File: shoah.jpg (26 KB, 359x261)

26 KB JPG

>>15876979

>>15876979
You can make any event in history look like a conspiracy by correlating the event with concurrent happenings and names of famous people and organizations. The better question is: how do we discriminate valid from invalid correlations and planning from taking advantage of opportunities and foresight from fraud?

>>15877035
You have to use your discernment based on knowing about the subjects in question. In this case yes OP's pic is correct but with the caveat that it was a happy accident that a natural ozone hole was discovered by satellites in the late 1970s.

>>15876979
Same reason nearly every medicine is discovered to be a major carcinogen after the patent expires.

>>15877035
honestly it's hard. my schizo brain can't help making connections and I read a lot plus have a good memory. I also ironically memed myself into occult stuff so those factors also pop up even when it's not relevant. thankfully I never got into numerology

>>15877040
Jews and their coincidence?

>>15877115
>my schizo brain can't help making connections and I read a lot plus have a good memory
The key is to immediately doubt literally every piece of information and plausible connection. And then only accept the connection if you can't disprove it or come up with some other reasonable explanation.

i.e. for the OP pic the obvious counter is that DuPont owns thousands of patents and of course one of them is going to benefit from favorable government action at some time or another, as well as the fact that the ozone layer is one of like two events in world history where the entire global community actually agreed on a problem and solution (believe it or not, other countries besides the U.S. conducted their own research).

>>15877196
>only accept the connection if you can't disprove it or come up with some other reasonable explanation.
The key breaks after doing this too many times: pandemic, ukraine, ohio train, maui fire, gaza...after dismissing conspiracy theories over and over again it starts to feel like gaslighting. That's where the
>stop noticing goy
meme comes from.

>>15876979
What are you talking about? Places like New Zealand/Australia have measurably higher levels of UV radiation than they did before the ozone hole. In fact despite NZ having about the same climate of Europe (and daylight hours) they have absurdly higher rates of skin cancer due to the hole. Of course the ozone hole is real.

>>15877166
With all the shit you attribute to the jews, they must be God's chosen people.

>>15877205
The vast majority of conspiracy theories are obvious garbage. Just ignore them.

>>15877205
>The key breaks after doing this too many times: pandemic, ukraine, ohio train, maui fire, gaza
Those don't indicate anything in and of themselves, and the conspiracy theories universally make no sense; you could construct equally schizo theories in an entirely different direction, i.e. Chinese nationalists claim covid was an American bioweapon dispersed during the 2019 military games in Wuhan by the U.S. military.

You immediately assume that X (I assume Jews based on your post) is the cause of Y and then—when confronted with evidence showing that Y has other causes and X was unlikely to be the primary factor—argue that because X also caused event Z it was also probably the cause of Y. Of course the claim that Z was caused by X is similarly frivolous, but you repeat inductively and then fall back on the number of claims to justify all the other claims.

what is the cause of the pandemic
>well it's the jews because they're evil
what is the cause of the war in ukraine
>well it's the jews because they're evil, don't you remember how they caused the pandemic?
what was the cause of the ohio train derailment
>the jews! it's part of their strategy to destroy america alongside the pandemic and the war in ukraine
etc. You can replace Jews with Americans, whites, capitalists, Chinese, or really any group which yields significant influence in the world to get some distinct variety of political extremist. And there will always be some minor circumstantial evidence blaming that particular group, since by nature of holding any influence they're probably involved in causing or addressing the crisis in some capacity (or at the very least members of the group will be), but the actual reality is that such events are the confluence of innumerable distinct interests and interest groups combined with the sheer chaos of natural forces and will almost never be reducible to the actions of a single actor.

