What Does 4chan think about flat-earthers?

[Anonymous No.11290414]

[Anonymous No.11290422]

What does OP think about cocks?

[Anonymous No.11290429]

They ight, not exactly actively harmful towards society like anti-vaxxers and climate deniers.

[Anonymous No.11290852]

>>11290414
That they live in their own world

[Anonymous No.11290855]

complete morons with no critical thinking whatsoever

[Anonymous No.11290860]

That they glow or at least their handlers do.
they are useful idiots used to discredit real conspiracy investigations like who killed JFK

[Anonymous No.11290879]

>>11290414
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/flatism-is-racist/

[Anonymous No.11290881]

>>11290852
Which is based
This world sucks

[Anonymous No.11290887]

>>11290879
>Ever citing Unz

[Anonymous No.11290901]

>>11290887
>Ever citing Unz
So?

[Anonymous No.11290984]

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

[Anonymous No.11291045]

>>11290429
this desu.

[Anonymous No.11291077]

>>11290414
Real scientists.

[Anonymous No.11291095]

>>11290414
Thought it was an elaborate internet prank at first. It was genius and hilarious. Then I found out they weren't joking.

[Anonymous No.11291107]

>>11291095
Sadly it started that way with some of them. I remember a flat earth website back in the early 2000s that had a disclaimer that everything on the site was for fun. The movement has been taken over by crazies.

[Anonymous No.11291147]

Flat earthers are just good people who have become disenfranchised from the mainstream view of the world, they don't trust it so any product of it is suspect to them. More groups like flat earthers will continue to pop up as institional decay and government trust continues to decline. People like flat earthers are a symptom of collapsing empires.

[Anonymous No.11291370]

>>11291107
>“Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.” -Rene Descartes

[Anonymous No.11291642]

>>11290860
This here - hell, the whole term "conspiracy theory" was coined in a CIA memo about how to handle people questioning what exactly JFK's assassination. The method works pretty well to; try bringing up the fact that the CIA has had a heart attack gun since the 1970's, and wondering who they have used it on, and normies will think you are a nut.

[Anonymous No.11291660]

>>11290860
came to post this

[Anonymous No.11291671]

>>11290414
I think they wonder where gravity comes from ... If gravity comes from earth, earth is a ball ...

[Anonymous No.11291689]

>>11290860
Exactly. It's easy now to just dismiss anything non-mainstream by associating it with flat earth.

[Anonymous No.11291727]

>>11291671
They don't think that gravity is real - IIRC the explanation for its effects is something to do with density/buoyancy.

[Anonymous No.11291798]

>>11290414
I think they're idiots, what else is there to think of them?

[Anonymous No.11291802]

>>11290860
>>11291642
>>11291660
>>11291689
Being a nutjob conspiracy theorist of any kind means you're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.11291808]

>>11290429
Maybe they're not as immediately harmful as those two groups, but they're still harmful for trying to get people to disbelieve widely-published scientific information.

[Anonymous No.11291819]

>>11291727
I'm not sure if it was a joke or not, but I read that some of them believe that the Earth "disc" is accelerating upwards at 10 m/s or whatever, and that's why objects on Earth appear to fall to the ground, LMAO.

Of course if that was true then it wouldn't explain the ACCELERATION of objects that you drop on Earth (gravity causes an object to accelerate until it reaches its terminal velocity, which is determined by its air resistance, of course).

[Anonymous No.11291824]

>>11291802
>Being a nutjob conspiracy theorist of any kind means you're a fucking moron.
Imagine holding on to this level of retardation in the post-Snowden era.
https://www.businessinsider.com/5-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-2015-6

[Anonymous No.11291831]

>>11291819
>it wouldn't explain the ACCELERATION of objects that you drop on Earth
Not a flat-tard but yes it would. It's called the equivalence principle.

[Anonymous No.11291857]

>>11291824
All of the events from that link you posted are from about 50 years ago or more, you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.11291861]

>>11291819
Well, I guess the velocity of planets and galaxy orbitals may be subject to change over a long time.

Different mass displacement and it's rotating at different speed.

