You have no point. A single blogger is incapable of doing what you say she is doing.
Have you been menticided?
- Thread starter Gary K
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It is now. For the longest time it was justifiably described as alternative media.
See:
| (October 2020) |
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I have a point, you're choosing to stick your fingers in your ears. Her own guided instructions aren't about a single tyrant, they're about telling you what you should be reading, watching, and listening to.
I'm saying she's a hypocrite, doing exactly what she's warning her 'menticided' readers against.
There's a reason you didn't provide a link to your definition because your definition circles right back to your OP, it's the same Joost A. M. Meerloo quoted by your Alice in Wonderland. It's not the Journal's definition, it's Meerloo's definition. So you used Meerloo to support Meerloo. No wonder you're choosing to ignore that.
Or that she tells you to beware "compromised scientists," then includes a link to an anti-Fauci, anti-science book by crazy RFK Jr. She's telling you who she wants you to see as compromised scientists.
You are hilarious. I tell you right where the definition is found and you can't wait to accuse me of lying without even doing a one minute search to see if it's there? Oh, I forgot. You know so much there is nothing for you to ever learn. You're an absolute genius.And that one article had you in total agreement, and you ran straight here to amplify it.
I'll let you in on the joke here. We're not menticided in this country (we're not North Korea).
We have no single 'tyrant' menticiding us. And don't throw in Satan as the single tyrant, we're talking secular tyrants. There are multiple factors as to why and how people are influenced, from evil capitalism to religious and political power manipulation and a whole lot in between. Even basic advertising is a form of brainwashing. But there is no "organized" single-source brainwashing going on here, even the crazy MAGA propaganda has limited power, its own deluded followers constitute a minority, but they're striving mightily at getting and/or maintaining minority rule. And they may yet succeed.
You've missed my main point, whether intentionally or by sheer obliviousness. You're amplifying someone who tells the reader not to trust "c) Organizations, regulatory agencies, tyrants, politicians, self-aggrandizing “experts”, compromised scientists, behavioral psychologists, public-opinion engineers, smear merchants, ghostwriters, Big Tech gatekeepers, influencers, pushers, fact-chokers, and other colluders enlisted to control the narrative to protect the power and profits of (a) and (b)."
Yet she pushes many of these various entities to you, the reader. She literally relies on behavioral psychology terminology like operant conditioning but that's okay, because she's vetted them for you! She is a self-aggrandizing expert telling you not to rely on self-aggrandizing experts. She is herself an "influencer" on the very social media platforms she's warned you about, helping to perpetuate their "power and profits." She herself is in the business of making money off of influencing the thinking of her readers.
Do you not see this?
There's a reason you didn't provide a link, isn't there? Because your definition circles right back to your OP, it's the same guy! Joost A. M. Meerloo! It's not the Journal's definition, it's Meerloo's definition. So you used Meerloo to support Meerloo. Nice work!
THE CRIME OF MENTICIDE
The concept of "menticide" indicates an organized system of judicial perversion and psychological intervention, in which a powerful tyrant transfers his own thoughts and words into the minds and mouths of the victims he plans to destroy or to use for his own propaganda. Modern psychiatry may...
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You are hilarious. I tell you right where the definition is found and you can't wait to accuse me of lying without even doing a one minute search to see if it's there? Oh, I forgot. You know so much there is nothing for you to ever learn. You're an absolute genius.
THE CRIME OF MENTICIDE
The concept of "menticide" indicates an organized system of judicial perversion and psychological intervention, in which a powerful tyrant transfers his own thoughts and words into the minds and mouths of the victims he plans to destroy or to use for his own propaganda. Modern psychiatry may...ajp.psychiatryonline.org
OMG, ffreeloader, how do you think I knew who the author was if I hadn't already gone to the article abstract myself to know who wrote it?!
Your belated link (which is unnecessary now, obviously) doesn't change the fact that you made a full circle by using Meerloo to support Meerloo.
So: Yeah, you didn't post a link to an abstract which conveniently circles back to the quote in the OP but if no one looked it up they wouldn't know that - except yeah, I obviously did the search already because I knew who the article author is and how would I know that without having done the search. Does that make me a genius? Maybe it does.
