We can perhaps expand a little upon my earlier post in which I talked about how people are goaded into integrating ideology into the sense of self, usually by instilling a sense of moral superiority.

The role of pride in this is that if one has to walk back on their ideology at any point, it would mean having to give up that sense of superiority with it.

Further, integrating ideologies into the self makes parting with such ideologies akin to amputating an arm or a leg. Ideologies being vulnerable as they are, this leaves its participants in a constant state of fear - fearful (and reactive, as you said, ) of anything that may rock the boat, like debate, like stubborn realities, etc.

This fear is subdued by creating echo chambers. In the absence of certainty, the next best thing is to get as many people to chant one's beliefs in unison. Perhaps when the whole world chants my 'truth', it will magically become so - or at least, it won't take as much effort to keep up the facade.


Individuals have essentially been tricked into accepting a massive psychological stake in these ideologies, which is of course how said ideologies bind people to them.

And they will stay bound, until circumstances become dire. People caught in this trap will simply refuse to admit they are wrong unless there truly is no other option.

Mass media, of course, ensures there is always another option. There's always another newspaper article to latch onto. Always another way to interpret the facts. Always another onto whom one can shift the blame when theories fail in practice.

The nature of reality ensures we can never be certain, and ironically that also means we can (almost) never be certain we are wrong.

One who seeks to delude themselves will never run out of ways to do so.


, how to best educate people in a way they develop critical (or better, 'autonomous'?) thinking skills is an interesting question. Perhaps intuitively one would look toward the education system to improve things, but perhaps the answer is simpler.

Socrates simply asked questions - an intuition so natural to the human condition that a child never even needs to be taught to do so. Without any instruction they will question their parents until the parents run out of answers.

Perhaps the question isn't how we can teach people critical thinking, but rather what is making them forget how to do it.

So arrogance, pride and brainwashing are the sources of social conflict? — Joshs

Well no, but I think those things will ensure social conflicts won't be solved by any other means than force, since communication is made impossible. And they're the tools which enable the elite to easily manipulate people. Via that route, what may start as a genuine social conflict is artifically inflamed and warped into something else - something which ultimately serves no one, except the ruling class, which will profit from never solving it.

If we discard moldy subject-based moralisms in favor of a more sophisticated account of human behavior based on reciprocal and joint interaction we can leave the personalized blame aside and focus on collective aims. — Joshs

I suppose the question is how such a reciprocal and joint interaction can take place when communication is deliberately made impossible.

As I noted, many of the posts in this thread show a clear lack of respect for them - the irrational, non-critical thinking hoi polloi. That just makes things worse. Why should anyone make common cause for someone who feels contempt for them? — T Clark

I perceive a large amount of people being manipulated by mass media.

I don't think it's contemptuous or disrespectful to talk about that, and I am merely trying to understand why this manipulation can take place.

If one wishes to mend society, then one must point out the flaws. Sometimes that can be painful.

The problem of our time is that the ruling elite have turned mass manipulation into an artform that would have made even Goebbels proud.

They know exactly what strings to pull to get people emotionally invested in their narratives, generally by feeding a sense of moral superiority. The narrative becomes an integral part of their self-image. The narrative has been tied to the ego and becomes as precious to its followers as if it were an arm or a leg.

Along those lines people are then easily divided, because criticism of the narrative becomes a criticism of the person themselves. Communication becomes impossible, because every debate is a battle between personas.

This is 'identity politics', and it essentially keeps us in a state of permanent intellectual warfare with our fellow man.


Education is pointless to combat this, because even the well-educated fall prey to pride. In fact, so-called intellectuals may be more susceptible to it.


Man has been utterly divided and conquered by the powers that be, and its his arrogance that stops him from admitting that.


Critical thought is what is needed, but can critical thought even be learned?


Perhaps virtue would be the place to start.

Humility, so as to always keep the possibility that one may be wrong, and the other may be right. The quintessential quality for critical thought, perhaps.

