If you disbelieve all "conspiracy theories," you then believe . . .

[Skylar]

You got it for lessening your chance of hospitalization and or death. The mask mandates were a boner for the Dems and the pubs.

Who is gaslighting, Seymour?

I lost friends and quite a few people I know to the damn disease, and I am sure you did, too.

Businesses have the right to insist on work conditions. Neither you nor I have a constitutional right to not wear a mask at work.

I lost an uncle who swallowed the COVID vaccine conspiracies....insisting that all you needed was Vitamin D to cure COVID

And he didn't go quickly or easily. He lost several toes. Then a foot. Then a leg. When the circulator damage became so severe that he had pockets of necrotizing tissue riddled in his body, he stopped fighting it.

And drown in his own COVID ruined lungs. He died hard.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone. He was a good man. But he was a conservative who gobbled the covid conspiracy koolaid and paid with his life.

Its hard to see my Aunt without him. Its been a year and a half and she's still shell shocked. She's trying to figure out how her life works without her husband.

Conspiracies have real consequences.

 

[Gamolon]

If you use the long video, the penthouse imploded 19 seconds before the facade of the WTC7 came down. The building didn't collapse all at once, but in stages.

Correct, which why I said that posting the cut video gives the illusion of immediate/free fall collapse.

 

[White 6]

If I was going to list *every* failed conspiracy, I could do little else. That list is merely a dusting of the available batshit.

Very good answer to my tongue-in-cheek question.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Most conspiracies are explicitly irrational for two reasons, one of which is especially relevant to your point.

1) They don't have evidence to support them. They are stories, backed little to nothing.

Many have little evidence, available. But that does not make them irrational. If someone insists that they “know” something to be true without evidence, that would be irrational. Believing that the official explanation is less likely to be true than an alternate explanation, based on past behavior by the officials in question, is rational.

2) They're contradicted by evidence. Which the conspiracy theorist ignores.

Sometimes they do. I agree that is irrational. Remember that the point of the OP was not that ALL CT’s are by definition true.

If the 'government' is hiding evidence, then conspiracies fail on the first point. Without evidence, they literally fill in the gaps with their imagination. And you get crazy ass stories like particle beams in orbit shooting the WTC, North Korean submarines sneaking in fake ballots through Maine, 'Q-Drops', or the entirety of the J6 riot being caused by some dude named 'Ray'.

If you are admitting that government hides informationn (and how could you not?), you are agreeing that there are conspiracies. It is true that when government is successful at hiding information, then it is difficult to know which particular theory about a conspiracy is the right explanation for what the government is hiding.

You’re being very specific in which conspiracy theories you claim are evidence-free. Do you plan to address the three important recent examples I described?

I’m surprised at the last one. I assume you are exaggerating your claim of what the Ray Epps conspiracy theorists believe. They believe that he was an FBI informant sent to encourage violence on Jan 6th. Ray Epps is on camera encouraging Trump supporters to enter the Capitol. The Trump supporters say “nooooo!” And one of them starts a chant of “Fed! Fed! Fed!” That’s pretty strong evidence that Trump supporters wanted to be peaceful, and that Ray Epps wanted them to enter the capital.

He was on the FBI’s most wanted list and then taken off of it and never arrested, with no explanation for that contradiction. That is evidence that he was treated differently than other people who were near the Capitol that day. That he was working for the FBI is a rational idea, and of course the FBI would never reveal any evidence if he was. I believe you are smart enough to know that “evidence” is not the same as “iron-clad proof.”

Maybe he wasn’t an FBI plant when he said “tomorrow we go into the Capitol.” Maybe he saw his name on the most wanted list, got scared, and turned himself in, and cooperated. That’s another rational explanation for what happened with him. But we will never know, because the FBI will never tell us.

The FBI has a record of conspiratorial and criminal behavior. Suspecting them of it now is not irrational. Especially when they come before Congress and stonewall.

