If the Flames thought Dube was likely involved, they should have never offered him a new contract in 2021. I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they were convinced that he wasn't involved at that time.
Having said that, we still don't have 100% confirmation of anything, but it's hard not to assume.
I'd like to think so. Logically, despite the promise Dube had shown, it would be a huge risk if they thought charges could come at some point during the contract.
Jeff Marek said this is all just beginning and he's right. Wouldn't surprise me if there's a lot of people around the game sweating right now.
If the Flames thought Dube was likely involved, they should have never offered him a new contract in 2021. I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they were convinced that he wasn't involved at that time.
Having said that, we still don't have 100% confirmation of anything, but it's hard not to assume.
This thing only blew up in 2022 when the lawsuit was filed and quickly settled. There was the perfunctory police investigation in 2018-19 but that was kept quiet and closed quietly, it seems. Probably like dozens of previous cases around athletes or other celebrities.
Last edited by GioforPM; 01-25-2024 at 11:03 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
yeah I don't think Formenton being involved would surprise anyone. When a 22-year-old forward after a solid rookie year doesn't get another NHL contract and has to go to Europe, there's obvious smoke.
My thought also, makes me wonder if he was "player 1". Time will tell.
This thing only blew up in 2022 when the lawsuit was filed and quickly settled. There was the perfunctory police investigation in 2018-19 but that was kept quiet and closed quiestly, it seems. Probably like dozens of previous cases around athletes or other celebrities.
Yeah, I’m not sure what exactly people believe the Flames should have suspected a year before anyone knew something had even happened.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
If I was on that team, or involved with that team, and had nothing to do with this incident, I would sure rather that the names did come out sooner rather than later to end the speculation!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to schteve_d For This Useful Post:
If I was on that team, or involved with that team, and had nothing to do with this incident, I would sure rather that the names did come out sooner rather than later to end the speculation!
Its weird.
I'm sure theres an element of not wanting to 'snitch' and not wanting to 'betray your friends' and some sort of camaraderie nonsense.
I never played hockey, so I cant really comment. I always think back to the Blackhawks and the Beach/Aldrich concern which shows that I really dont understand that kind of atmosphere.
"Hey, our video coach just sexually assaulted one of our players!"
Me: "Huh. Well we can't have that. Fire him and call the Cops."
"But, but, but....he's our video coach!"
Me: "I'll find someone else. Fire him. And call the Cops."
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I’m not sure what exactly people believe the Flames should have suspected a year before anyone knew something had even happened.
As I understand it the lawsuit didn't even name names. And the lawyer for the girl now says he didn't even know the names (I don't believe he'd lie in his press release but it's really odd that he doesn't have them even on a confidential basis). Hell, Hockey Canada may not have even known the names.
I really don't know what some posters would have had the Flames organization say in their press release.
You know that Dillon didn't go to the team and say "I'm guilty and I need some time off". He very likely said that he needs time away for mental health reasons.
Were they supposed to say that "Dillon will be away from the team indefinitely and we suspect he is involved in the hockey Canada rape scandal. The dirty bastard is probably guilty".
If they would have simply said, 'personal leave and no further comment' like the other 4 teams this whole debate wouldn't have started. Now maybe Dube made them disclose the mental health aspect, who knows.
As I understand it the lawsuit didn't even name names. And the lawyer for the girl now says he didn't even know the names (I don't believe he'd lie in his press release but it's really odd that he doesn't have them even on a confidential basis). Hell, Hockey Canada may not have even known the names.
It's pretty clear they do now.
I suspect (and its just a guess) that some players have come forward and confirmed what actually occurred. It's why the evidence is likely enough to go forward now.
But is generating almost as much conversation for something 0.0000001% as impactful.
It’s not just what the Flames are releasing, it’s why they’re releasing it, what they knew, what their intent was, what they believe, the damage it’s done to other players and fans who reacted to it, etc.