[Anonymous No.11291885]

>>11291857
>All conspiracies magically stopped occurring because current year.
God you're an even bigger retard than I thought.

[Anonymous No.11291892]

>>11291857
>Snowden revelations happened 50 years ago

[Anonymous No.11291900]

>>11291857
>Epstein revelations happened 50 years ago

[Anonymous No.11291901]

>>11291831
I'm not a physicist but I assume you're trolling.

If you're travelling in a car and you drop something out the window, that thing is not going to ACCELERATE after you dropped it - apart from the acceleration provided by gravity, which I already mentioned. Gravity provides acceleration, but dropping something while you're travelling very fast is not going to provide acceleration to that object, because there is no continuous force acting upon it (apart from gravity like I said).

In fact, if you dropped something out of the window of an airplane let's say, and let's say for a second there was no gravity, that object would DECELERATE due to air resistance.

Also, thinking about it more. If the flat Earther was right and the movement of the Earth disc caused dropped items to move towards the ground, surely the only thing that could cause that movement to happen would be air resistance? In which case, we would always be feeling a rush of air coming from above us, as our disc moves through space.

Because if you are travelling in a fast-moving car, and you drop something out of the window, the reason that object doesn't continue at the speed you were going at is because of air resistance, right? Whereas if you had a satellite in space, where there's no air, and part of that satellite separated off, that part would still maintain the velocity that the whole satellite had before, right? Modified by any forces exerted upon it by the separation from the main satellite.

[Anonymous No.11291909]

>>11291831
>>11291901
So to break it down. If the flat Earther is correct about their fast-moving disc theory, surely the only thing that could be pushing objects towards the ground would be static air that our fast-moving disc is moving through, right? In which case we'd feel a rush of air from above constantly, as we move through this air. OR our Earth is in a little bubble or dome, and/or space is a vacuum, explaining why we don't feel a constant rush of air from above - but in that case, what would be causing dropped objects on Earth to move towards the ground? No forces would be doing that.

Perhaps the simplest example is if you're travelling on a train. If you're on a train going 70 mph, and say all the windows are closed so there's no rushing air moving through the train - the air in the train is still. And you drop an object inside the train. That object doesn't go shooting backwards towards the back of the train at 70 mph, does it? No. The only reason dropped objects out of the windows of cars stop pretty much dead relative to the speed of the ongoing car is because of air resistance, right? Within the train, all the air is static (when you're inside the train) - it's moving along with the train. So if you drop something in the train, there is no force to make it move backwards.

In fact if the train carriage's floor is perfectly level when the train is moving, then any dropped object will just stay sitting in the same place on the floor after it has been dropped there, won't it.

Hope I haven't made any mistakes here, as I said I'm not a physicist. Hopefully what I said isn't bollocks.

[Anonymous No.11291917]

>>11291885
>i don't have any evidence whatsoever of any specific conspiracy theory but you should believe in all of them because the US government covered up some things over 50 years ago; never mind that it was a very different time back then
God, you're an even bigger retard than I thought.

>>11291892
PRISM has evidence to substantiate it which is why it's not a conspiracy theory, you fucking moron.

>>11291900
The theory that Epstein was murdered does not currently have any evidence strong enough to substantiate it, you fucking moron.

But by all means, keep believing the Earth is flat and we never went to the moon. Society needs morons like you; you make great slaves.

[Anonymous No.11291922]

>>11291901
>>11291909
>If you're travelling in a car and you drop something out the window, that thing is not going to ACCELERATE after you dropped it
>if you had a satellite in space, where there's no air, and part of that satellite separated off, that part would still maintain the velocity that the whole satellite had before

Uh, dude... you're forgetting the crucial assumption that YOU will continue to accelerate after releasing said object, and thus IT will appear to be accelerating in the opposite direction precisely because YOU are accelerating. That's the point of the equivalence principle.

