Be Careful Not To Hire Conspiracy Theory Nuts To Run Your Social Media: The Shaquille O'Neal Story
from the shaq-fool dept
I've always suspected that most famous people have outside groups managing their social media engagements for them. That is why I almost never follow celebrities on social media sites. What's the point? At the same time, with the importance of self-branding in the media today, I understand why these outside groups are used. What I don't understand, however, is why a famous person might entrust his or her social media brand to a group that might just end up making a client look foolish.Take, for example, Shaquille O'Neal. The former NBA star and current NBA commentator has quite a presence on the web, which is what made it so strange when his personal website and Facebook page suddenly began announcing that Shaq was one of those 9/11 truther types.
There was more like that. On the one hand, everyone, including Shaq, is allowed to think that 9/11 was the work of government conspiracy pulled off by the evil overlords that have been running this country for their own personal benefits. On the other hand, 9/11 truthers are sadly hilarious as a general rule, but picturing the low-voiced, enormous Shaq wagging his finger about holographic 747s and shouting about the melting temperature of steel would be the kind of funny I'd pay real money to see.
Turns out that hilarious scenario will never be, however, as Shaq released a statement saying some yahoos at his social media management company were the ones responsible. Digital Mavericks, the outside firm that Shaq has since fired, also released a statement.
Statement from Shaquille O’Neal: This post was insulting and offensive, and I apologize to everyone who came across it. Once I learned that it was on my Facebook page and blog, I ordered it removed and fired the firm that posted it. I am not and never have been a “9/11 truther.’’ My father served our country and I am immensely proud of the sacrifices people make daily to keep us safe. The events of 9/11 were a horrible tragedy for our nation and it’s a disgrace that anyone would think otherwise.In the meantime, nobody reading anything on Shaq's site or social media sites will have any reason to believe that the posts are actually coming from him. Which is what makes celebrities on social media so lame. The truth is that it would have been far more fun if Shaq was a 9/11 truther. Fun and sad, yes, but still fun. Oh well, hopefully the next company he contracts with has some nonsense to say about vaccines or something.
Statement from Matt Argall, CEO of Digital Mavericks: Our firm helped manage content for Shaquille O’Neal’s Facebook page and blog. Yesterday, one of our employees posted a link on Mr. O’Neal’s social media that related to the tragic events of 9/11. Mr. O’Neal had no knowledge of the posting. Further, it does not represent the views of Mr. O’Neal, our clients or our organization. We sincerely apologize. We have removed the link from Mr. O’Neal’s social media and no longer manage social media content for him. We are very sensitive to the tragedy of 9/11 and apologize greatly for this post.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 9/11, shaquille o'neal, social media, truthers
Companies: digital mavericks
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sure...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And The Evidence Shows....
There are over 2000 degreed and licensed architects and engineers who disagree with your sadly hilarious statement.
Please click the link directly below this paragraph to peruse the petition with the names of 2000 architects and engineers who have put their professional reputations on the line to come forth and call the governments 11Sept2001 story what it is: science fiction.
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/Petition-2000-AEs-13-09.pdf
Evidence that World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were collapsed on 11Sept2001 via controlled demolition:
Rapid onset of destruction, constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance, numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel, lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph, mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds, isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone," total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile, several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles, evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams, nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
Documentaries and Videos — The Evidence: Implausibility of the Official Story Surrounding Building 7’s Collapse
The National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008, more than six years after starting its investigation. Because almost all of the physical evidence had been destroyed, NIST’s theory depended largely on its ability to reproduce the collapse through modeling. Despite being able to adjust inputs in order to achieve the desired result, NIST’s model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse, as shown in the picture below:1
Twin Towers
The official account of the Twin Towers’ destruction was produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and released in September of 2005. Unfortunately, NIST’s report only provided a hypothesis of the events leading up to the initiation of the collapses, or the “collapse initiation sequence.” NIST did not attempt to explain how once the collapses initiated, the upper sections of these 110-story skyscrapers would continue falling downward through the path of greatest resistance. Instead, NIST simply asserted that once each building was destabilized, “global collapse ensued.” However, we can examine the general features of NIST’s collapse initiation sequence for both Twin Towers to see if it is consistent with known facts, or is at least self-consistent.