It’s a bit ridiculous. You have to see that.
And that is because there isn't much to discuss right now on the rest of it. Outside of the likely players being identified - most of the other issues with this has been being discussed for 20 months and outside of complete nutbars no is going to be on the pro-players being accused of a terrible crime.
Dube told them it was mental health leave, Flames can't and don't ask anything further.
But why not treat it the same as Kylington's leave initially was treated? We didn't find out it was mental health related until much later.
Probably they gave the information thinking it showed progression and support, and it now has unintended consequences.
Too bad Dube was the first, otherwise maybe someone in the front office would have remembered this possibility (leave being requested due to alleged involvement in a sexual assault with resulting mental health impact).
I think the analysis of the Flames statement is blowing up because this is a big case and the Flames aren't all that interesting to talk about these days after blowing another lead? Who knows.
I suspect (and its just a guess) that some players have come forward and confirmed what actually occurred. It's why the evidence is likely enough to go forward now.
Yes, they do now. They did post investigation as well. I'm not sure the evidence is any different now, but maybe the motivation to go ahead on the same evidence is different. There are lots of examples of cases where prosecutors initially weren't going to do anything but publicity made them do it. Those guys that killed Ahmaud Aubery for jogging in the wrong neighborhood, for example. Some of the police excessive force cases. Treyvon Martin.
It’s people who have had their brain broken by the internet. Low attention spans, low empathy, hungry for content. We’ve known about the scandal for so long that it isn’t exciting or worth “having a take” on anymore. The victim? Who cares! The real story is the specific wording on a 20-word tweet. Who KNEW? When did they KNOW? Is calling this “mental health” yet ANOTHER COVER UP??? Oh, if it is, I’ll sure be angry! And don’t forget, I’m the one who discovered this cover up FIRST!
We saw it with COVID. Worldwide pandemic? Not enough. Actual people dying? Boring. Must have global conspiracy to inject us all with 5G and control us. And I discovered it!!
I don’t know if it was always this way but people definitely seem to struggle with events happening in ways that don’t match the content they’ve over-consumed. I think there was even someone in this thread mad that they didn’t make public arrests like in the movies.
Bear with me, this is gonna be long. I started writing a response to your post (I mean, not really a "response" to it, more of a "yes, and..." carrying on of the discussion), and here's as far as I got before I broke to do some learning of my own:
The problem is inherent in how we allow current generations to educate new generations. It leads to gradual clouding and detachment, because each generation that comes is less and less convinced in what is being passed down to them, to the point where the teachers don't even believe what they're teaching anymore.
I'm in my 40's and my grandparent's...
...and now, partly out of laziness and partly out of my ongoing fascination with the tool itself, is the enitrety of my conversation with ChatGPT about thi. I made a lot of typos and spelling mistakes etc in my questions, but sometimes context allows me to take a break from proofreading (lol?), so apologies in advance for that.
Me:if i'm 48, which how would my previous ancestors relate to various wars, in terms of timeline?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
To give a rough estimate of how your ancestors might relate to various wars in terms of timeline, we can go back through history in generational steps. The length of a generation can vary, but for simplicity, let's assume an average of about 25 years per generation. This means that every 25 years, a new generation (parents to children) comes into being. Given that you are 48 years old now in 2024, we can work backwards from there. Here's a simplified timeline:
Your Generation (Born around 1976): Too young for the Vietnam War (1955-1975), but you might have been aware of conflicts like the Gulf War (1990-1991), the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s, and the War on Terror beginning in 2001.
Parents' Generation (Born around 1951): This generation might have been involved in or affected by the Vietnam War. They would have been too young for World War II but could have had parents or older family members who participated.
Grandparents' Generation (Born around 1926): This generation would have been young adults during World War II (1939-1945) and could have participated in it. They were born just after World War I (1914-1918).
Great Grandparents' Generation (Born around 1901): They could have been young adults during World War I. Some of them might have been involved in the war, depending on their age and location.
