Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 20, 2018



Handbook for the Disinformation Age

Kevin Candela

Image courtesy of http://freelance-writing.lovetoknow.com


It used to be about what you COULD learn. What was available.


No more.


Now it’s a matter of sifting. Comparing. Seeking out the sources of news articles, scientific mainstream beliefs, etc. And that gets tricky because not only are the waters muddy, people are being paid to muddy them. That’s what happens when you clamp down on the economy—morals fall to the wayside when one gets hungry. Not that plenty of misinformed and selfish people can’t troll and “murkify” the waters on their own: I’m sure many do, for kicks and simply because they know they’re doing wrong at heart but feel it fits their “persona” by this point. And for other reasons. But since corporations own the truth at this point, in effect, they also SPONSOR it.


Yes, there are paid “muck trolls”, no doubt about it. They’re probably the better ones, generally speaking. That is to say they probably don’t spell “know” with two letters and can otherwise converse in the English they were taught for TWELVE YEARS, unlike the people (term used loosely to be sure) who muddle things and assault the intelligent and knowing just for giggles.


I’m not gonna pick a “worse” between those two ends of the liars’ brigade. What I will say is that there are certain things you can pick up on (especially here online) that are giveaways. Here’s a short list, there being other clues beyond these that you’re dealing with a deliberate misinformation dispenser.


I’m gonna call ’em Muddies because the abbreviation for deliberate misinformation dispenser is the same as for dentists.


HOW TO SPOT A MUDDY


(ONE WHO DELIBERATELY WORKS TO KEEP THE TRUTH HIDDEN):


1) The Paster: Copies and pastes articles Instead of attempting discourse.


The Paster doesn’t discuss things. He (usually) or she (occasionally) Googles to find other peoples’ articles to post in support of their fervent beliefs. This is a sort of indirect muddying, where the crucial back and forth, the interaction between minds, is deliberately subverted by bringing in “supporting opinions” in the form of stuff written by other. The only real outcome of this is the instant stagnation of the conversation. “Did you read that article?” No, I didn’t. I didn’t because I’m talking to you. I’m not reading articles. The article might take half an hour to read. You might have posted a video two hours long because you think it supports your opinion. Maybe it does. But how is this a discussion? It’s not even YOUR thoughts, it’s just expressing opinion(s) you like, ones that make you comfortable. Pasters are very tedious because it is almost impossible to get them to actually chat back and forth with you in their own words. Sometimes you wonder if they HAVE their own words. They are a subclass of the next “muddying species”, the Diverter


2) The Diverter: Refuses to respond to your statements directly.


The Diverter will simply not directly reply to your assertions. They are the opposite of Negators in that they don’t disagree so much as DIVERT. The subject at hand is one they must get away from, in general because they know they’re up against truth that is, at deepest levels, irrefutable. So they use a number of tactics to avoid conceding a valid and truthful assertion that they don’t want catching on with the masses.


3) The Hammerhead: Basically yells negations at your assertions without any more content, discussion or rationalization. Equivalent to a small child defiantly and indignantly asserting “Nunh-UH!” to everything he or she is being told.


This person APPEARS to be ruled by sheer emotion. One emotion. Anger. The hammerhead is really not worth indulging. They are rather embarrassing. Most often they are feeble at writing and that seems to make the ones that aren’t simply being paid to fake ignorance even madder.


4) The Club Member: Plays to the gallery by using insider/outsider terms and clichés in an attempt to make it look like he and the reader are part of the same “common sense team” and he’s simply assailing an outsider with bad ideas.


I said “he” because this is almost always a male thing. It usually revolves around rubber stamp statements like these:


“Surely you don’t expect US to believe that…”


(Appropriate response: “Us? Got a mouse in your pocket?”)


“Nobody in their right mind thinks what you’re saying makes any sense.”


This kind relies on a gullible audience that likes to hear or see such boiler plate statements because they are comfortable and known. They also have NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in public debate or discourse. They are cheesy LAWYER TACTICS.


5) The Marginalizer: Without knowing a thing about you beyond your point of view on one subject, somehow feels qualified to make broad generalization about your nature, mindset and personality so as to put you into one of the “loser type” files in their tiny little mental filing systems. Dumb as the Hammerhead and just as fearful but occasionally spells an entire sentence correctly and gets the grammar right. Helps that they usually go with small words and short sentences.


6) The Kitchen Sink Denigrator: Like the Hammerhead too, but attacks YOU PERSONALLY. Not about the topic at hand. They often look at your bio info to see if they can find something to work with. These aren’t quite so dumb as Hammerheads because they’ll do research, which is too much trouble for the illiterate.


