Conspiracy Misinformation Tactics

[Moonbox]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You didnt respond to my point about the Great Reset. What does Mr. Trudeau mean? 

I think it's more mealy-mouthed marshmallow talk.  I don't think it means much of anything.  I think it's Trudeau just sort of saying stuff that he thinks sounds important, probably with a lot of stuff about what being Canadian is all about, and how "as Canadians" we are capable of blah blah blah.  

[Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Jews? I never mentioned them, have no problem with them, nor is this about me.

You didnt respond to my point about the Great Reset. What does Mr. Trudeau mean? 

I think he means to transform Canada into his dystopian vision, a post-national state.

I think it means a much higher cost of living for essentials such as transportation, home heating, and housing, in order to reduce our “carbon footprint.”   I think it also means giving the state greater control over people’s activities (driving, gathering, opinion) in order to keep people “safe.”   It’s totalitarian capitalism meets surveillance capitalism meets Green New Deal.  It’s creepy af and already mostly implemented.

[West]

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, if you won't even acknowledge that your first example failed I can't trust you to discuss honestly.

2. Not fired.

3. You are stubborn, not a great attribute for asking a stranger to consider your points.

 

1. No you are misreading my comment. You are getting hung up on Dr. Julie to skirt the broader point which is the lunatics have went after any academic who disagrees and resorted to ad hominems. 

2. I'm not interested in ad hominems like fauci and the like have engaged in. So far we've went with their solutions, caused irreparable harm to the wellbeing of the citizens including economic and opportunity loss for the citizens, and still nowhere near being out of the woods with Covid. Small business closures, government banging down the doors of businesses and churches, and ridding academia of any dissenting voices. We've denied people the right to try early treatments. If these early treatments worked, awesome we'd save the healthcare system. If not, we'd be in the same position. No sense in the ad hominems

This is cancel culture to the extreme and is disgusting

Edited January 19, 2022 by West

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, West said:

1. No you are misreading my comment. You are getting hung up on Dr. Julie to skirt the broader point which is the lunatics have went after any academic who disagrees and resorted to ad hominems. 

2. I'm not interested in ad hominems like fauci and the like have engaged in.

If it's bad science, it's bad science.  If you have better examples than the one like I posted in the OP, go ahead and offer it, but what from what I've seen here's it's just ranting 4dchan neckbeards complaining about Fauci calling their cherry-picked scientists out for nonsense.  They're so desperate for anything even resembling fact-based opinions that they'll defend it to the death in any way they can.  

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, West said:

1. No you are misreading my comment. You are getting hung up on Dr. Julie to skirt the broader point 

No, I would be happy to discuss further, except that you have shown yourself to be a poor discussion partners and irresponsible for your own mistakes.

So you can complain about others all you like: politicians, scientists, media figures but you are as bad as all of them.  All you had to finish say 'oops' but you were too proud.  Pity.

There is something that helps me in such situations, called the Ignore List. If I add a name to it, then it means that I won't have to read yet another barrage of people complaining about people who are actually better than them. Ie. Your posts.  I encourage you to post elsewhere, but otherwise enjoy your day.

 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If it's bad science, it's bad science.  

Don't bother... another egomaniac who posts disinfo and tries to say his turds are actually chocolate ?...

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

pretty sure no  one cares.

nevermind

I care.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I think it's more mealy-mouthed marshmallow talk.  I don't think it means much of anything.  I think it's Trudeau just sort of saying stuff that he thinks sounds important, probably with a lot of stuff about what being Canadian is all about, and how "as Canadians" we are capable of blah blah blah.  

The “Great Reset” is a formal initiative from Prince Charles and the World Economic Forum (WEF), a Swiss-based foundation that organizes an annual forum for political and economic leaders in Davos.

Trudeau UN speech sparks ‘Great Reset’ conspiracy

 

It didn't help that he used similar language to the talking points given by the WEF. It wasn't just the word "reset" either. It is quite possible he is parroting their ideas.

So hey, you want to blame someone for conspiracy and misinformation? I suggest talking to Justin.

....

From the link-

“The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit any more for the 21st century,” WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab said in June. “It has laid bare the fundamental lack of social cohesion,” he said during a virtual event hosted from the WEF headquarters in Geneva, adding that “now is the historical moment, the time, not only to fight the virus but to shape the system for the post-corona era.”

Oh the incredible opportunity! A chance to reshape the world, re-imagine society! Limitless power!!

....

Now you know what's up with all the foot dragging. They haven't decided on the perfect utopia yet.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You agreed with that retarded post ?  Wow.
 