>>15877367
>but the actual reality is
I was completely onboard with you until we got here. Some considerations:
>X does not have to be a singular human actor. There can be a black box that consistently turns A into B. For example: the rich get richer phenomenon is not only the accidental result of natural distributions and preferences but also a deliberate way of political decision making.
>On a scale of 0% - 100% of all cases being a conspiracy it's unreasonable to assume that there is 0% conspiracy.
>The nature of any conspiracy is that it can be plausibly denied. There is no consensus on what criteria a phenomenon should meet to be certified as a conspiracy.
Now an argument that Bret Weinstein makes is that a lot of bad decisions were made in such a way that these decisions don't appear to be random like you would expect in the case of human flaws, incompetence, uncertainty, diverse pressures from interests, but do appear to consistently do the opposite of what is optimal or even standard, like Israel's historically tight border control was remarkably lax on that tragic day.

>>15877443
None of what you said contradicts the last sentence since I never said that the publicly accepted narrative is true per se. Conspiracies exist, but they don't universally originate from any single group or person and are instead the product of multiple groups with wildly different interests. At the same time, the strongest groups in the world are state actors and those states usually have a very particular interest in appearing strong and will thus often interject themselves into global affairs as publicly as they can manage. And when it's in their interest to act covertly then it's inherently in an adversary state's interest to expose their covert actions (i.e. if the U.S. destroys Nordstream then Russia has an interest in proving that the U.S. was involved) and those adversarial states will have significantly greater resources to dedicate towards investigating and publicizing those events than you or me.

>Israel's historically tight border control was remarkably lax on that tragic day.
Was it? What are you using as a baseline? And why would Israel want Hamas to attack them? The war has dramatically weakened their position in the Middle East, leading to the breakdown of talks with Saudi Arabia and prompting a military response which harms Israel's international image. A long-term settlement program and ethnic cleansing of the strip would make Israel a diplomatic pariah; Israel evacuated the territory years ago, so what has changed to make the ethnic cleansing of Gaza more desirable? And why were Hamas's actions so neatly aligned with Israeli interests? Didn't they judge that Israel wanted to provoke a conflict?
(1/2)

>>15877443
>>15877501
>decisions don't appear to be random like you would expect in the case of human flaws
I wouldn't expect human flaws to result in a truly random pattern. To use the case of Israel, them making the mistake of judging Hamas to be unaggressive is entirely consistent with faulty judgments made by states in similar situations, dating back to when Grug of the Mountain Tribe was ambushed at peace talks by Grog of the River Tribe. Poor decisions can also create opportunities for more coherent actors to achieve their interests by capitalizing on those bad decisions, and in turn gaining power within a state or within the international system as a whole.

Or the poor judgments of one actor can be the product of another actor's successful subterfuge, i.e. if Hamas deceived Israel by sending out false communications over compromised channels speaking of their peaceful intentions, in which case decisions might in hindsight be unoptimal precisely because some other actor wanted them to make the least optimal choice and exerted the necessary influence to achieve this. Such incidents are not a "conspiracy theory" in the colloquial sense, but rather simply the reality of how groups interact. And narrowing your analysis to focus primarily on unknowable incidents of subterfuge ends up yielding more than enough false positives to offset whatever insight it provides, especially when it's tunnel visioned at a particular group.

>>15877501
You're making a good argument. Still I'm left with the sense that something doesn't add up. For exampe:
>destroys Nordstream
There are many ways in which that happening has been spun. Regardless, the result of any major event in the past few decades is always the same: rising costs of living, more uncertainty, anxiety and pessimism. We must judge anyone involved in causing those events by the fruits of their labor: rotten.
>>15877501
>What are you using as a baseline?
There is an Israeli woman who appeared on multiple podcasts to talk about her past work for the military intelligence services.
>>15877501
>And why would Israel want Hamas to attack them?
That's the thing: decision-making seems irrational in an uncanny way. There's a tendency to quickly explain the uneasy feeling of the strange behaviour we observe and the propaganda we are fed (how many times was Russia about to run out of bullets etc.). The misinformation led by governments, media and experts leaves gaps we want to fill in.