I have to laugh. Find me another psychologist/psychiatrist. who disagrees with him. You're so positive you're right it ought to be a piece of cake for you with all your greatly advanced skills. I'll bet you avoid that like the plague.OMG, ffreeloader, how do you think I knew who the author was if I hadn't already gone to the journal abstract myself to know who wrote it?!
Your belated link (which is unnecessary now, obviously) doesn't change the fact that you made a full circle by using Meerloo to support Meerloo.
So: Yeah, you didn't post a link to an abstract which conveniently circles back to the quote in the OP but if no one looked it up they wouldn't know that - except yeah, I obviously did the search already because I knew who the article author is and how would I know that without having done the search. Does that make me a genius? Maybe it does.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Thats all you have.
You continue to miss all the points. Your “one minute search” red herring flopped, and you’ve doggedly ignored not only the hypocrisy of Alice in Wonderland, but that her menticiders aren‘t a single powerful tyrant but a whole cultural and ideological blacklist; she’s muddied the definition she quotes at the outset so much that she’s created a whole new thing.
Last edited:
Actually she hasn't. But I expected you to run from showing Merloo isn't wrong. Every article I have read from credible sources say exactly the same things she does. But with your commitment to truth, you know, your support for transgenderism after knowing your entire life it's a lie, I expect nothing more from you than dishonesty. You want to repent and become honest I'll discuss anything with you and be glad to. I'm not the one who enjoys trying to destroy people. It gives me no pleasure at all.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Actually she has.
There was nothing to run from, because I never said he was wrong. Do you even realize that? None of my posts has been about whether Meerloo was wrong. They've been about the Wonderland substack of your OP, all of which you've completely ignored, and about how you tried to pass off Meerloo's definition as being the American Journal of Psychiatry's definition.
Which reminds me of your off-the-wall response to the substack writer I posted a while back:
That's it. Quote a far left Marxist loon and present her as an unbiased source.
And you deny you're a Marxist.
Of course every article you've read from 'credible sources' says exactly the same things she does! You're consistently confirming your biases.
Wait what?! What new red herring is this?
When have I ever engaged in a conversation about transgenderism with you? Quotes or it didn't happen.
Oh, are you in the business of destroying people? Good to know that's what you're about, ffreeloader. This isn't just a disagreement on the internet to you, it's about destroying people? Adding that "it gives you no pleasure" sounds creepy, and if you give it some thought, you might realize why.
From the start, I've listed what's wrong with your OP but you fixate on me instead of the argument.
Focus on the argument for a change and tell me where you think I'm wrong about Alice in Wonderland and her guide to acceptable sources of information, and how it veers from the quote from Meerloo she uses to start things off, or how she's not a hypocrite engaging in doing exactly what she warns her reader away from. Ask yourself why she's on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. when she tells her reader to stay away from those platforms. Or how she frames certain ideas or sources as suspect (therefore menticide! never mind we have no single powerful tyrant) without considering who's in charge of deciding who or what is on the approved list. She tells you to seek out "unbiased" sources and gives you a running list of very biased sources. But those sources are ones she agrees with and approves of, so that's okay?
The brain cartoon is the best part of the OP, good for her. She picked the most concise, easiest image to sum up what she's about. Discredit real science regarding pandemics and climate change, push pseudoscience, construct straw men about ideas and people she disagrees with, and be tacitly pro-Putin.
I'm really glad you posted the OP, thank you for that. It's good to know what's being pushed by the authoritarian and conspiracy-minded right.
Last edited:
Well, it's really good to see you deny you support transgenderism. I guess your socialist handlers might be a bit surprised but not I. I know there are no depths of dishonesty that you will not plumb.Actually she has.
There was nothing to run from, because I never said he was wrong. Do you even realize that? None of my posts has been about whether Meerloo was wrong. They've been about the Wonderland substack of your OP, all of which you've completely ignored, and about how you tried to pass off Meerloo's definition as being the American Journal of Psychiatry's definition.
