It's weird that the story you picked was a black man saving a white woman to describe the shift of the Overton Window. Where is the window moving to, and from where?
It's weird that the story you picked was a black man saving a white woman to describe the shift of the Overton Window. Where is the window moving to, and from where?
Then I found myself in a rabbit hole of Tuskegee experiments, Operation Northwoodses, MKULTRAs, human-animal hybrids, and so on.
Now, the question I ask is, “is this technologically possible?”
These things aren't interrelated, or even very similar.
And by “normal people wouldn’t do to other people”, I mean “stark raving mad”.
So, in our same list we have:
- A Cuban false flag operation with military intent.
- A CIA Mind Control experiment which is implied to be widespread, but documents don't actually support this. Torturing a few hapless individuals with LSD is certainly terrible, but it's different from "widespread government control."
- A terrible, scientific & racist medical experiment carried out against a vulnerable group of people.
- And then, "human-animal hybrids" ... I'm not sure how to respond to this? A few folks in China did some questionable things, maybe? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
These are all disparate groups, with disparate intent, and unrelated outcome. Please, how are these related? Some people in power did some things are morally wrong? Why include conspiracy theories in this list if that's the only similarity? If you simply wanted to discuss government transgression, you could avoid something as trivial as MKULTA and instead simply mention U.S. Slavery, or the Soviet Famine, or any of the many government-run genocides in world history.
A false flag operation is only about control in the loosest sense. You can't successfully false flag your way into a military conflict with an allied country: it's only useful when tensions are high enough that there is already popular support for a military operation, but an excuse is needed. In that sense, other "excuses" for military conflicts work the same way. The spurious claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was popular only because of 9/11 and sentiment about the middle east at the time. (a similar argument, for example, could not have been made about other countries with WMDs, such as France, Israel, and South Africa) I'm not suggesting any of these actions are acceptable, simply that the salient point here must be deception, not control. Broadly speaking, any government-driven policy or program in some vague sense of the word requires control. There must be enough popular support for any initiative such that it can be successful. Anti-smoking campaigns require coercion as well, and sometimes even deception. Smoking used to be wildly popular, but the government, as well as some powerful groups, were able to use emotional appeals and scare tactics to vastly change the public perception of smoking. Should we lump this effort in with MKULTRA?
I'm not sure that "human-animal hybrids" are real in any non-pedantic way. Even so, not sure what the control aspect is meant to be here.
MKULTRA, however, clearly was about control. The correct conclusion about MKULTRA, however, should be that the CIA needed more oversight, since they were apparently willing to torture people and perform highly unethical experiments to learn how effectively an individual could be controlled. Often glossed over is the fact these these experiments largely didn't work at all at all. No progress on "mass-control" was ever made, and instead, all we're left with is government abuse and torture in pursuit of something that probably isn't possible.
One addendum, it's worth keeping in mind the base rate for these awful gov't incidents you mention. If you only see the bad things, you have subconscious blinders (Kahneman's "What You See Is All There Is"). Try thinking about MKULTRA or Cuba or Tuskegee in relation to (much larger quantity and impact from) positive things the government does, like international aid, or emergency services provided by the Coast Guard. Responses to earthquakes in poor countries, our military is there. Vaccinations, food drops, all kinds of things that the gov't does that are good.
You have to consider these things holistically to get a good picture, otherwise I agree it's very easy to rabbit hole down a conspiracy path. And it's attractive -- it means "you get it" while other people dont -- but it's not an accurate representation of the whole, which makes it a bad model to allow to fester in your mind.
But I think that it’s pretty clear that they’re not running the show, where it really matters.
We are, for better or worse, cruising on a giant ship with limited steering, and all we can do is try to control how much fuel we shovel into the engine.
But the direction of the boat is controlled more like an Ouiji board; our direction is an emergent behavior.
I see two possibilities here: one is a handful of unimaginably wealthy and powerful hedge funds and intelligence organizations (heretofore unnamed) which are somehow coordinated in their efforts to shift public opinion to... something. The example given is something about black men, white women, and white men. I'm not sure what that means.
The other, IMO far more believable scenario, is that there are many interested parties using social media and advertisement in general to change people's minds about a myriad of topics and issues, which is not remarkable except to the extent that new technology and new techniques are being used, which we may not fully understand or be aware of.
The first requires a belief in a conspiracy among the hyper rich and powerful to create some ill-defined new world, the other does not. Both are technologically possible, but I find one more convincing than the other.
Edited to add that last sentence and to correct some awkward wording.
And in the process they’re probably producing technological horrors simply because it’s convenient and effective to do so. No hard feelings.
Conspiracies happen all the time, and I would imagine that few ever come to light.
Or are you just trying to ad-hominem him?
I simply pointed out a fact: there is a significant discrepancy between the rate of black male + white female couplings IRL and in the media. I am bringing no judgement on it.
Considering how frothy at the mouth you got over this fact being mentioned, you are no better than those 'racist cretins' you try to insinuate I am part of.
Do you actually have any valid arguments to dispute the claim, or only the attempts at shaming ad-hominems to try and suppress that claim?
Is it a fact, or just your imagination? Does this fact come from statistics or your gut?
Black male+white female is 2nd least common coupling in USA, this at least is a fact unrelated to my opinion.
Comparison to media rates is based on Hollywood blockbusters and Netflix lineup. While the numbers for Hollywood are lower than on Netflix, black male+white female is 2nd most common coupling in Netflix originals.
P.S. I am European and child of a mixed marriage myself, so this is no 'keep America white!' effort. It's just that the idea of 'forbidden truths' 1984-style rubs me the wrong way.
I'm not interested in a 'debate' about race-mixing with you. I just want to point out that when you tell on yourself like this, both online and IRL, people notice, and we'll treat you accordingly.
As for the scissor statements, here's another good one: 'Women have smaller brains than men'. It is true (on average) but it will draw out mouth-frothing SJWs without fail.
> I'm not interested in a 'debate' about race-mixing with you. I just want to point out that when you tell on yourself like this, both online and IRL, people notice, and we'll treat you accordingly.
Ah yes, upgrade from ad hominem to attempts of silencing through threats. Keep going. You think people don't notice _that_?
There is a significant discrepancy between coupling rates of black male + white female IRL (2nd least common pairing) and in media.
For crying out loud, the commenter didn't even establish with evidence that it really is a pattern, or what "their" goal could even be.
EDIT Just noticed your username. Congrats, you got people riled up.
My intention wasn't to troll.
Please don't label a paragraph of text with a trite insult. Just address the argument.