Charity and kindness, to extend the benefit of the doubt to other people. To assume they act in good faith. And to treat them well, even if they don't believe what you believe.

What makes him an idiot exactly? It seems he has a lot of guts, throwing down the gauntlet towards big pharma, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the foreign policy establishment, etc.

I thought that type of thing would be looked upon more favorably here.

It's probably worth mentioning that Seymour Hersh has been defending his Nord Stream story all over the internet, though has been rarely invited by any major western news networks, nor has his story been reported on by major western news networks. I wonder why.

Here is a somewhat older interview from February, in which Hersh makes pretty much the same objection I did to the use of open source intelligence (OSINT), namely the fact that it is extremely easy to manipulate:

I will tell you the trouble with open source intelligence is the first thing you do in an operation like that is you use open source as a cover. You invent boats that aren't here. You have airplanes that turned off their transponder which means they can't be seen. [...] The guys who know what they're doing, they can turn everything topsie-turvy. They can create boats, signals of boats, that's what you do before a mission like that. [...] The first thing you do is manipulate the on-going intelligence.

He said this in response to a different event, but the objection remains the same.


More recently he went on this interivew, and states outright that he believes the Russian move on Kiev was a military feint - a position that I've defended here for quite a while - in addition to sharing some thoughts about the Ukraine intel leak. (Timestamp 35:05).

A shocker to some perhaps, that such opinions can also be held by people other than Russian agents.

[...] the likelihood of a forum like this having either of them is pretty high. — Christoffer

I’m not gonna do like others do and conjure up theories based on nothing but belief. — Christoffer

Yet here you are, conjuring up theories about people on this forum being 'Russian agents', literally using the words 'pretty high likelihood'.

Perhaps worst of all, you lack the spine to own up to your words.

Stop backpedaling.

It is not unreasonable to actually argue that a forum like this might very well have such actors. — Christoffer

Who on this forum do you believe 'might very well be' a Russian actor?

It is not unreasonable to actually argue that a forum like this might very well have such actors. — Christoffer

If you have accusations to make, make them Sherlock. Otherwise keep this type of low-brow copium to yourself.

Can you not try harder? — universeness

Let me remind you of an exchange we had not too long ago.

This dramatised example of a cis male, dressed as a female, playing agony aunt and giving advice to children, I assume would make your 'acceptable' list, if 'The Mrs Doubtfire show' was a real show on TV today: — universeness

Sure. I see nothing wrong with that. — Tzeentch

Why don't you try a little harder yourself?

Have you ossified when it comes to your notions of conservative norms? — universeness

Ah, I called it:

I honestly think what we're witnessing here are your interpretations of my views. — Tzeentch

No point in continuing this conversation.

What dangers do you think children are being placed in when they are being read a story by a man dressed as a woman or a female character? — universeness

It's hard to interpret this as anything other than a deliberate misrepresentation of my views.

So it's just certain forms of clothing the children should be made to fear... — universeness

No. It's simply that (hyper)sexuality has no place in a children's classroom.

Does the lead singer of twisted sister not also look like a hooker? — universeness

Somewhat. I'd say sexualized rockstars are inappropriate for children too.

Why do you assume the clown or 'tootsie' is not trans? — universeness

I didn't. Clowns just aren't inappropriate for children so I didn't see anything objectionable.

Cn you not see that you brought your own interpretation to that image in particular? — universeness

I honestly think what we're witnessing here are your interpretations of my views.

You think I have a problem with transgenders, which I do not.

Which of these images should we make sure children are mist afraid of? — universeness

I'm unsure what that sentence means, but obviously the man dressed as a female prostitute is inappropriate for children.

If not having children amounts to 'avoiding responsibility' that implies we have a responsibility to procreate - I would disagree with that.

I also dislike the characterization of people as fearful, 'refusing to live', 'zombie state of existence' for asking the question - I think those amount to little more than thinly-veiled personal attacks.

