1 year ago13 points(+0/-0/+13Score on mirror)3 children
It drives me crazy.
Ok. For you to understand what I am saying, you need to understand economics. Which you don't. Then you need to understand Marxist dialectics. Which you don't. Then you need to understand how these dialectics are applied to social and political constructs. Which you don't. Then you need to understand how propaganda and social engineering shape these constructs. Which you don't....You get the picture.
So NO. I DONT have a SoUrCe. I have many, many, MANY sOuRcEs that are too complex to spoon feed you. If ya wanna hang out with me and learn these things over time so you can understand what Im saying, Great! I would love that. But no. Just the quick meme or web link or itheir NPC brain can't handle it.
Those are not my fields of expertise so I defer to your statements in those areas. For the most part, well educated people have some level of overlap in knowledge. It's opinions in those areas that shape my trust in someone commenting in another area. I fully understand the vast number of years I've studied in some areas and some of the books I've used were out of circulation before the Internet came into existence. To summarize, I feel ya, I couldn't relate 60 + years of reading into a simple post. Personal conversation will establish levels of understanding in a relatively short time and we can start there
The internet has imposed a very strong personality disorder that makes otherwise normal people obsessed with the intense requirement to feel like the smartest person in every room on every topic every minute of every day. I've said before that conspiracy theory is like porn for stupid people... They get to jerk off and feel like they're intelligent hyperminds outsmarting trillion dollar intelligence agencies. They aren't, they just love to feel like that.
I've almost never seen these individuals admit they simply do not know something (and like fuck they have ever admit they're wrong).
If they don't know something they literally just make it the fuck up.
Example: there's a meme about the Vegas shooting that draws skepticism by talking about the impracticality of Paddock removing "hurricane proof glass". What the fuck is hurricane proof glass? Does anyone have the model number for the glass the hotel used? Do they have the manufacturer? The spec sheet for it? Literally the answer to every one of those questions is "lol no". They don't know. There isn't even such thing as hurricane proof glass. Glass has a strength rating you would get from the manufacturer, but it doesn't say "hurricane proof" because how strong it is depends entirely on how big the land is, how its anchored, and hurricanes have various strengths and throw debris.
So they just *made it the fuck up.*
I spent my career working on DOD weapons programs and some of that was on the F-35. Much of the info about it is not really classified but it's not like there's just free internet resources with all the factual information on how the program worked and operated. You basically only really *know* about it by being on the program.
The "media" is literally the only exposure anyone had to it. Most fuckers with opinions on it have never even seen one in person. The media cannot even get basic facts about AR-15s correct, which you can just buy and test out yourself, but everyone with some intense hate-boner for it only have media articles to go off of which they actually assume aren't as wildly retarded as the media's opinions on anything.
Rather than admit "I don't know anything about the F-35 so I will not comment on it" every faggot with a keyboard is going to write the same retarded drivel about it we've seen over and over. And all they have for a source is some nigger at Medium writing fabricated articles on War Is Boring making shit up.
Because "I don't know" somehow became a sign of weakness, for some reason.
1 year ago5 points(+0/-0/+5Score on mirror)3 children
If someone is asking for a source for an opinion or conclusion, they're just a dummy and probably can't form any opinions on their own. They are asking for a source because all their opinions do actually have sources.
If someone is making extraordinary factual claims, yeah, I would probably like to see some sources. I'd like to read the material myself.
If you've been supposedly studying something for 10+ years and the only material you can point me to is a shitty infographic you made and some blog post you found that just restates your conclusion, I'm probably going to dismiss that as schizo nonsense.
1 year ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)1 child
The funny thing is this goes both ways. Everybody on the internet does this shit. Nobody can just admit that they don't know something and then simply withhold an opinion while awaiting further information.
How many people who cry about Muh Van Allen Belts actually know fuck all about the belts on a level beyond "vaguely describing the concept, based on what they heard once, using middle school vocabulary"?
"Well it's a zone of radiation around the planet."
"Okay .. *what is radiation?*"
If they can't answer that they have no business 'discussing' if the belts are or are not too dangerous to navigate. They don't actually know, so that's where the conversations typically end and they just start screaming.
1 year ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)1 child
The MoOn HoAx is a good example of how deep the propaganda goes.
"You mean Huwyte people are so badassthey were able to go to the moon and back? No fucking way! It was filmed in a studio by jewish geniuses!!"
What makes it really absurd to me is that if you really understand the concept, getting to the moon and back isn't actually "that much".
There's a bit of astrophysicist lore that reads "if you are in orbit, you are halfway to everywhere". It basically means that the majority of energy, fuel, and effort of spaceflight is almost entirely spent on getting through the atmosphere. Once you can do that, everything else is a lot more efficient and safe.
If you believe a man can get to orbit, then getting to the moon genuinely just involves firing a rocket to hurl yourself at it, and waiting until you crash into the surface. It's not all that far, it's a big target, and spaceflight isn't like an old Republic Serial where you fight space monsters and dodge asteroid storms. You just coast until you get there.
The real skill of the moon landing was being able to build machines safe and reliable enough to work flawlessly every step of the way. It's a frictionless vacuum, the spacecraft only needs to hold 1atm of internal pressure (easy) and you put enough snacks in it to keep your occupants alive for a week or two.
Kerbal Space Program is obviously simplified on the engineering but it absolutely makes one realize that spaceflight is just about math and long boring tedium.
At no point did any of the fathers of rocketry and spaceflight - Goddard, Oberth, Von Braun - or even any of the Soviets like Korolev, ever once thought a moon landing was anything but an engineering challenge that they could solve. Von Braun was convinced he could put a man on the moon before the V2 even existed.
The Soviets busted their attempt only because they couldn't resolve the engineering of the N1 rocket in part because of the death of their Von Braun, Korolev, and also in part because they didn't have the expertise of Kurt Debus to design an engine as mighty as the F-1, relying instead on clusters of smaller engines, which enormously increased the likelihood of problems and extended development. They rushed it, and sadly it blew up every time. Five big ass engines, with a tolerance of failure of one, was much more effective than thirty fucking engines that all required engineering to solve issues with fuel feed, vibration, and oscillation, especially since they were trying to rush through *years* of design and testing the Saturn V had received.
1 year ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
anyone who asks for sources rarely reads them. and when they do, if they don't agree with it - even if it's blatantly stated and/or proven - they reject it
they just want to put the accused on the spot to project their own beliefs onto them in a safe way
You throw a source out there and their reply will be to find some way to dismiss it. No source you give them will persuade them to reconsider. They're doing it to waste your time and to sealion you. They set a trap and you fell for it.
Literally me when trying to figure out what drugs are safe. So much .gov lies boosted to the top of any search. The FDA and CDC are going major damage to our country.
https://files.catbox.moe/e62soi.jpg
If you don't first *cogito*, there will be no *ergo sum.*