Can I join this discussion? I want to look foolish too!
But seriously, u/Rooks, is your priority here not to look foolish?
See me before my coffee in the morning, I look pretty darn foolish.
I think that Veritas has a valid point. The question for him (it seems) is not whether it is a good thing (in and of its own) to talk out against stupid racism narratives (which Ms Owens seems to do a lot of - talking out against it, I mean) but rather whether her reasons for doing so are genuine, or part of a strategy to 'win' a certain level of influence with a certain particular audience more to serve her ends (whatever they may be) than theirs, ultimately.
It's a valid question. And testifying: I trust her! Look what she's speaking out against! or... Look at the truth bombs she's dropping!!! doesn't actually address this very important question at all.
If we have learned to reject the mockingbird media because we found out they have been manipulating us and playing us, all for the purposes of <their ends> not ours, should we not be applying the very same lesson to everyone who offers themselves as a 'source of information/truth'?
BUT, and I want to capitalize the BUT here, even here at GAW I see a LOT of participants whose core criteria on whether a given source has <my interests> at heart or <their interests> at heart, appears to be "are they providing information or narratives that support or confirm my bias, my view, my desire?"
I think it would be fair to say that anyone who is here has at some point thought like that. Unconsciously, usually, if not always. But critical thinking and actual free thinking means learning more about HOW I approach and accept and engage with <the information being presented to me>, and imo, this is critical to not only surviving but rising above the storm in the era of 5G warfare and the absolute maelstrom that is the information sphere in our time.
Fren, you are anything but foolish. You are always willing to have a discussion and consider all sides of an issue and your posts and comments are always thought provoking.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
For me it really comes down to, not whether I like what I am hearing, or even whether or not it is true, but I have to ask myself whenever I am being presented with something, "Am I being educated, or am I being indoctrinated?" When someone only ever presents one side of an issue, truth can not prevail.
--MILD WALL OF TEXT WARNING--
Last year a Colorado pastor named Will Duffy started a channel on YouTube called "The Final Experiment." He had heard the debate about the shape of the earth, flat earth vs globe earth (I am not bringing this up to argue about the shape of the earth), and he was unhappy with the fact that the two sides of this debate were not engaging with each other in a productive way, so he created The Final Experiment to bring the two sides together to tackle the issue in a productive way.
He wanted to bring flat earthers and globe earthers both to Antarctica together to see whether there would be a 24 hour sun in the Antarctic summer. Flat earthers had long claimed that there is no 24 hour sun in the Antarctic, and globe earthers obviously believe that there is. Both sides also claimed that this would prove or disprove the shape of the earth. If there is a 24 hour sun, that would prove it is a globe, if there isn't, that would prove it is flat.
He worked very hard to find people from both sides of the issue that would be willing to come together for this experiment, because if both sides are not heard it would be pointless. He invited dozens of flat earthers, offering to pay for their trip. None of the most prominent flat earthers would accept his offer. He eventually found a couple that seemed interested, Jeran Campanella, and Austin Whitsitt. Since he could not find any other prominent figures in the flat earth community that were willing or interested in an unbiased bipartisan search for truth, he opened an invitation for anyone who believes that the earth is flat to apply for a chance to win a free trip to Antarctica. He chose a winner from among the applicants, a woman named Lisbeth Acosta. There were also two globe earthers that went along - Michael Toon, and Dave McKeegan.
So why is all this important? Well, Mr. Duffy had heard that Candace Owens was interested in the topic of flat earth, and he reached out to her to see if she would want to come along with them to Antarctica. Makes sense, she could bring a lot of attention to this issue. She said that she was interested, but that she would not be able to go herself, so she asked if she could send her director, Mark Herman instead. Will Duffy agreed.
So they all went down to Antarctica, to Union Glacier, in December, to witness whether or not there would be a midnight sun. There was a midnight sun and it was livestreamed the whole time on multiple cameras, including 360 degree cameras. So, the results were in, earth is a globe. Jeran Campanella ended up leaving flat earth, but Austin Whitsitt did not, unconvinced that it proved the shape of the earth. (for those that might be interested in The Final Experiement, here is a link to Will Duffy's YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@The-Final-Experiment)
So what did Candace Owens do? She dropped it like a sack of potatos. She never brought up The Final Experiment again. She never invited Will Duffy or any of the participants to talk to her on her show, she never interviewed her director. She never cared about the truth. She only cared about the possibility of supporting the flat earth conspiracy theory, and when she saw that she couldn't, she pretended nothing ever happened.