Please take the time to watch the supporting videos found after you click the link directly below this sentence.
http://www.ae911truth.org/38-home-posts/78-education.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
Amazing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
Three, implicit in Geigner's "story" here, that 19 Muslims defeated all of North Americian Air Defense to fly planes into towers.
Four, that Iraq had WMD and was on verge of nukes so had to be invaded in order to save it from the horrors of dictatorship.
Five, that this "article" isn't cynically but feebly contrived to let fanboys get in some ad hom in futile effort to counter Techdirt's slide in rankings.
Six, that Masnicks supports copyright even while defending Kim Dotcom, gotta be the nuttiest idea ever, total contradiction.
Seven, I'm sure soon to be demonstrated: that Techdirt doesn't censor!
Top of my head. Almost everything Techdirt runs is The Official Story based only on the myth that government ever tells the truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
No, the amazing thing is that so many believe The Official Story when have seen nothing but some video -- within hours of the attacks -- of Muslims at ticket counters to prove it. It's the BIG LIE right in front of your eyes, you just won't consider the evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
Where are emails from WTC victims where they complained about having all the walla of their office ripped out and studded with thermite and explosives?
Where is even a single semi-credible contractor, soldier, mercenary or day-laborer who worked on this massive cover-up?
When the truthers can't give any message other than No and "failing to agree with my disparate collection of anecdotes proves everyone else are sheeple, man!" you know they have nothing useful to say. Are you going to warn us about Jade Helm takeovers of the south and Muslim commie terrorists being shipped around in FEMA trailers next?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
that's it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
And, um, er, this is highly recommended. http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/compound-w-freeze-off-wart-removal-system/ID=prod3984741-product . I suggest daily treatments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Irrelevant
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if it was highjackers slamming planes into the buildings that took them out, precise demolitions that did it, the buildings spontaneously turning into swiss cheese and collapsing as a result, all of the above or none of the above. None of it matters ultimately.
'Truthers' like to claim that the buildings were taken out via controlled demolitions, well guess what, buildings are destroyed in that fashion all the time and no-one bats an eye, so clearly that aspect to the story doesn't mean squat. No, what matters in the end was the response to the destruction of the buildings, no matter how they were destroyed, and that is where you should be focusing your attention.
Two buildings were destroyed, a couple of thousand people died. Unfortunate and tragic respectively, but buildings being destroyed and people dying are both things that happen on a regular basis, so ultimately neither of those are terribly important. Opportunistic and greedy politicians and apathetic and/or cowardly citizens leading to the undermining of rights, that is the important part.
Stop freaking out over one tree, and start paying attention to the forest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
But, we do have history as our guide and looking back to the 1930's in Germany when the Reichstag building was lit afire and the National Socialists (Nazi) blamed the German communist party and then the Nazis used the allegation to garner emergency powers and suspend civil liberties which has been seen as pivotal in the rise of the Nazis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Some people may say that the US government used the attacks of 11Sept2001 in similar fashion as National Socialists of 1930's Germany to garner emergency government power and suspend civil liberties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Irrelevant
3 buildings collapsed on 11Sept2001 not the 2 you claim:
Two buildings were destroyed,
Please click the link, watch the videos and help eliminate the scourge of ignorance:
http://www.ae911truth.org/38-home-posts/78-education.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Irrelevant
It. Doesn't. Matter.
I don't care if it was two, three, or half a dozen, because it's irrelevant. The buildings aren't the important part, the response to their destruction is, and that holds true no matter how they were destroyed or who was responsible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Reporter Who Wrote Sunday Times 'Snowden' Propaganda Admits That He's Just Writing What UK Gov't Told Him
Ohhh the big bad gubbmit controls the media. CT's know that's true, and has been for years, but if you would have said that a year or two ago timmah would go all tinfoil hat on your ass. No?
House Votes To Change Law Due To Trade Agreement, While Insisting That Trade Agreements Don't Change Laws
The conspiracy theory: critics warn that parts of this deal would undermine American regulation. ( Silly tin foil hatters. )
Truth: It did. Less than one month on, and we have exactly what he claimed 'is not true' happening. A trade agreement forcing a law change, and having what some would claim is an impact on food safety. Up until then it was just speculation... a theory of a law that conspires to change current law.
