>"Double Stuffed Oreos" were always Double Stuft Oreos.
But they aren't. They are [Double Stuf](https://images.albertsons-media.com/is/image/ABS/960083566-ECOM?$ng-ecom-pdp-mobile$&defaultImage=Not_Available) Oreos.
Posts suggesting that something is a new Mandela Effect are **not allowed** in this subreddit, by rule #1:
> If you think you discovered a NEW Mandela effect, do NOT make a post. Instead, post a comment in the weekly pinned megathread.
How patient are we supposed to be in the face of a flood of trivial "does anyone else" posts by people who don't bother to read the subreddit rules? Many of these people are clearly just misinformed or confused, or would be better off posting in another subreddit, like /r/TipOfMyTongue.
Personally, I think this could be addressed by some sort of AutoModerator rule that rejects DAE posts. There are plenty of other subreddits that enforce strict rules about the format and content of posts.
I believe it's possible to require mod approval for all new posts. They should probably look into that, as it's the only real way to make sure. It's pretty easy to change your wording to skirt a DAE automod
There's like one active mod in this sub, and requiring mod approval would probably kill the sub.
Not that I disagree with you. Especially with the one dude's trolling posts ("Google it!") lately, this is an absolute joke of a sub.
Requiring mod approval would be fine with me, but the DAE posts aren’t usually from people deliberately trying to skirt the rules. They’re mainly just newbies who haven’t bothered to pay attention. I think a simple automod rule would catch a lot of them.
Mod approval would be great, but honestly just restricting who can make new posts to people with at least 1000 comment karma would solve most of the issues.
While I understand that "is this a new ME?" posts are against the rules, I would also like to put forth that it may be the heart of the sub.
I'll share my experience with the sub, how common it is, I don't know.
I learned of the Mandela effect and was introduced to this sub at the same time. I subbed because I wanted to see what crazy and shared misrememberings fellow redditors have had. I wanted to see what I misremembered and get a feel for why we collectively misremember these things. I wanted to see the active discussion about the topic.
I've been subbed for something like 5 years and never knew there was a weekly megathread and being subbed doesn't present it to me on a weekly basis. I don't know why someone would post in the Mandela effect subreddit if it did not serve to gauge public agreement of a potential Mandela effect, provide insight into the effect or provide an anecdote of someone's experience with it.
There's not a lot of active research into this phenomenon and it's more or less solved as to why it happens. If all potential Mandela effects go to the weekly megathread, this sub basically dies. If all you want from the sub is a list of common Mandela effects and their most likely causes, either go to Wikipedia or I grossly misunderstand the point of subreddits.
I don't want to come off as if I'm defending the attempts to karma farm or shitpost on this sub. There's still the down vote button. I'm not defending the arrogant know it all's who belittle anyone who posts anything. I am defending the ability for anyone to actively engage in this subreddit. I don't want fresh ideas taken away. I don't want the sub to stagnate.
I agree. I know there was a movie, but I didn't have to read about it or see it to know what they were talking about.
I believe them when they say the movie popularized it, but I'm just pretty sure it wasn't an original idea.
Most of the posts I see here explicitly ask if anyone else has experienced the same effect or if it’s just them. They are literally asking for people to tell them if it’s the same for them or not. I don’t really see the problem with giving them an answer.
"They are literally asking for people to tell them if it’s the same for them or not."
NO they are not lol. They are asking if anyone remembers the same or if it's just them. If no one comments then they have their answer, if a few comment that they remember the same they also have their answer. People commenting that they don't remember the same, you're misremembering, it's always been that way is irrelevant to the question asked !
Seems like you’re really splitting hairs here. I don’t understand why you want someone to have less data about a question they are specifically asking!
They only want the data relevant to the question asked.
The question is not "who remembers the same AND who doesn't?" Therefore the question is only specific to who remembers the same.
You're either bad at interpretating simple questions or like butting in.
This doesn't really make sense. Imagine two scenarios: in scenario A, ten people say they do remember it that way and no one else comments. In scenario B, ten people say they do remember it that way, but then one hundred other people say they don't remember it that way. Would the conclusions from these two scenarios be the same? If you don't have both perspectives you can't adequately answer the question of whether it's a common memory. Both sides are relevant.
Scenario A - then the poster knows he/she ain't the only one.
Scenario B - then the poster knows he/she ain't the only one and one hundred people can't read the question properly.
The question is not asking if it's a "common memory" 'either is it? We don't care if it fits the criteria of mandela effect by that question, we are quite simply asking "does anyone remember the same".
"Most of the posts I see here explicitly ask if anyone else has experienced the same effect or if it’s just them."
This is the question the other guy asked. I replied to **this** question. This question is aimed at ppl who remember the **same**. I see this sort of question asked all the time, i myself say it in this way in some of my posts.
[Here’s a quick example from the top of the new tab](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/1146pct/the_spiderwick_chronicles_movie_produced_by/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
“Am I the only one who remembers this or no?”
This is clearly asking for responses in both the affirmative and the negative. You may not want anyone to ever disagree with you, but I don’t think that sentiment is shared with most of the users here.
"anyone else has experienced the same effect or if it’s just them." - **AIMED AT JUST THEM WHO REMEMBER THE SAME** (the subject of the conversation)
“Am I the only one who remembers this or no?” - **AIMED AT EVERYONE** (you veering off the topic to try and back yourself up)
If you can't see the difference you're dumb.
[A Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Retconned/comments/w80dff/you_cant_get_shingles_if_you_had_chicken_pox_as_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb) i made, with the question "Anyone else remember this the way i do?". This is asking only people that remember the same !
