it’s just not fair.

@fro-not-so-zen:

lol. I like how you come off as even more cynical than i… which i sometimes forget is even possible, due to the reactions my writings seem to provoke among SP’s users.

I kinda feel like “the fed” already owns everything, even if they only potentially own everything, and don’t /actually/ own everything quite yet. I think there’s probably some strategy in that: if they own “everything,” people will freak out. They have to try not to make it so obvious; it’s okay if a few of us get it, because we can be marginalized with disinformation and discrediting campaigns… but they can’t allow a critical mass to be reached, or their system can be significantly disrupted by revolt, or even collapse entirely. Plus, if we push too hard, they’ll just dump their dollars and stakes in our economy, and flee to one of likely many foreign safe havens, while delivering a death blow to our economy, and thus, our “way of life,” in the process.

Hmm… maybe pushing that hard isn’t such a bad idea…

Not all big bad wolves are visibly big and bad. Some of them look very normal, and are even nice to people they aren’t targeting. It is absolutely possible to keep secrets.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me disinclined to Call myself a skeptic, despite the fact that i do often employ skepticism in my assessment of any seemingly questionable scenario.

“Skeptics” seem to have developed a tendency to be skeptical of things that show significant probability, rather than applying it where it’s more needed, like with theology.

If you want to call yourself “a skeptic,” then you need to just erase the word “believe” from your vocabulary. Belief is a trick, even if you say that you only want to “believe what is true.” If you know something to be true, it’s not the same as “belief.” The only way “belief” is relevant at that point, is in trusting your senses and your methods of interpreting the data they stream to your brain. You have to “believe” that your senses are streaming valid information… and even that is legitimately questionable, to an extent.

If you say “there is someone for everyone”

It does not require “deep reading into” for me to know that is almost certainly incorrect. All i have to do is take it at face value, and compare it to observable reality. Many people do not have someone. Many people lived and died without ever having a someone. Many people are unable to find a someone, whether or not that someone even exists.

So, to say “there is someone for everyone” is wrong on multiple levels, even if some people do have a someone.

What i meant, before, is that there are people claiming the label of “skeptic,” but are misrepresenting and popularizing a skewed and invalid idea of “skepticism.” I can’t condone or endorse that, but they have corrupted the socially accepted meaning of that word. So… i’m the “real” skeptic, while so many others who call themselves such a thing, are actually very mistaken, and are causing others to become mistaken, due to observing the actions and behaviors of “false-skeptics.” I won’t voluntarily identify myself with that particular sub-culture, because i’d rather not deal with being exposed to the stigmatic reactions of the so-called “anti-skeptics.”

So, yes, it is actually very logical for me to not want to identify myself in such a way that will cause many people to misunderstand my position due to what they think that label means. I won’t identify with what that label has been made to mean. I do identify with what it was originally intended to mean… but then we get into “lexical dissonance,” and that’s a whole palate of cases of cans of worms.