-
search for TD articles before the snowden leaks with the keyword FBI. It was all "conspiracy" speculation... until it wasn't.
-
I see... as long as its 911CT's it's ok... but when I point out that TD is a little on the conspiracy theory side PPL dont like it.
-
Every Kill A 'Good' Kill: How Police And The Media Cooperate To Disparage The Dead
Uh oh... there is that big bad gubbment running the media again. If I tell you the government controls the media, especially a few years ago... Blammo... Tinfoil hat wearing "crazy" "Conspiracy theorist." No? But CTers already knew that.
-
Encrypted Messaging Service Stops Answering 'Warrant Canary' Questions, Suggesting FBI, Others Are Seeking User Info
Uh oh... must be that big bad gubbmint again. Not that maybe they were tired of answering pesky emails over and over again. No?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: that's it?
Or are you including various other groups in your nut-job count?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Follow up question: Are you James Clapper?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Much of what "conspiracy types" have been saying these last several decades in regards to corrupt government groups has been proven true.
There are so many theories about 9/11 mostly based on history repeating itself and the numerous holes in the official story.
It is not the first time a ruling party has done a false flag attack to garnish support for an undesirable action and will not be the last if such a thing did occur on 9/11.
So considering much of what techdirt publishes that would be considered fringe lunacy theory maybe it is not so wise to mock them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
Here's an excellent review of why that simply can't be:
10 Signs That ISIS is a Scripted Psyop
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/10-signs-that-isis-is-a-scripted-psyop?xg_source=activity
Sampl e:
Techdirt is proud of its NON-Truth! Repeats US / Israeli propaganda every day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
Classy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Knee-jerk ad-hominem is depressingly revealing way to title a piece..
(Note that the Cass Sunstein & co. operations have massively polluted the net with faked kook-wad personalities, making a random websurfer think truthers as a category are crazy.)
I for one had no idea what a genuinely non-commercial (unlike NPR) radio network was until I moved near a big city on a coast upon moving to go to college. KPFK, with its Alan Watts and it's midnightly AIDS science report (the 80s.. I'm an old fogey) just blew my mind. (Sad & ironic, though, that they don't carry the very best conspiracy factualities program anywhere-- maybe due to their otherwise-essential Background Briefing host constantly having to return to use of that utterly dumbed-down, weaponized smear term ("those Conspiracy Theorists") EVEN THOUGH lately I thought he might be pulling his head out, when he interviewed Sen. Bob Graham who is among those calling for release of The 28 Pages redacted from Congress' Joint Investigation, which apparently detail Saudis' bankrolling of OBL & Co. SEE www.28pages.org )
ANYhow, one tunes in the best show, "Guns & Butter" right here in NorCal over KPFA.org ..
or in NYC area on WBAI.org..
https://kpfa.org/program/guns-and-butter/
and
GREAT NEWS.. the Pacifica Network now has an app for all the trackingdevice addicts who are radio-challenged & would rather stream things with a data plan:
http://www.kpfk.org/index.php/press-releases/6624-pacifica-radio-app
This here guy was a KGO 810AM talker up until recently.. very solid radio background- no slouch! Gives his truthly analysis in a great daily podcast. (AND does in-depth interviews with the likes of Russ Baker of WhoWhatWhy.com and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds of BoilingFrogsPost.com .. etc et al!)
www.peterbcollins.com
Ye be LIBERTARIAN?? Here we have a great voice for freedom.. & PEACE.. AntiWarRadio's Scott Horton.. interviewing truthtellers like Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity's Ray McGovern ON A REGULAR BASIS.. not to be missed:
http://scotthorton.org/feed/podcast/
Heroes like FBI agent Coleen Rowley tried to raise red flags & get the hijackers stopped ahead of time!