[Anonymous No.11291931]

>>11291917
>it was a very different time back then
>so no conspiracies happen today because... uh...
Fucking retard.
>PRISM has evidence to substantiate it which is why it's not a conspiracy theory
You braindead moron. You absolutely braindead moron. The point is that it WAS a conspiracy theory before the revelations verified the theories. That's what conspiracy theory means. You absolute irredeemable retard.
>>11291917
I was referring to the fact that there was a pedophile ring centered around Epstein involving several powerful people, retard.
>strong enough to substantiate it
>I don't know how to deal with probabilities
Yeah if you're a moron like yourself, I guess.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51053205
>But by all means, keep believing the Earth is flat
I NEVER SAID THE EARTH WAS FLAT YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING CLOWN.

[Anonymous No.11291934]

>>11291901
>Also, thinking about it more. If the flat Earther was right and the movement of the Earth disc caused dropped items to move towards the ground,

Some purpose the disc is forever accelerating upwards via magic.

[Anonymous No.11291936]

>>11291917
I also never said we went to the moon, you stupid retarded mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.11291938]

>>11291936
*never said we never

[Anonymous No.11291942]

>>11291802
>people conspire against other people
>it's been used for political and economical purposess countless times through history
>it didn't magically stop at some point
how is this not at all obvious

[Anonymous No.11291953]

>>11291922
In none of the examples I used did you, and your frame of reference, continue accelerating after releasing the object. Instead, in all those examples, you would continue travelling at the same speed - your car, your train, and the satellite would continue moving at the same speed that they were moving at before you released the object.

>>11291934
But that still wouldn't cause dropped objects to "fall" towards the ground, unless we were moving through air or something like that, which would be providing resistance and thus causing these objects to slow down relative to the still-fast-moving Earth, thus making the objects move towards the Earth / ground.

If we WERE moving through such air, then we would constantly feel a rush of air coming from the sky, all the time, on Earth. But we don't.

[Anonymous No.11291957]

>>11291953
>In none of the examples I used did you, and your frame of reference, continue accelerating after releasing the object. Instead, in all those examples, you would continue travelling at the same speed
Bruh how are you this dense. Then you're not talking about the accelerating disc scenario.

[Anonymous No.11291958]

>>11290414
Fun to fuck with.
A personal favorite is saying "Flat-Earth was never a widely held belief. It comes from Russian/Chinese spies trying to weaken our position so they can set up a militarized lunar base."

[Anonymous No.11291964]

>>11291953
>But that still wouldn't cause dropped objects to "fall" towards the ground
Yes it would >>11291922
This is basic classical mechanics dude.
>If we WERE moving through such air, then we would constantly feel a rush of air coming from the sky, all the time, on Earth. But we don't.
No we wouldn't (if the ridiculous scenario of a constantly accelerating disc for god-knows-what-reason were true). Everything would look the same (at small scales) again because of the equivalence principle.

[Anonymous No.11291966]

>>11291931
Worthless ramble.
Conspiracies shouldn’t be believed in unless they’re proven to be real.

[Anonymous No.11291967]

>>11291931
>The point is that it WAS a conspiracy theory
No it wasn't. The braindead nutjob conspiracy theories have always been the same - Roswell has aliens, JFK was really shot by somebody else, we didn't go to the moon, the Earth is flat, the government did 9/11, whatever the fuck.

You're too thick for me to waste my time on.

>>11291936
>>11291938
It's exactly what fucktards like you believe.

>>11291942
In modern usage, when people say "conspiracy theorist", they normally mean somebody who believes in nutjob shit like the Earth being flat, the moon landings being faked, whatever.

E.g. Alex Jones is described on his Wikipedia page as a "conspiracy theorist". Whereas someone who believed something that was technically a theory of conspiracy (a theory that some organisations had conspired to do something) would most likely not have "conspiracy theorist" in their Wikipedia page, IF the theory was TRUE.

So really there are two senses of the term "conspiracy theorist" - there's the literal meaning, but there's also the colloquial meaning. A bit like how "I could care less" has a literal meaning, and a different colloquial meaning, which is in fact pretty much the opposite of what the literal meaning would be.

[Anonymous No.11291973]

>>11291957
Shit I didn't mean to say "accelerating upwards" in my first post, I meant to say "moving upwards". Which is why I said "10 m/s" instead of "10 m/s/s" or "10 m/s^2", but yeah it's my mistake.