Which reminds me of your off-the-wall response to the substack writer I posted a while back:
Of course every article you've read from 'credible sources' says exactly the same things she does! You're consistently confirming your biases.
Wait what?! What new red herring is this?
When have I ever engaged in a conversation about transgenderism with you? Quotes or it didn't happen.
Oh, are you in the business of destroying people? Good to know that's what you're about, ffreeloader. This isn't just a disagreement on the internet to you, it's about destroying people? Adding that "it gives you no pleasure" sounds creepy, and if you give it some thought, you might realize why.
From the start, I've listed what's wrong with your OP but you fixate on me instead of the argument.
Focus on the argument for a change and tell me where you think I'm wrong about Alice in Wonderland and her guide to acceptable sources of information, and how it veers from the quote from Meerloo she uses to start things off, or how she's not a hypocrite engaging in doing exactly what she warns her reader away from. Ask yourself why she's on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. when she tells her reader to stay away from those platforms. Or how she frames certain ideas or sources as suspect (therefore menticide! never mind we have no single powerful tyrant) without considering who's in charge of deciding who or what is on the approved list. She tells you to seek out "unbiased" sources and gives you a running list of very biased sources. But those sources are ones she agrees with and approves of, so that's okay?
The brain cartoon is the best part of the OP, good for her. She picked the most concise, easiest image to sum up what she's about. Discredit real science regarding pandemics and climate change, push pseudoscience, construct straw men about ideas and people she disagrees with, and be tacitly pro-Putin.
I'm really glad you posted the OP, thank you for that. It's good to know what's being pushed by the authoritarian and conspiracy-minded right.
That is really sad anna. It's one thing to be dishonest, it's another to revel in it like you do.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You have no quotes? Then it didn't happen. You're the dishonest one, ffreeloader, making up stuff I've never said. You did it again right here, because I didn't confirm or deny anything. All I said was "When have I ever engaged in a conversation about transgenderism with you?" And then - you read into it whatever is in your brain and then attribute it to me as if it was fact. I don't have 'socialist handlers,' nor do I plumb the "depths of dishonesty,' that's you confabulating again, which is really sad, ffreeloader. You have a running narrative in your head about the people you don't agree with on here, making up stories about us which aren't based in reality.
You know what's sad? The amount of red herrings you drag across your threads to avoid direct engagement with a challenge to your argument or OP. You've done it again here, you are either unable or unwilling to focus on or shine a light on the OP you posted, so you go ad hominem instead .
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You've just plumbed them yourself and made a royal clown of yourself in the process.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
He's likely smarting because you've thoroughly undermined his OP and it's all hes got left.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That was a takedown and then some.She tells you to beware of guided public opinion and then proceeds to guide you through all the things she thinks you should be watching and reading. She tells you to get off TV and then tells you to get on TV and here are the programs you should be viewing. She tells you to stop reading newspapers and never mentions the sucking vortex of the internet (oh, she mentions social media, but nothing else, and then guides you to a ton of conspiracy-leaning sites and video platforms that you should be reading and watching.
She tells you not to allow yourself to be guided, and then literally gives you 12 steps to guide you! She even tells you what kind of music you should listen to, what youtube channels are acceptable, and a whole list of what movies to watch.
Also it would be interesting to know her background, since shoehorning various terms like operant conditioning into a right-wing pop psychology commentary on the pandemic without a background in psychology and a decent understanding of behaviorism just sounds like someone trying to pretend they know more than they do.
Some ideas she has that are worth considering, although they're very basic and unoriginal. I hope you paid as much attention to these as you did to the new word you just learned that confirms all your existing biases.
Reignite your curiosity.Shed your cognitive biases, ideological predilections, and preconceived notions.Ask heaps of questions—especially “why.” Ask yourself why you believe something and on what evidence you are basing this belief. Drill down to your root premises and see if they withstand scrutiny.When you encounter “news,” apply logic; reason (the rest of the sentence is gobbledegook about life before Covid).Play devil’s advocate. Take John Stuart Mill’s advice and argue your opponent’s side.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Eh. From the start he apparently had no defense for the content of the OP, he just splashed around in the shallow peripherals.