And it is a little ironic, when in the next sentence you say this about procreation:

[...] it is certainly not a ‘selfish’ ploy although it has countless positives with the responsibility it brings. — I like sushi

Selectively extending the benefit of the doubt to people who you agree with and not to those you disagree with won't make for a fruitful discussion.

I could just as easily flip it around: I am taking my responsibility towards my fellow humans (including my would-be children) by deliberating on how my actions (could) impact them. And in doing so, I am not afraid to ask hard questions, and face unwelcome realities.

This dramatised example of a cis male, dressed as a female, playing agony aunt and giving advice to children, I assume would make your 'acceptable' list, if 'The Mrs Doubtfire show' was a real show on TV today: — universeness

Sure. I see nothing wrong with that.

There is loss and suffering in many conceivable future states. But someone could just as easily conceive of future states containing joy and pleasure and make the same sort of leap that birth causes pleasure. — NOS4A2

True. The problem is that we dont know, which is a serious issue if one believes child-having to be an imposition. Not only are we putting someone in a position that they themselves didn't ask for, but we also don't know if what we're providing them with is actually going to benefit them.

I just can’t see how refusing to have a child is anything but a self-satisfying endeavor. — NOS4A2

In my view, there's nothing self-serving about it, considering the above-mentioned dilemma.

In addition, if one from an ethical standpoint wishes to do good onto other people, there are plenty of opportunities for it in life. Opportunities that will allow one to alleviate the suffering of already-existing people in a consensual manner.

I can’t see that this behavior is ethical and moral insofar as it protects someone or alleviates anyone’s suffering, because one can do it alone without interacting with a single person his entire life. — NOS4A2

If one were to accept that child-having is immoral, then refraining from it isn't necessarily a moral deed, but rather neutral, in the same way as for example 'not stealing' is. You probably wouldn't consider someone a moral person simply for 'not stealing'.

[...] implying that parents are harming their child by conceiving him, birthing him, and nurturing him for a prolonged period of his life is unjust. — NOS4A2

The sad reality is that there are plenty of individuals to whom this may apply.

We simply don't know who they will be before they've lived out their lives, and that's essentially the gamble that a parent takes.

There's a lot of suffering in the world, and while I haven't made up my mind one way or the other, I defend these positions without a shred of joy or satisfaction. It might be a very uncomfortable truth.

As for the imposition of conception, looking around at the biological processes involved in it I can’t find anyone imposing anything on anyone else. — NOS4A2

Suppose I plant a time-bomb at night on a busy street.

The next day it blows up and kills a random person.

That person was nowhere to be found when I planted the bomb.

Was it therefore not an imposition?

It can’t be conception because there as yet no human being to impose upon. — NOS4A2

I'd say conception is the point, and I've already pointed out why I disagree with your objection..

At the point of conception there is no human being yet, however the first step has been taken in creating one.

As such, our behavior needs to be seen in relation to the future states it causes, which, as I argued, is a perfectly suitable basis for moral evaluation, since all our behavior is aimed at future states.

My sense is that only a small portion of the transgender movement consists of people who will genuinely benefit from adopting the label.

A larger portion seems to consist of:
1. people who carry trauma from childhood in which their individuality was not accepted (feminine men, masculine women, homosexuals, lesbians, etc.)
2. children/young adults who had no idea what they were doing
3. sexual deviants
4. parties with ulterior motives, like pharmaceutical companies and surgery clinics (hence the movement's superb marketing)

I'll probably be called bigotted for pointing this out, but this is genuinely what I see, and my stomach churns at the implications.

X is a moral intuition because most people believe X. — schopenhauer1

I can't think of a situation where it is a valid statement, but maybe you can change my mind.

If I had to define moral behavior on the fly, its defining charateristic seems that it is always linked to contributing to the genuine long-term well-being of all its participants.

Sometimes the two coincide, i.e. a behavior that contributes to long-term well-being is also believed my most people to indeed to be moral, but the "most people" part would not carry much relevance.

