Showing posts with label fake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fake. Show all posts

Monday, 26 April 2021

Progressive entertainment.

A first world problem. Companies creating comic book super heroes to suit aims, insisting that the company is very diverse and inclusive. The result in almost every case is something that has a hint of the offensive characterisation to make a black super hero character. Cliché and unoriginality are common, often simply creating a direct rip off of an existing popular character. Praise is meant to be piled upon such things, because you end up with a black-female ironman clone with a poor black criminal clichéd template, a thing that can be easily promoted for stance and quality can be ignored.

Old news. Strong female character in a lead role, sold online as a first, even if it is many years behind the actual first. Female this or that, even better, or worse, first black-female this or that, firsts counted over creative excellence. Studio choices in TV and film, novels and comic book series, to promote a sense of progressive values by rushing out, green lighting projects that make them the first, or the first great success. Media coverage places great praise on characters that are wooden and stories that have been done to death. And stuff that might otherwise be called racial stereotypes is accepted because you have a person in a role that means it would be absurd to call them racist or sexist. Often, it is better to note the lack of creativity, although, that opens you up for absurdity yourself. Making it easy to call you a bigot for daring to critique a film that many think of as social justice in action.

The heart of the problem is that one or other avenue of creativity is chosen, it is how forced such acts are, to say that they placed their flag on the mountain. That kind of positive press, a prestige as a legacy for opportunistic corporations. When they wish it, the progressive media promote their work for free. Even if the progressives are truly ignorant of if a thing is a first or not. First black lead in star trek, scratch that. First female lead in star trek, correct that. Correction after you get told that it wasn't the case, first black-female lead, only realising error when readers correct the authors who do no research. Often, they're too busy preaching a first, or a great leap of a kind, instead of offering a review. The narrative of the progressive media is praise without insight, long drawn-out reviews that seem to read as "About-time" stretched out to five hundred letters. The quality of the art is placed on the back-burner, on a low heat, it never seems to boil over, while the politics is often cooked up front and a little too fast. Making the prepared dish seem like a combination of under cooked meat and over cooked vegetables. Which can make it a little hard to digest.

Tuesday, 14 April 2020

Fake News... How "Ben.S." does it.

While looking at the twitter of Ben, a conservative American of some note as a character, as a polemic.  I noticed a common enough trick or theme.  One need not rebuke the facts but claim them in principle.  In principle, we need not fear the facts even as we avoid then in practice.  Ben on his twitter and through other mediums selects easy targets, insists they're the mainstream, even if they're fringe or not linked to political influence and power and grumbles upon the nature of the liberalist insanity that hath unfurled before us.  And when insisting upon the falsity of the news reports in the main of the press, Ben insists that use of a stock image or video, or the same borrowed from elsewhere, is a primary piece of evidence that the mainstream news media are the producers of propaganda.  What Ben.S might call "Fake News."  And from this suggestion of fake news and the previously noted insanity of the fringe of the left, he paints a picture of a surreal world.  A world believed to be real by many, even if it is a manifestation of deception through the eyes of a very limited social media perspective.  Ben is a propagandist who picks targets and re-enforces conservative values in a way that leaves little room for introspection.  Which is, after all, the whole point.  

Sunday, 13 July 2014

Psychic/Mediumistic Proof ?!?!?!




What is any psychic/mediumistic worth, the faithful seem very poor in their skill, the tricksters can out do them, the rare cases of the objectively amazing seem so rare that it is less than chance, which says a whole lot.
I would guess that the read of this may have seen a psychic, or some other reader, who taps into a higher source or power, so it must be up to you on that personal level, how you have come to feel about your experiences, yet the subjective world can miss the reality as they focus on one region of it.

Many years past since I was a trainee medium, having gone to many workshops, having spent hundreds of hours meditating over the course of years, my faith was mighty, let if i was to not focus on the parts that i could take from others, or that others could take from me, in readings/communication, I found it was as holy as I had believed.  I had seen over the years many mediums work from stages and many more in spiritualist churches, as well as visiting psychics and new age teachers, and the best ones were showmen(or show-women), they had not power to impress but spoke well and with a skill, they offered no clear information, yet out of the general ideas expressed they made it fit with a charismatic abilities.