7) The Condescender: Smarmy “Of course it is, sure, whatever you say” condescension using cliché terms is the go-to for this breed of truth hider. They try to portray you as naïve, childlike, unrealistic and in need of “gentle handling”. They are sort of Club Member variety in many ways, because their words tend to be covered in a sticky glaze of patriarchal mock tolerance. “It’s okay, Daddy knows you need your little illusions” is another pander to the gallery. And all parental types are subliminally hooked in by this little charade…all too often.


The problem?


As often or not, the gallery falls for these cheap maneuvers. The truth remains hidden. Why? Cliches. Shallow intellects. Laziness. Fear.


We gotta get smarter as a culture, people. I suggest sooner rather than later. Quit letting these stupid little moves fool you into buying the words of liars, sponsored and paid for liars and freelancers alike.


The truth’s more important than these people’s fragile realities.











Shadow Pokers New Guidelines for Contributors 



“All sources MUST be given credit if used in your blog posts. This includes photos (unless they are your own), research, quotes, etc. If you are unsure what needs to be cited, contact one of the administrators.


"We prefer firsthand accounts of interactions with paranormal, abduction stories, cryptid sightings, etc. because we believe that sharing your experiences not only helps our cause, but also becomes a teaching tool for others. This may help some come to terms with similar things they have experienced.”

"Debate should be polite, respectful and as objective as possible. Marginalizing, name calling, generalizing, mocking and all similar non-discussion "comebacks" are strictly forbidden. All discussion should be as positive as possible: After all, we're all here looking to LEARN, not dictate."

"We are always encouraging our viewers to learn about different topics throughout the spectrum of The Unknown. If you would like to contribute an article on a certain topic (say Roswell for example) you are welcome to it.”

Monday, March 12, 2018

So, What’s It Like To See A Ghost?

by Jodie Bares


I have gotten this question a few times from the people who know that I have had experiences with the paranormal. Those that I’ve talked to about my sensitivity towards spirits, everyone always wants to know what they look like. If you ask me this because you’re trying to compare notes with me based on things you’ve seen, then it may not be the same. Let me explain why.

When we think of ghosts or spirits, the typical image of a floating sheet with two eyes usually come to mind, or perhaps a blobby orb bouncing around a room.  Let me tell you, I have never seen a Casper the Friendly Ghost-type, full-body, transparent, bobbing blob. 

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Great Monsters Have Something to Say

by Kevin Candela


The defining fiction of my childhood, perhaps my whole life, is the Godzilla series. When I was a kid, other kids would rip on me because I dug Godzilla and not so much "American" King Kong. They thought Godzilla was silly and Kong "respectable". They're both tragedies, of course, but the tragedy of Kong is about human/American desire to "grab the unknown and stick it somewhere where one's own species can gawk at it at their leisure". And since we're "hunting Bigfoot", we're still doing it. In fact we almost HAVE to "bring in a body" in this age of digital deception. Yes, this is an aspect of human nature. And it's an important one to scrutinize--hence Kong, despite the ridiculous "I'm in love with a nearly hairless little kewpie doll" aspects--is necessary and critical to our culture. That's why it was iconic even in the early Sixties.

Friday, March 9, 2018

The Encounter That I Want To Forget

by Jodie Bares


To this day, I am still very frightened to watch The Exorcism of Emily Rose.  I made it a good forty-five minutes into the film and once this demonic face melted onto the screen, I had to shut it off.  This was a movie, but it’s not the first time I’ve seen something like that.

The other evening, my husband and I were talking about the film and he asked me why I like paranormal things if I don’t like to be scared watching horror movies? My answer: “because I’ve seen things that are very similar to the things they show in that movie.” I only ever told him part of the story, and I’ve done the best to suppress a few little details, but that particularly demonic face on the screen triggered a memory that I thought I had deeply buried.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

If Two Barflies with Boards and Ropes Make You Feel Safe, You Should Probably Not Read This

by Kevin Candela


It’s funny what people will believe if it makes them feel safe. Secure. In control. 

Like the way two career bar sots in Great Britain claimed they were behind the crop circle phenomenon. This happened back in the Nineties. The biggest service I could do for these attention-seeking “gentlemen” here would be naming them, so that isn’t going to happen. But you remember these “everyman” (if the average man spends his days in a bar, which probably isn’t the case) types and their boast that they were behind the crop circle phenomenon. Claiming to use no more than two-by-fours and ropes, these guys said they went here and there making patterns in the crop fields.