Mike Caulfield sounds like the kind of fellow who takes thirty seconds to check in with Mrs Caulfield whenever he has to navigate the minefield of manly behaviour. I wonder if her voice is deeper?
The examples of expert information used in his promo video didn't age well. And that is the thing. These people are absolutely oblivious to what most of us are doing.
My own research during Covid was triggered by the blatantly obvious bullshit propaganda campaign, and an organic exploration of everything that came up, from lockdowns and masks to immunology and vaccine development. I trusted myself and took a wide approach, soaking up info from many places, including Substack.
Once fact checkers appeared on the scene I gave them a wide berth as they were obviously nonsense. I threw away my TV years ago so that was never an issue.
I'd go beyond just "you don't have to take a position". If it doesn't affect you or people you care about, you should keep your nose out of it. Before mass media there was a whole world of things happening that people didn't even have the opportunity to stick their noses into, form opinions about, and busybody and badger random strangers over.
In spite of this, the world did not end. We're closer to doom now than we ever have been, and more people have been given the opportunity to stick their noses where they don't belong than ever before. Can this possibly be coincidental?
Nov 23, 2023·edited Nov 23, 2023Liked by Grant Smith
On the other hand the peripheral route has some benefits.
This entails reading the comments on many articles and calibrating the responses. Usually the editorial interference with the commentary becomes evident, sometimes not.
With general reporters it is usually easy to find somebody in the comments who knows much more.
Sometimes one has to comment and see how the comment is handled. At the onset of the plandemic I submitted a few comments to JAMA Covid articles asking that the authors reveal their values for "Laboratory confirmed Covid," considering that the PCR's at Ct40 were fraudulent (I didn't put that in the comment of course!) Invariably I was punted as my comment "Did not meet our community standard."
As you describe we are really trying to calibrate our sources of information and opinion, and it does take some time and scepticism.
Finding trustworthy information can be tough when it comes to subjects you don't already know much about and don't have the time to investigate thoroughly. I know I have succumbed to Gell-Mann Amnesia before, before I realized that the institutions/media/banks/corporations/government agencies/etc of our country are all led by psychopathic congenital bullshitters. At the same time, "memetic judo" is a thing (as John Carter pointed out), so taking a reflexively contrarian position leaves you vulnerable to manipulation as well. Best to delay responding if possible, to allow more facts to come in. And if the regime insists we must act now (high-pressure sales technique), then resist that pressure at all costs. We really live in strange times! Maybe it's always been this way, and we've just recently gotten wise to it. If so, I suppose that's encouraging.
People taking positions based on status is a symptom of living in an overly tall hierarchy, and it's damning to us all. I think this is the reason why UFO cults are such effective social control.
Be agnostic. Not every issue requires you to take a position until you can research it. But, if you KNOW it’s a lie, never live the lie. Don’t live as if a lie is true. As we know from history, that’s the path to someday living in a prison camp.
You forgot one possibility. Take the peripheral route, see what the censors say about it, and know that the truth will be something like the opposite of what they say. A guy like Caulfield is incapable of knowing what the truth is about any given thing, because all he can do is reinforce a narrative that is built for him, and he likely has no one in his life who would hold him accountable about that.
Mike Caulfield sounds like the kind of fellow who takes thirty seconds to check in with Mrs Caulfield whenever he has to navigate the minefield of manly behaviour. I wonder if her voice is deeper?
The examples of expert information used in his promo video didn't age well. And that is the thing. These people are absolutely oblivious to what most of us are doing.
My own research during Covid was triggered by the blatantly obvious bullshit propaganda campaign, and an organic exploration of everything that came up, from lockdowns and masks to immunology and vaccine development. I trusted myself and took a wide approach, soaking up info from many places, including Substack.
Once fact checkers appeared on the scene I gave them a wide berth as they were obviously nonsense. I threw away my TV years ago so that was never an issue.
I'd go beyond just "you don't have to take a position". If it doesn't affect you or people you care about, you should keep your nose out of it. Before mass media there was a whole world of things happening that people didn't even have the opportunity to stick their noses into, form opinions about, and busybody and badger random strangers over.
In spite of this, the world did not end. We're closer to doom now than we ever have been, and more people have been given the opportunity to stick their noses where they don't belong than ever before. Can this possibly be coincidental?
On the other hand the peripheral route has some benefits.
This entails reading the comments on many articles and calibrating the responses. Usually the editorial interference with the commentary becomes evident, sometimes not.
With general reporters it is usually easy to find somebody in the comments who knows much more.
Sometimes one has to comment and see how the comment is handled. At the onset of the plandemic I submitted a few comments to JAMA Covid articles asking that the authors reveal their values for "Laboratory confirmed Covid," considering that the PCR's at Ct40 were fraudulent (I didn't put that in the comment of course!) Invariably I was punted as my comment "Did not meet our community standard."
As you describe we are really trying to calibrate our sources of information and opinion, and it does take some time and scepticism.
Finding trustworthy information can be tough when it comes to subjects you don't already know much about and don't have the time to investigate thoroughly. I know I have succumbed to Gell-Mann Amnesia before, before I realized that the institutions/media/banks/corporations/government agencies/etc of our country are all led by psychopathic congenital bullshitters. At the same time, "memetic judo" is a thing (as John Carter pointed out), so taking a reflexively contrarian position leaves you vulnerable to manipulation as well. Best to delay responding if possible, to allow more facts to come in. And if the regime insists we must act now (high-pressure sales technique), then resist that pressure at all costs. We really live in strange times! Maybe it's always been this way, and we've just recently gotten wise to it. If so, I suppose that's encouraging.
People taking positions based on status is a symptom of living in an overly tall hierarchy, and it's damning to us all. I think this is the reason why UFO cults are such effective social control.
Be agnostic. Not every issue requires you to take a position until you can research it. But, if you KNOW it’s a lie, never live the lie. Don’t live as if a lie is true. As we know from history, that’s the path to someday living in a prison camp.
You forgot one possibility. Take the peripheral route, see what the censors say about it, and know that the truth will be something like the opposite of what they say. A guy like Caulfield is incapable of knowing what the truth is about any given thing, because all he can do is reinforce a narrative that is built for him, and he likely has no one in his life who would hold him accountable about that.
They’re successful, smart?
No, just clever and nimble at sycophancy.
That’s the nicest thing I have to say.