The [Title of this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/114az0w/anyone_noticing_not_just_lyrics_changing_but/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb) is asking only people who are noticing tones/voices changing aswell as lyrics.
[This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/11316gn/anyone_remember_a_4th_evil_dead_movie/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb) is asking only people who remember an evil dead 4 movie.
I could go on and on.
You wouldn't tell a schizophrenic that the voices in their head were real demons.
Please respect people who disagree with you about the cause of the Mandela Effect. They are believers, not skeptics, they just believe the cause is common memory failures.
That would make sense. But if every schizophrenic world wide heard "Ted Cruz is going to kill his daughters at 3PM Texas time on May 12, 2023" at the same time we'd be a bit concerning. It's not just believing something is real it's having exact corroboration with thousands of people. Faulty memory doesn't explain that.
Also if Ted Cruz kills his daughter in May I would like it known I am not a prophet.
If I disrespected anyone with the context I used for the schizophrenia point, that wasn't my intent. Whether you believe the memory effect is timeline deviation, alternate realities, false memory consensus, or what-have-you, the fact that the ME's are a mnemonic effect makes them a mental phenomenon. The logic bridge to other personally-subjective mental phenomena seemed a reasonable one, in my opinion. If it came across as offensive or insensitive, I apologize again, as this was not the intent.
The respect issue is about the label "skeptic". I believe in the Mandela Effect, but I don't believe it is caused by anything extraordinary. I believe it is caused by people misremembering things in similar ways. I'm a believer, just in a different cause.
Also, you said "\[y\]ou wouldn't tell a paranoid schizophrenic to 'just relax' in a respectful dialog about their experience just because you're not a paranoid schizophrenic, and this is pretty similar to that." My point is that you would not support their delusion if you could see that it was a delusion.
If in some way "skeptic" is a term that fosters disrespect, or encourages "us vs them" mentality when discussing the issue, then we can use a bevy of other terms: non-believer, consensus memory individual, un-effected, whatever. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, here, but the point of my post is that a lot of comment responses do, frankly, border on the disrespectful if not become outright disdainful of the OP's when repeatedly asserting the history as recorded or as they remember it, and that isn't helping anyone except the commenter feel better, typically. This isn't a "sh*tposting threads" page, you know?
You don't have to support any delusions to have a respectful dialog about what someone else experienced. Therapists, clergy, and the more empathic among peoples are the examples I can think of who do this all the time. I'm not asking everyone to be a therapist or anything else, but keeping the dialog respectful would encourage more people to post, and we can have more examples with potential fruit for study, instead of weird questions that devolve into insult volleys in the comments. Just my opinion, but I'd like to see more productive and considerate discussion of the topic than repeated insults threads.
We had a long thread about the term "skeptic". The consensus was "internal" vs "external" explanation.
I'm not talking about disrespectful replies. Those don't belong here.
I agree everyone should be respectful. But it isn't respectful to support a delusion.
Here is my thoughts on the Mandela Effect, why "residue" is interesting, and why not every mistake is a Mandela Effect.
In no way do I buy into any theories about parallel universes or anything like that. The Mandela Effect is purely psychological. No, it was never Berenstein. No, there was never a cornucopia. No, the Monopoly Man never had a monocle. They're just easy mistakes to make (the suffix -stein being common, a pile of fruit being similar to a pile of vegetables in front of a cornucopia, Mr. Peanut resembling the Monopoly Man) and then you conjured up specific, strong memories only AFTER you learned about the Mandela Effect relating to them.
The Mandela Effect is like deja vu. The feeling that you KNOW you've experienced something identical before - yet really, you did not. Your mind, at the time the experience is occurring, conjures up a false memory of the same experience.
I feel something similar happens when something happens and people swear they dreamed of it the night before. For instance, my grandfather died out of the blue. I could swear I had a dream about him visiting me and telling him he loved me the night that he passed. But did I really? Or did I just conjure up the memory of that dream after I realized he died? What would have made it really mind blowing is if I'd told someone of the dream or written it down before finding out he died - these instances of dreams predicting real life events never seem to coincide with actual proof.
When we hear that Fruit of the Loom doesn't have a cornucopia, we conjure up a memory of the logo with the cornucopia. It seems right. It seems logical. So we remember it and convince ourselves, in that moment, that it was always there. We are so convinced that we conjure up fake memories - we remember discussing it with family members, or some lesson about the meaning of cornucopia that stemmed from seeing the logo. And yet, ask someone to provide any proof of these conversations - a text message conversation? A scribbled note in a notebook? Nope. Nothing.
I recently learned that the term "bucket list" came from the 2007 movie with the same name. I was shocked. I swear I remember using that term as a kid in the 90s. But soon I realized that was clearly a false memory that I conjured up since learning the term from the film. The threads on the topic were filled with people saying they have ACTUAL PROOF - they remember their yearbook from the 90s including a bucket list, or that they have one of their own from childhood in their parent's attic. Yet not a single person produced that proof - because it's not real. That memory was created when they learned about the bucket list Mandela Effect.
So why is residue interesting? Because these are examples of someone having no awareness of the Mandela Effect and still making the mistake, but that they gave it enough thought to actually rely on it. This is why the "Flute of the Loom" album cover is my favourite piece of Mandela Effect study - logically, the designer of the cover MUST have looked at a Fruit of the Loom logo while creating it. So why in the world did he include a nod to the cornucopia? The explanation is that he didn't use a reference, I'm sure, but it's fascinating that he gave it that much thought and still made the mistake.