2x Great Grandparents' Generation (Born around 1876): They could have been aware of or involved in conflicts like the Spanish-American War (1898) and the tail end of the American Civil War (1861-1865) depending on where they lived.
3x Great Grandparents' Generation (Born around 1851): Likely to have been adults during the American Civil War, and potentially involved in it.
4x Great Grandparents' Generation (Born around 1826): They might have been aware of or involved in various conflicts of the mid-19th century, such as the Crimean War (1853-1856), depending on their geographical location.
5x Great Grandparents' Generation (Born around 1801): This generation could have been affected by the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815).
This timeline is very generalized and would vary significantly based on specific family history, geographic location, and individual circumstances. If you have more detailed information about your family history, you could get a more precise understanding of how your ancestors might have been related to historical events.
Me:what about TV... (probably starting during my grandparent's generation) how prevelant would TVs be in homes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
The prevalence of television in homes indeed started becoming significant around the time of your grandparents' generation. Let's look at the timeline, considering you were born around 1976:
Your Generation (Born ~1976): Growing up in the late 1970s and 1980s, television was a well-established and central part of home entertainment. Cable TV expanded rapidly during this time, bringing a wider variety of channels and content.
Parents' Generation (Born ~1951): Your parents would have been children during the 1950s and 1960s. This was a pivotal time for television; it transitioned from a luxury item to a common household item. In the United States, for instance, the percentage of households with a television set increased dramatically during the 1950s. Color television also started to become more common in the late 1950s and 1960s.
Grandparents' Generation (Born ~1926): Television was in its infancy during your grandparents' youth. It was first demonstrated in the 1920s, but it wasn't until after World War II that TV sets became more widely produced and affordable for the general public. By the early 1950s, television had begun to take off as a major form of entertainment and information. However, in the 1940s and early 1950s, TVs were still relatively rare and considered a luxury.
Great Grandparents' Generation (Born ~1901): Television was not part of their lives for most of their youth and middle age. They would have experienced the introduction of television in their later years, but radio and newspapers were the primary sources of information and entertainment during most of their lives.
As you go further back, television was non-existent, and entertainment and information came from other sources like radio, newspapers, and live performances. The rapid adoption of television in households globally during the 20th century was a significant cultural shift, changing how people consumed entertainment and received news. This adoption rate and impact varied across different regions and countries, influenced by factors like economic conditions, technological advancements, and cultural attitudes.
Me:and what about significant news moments, like MLK or JFK?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
Significant news moments like the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) and President John F. Kennedy (JFK) were landmark events in American history, and they had a profound impact on the public, especially as television played a crucial role in their coverage. Let's consider how these events might have resonated with different generations in your family:
Your Generation (Born around 1976): You wouldn't have been alive during these events. JFK was assassinated on November 22, 1963, and MLK on April 4, 1968. However, the aftermath and the historical significance of these figures would have been part of your education and cultural understanding. The ongoing effects of their legacies, especially in terms of civil rights and political change, would have been a part of the societal context you grew up in.
Parents' Generation (Born around 1951): Your parents would have been children or young teenagers during these events. The assassination of JFK, followed by the assassination of MLK, would have been major news events in their childhood or early adolescence. The widespread coverage of these events on television brought the harsh realities of political and social strife directly into homes, possibly shaping their views on politics, civil rights, and media.
Grandparents' Generation (Born around 1926): Your grandparents would have been adults (in their late 30s) during these events. They would have experienced the immediate impact of these assassinations in real-time. The JFK assassination, in particular, was one of the first major news events broadcast live on television, marking a turning point in media coverage. The coverage of MLK's assassination and the subsequent widespread unrest would also have been a significant and possibly transformative experience for them.
Great Grandparents' Generation (Born around 1901): They would have been in their 60s during these events. The shock and national mourning that followed these assassinations would have been part of their later life experiences. Given their life experiences, which might have included two World Wars and the Great Depression, their perspectives on these events would be shaped by a long history of witnessing significant and tumultuous events.