1/2

>>15877518
>mistake of judging Hamas to be unaggressive
Highly implausible. Ajax, the Amsterdam football club, has always been called Jews by hooligans who chant: Hamas, Hamas, gas the Jews! There have been examples of such extreme sentiments for decades afaik.
>Poor decisions can also create opportunities for more coherent actors to achieve their interests by capitalizing on those bad decisions, and in turn gaining power within a state or within the international system as a whole.
True. Coincidentally the WEF-agenda, local governments and climate policy have resulted in massive financial incentives for Big Corp and massive taxes for individual citizens. Does that ever happen in reverse?
>>15877518
>And narrowing your analysis to focus primarily on unknowable incidents of subterfuge ends up yielding more than enough false positives to offset whatever insight it provides, especially when it's tunnel visioned at a particular group.
That's precisely how the media appear to control the public gaze. Thus media appear to be Decartes' Demon. In a non-conspiratorial world the media would pierce the veil / bring clarity and unity, not cause division and confusion. Groups of people are working together to sell us their particular narrative through public instead of private means. In a democracy there should be seperation between government, media, churches, public, private, parlement, senate, judges...Now that their interests are aligning something more coordinated is going on.

>>15877035
it could be that people constantly act dishonestly and at that level of soceity everyone uses the government to their benift. Combined with the inherently corrupt nature of government (taxation is theft, nobody consents to regulations and so on) then people acting their own interest by using government will look like a conspiracy because it is.

>>15877639
Strangely there's a huge discrepancy between how government functions on a macrolevel and a microlevel. It seems impossible. Imagine you and I working together contracting the contractors and accounting for every penny spend and carefully analyzing the most efficient ways and managing risks and writing strategies and having seperate access privileges and checking eachother's work etc. How can any of us commit fraud, or make expensive mistakes or hide secret deals etc.? There are so many checks and balances and restrictions and different interests there's no way. Yet it does happen.

>>15877610
>Ajax, the Amsterdam football club, has always been called Jews by hooligans who chant: Hamas, Hamas, gas the Jews!
They aren't the ones running Hamas and ordering attacks. Israeli intelligence has much better indicators for whether Hamas would be aggressive than chants from some idiots thousands of miles away. Just because those indicators gave the wrong result doesn't mean that it was irrational for Israel to look to them and ignore rhetoric which has persisted for decades. Imagine you have two clocks, one of which is accurate to within 5 minutes 80% of the time and another which is stopped and locked to a single time. Which clock should you use to get the time?
>local governments and climate policy have resulted in massive financial incentives for Big Corp and massive taxes for individual citizens. Does that ever happen in reverse?
Not really, but that's a feature of government regulation generally; I'd be more inclined to believe in a grand conspiracy if government actions were benefitting individuals.
>Now that their interests are aligning
But they aren't, or at least not to the same extent that you imagine, which is part of my overarching point that you shouldn't infer such grand theories based on loose connections that have clear and obvious counterexamples. For instance, the media (or at least the left-wing media, so most of it) is certainly not aligned with the Supreme Court in many recent decisions; if anything the courts were more closely aligned with progressive politics several decades ago and have since grown more conservative.

>>15877695
Thank you for your intelligent input. I'll keep my eyes open and train my discernment.

>>15877214
i don't that he and his people think that australia actually exists.

>>15877214
>measurably higher levels of UV radiation than they did before the ozone hole.
The ozone hole has always been there. Nobody noticed it before satellites were lifted above the area and took a photograph of it. It's completely natural and unfortunately nothing can be done about it. The high rates of skin cancer and stereotype of leathered kiwis and aussies is as old as settlement.

>>15876979
Yes, that is the real story behind the "ozone hole" meme

So what actually caused it?

Attention everyone: please keep in mind that propane is a more effective refrigerant than any of those proprietary gases. You can shove regular old propane directly into a car's a/c system and it will blow colder while using less energy and leak less and cost only pennies to fill. The government doesn't want you to know this because it doesn't make anyone any money.

I'm not joking though, it's really true. Look it up.

>>15878679
Ozone circulation patterns in the upper atmosphere. It's still there, just only during the half ofthe year when conditions permit its formation.

>>15878720
What is the risk of an explosion if you get into an accident

>>15879252
An industrial refrigerator might have several kg but a car probably has less than 1kg in the entire system.

>>15877367
>>15877443
Congratulations you just disproved science.