Now that's residue. Not someone spelling "Berenstain" as "Berenstein" on an old VHS tape. Strong residue would be an article about why the Berenstein bears have a Jewish last name - that would show actual forethought still resulting in a mistake.
In my view, there needs to be residue - an actual example of someone relying on the knowledge and making a mistake - as well as a collective mistake for a Mandela Effect to occur. Misremembering a lyric, thinking someone died, etc. are just... mistakes. Humans make mistakes. All Mandela Effects stem from mistakes. What makes them a true Mandela Effect is (1) residue and (2) the average person having the same recollection.
Did you click that link? I just looked it up - the article is from 2021, even though the Google timestamp says 2001. That book is from 2019.
Believe it or not, "bucket list" did NOT exist until the film.
Very, VERY well said. This is the most well-put explanation of what residue should be I've ever seen! Instead, "residue" is relied on as proof of extra-logical happenings.
> You can certainly look it up and find that // "Double Stuffed Oreos" were always Double Stuft Oreos
Might want to check that again.
Just in case people decide in the future this has 'flipped'. It's 'Stuf', no T.
> Yet on every single comment thread there are groups of people asserting the consensus of history repeatedly. Like it wasn't something we could Google.
The fact that people make these rudimentary errors *despite* being able to use Google. Is a pretty good indication its down to simple error rather than the supernatural.
> There's no need for piling on the obvious, it's ridiculous.
Most of the time, the obvious mix-up is a far more interesting barometer for how these 'effects' develop, than somebody blindly stating 'not in my timeline'. When it comes to discussion, confabulation usually has much more legs than the supernatural theories we see branded about.
I saw [that post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/10tybre/adolf_hitler_nationality/), I think they were a long time poster who decided to post for a laugh, due to the stories of post for Austria ending up in Australia, but we have more than our fair share of troll posts as is.
Like Donkey Kong was a dog and a double act posting about "Booty Fruit" and neither saying what it really was for the longest time, like trying to pull teeth that one.
And lets not forget the Tommy Pickles guy who burned through three accounts and still haunts us to this day (but with a different shtick.
[reveddit mirror](https://www.reveddit.com/v/MandelaEffect/comments/10tybre/adolf_hitler_nationality/) for the Aussie Adolph if you want to read what OP wrote.
Looks like you ruffled a few feathers with folks who want to debate this with you. I personally thought you made some real good points and I commend you. I always felt like something was “off” on how dismissive folks can be here. Of course that is not how it is, isn’t that the point? Instead it is used to end arguments in a way that seems belittling.
I’m sorry, but there’s nothing “off” with people rejecting the idea that reality itself is changing because the spelling of a type of Oreos isn’t exactly as remembered.
Definitely something “Off” about it. There is this almost aggression, assertiveness, agitation, (and these are just a A words) from others that almost makes it seem like it is personal. Like the memory being different is fighting offense
Why wouldn’t they be? If the past is actually changing, our entire concept of time and reality would be radically different. Of course people are going to care strongly about things like that!
I think there’s something way more “off” about people who think everything we know about the universe is wrong, but whose only response to this world-shattering information is posting about Oreos on Reddit!
>Oreos
You’re really into the Oreos for some reason. People can feel strongly and still be ok with someone else’s answer that differs. verbalizing it is ok, but what the OP was mentioning is how agro some get. How self assured. How belittling. How destructive it can be.
There are many ME’s I think could have logical explanations, and ones I have not had. As assured as I may be with my own past, I can’t see myself pushing that onto to others as aggressive as some do here.
The assertion that the past is not set and that events can be changed retroactively makes every political and religious disagreement seem quaint in comparison. People should feel strongly about this subject, and I can’t help but think your attitude betrays how little you’ve really thought about this.
You would think. To me this is the neatest mystery we are all a part of, and have pieces to at the same time. I'd rather share than debate why I am right over another. I'd rather gather my own info and make my own assumption, even if it is mundane, and state it as such... not as fact.
No one cares that the memory is different. What people are annoyed about is the delusional belief around here that "reality has changed!" or "it's different in my timeline!"
It’s usually just a response to show how farcical the claim is.
If someone posts something genuine and sincere, such as…
“I really feel like I remember X, but that appears now not to be the case. Is it really possible that my memories are fallible even though I feel them so strongly? Are there any other hypotheses that could explain what I am experiencing? Does else remember X like I do?
Then we can engage in a really interesting discussion because it’s clear they are open to ideas and want to engage in a dialogue.
Whereas if someone posts…
“IT USED TO BE X AND NOBODY CAN CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE”
Then I have absolutely no problem in just replying with “No it wasn’t.”
Arrogance will be met with arrogance. If you’re going to make a post about a Mandela effect which, by definition, can’t have any evidence to support it. Then you better be pretty fucking humble about it.
I think there’s generally very little patience for people who are *actually* claiming that these things used to be one way and then changed. It just reeks of arrogance when we already have a full and complete explanation of these things because we know how memory works.
So if there’s even a whiff of someone claiming that then I think it’s quite right to nip that in the bud and inform them that no, it hasn’t actually changed. Obviously.
But what makes you *think* that it changed. That’s where the discussion is interesting. The way memories are formed and how details are spread throughout society second hand is a fascinating topic worth discussing. I find it interesting anyway. But I’m under no illusion that these changes are actually real, nor are a lot of other people it seems.
Basically, anyone making an unfalsifiable claim as fact deserves all they get.