What criteria would you use to include a character on or off such a list? — universeness

The list - obviously- wouldn't include hypersexualized characters like 's hunky fireman.

That's drag queens, not transgenderism. — Michael

Fair enough.

I don't think most people will be able to make that distinction and consider them at the very least closely related.

And I'm not sure what you mean by normal. — Michael

Do you think letting hypersexualized cross-dressing men/women 'educate' children under the age of 10 is normal?

I've no problem with transgenders, but just out of curiousity, do you think this is normal?

Because I think that's the part that people interpret as threatening, aggressive, etc.

In addition to things like attempting to control speech. I would consider that deeply objectionable.

I'm sure (ergo, I hope) these things aren't indicative of the 'trans minority' as a whole, but these are the things people are confronted by in the news,

A portion of the trans minority seems to have gone off the deep end, and that portion remains very loud. A PR problem perhaps, as people have mentioned earlier.

Vanessa Beeley, it's who you linked to if you had any idea. — Christoffer

... Obviously I was referring to Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh and his nearly day-by-day account of the Nord Stream bombing, directly incriminating the United States. Hersh who, by the way, has a proven track record of bringing US misdeeds to light.

It's rather cute you are trying to dismiss the poster of a YouTube video - as though the poster is in any way relevant - when the video features former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outright admitting their preoccupation with European energy dependency.

You're just making a fool of yourself at this point.

I think this thread has fried some people's brains. — Christoffer

A bit ironic.

using known conspiracy theory bloggers — Christoffer

Excuse me?

You have nothing tangible to support anything you say, only your biased opinions. It's so intellectually empty. — Christoffer

That's quite simply untrue. I support everything I say here with tangible arguments, and most of what is discussed is directly related to my own academic field.

That you don't like what I have to say is completely unrelated.

"lead suspect" is something you have made up. In no way is the US any lead suspect other than through Russian propaganda and people gullible enough to eat that propaganda without a second thought. — Christoffer

The US blatantly stated it was going to end Nord Stream. It has been trying to change European energy dependency since the Bush administration.

We have almost a day-by-day account of what happened provided by an independent, world-renowned journalist.

The US has been profiting immensely from blowing up the pipeline.


The fact that you believe one has to be brainwashed by Russian propaganda to believe the US is a likely suspect is just rich, and probably points towards an effort of projection on your part.

False, the navy former officer specified the ship identity and the tracker before it was turned off was linked to the exact ship. — Christoffer

That's the narrative.

The actual thing that happened (from what I'm able to tell) is he correlated AIS data with intercepted emissions.

That's both unlikely, and not sufficient for an identification.

Unlikely because military vessels can turn off their AIS at will or tamper with the vessel information - even produce ghost contacts. In addition, one would expect military vessels to practice EMCON while on a covert mission, even moreso because nothing the vessel was supposedly engaged in would require it to make use of military-purpose active sensors that could be used to identify it.

Not sufficient for identification because of the aforementioned, and also for other more practical reasons like passive intercepts being generally unsuited for a precise localization (and thus correlation), especially without triangulation from multiple stations. How exactly did the retired navy officer get his hands on this type of hardware again?

So you are clearly wrong and once again try to strawman their findings. — Christoffer

I think you simply lack the practical knowledge to understand my objections.

Doesn't matter if they mask themselves among the hundreds of thousands of ships in the area. — Christoffer

Except that the story goes that they didn't mask themselves.

Apparently they left port with their name plate on display and kept their active sensors on, without apparent reason other than it being very convenient for the story.

We never get any real insight in the actual data that was used. — Tzeentch

This shows that you just skimmed through everything. — Christoffer

What it shows is that I understand how these systems work and what constitutes an actual ship identification, rather than a dramatized collection of circumstantial evidence.

The unconventional methods used are not anticipated by Russian covert ops, [...] — Christoffer

What exactly was unconventional about the methods? The method is never really explained, but from what I gather they used AIS data, passive intercepts and satellite imagery; that's about as conventional as it gets.

