๐Ÿ˜Š Paolo Greco @ 2019-05-04 07:31:38
Flat earthers are weird. In a world where satellite pictures are easily available, time zones are easy to prove, and we send robots to take pictures of fucking Pluto, flatearthers somehow abound. Also you can literally see spherical satellites spinning around Jupiter (also a sphere with bad weather landmarks) with a cheap telescope. But this morning it dawned on me that they just do not understand gravity. How does a flat earth gravitate normally to its surface? Also none of them has a degree in physics, I guess.
๐Ÿ˜Š Richard G @ 2019-05-04 08:57:02
In New York State you donโ€™t have to take physics to graduate from high school. You can leave with โ€œEarth Science,โ€ Biology and Chemistry. And โ€œEarth Scienceโ€ doesnโ€™t discuss gravity. Thatโ€™s right, Darwin is on the state-mandated curriculum but Newton is not.
๐Ÿ˜Š Mamading Ceesay @ 2019-05-04 10:23:20
It's pre-enlightenment thinking for Sagan's Demon-Haunted World.
๐Ÿ˜Š Mamading Ceesay @ 2019-05-04 10:24:32
Hence anti-vaxxers who don't understand the importance of population (herd) immunity.
๐Ÿ˜Š Richard G @ 2019-05-04 12:42:23
Iโ€™ve always wondered what flat earthers think is under the ground. Like, if you just keep digging. Hell, presumably, but how far down does it go, and what would be the end of it? Maybe thereโ€™s some overlap between them and the people who donโ€™t believe petrochemicals are limited resources.
๐Ÿ˜Š Alex Schroeder @ 2019-05-04 16:57:39
It's easy to make fun of them and to be angry at the stupidity. I am not exempt. https://alexschroeder.ch/wiki/2019-02-28_The_Curse_of_YouTube What's more interesting, though, is how this happened? I think the key here is a failing in our institutions, our education system. It's a bit like the terrible changes in technology for WW1. Going with Dan Carlin's podcast of Hardcore History, for a brief moment in time, defence was vastly superior to offence and thus millions died attempting to storm machine gun nests. Offence and defence are in a kind of balance until something new develops. The new thing we have is YouTube and social media. We can share without gatekeepers, or with gatekeepers that value engagement and ads above all, and thus conspiracy theories abound. If they make you angry it means they are working. It's like bad sexist ads. At least you'll remember the detergent! Being angry means you're engaging. And unlike ad-blocking and zapping and skipping we haven't found cultural techniques to deal with the provocations and the stupidity and mal-memes. And why are these stupid ideas suddenly so much better at convincing people? I think it's because we have taught people the formalities of knowledge without teaching them the underlying structures. It's like the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus test. The web page has all the trappings we taught each other would signify authority: calls to action, titles, spelling, menus, links to papers, maps, pictures, quotes, history, links, blogs, and on and on. But if you know one thing about octopuses it's that they don't live on land. And yet, some people will fall for it. The don't know a thing about octopuses, but they can see the trappings of knowledge and authority on that page. https://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ I see something similar going on with anti-vaccination, flat-earth, and all of that. We taught people to be sceptics but didn't tell them why and how it worked. I recently had a discussion with somebody who wanted primary sources for the efficacy of vaccines. I'm not sure what for. That person didn't seem like an anti-vaccination person but it still opened my eyes. My first reaction was of course: what the hellโ€ฝ Inoculation was invented before peer reviewed papers, just like the circumnavigation of the earth happened before peer reviewed papers. And then I realized: the demand for primary sources is an aping of the formalisms we taught each other would signify authority without understanding when these demands make sense and when they don't, and what we should demand instead. Anyway, something like that. This text area is very small. ๐Ÿคช
๐Ÿ˜Š Matthew Adams @ 2019-05-05 04:59:41
I suspect the ignorance is completely willful. Like they know they're full of crap but now they belong to this weird little club and they're loyal as hell. Which is something we all do. Maybe they're more honest about that in their own batshit crazy way? There was a doco om Netflix about it, there was one painfully poignant moment when this flatearther lady says something about some splinter group along the lines "you wonder if they realise they can be wrong, and I think about if maybe we are wrong and realise that no, we're right", something like that. I almost cried.