I hope you are vaccinated because you show some signs of promise.  Please don't end up dead in the ditch with blotches of sheep medicine all over your face, that would make me sad ❤️ 

Government has CBC in their pocket already for years now. That is why their $600M media bailout goes mainly to other other news providers, not the CBC. But to qualify, you have to meet the governments standards.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/journalists-question-media-bailout-1.5147761

It's called "Buy Everyone Out."
 

Furthermore comes the recent news that
"The Liberals have promised $400 million over four years to make the CBC less reliant on advertising, and are aiming to ensure the public broadcaster’s programming is more distinct from its private sector competition."
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-move-to-modernize-cbc-making-public-broadcaster-less-reliant-on-advertising

That's a lot of simoleons. What does it mean to qualify for these handouts?

Is it "retarded" to believe that they will say only good things about Liberals, and not bite the hand that feeds them millions?

Advertising is a business tool for any media outlet to make income, to become self-sufficient. Without it they must become more reliant on... what?

[Nefarious Banana]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Don't bother... another egomaniac who posts disinfo and tries to say his turds are actually chocolate ?...

Why so angry MH?  Your posts were readable at one time.  Now you're lashing out at everyone that dares to question anything you post. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Government has CBC in their pocket already for years now.

2. That is why their $600M media bailout goes mainly to other other news providers, not the CBC. But to qualify, you have to meet the governments standards.  It's called "Buy Everyone Out."

3.  "The Liberals have promised $400 million over four years to make the CBC less reliant on advertising, and are aiming to ensure the public broadcaster’s programming is more distinct from its private sector competition." 

4. That's a lot of simoleons.

5. What does it mean to qualify for these handouts?

6. Is it "retarded" to believe that they will say only good things about Liberals, and not bite the hand that feeds them millions?

7. Advertising is a business tool for any media outlet to make income, to become self-sufficient. Without it they must become more reliant on... what?

1.  You mean... since inception ? ?  Well... yes it's the state owned broadcaster so... this isn't new information.
2. I doubt you can find examples of the largely right-wing media that received this money tilting towards Trudeau.  Since the bailout, the Globe and Mail did the required work of the press and exposed the SNC Lavalin scandal, for example.  That bailout is more about the dearth of responsible press options should newspapers die.  Democracy was built around the role of the "press".
3.  And ?  Many national broadcasters in the world don't use advertisement.
4. .1% of budget.  If you make $50K a year it's the equivalent of $50 of your budget or $1/week
5. The criteria are published and known.  The Sun and The National Post (Liberal haters who are widely cited here) qualify easily.  And their chairman applauded the bailout.
6. Not 'retarded' but given that this has been in place for years already and they continue to give him a hard time there's scant evidence this is happening.  Arm's length is not impossible to manage.
7. Relevance to Canadians, I would say.  Showing their worth.
 

[Moonbox]

9 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Why so angry MH?  Your posts were readable at one time.  Now you're lashing out at everyone that dares to question anything you post. 

Projecting much?  

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Projecting much?  

No he's right... I'm getting annoyed with these fly by night posters who come on here, sh*t their pants with their first post, then deny they made any error at all.  

I should relax and ignore them earlier - not waste time on strangers...

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  You mean... since inception ? ?  Well... yes it's the state owned broadcaster so... this isn't new information.
2. I doubt you can find examples of the largely right-wing media that received this money tilting towards Trudeau.  Since the bailout, the Globe and Mail did the required work of the press and exposed the SNC Lavalin scandal, for example.  That bailout is more about the dearth of responsible press options should newspapers die.  Democracy was built around the role of the "press".
3.  And ?  Many national broadcasters in the world don't use advertisement.
4. .1% of budget.  If you make $50K a year it's the equivalent of $50 of your budget or $1/week
5. The criteria are published and known.  The Sun and The National Post (Liberal haters who are widely cited here) qualify easily.  And their chairman applauded the bailout.
6. Not 'retarded' but given that this has been in place for years already and they continue to give him a hard time there's scant evidence this is happening.  Arm's length is not impossible to manage.
7. Relevance to Canadians, I would say.  Showing their worth.
 

Thanks for doing the research. I don't have time to address your points number-by-number. For me it gets rather tedious to discuss like that. I get the gist of your position. You don't think the problem of government involvement in funding media outlets is as much a problem as I do in light of the amount of money being doled out under the concern to prevent "fake news". I don't have trust or confidence in government, I believe it is inherently dysfunctional and needs to be "helped" into a position where it does something useful. Otherwise we are governed at our own peril.