>>15879252
It doesn't explode from being squished, you'd need to have a fire already and then it would burst into more flames. But what are the chances that your car catches on fire if it's not a Tesla? I'd say it's extremely safe.

>>15879883
Many such cases.

File: 1571488694201352.jpg (162 KB, 846x1074)

162 KB JPG

>>15879883
>>15880162

>>15876979
probably.

there are probably tons of different chemicals you can throw in the air to get the same effect as cfcs

File: IMG_4847.gif (887 KB, 675x675)

887 KB GIF

>>15877196
This is probably the dumbest post I’ve read this month on here.

>>15877214
>measurably higher levels of UV radiation than they did
This also applies to Europe, but it is caused by cleaner air. Cleaner combustion engineers, cleaner factories, filters, use of natural gas instead of wood or coal. Decades of sooth buildup is disappearing from the atmosphere.
Downside is that more UV comes through now.

>>15879317
ICEs are more likely to catch fire than EVs.

>>15882533
>ICEs are more likely to catch fire than EVs.
Lol yeah ok

File: screenshot-2022-01-18-at-(...).png (293 KB, 2000x768)

293 KB PNG

>>15882594
You should get your news from somewhere other than Daily Mail

>>15882596
EVs spontaneously catch fire and ICE cars don't. For me personally, a Tesla has a nonzero chance of catching on fire, and ICE has 0%.

>>15882598
Nonsense. You're just mad that ICEs catch on fire more often.

>>15882602
Dude I've been on the road 15 years with no accidents. Your statistics about what happens to the average retard have absolutely no bearing on me.

>>15882605
>Statistics don't matter because anecdotes
Very scientific. You have a 1.5% chance of you car catching fire and EV owners have a 0.03% chance of having their car catch on fire. Stay mad.

>>15882633
you're retarded.
one burns during an accident, the other can go off at any time with no warning and the fires are hot enough to melt a fucking parking garage

they are not even remotely comparable

>>15876979
Probably both are true. The hole in the ozone thing was real and also the only reason they stopped using it was because of the patent expiring.

dupont is more than evil and greedy enough for that, they were also pretty competent. Actually the real conspiracy might have been that they planned the whole thing out years ahead of time, knowing what would happen and sitting on the patent to solve the problem of their own making in order to maximize profits.

>>15882662
>Actually the real conspiracy might have been that they planned the whole thing out years ahead of time, knowing what would happen and sitting on the patent to solve the problem of their own making in order to maximize profits.
This is completely schizo and makes no sense since the hole disappears when weather patterns change.

>>15876979
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

>>15882648
You're right, not only are the ICEs more likely to catch on fire, they're also more likely to catch on fire while you're in the vehicle. They're much more dangerous than EVs.

>>15882633
You think that literally everyone has an equal chance of being in an accident? This is how statistics work to you? My car insurance company certainly pegs the chances of my car catching on fire at less than 1.5%, and I don't think their statistical model is running on anecdotes, you fucking retard.

Also I just googled your image and it's completely fucking fake.
https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/104oyv3/please_stop_sharing_anything_that_cites/

>>15877687
>There are so many checks and balances and restrictions and different interests there's no way.
You'd be surprised. My job is compliance monitoring. It's all well and good to set up checks and balances ensuring that you can't do something until x, y and z checks have been completed; but it takes time and money for people to do those checks properly; and the people responsible for doing them have a lot on their plate. At the same time you have other people in the organisation under pressure to meet deadlines for the delivery of products and services demanding things get done right away. In any large organisation; private or public; it's very easy for stuff to slip through the cracks without any ill intent.

>>15882991
>Gigacope: The Post
I especially liked the part where you unironically link Reddit to "debunk" facts you don't like.

>>15877251
kek. you're right

>>15882991
Do you prefer the Swedes, the Aussies, or Elon Musk?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/20/do-electric-cars-pose-a-greater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles
>The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency this year found that there were 3.8 fires per 100,000 electric or hybrid cars in 2022, compared with 68 fires per 100,000 cars when taking all fuel types into account.

