Comic Strips

Thankyou for your response. However you're responding to a comment encouraging curiosity and questions, without any curiosity and questions, about which, I have much curiosity and many questions.

You never stopped to ask if those who tell you these conspiracy theories about Tesla & Co. have their own agenda.

1. What led you to this determination that I had never done that?
2. Is that to imply that having their own agenda means their accusations are false or something?
3. Maybe you missed it earlier, but the term "conspiracy theories" has already been ousted as having the effect of dissuading scrutiny [e.g. of the guilty]. Is this your intention? Or is this satire? Or is this simply the first time you've encountered the idea and had not yet entertained the possibility?
4. What "conspiracy theories" about "Tesla & Co"? Is that referring to the Tesla company owned by Musk? Or about Nikola Tesla?
5. Your opening assertion that could have been a question, is a mite muddied and confounding. Did it seem straight forward to you when you asked it? Upon re-read, have you noticed these issues I've raised? And that seems fair?

For example selling books or some useless “apparatus”.

1. Is this mere speculative conjecture? [Presumably] Not knowing who "tell you these conspiracy theories", you therefor also know not what else they're doing.
2. I know this is just an example, but, does it have to be so heavily weighted, leaning to confirm your conjecture, in how they're "useless"? Aware and intended that was a poison seed? (~ A fallacy I succumb to making often too.).
3. Again, wondering if you think this is of relevance... like a refutation hinges on this side criteria. This is intended merely as a invite to consider the circumstantial, right? And not as if this refutes the possibilities beyond all valid and sound consideration?
4. Would be nice if we could get access to the suppressed technologies. Or even if those who write books on such topics could even make their print fees back. Most who speak on this topic are not selling anything. books, useless apparatus, nor let alone the emancipatory technologies themselves. Those most likely to first encounter, I imagine would be the loudest, and thus also, the most likely to be managed opposition shills. The quiet empathic sort, tend not want the limelight, merely want the benefit to the world, and that's an easy loud contrast to look out for... who are the fevered narcissistic egos who want the attention, who loudly peddle the bombast and future-fake their way to get all the hopium hopped up in your minds. In a sea of misinformation, everybody's a shill, for sure. But that does not mean one can then evade that problematic situation by proclaiming to have found the one true truth. Experience teaches that's much much more likely a sign you've been duped, rather than have genuinely found the one true truth. Like the old saying goes "listen to those who seek the truth, run from those who claim to have found it.". Well, I'm not going to do just quite that. That'd leave those who claim to have found the truth, both in their curated echo chamber, and, risk spreading that arrogant presumption and epistemological fail to others. Like the scene in Akira: "It must be a trap." "Then why are you still going!?" "I want to find out what kind of a trap it is". All that to go the long way around to asking... Would you not want to scrutinise books on that topic, and test apparatus, rather than just dismiss it off hand in presumption to know they're bunk because presumably they're up to no good, just in it for the money or fame or whatever thing besides honest interest? [~ and not use that presumptive dismissiveness to extend to a non-sequitur adhominem character assassination and transitively dismissing whole fields of research?]

And no, citing some fallacies or abusing the thesaurus doesn’t make the things you say sound any smarter.

1. That's fun. It's also irrelevant. IDGAF how it makes the things I say sound. I renounced that manipulative crap 24 years ago, when I renounced my career in advertising. Much more interested in the epistemology these days, and the search for truth, and pegagogy. So, fun as that gaslighting is, in attempting to dissuade having fallacies pointed out, I'll carry on pointing out fallacies. If it stings, that's your ego, been deceiving you, keeping you from truth, preferring it's own delusional comfort. If ignorance is bliss, give me agony.
2. Fallacies... some noted, even in that brief 3 sentences... Ad hominem, genetic fallacy, appeal to motive, strawman, dismissal, poisoning the well, appeal to cynicism, false dilemma, and likely more yet. Any fallacies you can spot I've made? Very eager to have what's in my shadow shown to me. Would not want to be ignorantly going around as one of those messers mucking up society, deluded, thinking my thinking's sound when it's not even valid.
3. Was this even a concern? Like, was it implied anywhere that citing fallacies or "abusing the thesaurus" were making the things I say sound any smarter? Just wondering: why even bother with that ad-hominem arguing tone with apparent implied accusation?
4. When I was 14, after learning my verbal iq's only 90 (~ annoying small apperture for my 180 visual iq, trying say the pictures that say a thousand words), I made the foolish error of thinking that if I expanded my vocabulary, I'd be able to communicate my ideas better. Alas, much like how the Socratic method fails in the face of the stubbornly ignorant who refuse to even entertain and answer questions, this notion of an extended vocabulary helping communication fails in the face of those who not only do not share your vocabulary, but have no interest in expanding theirs with curiosity. Not that you were owed an explanation there, but, I thought that might help expand conception of the possibilities beyond the reactive judgemental. We've each highs and lows in our aptitude profile. Many aptitudes can be tested. Not just the three that comprise iq. Also emotional inteligence, wisdom, spiritual aptitude, interpersonal aptitude, intrapersonal aptitude, philosophical aptitude, and on and on it extends for dozens.

And further, beyond that, in general... Are you now (or even, were you, at the time) aware of the fallacies here?

And how it wasn't really on topic, dealing with the substance, and instead was derailing from the substance, on to talk about me?

Insidiously, these ad-hominem reflexes sneak up on us, pulling us down Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. As does mere arguing tone. Or even mere contradiction, without substantive reasoning. Just escalates the combative fear that impedes access to our more considerate, critical, creative forebrains, keeping us in "fight or flight". That dumb may work for running away from a sabre tooth tiger, but it does not help us navigate nuanced social intricacies and technological complexities. Alas, I've yet to find reliable ways in text that helps encourage and invite people to that considerate exploratory headspace, out of the induced certainties that keep us stuck making a mess obliviously, not learning. "What an opportunity to learn, once I learned to learn" -- The Man From Earth. What more am I still behind that cruel horizon, where the key that opens the box, is locked in the box? What more ways out there to help people sublimate out of the induced ignorance prison? The exploration continues on, at least for those who've begun.

And of course, merely pointing out a fallacy, or accusing of some personal trait, is no refutation, no confirmation either has the truth. We're all blind men with another piece of the elephant. Naysaying's cheap, but sharing your interpretation of the whole from your part, while almost certainly wrong, does help us get closer to the truth.

The point remains... I welcome the questions. Heh.

It's a very different feel... when starting to question again... after long time induced to arrogance and not realising it had atrophied curiosity and the questioning muscles. Shifting back from the closed "I get it", to the open "what more is there to get?". And the more new stuff learned, the easier it is to accidentally climb back up on Dunning-Kruger's certainty peak. Vigilance, the price we must eternally pay. Keep learning more yet, and it's almost inevitable to fall into impostor syndrome, as becoming aware how much more there is to learn, and starting to doubt your abilities, especially as others bring their piece of the picture, a piece you didn't have. Why didn't you have? Must be because you're of inferior capability. So goes the subconscious sabotage. At least, in those who're not so arrogant and ignorant that they can even entertain the new information. This gets much easier to do once no longer in naive realism (the cognitive condition of believing your beliefs; of believing your perceptions are true reality itself).

"Leave no stone un-turned in the search for truth." ... did I miss any?

[PS, sorry this got long, but that's very often how brandolini's law [multiplied by cunningham's law] goes, especially with a visual thinker; especially with an autistic intp on their "special interest"].