The impact of these events went beyond just the immediate shock and grief; they spurred legislative changes, social movements, and had a lasting impact on American society. The way these events were covered by the media, especially television, also marked a significant change in how news was delivered and consumed, making it more immediate and visceral.
Me:my generation would have had things like rodney king
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
You're correct. For your generation, born around 1976, several significant events in the 1990s and early 2000s would have had a profound impact, much like earlier generations experienced with JFK and MLK. One such event was the Rodney King incident and its aftermath. Let's explore a few key events that likely resonated with your generation:
Rodney King Incident (1991): The Rodney King incident, where King, an African American man, was brutally beaten by Los Angeles police officers, was caught on videotape and widely broadcasted. This incident highlighted issues of police brutality and racial injustice in the United States. The subsequent acquittal of the officers involved in 1992 led to the Los Angeles riots, one of the most significant episodes of civil unrest in recent American history. This event would have been particularly impactful for your generation, which was in its teenage years or early adulthood at the time.
Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989): Although this happened when you were a young teenager, the fall of the Berlin Wall was a pivotal moment in modern history, symbolizing the end of the Cold War and the beginning of a new era in global politics.
September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks: This event marked a turning point for the entire world but particularly impacted those of your generation, who were in their mid-20s at the time. The attacks led to significant changes in global politics, security, and international relations, and initiated the War on Terror.
Tech Boom and Dot-com Bubble: Growing up during the emergence of the Internet and rapid technological advancement, your generation witnessed the dot-com bubble's rise and burst around the late 1990s and early 2000s. This period marked significant shifts in the economy and the way society interacts with technology.
Global Financial Crisis (2007-2008): This economic crisis would have significantly impacted your generation, particularly in terms of job security, housing market stability, and overall economic outlook.
These events, among others, shaped the worldview of your generation, influencing attitudes towards issues like race, security, technology, and the economy. Each generation experiences its own set of defining moments, and for yours, these events played a significant role in shaping the cultural and social landscape.
Me:my parents would have grown up watching coverage of the race riots following MLK?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
Yes, your parents' generation, born around 1951, would have been teenagers during the race riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. Let's explore the context and the impact of this period:
Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. (April 4, 1968): MLK's assassination was a pivotal moment in American history, particularly in the context of the Civil Rights Movement. King was a prominent leader advocating for nonviolent protest against racial segregation and discrimination. His assassination sparked a wave of grief and anger across the country.
Race Riots (1968): Following MLK's assassination, numerous cities across the United States witnessed race riots. Major riots occurred in Washington D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, Kansas City, and many other cities. These riots were fueled by years of racial tension and frustration with the slow pace of social and political change. Your parents, as teenagers during this time, would have witnessed these events, which would have been covered extensively on television and in newspapers.
Impact on Your Parents' Generation: For teenagers in the late 1960s, these events would have been formative experiences. Watching the race riots and the social unrest that followed MLK's assassination would have significantly impacted their views on race relations, civil rights, and social justice. This period was marked by a significant shift in societal attitudes and an increased awareness of racial inequalities.
Media Coverage: This was a time when television was emerging as a primary source of news for many American households. The extensive media coverage of both MLK's assassination and the subsequent riots brought the realities of racial tension and civil unrest into living rooms across the country. For the first time, many Americans were witnessing these events unfold in real-time, making the experience more immediate and impactful.
The late 1960s was a period of significant social and political upheaval in the United States, and the events following MLK's assassination were central to this era. The experiences of your parents' generation during this time would have shaped their perspectives on a range of issues, from civil rights and social justice to the role of media in shaping public opinion.