>Australia’s Department of Defence funded EV FireSafe to look into the question. It found there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars.

>Elon Musk’s Tesla is the world’s biggest maker of electric cars. It says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines.

Or, you could do what you should have done from the beginning and source your claims. The burden of proof has been yours this entire argument and the only source you have cited is Reddit, which doesn't support your initial claim.

>>15883543
Your claim is that because 0.1% of ICE cars catch on fire, that means that every ICE car has 0.1% chance to randomly catch on fire (I'll just let it slide that you were off by an order of magnitude with your earlier fake image). You're intentionally creating a false equivalence. I do not want to own a vehicle that will spontaneously combust without any driver error, for the same reason that I do not want to own a vehicle that can randomly decide to swerve off the road because its autopilot glitched. I don't care if the average human driver randomly swerves off the road at a higher rate than that, because I don't and won't.

>>15883568
Every ICE car has either a 100% chance to catch on fire or a 0% chance of catching on fire and you find out which universe you're living in. Statistically, which is how we deal with the uncertainty of which universe we live in, 0.1% of ICEs will catch fire. That means that if you own 1000 ICE cars over your lifetime then you have a 50% chance of having your car catch fire.

All your weird cope just speaks to your ignorance and need for denial. Instead you should find a better source of information and stop frequenting whatever source convinced you of nonsense.

>>15883606
I can't tell if you really don't understand why you're wrong. If 0.1% of ICE cars catch on fire it doesn't mean that 0.1% of /my/ ICE cars are statistically likely to catch on fire. They don't just spontaneously combust, they catch on fire when you crash them. That's like saying x% of people fuck children, so you have x% chance of fucking a child.

>>15883717
>doesn't mean that 0.1% of /my/ ICE cars are statistically likely to catch on fire.
Hence the 50%. Take a fucking statistics class, you moron. EVs are safer than ICEs. Get over it.

>>15883723
Tooker what is this supposed to be?

>>15876979
>climate change science is observational bullshit to serve corporate interests and their cronies in the government
Highly plausible

>>15886532
"Not when they're saving the world from [insert conservative opposition here], since they're the ones actually guilty of doing what you accuse us"
...said the progressist, with absolutely no qualms with the hypocrisy of this sentence. He sleeps like a baby too

>>15886855
>...said the progressist, with absolutely no qualms with the hypocrisy of this sentence. He sleeps like a baby too
Narcissists often do. They feel no shame about lying if it makes them seem virtuous and correct.

>>15886532
no
fascism is inherently anti-capitalist

>>15876979
I'm more of an r34 guy myself

File: 1690432395101035.jpg (637 KB, 698x486)

637 KB JPG

>>15876979
>>15877035
HVAC technician here. All this is true. The pressures required for shit like r410a are so fucking stupid that overtime they leak through coils/reversing valves. And all of it was bullshit. There was no permanent hole in the Ozone. It's a natural phenomena that happens during October through December because of the low level UV radiation to produce said ozone.

>The better question is: how do we discriminate valid from invalid correlations and planning from taking advantage of opportunities and foresight from fraud?

There is no stopping a book learned retard from killing you with their kindness.

>>15887249
whats the black market for freon like these days?

>>15882596
Battery fire consuming the whole car rapidly without warning or cause vs typically brief engine fire from misuse of car or damage in an accident. Not comparable.

>>15884771
Insurance rates don't correlate with safety.

>>15888178
Nonsense. Your car is much more likely to catch fire than an EV.

>>15887249
Is there any chance of the popular opinion on this fraud being changed?

>>15887585
Lol you can buy it on the internet. No one gives a shit. It's just expensive as hell.

>>15889129
It's a monopoly. They do not give a shit about pollution. They ran with this psychosis to make them profit in the middle of knowingly poisoning people with Teflon, god knows what else DuPoint is responsible for.

>>15889147
In our coming multipolar world the Chinese and Russians will have no need to obey American monopolies. Would that have an impact on the spread of climate nonsense? Would we start to see the monopolies lose power in America as the government scrambles to compete with more cost-efficient foreign industries?