I have often lacked such skills, and my depressive feeling were made worse during my various periods of religious faith throughout my life, I found I could give good bits from time to time, but it was usually very general, this kept me in my belief, even though over time this seen through.  I could imagine much, and when influenced these imagined ideas seems so real, crystals, chakras, healing, spiritual guides and ETs, and hauntings, how odd it all seems to me now looking back, faith in god and all maybes, gifts from above which were just illusions of truth.

The "evidence" I could offer was stuff like saying 'Thomas' 'Cook' to an old lady who know a Thomas who was a chef/cook, or in another case saying I get 'b', and 'it feels like aunt, to which the sitter said (during in a meditation class) that her aunt was called Be, short for Beatrice, but everyone called her Auntie B.  Now, I dare not say this is proof, not that I often gave this out, nor that most mediums do, but it sounds clever, if very limited.  In actual fact, now that I ponder such things, I notice it is how I told to give things, a name and connection technique that I was once told how to do in a spiritualist church just outside of Birmingham, to get a name of the "spirit", and then how they link to the sitter(the person being read/having message from spirits).  It is in fact a good trick, you learn from other faith spiritualists that a spirit will come close, your to try to sense who it is, ask for a name, and how they link in to that persons life, so most people give common names and common links, statistically it's easy to get hits.

The tricks of the trade are told to the believers as tools for truth, not as contricks, and yet they are just that, I was told how to imagine a person in mind in very, very general terms, believe it was real, and accept it was real, and pass on this imagined information to another person as from the otherside.  I over simplify, in essence what I am saying is that the tricks to see or sense ghosts are, well, tricks, and not objective experiences of truth, after getting over some bad times in my life I began to wake up to how it was false, it was a slow realisation in the final few years of my time in spiritualism, until I realised that it was not right for me. 

When a medium tells you something you may finds it fits somewhat, in some way, or ways, but is it proof that a spirit is in the room, or in some way in touch of with the medium, or even that it's mind reading, all you have is a hand full of mildly true things, information often without full context, if any, and your expected to find the connections.  A medium or psychic will often throw out generality that fits most of us, if it was more general they would just say you were born and drink water, but to look at an old woman and say I sense mother is almost sure to hit.

The psychics and Mediums really seem to love giving out Barnum statements, the general statements that fit most of us, and you can always make it fit if you fail, a good example was a fat mediums call Sandra, she operated locally to me, he trick at the start of a show was to say a person lost to every audience member. It worked like this, she would just do a service in a spiritualist church, start with a hymn, prayer, ect.  To start he work she would just say what she thought people lost by doing each row, an old lady would get mother, a young lady grandmother, and if you disagree then she would just go back a generation, so if grandmother was not yet dead then she would say it must be great grandmother, after twenty or so people in a small church had this she would move on to doing readings for a few individuals.  Her technique was clearly not magical, just judging each person by age and doing an educated guess, so she was ether a cheap fraud making her living off cheap tricks, or alternatively deluded that this act was in anyway convincing.

I have had many such experiences with mediums, where they use contricks like they work, and as i say i was once fooled by this fraudulent level of reasoning, I, like many, got into Spiritualism, Psychics, and New Age after rejecting religion in general, yet not moving beyond the ignorance that my wishful/magical thinking flourished in.  I was a fool, and this I accept, and to be stupid at one point of your life hold no shame, just as long as you realise the error in your ways as you learn from the mistake, I learnt over the last five years that there is much more in philosophy that religion, that there is more in the cosmos than a psychic could dream up if sat at a typewriter for all eternity.

Final thought, an open mind in all things is good and well, yet to find out if a thing is factually true reasoning must be applied to work out if a thing is as believed or if reality is more than wishful delusions.