Taking on the 5G nutjobs

[bd139]

So a question. The 5G nutjobs are crawling all over YouTube. We have a persistent one (Anthony Steele) who just keeps creating new channels which just get taken down. Then loads of new ones pop up from pooled accounts that he's either buying or is related to or being syndicated by even more idiots. Unfortunately this meme (in the traditional Dawkins sense of the word) is quite successful among the armies of poorly educated slop on this planet. After repeated attempts at reporting him to YouTube and our security authorities here, nothing is really being done. At the same time our infrastructure workers are being attacked (OR engineer was stabbed 5 times the othe day) and our infrastructure destroyed by their supporters.

What can we do about these idiots in the long run? Someone needs to break the cycle one way or another. This isn't some call to arms but a serious discussion about how to either remove them or discredit them quickly and efficiently.

[SilverSolder]

Create a less harmful diversion, somehow?

Put up decoy "6G" towers and spread the word that these are 100x worse than 5g, and must be stopped at all costs - 5g is nothing! 

Of course, the "6G" towers are really big Tesla coils! 

[Zucca]

I do not why everybody is still using Youtube, we should all jump off it.
Youtube is right now a serious problem, like a full loaded shotgun in the hands of a 4 years old.

[Specmaster]

Here is a channel that is trying to debunk a lot about 5G and I suspect that the channel he mentions without actually naming it, is carrying some of Anthony Steele's content on it as well. Incidently be aware that sometimes Anthony Steele also goes by the name of Mark Steele and I have tracked down a couple of videos featuring Mark which I have not yet watched to see if its the same person, BD139 believes that he has a brother called Mark, more on this later.

[Specmaster]

I do not why everybody is still using Youtube, we should all jump off it.
Youtube is right now a serious problem, like a full loaded shotgun in the hands of a 4 years old.

No no, there is a whole load of good content on it, what we need to do is to find a way of preventing them from hosting this dangerous crap in the first place. They must be able to weed out with the right algorithms all such content surely, if they put their mind to it.

[Specmaster]

Here is another channel trying take him down.

[sb42]

I do not why everybody is still using Youtube, we should all jump off it.
Youtube is right now a serious problem, like a full loaded shotgun in the hands of a 4 years old.

No no, there is a whole load of good content on it, what we need to do is to find a way of preventing them from hosting this dangerous crap in the first place. They must be able to weed out with the right algorithms all such content surely, if they put their mind to it.

Yes... the real problems are (a) poor education, which allows this nonsense to take root in the first place, and (b) the secondary effects of social media and their ad-driven user engagement algorithms.

The nutheads who think the earth is flat or RF transmits viruses have always been with us, but now it's automatically profitable to give them a soapbox and help them organise.

[madires]

Wear your conspiracy hat and tell people that it's a disinformation campaign run by the Chinese government as revenge for not buying 5G devices from Huawei or ZTE. And the persons spreading the disinformation are paid trolls.

[SilverSolder]

I do not why everybody is still using Youtube, we should all jump off it.
Youtube is right now a serious problem, like a full loaded shotgun in the hands of a 4 years old.

No no, there is a whole load of good content on it, what we need to do is to find a way of preventing them from hosting this dangerous crap in the first place. They must be able to weed out with the right algorithms all such content surely, if they put their mind to it.

The best way to do it right now is to claim some kind of copyright infringement!  E.g. claim that they are showing confidential company plans, or the music playing in the background is not licensed, or company logos or artwork is being used without permission, etc. etc.

Youtube will take down first, and ask questions later if this is done right!

[Cerebus]

Debunking and education don't work. That's hard for a bunch of engineers, scientists and other rationalists to hear. The people who fall for this stuff are making an emotional response, no amount of explaining why they are wrong, misinformed or, worst tactic of all, stupid will succeed.

The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends. Get that message through, and the energy that is going into fuel the conspiracy is going to go into toppling the demagogues that are misusing them.

So don't try and battle with explainations, start asking questions like "I know that's not true and most reasonable people don't believe that, why are you trying to get people to believe something that you probably don't even believe yourself? Whose purposes are you serving? Who's paying for you to say this?".

