Profile overview for I_EAT_THOUGHTS.
Submission statistics

This user made no submissions.

This user has so far shared a total of 0 links, started a total of 0 discussions and submitted a total of 48 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 2 and downvoted 0 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 43 and downvoted 0 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

This user made no submissions.

5 lowest rated submissions:

This user made no submissions.

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

Chicago's Secret Homan Square Detention Facility Way Worse Than Anyone Thought submitted by DawnRazor to news

I_EAT_THOUGHTS 1 points 25 points (+26|-1) ago

Every time you blame shit on "the other team" you are playing into the us vs them narrative that is extremely advantageous to powerful elite. 'Crats are probably blaming this on 'cans the same way you are blaming this on 'crats. Divide and fall. Unite and stand. This affects all of us.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_et_impera

deleted by user submitted by openborderforisrael to news

I_EAT_THOUGHTS 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago

The unsung culprits are academic administrations at many large universities. If people knew the kinds of paychecks they get for the kind of work they do, it would be a massive shitstorm.

There are many administrators at universities who heretofore have been vital at maintaining a smooth system - but it's the ones who pull upper six figures and hop from position to position and institution to institution that are the real vampires. They wreck a place, profit hard, and leave just in time to avoid catching any flak for the mess.

When Work Is Punished: The Ongoing Tragedy Of America's Welfare State submitted by FreeSpeachRocks to politics

I_EAT_THOUGHTS 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago

It's hard to imagine anyone believing this, when we have politicians trying to defund planned parenthood for 500 million - chump change, all the money the Pentagon has misplaced over the years would pay for that a few dozen times over.

3 lowest rated comments:

A man representing 2,350+ professionals appeared on C-SPAN 1 year ago to discuss the science behind all 3 tower collapses on 9/11--it's now the Most Popular video on the C-SPAN site with 400,000 views submitted by SmedleyButler to science

I_EAT_THOUGHTS 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

You are engaging in classic cointelpro disruption techniques - or you are a very angry and sad person who doesn't bother reading very carefully. It's interesting how cointelpro techniques result in these personas that seem so laughably pathetic.

I never actually said anything you are attributing to me. I ascribe to the fundamental reasoning that outright dismissal of any claim without investigation is not possible for a truly rational, skeptical, scientific mind. The world consists of many shades of grey - after all, some of the things you would have lumped in with the more outrageous conspiracy claims 10 years ago happen to be common knowledge now. It is not absurd to consider the possibility that the same will be the case ten years from now about current conspiracies - and if you're not just a hateful person on the Internet and actually something more, that should concern you deeply.

A man representing 2,350+ professionals appeared on C-SPAN 1 year ago to discuss the science behind all 3 tower collapses on 9/11--it's now the Most Popular video on the C-SPAN site with 400,000 views submitted by SmedleyButler to science

I_EAT_THOUGHTS 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

TActually, I was thinking something more like this - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein

I may actually be an idiot. I'm a human being, and I am fallible. Every single perception, insight, and ounce of wisdom I've ever considered myself to possess could actually be blatantly, factually incorrect. For this reason, I only know that it is not possible for me to say "9/11 was an inside job", anymore than it is possible for me to say it was all as it was depicted.

I am willing to accept the presence of uncertain knowledge. There are things you know, things you know you don't know, and things you don't know you don't know. The latter most is what makes it just as irrational to blindly dismiss as it is to blindly accept. I do not "believe" anything specific about 9/11. This isn't a religious debate. Rationally, I accept a number of different possibilities that have a non-zero probability, and that there is enough information both supporting and refuting these possibilities to make it a non-trivial matter.

Edit: That is to say, I support an expert-led inquiry that is a-political, un-emotional, and utterly thorough. If such a thing were to happen, there would be no conspiracy left standing on any rational grounds, if you are correct and it is a bunch of malarky. Wouldn't that make you happy? Why would you oppose the very thing that would expose all of these people as "nut jobs"?

A man representing 2,350+ professionals appeared on C-SPAN 1 year ago to discuss the science behind all 3 tower collapses on 9/11--it's now the Most Popular video on the C-SPAN site with 400,000 views submitted by SmedleyButler to science

I_EAT_THOUGHTS 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

My emotional state is actually more of amusement. I eat thoughts - yours taste very alien. And confused. But you sure are good at both projecting anger, and painting it on others where there is none. I actually really enjoy having these sorts of conversations with odd specimens like yourself.

Well, I'm done with this now. I believe we've established your position - now logical inquiry is "woo" and science is "conspiritard bullshit" where clearly before this was a different sort of conversation. As soon as impartial inquiry is established as intrinsic to the pursuit of science, you don't ascribe to it and anyone who does must be some "tard". This is new for me! What mental contortions.

Anyone reading along can easily look at all of this and watch you painting people. You tell people how angry they must be, or how stupid they must be. You project a lot of emotional vitriol and try to color the conversation with it. You're not trying to have a conversation, you're trying to make people look bad - whether it's yourself as a representative of others, or others directly. It's not very subtle.

I subscribe to empirical evidence, and in its absence I subscribe to remaining aware and seeking further information without reaching conclusions. That may or may not describe any other groups or ideologies, but it clearly doesn't describe yours. It seems you're a lot more interested in hate and division.