๐Ÿ˜Š Lee Lawrence @ 2019-05-05 10:40:35
Also, money. I get the vibe that the leadership of the movement are making good bank from this. I watched one vid and there was a convention with a hell of a lot of crap you could buy.
๐Ÿ˜Š Paolo Greco @ 2019-05-07 06:52:41
I must admit something: after watching loose change I believed 9/11 was a false flag operation. Mostly I believed it because of two reasons, that have little to do with the video: 1: I come from a country where, if a liner gets hijacked, an interceptor or two immediately fucking scramble THE NOW. And I can't believe that if Italy can do that with our flying circus, the country with the biggest airforce in the world can't. Also, the country that builds a whole number of our planes. 1a: also, it's not like NYC and DC are in the belly of the country, they are a harbour city and in a state that has a harbour city. With so much military spending I could not believe you can't have fancy multirole jets ready to cover your border if you managed to keep a fleet of B52 with nuclear weapons in the sky 24/7/365 as nuclear deterrent. 2: said foreign country has a history of running false flag operations, both in Italy and abroad. I can provide references for this if you care, or you can find them in Wikipedia. I did not believe much of Loose Change. But it let me doubt. I had doubts about the whole thing. The movie merely brought them up. The easier path to sense-making was a conspiracy: 1: they let the guard down 2: they did not scramble 3: they had motive. 4: they have a history of doing this kind of BS. 5: this is a country that cares so little about health and safety, and human lives, to the point that one of its biggest lakes caught fire. So I believed that there was a conspiracy. Not the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" part, not the planted bombs, not most of the movie. But I believed part of the government contributed to that. The above five numbered statements, at various levels of stringency, I believe still stand. The conclusion was wrong. I fell trap to a conspiracy theory. A Stab in the Back-type conspiracy theory. In hindsight, it was wrong. Obviously wrong. My conclusions were wrong. However, the 5 numbered statements hold mostly true, and the following inquiry told us that there's been a conspiracy that led to the disaster. It was not the airforce, but a tree letter agency wilfully witholding information from another three letter agency. The rest can is mostly explained by a useless war machine used for stupid purposes instead of for its legitimate purpose. The chain of syllogisms used bad links to get to a correct conclusion. This does not made me right exactly the way a math theorem is not proved by a badly executed proof.
๐Ÿ˜Š Paolo Greco @ 2019-05-07 06:58:37
I have never debated a flatearther. I wonder if their natural philosophy is so bad that they do not believe that the earth can be round in spite of their manifold being flat.
๐Ÿ˜Š Paolo Greco @ 2019-05-07 07:00:10
I'll post about how it feels to work in oncology while dating someone that, immediately after learning that, blurted out "I believe there is a cure for cancer but they sell chemo to make money". No we did not date again.
๐Ÿ˜Š Richard G @ 2019-05-07 15:50:38
One of the great things about Marxist theory is that it makes you consider that a system of incentives can work just like a conspiracy without needing willful individual conspirators - nobody needs to be twirling their moustache or working it all out with red string in order for terrible injustices to be replicated again and again in generally predictable patterns. One of the worst things about Marxist theory is that it gives names to these systems and suggests they have agency, so that people stop blaming and holding accountable the individual people who might be able to stop doing the terrible things. Where are the toroidal earthers?
๐Ÿ˜Š Richard G @ 2019-05-07 15:51:13
...like, shall we start a toroidal earther society? Or saddle-shaped? Aubergine?
๐Ÿ˜Š Mamading Ceesay @ 2019-05-07 16:55:08
The Lattice Earth is proof positive of the existence of a Great Weaver.
๐Ÿ˜Š Richard G @ 2019-05-07 18:48:03
also Great Baker
๐Ÿ˜Š Evan Edwards @ 2019-05-10 06:45:59
Hollow flat earther: we believe in the Great Pie Crust theory.
๐Ÿ˜Š Richard G @ 2019-05-10 13:39:21
Rhubarb is the antiFilling. Blackberry is beautiful.
๐Ÿ˜Š Mamading Ceesay @ 2019-05-11 18:44:49
Charles Fort in his book Lo! 'proposes a new cosmology that the earth is stationary in space and surrounded by a solid shell which is (in the book's final words) ".. not unthinkably far away'

Log in to comment.