>>36551073 Hot Coffee's about tort reform and the efforts of corporations to limit citizens rights to file lawsuits against them. It tells several stories of people who attempted to sue corporations including the old woman who sued McDonald's after she spilled hot coffee on herself. It turns out her story was grossly misrepresented in the media and was twisted to promote the fight against "frivolous lawsuits."
>>36551374 >It turns out her story was grossly misrepresented in the media and was twisted to promote the fight against "frivolous lawsuits." then i need to watch it. because this case always seemed to me to be the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits, bc of course coffee is hot and it's her fault for putting it between her legs. It would be interesting to see that it is otherwise, also interesting to see how it COULD be otherwise.
>>36549014 >>36551635 don't remember what it was called, but what was that "documentary" that supposedly proved the moon landing was a hoax but was made on purpose to show how documentaries can be manipulated to tell lies that people will believe.
when i rewatched it, i saw immediately (hindsight is 20/20) how every interview clip was vague as to the context yet was offered as proof.
Pretty much any documentary by Alex Jones. They all are good. Interesting, factual, and eye opening.
Very good introductory material for beginners as well.
Here are a couple of just short ones. He has topical movies which usually run for 2 and a half hours or so, these things are just shorts that go about 40 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJYQJY80TI
>>36542840 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQR2z4YCzDw Michael Ruppert. The Truth and Lies of 9/11 Has nothing to do with explosives, remote control planes or any other unprovable-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt event of 9/11 This has everything to do with the years leading up to the attack as far as CIA drug trafficking and terror funding goes. Everything said is documented with government FOIA paperwork
>>36542840 As a comparative mythologist I wouldn't call Zeitgeist red pill. Poorly-researched, juvenile and amateur. Although I don't believe what Christians believe, I don't go to out of my way to piss them off exclusively like atheists tend to do. I mean, we are being subjected to cultural genocide. Trying to revolutionize and destroy centuries old religious traditions is not helping
this alone should raise red flags. if the basis of the premise is either false or misleading, then that should cast doubt upon the rest, even if the rest is facts.
another example is the jfk speech before he was killed. in the doc it is highly edited, and reading the whole speech, it seems more as if jfk is speaking about communism. at the very least, it is edited in such a manner as to be sensationalist at best or willfully misleading at worst.
finally, it is what the creator has used this doc to promote. watch following ones. he seems to be just as any other critical theorist or marxist: attack the present system in order to introduce a communist one with no evidence supporting his desired results or critical analysis of the system he wishes to impose. It's entirely, "this over there is bad, but what i say we should do is good...bc i say so"
>>36553607 >Trying to revolutionize and destroy centuries old religious traditions is not helping and isn't that the whole point of marxism in its current form (communism, cultural marxism, critical theory, etc)...to deconstruct, disregard and throw out the millennia of accumulated knowledge, philosophical and cultural and religious traditions...everything that makes us who we are.
It is only when we destroy everything that we are that the new revolution can be implemented, one that will last forever. An eternal subjugation whose sole end is power. Power not as a means but as an ends.
>>36553554 Well the part about Horus is bullshit because it implies the pre-dynastic god was born around Christmas Eve and other nonsense they pulled out of their ass. Harpocrates, not Horus. And Harpocrates was a Hellenistic creation around the same time as early Christianity (and the Serapis cult). Basically the majority of their claims are just as loose of not outright false
Is there a video or a PDF of that one .onion site that was a forum which predicted crazy stuff. There's one I saw that said that the black republican nominee would get exactly 0% of the vote prior to the election. Any source or link to that? Was spooky.
>>36554087 >thats the part i believed and care the most about then watch other docs other than zeitgeist if 9/11 is what you care about. zeitgeist is mired in conflicts of interest and ulterior motives.
>Even the 9/11 part is all lies? truth can be used to tell lies. in fact, truth is the best means in which to tell lies.
>>36551965 holy shit christianity is judaism. stop babbling about your talmudic shit that nobody gives a fuck about. it's all the same jewish bullshit, stemming from moses and abraham and all those other lying faggots.