https://twitter.com/coleenrowley
And here's the best introduction, in the form of an url. Why did Building 7 fall? At freefall speed, no less-- when MF nothing struck it. (Actually no steel building such as the 2 Towers have ever fallen from fire-- one in Chicago burned for weeks. There's said to be but one single demolitions contractor on Earth that is able to "pull" such buildings, in fact! Oh man, don't get me started. Marvin Bush was in charge of security that summer, where the elevators underwent "major rennovations". And PLEASE read up on the horrific fate of John O'Neill:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-the-mysterious-death-of-john-oneill-fbi-counterterror-chief -in-charge-of-the-osama-bin-laden-investigation/5400606
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows /knew/
And don't miss this intrepid journalist's work, re the handling of Atta down in his area of Venice Fla:
www.madcowprod.com
Here's a good writer who appeared on Guns and Butter a few notable times (alas, searching kpfa's new site only hits his 2 most recent appearances..)
http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Undermine-Conspiracy/dp/156656 8218/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&keywords=david+ray+griffin
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-D efenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&keywords=david+ray+griffin
http://www.amazon .com/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1566567866/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&keywords=david+ray +griffin
ps. its worth noting, that in refreshing memory of these links, use of www. disconnect.me basically always had a "[whatever I searched for] - DEBUNKED" link at the top of all results. Way to go Google, as cudgel-wielding revisionist propagandists for the Gov't!
pps. All this which is to say, "Careful Your Managing Editor Doesnt Use Dumbed-Down Cliches & Expose His Ignorance!" Srsly. This is important. Quit watching moronic television and research your country's history already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
Nothing like home grown terror where the US government provides the funding training and arming of terrorists on the stupid hope they will only attack their mutual enemies instead of attacking the people that helped create them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
Which apparently is full of shit. Impressive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Techdirt has government shills writing for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Reporter Who Wrote Sunday Times 'Snowden' Propaganda Admits That He's Just Writing What UK Gov't Told Him"
OK, I'm looking. The article factually and accurately reports what's happened, based on an interview that's there for all to see. Unless you have evidence that what's stated is incorrect, then it's factual reporting. How is that a conspiracy theory?
"Ohhh the big bad gubbmit controls the media."
Oh, right, yeah if you extrapolate something that's not stated in the article to ridiculous degrees and pretend that's now truth, everything does look like a conspiracy theory!
Why are you people always so allergic to facts that you have to invent a fantasy version of this site to argue with?
There's only one set of conspiracy theorists round here, and it's the anonymous idiots who claim that Google are behind everything, or that all the writers and users are pirates or other such easily debunked nonsense. The actual articles always seem to suspiciously go by without any substantial rebuttal or counterpoint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
No, even if their claims are based on fact, truthers do tend to be unintentionally hilarious in how they try and get their points across. Also, argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
"One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste."
So... you do this shit for free? That's actually worse. You can still be a shill and not get paid, but if you did at least you'd have a semi-understandable reason for obsessively lying.
"Two, that MPAA / RIAA are scheming to take your liberties. Actually they're defending properties that they paid for and made against hordes of stupid thieves."
...by taking liberties away from people who are not involved in any such activity. The things you mention are not mutually exclusive.
"Three, implicit in Geigner's "story" here, that 19 Muslims defeated all of North Americian Air Defense to fly planes into towers."
Yes, because nobody actually expected the airliners that were authorised in the surrounding airspace to fly into buildings until it was too late to stop them. Every other airline hijacking attempt in history was made with the intention of keeping hostages alive, so everyone was caught completely by surprise when it turns out to be a kamikaze mission. How is that more ridiculous than your theory?
"Four, that Iraq had WMD and was on verge of nukes so had to be invaded in order to save it from the horrors of dictatorship."
Those were the lies used by the Bush administration to invade a country totally unrelated to 9/11, yes. Has an article been written here to suggest otherwise?
"Five, that this "article" isn't cynically but feebly contrived to let fanboys get in some ad hom in futile effort to counter Techdirt's slide in rankings."
Which "ad homs"? Your entire comment or something else?
"Six, that Masnicks supports copyright even while defending Kim Dotcom, gotta be the nuttiest idea ever, total contradiction."
How does demanding due process contradict support for copyright? Defending copyright does not mean dropping to your knees and obeying every whim of Lord MPAA. Why are you so opposed to a fair trial and actual justice for Dotcom as opposed to a kangaroo court that only raises support for him?
"Seven, I'm sure soon to be demonstrated: that Techdirt doesn't censor!"
