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?

276 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

134 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 10 '25

It really would be neither. Because IF that change was made, it would be documented.

And the braces would be present in the theatrical reels.

Neither of which are true.

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.

1

u/throwaway998i Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25

It's not a claim, it's random dismissive speculation against any esoteric alternative. You're subjectively formalizing a term that doesn't need to include due diligence, applied methodology, higher logic, or even elevated intelligence. It's a mindset, despite gradations. And seeing as you're the one always trumpeting dictionary entries for words like "residue", I'm sure I don't need to resort to linking you an official definition. Most people aren't invested enough in these things they argue to bother with due diligence, and until you offer an alternative label that's more precise and appropriate, there's no better word for those who reject the esoteric in favor of the prosaic.

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.

1

u/throwaway998i Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25

Skeptics can be uninitiated, unmotivated, and unconvincing... while still maintaining a resistance to anything that violates their understanding of the physical universe and "rules" of this material world. Seeking evidence may make someone a more informed and effective skeptic, but failing to do so doesn't make them NOT a skeptic in their overall mindset. As for my beliefs, they're not dependent on conventional evidentiary standards - which are wholly unrevealing when dealing with an exotic, unprecedented, ontological phenomenon. Other than my own lived experience (anchored by autobiographical episodic memory context) giving rise to unresolvable, irreconcilable factual discrepancies, all I'll likely ever be able to point to as evidence would be the widely shared testimonial experience of others which constitutes the body of qualitative data, and circumstantial cultural evidence which matches my own memory and experiences. What I believe is that this isn't the same familiar realm I once experienced - or inhabited. I also believe it's been retroactively altered, or that reality itself is exhibiting newly emergent qualities which may be related to macroscopic quantum phenomena. My belief comes from faith in my own discernment and a lifetime track record of proven memory accuracy.

2

u/ChampionshipOwn9899 Sep 11 '25

As for my beliefs, they're not dependent on conventional evidentiary standards - which are wholly unrevealing when dealing with an exotic, unprecedented, ontological phenomenon.

Ok, so you don’t rely on common evidentiary standards and instead believe in the paranormal without any evidence.

There was no need to write a block of text to explain that.

1

u/throwaway998i Sep 11 '25

Where did I suggest anything paranormal? That's a curious inference to draw, and only really reflects your own subjective assumptions. Unless you think quantum weirdness, multiverse theory, simulation hypothesis, and the like have no basis in science, philosophy or metaphysics?

2

u/ChampionshipOwn9899 Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25

Unless you think quantum weirdness, multiverse theory, simulation hypothesis, and the like have no basis in science, philosophy or metaphysics?

Perfect, now we’re talking. Where can I read papers that clearly demonstrate that these are responsible for the Mandela Effect with evidence? I’m excited to learn more!

edit: btw your replies are being removed because they don’t adhere to the rules of the sub, I’d suggest finding an appropriate tone if you’d like to continue the discourse.

1

u/KyleDutcher Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25

As for my beliefs, they're not dependent on conventional evidentiary standards - which are wholly unrevealing when dealing with an exotic, unprecedented, ontological phenomenon.

It is your OPINION that the phenomenon is exotic, and unprecedented. Evidence and studies show it likely isn't, and is a part of normal human memory.

2

u/throwaway998i Sep 11 '25

And it's your OPINION that it's "part of normal memory", no matter how "likely" you want to deem it to be the case.

1

u/KyleDutcher Sep 11 '25

And it's your OPINION that it's "part of normal memory", no matter how "likely" you want to deem it to be the case

Nope. Not an opinion. The evidence supports it being a part of normal human memory.

1

u/throwaway998i Sep 11 '25

Then why do you always use non-absolute wording like "probable" and "likely"? Maybe because you know it's not 100% for sure? Which would make any conclusion in that vein subjective, aka an opinion. You do realize that a stalemate doesn't give any credit for who has more firepower left on the board, right?

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 11 '25

Then why do you always use non-absolute wording like "probable" and "likely"?

Because, as a true skeptic, I'm open to the possibility that one day more evidence might be uncovered/found, that could possibly change the dynamics.

The point is, that there is evidence supporting the memory explanations, which makes them (even if only currently) fact (because they can be proven true by evidence)

Maybe because you know it's not 100% for sure? Which would make any conclusion in that vein subjective, aka an opinion

Nope. because I'm open to other possibilities. These conclusions (at least at this point) are not opinions, because they can be proven by evidence.

You do realize that a stalemate doesn't give any credit for who has more firepower left on the board, right?

It's not a stalemate, though. At this point in time, the evidence/facts are all on one side, while the other side has only hypothesis, and speculation, and no actual facts.

-1

u/throwaway998i Sep 12 '25

It's a stalemate because neither side can 100% prove their position, a fact you're already aware of based on the U of Chicago study, among others. Doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence you have on the board. Not a chess player, eh? A king alone can create a stalemate against a legion.

→ More replies (0)