>>36554501 i "believe" in evolution, yet haven't seen the doc. don't dismiss what may be insightful and perhaps factual just because the premise may go against your preconceived notions: that's willful ignorance. This universe and this life is far stranger than what your neatly wrapped beliefs may dictate.
At the very least, it is good to know the arguments of the opposing viewpoint.
>>36543245 I support the idea of planned obsolescence. The argument against it is that resources are finite. Then create a lot of jobs where people can go and collect thousands of used up products to be used for recycling. This creates a mammoth bureaucracy too, so government would support it. Items like dishwashers, light bulbs and phones would have to be registered so your local recycling managers know when to ask you to turn in your products. The bureaucracy can tax you based on personal possessions too. Th supply of the recycled products can be distributed to a few favored corporations. All the power brokers, plus you, win.
>>36555408 Damn you, I was just about to go to bed, but I can't stop watching! You will rarely see things from such an alien and enlightened perspective, if you manage to ignore all of the "enlightened leader" bullcrap. This is what martians would think of global civilization if they saw us with with absolutely zero preconceived notions or context.
>>36550718 The problem is that these niggers use the word racism for everything. Just use the word discrimination for fucks sake. Stop arguing over petty definitions when its obvious that the meaning of the word as clearly changed.
>>36559057 That, and the family only wanted McDonald's to pay for the medical expenses, and McD's offered only a small fraction of the cost. The multi-million dollar decision that everyone heard about was decided by a jury, and the amount was equal to a single day of revenue from just coffee. A judge later reduced the award to something less than $600K.
>>36559057 >the coffee was served at a ridiculously high temperature the coffee at starbucks is served at temps just under boiling. i worked there. what is the point? what coffee is not served at such high temps at isn't shit?
>>36560140 >how your judicial rights have been stripped from you. while this may be an opposite example as to the context...remember when the crash of the car market happened, gm et al, by contract and therefore law the bondholders and preferred stock owners were supposed to get the first money, they were left in the dark and the courts gave them nothing although the law said they they should get first dibs.
whats btfo? conservetards? Adam Curtis makes the best political documentaries imo, but they are short sighted, often placing a larger emphasis on more conventional roles, whereas corruption and conspiracy are shrugged off as improbable. but anyway, i don't see him going after conservatives any more than liberals. IMO its fairly neutral. but if it makes you feel bettter.
>>36566419 Because it involves a Russian. I'm not even kidding. I live in Canada, and for the most part, individuals cannot conceive of anything other than intolerance spewing forth from Russia. When we go to school, communism and Stalin's rise to the USSR aren't really even covered in any semblance of detail unless you take history electives. So most of our ideal of what "Russia" and its culture is, comes from left leaning news sources which are currently portraying them as racist, sexist, homophobic, warmongering terrorists who are fucking over Ukraine and attempting to hide their involvement/human rights abuses.
>>36567143 The Century of The Self highlights the horrors and shirtcomings of Capitalism/ materialism. It also touches on MK Ultra and mind control perpetrated by conservetards.
The Power of Nightmares equates neocons with islamofascists, and rightly so. Shows Reagan for the turd he was, and smashes the American myth of self righteous aggression, and the destiny of USA to spread freedom and democracy throughout the globe. The American Dream is dead, and replaced with the American nightmare
>>36542840 See the funny part is, this is THE perfect red pill documentary. It even has thousands of sources listed on their site from renowned specialist (talking about zeitgeist moving forward here).
It also doesn't advocate any monetary system such as capitalism, communism ect. It actually promotes a RBE, were money doesn't exist.
Yet /pol/acks don't like it for some reason. Face it, Peter Joseph would style on ANYONE in any debate as mundane as debates are. His intellect and vocabulary is amazing, and that plus his background alone is enough to take what his films say into consideration.
All those faggot saying it was disproved or debunked certainly never got the point (as peter himself stated multiple times in the past) of the films. Especially if you just watched the first one and think the other two are the same.
