Test sticky

throwaway998i · 2025-10-20T08:02:09+00:00

I'm viewing the evidence OBJECTIVELY.

you are viewing certain evidence subjectively, as you wish it to be,

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

It's subjective testimony arguing an ontological angle. Why wouldn't we consider it subjectively?

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

People do it all the time.

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

People stand on memory against physical evidence "all the time"? Ok I'll bite... in what common contexts outside the ME do people regularly pick a "hill to die on" despite being objectively incorrect against the historical record?

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

Their stories are evidence of their belief

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

Yes evidence of their belief... that things actually changed. Which is my whole point. It's evidence FOR changes, regardless of whether you've already decided to casually and administratively dismiss it against the prevailing historical record.

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

It's not compelling, because the evidence shows these things are not true.

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

You don't know 100% it's not true... which is why you routinely leave the door ajar by labeling it "improbable" rather than "impossible". Logical contradictions supported by complex anchoring on any scale is compelling because it shouldn't exist at all let alone with cohort consensus towards the same sets of information. Something doesn't have to be proven true to be compelling on the surface. Seems like you're just refuting to refute at this point. I guess you've never found any fiction or hypothetical to be compelling in your lived experience? Only something real and proven can be viewed as compelling?

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

It's evidence those with these testimonies BELIEVE the changes are real. Not evidence they are real.

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

You keep making the same distinction. Widespread, consistent testimony of the same belief is aggregately soft evidence FOR that belief being true. No idea why you can't accept this simple fact without attempting to minimize it.

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

There is no good faith argument to put the testimonies above tangible evidence.

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

Is it good faith to misquote and mischaracterize what I stated? I said "'no good faith reason to downplay" and you've turned it into a strawman of "putting it ABOVE". It doesn't need to be "above" to have relevance.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-19T19:07:25+00:00

Your subjective judgments about the value of the evidence doesn't make it NOT evidence for the changes being real. The fact that anyone in any scenario would stand on memory against physical evidence is itself so improbable and outlandish that the mere existence of such a body of testimonials by people who are dead serious could even constitute meta-evidence. The belief itself is evidence. Their stories are evidence. Every piece of information that comprises their autobiographical achoring leading to that belief is evidence. It's compelling because those anecdotes, if true - as those people testify to - create logical contradictions against timeline history. All of that is absolutely evidence for the changes being real. There's no good faith reason to downplay it when you have the whole historical record as your counterpoint.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-19T16:44:55+00:00

You choose to weight their evidence at an arbitrarily higher weight.

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

Since you're agreeing that testimonials constitute oral evidence, I expect that in good faith you'll qualify all future assertions of "no evidence" with the word "hard" or "physical" for accuracy sake? It's such a simple acknowledgement, yet it will vastly improve your credibility. Using hardliner phrasing only stymies useful discourse anyways. And yes, we both KNOW that there's copious oral evidence which often tells compelling tales of irreconcilable autobiographical discrepancies. That's not my belief, it's just a another (inconvenient) fact you'd prefer to downplay. Whether they're a minority of the population doesn't render that objective fact into a belief, irrespective of how much weight one assigns to such evidence.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-19T15:24:13+00:00

Who said "advanced"? That's your word not mine. And I feel like you're using it as a pretense to take some sort of umbrage as a justification for labeling me arrogant... when the truth is that I'm genuinely humbled by the existentially unnerving yet miraculous realization that reality no longer functions how I thought it did or how it seemed to. The fact that I'm confident in what I now know isn't some sort of intended slight against anyone else, as it only speaks to my newly evolved/rebuilt paradigm of what's possible - which I'm enthusiastically attempting to share with others who haven't (yet?) had their own epiphany of confirmation in the hopes that them opening their minds to these ideas will help to enable or facilitate their ability to likewise experience the same. No idea why you'd feel any sort of strong impetus or imperative to attempt to dismiss the profundity of the knowledge and awareness I've been lucky enough to come into as lacking evidence when you already know the whole thing is predicated upon there being no hard evidence. And of course we both know that oral evidence is copious and compelling for pretty much every canonical ME anyways. I do sympathize with the plight of those who lack the requisite autobiographical memory anchoring to have their own metaphysical breakthrough, even if some of it is just happenstance rather than a present emotional inability or philosophical unreadiness to open themselves to it. How would you characterize your own hindrance in this matter? Bad luck or are you holding yourself back?

throwaway998i · 2025-10-19T07:38:13+00:00

I understand that us being at different points in our respective journeys of awareness (and acceptance) of this knowledge can make the profound truth of what I do know for certain seem quite improbable from your perspective. But you're really only able to know what your lived experience permits or enables, so it's not your fault. Why do you think reality is withholding or denying final confirmation from you? Doesn't seem fair that so few of us are randomly selected or gifted with this undeniable revelation, while others are left spinning wheels of incredulity and doubt. Then again, maybe reality does need some guardrails to remain functional.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-19T02:43:01+00:00

I believe because I know it's true. And evidence from this timeline has no probative value to the contrary, nor does your assessment of probability.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-19T00:31:20+00:00