Candace Owens is only interested in presenting information to her viewers that support one side of an issue. If she cared about truth, she would present all sides and let people come to their own conclusions. She was all gung ho when she thought there was a chance that she could present something to her audience that would support her conspiracy theories, and when she found out she couldn't, she buried it.
She is equally dishonest on other subjects as well, in my opinion. She is all too happy to interview USS Liberty Survivor Phil Tourney so that he can tell her audience all about muh joos USS Liberty conspiracy, but she would never invite someone like Cam Higby on her show to present the other side of the issue. The dishonesty isn't in presenting, or believing Phil Tourney's position, it is discarding all other positions out of hand and pretending they don't exist. If you want to believe Phil Tourney, great! But at least hear what the other side has to say. Speaking of which, USS Liberty Survivor Debates Zionist.
If we do not allow ourselves to be exposed to both sides of an issue, we create echo chambers for ourselves. We create a situation where the things we believe to be true are necessitated to be true simply by our belief in them. We become indoctrinated. When we close our ears to outside perspectives we lose the ability to grow and learn. That is my issue with Candace Owens. She clearly has an agenda, and it is not finding the truth.
What a very readable wall of text. Maybe because the topic is so interesting? I think you had me hooked with
When someone only ever presents one side of an issue, truth can not prevail.
I hadn't grasped the matter in these direct terms, but I think this is perhaps exactly (or very closely describes) what I'm thinking when I gravitate towards some sources and gravitate away from others.
I won't name them directly, but my very favorite source for information and thought in the Q/Awakened sphere (and have been sustained for years now, which is unprecedented for me) resonate very powerfully with me because they consistently and vehemently do exactly that: present, actually now two sides, but 4 or 5 sides of an issue. And when they deliver their own conclusions or beliefs, its ALWAYS done in recognition of the associated fallibility, limitations, etc.
Both (or more) sides. Yes, I think that might be it. And when a source offers, with powerful conviction, "This is a fact" "This is true" without also articulating how perhaps it might not be the case from a different perspective, well, it feels like they have 'an agenda': to convince me, or influence me, or direct me. Aka the audience.
And, after so many years in the Matrix, I'm just not keen on that.
I think you make the argument vis-a-vis Owens very well. You bring some detail, an example, and articulate your point well.
She's against real racism, and is for blacks getting up and actively improving their roll and tearing up their race cards.
A blanket don't trust against her makes you look foolish.
I don't care if she has positions that you agree with I do not trust anyone with hidden agendas, and to say otherwise makes you look foolish.
Can I join this discussion? I want to look foolish too!
But seriously, u/Rooks, is your priority here not to look foolish?
See me before my coffee in the morning, I look pretty darn foolish.
I think that Veritas has a valid point. The question for him (it seems) is not whether it is a good thing (in and of its own) to talk out against stupid racism narratives (which Ms Owens seems to do a lot of - talking out against it, I mean) but rather whether her reasons for doing so are genuine, or part of a strategy to 'win' a certain level of influence with a certain particular audience more to serve her ends (whatever they may be) than theirs, ultimately.
It's a valid question. And testifying: I trust her! Look what she's speaking out against! or... Look at the truth bombs she's dropping!!! doesn't actually address this very important question at all.
If we have learned to reject the mockingbird media because we found out they have been manipulating us and playing us, all for the purposes of <their ends> not ours, should we not be applying the very same lesson to everyone who offers themselves as a 'source of information/truth'?
BUT, and I want to capitalize the BUT here, even here at GAW I see a LOT of participants whose core criteria on whether a given source has <my interests> at heart or <their interests> at heart, appears to be "are they providing information or narratives that support or confirm my bias, my view, my desire?"
I think it would be fair to say that anyone who is here has at some point thought like that. Unconsciously, usually, if not always. But critical thinking and actual free thinking means learning more about HOW I approach and accept and engage with <the information being presented to me>, and imo, this is critical to not only surviving but rising above the storm in the era of 5G warfare and the absolute maelstrom that is the information sphere in our time.
Fren, you are anything but foolish. You are always willing to have a discussion and consider all sides of an issue and your posts and comments are always thought provoking.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
For me it really comes down to, not whether I like what I am hearing, or even whether or not it is true, but I have to ask myself whenever I am being presented with something, "Am I being educated, or am I being indoctrinated?" When someone only ever presents one side of an issue, truth can not prevail.
--MILD WALL OF TEXT WARNING--
Last year a Colorado pastor named Will Duffy started a channel on YouTube called "The Final Experiment." He had heard the debate about the shape of the earth, flat earth vs globe earth (I am not bringing this up to argue about the shape of the earth), and he was unhappy with the fact that the two sides of this debate were not engaging with each other in a productive way, so he created The Final Experiment to bring the two sides together to tackle the issue in a productive way.