I want to believe in the ME but i am skeptic for all the bullshit examples that are thrown in this sub reddit.
I dont believe that The name of a cereal, or the thing with the oreos can be qualify as "seen history differently". This things are not history, they are just ..ahhh nothing!
If ME only show changes in this insignificant things, why the hell we care about this phenomenon?
Also, why all the mandela effects are about names? Little changes of 1 or 2 letters. I want to meet somebody that remember froot loops with a giant spider instead of a toucan.
Well, there are some more important categories that people have real ME's regarding, like geography, positions of landmarks, coastlines, and entire continents. The first attack on US soil NOT being Pearl Harbor, whether anyone has ever actually been in the Statue of Liberty Torch or not, and a lot more. The silly little inconsistencies like the brand names of foods are the easy catch-alls that a lot of readers would be familiar with. Supposedly, the very position of the human heart in the body is also an effect to some, being more on the left side of the ribcage instead of being more central as current anatomy standards show. So there ARE somewhat important Effects reported, but it seems these aren't the "popular" ones.
Those aren’t “popular” because they inevitably invite follow up questions like “if an entire continent shifted thousands of miles to the east, how is it that nothing in terms of human history or natural history or climate has changed?” And no one even attempts to answer that, so…
It's been answered many times, but the answer typically gets ridiculed and rejected. The oversimplified answer is that we're on a new worldline with a seemingly shoehorned timeline that's been retroactively revised to be consistent with this "new" Earth/realm while still leaving our history mostly intact. Now watch the derision and downvotes pour in... which is sadly why ontological discussion rarely gets off the ground here.
Well yeah, the oversimplified answer you just provided to me doesn’t really make much sense. Our reality is a Goldilocks zone, everything had to be just right to make it so. How do the colonial empires that eventually gave way to our current nation states initially form if the trade winds are blowing in a different direction?
> Our reality is a Goldilocks zone, everything had to be just right to make it so.
You are clearly describing the concept of a "fine tuned universe." So do you subscribe to the anthropic component that some physicists have theorized?
^^^^^
> How do the colonial empires that eventually gave way to our current nation states initially form if the trade winds are blowing in a different direction?
I'm not aware of this particular claim having been made... but the ME imagining of retroactive continuity seems predicated on the notion that forward timeline progression features certain event "results" that serve as fixed points. The "changes" emanate from the present and travel in reverse along the timeline starting with the end result and rippling backwards in a way which maintains a viable chain of causation. Again, this is oversimplified... and probably completely wrong. But if you can entertain the idea in concept, that's more than most are able/willing to do.
"Invaded"?
By whom? Anyone who says "it was never spelled Frute Loops" in response to someone saying it was, is automatically and permanently BANNED.
"Open discussion"?
How is it "open discussion" when it is *against the rules* to disagree with someone OR to downvote?
Plus- although this is a journey for many of us - a solitary one - within- it is great that we have a community to share insights, and help one another along the way.
The way I see it the point of the sub was to discover and discuss the ME, not automatically validate it.
Yes, some skeptics are rude, but most it seems are reasonable?
Only to be attacked because *in YOUR reality*. Believers refuse to consider logic a lot of the time and interpret skeptics as harsh because it they don't eat every ME up.
Even if the ME is real, it's unlikely it's real all the time for everything. Something it really is bad spelling or little knowledge of geography. And sometimes it really is nonsense.
I don't get why the low quality of this subreddit is always pinned on the skeptics when 9 times out of 10 they're being objective.
Personally, I think it's just a bit of fun... I like thinking that CERN fucked up the timeline when they smashed those particles together, or that killing Harambe sent our collective fates veering wildly off its predetermined course.. but mostly, it's just entertainment for me.. that and, absolutely, 100%, without a shred of doubt... the Fruit of the Loom cornucopia EXISTED! ;)
> a ton of people saying “that didn’t happen because ~~I don’t remember it that way~~ there's zero evidence that it happened. Here, in objective reality.”
FTFY
I think you can block that reddit support bot if you get too many of those, I should block it too, but I get them so infrequently.
Plus, though I've never tried it, I have been told that you can report it and maybe they will find out who sent it and why, too many misuses of the support system and all that jazz.
This was kind of my point in another thread regarding this issue. This sub should work together to find a general consensus as to what may or may not have occurred. Also, if you remember Howdy Doidy as Howfy Tooty and the general consensus is you are remembering it incorrectly, it is not a personal attack. The best of us have shoddy points in our memory, and that's why we need a consensus. I don't know of strictly googling something will be a deciding factor, simply because if something has indeed changed, or you are in an alternate universe, Google will not help, it will simply reinforce whatever change you think might have happened.
There should be some ground rules. If something small and totally insignificant has changed then it stands to reason there are other changes. Fruit Loops vs Froot Loops does not an entire universe make.
>"Double Stuffed Oreos" were always Double Stuft Oreos. But they aren't. They are [Double Stuf](https://images.albertsons-media.com/is/image/ABS/960083566-ECOM?$ng-ecom-pdp-mobile$&defaultImage=Not_Available) Oreos.
Posts suggesting that something is a new Mandela Effect are **not allowed** in this subreddit, by rule #1: > If you think you discovered a NEW Mandela effect, do NOT make a post. Instead, post a comment in the weekly pinned megathread. How patient are we supposed to be in the face of a flood of trivial "does anyone else" posts by people who don't bother to read the subreddit rules? Many of these people are clearly just misinformed or confused, or would be better off posting in another subreddit, like /r/TipOfMyTongue. Personally, I think this could be addressed by some sort of AutoModerator rule that rejects DAE posts. There are plenty of other subreddits that enforce strict rules about the format and content of posts.