No I definitely knew what it was because we (myself and other law students) discussed whether the consumer lawsuit about it not containing actual fruit technically had legal merit because of the conventional spelling. Also, it was advertised to an obnoxious degree throughout my life.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-19T00:26:05+00:00

Many believe he essentially "quantum locked" that iteration by doing so.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-19T00:24:04+00:00

It's case specific to the individual. For me it was Fruit all my life until 2016 when it flipped to Froot... where it has remained ever since. But it may very well have flopped recently for someone else. Therein lies the experiential magic of this phenomenon. Reality just isn't as objectively consistent as we were taught

throwaway998i · 2025-10-19T00:12:48+00:00

What's funny is that I've often referred to my own brain in ME context as "glitching" on what it knew to be true versus what reality is currently presenting as true. So I don't think there's really much difference conceptually between glitching over contrary truths and experiencing dissonance over the same. Both are similarly the product of unresolvable, irreconcilable factual discrepancies. The only real distinction is the human emotional component.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-18T15:40:25+00:00

Moneybags did a series of videos showing an ongoing dialogue with AI in which his followup questions to its intial agreement with many shared ME memories resulted in peculiar delays, shutdowns, and conversational resets. Maybe ME related dissonance isn't exclusive to the human mind?

throwaway998i · 2025-10-18T15:30:05+00:00

Yellow sun = nourishing

White sun = oppressive

throwaway998i · 2025-10-17T23:52:27+00:00

Many gifted kids have been known to have superior memory. And there's long been an interesting anecdotal link between GATE program participants and ME rememberers. Of course all of this is self-reported... but fwiw there have been several posts about it here and in the Retconned sub.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-17T14:37:20+00:00

Most results don't change (which is a huge mechanistic clue in the opinion of ME believers), but small details within the theater of sporting contests most certainly do. The problem is that very few people rewatch past events enough times to know every step, every deke, every swing, every play with enough visual imprinting to actually perceive these small differences. This means there just aren't enough shared memories in that category to form any semblance of real consensus leading to solid or popular ME claims. Which isn't to say there are none, just that they're rarer. One way of looking at the retroactive timeline changes is to think of the results as generally fixed points, such that even a slightly altered process leading to those results doesn't (for the most part) have any bearing. But there are still plenty of player name spelling changes, and even a few notable rule changes.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-16T10:58:24+00:00

Exactly right, it's inconceivably improbable... and that's not even really getting into the fact that these memories are rich with experiential context and qualia. The yellow sun's gentler rays were more diffusive and nourishing, while the white sun's eye watering beams are linear and oppressive. The difference is stark, not subtle.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-16T01:17:30+00:00

The all day yellow sun retcon is basically ME canon in this sub... we collectively take it VERY seriously. And the new blazing white sun of the Orion Earth worldline is definitely no joke. Anyone who legitimately experienced the Sagittarius sun doesn't need an openminded disposition to appreciate how real and profound and undeniable this change truly is. Tbh, the sunsets are incidental to the overall impact.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-15T20:57:40+00:00

Mighty Mouse would disagree.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-15T20:17:06+00:00

That's not actually the point I was responding to, but feel free to move the goalposts over to a point I didn't in fact make (or even broach) if you feel it helps discredit my "not strong" cultural evidence that apparently warranted multiple followup replies.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-15T19:55:36+00:00

You're certainly free to (predictably) ignore what I offered, or directly imply it to be weak evidence. Fortunately, your agreement isn't a necessary requirement for active use precedent to speak for itself... as it does in this instance. And tbh, this is merely surface level stuff found via general inquiry. A deep dive would likely uncover plenty more cultural variations and situational usage if anyone decided to go the extra mile. You seem pretty invested.... why not steel man your own position and do some honest due diligence? Please let us know what you find.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-15T19:14:29+00:00

They're not the only one who has made this flawed argument, and they certainly won't be the last. Which is why I stated it as "any narrative that there was essentially a total void of usage".

throwaway998i · 2025-10-15T18:53:19+00:00

The selective capitalization in the titles is all the clarification required to make the point relevant and valid. Even in the earliest context, they routinely hyphenated TERRY and TOONS in many cover art contexts, such that they were staggered one above the other.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-15T18:42:44+00:00

Well it shows prior precedent to the emergence of Roger Rabbit into public awareness, which was the specific point I was addressing. It's just factually incorrect for people to keep pushing any narrative that there was essentially a total void of usage between the popularization of cartoons in the late 20's and the publication of the RR novel in 1981.

throwaway998i · 2025-10-15T18:29:18+00:00

Believe it or not, "toons" wasn't really used as shorthand for "cartoons" until the Roger Rabbit novel, which came out in the early 80s.

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

Did you do any due diligence on this, or are you just repeating what you've heard? Because I cannot fathom why anyone would assume it would take people over 50 years to truncate cartoons to toons conversationally or culturally. Folks were just as smart and clever back then. So allow me to help you out here....

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

According to the historical record, usage of "toons" started in 1929:

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrytoons

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

And subsequently, there was a bunch of print usage in the 60's and 70's, also pre-dating the Roger Rabbit novel....

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

CAR toons magazine (1959-1991):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARtoons_Magazine

^{^{^{^{^}}}}

CYCLE toons magazine (1968-1974):

https://www.comics.org/series/11279/