>>11291964
Yeah I meant moving, not accelerating, in my original post, but I'm an idiot so I said the wrong word.

But yeah, if the Earth was actually constantly accelerating, then man we must be travelling at a pretty massive speed right about now.

[Anonymous No.11291974]

>>11291966
Based and truthpilled. Although I'm never really comfortable with the word "proven", especially with empirical knowledge, but yeah, the theory needs to have substantial supporting evidence behind it before any reasonable person should think about believing it.

[Anonymous No.11291981]

>>11291967
>>11291966
>I don't know what probabilities are.
>No it wasn't.
Yes it was you absolute fucking retard. It was a conspiracy theory that the government was conducting dragnet surveillance at that scale. Why do you think the Snowden revelations were so important, you damn idiot?
>It's exactly what fucktards like you believe.
>Hurrrrrr durrrrr you're the same person as that other person because you both acknowledge that X phenomenon exists.
You're such an idiot I'm at loss for words.
>In modern usage, when people say "conspiracy theorist", they normally mean somebody who believes in nutjob shit like the Earth being flat, the moon landings being faked
No, that's a definition you pulled out of your ass.

Guess who weaponized the term "conspiracy theory"?

There are dumb conspiracy theories and not-so-dumb conspiracy theories and plausible conspiracy theories. The fact that you're too stupid to differentiate between degrees of plausibility is just a reflection of your own idiocy, nothing else.

[Anonymous No.11291988]

>>11291966
You're an idiot. Conspiracy theories should be believed in TO THE DEGREE that they're plausible given your state of knowledge. "Believed in" isn't all or nothing, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.11291992]

>>11291967
>would most likely not have "conspiracy theorist" in their Wikipedia page, IF the theory was TRUE.
As if Wikipedia comes from Heavens and not people editing it, right.

[Anonymous No.11291994]

>>11290414

It’s reality. Everything else is fiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H110vCGvTmM

[Anonymous No.11291999]

>>11291973
>But yeah, if the Earth was actually constantly accelerating, then man we must be travelling at a pretty massive speed right about now.

That’s the obvious problem. What is this velocity relative too? Where does this enormous energy come from? You can just say “Oh uh it’s magic” but if we’re going to end up involving magic, why waste time creating pseudo-naturalistic explanations in the first place? Flat earthers go out of their way to attempt to provide naturalistic explanations for a lot of phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.11292005]

>>11291988
>You're an idiot. Conspiracy theories should be believed in TO THE DEGREE that they're plausible given your state of knowledge

Wrong. Something being plausible doesn’t mean it ought to be believed in. Something can be plausible but have zero evidence whatsoever. You’re advocating for blind faith in conspiracies now.

[Anonymous No.11292012]

>>11290414
Mostly Christian conspiracy theorist desperately clinging to any belief that hints at their theological beliefs being true. Harmless really. The fact that people are religious and we could achieve so much means flat earth won't be the nutty belief that takes humanity down.

[Anonymous No.11292015]

>>11291917
>never mind that it was a very different time back then
>The CIA, FBI, etc. have fundamentally changed and no longer conduct conspiracies against people because the world is different now.
I can't imagine sucking propaganda cock this hard.

[Anonymous No.11292016]

>>11292005
>ought to be believed in
You fucking idiot. Don't you know how to read?
>"Believed in" isn't all or nothing

>Something can be plausible but have zero evidence whatsoever.
You goddamn fool. Plausibility means having good reasons, e.g. evidence, to believe something.

>You’re advocating for blind faith in conspiracies now.
LOL everyone can read this thread and know exactly what I said. Why would you lie so blatantly? I'M the one saying you shouldn't have blind faith but instead believe things to the degree they are plausible, i.e. in a Bayesian way.

[Anonymous No.11292018]

>>11292005
Holy shit, you have no idea what fuzzy logics or probability theory are.

[Anonymous No.11292024]

>>11291966
>>11291967
>>11292005
>>11291917
have a (You), anon. you've made my day.
also consider reading pic related.

[Anonymous No.11292030]

>>11292016
> You fucking idiot. Don't you know how to read?