Its truly is perfect, considering it takes neither a left wing or a right wing standpoint, but rather a neutral standpoint.
>>36568147 >Dude how hot is the coffee you make for yourself, hot enough to melt/burn your flesh off? it's that hot at starbucks. like 200 degrees or a little more. we kept burn kits nearby. i got 2nd degree burns once.
she's old with old skin and put the coffee between her legs while driving...
>>36577413 Yeah I watched it, Peter completely styled on him. Its not a secret that molyneux is a fucking retard though so I guess it doesn't meant much.
In fact, he styled on him so bad that Molyneux decided to make a 'video review' of the debate, which purpose was just to bash Peter, of course without him in it so that his flaws wouldn't be further pointed out.
Molyneus was assblasted x100 because he know he lost. Also their vocabularies are WORLDS apart, numerous times Molyneus had trouble understanding what Peter said.
>yfw you realize all the shit documentaries that pol likes >mfw I realize how retarded you guys really are.
Welp. Can't expect any better from high school fags. Only decent one is zeitgeist, as its the only one that actually advocates a solution and not just states a problem that we already know exists. Seriously, no other documentary goes were zeitgeist does. They all focus on mundane shit inside a system that is destined to be corrupt from the very beginning.
Awww, that's cute. I bet you guys also think competition brings us the 'best goods possible at the lowest price possible'.
>>36577546 >In fact, he styled on him so bad that Molyneux decided to make a 'video review' of the debate, which purpose was just to bash Peter Lol, Peter made one too of Stefan and Pete was way more assblasted. He actually started choking up he was so butthurt.
>>36577765 You conveniently forgot to mention how that was AFTER the fact that Moly made his video. And also CONVENIENTLY forgot to mention how Peters video was specifically about Molyneux's video and pointed out how he made the video because like any other entity in this economic system, his number one interest is self preservation, thus he made the video to re vindicate himself in front of his audience.
The simple fact that he felt he needed to make a 'video review' bashing peter shows how assbroken he was and that he unquestionably lost the argument.
>>36578006 If you think I'm going to waste time watching a movie made by someone who claims that "son" and "sun" are clearly related because they are homophones, and that the homophony of those words in modern English reveals hidden truths about ancient religious principles, you are out of your goddamn mind. List the eminent scientists in that film, and I'll check out some samples of those particular interviews.
Dr. Adrian Bowyer Dr. Colin J. Campbell Jacque Fresco Jeremy J. Gilbert Dr. James Gilligan Max Keiser Dr. Behrokh Khoshnevis Dr. Gábor Máté Dr. John McMurtry Roxanne Meadows Michael Ruppert Dr. Robert Sapolsky Richard Wilkinson
>>36579465 >implying a doctorate is a guarantee of coherent thought or good work >demonstrating a willingness to bow down to fame and titles >calling other people faggots
Bowyer has done some impressive work in mathematics, but his other work (that 3d printer project of his) is a sad pipe dream. Ruppert was a lunatic clown who occasionally hit upon a good point. The rest of them are mostly, like Ruppert, cranks who occasionally do something interesting. I don't give a shit about where their degrees are from; I have seen huge numbers of morons pass through the Ivy Leagues, so degree and pedigree don't mean a fucking thing to me. If you had half a brain, you wouldn't be starstruck by such trivia either.
>>36580007 >Tell me, how many degrees in science and math do you have? Three.
>Also, did you know that with the development of 3d printers, you can now print a fucking gun? Yeah, a fucking gun! Or even a prosthetic arm. Doesn't seem like such a bad pipe dream to me. You clearly know absolutely nothing about Bowyer's 3D printer project. You could have looked into it before you responded, but no, you clearly prefer wallowing in intellectual sloth. Bowyer is trying to create a self-sustaining, self-replicating 3D printer. For a number of reasons, most of which would be obvious to any first-year physics or engineering student, it won't happen.