Interestingly despite that I don't see the media quite as polarized as you do. Sun and National Post are "liberal haters", etc. They are all haters of one thing or another at times, but they share a common need and love- for money. There are plenty of articles on the Sun that wholeheartedly support the Liberal govt's messaging. Including the guy who wants to shut down schools, vaccinate kids, punish the non-vaccinated.

My view is that government must be criticized at every turn, especially where they are venturing into new territory like expanding their legal powers, or using money to influence outcomes toward their advantage. Not to praise Caesar.

[Moonbox]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

My view is that government must be criticized at every turn, especially where they are venturing into new territory like expanding their legal powers, or using money to influence outcomes toward their advantage. Not to praise Caesar.

That's a dumb view. 

The government must be scrutinized at every turn.  Criticizing them for the sake of criticizing them is foolish, otherwise you're operating on the assumption that everything the government does is automatically wrong.  

[OftenWrong]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's a dumb view. 

The government must be scrutinized at every turn.  Criticizing them for the sake of criticizing them is foolish, otherwise you're operating on the assumption that everything the government does is automatically wrong.  

"Criticizing for the sake of" is not what I said. Nor is it necessary, because there's is plenty worth criticizing daily. Government is highly prone to being dysfunctional in that is is far too empowered, over-funded, but highly unskilled.

Whatever new ventures government touches, you can bet they'll inevitable cock it up unless people who actually know things are willing to step up, tell the government where to go. It really comes down to how much faith you have in people who get elected. The Doug Fords and Justin Trudeaus, people who've never done an honest days work in their lives.

Even in context of thread topic, the misinformation and now hate messaging is coming from above. Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister to STFU.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. You don't think the problem of government involvement in funding media outlets is as much a problem as I do in light of the amount of money being doled out under the concern to prevent "fake news".

2. I don't have trust or confidence in government, I believe it is inherently dysfunctional and needs to be "helped" into a position where it does something useful. Otherwise we are governed at our own peril.

3. Interestingly despite that I don't see the media quite as polarized as you do. Sun and National Post are "liberal haters", etc. They are all haters of one thing or another at times, but they share a common need and love- for money.

4. There are plenty of articles on the Sun that wholeheartedly support the Liberal govt's messaging. Including the guy who wants to shut down schools, vaccinate kids, punish the non-vaccinated.

5. My view is that government must be criticized at every turn, especially where they are venturing into new territory like expanding their legal powers, or using money to influence outcomes toward their advantage. Not to praise Caesar.

1. Yes that's an excellent summation of my general position.  Also note that over 170 nations fund public broadcasters including the US.
2. I generally agree.
3. Sure - but let's just agree they hate Trudeau
4. The Ontario government is Conservative not Liberal
5. Agree 100%

 

[Yzermandius19]

this is completely normal

Canada isn't totalitarian at all

you crazy conspiracy theorists

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

know things are willing to step up, tell the government where to go. It really comes down to how much faith you have in people who get elected. The Doug Fords and Justin Trudeaus, people who've never done an honest days work in their lives.

Even in context of thread topic, the misinformation and now hate messaging is coming from above. Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister to STFU.

Good thing we have brave heroes like you here to rant at them and do just that, simply because they're "the government."

I'm not a fan of either Trudeau or Ford and think they're different varieties of fool, but even they do some things right.  

[Yzermandius19]

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I'm not a fan of either Trudeau or Ford and think they're different varieties of fool, but even they do some things right.  

they did alright when it came to weed legalization

that's about it

[OftenWrong]

34 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Good thing we have brave heroes like you here to rant at them and do just that, simply because they're "the government."

I'm not a fan of either Trudeau or Ford and think they're different varieties of fool, but even they do some things right.  

Im just here to express my opinion. 

Its not about me. You tend to go for the poster, not the posts.

Good thing we have you here.

[Moonbox]

If you have something worthy of discussing, I'm all for it.  If you're just going to rant about things you've decided you don't like, those don't merit much response beyond poking and mocking.  

Edited January 19, 2022 by Moonbox

[Yzermandius19]

13 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If you have something worthy of discussing, I'm all for it.  If you're just going to rant about things you've decided you don't like, those don't merit much response beyond poking and mocking.  

who made you the tone police around here?

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I don't have trust or confidence in government, I believe it is inherently dysfunctional and needs to be "helped" into a position where it does something useful. Otherwise we are governed at our own peril.

I couldn't agree more.

You must be new around here, I don't remember you from before.

[Nationalist]

On 1/17/2022 at 6:50 PM, dialamah said:

The level of Qanon inspired 'facts" are pretty astounding on this forum.  There's not much point in presenting any other facts since they're rejected with the same enthusiasm devout Christians reject any suggestion that God did not create everything.

Comical...