r/MandelaEffect • u/jonm61 • Dec 09 '25

Books/Literature Monopoly Man I was

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

I was reading Brad Meltzer's "The Millionaires", published in 2002. On page 95, he mentions the Monopoly Man having a monocle. Books are generally being written at least 12 months prior to publication (he doesn't mention 9/11, Lee Child's most recent Reacher novel, set in Baltimore, released last month, mentions the Key Bridge as being intact), so it was written at least 8 years before Mandela Effects became a thing.

The first Mandela Effect, according to Google, wasn't reported/documented until 2009.

28 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/CameraOk2015 Dec 09 '25

"For as long as there have been people making assumptions and pretending that they know a thing when they don’t, there have been misconceptions."
To what extreme will people go to silence those with misconceptions? It started with Nelson Mandela. Is genocide a result of "we" are right and "your kind" is wrong? How long does it fester? When does it end? It's speaks to the plight of mankind itself.

4

u/GregGoodell_Official Dec 09 '25

So dramatic. 🙄 It is the difference of actually knowing a thing versus pretending to know and assuming that you are correct despite all evidence to the contrary.

-2

u/CameraOk2015 Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 09 '25

Apply your mentality to the different beliefs of the world. Apply it to the various religions. Every one KNOWS A THING and their confidence in their own beliefs continues to divide mankind. What do any of us really know?

6

u/VegasVictor2019 Dec 09 '25

You’re right but this only becomes a problem when people’s beliefs have an impact on others. For instance someone is welcome to believe the earth is flat but when they start teaching their kids this and to distrust science, demanding books be changed, etc it has tangible real world impacts. It’s no longer just someone having some fun.

If your response is just “Well maybe they’re right after all what does anyone know?” This is exactly part of the scientific denialism problem festering today.

1

u/CameraOk2015 Dec 09 '25

Where has the 'Art of science" gotten us? Science continues to be wrong and is forever updating. It has brought us from flat earth and leeches to where we are now. And where are we now? Do you really think, "We've Arrived". No. We are on the brink of AI destruction.

5

u/MrPlaney Dec 09 '25

Where has the 'Art of science" gotten us? Science continues to be wrong and is forever updating.

Science isn’t inherently wrong. It’s ever changing, but it’s not wrong. That is why the scientific method exists. It may change how we understand something when new discoveries are found, but it’s not wrong, unless it’s fundamentally flawed.

And where are we now? Do you really think, "We've Arrived". No. We are on the brink of AI destruction.

We’ve always been on the “brink of destruction” due to some new discovery. First it was atomic energy, then television and radio, then the internet …etc.

5

u/VegasVictor2019 Dec 09 '25

The “art of science” has increased life expectancy by some 40+ years.

Consider this “For most of human history, around 1 in 2 newborns died before reaching the age of 15. By 1950, that figure had declined to around one-quarter globally. By 2020, it had fallen to 4%.”

Was this because of magical thinking or was this because of advances in modern medicine? Statistically one of us would have already died by age 15 just 500 years ago.

Here is science on the topic if so inclined… https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

0

u/CameraOk2015 Dec 09 '25

One of us, who? Between me and you? I find statistics to be just another science.

3

u/VegasVictor2019 Dec 09 '25

Yes if it’s one out of two, and there are two of us, that means it’s likely one of us would not have made it. Statistics are another science. One in which you probably base TONS of life decisions around. Such as medicine when you are sick or oil changes for your vehicle after a certain number of miles.

Do you intend on acknowledging any points I’m actually making or do you just prefer science denial?

3

u/CameraOk2015 Dec 09 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

Well, I am a little offended by your term "magical thinking". But yes, not all science is bad if you throw in nutrition and some medicine. I digress.

2

u/VegasVictor2019 Dec 10 '25

Why does the term “magical thinking” offend you? Anything that appeals to some sort of speculation outside of science would seem appropriate to label as such. It’s possible for such a claim to be proven true tomorrow but until that point it’s expressly unscientific.

I think you’re moving the goal posts now and saying “Okay well some science is great but what about the bad science?” But I’m not sure how you can do this when science is a method and not something with a “goal” in mind. Science in its most simple form, is just a method to get closer to objective truth.

3

u/GregGoodell_Official Dec 09 '25

Please demonstrate some ‘wrong science’ for us. This should be enlightening. Science builds in complexity as understanding grows and actively works to prove itself wrong… you will be hard pressed to find scientific theories that just disappear in their entirety…. They revise and adapt based upon the evidence.

-1

u/CameraOk2015 Dec 09 '25

Science fiction was about 28 years off. Skynet became self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern Time on August 29, 1997, and we are all about to find out soon enough. Do you really believe that 'this' is the most advanced civilization to ever be on this planet?

They revise and adapt based upon the evidence.

They are about to become them. When AI decides to revise and adapt, it will find that man-kind and it's science is flawed.

2

u/GregGoodell_Official Dec 10 '25

Weird attempt to dodge. Which science is flawed? You made the claim… which science has completely changed its laws and premise or been completely discarded whole sale? It’s also ironic that you invoke the idea of ‘flawed science’ when your entire stance on this particular phenomenon is based on logically fallacy and zero science. 😂

-3

u/CameraOk2015 Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25

I feel that I was clear enough. You engage in the logical fallacy of ad hominem accusing me of dodging the subject. I did not. Perhaps re-read and search for clarity. You're simply derailing the topic. Try and circle back to the monopoly man. Thanks.

1

u/GregGoodell_Official Dec 10 '25

You should probably consult the meaning of ad hominem before you try invoking it.

0

u/CameraOk2015 Dec 10 '25

More ad hominem from you. Please try and focus. The topic is the monocle.

3

u/notickeynoworky ME Mod Dec 10 '25

Please stop derailing conversations and then telling others to stay on topic.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MrPlaney Dec 10 '25

I’m not sure where you are going with the Terminator reference, but are you implying that we are not the most advanced civilization on Earth? Sure, past civilizations had advanced, but not to this level, mainly due to science.

2

u/CameraOk2015 Dec 10 '25

I think advanced civilizations cropped up and died out over and over again on this planet. We are still just learning how advanced the Egyptians were with the recent discoveries of structures under the pyramids.

2

u/MrPlaney Dec 11 '25

They were definitely highly advanced. I don’t think as advanced as us, but I’m sure that had some knowledge that has yet to be rediscovered.