No, it doesn't. Some comments may be hidden if the public reading your words think you're full of shit, but no censorship is taking place and Techdirt doesn't do a damn thing.
"Top of my head. Almost everything Techdirt runs is The Official Story based only on the myth that government ever tells the truth."
So, that's where all the stories criticising the government come from, especially those pointing out that it's lying? Brilliant!
I'm glad nobody's paying you, because this is one of the poorest efforts yet. The industry has a big enough problem with wasting money on unworkable crap without paying for this level of poor workmanship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: that's it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
...and much of it is still unadulterated crap. Most of the true stuff is the stuff that was suspected by most people but never proven (e.g. mass spying), not the more outlandish claims.
"will not be the last if such a thing did occur on 9/11."
Nor if it didn't happen on 9/11. I'm not sure how most of the conspiracy theories are more plausible than the official one, but then again I've never had a proper explanation that didn't devolve into frothing lunacy whenever the conspiracy theory was questioned.
"So considering much of what techdirt publishes that would be considered fringe lunacy theory "
Such as?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
Not really. They existed before the US invaded Iraq, gained support among the displaced population there and moved forward quickly once Western troops pulled out. Their military power also grew during this time, and people were being warned about them since at least 2009. The group itself has been around since 1999, although it has operated under different names over the years.
Just because you weren't paying attention before you were shown it directly by whatever right-wing nut collection you follow, that doesn't mean they didn't have a history.
"Repeats US / Israeli propaganda every day."
Oh, you're one of THOSE idiots... OK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Fun Thing With Conspiracy Theorists ...
For example, I found one who believed in “free energy” that you could easily get from ordinary water to run something similar to a regular car engine. He also believed that there wasn’t enough energy in the aircraft fuel to bring down the World Trade Center. When I pointed out the deficit could have come from “free energy”, he got quite ... um ... defensive ...
Science: it works, bitches!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Fun Thing With Conspiracy Theorists ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn't be the first time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Fun Thing With Conspiracy Theorists ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Add in a bit of guilt by association for the trifecta: It is insane to believe the illogical, and it is illogical to believe, just because some nutters believe it was a conspiracy, that all believers in conspiracy are nutters.
Et tu Olly, *ahem*, I mean "Brute"?
Is it too much to ask for a shred of decency and/or integrity?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Where? None of that is in the article above, only the non-governmentally corroborated fact that a basketball player's website was used to post a conspiracy rant without his consent and a gentle mockery of people who believe the more outlandish claims.
What government information is being repeated?.
"Is it too much to ask for a shred of decency and/or integrity?"
You first. Is it too much to ask for one of you ranting tools to actually supply some specifics on what it is you don't like reading here (with some citations, of course)? Saying "propaganda!" over and over again isn't convincing anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"No true Scotsman" at its finest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
How about how once a week or so a post on techdirt shows up telling us about chicanery by Government officials and somehow on the 1 issue of what's been presented as what happened on 9/11 as an official story - THIS TIME the Government has it right and there is no lies or deception.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Where do you think the name "truther" comes from?"
I'd presume because these people are always loudly demanding "the truth" and the word is easier to say than "annoying conspiracy theorists".
"Do you not remember that it was George W. Bush himself who started that particular line of attack?"
No, I don't actually. Cite?
Who coined the phrase is pretty much irrelevant to the points at hand, anyway. Do you have anything substantial to say, or are you just going to argue about which names are used?
""No true Scotsman" at its finest."
You don't understand what that term actually means, do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't understand what that term actually means, do you?"
No one who's clued in to the way the world really works would misuse a logical fallacy like that.
He's a plant from Timmeh, Mikey, and the Rest of the Techdirt gang to try and discedit those who really know the truth! Don't be fooled!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
if it quacks like a duck, it must be a rabbit
It is obvious that those were controlled demolitions. I have a degree in physics, but that doesn't matter. I have also worked in intelligence agencies and know that the term "conspiracy theorist" is deliberately used to keep secrets by ridicule, but that doesn't matter, either. What matters is deciding whether to believe in your own eyes or in the lies of authority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if it quacks like a duck, it must be a rabbit
False dichotomy. The available evidence for controlled demolition is (to be the most charitable I can be) sketchy. But that doesn't mean I believe the government's story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This was on Facebook, not Twitter. He could very well do his own Twitter feed and farm out his FB page. Though that would still be a bit hypocritical of him to mock others for farming out their twitter feed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Fun Thing With Conspiracy Theorists ...
