354
The men who stare at credibility
(media.kbin.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
354 points (97.1% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6598 readers
202 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Utter garbage article from a pop sci rag. It does the same thing a lot of garbage science does: spends all its time attacking "mainstream science", none of it defending their own positions, and hoping the reader doesn't notice.
And here's the thing: the article focuses its attack on physicalism, but there's nothing necessarily contradictory about physicalism and human psi ability. Some kind of biological radio could very well exist. We simply lack any evidence that it does.
It's not that we lack evidence, it's that the evidence is actively being ignored because "Oh well, even though these 90 labs recreated this when they tested it, 1 didn't"
There's a very real stigma against it, and the article I listed actually gave examples of proven Psi, but you ignored that to focus on the "attack"m because you couldn't argue against the evidence provided.
Here's another article from the same site showing evidence for telepathy - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/debunking-myths-the-mind/201804/the-biology-telepathy
It's definitely not a woo site, as there are plenty of articles speaking out against that kind of nonsense - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201301/troubled-souls-spirituality-mental-health-hazard
And here's proof that the site is credible - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/psychology-today/
The thing is, Psionics is real, that much we know, however that still doesn't mean Madame Cleo can really talk to dead people or that Uri Geller can really bend spends, I'm not defending them, and I certainly have no love for New Age Bullshit (Ladies, if he's into Spirit Science don't start a relationship with him, lest you want to be gaslit into thinking your illnesses can be cured by baby oil)
A few scammers overstating or outright lying does not an entire study of science disprove. Kind of how we don't immediately shun all of green energy because of a few nutjobs claiming they totally have a car that gets over 9000 miles per drop of water.
If the data legitimately suggests that Psionic Phenomenon is real, then that means that despite a rocky start (to say the least), there are non-physical aspects of our reality and we know nothing about them other than that they exist.