Comment by jakeogh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakeogh | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16664759

Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (that I'm deliberately not mentioning). For example, look up the art collection Skippy's brother keeps, or that shop owners (now hidden but thoroughly archived) Instagram account.

"Fact checking" sites are about as unscientific as it gets. They have two obvious flaws, first they generally only "check" facts they can "debunk", second, they often frame what they are checking in a way that lets them use a corner case.

The right way would be to just list data, things others can independently check and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.

> Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (that I'm deliberately not mentioning). For example, look up the art collection Skippy's brother keeps, or that shop owners (now hidden but thoroughly archived) Instagram account.

This paragraph is almost incomprehensible to me. Is it meant to be read with a lot of background knowledge, or am I just being dumb (or both)?

Ya, it requires significant background. The trouble is, if I just say exactly what it is about, people will automatically assume things about stuff they haven't checked themselves, but have been strongly conditioned to believe.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/john-podesta-talks...

I still have no idea what this is about

They’re peddling conspiracy theories as if they’re just maligned truths being persecuted by the media.

Consider suggesting to a parishioner that a priest they deeply trust is up to no good. How similar is your reaction? Both of you have beliefs head so strongly you don't even need to check what was suggested. I cant imagine you would make that comment if you really looked at the "art" collection I alluded to.

Let me guess, pizzagate right? If so just come out and say it, own the fact you believe such nonsense.

Anything to avoid that "art" collection.

Anything to avoid accurately explaining what you mean or believe.

I believe people will avoid looking at things that challenge their assumptions rather than spend a few seconds checking them. I have no doubt you can find that art collection in a few seconds, I also have no doubt you are not going to.

See above.

Also that statement applies to you as much as it does anyone else.

What's so hard about checking out Skippie's bro's art collection? It's a highly specific, easy to check thing. It's so common to try and distract specific stuff with something else; I strongly suspect you wouldn't be commenting about this if you had.

If anyone here gives a crap, he believes that John Podesta's art collection means he is part of an international pedophile ring, seemingly run out of a pizza place.

Not sure why he is too scared to just say this. I guess in the cold light of day it sounds pretty stupid. Perhaps if you wrap it up in code words it sounds a bit better, or at least makes him feel special.

The Russians really did a number on the US didn't they.

You are so sure of your beliefs that you are not going to look at the art collection (don't even think about the Instagram account!). By all means, swear, blame the Russians, and make basic mistakes that prove you cant bring yourself to click. Think about it, you are spending all this time refusing to make a simple search. Why? You reaction is a textbook emotional reaction.... denial at all costs.

You still seem to be unable to articulate what you believe. I've asked you what, 3 times now? Still you deflect.

Why is that? Is your conviction in what you believe that weak?

I believe people will go to extreme lengths to avoid specific things that challenge their wold view. This is an excellent example, you are not going to look at the art collection, but need a way to deflect that fact, so instead you demand I talk about something else. Maybe make some personal attacks and keep trying to change the subject?

It's funny that you say that after having repeatedly avoided stating your world view for fear that it will be challenged, and constantly deflecting (the comment I am replying to is an excellent example of a deflection). I'm positive the irony is completely lost on you though.

So, one last time, share your views and maybe a link or two. No deflections, no comments on your irrelevant theories about peoples worldviews (obviously born by reactions to when you behave as you have in this thread) and no childish code words.

Thanks.

I made a suggestion, that people, on their own, checkout an art collection and a (archived) Instagram account. You have more than enough information to find both. If you don't want to, then don't. Asking that I instead talk about something else, or elaborate on what I suggested you look at is fine, ask all you want. It might be obvious if you took a few seconds to search for "podesta art" why I am not going to link to it.

What's so hard about linking to someone reliable on the subject? Like, not infowars, wikileaks, or youtube?

> Both of you have beliefs head so strongly you don't even need to check what was suggested.

Aside from documenting to what 'Skippy' refers, you don't seem actually to have suggested anything in particular—at least, not clearly enough that I can tell what it is. (It's quite possible that I would be defensive if I understood what you were suggesting, but I can't now because I have no idea against what I'm trying to defend.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com