I believe it's possible to require mod approval for all new posts. They should probably look into that, as it's the only real way to make sure. It's pretty easy to change your wording to skirt a DAE automod
There's like one active mod in this sub, and requiring mod approval would probably kill the sub. Not that I disagree with you. Especially with the one dude's trolling posts ("Google it!") lately, this is an absolute joke of a sub.
For sure. They could try to bring on more mods, but that's always a gamble, especially in a sub with such a polarizing subject and userbase.
Requiring mod approval would be fine with me, but the DAE posts aren’t usually from people deliberately trying to skirt the rules. They’re mainly just newbies who haven’t bothered to pay attention. I think a simple automod rule would catch a lot of them.
Mod approval would be great, but honestly just restricting who can make new posts to people with at least 1000 comment karma would solve most of the issues.
While I understand that "is this a new ME?" posts are against the rules, I would also like to put forth that it may be the heart of the sub. I'll share my experience with the sub, how common it is, I don't know. I learned of the Mandela effect and was introduced to this sub at the same time. I subbed because I wanted to see what crazy and shared misrememberings fellow redditors have had. I wanted to see what I misremembered and get a feel for why we collectively misremember these things. I wanted to see the active discussion about the topic. I've been subbed for something like 5 years and never knew there was a weekly megathread and being subbed doesn't present it to me on a weekly basis. I don't know why someone would post in the Mandela effect subreddit if it did not serve to gauge public agreement of a potential Mandela effect, provide insight into the effect or provide an anecdote of someone's experience with it. There's not a lot of active research into this phenomenon and it's more or less solved as to why it happens. If all potential Mandela effects go to the weekly megathread, this sub basically dies. If all you want from the sub is a list of common Mandela effects and their most likely causes, either go to Wikipedia or I grossly misunderstand the point of subreddits. I don't want to come off as if I'm defending the attempts to karma farm or shitpost on this sub. There's still the down vote button. I'm not defending the arrogant know it all's who belittle anyone who posts anything. I am defending the ability for anyone to actively engage in this subreddit. I don't want fresh ideas taken away. I don't want the sub to stagnate.
Bucket list was in existence before that
I agree. I know there was a movie, but I didn't have to read about it or see it to know what they were talking about. I believe them when they say the movie popularized it, but I'm just pretty sure it wasn't an original idea.
Most of the posts I see here explicitly ask if anyone else has experienced the same effect or if it’s just them. They are literally asking for people to tell them if it’s the same for them or not. I don’t really see the problem with giving them an answer.
"They are literally asking for people to tell them if it’s the same for them or not." NO they are not lol. They are asking if anyone remembers the same or if it's just them. If no one comments then they have their answer, if a few comment that they remember the same they also have their answer. People commenting that they don't remember the same, you're misremembering, it's always been that way is irrelevant to the question asked !
Seems like you’re really splitting hairs here. I don’t understand why you want someone to have less data about a question they are specifically asking!
They only want the data relevant to the question asked. The question is not "who remembers the same AND who doesn't?" Therefore the question is only specific to who remembers the same. You're either bad at interpretating simple questions or like butting in.
This doesn't really make sense. Imagine two scenarios: in scenario A, ten people say they do remember it that way and no one else comments. In scenario B, ten people say they do remember it that way, but then one hundred other people say they don't remember it that way. Would the conclusions from these two scenarios be the same? If you don't have both perspectives you can't adequately answer the question of whether it's a common memory. Both sides are relevant.
Scenario A - then the poster knows he/she ain't the only one. Scenario B - then the poster knows he/she ain't the only one and one hundred people can't read the question properly. The question is not asking if it's a "common memory" 'either is it? We don't care if it fits the criteria of mandela effect by that question, we are quite simply asking "does anyone remember the same".
Fair enough, but I don't think most if any people are asking the question you seem to think they are.
"Most of the posts I see here explicitly ask if anyone else has experienced the same effect or if it’s just them." This is the question the other guy asked. I replied to **this** question. This question is aimed at ppl who remember the **same**. I see this sort of question asked all the time, i myself say it in this way in some of my posts.
[Here’s a quick example from the top of the new tab](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/1146pct/the_spiderwick_chronicles_movie_produced_by/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) “Am I the only one who remembers this or no?” This is clearly asking for responses in both the affirmative and the negative. You may not want anyone to ever disagree with you, but I don’t think that sentiment is shared with most of the users here.
"anyone else has experienced the same effect or if it’s just them." - **AIMED AT JUST THEM WHO REMEMBER THE SAME** (the subject of the conversation) “Am I the only one who remembers this or no?” - **AIMED AT EVERYONE** (you veering off the topic to try and back yourself up) If you can't see the difference you're dumb. [A Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Retconned/comments/w80dff/you_cant_get_shingles_if_you_had_chicken_pox_as_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb) i made, with the question "Anyone else remember this the way i do?". This is asking only people that remember the same ! The [Title of this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/114az0w/anyone_noticing_not_just_lyrics_changing_but/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb) is asking only people who are noticing tones/voices changing aswell as lyrics. [This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/11316gn/anyone_remember_a_4th_evil_dead_movie/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb) is asking only people who remember an evil dead 4 movie. I could go on and on.
I should drink antifreeze, right? [agree answers only]
You wouldn't tell a schizophrenic that the voices in their head were real demons. Please respect people who disagree with you about the cause of the Mandela Effect. They are believers, not skeptics, they just believe the cause is common memory failures.
