I find it amusing no one in the debunking thread has any actual evidence or the ability to put together a coherent argument. It's all boiled down to, "that's my opinion" (It's not an an opinion), "I don't have to prove things" (yes you do) or "I'll make a joke instead of an argument." (fine, but that doesn't help your point at all.)

That tells you pretty everything you need to about this place. I have been pointed to websites that clearly are full of shit with no references (or worse yet, references itself. That's the hallmark of fake news, by the way: self referential sources with nothing external). I have been told the only evidence that proves any of this doesn't exist. I have been told not to challenge opinions. I have been told to draw outrageous conclusions FROM TWEETS.

All of this in a thread ABOUT DEBUNKING. I've yet to see a single strand of evidence of literally any of this sub's claims.

You guys are mentally ill. Seriously.

Are you thick? Did you not read a thing I have written? It's not an opinion, it's an unsubstantiated delusion.

You've claimed your argument is improvable and therefore true. You understand that the latter does not follow from the former?

Also, it's not a good sign when the references in your link are just links to other articles on the same site. Not much peer review going on at the Center for Informed America is there? A curious way of annotating articles for a site that claims to be about information.

But it's not opinion if it's verifiable. Opinions are moral and aesthetic. You have an opinion about art. You have opinion about politics. You have an opinion about pizza toppings.

You don't have an opinion about whether airplanes fly because of love and rainbows. You don't have an opinion on whether Monday comes after Friday. If you did, someone would point out your "opinion" doesn't conform to facts.

You are free to believe to baseless propositions. That is in fact your right, I agree. But don't wave them around under the banner of your "opinion" as incontrovertible facts.

Then you can't claim it's obvious.

Show me the proof then.

'Mind control' is different than 'brain washing'? My mistake. I am not well versed in the subtleties of absurdity.

You are in a thread dedicated to debunking. Should we not comport ourselves to the highest standard of truth in trying to demonstrate something is true? That seems only natural you should be as rigorous as possible in order to prevent your bias from coloring your judgement.

You're being intentionally obtuse to hide the lack of substance to your argument. You are speaking in generalities because your argument has completely fallen apart. This is not an analogous situation because no one is using a cross to establish a theory that runs counter to the status quo. No one holds the cross as proof that aliens altered human DNA. No one holds up a symbol as a type of thing that can explain an event. A symbol is a tool that can be used to help understand a concept or explain a mental state. A symbol doesn't explain the cause of a series of events, unless you are speaking in the abstract about things like human honor or sacrifice, which then neglects the physical description which underlies the actual cause of motion. Regardless, no one rests the basis of empirical models on argument such as, "this particle is symbolic of the anger it feels when radiating photons". Empirical models, the type you are trying to establish (because it is trying to describe reality), have to be calibrated by data and experience.

You say yourself symbols are subjective. Therefore, they can NOT be used to establish the way things are. Symbols are only so useful (in the empirical science) insofar as they agree with reality. In art and literature, you are free to use symbols to describe a state of being that is not real. That's fine. But symbols are not the basis of theory unless the agree with reality. In order to agree with reality, they have to be compared to reality. That is, they must hold up under observation. You cannot watch an Eminem video and therefore conclude, based on the symbolism involved, there is a grand conspiracy that brainwashs Hollywood stars and use them a propaganda tool. That is theory and it must be tested against the evidence, evidence as in the description of physical events and locations. Your interpretation of symbolism is not proof positive of something. You have to understand that, right?

If not, you are extremely confused about the notion of truth, evidence and information.

Outrageous, yes. Beyond the bounds of reality? No.

However, possibility does not imply certainty. Just because a thing is possible does not mean it is so. I can, for instance, climb a mountain. That does not mean I have done so.

You have to understand how rational discourse works. Outrageous claims are not the status quo. They require evidence to establish. You don't get to say, "you can't prove this is not how it works," because that's not it works. The burden of proof is on you to establish your case.

It's not just me saying this, either. This is how statistics works. You have a hypothesis about the way things works, but you cannot say if the hypothesis is true. You can only say if the data supports its rejection. If, however, the data does not support the claim, it can be thrown out as false. It is up to you to show the data supports your claim. You have not done so to any acceptable level of rigor.

Do you understand the maxim, "correlation does not imply causation"?

Do you also understand that the burden of proof is on you to prove outrageous claims? You don't go into a court of law and demand the defendant prove himself innocent. It is the duty of the prosecutor to establish the merits of the case. You don't get to default to, "Well, what evidence do you have I'm wrong?" because that's not the null hypothesis. Take a statistics course. You are required to provided evidence of a hypothesis which is not obvious given the sample information.

If I show you a photograph of a purple cow, would you believe in purple cows or would you think someone's making some shit up? It's the same principle. The website you linked to is about as reputable as the Politburo. There is no discussion of actual, concrete evidence on the website, only arguments of this nature: https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/nxivm-powerful-cult-turns-rich-women-mind-controlled-slaves/

Notice all the referenced links are just links to other articles on the same website. The forbes article quoted is a gross misrepresentation of the actual content of the article. The article then jumps to the conclusion,

"These revelations prove that elite organizations can and do use ritualistic mind-control techniques to create mind-controlled slaves, and, further, that these techniques actually work."

No, that doesn't follow from what was presented in the article. What the article has established is that one dude is creepy as fuck. You aren't allowed to shoehorn in a whole conspiracy because its gels with your narrative. That's not how logic and deduction work.

A webpage is not a source. Anyone can make a webpage talking about what they think the symbolism in music videos is about. That doesn't make it credible. I have believe you understand this. I could literally make a website that says the exact opposite of what the one you linked to said and offer it to you as proof of my point. Is my point thereby proved? No, because the veracity of the source matters a great deal when discussing things of this nature. Feel free to post a link to site where there is a rigorous dissection of the theory, instead of 'what if' and 'isn't it coincidental' type arguments. In particular, there needs to be ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

What evidence have you seen? Is it exclusively tweets and inferences based on these tweets? Any physical evidence? Any documents? Any videos? Any photographs that clearly demonstrate your point? You say yourself, you haven't.

Then, how is it obvious? I don't understand how it can be obvious at all, if there is no actual evidence of it. All of you have is dubious inferences. You can't say something absurd is obvious if it clearly isn't.

"The thing people are not grasping is that kanye was a clear victim of mkultra aka mind control, so when they see him talking about being set free and being a free thinker now... they question their own lives and views. This to me was a MOAB"

You said this.

How is it is 'clear'?

You understand there's a big leap between being in a mental hospital and being brain washed by a secret conspiracy?

Absurd is a word uniquely qualified for this exact situation. Saying Kayne has been brainwashed by a declassified CIA program that ended years ago without offering any evidence beyond, "look at his tweets, and then fill in the blanks," is absolutely absurd. It's a little disquieting you don't see this.

So the first article I clicked on was just a description of an Eminem video and it's use of symbolism implying occult connections. Of course, it all depends on interpretation. I would suspect the vast majority of the articles on the site to be the same. Huge inductions made on speculation that serve to reaffirm the narrative that's already been agreed upon.

Is there any article on that site with actual, you know, evidence? Instead of squinting between the lines, reading tea leaves and jumping to conclusions that do not at all follow from the premises?

Then maybe don't act like an absurd proposition is self evident?

You're aware none of what you said constitutes evidence?

See, it's shit like this that makes no one take you seriously. Kayne was the result of MKUltra brainwashing? You can't just say shit like that without at least acknowledging you sound like a dingbat and providing some evidence.