http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1cwnox_sous-les-balles-des-snipers-a-kiev-jerome-sessini-agence-magnum_news

brutāli.

shit :/

tieši domāju par tumšumu pilsētā. tie pirms`n`pēc tomēr ir viltīgi.

bet kāda burvīga tautas pašorganizācija tur tagad notiek! izrādās, ka pilsonis ir spējīgs ne tikai atsēdēt savu laiku pie tv un biroja krēslā, viņi kaut ko spēj, ja viņus pamatīgi sanikno.

tas mani tajā visā fascinē visvairāk. es ļoti ceru, ka šī pašorganizācija nav tieši ietekmēta by the west. citādāk tā nebūtu tik sirsnīga, kā ir tagad.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/unknown-snipers-and-western-backed-regime-change/27904

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

debils avots

I am firmly in the I-can't-be sure/steady-as-she-goes camp, but one thing I do know is that it is odd that a site with the name 'rational' in it has the following connotative-laden text: "the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping and bullshit throughout its pages".

I am not a fan of emotional, irrational people claiming a rational high ground - it is kind of debils.

haha, nepiefiksēju, ka viņiem tur tā rakstīts. tiešām absolūti bulšitaini

> I am firmly in the I-can't-be sure/steady-as-she-goes camp

every dope commenting on YouTube probably thinks the same way about themselves. the thing is, it's very hard to know what you don't know, so people end up trotting out sophomoric fallacies and miss it because they're sure of their competence; after all, they probably have some success navigating the everyday world, maybe they're grownups who manage to support a family, or seem to intellectually outclass their peers, or whatever, so this competence must also apply to the conceptual realm, but it often doesn't. a fallacy in this case is that even if you take a shallow view on it and accept emotive language as a sign of irrationality, it doesn't necessarily place both sources at the same level. you can see for yourself what epistemic standards RationalWiki adopts if you look through their articles, so even if they aren't a neutral or academic source, it doesn't follow that you can simply lump them together with any crank site.

Thanks for taking the time to reply - you have faultless English, by the way.

I have taken another look at the site, and I'd like to explain to you why I take the, perhaps shallow, view that its language displays an irrationality - and possibly an unwarranted aggression. You see four or five years ago I would have taken the same view as you because my worldview was broadly standard - okay I was to the left but within the usual parameters. I considered myself reasonably rational (I still do actually - not completely: I give emotions and imagination some free rein - I would go nuts otherwise), I have a science background, and I liked to have a good laugh with my friends at wacko ideas - usually coming from the southern states of Yank land.

Then what happened? Well, I started to take an interest in the banking system - quite a big interest: sure, I started with some youtube videos - actually some served as a good introduction - but then I continued further: I moved on to academic papers, I would trawl through the educated comments in debates on the below-the-line section on articles in economics sites with a dictionary of key terms close to hand, and occasionally (ha!) I would express myself in public.

Which is not for the faint-hearted. Most of my circle of friends believe(d) I am/was crazy. I was (and probably still am) called a 'crank', a 'loon' and, wait for it... a 'middle-aged obsessive' (which actually is fair) - basically, someone not to be taken too seriously. That's tough to take (okay there are harder things in life), but it was the first time in my life when I felt quite removed from the consensus.

But then, slowly, I began to become more confident. I had long talks with economists I know, including the chief economist of a Latvian bank. I engaged in a debate with an ex-consultant to the UK treasury - and... do you know what? They confirmed my crank views were essentially correct. Now, even mainstream financial journalists will, for example, use the term 'ex nihilo' to talk about the now-accepted ability of banks to create money out of nothing. You should have read the internet abuse and scorn heaped on to the heads of those who suggested such a thing in the past.

Another interesting thing I want to mention here is that the draw to belong to a consensus view is terribly strong. I had a guy studying for his doctorate who after a 3-hour conversation on the banking system (I had been proofreading a report of his), told me 'Yeah, but John - if I talk about how the banking system actually works, it would be suicide for my career'. The chief economist also trailed off in similar fashion. A good friend of mine down in Oxford (a mature student studying PPE)answered my queries about how the banking sector was covered in his studies and about the conspiracy theory related to All-Souls College, with a sigh - "Well' he said, 'I can't confirm anything, but I will tell who is teaching us Micro - Prof Vickers (who wrote the very-same Vickers report into the UK banking system) - but...' again, he trailed off.

So, to conclude, I will not be looking at the rationalwiki site (unless some new conspiracy theory scares the beejeezus out of me and I want to get a dose of an opposing view) because although some of what is written there may be true and well-researched, it has a motive - namely (with a cynically rational air) to aggressively discredit views outside their consensus. As someone who has moved through that and has felt it power, I regard its bullying tone to be unhelpful.

One more thing, I still think I in the 'steady-as-she-goes camp' because I am sure of very little. I reserve the right, however, to judge and sift through evidence at my own pace and in my own way.

Cheers.

rationalism (in the narrow, scientifically skeptical sense) isn't about simply putting down unorthodox views; the rational worldview is at odds with mainstream opinion on a large number of topics, like life, climate sciences, energetics, public policy etc. rationalism also doesn't just blindly side with those who adopt the trappings of science; for instance, the legitimacy of social sciences like economics (or lack thereof) is part of the normal discourse for rationalists, including RationalWiki. if you want to talk about scientific consensus, the field of economics is not a great choice, but much less is journalism or "educated comments". even if you were talking about consensus in the scientific literature, showing that it changes just means that science works, since it isn't about having a fixed body of knowledge, but about the process of generating reliable theories. I appreciate your answer since it seems sincere, but it really just goes to show my point that incompetence breeds itself. you even bring up your background, as if there weren't so many examples of people with scientific distinctions being utterly wrong. people like you know just enough to be skeptical, but not enough for it to lead to anything but muddle-brained relativism

also, a friendly tip: not everyone is looking for comments on their language, it comes off as patronizing if you just assume they do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8

the Estonian PM mentioned a rumor he'd seen in circulation and that it should be investigated. the medic he cites was contacted by journalists and denied it. it's an informal discussion of hearsay, and to spin it as breaking news is just a crude form of propaganda. moreover, the video evidence of the February 20 events is consistent with shots coming from the front (based on exit holes, cover), with unambiguous instances of a low angle of fire.