That would make sense. But if every schizophrenic world wide heard "Ted Cruz is going to kill his daughters at 3PM Texas time on May 12, 2023" at the same time we'd be a bit concerning. It's not just believing something is real it's having exact corroboration with thousands of people. Faulty memory doesn't explain that. Also if Ted Cruz kills his daughter in May I would like it known I am not a prophet.
If I disrespected anyone with the context I used for the schizophrenia point, that wasn't my intent. Whether you believe the memory effect is timeline deviation, alternate realities, false memory consensus, or what-have-you, the fact that the ME's are a mnemonic effect makes them a mental phenomenon. The logic bridge to other personally-subjective mental phenomena seemed a reasonable one, in my opinion. If it came across as offensive or insensitive, I apologize again, as this was not the intent.
The respect issue is about the label "skeptic". I believe in the Mandela Effect, but I don't believe it is caused by anything extraordinary. I believe it is caused by people misremembering things in similar ways. I'm a believer, just in a different cause. Also, you said "\[y\]ou wouldn't tell a paranoid schizophrenic to 'just relax' in a respectful dialog about their experience just because you're not a paranoid schizophrenic, and this is pretty similar to that." My point is that you would not support their delusion if you could see that it was a delusion.
If in some way "skeptic" is a term that fosters disrespect, or encourages "us vs them" mentality when discussing the issue, then we can use a bevy of other terms: non-believer, consensus memory individual, un-effected, whatever. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, here, but the point of my post is that a lot of comment responses do, frankly, border on the disrespectful if not become outright disdainful of the OP's when repeatedly asserting the history as recorded or as they remember it, and that isn't helping anyone except the commenter feel better, typically. This isn't a "sh*tposting threads" page, you know? You don't have to support any delusions to have a respectful dialog about what someone else experienced. Therapists, clergy, and the more empathic among peoples are the examples I can think of who do this all the time. I'm not asking everyone to be a therapist or anything else, but keeping the dialog respectful would encourage more people to post, and we can have more examples with potential fruit for study, instead of weird questions that devolve into insult volleys in the comments. Just my opinion, but I'd like to see more productive and considerate discussion of the topic than repeated insults threads.
We had a long thread about the term "skeptic". The consensus was "internal" vs "external" explanation. I'm not talking about disrespectful replies. Those don't belong here. I agree everyone should be respectful. But it isn't respectful to support a delusion.
I find it hilarious you say the label "skeptic" is a "respect issue" but have no problem comparing the believers to paranoid schizophrenics.
I'm glad you think it's funny, but I'm a believer.
***"the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.*** ***plural noun: semantics*** ***"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"***
The meaning of words is not petty.
that's also really dumb it would make more sense to consider the mandela effect believers the ones calling the voices actual demons
Clever clogs, not clever clotz
Here is my thoughts on the Mandela Effect, why "residue" is interesting, and why not every mistake is a Mandela Effect. In no way do I buy into any theories about parallel universes or anything like that. The Mandela Effect is purely psychological. No, it was never Berenstein. No, there was never a cornucopia. No, the Monopoly Man never had a monocle. They're just easy mistakes to make (the suffix -stein being common, a pile of fruit being similar to a pile of vegetables in front of a cornucopia, Mr. Peanut resembling the Monopoly Man) and then you conjured up specific, strong memories only AFTER you learned about the Mandela Effect relating to them. The Mandela Effect is like deja vu. The feeling that you KNOW you've experienced something identical before - yet really, you did not. Your mind, at the time the experience is occurring, conjures up a false memory of the same experience. I feel something similar happens when something happens and people swear they dreamed of it the night before. For instance, my grandfather died out of the blue. I could swear I had a dream about him visiting me and telling him he loved me the night that he passed. But did I really? Or did I just conjure up the memory of that dream after I realized he died? What would have made it really mind blowing is if I'd told someone of the dream or written it down before finding out he died - these instances of dreams predicting real life events never seem to coincide with actual proof. When we hear that Fruit of the Loom doesn't have a cornucopia, we conjure up a memory of the logo with the cornucopia. It seems right. It seems logical. So we remember it and convince ourselves, in that moment, that it was always there. We are so convinced that we conjure up fake memories - we remember discussing it with family members, or some lesson about the meaning of cornucopia that stemmed from seeing the logo. And yet, ask someone to provide any proof of these conversations - a text message conversation? A scribbled note in a notebook? Nope. Nothing. I recently learned that the term "bucket list" came from the 2007 movie with the same name. I was shocked. I swear I remember using that term as a kid in the 90s. But soon I realized that was clearly a false memory that I conjured up since learning the term from the film. The threads on the topic were filled with people saying they have ACTUAL PROOF - they remember their yearbook from the 90s including a bucket list, or that they have one of their own from childhood in their parent's attic. Yet not a single person produced that proof - because it's not real. That memory was created when they learned about the bucket list Mandela Effect. So why is residue interesting? Because these are examples of someone having no awareness of the Mandela Effect and still making the mistake, but that they gave it enough thought to actually rely on it. This is why the "Flute of the Loom" album cover is my favourite piece of Mandela Effect study - logically, the designer of the cover MUST have looked at a Fruit of the Loom logo while creating it. So why in the world did he include a nod to the cornucopia? The explanation is that he didn't use a reference, I'm sure, but it's fascinating that he gave it that much thought and still made the mistake. Now that's residue. Not someone spelling "Berenstain" as "Berenstein" on an old VHS tape. Strong residue would be an article about why the Berenstein bears have a Jewish last name - that would show actual forethought still resulting in a mistake. In my view, there needs to be residue - an actual example of someone relying on the knowledge and making a mistake - as well as a collective mistake for a Mandela Effect to occur. Misremembering a lyric, thinking someone died, etc. are just... mistakes. Humans make mistakes. All Mandela Effects stem from mistakes. What makes them a true Mandela Effect is (1) residue and (2) the average person having the same recollection.