Me:the berlin wall was WW2 right? is that something my parents would have seen built?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
The Berlin Wall was actually a product of the Cold War, not World War II, and it was built after your parents' birth. Here's a brief overview of the timeline:
End of World War II (1945): World War II ended in 1945. At this time, Germany was divided into zones controlled by the Allied powers (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union). The city of Berlin, located within the Soviet zone, was also divided into sectors.
Start of the Cold War (Late 1940s): The Cold War, a period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet Union (and its allies) and the United States (and its allies), began shortly after World War II. This era was marked by political and military tension, but it did not involve direct military conflict between the superpowers.
Construction of the Berlin Wall (1961): The Berlin Wall was constructed in 1961, about a decade after your parents were born (assuming they were born around 1951). The wall was built by the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), which was under Soviet influence, to prevent East Germans from fleeing to West Berlin and, by extension, West Germany.
Your Parents' Generation (Born around 1951): Your parents would have been about 10 years old when the Berlin Wall was built. They would have grown up during its existence, witnessing the Cold War's impact on global politics and the division it caused in Germany and Europe. The Berlin Wall stood as a symbol of this division.
Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989): The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, marking a significant event in the end of the Cold War. At this point, your parents would have been in their late 30s and would have witnessed this historic event, which was extensively covered in the media.
In summary, the Berlin Wall was part of the Cold War era, not World War II, and its construction and eventual fall were significant events in your parents' lifetime, reflecting the broader geopolitical shifts of the 20th century.
Me:I thought the cold war was JFK and Gorbotrov (sp?)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
The Cold War was indeed a significant part of the presidencies of John F. Kennedy (JFK) and the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev (the correct spelling), but it started well before their time and spanned several decades. Here's a brief overview:
Start of the Cold War (Late 1940s): The Cold War began soon after World War II, around the late 1940s. It was a period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet Union (and its allies) and the United States (and its allies). The Cold War was characterized by political, military, economic, and ideological rivalry but did not involve direct military conflict between the superpowers.
JFK's Presidency (1961-1963): John F. Kennedy was the President of the United States from 1961 until his assassination in 1963. His presidency was marked by significant Cold War events, such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961), the construction of the Berlin Wall (1961), and the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), one of the tensest points of the Cold War.
Mikhail Gorbachev's Leadership (1985-1991): Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 until its dissolution in 1991. His policies of Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring) were instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War. Gorbachev's tenure saw significant reforms in the Soviet Union and improved relations with the West.
End of the Cold War (Late 1980s-Early 1990s): The Cold War effectively ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, followed by the collapse of communist regimes across Eastern Europe, and ultimately the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
So, while JFK and Gorbachev were critical figures during the Cold War, the conflict spanned several decades and encompassed the tenures of many other leaders in the US, the Soviet Union, and their respective allied countries. JFK's presidency occurred during one of the most intense periods of the Cold War, and Gorbachev's leadership marked its conclusion.
Me:Riiight... Gorbachev.
and yes, the Cuban missile crisis... that what's what I always thing of when i think of the cold war (as in, thinking that was the entirity of the cold war, and that that incident itself is what was named the cold war = probably because that would have been my first formative memories of it)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
Absolutely, it's quite common for major events like the Cuban Missile Crisis to dominate our perception of historical periods, especially when they are as dramatic and well-publicized as this incident was. The Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place in October 1962, is often remembered as one of the most critical moments of the Cold War because it brought the United States and the Soviet Union dangerously close to nuclear conflict.
For a bit of context:
The Cuban Missile Crisis: This crisis began after the United States discovered Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. President John F. Kennedy responded by imposing a naval blockade around Cuba to prevent further Soviet shipments. The situation was extremely tense, with fears of a nuclear war running high.
Resolution: After several days of intense negotiations and a very real threat of nuclear war, the crisis was resolved when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba in exchange for a U.S. promise not to invade Cuba and the secret removal of U.S. missiles from Turkey.
Impact on Public Consciousness: The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the first major international crises to be played out on television. People around the world could watch events unfold in real-time, which was a relatively new phenomenon. This contributed to its lasting impact on public memory.