[Gyro]

Strap them all to chairs and test all of the new vaccines on them simultaneously using really big needles! 

[james_s]

.

[DrG]

Debunking and education don't work. That's hard for a bunch of engineers, scientists and other rationalists to hear. The people who fall for this stuff are making an emotional response, no amount of explaining why they are wrong, misinformed or, worst tactic of all, stupid will succeed.

The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends. Get that message through, and the energy that is going into fuel the conspiracy is going to go into toppling the demagogues that are misusing them.

So don't try and battle with explainations, start asking questions like "I know that's not true and most reasonable people don't believe that, why are you trying to get people to believe something that you probably don't even believe yourself? Whose purposes are you serving? Who's paying for you to say this?".

"The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends."" That sounds procedurally very much like what the "other side" does.

I have probably expressed the same sentiments (not just the quote but your entire message) and many times about many things beyond the instant issue. While I don't think you (or me) are completely wrong, there is another interpretation. Namely, that education has become less effective in practice. I mean this as a condemnation of the education system (not necessarily the educators) that has seen an unprecedented need, concurrent with massive under-funding, and while mental coercion has increased exponentially. Worse, the distribution of education quality has become bi-modal.

As a cultural phenomenon, we have lowered the value of critical thinking. Everyone is entitled to their own "facts".  "Evidence" is no longer an integral element of rational thinking...and so on and so forth.

I suppose this situation could turn around but I am of the opinion that evolution does not make U-turns.

In many ways I hope I am wrong, but fear that I am not.

[Specmaster]

He has another YT channel called 5g awareness

[Specmaster]

This website also gives him a platform and there are a few videos in the video section related to 5G https://www.cravenfreedom.com/news/technology/thefacialrecognitiongrid.html

[bd139]

I've reported that site to the hosting company's (orangewebsite) abuse service. I hope they take it seriously. If not I have their upstream lined up as well (advania). They are one of the few companies that takes payment in BTC.

[Cerebus]

"The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends.""[/i] That sounds procedurally very much like what the "other side" does.

No not really, unless you want to say a surgeon making an incision is the same procedurally as stabbing someone with a combat knife. For a start, there's the difference in our objective "get them to understand" as opposed to the objective of the Steeles of this world "get them to do what I want for my own ends". Worlds apart.

I have probably expressed the same sentiments (not just the quote but your entire message) and many times about many things beyond the instant issue. While I don't think you (or me) are completely wrong, there is another interpretation. Namely, that education has become less effective in practice. I mean this as a condemnation of the education system (not necessarily the educators) that has seen an unprecedented need, concurrent with massive under-funding, and while mental coercion has increased exponentially. Worse, the distribution of education quality has become bi-modal.

As a cultural phenomenon, we have lowered the value of critical thinking. Everyone is entitled to their own "facts".  "Evidence" is no longer an integral element of rational thinking...and so on and so forth.

I suppose this situation could turn around but I am of the opinion that evolution does not make U-turns.

In many ways I hope I am wrong, but fear that I am not.

Tempting, but na. That's just another version of the "The world was better when I was a lad" trope. We all know someone who we know has the education and the intellectual capacity to think logically, to know fact from fiction, but who believes in something irrational to the point where it determines the course of their life, or their entire world view. That belief might be in some religion or one of the many self delusions that we as a race indulge in, like doctors who smoke. People who do that are acting at an emotional level, often in the face and the teeth of the facts. The clue to this all lies there, not in some perceived intellectual or educational inferiority of the people holding weird ideas.

[Specmaster]

I discovered this YT channel and it is very informative and that nutter has been mentioned and interviewed on it as well, listen to the people describe symptoms that they have, laughable.

[DrG]

"The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends.""[/i] That sounds procedurally very much like what the "other side" does.

No not really, unless you want to say a surgeon making an incision is the same procedurally as stabbing someone with a combat knife. For a start, there's the difference in our objective "get them to understand" as opposed to the objective of the Steeles of this world "get them to do what I want for my own ends". Worlds apart.

I have probably expressed the same sentiments (not just the quote but your entire message) and many times about many things beyond the instant issue. While I don't think you (or me) are completely wrong, there is another interpretation. Namely, that education has become less effective in practice. I mean this as a condemnation of the education system (not necessarily the educators) that has seen an unprecedented need, concurrent with massive under-funding, and while mental coercion has increased exponentially. Worse, the distribution of education quality has become bi-modal.

As a cultural phenomenon, we have lowered the value of critical thinking. Everyone is entitled to their own "facts".  "Evidence" is no longer an integral element of rational thinking...and so on and so forth.

I suppose this situation could turn around but I am of the opinion that evolution does not make U-turns.

In many ways I hope I am wrong, but fear that I am not.

Tempting, but na. That's just another version of the "The world was better when I was a lad" trope. We all know someone who we know has the education and the intellectual capacity to think logically, to know fact from fiction, but who believes in something irrational to the point where it determines the course of their life, or their entire world view. That belief might be in some religion or one of the many self delusions that we as a race indulge in, like doctors who smoke. People who do that are acting at an emotional level, often in the face and the teeth of the facts. The clue to this all lies there, not in some perceived intellectual or educational inferiority of the people holding weird ideas.

Well, we have some different opinions and that is fine.

On the first point the similarity, in a general sense, but POSSIBLY less so in this one particular case because I am not going to take a lot of time to research him, to an appeal to visceral in contrast to rational is what is played out over and over again. That is what it is all about. The appeal to fear, the incitement of division and anger, the appeal to greed and 'something for nothing' and so on. My point is that the procedure is the same, I am not saying that the ends are the same in all cases.

Visceral means, "relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect" (I know you know that definition), I don't like that. I am not immune to how compelling it is to want to pursue that avenue, but I do not like doing that as a way to move toward a "more perfect" behavior, so to speak.

To the second point, sure, there are all kinds of highly intellectual people - those that easily excel at advanced education, that are prone to failing in the ways you mentioned and many more ways. There are also highly intellectual people with high sociopathy that excel at all kinds of manipulation.

My response is that high intellectual functioning does not mean good at critical thinking. We all know of people who spend a lifetime chasing get-rich-schemes, but none of the regular users here would do that. There is a difference and it is because many folks here have developed critical thinking skills - not necessarily in all matters, but in at least some and there is generalization to others.

You would NEVER fall for an over unity device because you have those critical thinking skills. How did you get them? I don't know for sure, but believe, if not know, that critical thinking skills can be taught. I feel that way because I have learned my critical thinking skills, I don't believe that I was born with them.

The ability to question things, seek answers, learn facts and apply them to thinking and drawing conclusions - to gather evidence to reach some kind of rational decision is all part of critical thinking - but it is not, necessarily, taught in schools, or from a mentor or from analyzing your experiences - but it is acquired.

[BU508A]

Being poorly educated is a part of the problem. But if you want to convince the people, which are believing in such crap, you have to get and convince them on another level.

We as engineers are used to use logic, rationalism, physics etc. We have learned this and we can deal with it.
But try to understand hom people are thinking, which do not have these skills and/or education.

First, we have to admit, that all humans are very good at pattern recognition. this helped mankind to survive in a hostile enviroment.
Example: someone spotted an unusual movement of some grass, it could be, that the reason for this is a predator hiding in it,
therefore: run. This saved many lifes. So, people learnt over time to watch all kinds of patterns and are becoming very good in this skill.
And since the human brain is that powerful, this technique has been transferred to other parts of human life.
But the price for this are false positives. On the other hand, from an evolutionary point of view: better safe than sorry.

Second: humans are very bad at (statistical) probabilities.
Example: lots of people are gambling lottery.

Third: people tend to simplify things, even the complex ones which are ahrd to understand.
Example: all this sensational bullshit newspapers like "The Sun", "Bildzeitung" etc.
People like it, if somebody is explaining them the world in a black and white manner with big letters on the first page.

Today, we are living in a very complex world with lots of different requirements. The future is looking frightening and one as a person might feel overstrained and powerless.

If now somebody is coming like Mr. Steele and offers simple explanation and what one can do about this, this would be easily accepted.

My conclusion about all my scatterbrained statements  is:
We have to convince people on an emotional level. It is worthless to present mathematics, physics, diagrams whatever to this group. They would not listen, nor understand.
But if one is using pictures, easy to understand examples which may be ideally connected to their daily life experiences, then there is a chance, that they will listen to you and perhaps start kind of thinking.

I tried once to explain to some people, what it's all about the 1/r² law and the RF power per area. You know, the critic of all this mobile RF are using huge numbers, e.g. 10000µW/m² or so but all what would be recognized is the number of 10000.
I showed them a cube with a side length of 10cm and explained, that it containes 1 million mini cubes with a side length of 1mm. And then I said:
"Let's assume, that in 1m distance from the antenna we are having 1 million µW/m². This is our cube here and in 10m distance, we are having now 10000µW/m² which is now represented by these 10 cubes with a side length of 1cm.

I was nearly able to see how their brains worked on this and some persons I could see a "click".

What I'm trying to say, is: we as engineers are in responsibility to explain these things in a manner, which picks up the people from where they are, humble and with no attitudes of arrogance or elitism.

And of course we have to make it hard for people such as Mr. Steele to spread his misinformation.

P.S.
Sorry, if all this may come in a weird and disruptive manner, but I hope, that you'll catch the idea.

[Cerebus]

Well, we have some different opinions and that is fine.

On the first point the similarity, in a general sense, but POSSIBLY less so in this one particular case because I am not going to take a lot of time to research him, to an appeal to visceral in contrast to rational is what is played out over and over again. That is what it is all about. The appeal to fear, the incitement of division and anger, the appeal to greed and 'something for nothing' and so on. My point is that the procedure is the same, I am not saying that the ends are the same in all cases.

You seem to be making the assumption there that something that appeals on an emotional level has to be directed at base drives and responses - how would you feel if your Wife, Mum, Gran or Sister saw you talking about people as if they were all scum that can only be motivated by bad stuff? See what I did there, appealed to your sense of social norms or, if you prefer, your conscience? There are positive 'gut feelings' that can be appealed to as well as negative ones.

I'm not suggesting adopting the same tactics as Steele and Co, I'm saying "realise what you're dealing with". You will not dissuade one of these folks simply with hard cold logic, you will fail if you try to do so. These are people who are reacting to being marginalised and ignored by a flight into irrationality because they want to do something in reaction to those feelings, to generate a feeling that they are "fighting the good fight". Wading in with "You're wrong and here's the evidence why" will not get the reaction you would like to illicit, just hostility, veiled or outright. Whereas asking "So what's bothering you?" as an opening gambit might eventually get you listened to. The visceral appeal is "Here's someone who will listen to me", and if you actually listen you'll have a basis to continue a conversation.

Visceral means, "relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect" (I know you know that definition), I don't like that. I am not immune to how compelling it is to want to pursue that avenue, but I do not like doing that as a way to move toward a "more perfect" behavior, so to speak.

To the second point, sure, there are all kinds of highly intellectual people - those that easily excel at advanced education, that are prone to failing in the ways you mentioned and many more ways. There are also highly intellectual people with high sociopathy that excel at all kinds of manipulation.

My response is that high intellectual functioning does not mean good at critical thinking. We all know of people who spend a lifetime chasing get-rich-schemes, but none of the regular users here would do that. There is a difference and it is because many folks here have developed critical thinking skills - not necessarily in all matters, but in at least some and there is generalization to others.

You would NEVER fall for an over unity device because you have those critical thinking skills.

Oh I don't know, it depends how fuckable the redhead telling me about it was and how much I wanted to fuck her. Emotional drives can really mess up your ability to reason and get you to start thinking and believing things that you probably shouldn't.

How did you get them? I don't know for sure, but believe, if not know, that critical thinking skills can be taught. I feel that way because I have learned my critical thinking skills, I don't believe that I was born with them.

The ability to question things, seek answers, learn facts and apply them to thinking and drawing conclusions - to gather evidence to reach some kind of rational decision is all part of critical thinking - but it is not, necessarily, taught in schools, or from a mentor or from analyzing your experiences - but it is acquired.

Again, this is nothing to do with any lack of critical thinking skills in the people involved, but their response to an emotional need. Any attempt to analyse this as being shaped by intellect or critical thinking, or flaws in the same, is doomed to failure. Moreover, even if what we were dealing with was merely a deficiency in critical thinking skills, it'd be impractical to re-educate the entire public. That might be desirable as a long term strategic goal, but as a tactic it's impractical.

You seem to be saying that you feel that an appeal to reason is the only 'pure' approach to this. That's flawed in that it treats other humans as only intellectual creatures, and ignores what constitutes at least 50% of them. Also, note that your appeal for a purity of approach is not a logical one, it's one that caters to your own emotional need for something that feels right to you. See, we're back to needing to acknowledge that people can't be treated as purely rational, including you.

[BU508A]

@Cerebus:

Good to know you by my side here.     

[Cerebus]

@Cerebus:

Good to know you by my side here.     

Always. Well, except about what's the best bier. 

[BU508A]

@Cerebus:

Good to know you by my side here.     

Always. Well, except about what's the best bier. 

Perhaps one day we'll find out while discussing strategies about how to explain 5G etc. best.   

[DrG]

Well, we have some different opinions and that is fine.

On the first point the similarity, in a general sense, but POSSIBLY less so in this one particular case because I am not going to take a lot of time to research him, to an appeal to visceral in contrast to rational is what is played out over and over again. That is what it is all about. The appeal to fear, the incitement of division and anger, the appeal to greed and 'something for nothing' and so on. My point is that the procedure is the same, I am not saying that the ends are the same in all cases.

You seem to be making the assumption there that something that appeals on an emotional level has to be directed at base drives and responses - how would you feel if your Wife, Mum, Gran or Sister saw you talking about people as if they were all scum that can only be motivated by bad stuff? See what I did there, appealed to your sense of social norms or, if you prefer, your conscience? There are positive 'gut feelings' that can be appealed to as well as negative ones.

I'm not suggesting adopting the same tactics as Steele and Co, I'm saying "realise what you're dealing with". You will not dissuade one of these folks simply with hard cold logic, you will fail if you try to do so. These are people who are reacting to being marginalised and ignored by a flight into irrationality because they want to do something in reaction to those feelings, to generate a feeling that they are "fighting the good fight". Wading in with "You're wrong and here's the evidence why" will not get the reaction you would like to illicit, just hostility, veiled or outright. Whereas asking "So what's bothering you?" as an opening gambit might eventually get you listened to. The visceral appeal is "Here's someone who will listen to me", and if you actually listen you'll have a basis to continue a conversation.

Visceral means, "relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect" (I know you know that definition), I don't like that. I am not immune to how compelling it is to want to pursue that avenue, but I do not like doing that as a way to move toward a "more perfect" behavior, so to speak.

To the second point, sure, there are all kinds of highly intellectual people - those that easily excel at advanced education, that are prone to failing in the ways you mentioned and many more ways. There are also highly intellectual people with high sociopathy that excel at all kinds of manipulation.

My response is that high intellectual functioning does not mean good at critical thinking. We all know of people who spend a lifetime chasing get-rich-schemes, but none of the regular users here would do that. There is a difference and it is because many folks here have developed critical thinking skills - not necessarily in all matters, but in at least some and there is generalization to others.

You would NEVER fall for an over unity device because you have those critical thinking skills.

Oh I don't know, it depends how fuckable the redhead telling me about it was and how much I wanted to fuck her. Emotional drives can really mess up your ability to reason and get you to start thinking and believing things that you probably shouldn't.

How did you get them? I don't know for sure, but believe, if not know, that critical thinking skills can be taught. I feel that way because I have learned my critical thinking skills, I don't believe that I was born with them.

The ability to question things, seek answers, learn facts and apply them to thinking and drawing conclusions - to gather evidence to reach some kind of rational decision is all part of critical thinking - but it is not, necessarily, taught in schools, or from a mentor or from analyzing your experiences - but it is acquired.