You’re being very childish. Please see a doctor about anger management.

> You goddamn fool. Plausibility means having good reasons, e.g. evidence, to believe something.

No, everyone uses the word plausible to mean “possible”, “conceivable”, or “believable”. It is plausible that Nixon was gay, meaning it’s conceivably true that he was gay, but there’s no evidence of it.

[Anonymous No.11292031]

>>11292030
Plausibility != conceivability you braindead retard.

[Anonymous No.11292041]

>>11292031
>Diktunarees is wrung i em rite

[Anonymous No.11292055]

How do Americans feel about having their government commit crimes against its population, deny it, then 50 years late disclose everything and go "oh yeah actually we did it but all the people involved are dead or older than 80 so nothing's gonna be done about it"?

[Anonymous No.11292058]

>>11292041
>plausible: having an appearance of truth or reason
>conceivable: capable of being conceived; imaginable
What mental gymnastics will you reply with next?

[Anonymous No.11292064]

>>11292005
>>11292030
>>11292041

[Anonymous No.11292069]

>>11292058
>Using the Dictionary.com definition

Oh boy.

SYNONYMS FOR PLAUSIBLE
Plausible, specious describe that which has the appearance of truth but might be deceptive. The person or thing that is plausible strikes the superficial judgment favorably; it may or may not be true: a plausible argument (one that cannot be verified or believed in entirely). Specious definitely implies deceit or falsehood; the surface appearances are quite different from what is beneath: a specious pretense of honesty; a specious argument (one deliberately deceptive, probably for selfish or evil purposes).

[Anonymous No.11292071]

>>11292064
You stop posting. Hidden.

[Anonymous No.11292074]

>>11292069
>might be deceptive
Correct.
>specious means blah blah blah
Not relevant.
>Nothing about plausibility meaning conceivability.
Yep, looks like I was right.

[Anonymous No.11292078]

>>11290414
>4chan
THIS. IS. 4CHANNEEEEELLL!
furthermore, they are trolls, the lot of them. some have an agenda, namely to generate flat-earth related activity to strengthen the association in the public’s mind between the right wing and lunacy, and some just enjoy abusing unsuspecting autists who keep explaining to them not noticing even the most obvious breaches of the fourth wall.

[Anonymous No.11292082]

>>11292041
>>11292069
>trying to save face because you said something stupid on a Kampuchean wakeboarding forum
Let it go dude

[Anonymous No.11292084]

>>11292082
You said something stupid, not me.
Hidden.

[Anonymous No.11292087]

>>11292084
>the same guy who said plausibility = conceivability
Don't think so

[Anonymous No.11292088]

>>11292074
>Correct.

Point proven. GG. Thanks for admitting you were wrong about what the word “plausible” means.

[Anonymous No.11292094]

>>11292087
Plausibility does equal conceivability. Sorry if facts make you cry, but it’s often listed as a synonym.

[Anonymous No.11292096]

>>11292088
No, I was right. I literally quoted the definition. You said it was the same thing as conceivability, which it isn't.

Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous No.11292103]

>>11292094
>Plausibility does equal conceivability
It's not.

Plausible means seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible.

Conceivable means capable of being conceived or imagined; possible; credible; thinkable.

These two things are different. The former is stronger than the latter. Can you see that?

[Anonymous No.11292105]

>>11292096
> No, I was right. I literally quoted the definition

Nope, you’re wrong. Plausible only means believable, and something plausible “can not be verified or believed in entirely”.

> You said it was the same thing as conceivability, which it isn't.

Google lists it as a synonym, so it is.

Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous No.11292108]

>>11292103
> It's not.

It is.

> These two things are different.

In the same sense “reeks” is different from “stinky”, yes.

[Anonymous No.11292112]

>>11292105
>Nope, you’re wrong.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plausible
Exactly what I said in >>11292058
>plausible: having an appearance of truth or reason
So looks like I was right. I did, quite literally, quote the definition.

>Plausible only means believable
Wrong. It means being believable *and* having some degree of credibility. Thus it is stronger than being conceivable.