>Also, may I remind you that you were the ones to ask for a list of scientist and interviewees? Why? If as soon as I presented a list you just said 'meh they're all shit'. Yeah, because they're all shit. If I claimed that some documentary had interviews with all these great social commentators, and then I listed Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Jack Thompson, and Irv Rubin, you would be perfectly justified in dismissing the list. The same principle applies here. Just because you claimed they were great scientists doesn't mean they are actually great scientists. In fact, despite your claim that they are scientists, many of the people you listed are definitively NOT scientists. So good job there.
>>36580007 I have seen to many people with a phd (mainly in physics) that were very narrow-minded when it came to social/political subjects (apart from the common whiny bullshit about not having enough founds ... while trying to work for several labs/companies at once)
>>36580402 Ideas stand on their own merits. A proposition does not gain validity due to the pedigree of the person proposing it. Your entire argument is predicated upon a version of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. That fallacy is generally quite popular with people who never learned to think critically for themselves, and the fact that you are so reliant on that fallacy (and, frankly, the fact that you are defending the Zeitgeist movies) suggests that such a description applies to you, as well.
>>36580794 (continued) If a person has a history of frequently presenting stupid ideas, it is a good bet that listening to him further will not be worth one's time. In other words, the quality of a person's past ideas are a good indicator of what one can expect from that person's present and future ideas.
On the other hand, people with impressive-sounding ideas spout nonsense all the time, so academic pedigree is essentially worthless as a predictor of the quality of a person's ideas. If you would take the time to learn to research and think for yourself, you could let go of your apparent crutch of trusting in the veracity of other people's ideas by virtue of their pedigree.
>>36543054 The cross in the jewish culture is a symbol of oppression by the romans. the cross in Christian culture is still a symbol of a an oppression, but a different meaning. It shows the oppression that christ went through for humanitys sins.
>>36582034 >The cross in the jewish culture is a symbol of oppression by the romans. No, the cross in Jewish culture is a symbol of oppression by Christians, and particularly by European Christians. (Source: I'm a kike)
>>36582931 >intelligent design is not allowed in the institutions dedicated to biology and archaeology Right, because ID is not a scientific proposition. It is merely a religious proposition dolled up in a Halloween costume lab coat.
>Eugenics connections to Planned Parenthood That claim is based on a quotation taken ridiculously out of context, and it has been debunked over and over again, and yet people still keep repeating it. I am no supporter of PP, but relying on blatantly false claims to oppose the organization just makes the opposition appear foolish.
>>36583085 How the hell could I have known I was going to dismiss them before I saw the list? I asked for the list so I could determine whether the unknown people to whom you referred were reliable sources. When you provided the list, it became clear that they were not. Just because you provided a list does not mean I am obligated to accept the reliability of the people on it.
>>36583194 That's not the point you are making though. The point you made was that just because they have certain titles we shouldn't take everything they say as true. That's appeal to authority, and I am well aware of this fallacy.
So why ask for their names in the first place? If you already knew you were going to dismiss their titles and qualifications? What was the fucking point?
Also, please tell me, what ARE reliable sources according to you? What sources could I have posted that would've made you say 'Oh wow, this are actually good sources and the people being interviewed are actually legit.'
>>36542840 Reminder that there is a group called The Zeitgeist Challenge, which offers money on anyone who could objectively prove at least one thing about the anti-theist ramblings on Zeitgeist. Guess what, 7 years on, no one did.
>>36581137 >so academic pedigree is essentially worthless as a predictor of the quality of a person's ideas.
Kek. Look at this faggot and laugh. He literally just said that academic pedigree doesn't count for shit when measuring the quality of a persons ideas. Holy shit you guys will say anything to attempt to win an argument.
GODDAMIT. I am tired of you faggots using fallacies when you have to fucking IDEA about fallacies.
Although appeal to authority was used here, its an INFORMAL FALLACY. Which means that it doesn't necessarily render the argument invalid, you just have to examine the argument further. Stop trying to use fallacies when you know jack shit about them you faggot.