... is their tendency to believe multiple conspiracies.
Quite true, the likelihood of a person believing a conspiracy theory is predicted much better by whether they believe in other conspiracy theories than by anything about the new theory. I wonder what it is about certain brains that predisposes them in this way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dude is a self proclaimed freemason?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
My point is, it's really impossible to tell what happened, because all the evidence has been destroyed. Let's lay it to rest and make sensible decisions in the future. (ANd Shaq has nothing to do with all this mess. who in their right mind would post crap like that when they are paid to represent a client's professional image.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice example of its use there.
Of course as an informal fallacy (as opposed to a strictly logical one) it can easily fit into more than one classification such as abusive ad hominem or even poisoning the well. You could even make it fit into the fallacy fallacy.
The thing that all informal fallacies share is the injection of irrelevant information into the argument, and in this case the irrelevant information is the fact that crazy nutters believe "X".
You can turn it into a logical fallacy if you prefer thusly: If you are a nutter you are prone to believe X. You are prone to believe X, therefore you are a nutter.
So you LOGICAL fallacy is affirming the consequent.
But of course anyone who is clued in to the way the world really works would know this. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Unless, of course, the 9/11 false flag claims are a conspiracy false flag designed to distract us from the, er, real false flag?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NOT ONE OF US!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How do we define conspiracy?
It seems to me that if any 2 or more actors/agents discuss plans involving another set of actors/agents without including the second set in their discussion then that scenario would constitute something like what the word conspiracy means?
Perhaps the more important distinction is whether or not the plan involves a real or perceived negative consequence for the parties that are not included in the discussion?
Does the word conspire always have a negative connotation? ...I think it kind of does.
Maybe, if we have absolute trust in authority then we can assume that they are just 'planning for us, without our knowledge' ...the trouble with that is, ...I'm still struggling with the definition of 'authority' itself.
Transparency anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Irrelevant
The conspiracy theorist reasoning seems to operate like this: it's weird that a building not struck by one of the planes collapsed therefore it must be a conspiracy. Welcome to the life. Weird shit happens all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: that's it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How do we define conspiracy?
Yes. It's not even a connotation, it's a denotation. I know you didn't want a dictionary definition, but the dictionary does cover this. It's a conspiracy when two or more people collude to do something illegal or harmful. "Conspiracy" is always negative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because in theory, at least, planes would not and could not have been been sufficient even in principle. This is what most engineers thought at the time, even those who explicitly supported the government theory later.
So if you need to get the buildings to go down one way or another, but need a cover for, you use the planes. Then you blow out a couple of key supporting elements. There's no need for a carefully rigged job one way or another.
It is a false dichotomy to claim that you need either a year long highly technical precision rigging operation, so random office fires must have been sufficient (or alternatively one large explosion for the layman, but note that that isn't the official theory).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I wonder what it is about certain brain
But even evil cannot disobey the laws of logic. Just because some things are conspiracies doesn’t mean everything is.
If you want to keep a sense of perspective about the whole thing and not go off the deep end, logical and critical thinking would seem to be an essential part of that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Follow up question: Are you an asshole??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Dear Tim;
Is there anything that you think "might be real", that is not covered by the US Government's Official List of Real Things and Events That Actually Can and Do Happen On Earth?
Just curious.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
*eyeroll*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
Yet he's also griped on multiple occasions that Techdirt posts primarily anti-copyright articles.
So he's basically saying that the government is, by appearances, against copyright.
Wow, he can't even troll logic right!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How do we define conspiracy?
A self imposed conspiracy of confusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: How do we define conspiracy?
I'm attempting to embrace my doofishenss, I need a little slack!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
Just saying
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Irrelevant
Very well said, I would just like to ad that the right to not be blown up should extend beyond any political borders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
But you can't answer the question I asked??
Odd. It didn't seem to be really all that difficult.
At least I thought it was fairly simple.
To simplify further: do you think that anything not officially recognised as "reality", is possible?