>Google lists it as a synonym
Google also lists "invalid" and "unsound" as synonyms, despite them having very different meanings. Are you now going to claim that they mean the same thing? Oh boy, the lengths to which you'll go to not admit your mistake...

[Anonymous No.11292117]

>>11292108
>It is.
It isn't. Plausibility is stronger than conceivability. Plausible means having an appearance of truth or reason. Conceivable means capable of being conceived; imaginable. The former is much stronger than the latter. Can you see that?

[Anonymous No.11292133]

>>11292112
> Wrong. It means being believable *and* having some degree of credibility.

Sure, whatever. No conspiracies have any credibility until there’s evidence they’re true.

[Anonymous No.11292142]

>>11292133
>No conspiracies have any credibility until there’s evidence they’re true.
Well, I agree. So why the fuck have you been claiming that plausibility/credibility is the same as conceivability/possibility? And why the fuck have you been claiming that believing to the degree of plausibility is "advocating for blind faith in conspiracies"? Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11292143]

I watched that documentary Behind The Curve, and what really stuck out to me was the part where the flat earther used a fiber optic gyroscope to prove the rotation of the earth, and then said “now obviously we weren’t willing to accept that”

[Anonymous No.11292149]

>>11292142
>So why the fuck have you been claiming that plausibility/credibility is the same as conceivability/possibility?

Words are fake and mean whatever you want

[Anonymous No.11292209]

https://youtu.be/bLwD6UqyPww

disprove this video if you think the earth is a globe

protip: you fucking cant

[Anonymous No.11292212]

>>11292149
Words mean whatever the collection of communicators decide they mean. Private languages aren't real.

[Anonymous No.11292230]

>>11291981
>Yes it was
No it wasn't, but I can see you're too fucking stupid to discuss things rationally. Enjoy being thick as pig shit.

[Anonymous No.11292233]

>>11291992
It reflects colloquial usage, which is exactly what I was referring to. If you weren't illiterate then you would have read that.

>>11292015
I can't imagine sucking schizophrenic cock this hard.

[Anonymous No.11292237]

>>11292024
You've replied to two different posters.
>DUDE THE FLAT EARTH TOTALLY HAS A CHANCE OF BEING REAL IT'S ABOUT PROBABILITY MAN LMAO
I fucking despair.

[Anonymous No.11292255]

>>11292237
>DUDE THE FLAT EARTH TOTALLY HAS A CHANCE OF BEING REAL IT'S ABOUT PROBABILITY MAN LMAO
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.11292256]

>>11292055
who gives a shit, lets beat the crap out of picrelated

[Anonymous No.11292261]

>>11292230
>No it wasn't
What wasn't?
>you're too fucking stupid to discuss things rationally
Why?

[Anonymous No.11292277]

>>11291967
JFK was killed because he opposed nukes in israel

[Anonymous No.11292295]

>>11292255
>he doesn't even know how meme arrows work
>>11292261
>he's feigning ignorance
Pathetic beyond belief.

[Anonymous No.11292303]

>>11292295
So you were just making up a strawman?

[Anonymous No.11292306]

>>11292295
"Feigning ignorance" of what?

[Anonymous No.11292540]

>>11290414
Where are the empirical measurements of curvature?

[Anonymous No.11292640]

>>11291981
>Guess who weaponized the term "conspiracy theory"?
Ah, but you see, that's just a conspiracy theory and therefore you are dumb and I am smart.

[Anonymous No.11293172]

>>11290414
Basically three types: Trollers, religious zealots, and idiots.
It started with religious zealots who were also idiots.

[Anonymous No.11293954]

>>11292540
people who saw it from space
oh wait i forgot that rockets just explode when they hit the dome which we can't see for some reason

[Anonymous No.11293961]

[Anonymous No.11295051]

>>11291819
You must understand the postulates of relativity before posting to /sci/

[Anonymous No.11295297]

>>11295051
You cannot discern the difference between the effects of a locally uniform gravitational field and being present in a constantly accelerating reference frame. Why are you being rude to my fellow anon, anon?

[Anonymous No.11295311]

>>11292277
He shot himself retard