A truther thread in the media

[JayUtah]

I don't know how much of a pinch of salt to take this with, but if he's to be believed it perhaps offers a degree of mitigation regarding the haphazard flitting about from thread to thread.

It's as good an explanation as any. Similarly I could cite my advancing age and my propensity to read and post to ISF while doing other things as excuses for missing important posts. My point is that everyone here is entitled to some mitigation.

But the insinuation is that he has gone so long without answers because his critics are incapable of providing them. Thence the little hair-split over "response" versus "answer." When your retort is along the lines of, "You may think you've answered my questions, but your offerings are inadequate," you can't suddenly change that into, "You may have answered my questions, but my medication makes it difficult for me to follow the discussion." That's a major rewrite. It may be a late admission of a pertinent truth, but it undermines his earlier claim.

One of my quotes floats around here in someone's signature, to the effect that you never get clear answers or discussion from conspiracy theorists because their aim is to prolong the debate, not win it. They remain relevant as long as there is the illusion of unanswered questions. If they win the debate, then the erstwhile conspiracy theory simply becomes the new conventional narrative, believed and written about by everyone, and they no longer seem important as they did when they were bucking the trend.

And that's why simply defibrillating the same old questions over and over again is the preferred activity. The reflexive flopping about of the corpse in response to it conveys a brief illusion of life, but there isn't any. The artwork in the subject of this thread is just another such defibrillation.

 

[JayUtah]

I think the museums reasoning for accepting it is sound. The "truth" movement did play a big part in a lot of people getting better educated about the events of 9/11.

For that reason, and just for the reason that the Truth movement is a "thing." I just gave someone Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, which revolves around a monastic library closed to all but the most trusted friars. In the discussion of that policy, one character admits the library is a monument to truth as well as error, insinuating that it contains heresy as well as truth.

In the book, it is up to the librarian to determine what books to give to which monks. In real life, the body of knowledge that we collect and preserve contains elements both of truth and of error, and our free-speech ethic tells us we should allow the reader to determine for himself what has value, and indeed what constitutes value.

So yes, on the one hand I can endorse the museum's decision to commission and accept the work as presented. But still on the other hand I can dispute the rhetorical theme the art suggests. And that's as good enough a definition of art as any.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Full Disclusure: I took enough art electives to almost add a minor

The art itself isn't bad as a piece of art depicting the memes of the truth movement. And he spelled "pentagon" wrong, which is awesome. Text on art always pushes against the edge of beating the viewer with the message but including a "mistake" calls attention to the object of "words" themselves as part of the construction.

The article mentioned "outsider" art but this looks to me much more deliberate and educated, using the appearance as one layer of meaning in the total construction.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

It's as good an explanation as any. Similarly I could cite my advancing age and my propensity to read and post to ISF while doing other things as excuses for missing important posts. My point is that everyone here is entitled to some mitigation.

But the insinuation is that he has gone so long without answers because his critics are incapable of providing them. Thence the little hair-split over "response" versus "answer." When your retort is along the lines of, "You may think you've answered my questions, but your offerings are inadequate," you can't suddenly change that into, "You may have answered my questions, but my medication makes it difficult for me to follow the discussion." That's a major rewrite. It may be a late admission of a pertinent truth, but it undermines his earlier claim.

One of my quotes floats around here in someone's signature, to the effect that you never get clear answers or discussion from conspiracy theorists because their aim is to prolong the debate, not win it. They remain relevant as long as there is the illusion of unanswered questions. If they win the debate, then the erstwhile conspiracy theory simply becomes the new conventional narrative, believed and written about by everyone, and they no longer seem important as they did when they were bucking the trend.

And that's why simply defibrillating the same old questions over and over again is the preferred activity. The reflexive flopping about of the corpse in response to it conveys a brief illusion of life, but there isn't any. The artwork in the subject of this thread is just another such defibrillation.

Well said.

I'll file "the medication I take affects my memory" alongside "the dog ate my homework".

(There's only so much of your spare time you can waste on jousting with recidivists)

 

[Oystein]

...

Proof Freda is an idiot. ...
You can't have an Animal History Museum without Unicorns, Bigfoots and Bugs Bunny. ...

Hehe funny thing is: Freda's profile picture on Facebook is a dog with a unicorn's horn on the head

 

[jaydeehess]

When I was on chemo it affected my memory. It was frustrating to see a friend and not be able to recall anything about his name other than what letter it begins with, or to be in the middle of a sentence and completely lose what the next word I was going use is. Funny thing, when the later occurred I could recall its first letter and could recall its definition but the actual word,,,, gone.

However, it never affected my ability to make logical argument. If it had I would have been suspicious of any conclusions I arrived at.

If one drinks alcohol one understands, at least the next day, that some decisions might not have been optimal. If one is having difficulty remembering responses to questions then one should question conclusions they draw since they may be operating under less than the full data available.

 

[Oystein]

...
However, it never affected my ability to make logical argument. If it had I would have been suspicious of any conclusions I arrived at.
...

That is a very optimistic proposition - I think there are two or three truthers whose ability to make logical argument is very much affected who never ever suspect their conclusions might be a tad off..