This is hilarious.
-
My familiarity with Candace's wackier ideas extends as far as I listen directly to Candace. I've never heard anybody else propagate them. But I know she has a large listener base. So did Art Bell. That doesn't mean his listeners would have sworn up and down to the stuff he used to believe.
@Horace said in This is hilarious.:
My familiarity with Candace's wackier ideas extends as far as I listen directly to Candace. I've never heard anybody else propagate them. But I know she has a large listener base. So did Art Bell. That doesn't mean his listeners would have sworn up and down to the stuff he used to believe.
Presumably at least some of her fans must believe her. I mean, flat-earthers are a thing, so why not the Magnificent Candace?
-
My familiarity with Candace's wackier ideas extends as far as I listen directly to Candace. I've never heard anybody else propagate them. But I know she has a large listener base. So did Art Bell. That doesn't mean his listeners would have sworn up and down to the stuff he used to believe.
But I know she has a large listener base. So did Art Bell. That doesn't mean his listeners would have sworn up and down to the stuff he used to believe.
I recall sitting around a campfire one summer evening listening to a local farmer go on and on about the hidden and covered up truths showcased on Art Bell’s radio show - the mystery of Mel’s Hole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel's_Hole) in particular.
-
@Klaus said in This is hilarious.:
I wonder if she believes her own BS.
If you acknowledge that humans are believing machines more than truth seeking machines, the question loses relevance. People can be motivated by all the old standard things to believe whatever, and they can still believe it, in the face of an IQ and information that would logically contradict their belief.
-
One can imagine thought experiments, the classic gun-to-the-head scenario, where Candace is told to bet, one way or another, on the truth of a certain claim. Her children's lives are at stake. Would her bet be the same as Candace professed before? That thought experiment remains incoherent, because the gun-to-her-kid's-head Candace is not the same person as the Candace in front of the microphone. You are interrogating the belief of one thing, and assuming it's the same as the belief of the other thing. The difference between the two things is interesting, and predictable, but it does not impute true "belief" to one or the other. Their motivations are different, and belief is generally motivated.
Education is extremely important.
-
One can imagine thought experiments, the classic gun-to-the-head scenario, where Candace is told to bet, one way or another, on the truth of a certain claim. Her children's lives are at stake. Would her bet be the same as Candace professed before? That thought experiment remains incoherent, because the gun-to-her-kid's-head Candace is not the same person as the Candace in front of the microphone. You are interrogating the belief of one thing, and assuming it's the same as the belief of the other thing. The difference between the two things is interesting, and predictable, but it does not impute true "belief" to one or the other. Their motivations are different, and belief is generally motivated.
-
@Renauda said in This is hilarious.:
What a tortuous way of reaffirming Klaus’ trenchant rhetorical question.
No, that's bullshit. I interrogated the trenchant question. You're welcome to do so yourself. I didn't get any of those insights from books.
-
@Renauda said in This is hilarious.:
Regardless, it was still a tortuous interrogation.
And no, I’m not all that interested.
Well the human condition does not rise large over your persona here, unless it's the fact that rage and vindictiveness dominates.
-
So we have to choose between a Candace who is a cynical liar and one who is completely fucking nuts.
Neither seems like a good reason to listen to her show.