As Dark Helmet, its obvious from your posts that you are not the fool who only believes in those things and events he has personally experienced, considering all else to be folly, pipe-dreams, or simply impossible.
So I wonder if you are judging reality via the popular playbook of accepted things, or if you are simply avoiding the very name-calling you so easily dish out, in the same way that a god-less politician takes the moral high ground by claiming to adhere to religious beliefs.
In a single post, you painted a large portion of the population with a hand-full of nutter brushes, as if it was something you do on a daily basis, apparently dismissing all of their arguments out of hand, as childish fantasy.
I'm simply wondering if your world is as fully mundane as you seem to claim, or if, like so many others, you fear ridicule for your own unpopular beliefs - thus I asked if you actually have any such unpopular beliefs.
I'm not even asking you to name them.
If you - I'm assuming you are Tim - are unable or unwilling to answer, just ignore this post. It is only for my own curiosity and unimportant to the big picture.
If you are not Tim, please ignore this post.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The "C" Word
Oh yeah! Shaq!
He kinda got lost in the dialogue there somewhere ...
Geez. Somone musta used the C word.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
That's your motive.
You need to look at who the occupants of the building were. I thought this was common knowledge to be honest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
And they decided that was the best way to go about it? Was it just a huge coincidence that they were demolishing these other nearby buildings too, or was the whole "operation" just to shred some files?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Unable or unwilling.
No surprises here. :)
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
1. Do I accept that things outside of my direct view can exist? Sure.
2. Do I believe that official stories aren't always the real stories, including official stories from our silly, stupid government? Sure.
3. Do I believe that the government has in the past used false information to push us into war, or expand war? I don't think that can even be in doubt, actually, with the Golf of Tonkin incident(s) being pretty settled history and all the bullshit Henry Kissinger pulled, not to mention what Reagan did just prior to his election.
4. Do I believe that our same stupid government that couldn't properly pull off even these smallish conspiracies could effectively pull off the 9/11 attacks, or conspire to allow them to happen, with ALL the pieces that would have to be involved, with ALL the people that would have to stay silent, with ALL the complicity we'd need from foreign governments to the tune of foisting upon us 2 wars and all this nonsense security? Please, don't make me laugh. No government is that good, nevermind ours. The fact that you have full on proof of earlier conspiracies proves it. The fact that you had an Al Qaeda group perfectly willing to lay claim to the attacks and to claim motivation for the attacks prior to them occurring means there no reason NOT to believe they committed the crimes.
9/11 truthers are a sad breed of people unwilling to believe several things: government ISN'T so powerful as to be able to keep us completely safe at its whim, evil DOES exist in the world, religion is a MASSIVE problem in Earthly affairs, and there isn't a nice little box you can put every tragedy into to explain it. The world is chaos. Get used to it. Stop hiding from it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
That wasn't so hard now was it.
So, in conclusion, you apparently only accept the existence of a "conspiracy" event, if it fails completely and its perps, purpose and plans are consequently exposed fully by massive amounts of irrefutable evidence.
If so, it would appear that you think that successful large-scale "conspiracy" events cannot actually happen, or are as rare as 30 pound diamonds, because:
- "long list of how utterly incompetent and stupid, billionaires, politicians, and leaders of business are, compared to the analytical brilliance of Joe Six-pack".
For someone with your obvious grasp of reality, this is extremely disappointing.
Successful conspiracy events do happen and quite often, but without the evidence that a failed conspiracy provides, the majority of the public cannot perceive the events as anything but natural, or not at all.
It is, in fact, only rarely that a well-planned, top-level conspiracy fails, which of course gives rise to the popular belief that you obviously hold true; that conspiracy events themselves, are extremely rare.
Such a belief is almost as head-in-the-sand as religion, or the belief that politicians are good people trying to do a difficult job, but as so many have found, it is a belief system that definitely lets one sleep more soundly at night.
Sleep well Dark Helmet.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
And of course, I understand fully, that as such a busy human, there is really no expectation of you wasting your valuable time "checking old posts for personal requests" and responding to this old post - again.
Feel free to ignore this old post.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have an actual citation, or is the extend of your critical thinking ability?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Would explain much...
Oh well, c'est la vie eh.
Nice talking at ye Tim.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]