I don't get the scoffer mentality.greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I don't understand the mentality of people who simply refuse to believe that y2k can be a problem, possibly even a life threatening situation. I read posts from people who are adamant in their belief that y2k will be nothing, and actually scoff at folks who are preparing. What makes this so unbelievable to me is the fact that we all have the same sources of info, primarily the net. Those who choose to scoff at y2k are possibly risking the lives of themselves and their families, just to prove a point? What I find really weird is the fact that their is a Y2K Debunkers forum, where people actually discuss that y2k will not happen. Am I missing something here? If someone believes that y2k is a non-event, why waste your time talking about it? Thats really stupid. Why not surf the web, or watch Leave It To Beaver reruns or something? I would imagine that the scoffers will have no preps either. Why? For a few hundred dollars they could have had a good supply of food, just in case. Their stubbornness jeopardizes their very existance. Is this denial to the max?
I can picture some wife saying:
"Dear, I'm a little worried about this year 2000 problem."
"Don't worry about it, Joe over in computers said it's all a hoax!"
But dear, don't you think we should have a little extra food on hand, just in case?"
"I aint wasting my hard earned money on something that aint gonna happen, grab me a beer will ya'"
I'm sure this isn't typical of scoffers thinking but, whats at stake makes one wonder what mental state people are in.
-- Rainman (email@example.com), November 20, 1999
They're in denial and don't want to admit what's at stake. The more lies they can spout, the better they will feel about themselves and their position. They are lazy and would rather watch their families die than to try to prevent the inevitable.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 20, 1999.
"There is no problem so large that you can't run away from it"
(Can't remeber who said it, but it fits...)
-- Ludi (Ludi@rollin.com), November 20, 1999.
First, the debunker fora have very few posts, by very few people. It's really true that those who don't expect much to happen aren't talking about it. There are only a few who bother, and I wonder about their stability.
Second, I wonder about this conversation. Buying food ahead isn't wasted money, since you'll eat it anyway. You might even save money by snagging sales. Most scoffers only do so when the issue is raised, which it isn't very often in real life. They don't see any problems, and have (in their opinion) more important things to worry about.
-- Flint (email@example.com), November 20, 1999.
My sources are not limited to the internet.
That said, however, it is possible for a thinking person to draw either conclusion by reading the available information on the internet.
The issues I have with doomers are not their preparations. In fact, I have openly encouraged everyone to do as I have done: Perpare to the level that gives you security. In my case, that involved no preparation at all. In yours, it will likely involve some time and effort. I have no problem with how you spend your time or money. It's really none of my business.
My issues are with those who have made false and misleading claims regarding Y2K all along. They "over-estimated" and "under-estimated," and now they wish some people would forget the predictions they made about how this would all unfold. But those predictions are offer a critical view of the success and accuracy of their analysis of the "Y2K bug." And, those predictions prove they were right in asserting that there would be problems, but that they were not even close in predicting the impact said problems would cause.
Now is the time for those individuals to step forward and admit their folly with regards to impact. Later will be too late. The truth is always in everyone's best interests.
-- Andy Ray (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 20, 1999.
GET A LIFE, ANDY RAY!!! PLEASE!!!
-- Andy Ray GET A LIFE!!! (email@example.com), November 20, 1999.
Andy wrote...>>>Now is the time for those individuals to step forward and admit their folly with regards to impact. <<<
No, I don't think so. Not yet. In spite of the various polly and doomer factions in here (BOTH should be heard, btw) there is not one solitary soul on this planet who can say with absolute certainty what will happen with Y2K. You have your firm convictions and other folks have theirs.
FWIW...I have never made wild, irrational predictions. My practice has been to raise questions and concerns based upon the information available to me. Good or Bad. Also, in spite of my deepest concerns about this issue, I will gladly stand up later and admit to being wrong if events and circumstances warrant such action.
-- Irving (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 20, 1999.
Most "Pollies", IMO, are just too comfortable in their current existence that they are unable to fathom the profound changes and disruptions we will all soon be going through. They remain in deep dangerous denial over reality.
As long as they have their beer and television and football games, they believe that they are safely insulated from the realities of Y2K.
They are like little children with no common sense whatsoever who believe what their "Uncle Bill" tells them and know that fed.gov will be there to lead them to their new homes in the mass shelters.
As long as the lamestream media keeps up their propganda campaign of disinformation, these poorly deluded sheep will never wake up long enough to see that the gov't along with the media has been lying thru their teeth from the very beginning.
Go back to sleep now. Big brother will take care of you all. Don't come to my house looking for a handout, you losers!
-- ActionBill (StopNWO@aol.com), November 20, 1999.
Andyray has stated that the truth is always in everyone's interest.
I will wholeheartedly agree.
But Andy has also posted that he has written contradictory posts under various aliases, for the purpose of his sociological research.
I am at a loss to understand how posting material he believes to be false can be consistent with his expressed conviction. Or does he only mean that *other* posters should tell the truth?
-- gene (email@example.com), November 20, 1999.
Andy raises a point to consider. There have been some predictions on y2k that didn't turn out to be correct (ie the 9999) or have been very extreme. There is a chink in this line of reasoning that since nothing much (discounting the individual problems of individual Co.s) has happened that nothing will. This is sort of an open ended prediction. In reveiwing the scenario's you do not have to believe in an all or nothing for there to be enough concern to prepare. In fact we prepared for a Russian attack in Europe for years that never (yet??) happened. Does that mean that we shouldn't have prepared for the possibility?
If it makes it easier to picture think of a time line with nothing/BITR at one end and infomagic at the other. Ask yourself at what point on the line do I feel the effects? At what point would preparations be reasonable? Then ask yourself do I really know where we will fall?
Rainman they scoff because they want to believe that nothing will happen. Technology has become a religion that must be maintained because it is their belief system.
I would suggest its a tool, nothing more nothing less.
-- squid (Itsdark@down.here), November 20, 1999.
Two words come to mind,disassociation and non-accountability.As in -- I didn't know,there-fore I didn't prepare,now someone else take care of me.
-- Maggie (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 20, 1999.
Why do you think's it mandatory (most places) to carry at least third party drivers insurance? Why isn't it voluntary?
Because it's inconvenient to buy, it costs money, and, hey, you probably won't need it. Sure, if you DO crash, you'll be sorry that you didn't pay a little up front, but what's the chances of that, eh?
-- Colin MacDonald (email@example.com), November 22, 1999.
Observed saturday night at the neighborhood bridge game that people kept making the statement to the effect "I'm not worried about Y2K". followed by the question "Are you"? For something everyone was not worried about, they sure brought it up a lot. I just kept my mouth shut, even when pressed. If I would have said yes, it would have led to "anyone who worries about Y2k is crazy" "I'm not worried' Are you REALLY worrried. very wierd
-- Noone (Noone@none.com), November 22, 1999.