What you call 'common sense' is people using their imagination in place of evidence. Literally just making shit up. And there's little sense in it.

It is indeed common sense when people suspect the worst from people who have been proven bad actors in the past, and are now hiding information.

People use their imagination to come up with theories all the time. That’s how innovation works. That’s how knowledge increases. “Imagination” is not a dirty word.

As demonstrated elegantly by point 2: the conspiracy theorist's irrational denial of evidence, ignoring all the evidence that contradicts them and replacing it with......you guessed it....

.....their imagination.

Some people do that, yes.

It is educated guesswork and estimates of the situation in many cases. We are allowed to learn from the past. When presented with unlikely explanations of events coupled with failure to produce evidence, our choice is to believe the unlikely, in spite of lack of evidence, which would be irrational, or to hypothesize on what the true explanation might be.

Worse, once you've got your ticket on the 'replace evidence with your imagination' train, then anything that contradicts you gets folded into your conspiracy. With the conspiracy getting more wildly elaborate, more ludicrously complicated, and more inherently fantastical.

The audit contradicts you? Well then the republican lead election board must be in on it too! A court rule against you? Then the judiciary has to be in on it too, they're nothing but corrupt judges! The Republican Secretary of State contradicts you on election fraud? Well then the GOP must be part of the Deep State and conspiring against you. The Republican AG contradicts you on election fraud. Why then this must go up to the entire Department of Justice! The whole government! They're all in on it!

There's no sense in any of that. Common or otherwise.

Yes, if taken that far, it is irrational.

What about the three hoaxes I mentioned that were perpetuated by government officials who are still in power?

 

[Seymour Flops]

You got it for lessening your chance of hospitalization and or death. The mask mandates were a boner for the Dems and the pubs.

Who is gaslighting, Seymour?

I lost friends and quite a few people I know to the damn disease, and I am sure you did, too.

Businesses have the right to insist on work conditions. Neither you nor I have a constitutional right to not wear a mask at work.

You are trying to gaslight me by not answering my simple question: Why were we told that we could stop wearing masks if we got the ”vaccine?”

 

[Skylar]

Many have little evidence, available. But that does not make them irrational. If someone insists that they “know” something to be true without evidence, that would be irrational. Believing that the official explanation is less likely to be true than an alternate explanation, based on past behavior by the officials in question, is rational.

Sometimes they do. I agree that is irrational. Remember that the point of the OP was not that ALL CT’s are by definition true.

If you are admitting that government hides informationn (and how could you not?), you are agreeing that there are conspiracies. It is true that when government is successful at hiding information, then it is difficult to know which particular theory about a conspiracy is the right explanation for what the government is hiding.

You’re being very specific in which conspiracy theories you claim are evidence-free. Do you plan to address the three important recent examples I described?

I’m surprised at the last one. I assume you are exaggerating your claim of what the Ray Epps conspiracy theorists believe. They believe that he was an FBI informant sent to encourage violence on Jan 6th. Ray Epps is on camera encouraging Trump supporters to enter the Capitol. The Trump supporters say “nooooo!” And one of them starts a chant of “Fed! Fed! Fed!” That’s pretty strong evidence that Trump supporters wanted to be peaceful, and that Ray Epps wanted them to enter the capital.

He was on the FBI’s most wanted list and then taken off of it and never arrested, with no explanation for that contradiction. That is evidence that he was treated differently than other people who were near the Capitol that day. That he was working for the FBI is a rational idea, and of course the FBI would never reveal any evidence if he was. I believe you are smart enough to know that “evidence” is not the same as “iron-clad proof.”

Take the 2020 election. The Big Liars insist that Trump won.

But when you ask them what the 'real' vote tally was, if not the official tally.......they've got nothing. So they have no credible or even plausible tally that demonstrates their conspiracy is true (point 1).

And ignore every count, recount, hand count, machine count, machine audit, forensic audit, official state tally or electoral vote. Along with the outcome of every court case to hear their claims. Or any official who contradicted them, from the AG to Trump's own investigators, to republican secretaries of states (point 2).