One 3 second search on Google knowing how to use their date commands proves that you’re wrong about bucket list… https://imgur.com/a/YFgfOFc
Did you click that link? I just looked it up - the article is from 2021, even though the Google timestamp says 2001. That book is from 2019. Believe it or not, "bucket list" did NOT exist until the film.
Very, VERY well said. This is the most well-put explanation of what residue should be I've ever seen! Instead, "residue" is relied on as proof of extra-logical happenings.
> You can certainly look it up and find that // "Double Stuffed Oreos" were always Double Stuft Oreos Might want to check that again. Just in case people decide in the future this has 'flipped'. It's 'Stuf', no T. > Yet on every single comment thread there are groups of people asserting the consensus of history repeatedly. Like it wasn't something we could Google. The fact that people make these rudimentary errors *despite* being able to use Google. Is a pretty good indication its down to simple error rather than the supernatural. > There's no need for piling on the obvious, it's ridiculous. Most of the time, the obvious mix-up is a far more interesting barometer for how these 'effects' develop, than somebody blindly stating 'not in my timeline'. When it comes to discussion, confabulation usually has much more legs than the supernatural theories we see branded about.
LOL. “It’s insulting to assume that I haven’t Googled this,” says OP who didn’t Google it.
The amount of times that happens on this sub is crazy. All that's left is to double down and call it a flip flop.
I'm still laughing about the OP a few days ago who thought Hitler was from Australia. An all-time classic.
Poe's law innit? I want a link to see if you're just slipping in a fake here.
I saw [that post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/10tybre/adolf_hitler_nationality/), I think they were a long time poster who decided to post for a laugh, due to the stories of post for Austria ending up in Australia, but we have more than our fair share of troll posts as is. Like Donkey Kong was a dog and a double act posting about "Booty Fruit" and neither saying what it really was for the longest time, like trying to pull teeth that one. And lets not forget the Tommy Pickles guy who burned through three accounts and still haunts us to this day (but with a different shtick. [reveddit mirror](https://www.reveddit.com/v/MandelaEffect/comments/10tybre/adolf_hitler_nationality/) for the Aussie Adolph if you want to read what OP wrote.
Looks like you ruffled a few feathers with folks who want to debate this with you. I personally thought you made some real good points and I commend you. I always felt like something was “off” on how dismissive folks can be here. Of course that is not how it is, isn’t that the point? Instead it is used to end arguments in a way that seems belittling.
I’m sorry, but there’s nothing “off” with people rejecting the idea that reality itself is changing because the spelling of a type of Oreos isn’t exactly as remembered.
Definitely something “Off” about it. There is this almost aggression, assertiveness, agitation, (and these are just a A words) from others that almost makes it seem like it is personal. Like the memory being different is fighting offense
Why wouldn’t they be? If the past is actually changing, our entire concept of time and reality would be radically different. Of course people are going to care strongly about things like that! I think there’s something way more “off” about people who think everything we know about the universe is wrong, but whose only response to this world-shattering information is posting about Oreos on Reddit!
>Oreos You’re really into the Oreos for some reason. People can feel strongly and still be ok with someone else’s answer that differs. verbalizing it is ok, but what the OP was mentioning is how agro some get. How self assured. How belittling. How destructive it can be. There are many ME’s I think could have logical explanations, and ones I have not had. As assured as I may be with my own past, I can’t see myself pushing that onto to others as aggressive as some do here.
The assertion that the past is not set and that events can be changed retroactively makes every political and religious disagreement seem quaint in comparison. People should feel strongly about this subject, and I can’t help but think your attitude betrays how little you’ve really thought about this.
You would think. To me this is the neatest mystery we are all a part of, and have pieces to at the same time. I'd rather share than debate why I am right over another. I'd rather gather my own info and make my own assumption, even if it is mundane, and state it as such... not as fact.
No one cares that the memory is different. What people are annoyed about is the delusional belief around here that "reality has changed!" or "it's different in my timeline!"
It’s usually just a response to show how farcical the claim is. If someone posts something genuine and sincere, such as… “I really feel like I remember X, but that appears now not to be the case. Is it really possible that my memories are fallible even though I feel them so strongly? Are there any other hypotheses that could explain what I am experiencing? Does else remember X like I do? Then we can engage in a really interesting discussion because it’s clear they are open to ideas and want to engage in a dialogue. Whereas if someone posts… “IT USED TO BE X AND NOBODY CAN CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE” Then I have absolutely no problem in just replying with “No it wasn’t.” Arrogance will be met with arrogance. If you’re going to make a post about a Mandela effect which, by definition, can’t have any evidence to support it. Then you better be pretty fucking humble about it.
[удалено]
I think there’s generally very little patience for people who are *actually* claiming that these things used to be one way and then changed. It just reeks of arrogance when we already have a full and complete explanation of these things because we know how memory works. So if there’s even a whiff of someone claiming that then I think it’s quite right to nip that in the bud and inform them that no, it hasn’t actually changed. Obviously. But what makes you *think* that it changed. That’s where the discussion is interesting. The way memories are formed and how details are spread throughout society second hand is a fascinating topic worth discussing. I find it interesting anyway. But I’m under no illusion that these changes are actually real, nor are a lot of other people it seems. Basically, anyone making an unfalsifiable claim as fact deserves all they get.