And the Swedish navy is an expert hunter for Russian subs. Do you know how many they've pushed back from our waters over the years? Do you think the presence of our navy is less after the Ukraine invasion? Do you think it's intelligent for Russians to use subs in Swedish waters when our entire sub fleet has been specifically built to counter Russian submarine designs? — Christoffer

It sounds like you are confusing territorial waters with Economic Exclusive Zones. To reach Bornholm island there is no need to enter Swedish territorial waters, and Bornholm Island itself is located in the Danish waters. The sabotage was conducted on the border of Danish territorial waters and the Danish/Swedish EEZ border.

If you want to live in a fantasy where Sweden sees all that happens in a noisy, shallow sea like the Baltic, be my guest, I suppose - shows what you know.

[...] why would anyone track a ships location pre-explosions? — Christoffer

Because NATO and Russia have been practically at war since February 2022. I'd expect western intelligence agencies to keep tabs on literally every Russian vessel they can, especially in the Baltic and Black Seas.

No, they have verified signatures for a specific ship. — Christoffer

There's no such thing, except maybe acoustic signatures, which weren't mentioned (and civilians don't have access to). They mention a handful of visual characteristics which we are then to assume are present on the irrecognizable white blotches we see on the satellite imagery.

There are military installations that can passively detect and identify specific sensor emissions, and identifying a set of sensors can create a profile that can match a certain vessel. There are three problems with that, however:

1. This type of equipment is not readily available outside of the military.
2. This is why militaries practice EMCON (emissions control) during operations, especially clandestine ones.
3. This would all have been available information to the various militaries and agencies surveilling the Baltic Sea.

To reiterate, this would have been basic stuff. Literally the first things that would have been done when trying to discover whodunnit - check positioning logs, satellite imagery, and data from the numerous listening installations that line the Baltic coasts.

For this information to just 'pop up' out of nowhere while the US has already pressed the panic button is very hard to believe.

We never get any real insight in the actual data that was used. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'retired UK intelligence officer' was just logging positions on https://www.marinetraffic.com, since it actually passes on the screen at one point in the documentary.

[... ] he used his retirement time to specifically track ships around the Nordic region and mapping behaviors using a specific tracking technique. — Christoffer

A secret technique which we never get any insight into, and is somehow unknown to professional militaries who have access to every type of surveillance imaginable?

Again, color me skeptical.

If they had used a Russian sub and torpedos it would have shown signs of that kind of attack. You're just pulling ideas out of your ass now without any regard for what the consequence of different strategies would be. — Christoffer

If you're going to accuse me of "pulling ideas out of my ass" then maybe not display your ignorance so blatantly.

Obviously they wouldn't have to use torpedos. Their submarines can lay mines and launch divers, underwater vessels and drones.

To use a ship that is among hundreds of thousands of other ships in the Nordic region is obviously a much more covert and intelligent strategy. — Christoffer

That's begging the question, isn't it?

How many ships in the Nordic region have the letters "CC-750" on their hulls, hm?

Are you sure conducting underwater sabotage in broad daylight with a submarine tender would classify as "covert and intelligent"?

If you've actually watched it through and especially the third episode, then you are just ignoring the fact that the ship in question, the one with underwater operation capabilities was at the location of the explosions, turning off their commercial trackers, stopped, went back to Kaliningrad, turned off normal communication, went back and turned off their trackers again and held positions for a long period of time right at the site just days around the explosions occurred. Verified by both satellite and the former Navy operator separately. — Christoffer

All we see are blips on a map and the vaguest of satellite imagery.

Military ships aren't required to use AIS. The US navy sails around without AIS 24/7. Moreover, navies use a special version of AIS that allows them to manipulate the ship ID data.

Warship Automatic Identification System (WAIS) enables the operator to adjust the own ship’s visibility, vary the information the own ship transmits (including its identity, size, and type), and create and place simulated vessels.

