Beyond Copycatism II

Last week I did a blog on Samuel Gilonis, an outspoken critic of the Zeitgeist Movement, who felt it necessary to label the movement as a cult and Jacque Fresco as a racist. The reason why I titled the blog 'beyond copycatism' is because it was obvious to me that types of critique were simply copied from other sources. These sources do the exact same thing and employ a certain tactic so it's a no-brainer as to where the author got his inspiration. His next article which is a reply to Peter Joseph's commentary to the first article is named "Damn Everything But The Circus! A Response To Peter Joseph."

I have no problem with people trying to defend their arguments as long as they do it in a civil fashion. Sadly, some persons don't seem to realize that you can be offensive without using a single curse word. Degrading a person or group will have the same effect. Samuel Gilonis does this although it's a matter of debate whether he's aware of his own actions because right of the dot he insinuates that an entire group of people have fallen victim to sectarian beliefs, yet then wonders why some of them come over to his article to write criticizing replies. Here's a clue Sam, people felt offended. But either he's not aware of the result of his own actions or he's fully aware and milking the situation for what it's worth.

Gilonis also finally reveals his source of information/inspiration: 'Conspiracy Science.' Well, you can wonder if I saw that one coming. The Conspiracy Science blog and forums have been a meeting place for Zeitgeist critics for a few years now and their main task seems to be generating critique for critique's sake. While I believe that some of them genuinely oppose conspiracy theories on that website and as a matter of principal I can understand that, on the flip side that place consists of a number of folks who simply have an ax to grind with Zeitgeist primarily for personal reasons. In other words, the intentions and motivations of Conspiracy Science differ greatly, some having malicious intent.

There a number of contributors there who were banned from the Zeitgeist forums, often for misconduct. It's quite fascinating actually from a sociological point of view. They go to virtual public place thinking they can say and do anything, bully others into submission. Next they get removed from that public place and instead of examining their own actions they blame the people that threw them out. Next they start blogs criticizing Zeitgeist, create anonymous YouTube channels or contribute on forums already generally in line with their agenda and start claiming another group of people are a cult - just to get even with them. Such people aren't actually critics, they are fail-mongers.

If Samuel Gilonis wants to emulate that behavior he's free to do so, freedom of speech and all, but don't count on getting intellectual credit for employing this tactic. Wanting something to fail is entirely different than objectively pointing out its flaws. Don't forget that some people can tell the difference.