying my comments in particular are not welcome "because of reasons"?

[weeksy]

You'd have no choice in the scenario above because once you start rambling i'd stand up and walk off. As soon as you started about Ukraine, Biden, Climate, you'd be told to SFTU or go away... the conversation wouldn't even get to where i call you a nutjob... i'd just tell you i'm not interested. None of the conversations would ever 'be on the table' as you would quickly learn it's not happening.

"Rambling"??

Anyhow it's odd that you would say that in light of the irrefutable fact that those subjects are being discussed. They are already on the table. Are you saying my comments in particular are not welcome "because of reasons"?

Rambling.... 3000 words that are spewed out

No, i'm saying they're not welcome because i don't want to listen... so either you'd be walking off to find someone else, or i would... but we wouldn't be sitting there discussing the subjects, we wouldn't ever get to the stage where we debate whether they're facts or fiction... the conversation would be shut down and either changed, or ended.

[DefTrap]

I'm not sure why almost everything has to be contentious on here. Make your point and move on. The interminable "I didn't say that" and "what do you mean by that?" are excruciating. And, to finish, just lighten up - Ukraine, covid vaccines, Biden etc won't be resolved on here ffs.

That is a very interesting reaction. Excruciating.

So let me just pick a topic at random, say somebody refers to someone as "...a well known conspiracy theorist" or someone writes a post on the topic of governmental corruption, corporate greed etc.

On the one hand I think it is entirely reasonable to ask what "conspiracies" are they supporting since the term "conspiracy" has been bastardised to become a de facto insult. On top of that, having dismissed an entire expose on the grounds that "it's just a conspiracy theory" the poster assumes the matter is settled and they do not need to explain how or why any of the subject they so casually dismiss is unquestionably wrong in their opinion. Plus of course, whoever is suggesting this "conspiracy" is obviously a nutjob.

Nine times out of ten, the simple riposte "oh, a conspiracy theorist hey. Ok name ONE of their observations you suggest is obvious nonsense" and the person aggressively denouncing your post is suddenly all "oh I can't be bothered" or "it's ALL bollocks". Nine times out of ten is probably not even close. More like 99/100.

We see this with Br*xit, Climate Change, Biden mafia, C*vid, big pharma, you name it. Stray outside the commonly accepted media narrative and you're a conspiracy theorist. Job done, topic closed.

They do this (imho) because the truth sometimes can be difficult to accept and they would rather not even have to think about it.

People generally do not like to have their cozy world view shattered. It can be "excruciating" to have to accept that say, big pharma will release a dangerous untested drug into the world for the sake of personal enrichment. A shady cabal of developers might hatch a plot to burn out the residents of an entire state to get their hands on prime real estate. The "war" in Ukraine might actually be a money making exercise for the already overwhelmingly wealthy. CBDC might be part of a larger plan to put complete control of the entire capitalist system into the hands of the global elites right down to the level of the individual.

It is overwhelmingly painful to sit here and watch them do it when the response to such observations is "meh, conspiracy theory". Surely you can see how frustrating that is viewed from the other side. Frustrating for me because something I see that I believe to be really obvious (and worrying) might actually be wrong and I just need to be put right.

I played a game many years ago called "the fridge toaster game". I was presenting new technology to a group of BBC execs and Bluetooth had just been invented. I put a ton of words into a hat. Common household items and new technology. Firidge, toaster, Bluetooth, internet, TV etc. The audience were invited to draw two items and productise them. What can you do with a fridge connected via Bluetooth, DV camcorder+internet. All of those technologies (including the rise of the internet!) were new then and the combinations + permutations were extraordinary. You really had to sit and think about the implications of these interconnected things, not the individual item.

So CBDC is not necessarily bad but what about CBDC + A.I. or deep corruption (aka the swamp) in the USA + war in Ukraine, the power grab from WHO + C*vid. When you combine those phenomena, red flags should appear. I tend to make those connection and am constantly being told off for 1. going off topic and/or 2. going on about it. But I suggest these things are fundamentally connected. They open up avenues for exploitation by the rich/powerful/government to introduce more and more restrictions on the individual.

No we are not going to "cure" the problem but if people could just resist the "meh conspiracy bollocks it's all wrong" then at the very least you could put my mind to rest. I may be a moron but surely that means anyone should easily be able to shown me where I am going wrong...

I appreciate the totally unnecessary and verbose way that you just proved my point. You took a totally different niggle and expanded upon it. Maybe I'd do the same in your position - instead I've been up Mt Erice, chatted with some locals and other tourists from around the world and hung out in a few bars.

My own point was going to be that "critical thinking" is wasted on here. The poster may have done a lot of it but they've done it way in advance of posting their views on here, so what follows is always I'm right, you're wrong, you missed my point. A bit like this one you might say? So there you are.

[Hoonercat]

Why start a thread that is intentionally provocative and has the assumption that it will be shut down? Wouldn't it be better to start a thread that is non-confrontational?

They really are not meant to be. I was worried that the build up of Russian forces around Ukraine was a sign of impending invasion. That was months before they did. I recall all of the "battles" with the majority view that I was talking bollocks.

This has been to death. You started what looked to be an interesting thread about Russia/Ukraine in April 2021, over 2 years ago. By the third sentence you'd moved on to 'shady backroom cabal of big tech, global corporations and (one assumes) the Obama/Clinton shadow cabinet' and so it went on. I distinctly remember thinking at the time 'FFS not another thread ruined' because, even back then, you'd bring up the same subjects in multiple threads. And you're still doing it, and complaining when people say 'can't be bothered'. It's not so much what you post, it's the over-saturation and repetitiveness.
No offence meant, I'm just trying to explain why I read your posts far less than I used to.

[Screwdriver]

Rambling.... 3000 words that are spewed out

No, i'm saying they're not welcome because i don't want to listen... so either you'd be walking off to find someone else, or i would... but we wouldn't be sitting there discussing the subjects, we wouldn't ever get to the stage where we debate whether they're facts or fiction... the conversation would be shut down and either changed, or ended.

So it's quantity not quality you're annoyed at. Ok. I'll be brief.

If we're still in the analogous pub, you're not the only voice at the table. Even if it is your pub, you do want to attract punters no? And if they are all engaged in the topic de jour, that is not necessarily my doing. I am merely contributing to the topic at hand.

I have yet to find any topic, anywhere, where any group of people unanimously agree on everything. That is to be expected of a forum too isn't it?