Since someone brought up the subject of rationalwiki.org I must assume this can't be a coincidence. Somewhere along the way I was going to talk about them, and the magical anti-gematria powers that should be have lit the beacon. So, to complete your breakfast, another subject not coincidentally (or so I must assume) refer to the Ovarian Illuminati post. Have some beacon and eggs.
It's been a year. And by this time next week I'll hit 10,000 page views. Which is more than I expected. If I get pinned down into guessing if that pace will continue, I'll say, "No." Eventually long time readers will get bored. I've already hit on the major topics repeatedly. I do try to present a humorous angle along with the message. And posts like the Ovarian Illuminati do generate more interest than earthquakes. So, with 10k views give or take, and absence of direct input for the most part I assume I'm doing something "write".
The short answer for what to do with arguing with gematria users:
Don't.
They thrive on attention. The three main reasons for not arguing as I see them:
1). It gives them the attention they want.
2). There's no reasoning with them.
3). It gives them the attention they want and there's no reasoning with them and they are repetitive and they crave attention and there's no reasoning with them and you can pretty much guess what they'll say without engaging in a debate.
Don't argue with them? But isn't that what YOU do? What's so special about you that you think you're Attu's gift to this? And isn't it unfair to let them win! My friend died in <insert terrorist event here>! I'm pissed!
Despite the claims of how many people have proven that the system is real and you are the problem, your gut instinct is right.
You are not alone. Lots of people think the same way, it's just a matter of sifting through the wealth of dis formation that the frigging internet has. That's where places like this blog, the Skeptic's dictionary and rationalwiki come in.
And that is the difference. Time investment. Skepdic.com has the advantage of being in complete control of the content. There's no editing from the outside. And the disadvantage, like here, there's really not much else to say. And the author has ceased putting up new content. Rationalwiki, as a wiki is better. But anyone can edit. Vandals will purposefully alter content. The damage is easily undone, but for the same reasons the "hoax" videos appear in the first place the trolls take unholy delight in creating mischief and chaos.
Note that in my Gematrinator Honeymoon in Hawaii post I predicted that Team AH would simply give up. That is indeed exactly what happened. So unless you're willing to invest a significant amount of time you avoid the debate because with logical fallacies, intentional or not, the need for attention is satisfied by declaring yourself the winner of a debate by default when the other side gets so frustrated by your argument's lack of merit they walk away.
There is a huge amount of information on rationalwiki. Space and time limit me to three items for today.
In the section of logical arguments, they refer to what is called "moving the goalposts" which I have referred to as "a moving target". Personally I find some exhibits of this to be so obvious that I can't see how it's even bothered with. It's out there though.
There's an entire Hubbard playlist on his Youtube channel devoted to anti Flat Earth content.
X is false
Therefore Y is true.
No way. Muddying the waters with discussion of flat Earth has nothing to do with the merits of gematria. It's not specifically stated, but that's the implication. And consider this.
If X is true and
X=Y
Y is true
The freemasons have obviously rigged sports. If I convince you of that, then since the freemasons are creating hurricanes for their evil purposes, you must believe that, too. And then if the relatively innocent sports buff gematria user ever shows any sign of not wanting to be involved in the new target, throw in a lot of peer pressure, name calling and even outright lies to keep them im line or discredit them. I really wish the sports guys would understand this as a building block towards understanding that sports gematria also doesn't mean anything.
Do you really want to spend the time arguing whether sports is rigged when out of the blue you have to decide whether a tiny portion of the 9/11 events is a "coincidence"? It happens. All. The. Time. (Also note that rationalwiki includes information about the logical fallacy of part of X being true also means ALL of X is true.)
Since I posted about Occam's Razor before I'll mention that I reviewed Skepdic and rationalwiki for info. Per the "no reasoning with these people", when Dan was confronted with the concept, he immediately missed the point and did numerology on Occam's Razor.
This is a good feature of rationalwiki. They have some clear analogies to simplify what the concept is about, often in the context of pop culture references like the Simpsons. Officially Occam's Razor says that given choice A and choice B the tiebreaker for what should be considered is the simplest option. The analogy they use. If you see hoof prints on the trail, think horses, not invisible pink unicorns.
Doesn't that sound familiar? If there's a snow storm in Erie, PA., is it easier to think weather fronts or some global conspiracy using weather warfare to set up 57" inches of snow for upcoming mockery in the Super Bowl? It's hard to start dissecting that idea. (And it's an example, nitpickers, it hasn't happened yet that I've seen. But with another logical fallacy on rationalwiki, X preceded Y, therefore X caused Y, I will be surprised if it DOESN'T happen after all the Hurricane Harvey bullshit for the World Series. This fallacy is exhibited in the vaccination conspiracy. My child was vaccinated. My child is now autistic. Therefore, the vaccination caused the autism.)
And finally for now, the idea rationalwiki calls, That's not even wrong! There's so much wrong with the idea of a snowstorm meaning something numerologically. Can you identify exactly who, not just some faceless organization, but a specific individual? Much less a group? How much money is spent to make this. Why 57 inches, not 58? Why Erie? What's the purpose, the goal of the faceless enemy? How long does it mean something? Etc.... The whole idea is so alien that with the moving target and shifting the burden of proof you can't debate it. The cop out answer is "xxx did it.". Rationalwiki has a lot of did its. Goddidit, Satandidit, Jewsdidit, NWOdidit.... I would say the NIPTUCKS did it. Anything can be explained by the almighty force as being responsible without any detail at all on the questions that should be asked.
So what can you do? Avoid falling into the trap of watching the video in the first place. Innoculation by information. This worked marvelously with the war on Scientology. YouTube may get around to changing their method of selecting videos you might be interested. The gematria videos are purposefully titled to be sensational. Roy Halladay Sacrificed by Ritual! The commenters are vocal minorities. Either someone that has already closed their mind on how gematria doesn't work. Or someone who is setting themselves up to lose the argument. Make sure little Johnny knows that this stuff is out there and it's healthy to be skeptical.
To wrap it up, let's add a non gematria application. If you see a commercial for Plexaderm and its ability to magically erase wrinkles, it's best to check it out. It sounds too good to be true. I purposefully chose this as something with a somewhat neutral outlook if you search for information. It does "work" if you don't mind application of a product that simply dries out your skin and has no medicinal, long term value. Don't be surprised if you try it and get disappointed. The information is spotty. The vocal minorities love it at 5 stars or hate it. And manipulation of the commentary can easily produce a lot of bogus five star reviews. So maybe its OK. Or maybe you should try and find someone who actually used it or a licensed, practicing dermatologist.
And certainly don't fall for the "you stupid retarded sheep" dialogue in gematria that has absolutely no credibility at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment