I wonder how many people here actually know what that means.
I wonder how many people here actually know what that means.
The way I've phrased this idea might make what I am expressing seem more convoluted than it is, but really this is a widely-acknowledged truth, I think.
Basically, if you believe something, and what you believe in does not Itself compel you to seek Truth, then whenever something or someone challenges what you believe in, all that is required to avert the crisis of faith is any response whatever, however poor.
I will give an example to illustrate, and then elaborate: A normal person who believes in the mainstream Holocaust narrative might be challenged by someone who points out the impossibility of cyanide gas chambers functioning with wooden doors that swing inward. This is a challenge that, if they have any honestly at all, cannot simply go unaddressed. So they do a websearch, and find a site that claims that the wooden doors are not original, that there were originally air-tight steel doors that swung outward, and that only after the war were these removed and replaced with the wooden doors we can see today. It doesn't matter if this answer does not mesh with the full range of facts; it does not matter if it is unsourced; it does not matter that it is absurd. What matters is that it offers an "out" for the one whose false gnosis has been challenged. Because their gnosis is not itself aimed at Truth, then the unsatisfactory nature of the answer is irrelevant - it is an out that enables them to continue holding onto their false gnosis. It allows them to say "that narrative is 'debunked'".
The importance of being able to "debunk" a challenge to one's gnosis is utmost; that is why we have seen this rise of fact-checkers that enable people to "dismiss" problematic challenges by showing that they have been "debunked" - but anyone who has closely reviewed the "arguments" of fact-checkers can see how manipulative and misleading they themselves tend to be. The reaction of Sen. Parent to the damning Georgia video tapes (youtube.com) is another example; she begins her objection by asserting that the video has been debunked - this word itself is supposed to exert incredible power, enabling her to dismiss with the damning challenge to her gnosis - or in this case, simply her will, since it may be that she knows full well that there was fraud. It is only later that it is pointed out that the video had just been acquired hours prior, and could not possibly have yet been debunked.
These are just examples of the power of "debunking", of the importance of dismissing with challenges, however poorly, in order to defend one's gnosis.
I would like to add that one can hold true beliefs, but still have a false gnosis - a false understanding of those beliefs, of those doctrines. As a Christian theist it is my unwavering belief that Jesus Christ is Lord; I am not trying to argue here that Christians are not guilty of the very same disingenuous cop-out I have just described. They, too, firm in their beliefs, may, if challenged, accept whatever answer they can to a powerful challenge. My point would be, is that it is a sign of true gnosis to never be satisfied with answers that are inherently unsatisfactory. But the NPC, the pawn in the Machine, will latch onto whatever answer it can, however, flawed, in order to avoid a short-circuit. This is the power of the fact-checker.
The way I've phrased this idea might make what I am expressing seem more convoluted than it is, but really this is a widely-acknowledged truth, I think.
Basically, if you believe something, and what you believe in does not Itself compel you to seek Truth, then whenever something or someone challenges what you believe in, *all that is required to avert the crisis of faith is any response whatever, however poor*.
I will give an example to illustrate, and then elaborate: A normal person who believes in the mainstream Holocaust narrative might be challenged by someone who points out the impossibility of cyanide gas chambers functioning with wooden doors that swing inward. This is a challenge that, if they have any honestly at all, cannot simply go unaddressed. So they do a websearch, and find a site that claims that the wooden doors are not original, that there were originally air-tight steel doors that swung outward, and that only *after* the war were these removed and replaced with the wooden doors we can see today. It doesn't matter if this answer does not mesh with the full range of facts; it does not matter if it is unsourced; it does not matter that it is absurd. What matters is that it offers an "out" for the one whose false gnosis has been challenged. Because their gnosis is not itself aimed at Truth, then the unsatisfactory nature of the answer is irrelevant - it is an out that enables them to continue holding onto their false gnosis. It allows them to say "that narrative is 'debunked'".
The importance of being able to "debunk" a challenge to one's gnosis is utmost; that is why we have seen this rise of fact-checkers that enable people to "dismiss" problematic challenges by showing that they have been "debunked" - but anyone who has closely reviewed the "arguments" of fact-checkers can see how manipulative and misleading they themselves tend to be. [The reaction of Sen. Parent to the damning Georgia video tapes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiWGj-nZIkg) is another example; she begins her objection by asserting that the video has been debunked - this word itself is supposed to exert incredible power, enabling her to dismiss with the damning challenge to her gnosis - or in this case, simply her will, since it may be that she knows full well that there was fraud. It is only later that it is pointed out that the video had just been acquired hours prior, and could not possibly have yet been debunked.
These are just examples of the power of "debunking", of the importance of dismissing with challenges, however poorly, in order to defend one's gnosis.
I would like to add that one can hold true beliefs, but still have a false gnosis - a false understanding of those beliefs, of those doctrines. As a Christian theist it is my unwavering belief that Jesus Christ is Lord; I am not trying to argue here that Christians are not guilty of the very same disingenuous cop-out I have just described. They, too, firm in their beliefs, may, if challenged, accept whatever answer they can to a powerful challenge. My point would be, is that it is a sign of true gnosis to never be satisfied with answers that are inherently unsatisfactory. But the NPC, the pawn in the Machine, will latch onto whatever answer it can, however, flawed, in order to avoid a short-circuit. This is the power of the fact-checker.
(post is archived)