He wanted to bring flat earthers and globe earthers both to Antarctica together to see whether there would be a 24 hour sun in the Antarctic summer. Flat earthers had long claimed that there is no 24 hour sun in the Antarctic, and globe earthers obviously believe that there is. Both sides also claimed that this would prove or disprove the shape of the earth. If there is a 24 hour sun, that would prove it is a globe, if there isn't, that would prove it is flat.
He worked very hard to find people from both sides of the issue that would be willing to come together for this experiment, because if both sides are not heard it would be pointless. He invited dozens of flat earthers, offering to pay for their trip. None of the most prominent flat earthers would accept his offer. He eventually found a couple that seemed interested, Jeran Campanella, and Austin Whitsitt. Since he could not find any other prominent figures in the flat earth community that were willing or interested in an unbiased bipartisan search for truth, he opened an invitation for anyone who believes that the earth is flat to apply for a chance to win a free trip to Antarctica. He chose a winner from among the applicants, a woman named Lisbeth Acosta. There were also two globe earthers that went along - Michael Toon, and Dave McKeegan.
So why is all this important? Well, Mr. Duffy had heard that Candace Owens was interested in the topic of flat earth, and he reached out to her to see if she would want to come along with them to Antarctica. Makes sense, she could bring a lot of attention to this issue. She said that she was interested, but that she would not be able to go herself, so she asked if she could send her director, Mark Herman instead. Will Duffy agreed.
So they all went down to Antarctica, to Union Glacier, in December, to witness whether or not there would be a midnight sun. There was a midnight sun and it was livestreamed the whole time on multiple cameras, including 360 degree cameras. So, the results were in, earth is a globe. Jeran Campanella ended up leaving flat earth, but Austin Whitsitt did not, unconvinced that it proved the shape of the earth. (for those that might be interested in The Final Experiement, here is a link to Will Duffy's YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@The-Final-Experiment)
So what did Candace Owens do? She dropped it like a sack of potatos. She never brought up The Final Experiment again. She never invited Will Duffy or any of the participants to talk to her on her show, she never interviewed her director. She never cared about the truth. She only cared about the possibility of supporting the flat earth conspiracy theory, and when she saw that she couldn't, she pretended nothing ever happened.
Candace Owens is only interested in presenting information to her viewers that support one side of an issue. If she cared about truth, she would present all sides and let people come to their own conclusions. She was all gung ho when she thought there was a chance that she could present something to her audience that would support her conspiracy theories, and when she found out she couldn't, she buried it.
She is equally dishonest on other subjects as well, in my opinion. She is all too happy to interview USS Liberty Survivor Phil Tourney so that he can tell her audience all about muh joos USS Liberty conspiracy, but she would never invite someone like Cam Higby on her show to present the other side of the issue. The dishonesty isn't in presenting, or believing Phil Tourney's position, it is discarding all other positions out of hand and pretending they don't exist. If you want to believe Phil Tourney, great! But at least hear what the other side has to say. Speaking of which, USS Liberty Survivor Debates Zionist.
If we do not allow ourselves to be exposed to both sides of an issue, we create echo chambers for ourselves. We create a situation where the things we believe to be true are necessitated to be true simply by our belief in them. We become indoctrinated. When we close our ears to outside perspectives we lose the ability to grow and learn. That is my issue with Candace Owens. She clearly has an agenda, and it is not finding the truth.
What a very readable wall of text. Maybe because the topic is so interesting? I think you had me hooked with
I hadn't grasped the matter in these direct terms, but I think this is perhaps exactly (or very closely describes) what I'm thinking when I gravitate towards some sources and gravitate away from others.
I won't name them directly, but my very favorite source for information and thought in the Q/Awakened sphere (and have been sustained for years now, which is unprecedented for me) resonate very powerfully with me because they consistently and vehemently do exactly that: present, actually now two sides, but 4 or 5 sides of an issue. And when they deliver their own conclusions or beliefs, its ALWAYS done in recognition of the associated fallibility, limitations, etc.
Both (or more) sides. Yes, I think that might be it. And when a source offers, with powerful conviction, "This is a fact" "This is true" without also articulating how perhaps it might not be the case from a different perspective, well, it feels like they have 'an agenda': to convince me, or influence me, or direct me. Aka the audience.
And, after so many years in the Matrix, I'm just not keen on that.
I think you make the argument vis-a-vis Owens very well. You bring some detail, an example, and articulate your point well.