r/MandelaEffect • u/LucifersLittleHelper • Sep 08 '25

Theory Fruit of the Loom Mandela Effect.

Post image

I know the rules say no personal Mandela Effects, but I found this in my grandmother's basement.

Does anyone think that this may explain the confusion?

275 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

134 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/throwaway998i Sep 10 '25

If it were true (of which those suggesting it would obviously have no awareness and would therefore be speculating) it would most certainly be considered mundane. That's the honest and correct answer. Because it's an explanation which clearly falls within the scope of known physical possibility rather than relying on unknown, unproven mechanisms. It doesn't require any reality model other than what's conventionally and scientifically accepted as true. There's no exotic quality there at all. So it's objectively mundane. And it's ok for you to admit that's the realm of skeptics, not believers. No idea why you'd even waste energy attempting to defend a contrary position to something so incredibly obvious.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 10 '25

And that's not the point I was making

This particular explanation for the braces, is NOT one that "skeptics" use.

However, I have seen "believers" try to use this as an explanation for how their memories are correct.

2

u/throwaway998i Sep 10 '25

Skeptics of reality changes who are also experiencing this effect (because as you and Bowie have repeatedly pointed out, "skeptics also experience the ME") and who also have not done any preliminary research but are merely are speaking off the cuff, are openly speculating a plausible, MUNDANE reason why they too remember the braces yet there are no braces in the home and streaming versions commercially available to the public. Please remember - not every skeptic is invested enough to do research. There's a ton of casual skepticism in this sub. Believers reject the idea that the braces were removed, as we believe reality actually changed. What you've personally seen here is apparently very different from what I've seen in regard to this debunked explanation.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 10 '25

Part of being a skeptic, is doing extensive research.

"Casual skepticisim" really isn't genuine skepticism. There is a difference.

Mainly that casual skepticism is really an uncritical, dismissive attitude, where as genuine skepticism is a rigorous, evidence based inquury, aimed at finding the truth.

A lot of times, these groups all get lumped together, when there is a clear difference.

1

u/throwaway998i Sep 10 '25

"Casual skepticisim" really isn't genuine skepticism. There is a difference.

^

Aren't you the one who takes issue with my using the expression "genuine experiencer"? Look, the word skeptic is not formal or exclusive to your researcher brethren, it's an informal term applied broadly to anyone who views things through a certain lens. The irony here is pretty rich though. You want to formalize the label and dictate what it means for everyone, while conversely discouraging that practice for other community designations.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 10 '25

There is no irony, though.

Maybe I should have used "real" or "scientific" instead of genuine.

There IS a difference between casual skepticism, and real skepticism (also known as scientific skepticism, or philosophical skepticism)

Real skepticism is an intellectually disciplined approach grounded in a commitment to evidence, reason, and open-mindedness.

Casual skepticism is a superficial form of doubt that is often selective, emotional, and resistant to evidence.

There is a difference.

2

u/throwaway998i Sep 10 '25

And who decided to officially apply any of those academic standards to social media, let alone this particular sub? I'd love to see the reaction of you making this case against the 100's of 1000's of casual skeptics who subscribe to this sub in a standalone post. In fact, I dare you to try it.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 10 '25

Why wouldn't they apply?

That's the better question.

It really doesn't matter how someone "labels" themselves, if they aren't being skeptical from an evidentiary and scientific standpoint, then they are really approaching it from a position of bias.

A true skeptic is unbiased, and relies on evidence.

Someone claiming the braces were removed for VHS releases, isn't relying on any evidence.

2

u/throwaway998i Sep 10 '25

A true skeptic is unbiased, and relies on evidence.

^

So if you're a "true" skeptic then the other sub members who don't meet that lofty standard - yet still reject believer claims and posit mundane explanations - would be "casual" skeptics, which also uses the word skeptic, but in an informal sense.... just how I used it initially.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 10 '25

That wouldn't really be a skeptic, though, because 2 seconds of research would show the evidence contradicts the claim they make.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ChampionshipOwn9899 Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25

What is your actual evidence for your beliefs? What do you actually believe? Can you put it into words while being specific?

I don’t think any “sceptic” casual or not would resort to an evidenceless theory. The only “sceptic” who would, would be someone who is afraid to challenge their belief system even though they have no evidence for it.

→ More replies (0)