It would have made a whole lot more sense if while carrying out such a high-risk operation, they would never have turned AIS on, and maintained EMCON throughout the mission. Supposed 'retired UK intelligence officers' aren't the only one's listening in around the Baltic. All of NATO is too.

The idea that the CIA and other intelligence agencies can't produce more than a few blips on a map and the grainiest of satellite imagery is just the type of naivety that would make this theory plausible. Had the Russians been this obvious about it, there wouldn't have been a mystery in the first place.

Moreover, the Russians own the pipeline. They know where it is located and have the capacity to carry out the operation via submarine, completely covertly.


The story doesn't really provide evidence, nor does it add up.

On top of this, it's clear that Russian civilian ships are almost all involved with surveillance everywhere around the Nordic region, spying on everything based on their deviant movement from their commercial purpose, right at times when something else is in the area that would be of interest as intel to Russia. — Christoffer

That much has been clear since the Cold War.

But you don't think any of this is significant because of what a half-demented president, vaguely said and you interpreted as an admission of guilt. — Christoffer

An overt threat by the US president and Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, both basically outright saying they will blow up the pipeline, is a very strong indication of guilt - yes.

I think it requires an ungodly amount of confirmation bias not to interpret that as such.

The fact that the US threw Ukraine under the bus in a panic move when the Hersh story came out, makes its innocence even less likely.

But then again, I don't think you watched it at all. I just think you try to bullshit your way through this. — Christoffer

Yes I did. I'm just a little less naive.

I've already watched it, and no actual evidence is presented.

I'm talking about Nord Stream, in case that wasn't clear.

That the Russians are floating around scanning the seabed with civilian vessels is nothing new. Hell, I don't even doubt they could have conducted the Nord Stream sabotage if they had wanted to.

This is a picture of a seperate event. The Russians have been conducting surveillance with civilian ships since time immemorial, so I'm not sure what you believe any of this proves.

I thought you were accusing me of not 'looking into the evidence in detail'.

Where's this evidence?

Alrighty, then. :up:

Return with something more tangible after you've looked into the evidence in detail, [...] — Christoffer

This is a bit cute, considering there's no evidence whatsoever presented in any of these reports.

To reiterate, the US story about a Ukrainian 'group' was full-blown panic in reaction to Hersh's story. There's no way they would have made such a move if they knew the official investigation was on the Russians' tail.

And you really think that if they had footage supposedly depicting Russian ships conducting the sabotage, that the US would be so eagerly throwing its ally under the bus?

Get real.

Half a year on they suddenly find a box of photographs of the Russians caught in the act?

Color me skeptical.


Besides, it couldn't have been the Russians because we already have US intelligence officials going on record claiming the attack was carried out by a Ukrainian 'group'. :snicker:

Why would the US deliberately be spreading bullshit (obfuscating the investigation) if they weren't trying to cover their tracks?

Robert Kennedy is a democrat, or is this just a random rant about the republican party?

Crickets? Really??

I'm not sure if I'd use the word 'appreciate', but this is what I've come to expect - people losing their shit over some simple questions, probably because they realize they lack a good answer to them.

No. This does not logically follow. — I like sushi

How does that not logically follow?

An imposition happens when we knowingly bring about a set of circumstances that affect another human being without their say in the matter.

That applies to child-having, regardless of where one stands on the ethics question.

Do my eyes deceive me, or may the American people get a chance to vote for an actual person rather than condemning the world to another 4 years of (p/m)uppetry?

In comparison to religion, [...] — Christoffer

I don't see why such a comparison would be relevant to the nature of science.

The same goes for pretty much everything that has been validated by science, especially things that became a foundation for some technology since that technology wouldn't work if our models weren't true in relation to the reality we create this technology within. Creating that technology requires certain truths to be valid and it's not really predictive anymore, but confirmed. — Christoffer

I think it simply requires the models to be accurate enough. That standard is usually set by some arbitrary measure like whether it provides adequate accuracy for practical application.