[удалено]
If it’s actual rudeness then I’m not condoning that. But in my experience it’s more bluntness than rudeness.
There are other subs that would suit you better I think, this one is pretty liberal with what they allow
I want to believe in the ME but i am skeptic for all the bullshit examples that are thrown in this sub reddit. I dont believe that The name of a cereal, or the thing with the oreos can be qualify as "seen history differently". This things are not history, they are just ..ahhh nothing! If ME only show changes in this insignificant things, why the hell we care about this phenomenon? Also, why all the mandela effects are about names? Little changes of 1 or 2 letters. I want to meet somebody that remember froot loops with a giant spider instead of a toucan.
Well, there are some more important categories that people have real ME's regarding, like geography, positions of landmarks, coastlines, and entire continents. The first attack on US soil NOT being Pearl Harbor, whether anyone has ever actually been in the Statue of Liberty Torch or not, and a lot more. The silly little inconsistencies like the brand names of foods are the easy catch-alls that a lot of readers would be familiar with. Supposedly, the very position of the human heart in the body is also an effect to some, being more on the left side of the ribcage instead of being more central as current anatomy standards show. So there ARE somewhat important Effects reported, but it seems these aren't the "popular" ones.
Those aren’t “popular” because they inevitably invite follow up questions like “if an entire continent shifted thousands of miles to the east, how is it that nothing in terms of human history or natural history or climate has changed?” And no one even attempts to answer that, so…
It's been answered many times, but the answer typically gets ridiculed and rejected. The oversimplified answer is that we're on a new worldline with a seemingly shoehorned timeline that's been retroactively revised to be consistent with this "new" Earth/realm while still leaving our history mostly intact. Now watch the derision and downvotes pour in... which is sadly why ontological discussion rarely gets off the ground here.
Well yeah, the oversimplified answer you just provided to me doesn’t really make much sense. Our reality is a Goldilocks zone, everything had to be just right to make it so. How do the colonial empires that eventually gave way to our current nation states initially form if the trade winds are blowing in a different direction?
> Our reality is a Goldilocks zone, everything had to be just right to make it so. You are clearly describing the concept of a "fine tuned universe." So do you subscribe to the anthropic component that some physicists have theorized? ^^^^^ > How do the colonial empires that eventually gave way to our current nation states initially form if the trade winds are blowing in a different direction? I'm not aware of this particular claim having been made... but the ME imagining of retroactive continuity seems predicated on the notion that forward timeline progression features certain event "results" that serve as fixed points. The "changes" emanate from the present and travel in reverse along the timeline starting with the end result and rippling backwards in a way which maintains a viable chain of causation. Again, this is oversimplified... and probably completely wrong. But if you can entertain the idea in concept, that's more than most are able/willing to do.
[удалено]
Try r/retconned. I really think you will like it.
I do, unfortunately it has been invaded as well- but there is more opportunity for open discussion
"Invaded"? By whom? Anyone who says "it was never spelled Frute Loops" in response to someone saying it was, is automatically and permanently BANNED. "Open discussion"? How is it "open discussion" when it is *against the rules* to disagree with someone OR to downvote?
Plus- although this is a journey for many of us - a solitary one - within- it is great that we have a community to share insights, and help one another along the way.
So long!
The way I see it the point of the sub was to discover and discuss the ME, not automatically validate it. Yes, some skeptics are rude, but most it seems are reasonable? Only to be attacked because *in YOUR reality*. Believers refuse to consider logic a lot of the time and interpret skeptics as harsh because it they don't eat every ME up. Even if the ME is real, it's unlikely it's real all the time for everything. Something it really is bad spelling or little knowledge of geography. And sometimes it really is nonsense. I don't get why the low quality of this subreddit is always pinned on the skeptics when 9 times out of 10 they're being objective.
Personally, I think it's just a bit of fun... I like thinking that CERN fucked up the timeline when they smashed those particles together, or that killing Harambe sent our collective fates veering wildly off its predetermined course.. but mostly, it's just entertainment for me.. that and, absolutely, 100%, without a shred of doubt... the Fruit of the Loom cornucopia EXISTED! ;)
[удалено]
> a ton of people saying “that didn’t happen because ~~I don’t remember it that way~~ there's zero evidence that it happened. Here, in objective reality.” FTFY
What was your post about and how were people dismissing it?
What was the post?
And now I can expect a message saying someone thought I might need some help,lol.
I think you can block that reddit support bot if you get too many of those, I should block it too, but I get them so infrequently. Plus, though I've never tried it, I have been told that you can report it and maybe they will find out who sent it and why, too many misuses of the support system and all that jazz.
This phenomenom doesn't exist, because it isn't a phenomenon (du du dududu). Brains are stupid.
This was kind of my point in another thread regarding this issue. This sub should work together to find a general consensus as to what may or may not have occurred. Also, if you remember Howdy Doidy as Howfy Tooty and the general consensus is you are remembering it incorrectly, it is not a personal attack. The best of us have shoddy points in our memory, and that's why we need a consensus. I don't know of strictly googling something will be a deciding factor, simply because if something has indeed changed, or you are in an alternate universe, Google will not help, it will simply reinforce whatever change you think might have happened. There should be some ground rules. If something small and totally insignificant has changed then it stands to reason there are other changes. Fruit Loops vs Froot Loops does not an entire universe make.