Again, this is nothing to do with any lack of critical thinking skills in the people involved, but their response to an emotional need. Any attempt to analyse this as being shaped by intellect or critical thinking, or flaws in the same, is doomed to failure. Moreover, even if what we were dealing with was merely a deficiency in critical thinking skills, it'd be impractical to re-educate the entire public. That might be desirable as a long term strategic goal, but as a tactic it's impractical.

You seem to be saying that you feel that an appeal to reason is the only 'pure' approach to this. That's flawed in that it treats other humans as only intellectual creatures, and ignores what constitutes at least 50% of them. Also, note that your appeal for a purity of approach is not a logical one, it's one that caters to your own emotional need for something that feels right to you. See, we're back to needing to acknowledge that people can't be treated as purely rational, including you.

You seem to be making the assumption there that something that appeals on an emotional level has to be directed at base drives and responses - how would you feel if your Wife, Mum, Gran or Sister saw you talking about people as if they were all scum that can only be motivated by bad stuff?

They seem to be ok with it.

You seem to be saying that you feel that an appeal to reason is the only 'pure' approach to this. That's flawed in that it treats other humans as only intellectual creatures, and ignores what constitutes at least 50% of them.

Not sure how you came up with that 50% figure, but no I am not saying that at all.

In fact an appeal to reason for "those" folks is not going to work and that needs to be understood and accepted. You seem to be saying that you need some kind of superior emotional manipulation that will convince them otherwise - that sounds a lot like more of the same as I already mentioned.

When has that worked? Show me the video or the citation.

I believe that too many folks who believe such things are too far gone. It is not my fault that they believe those things and it is not my job to convince them to sop believing such things - in fact, it is a fools errand.

One can, however, influence people BEFORE they have reached that point and that is where my emphasis on critical thinking skills comes in.

Apart from this simplistic emotional/intellectual dichotomy that I don't think you could operationally define, I look at it this way...Behavior (including beliefs) is maintained by reinforcement - something is keeping those folks believing (or saying or acting like they believe) that nonsense - something led to believing that nonsense. Nobody was born to believe in over unity devices.

Also, I stand corrected, you would believe in over unity devices if some hot redhead agreed to exchange sex for your expression of beliefs. You made my point, something reinforces your behavior and your beliefs....see what I did there?

Again, this is nothing to do with any lack of critical thinking skills in the people involved, but their response to an emotional need. Any attempt to analyse this as being shaped by intellect or critical thinking, or flaws in the same, is doomed to failure.


Again, we disagree, as I said. Further "this" has EVERYTHING to do with a lack of critical thinking skills. Any attempt to analyze "this" without considering "this" as NOT being dependent on a lack of critical thinking skills is doomed to failure. Nowhere has there been any discussion by me of an emotional need NOT coming into the situation - that is just not true, Your inability to grasp that the concepts, critical thinking and emotional need, are not mutually exclusive is mind-numbing.

 It is a particularly striking accusation (which is exactly what it is) especially to someone who has worked for decades as an Experimental Psychologist/Neurobiologist. I am not claiming that, alone, is a reason that means I am right and you are wrong. But, to claim that my position is "doomed to failure", is well, disinhibited, to say the least, and, in fact, somewhat arrogant. I get it, you like to argue.

Do you actually have some kind of evidence or credentials that your position, whatever it is, is correct and that mine is incorrect? - No, of course not, if you did, you would simply state that evidence and those credentials.

I am stating that "this" is not an issue that I have neglected in my thinking. To me, your position that it has nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with "emotional need" is a convenient oversimplification weakly used to rationalize a strategy that employs the same processes of manipulation to get a desired outcome.

"The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends."

Those are your words. I disagree with them. There may be other ways and they may be too far gone to be changed (for a lot of reasons). Your proclamation that your so-called visceral approach, especially since you are offering absolutely no evidence that you have actually done that, is, to me, just another opinion. I am ok with that - be ok with mine. As I said, we disagree.

I will let you actually have the last word if you like - at least for now, because I am tired of this go-round and it does not matter so much to me because I doubt you are "convinceable" (much as those you claim you will convince by emotional coercion) - but you might remember.