Your Formative Memories: If the Cuban Missile Crisis is one of your earliest memories of the Cold War, it makes sense that it would shape your perception of the era. It was a time when the Cold War suddenly became very real and immediate for people around the globe.
The Cold War, spanning from the late 1940s to the early 1990s, included a range of other significant events and conflicts influenced by the overarching tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis stands out as a particularly tense moment when the world seemed on the brink of nuclear war, and it's often one of the most vividly remembered aspects of the Cold War period.
Me:well, i guess, if it was during the late 60's, the events themselves wouldn't be part of my memories... maybe it was moreso that was the biggest part of the cold war, and so when I came along in 74, people were still talking about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
Yes, that's a very plausible explanation. Although the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in 1962, well before you were born in 1974, it remained a profoundly significant event in the collective memory and continued to be a topic of discussion and reference for many years afterward. Here's why the Cuban Missile Crisis likely had a lasting impact and presence in discussions during your early years:
Significance of the Event: The Cuban Missile Crisis was a defining moment of the Cold War due to the direct and intense confrontation it represented between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was one of the closest points the world came to experiencing a nuclear war. Such a monumental event would naturally continue to be a topic of public discourse, analysis, and education for many years.
Impact on Policies and Relations: The crisis had lasting effects on international relations and policies, particularly regarding nuclear weapons and superpower diplomacy. It led to the establishment of direct communication lines between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (the "Hotline") and paved the way for subsequent arms control agreements. These developments would have kept the crisis relevant in political and historical discussions.
Cultural and Educational References: In the years following the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was frequently referenced in educational settings, popular culture, and media as a key historical event. As you grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, it would have been a part of the curriculum in schools and a point of reference in discussions about international relations and history.
Continued Cold War Tensions: The Cold War continued for several decades after the crisis, with ongoing tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. This meant that the Cuban Missile Crisis remained relevant as a clear example of the dangers and realities of the Cold War.
Parental and Societal Influence: Your parents and the older generation would have experienced the Cuban Missile Crisis firsthand. Their memories and the lessons they drew from it could have influenced their perspectives and the way they talked about that period, thus passing on its significance to the next generation.
So, while you wouldn't have direct memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis, its prominence as a critical event of the Cold War and its lasting impact on international relations and culture would have made it a significant topic of discussion and learning during your childhood and adolescence.
Me:this is so wild... i've always had this feeling like i "remembered" kennedy being shot, and "remembered" him stacking missles along the border of... somehwhere? but i guess i only remember them vicariously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
Yes, what you're experiencing is a form of "vicarious memory" or "collective memory." These are memories or impressions of events that you didn't actually experience firsthand, but feel familiar due to the way they've been shared, discussed, and represented in your family, community, or through media. This phenomenon is quite common, especially with significant historical events. Here’s how it might work in your case:
Kennedy's Assassination (1963): President John F. Kennedy's assassination was a major shock and a deeply emotional event for many people. Even though you were not alive at the time, the stories, images, and emotions surrounding this event have been extensively shared through media, in education, and possibly by family members who did experience it. This extensive coverage can create a sense of personal connection to the event.
The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): Similarly, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a major event of the Cold War, often discussed in history classes and depicted in films, documentaries, and other media. Kennedy's role in this crisis, particularly the high-stakes confrontation with the Soviet Union over missile deployment in Cuba, is a well-documented and frequently referenced part of his presidency.
Vicarious Memory: Through repeated exposure to these historical narratives, especially when they are presented in a vivid and personal way, it's possible to develop a sense of memory or familiarity with these events. This is particularly true if these discussions happened during your formative years when you were developing an understanding of history and the world.
Family and Societal Narratives: If your family or community members talked about where they were and what they felt during these events, such conversations could also contribute to this sense of memory. Human brains are very good at absorbing and internalizing stories, especially when they are emotionally charged or told by people we trust and relate to.