>>36583653 >So why ask for their names in the first place? If you already knew you were going to dismiss their titles and qualifications? What was the fucking point? Just because I don't care about pedigree does not mean that I don't care about the quality of a person's ideas. If you had provided a list of people who are generally worth listening to, I would have said so, and I would have watched their interviews. However, you instead presented a list of people with impressive-sounding degrees who are not generally worth listening to.
You listed people with pedigree and thought I should take that seriously. Instead, I judged the people on that list by the merit of their ideas. This seems to have befuddled you, and you keep acting as if a list of people with pedigree demands that those people be taken seriously, but that is simply not the case. The basis of judgment that you expected to be applied was not, in fact, applied; however, that is not the same as saying I had already determined to dismiss the list. I simply judged the entries on that list by criteria that you did not anticipate.
As for what makes a good qualification: Has the person contributed meaningfully to the field of discussion? Does the person avoid wild speculation, or at least label wild speculation as such? Does the person avoid speaking of things about which s/he lacks a broad and deep understanding? Do the person's ideas conform to the available data? If not, does the person present a reasonable explanation for that contradiction? Are the person's ideas explanatory and predictive without resorting to oversimplification? These are the sorts of questions I ask when evaluating the reliability of a speaker.
>>36584461 (continued) Here is a great example of the relative unimportance of pedigree: Whitfield Diffie is one of the fathers of modern cryptography. He never earned a PhD (although he was later granted an honorary one). At one point, when he was testifying in court, the lawyer questioning him argued that Diffie's testimony was irrelevant because he lacked a PhD in the field, despite the fact that Diffie invented the algorithm that was under consideration. Diffie's achievements were independent from his academic pedigree, but your method of evaluating reliability would presumably have placed you in agreement with the idiot lawyer.
>>36584387 That is not at all what it means when something is described as an informal fallacy. An informal fallacy is merely a fallacy that cannot be expressed in strictly formal logical notation. The informality of a fallacy does not imply that the argument may or may not actually be fallacious. Some informal fallacies are non-total, and others are just as total as formal fallacies. Clearly, you are the one who does not understand the nature of fallacies.
>>36584941 I would not agree at all. As already discussed, a person's previously stated ideas are a fairly good predictor of the quality of their future ideas. Therefore, the truly execrable quality of the first film suggests that watching the latter films would be a waste of time.
I don't know why this hasn't been posted, because it usually is, but this thread needs it.
Kind of a long watch, but you should ideally watch the entire thing. It gives some really important historical information about banking and money, naming names and all that. For the record, the creator, Bill Still, has run for president based off of the economics in the documentary and continues to be an activist for the cause of a sound money and banking system.
If you need to watch any documentaries in this thread, it's probably this one and maybe War by Deception.
>>36552175 You need to add this movie and put it at the top of your (Economy) section. Most comprehensive review of banking concepts, history, networks and everything else vital.
>>36585151 >So you're saying that if you had 1 shitty idea in your life, than the rest would most likely be shitty too? Zeitgeist presents a string of terrible ideas, not just one. If a person presents a big bundle of bullshit, that is not equivalent to a person having one bad idea. Additionally, Zeitgeist is poorly researched and deceptively presented. The combination of stupidity and intellectual laziness does not bode well for further developments.
>I think history has proven you wrong countless times, since most great inventors have always started with shitty ideas that did not work, and built on top of them. There is a difference between a shitty idea and an idea that did not pan out. Zeitgeist is lazily constructed bullshit. The same could not be said for the early abortive ideas of great inventors.
Anyway, I have a meeting to get to, so I gotta go.
>>36584168 >He literally just said that academic pedigree doesn't count for shit when measuring the quality of a persons ideas because it doesn't, actually. ideas either have quality or not...the pedigree of the person saying them have no bearing on their quality.
It like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Quality ideas usually come from those with more education, but more education does not denote quality.
Thread replies: 319 Thread images: 43
Thread DB ID: 15253
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.