>>15889156
>In our coming multipolar world the Chinese and Russians will have no need to obey American monopolies.
>You think they do now?

>Would that have an impact on the spread of climate nonsense?
China took the term "green" literally. They painted an entire barren mountain they stripped of trees in green oil based paint...

>Would we start to see the monopolies lose power in America as the government scrambles to compete with more cost-efficient foreign industries?
They'll put tariffs or ban imports and make even more money.

>>15889356
>They'll put tariffs or ban imports and make even more money.
Wouldn't that accelerate the demolition of the economy they rely on for profits? Stagnation in the face of a global marketplace nearly always ends in bankruptcy.

File: robocop.jpg (99 KB, 1080x884)

99 KB JPG

>>15889362
>Wouldn't that accelerate the demolition of the economy they rely on for profits?
The fake economy? They may as well just come out and say "We own you". They more or less have, it's just unfortunate that they had to use the guy who looked the most like Dr. Evil.

>Stagnation in the face of a global marketplace nearly always ends in bankruptcy.

Who collects the debt? Themselves?

>>15889369
>Who collects the debt? Themselves?
The Chinese probably.

File: WIN_20231126_21_10_42_Pro.jpg (63 KB, 1280x720)

63 KB JPG

>>15876979
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azure_Dragon
I built it myself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemiluminescence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefaction

>>15876979
Reminds me of the "new coke" scam, which took place right around the same time

>>15889369
>Who collects the debt? Themselves?
They use the money printer to collect the debt out of people's savings

>>15883717
It's actually a 50% chance. Either it catches on fire, or it doesn't.

>>15877214
Why are the strongest effects at the south pole? Why not both poles?

>>15893279
The wind patterns that cause the effect are different between the north and south poles.

>>15877214
That could be caused by anything. Maybe the New Zealanders just use more sunscreen than Europeans because they're more cucked, and that causes them to get more skin cancer.
(Oh, you thought sunscreen prevented skin cancer? Only in Japan, hon)

>>15883717
>they catch on fire when you crash them.
they generally don't, fuel systems have been designed to minimize that risk, only a vanishingly small percentages of crashes result in fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq-4wptzRYI

>>15894662
In contrast, lithium batteries immediately explode into a self-oxidizing flame when punctured due to their chemical composition.

>>15877040
*discovered by satellites the very first time it had ever been looked at

>>15877214
>than they did before the ozone hole
There's no before the ozone hole. It was never studied. The very first measurements of ozone found there was a hole there, there's no control to compare to.

>>15895378
Correct. It was always there, but nobody had ever thought to look because there was no publicly-accessible imaging satellite coverage of the south pole before the 70s.

File: 53e57b_8a4b075f3eba4d8fa8(...).jpg (97 KB, 600x600)

97 KB JPG

>>15895381
Yet another environmentalist "end of the world" scare story that turned out to be completely fake, just like global warming, peak oil, global cooling and all the rest of them.

>>15889156
>Chinese and Russians
...governments. All 3 places have incredible state interference in the market. There will be no improvement because of this. Things only improved in the industrial revolution because the markets became freer.

>>15889362
Yes. But it will also make the minority responsible enriched. They will be king of the shitheap. Much like how a dictator of africa has a rich lifestyle. The total wealth of the region will be low, but the concentration will be immense.

Of course in the long term even the king will live in a shitheap, just like those in the dark ages, but these are addicts we're dealing with, only short term thinking comes from them.

>>15894662
damn, imagine having to ride on one of those things because you're too poor to afford a real car
>death penalty for being poor

>>15877196
And Does Dupont operate Globally?

>>15898376
Yes

>>15876979
>ID
>flag
Stopped reading here.

>>15897777
lol
its funny because its true

>>15898376
You can still buy Freon in Mexicom the illegal immigrants often smuggle some into the USA when they're not smuggling meth or fentanyl

>>15898376
Yes.

Thats too bad about the freon ban, the refrigerators and air conditioners built to run with the superior chemical were a lot more energy efficient