What do you mean?

I guess people don't like feeling that their intelligence is being questioned, even if that's not actually anyone's intention.

What would you know, thicko?

TBF, it’s a thread that basically makes itself a place for speculation and conspiracy, and then actively doubles down on that with the title description, only for people that actually take it seriously to be repeatedly shot down.

It’s worth mentioning that that’s just my impression of the thread from the outside. People who regularly contribute to discussion here might have a different view. I’ll only say that whenever I’ve checked it, it hasn't come across as a welcoming place for “weird stuff”.

I only keep a casual eye on the thread too as I don’t really like to piss on people’s chips too much and have been accused of that stuff in the past here so try not to wade in too harsh.

Djornson wrote:

Soooo, i'm not allowed to find it interesting?

Cool.

You don't find it interesting? That's 100% cool. I will stop posting about it.

Sorry, no, I’m not saying you can’t find it interesting. If there were evidence to suggest that there is any meaningful link between being able to recall if the Coca Cola logo has a hyphen, and thinking that Humphrey Bogart said, “Play it again, Sam,” then I would agree that it’s incredibly interesting.

However, I don’t think that coining a term and just saying that there is a link is evidence. When there are fairly simple, rational explanations for the various things described, which fall variously under incorrect memory creation (because the difference between words is deemed inconsequential), incomplete memory creation (because, again, the options are inconsequential), incorrect recollection or incomplete recollection (because of passage of time) or invented memories (because we’ve got convincing imaginations), it doesn’t make sense to me to assume that they are connected in some weird way. Nor does it make sense to me to suggest that there is one ‘effect’ under which all failures of memory can reasonably sit.

Tempy wrote:

I guess the part I don’t get is what’s the point of no discussion? If people are going to lose their shit when counter-evidence is raised, it sort of stunts any discussion that could be had about this stuff. Like Kow, I massively enjoy all of this, but approach it in a sceptical manner because so much of it is weak. If all we’re gonna allow is full copy and pastes from Paid Up UFO Blog Dot Com with paper thin sources and now discussion then i dunno what the point of the place is, personally.

I get that - but “paid up ufo blog” will always have the burden of evidence against it. And people seem to have kept their cool for a long time but, again just from casual viewing, this thread seems pointless (like you say) if it’s constantly inviting people to speculate and then constantly disproving everything.

Agreed.

I lost an afternoon a few years ago, falling down the Mandela Effect rabbit hole and looking at the examples and ‘theories’ and stuff. I seem to remember (wrongly it would seem, oh the irony) that the examples were a little bit better than ‘you thought this was spelled like this but OMG it’s subtly different.’

It’s a bit like a group written Internet episode of the twilight zone. There’s a germ of a good idea there but it goes off into weird multiverse theories and stuff. They’d be better off with a fake media, govt has been lying to you angle for stuff like Mandela dying.

Tempy wrote:

I guess but... it's just. I dunno, what's the outcome? Surely the whole enjoyment in a forum is talking to other people, not just slapping stuff down and walking off. Not even saying it has to be a constant back and forth of proving/disproving, just don't know what people get out of posting stuff to no response at all. Might as well just copy and paste into a word document no-one sees at that rate, like my writing career *heyoooo*

Probably because there's hundreds of other threads where discussion takes place. Its literally one thread, let em discuss the mentalness if they want, not everything needs steamrolled into a pos/neg counterargument.

Andy wrote:

I don’t think that coining a term and just saying that there is a link is evidence. When there are fairly simple, rational explanations for the various things described, which fall variously under incorrect memory creation (because the difference between words is deemed inconsequential), incomplete memory creation (because, again, the options are inconsequential), incorrect recollection or incomplete recollection (because of passage of time) or invented memories (because we’ve got convincing imaginations), it doesn’t make sense to me to assume that they are connected in some weird way. Nor does it make sense to me to suggest that there is one ‘effect’ under which all failures of memory can reasonably sit.

I totally agree. I'm realising you guys already knew more about the Mandela Effect than i did. Every single 'ME' could be a completely different thing so yeah, i guess it's that human tendancy to look for patterns. Some 'MEs' are definitely caused by suggestion, hell, some people are deliberately looking for stuff to fit their theory now, but i maintain that both Mandela and Fotl logo occurred independantly in my brain for whatever weird reason. What i find interesting is there seems to be a not insignificant number of people out there who have the same incorrect memories as me. It's fine to say memory is fallible but what causes thoses specific incorrect memories? Thats what intrigues me. it could be something as simple as a particular cartoon with a particular image that was very similar and went into my sub concious or something.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Facevase.png/200px-Facevase.png

That's my mother you filthy scoundrel.

Tempy wrote:

I literally just said it doesn't need to be a pos/neg counter argument, and sometimes discussion is just fun? I didn't contribute jack to the arguments of the last few pages. I've already said that I, like Kow, enjoy a lot of this stuff, but I don't know what the expected purpose of the thread is if there's just zero discussion, at all? So if I want to talk about some weird stuff I've found, or if i've found something related to something posted but I am skeptical of it, do I just sit on my hands and not discuss it because this is some weird gated thread? Just asking about the etiquette.

Start a skeptics safehaven. There is discussion in the thread but it's more pro weird shit than anti. Am fine with that sizzle.