In essence, these "memories" are a mix of historical knowledge, cultural narratives, and the human tendency to feel connected to significant past events, even if we didn't experience them directly. They reflect the powerful impact of major historical events on collective consciousness and how they shape our understanding of history and our place in it.
Me:ok so where all the questions are coming from (this last bit really brought me back to why i started this conversation) is that a thought just occured to me earlier this morning...
thinking about how people so readily absorb and spread misinformation nowadays (because they really believe it... things like the Earth being flat, or the Moon Landing being fake)... is because each current generation is responsible for teaching the next generation... and the problem with that, is that as years go by... people are being taught be 2nd/3rd/4th-hand knowledge instead of by people that were there. and even textbooks are written by older generations who experienced these events, and then updated by newer ones who only heard about them from their parents who heard about them from their parents, etc etc
and so now we have this current-new generation that is essentially not trusting what people are teaching them, so they're teaching themselves with the internet... and well that becomes just a whole bunch of kids teaching other kids who are teaching other kids, and like any kid that's ever been born, they think they know the answer (not meaning this in a derogatory way) and so it becomes an education of affermation rather than learning
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
Your observation touches on some very important aspects of how knowledge and history are transmitted, and how this process can affect the understanding and interpretation of facts over time. Let's break down a few key points:
Transmission of Knowledge Across Generations: Historically, knowledge has been passed down from generation to generation, both through formal education (like textbooks and schools) and informal means (like family stories and community narratives). Each generation interprets and understands events through their own lens, influenced by their experiences and the context of their times. This can lead to changes in how historical events are perceived and taught.
Role of Primary Sources: Initially, history is recorded by those who have directly experienced or witnessed events (primary sources). As time passes, secondary sources (like textbooks or documentaries) become more common, where the authors are interpreting or compiling information from primary sources or other secondary sources. This can sometimes lead to a gradual shift in the narrative, either through changing perspectives or the loss of some details.
Challenges in Modern Information Sharing: The rise of the internet and social media has drastically changed how information is shared and consumed. While these platforms offer unprecedented access to information, they also present challenges in verifying the accuracy of that information. Misinformation can spread rapidly, and without the right skills to critically assess and verify sources, people can easily absorb inaccurate information.
Distrust and Self-Education: As you've pointed out, there can be a growing distrust in traditional sources of information, leading people, especially younger generations, to seek knowledge independently. While self-education and critical thinking are valuable, they can be double-edged swords if not grounded in reliable source verification. The internet is a vast repository of information, but not all of it is accurate or credible.
Education of Affirmation vs. Critical Learning: The internet's algorithmic nature often leads to an "echo chamber" effect, where individuals are more likely to encounter information that affirms their existing beliefs. This can reinforce misconceptions and hinder exposure to a broader range of perspectives and critical analyses.
Responsibility of Educators and Society: This situation underscores the importance of teaching critical thinking and media literacy in schools and society at large. Educators, historians, and information providers have a crucial role in guiding people to discern credible information and understand the context of historical events.
In conclusion, the transition from learning from primary sources (direct experiences) to secondary ones (interpretations and teachings) does present challenges in maintaining the accuracy and context of historical events. The current digital age adds complexity to this process, highlighting the need for enhanced critical thinking and media literacy skills to navigate the vast and varied information landscape.
Me:neil degrasse tyson said recently (this is out of context, and paraphrased ... may not actually be something he really said? (maybe you can confirm this for me?)) that "people are becoming too stupid to actually know that they're stupid"
I know that sounds rude, but again, remember that he probably said something much different (if he even said it at all)... but putting aside the rudeness of the statement, how does it tie into all this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
I couldn't find an exact match for the quote you mentioned attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson about people becoming too stupid to know they're stupid. However, Tyson is known for making various thought-provoking statements about science, education, and public understanding of scientific truths. His quotes often emphasize the importance of scientific literacy, critical thinking, and the dangers of ignorance, especially when it comes to making informed decisions in a democratic society.
For instance, Tyson has highlighted the problem of adults not understanding science and how this can undermine the fabric of a nation. He has also spoken about the importance of following evidence and questioning everything, and how personal beliefs, when contrary to objective truths, can essentially become personal delusions. Such insights reflect his concerns about the state of scientific understanding and critical thinking in society.
These themes resonate with your observation about the generational transmission of knowledge and the challenges posed by misinformation and a lack of critical engagement with information sources. Tyson's comments underscore the need for a strong foundation in scientific literacy and critical thinking to navigate an increasingly complex and information-rich world.
For more detailed insights and quotes from Neil deGrasse Tyson, you might find it interesting to explore resources like A-Z Quotes [source 29†AZ Quotes] and All That's Interesting [source 30†All That's Interesting].
Me:now that i think about it, what i just did is kind of an example of what i've been talking about
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
Yes, your process of recalling and sharing a quote that you remembered, albeit not verbatim or perhaps not exactly as it was originally said, does indeed reflect the broader discussion about the transmission of information and knowledge.
This kind of situation happens quite often. We hear something — a quote, a fact, a story — and over time, our memory of it might change slightly. When we share it with others, we might unintentionally alter a few details or the way it was phrased. This isn't usually due to any intention to mislead; it's simply a characteristic of how human memory works. Our memories are not perfect recordings; they are reconstructive. Each time we recall an event or piece of information, we reconstruct it, and this process can introduce small changes.
This phenomenon is particularly relevant in the context of the spread of information in the digital age. As information gets passed from person to person, especially through informal means like social media or casual conversation, it can undergo subtle changes. Over time, these changes can lead to significant deviations from the original source or intent.
Your experience here underscores the importance of going back to primary sources for verification, especially for critical or widely-shared information. It also highlights the role of media literacy and critical thinking in discerning and understanding information in a world where misinformation can easily spread.
In educational and communication contexts, this underlines the need for emphasizing primary sources, teaching the skills to critically evaluate information, and encouraging an awareness of how our own perceptions and memories can shape the way we interpret and share information.
Me:i found it! and i definitely paraphrashed it in my earlier question...
"A great challenge of life: Knowing enough to think you are right, but not knowing enough to know you are wrong."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Spoiler!
Great, you found it! The quote you've referenced, "A great challenge of life: Knowing enough to think you are right, but not knowing enough to know you are wrong," is indeed a quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson. This insightful statement captures a common cognitive and educational dilemma.
This quote reflects on the nature of knowledge and the human tendency to overestimate one's understanding or expertise. It speaks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, a cognitive bias in which people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain overestimate their own abilities. On the flip side, those with more knowledge often underestimate their abilities, recognizing the vastness of what they still don't know.
Tyson's quote is particularly relevant in today's information-rich society, where access to vast amounts of data can give people a false sense of expertise. It underscores the importance of continuous learning and the humility to recognize the limits of one's knowledge. This mindset is crucial for both personal growth and informed public discourse, especially in an era where misinformation can easily spread.
This concept ties back to our earlier discussion about the transmission of knowledge and the importance of critical thinking. It highlights the need for individuals to be aware of their own knowledge limits and to approach information with a balance of confidence and skepticism.
I decided to stop there so I could actually make it into the office today and get some work done. But I really love using CGPT for things like this. Honestly, this is the single best thing to come along (for me) since the Internet itself.
Last edited by FanIn80; 01-25-2024 at 11:43 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
yeah it's much longer than I thought it would be. probably less scrolling if I didn't use formatting, but like anything in life, it can either be read or ignored.
As I understand it the lawsuit didn't even name names. And the lawyer for the girl now says he didn't even know the names (I don't believe he'd lie in his press release but it's really odd that he doesn't have them even on a confidential basis). Hell, Hockey Canada may not have even known the names.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