That's wildly irrational. Twice.

Maybe he wasn’t an FBI plant when he said “tomorrow we go into the Capitol.” Maybe he saw his name on the most wanted list, got scared, and turned himself in, and cooperated. That’s another rational explanation for what happened with him. But we will never know, because the FBI will never tell us.

We've got Ray Epps, under oath, contradict the claim that he worked for the FBI. The 'fedsurrection' conspiracy theorists ignore him.

There's no evidence that Ray Epps worked for the FBI or any federal agency.

There's no evidence that Ray Epps started the attack on the capitol.

There's no evidence that Ray Epps committed any crime at all.

And your logic about 'we'll never know' is contradicted by both the process of conspiracy as well as your own argument. As conspiracy theorists have ignored anything said by the government.

Making a claim that the only way we could 'know' is by statements of said government you refuse to believe.....self contradictory nonsense.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Take the 2020 election. The Big Liars insist that Trump won.

But when you ask them what the 'real' vote tally was, if not the official tally.......they've got nothing. So they have no credible or even plausible tally that demonstrates their conspiracy is true (point 1).

And ignore every count, recount, hand count, machine count, machine audit, forensic audit, official state tally or electoral vote. Along with the outcome of every court case to hear their claims. Or any official who contradicted them, from the AG to Trump's own investigators, to republican secretaries of states (point 2).

That's wildly irrational. Twice.



We've got Ray Epps, under oath, contradict the claim that he worked for the FBI. The 'fedsurrection' conspiracy theorists ignore him.

There's no evidence that Ray Epps worked for the FBI or any federal agency.

There's no evidence that Ray Epps started the attack on the capitol.

There's no evidence that Ray Epps committed any crime at all.

And your logic about 'we'll never know' is contradicted by both the process of conspiracy as well as your own argument. As conspiracy theorists have ignored anything said by the government.

Making a claim that the only way we could 'know' is by statements of said government you refuse to believe.....self contradictory nonsense.

What about the three hoaxes I mentioned that were perpetuated by people still in power in government?

 

[Skylar]

What about the three hoaxes I mentioned that were perpetuated by people still in power in government?

I addressed Ray Epps directly and repeatedly. He was the lion's share of your post.

 

[Gamolon]

the vaccine hoax,

I'm assuming this is in relation to COVID?

If so, what, in your opinion, was the reason for the hoax and what WAS the actual hoax? I ask because people have different explanations.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I addressed Ray Epps directly and repeatedly. He was the lion's share of your post.

Yes, you talked about Epps. Agree to disagree.

Why don’t you want to talk about the three hoaxes that I mentioned?

I’ll start. The Russia collusion hoax was itself a conspiracy theory, and one of the few CT’s that we know was deliberately orchestrated, as opposed to spontaneously developing like a rumor. We know who, how, when, and why it was orchestrated.

The basis of people’s belief in that CT was that Trump is a really terrible guy, who they could easily imagine doing the things he was accused of by the hoaxers. Hoaxers claimed to have evidence, which they never produced. Yet, they are still in power.

As so often, when the conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia turned into an official investigation, a companion conspiracy theory developed that the whole thing was a hoax perpetuated by senior Democrats.

Now we know that the second conspiracy theory is true, even though it has taken a long time for the evidence to come out.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm assuming this is in relation to COVID?

If so, what, in your opinion, was the reason for the hoax and what WAS the actual hoax? I ask because people have different explanations.

The hoax was that it was a vaccine in the sense that once you got it, you would not catch COVID, not spread it. The reason was for the producers of the vaccines to make money, and to gain further control over people’s medical decisions.

At the time, “conspiracy theorists” said that this is an experimental vaccine, that isn’t even fully approved, that we have no way to know whether it will provide the promised immunity, and that we did not know what harmful side effects there would be.

Hmm.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are trying to gaslight me by not answering my simple question: Why were we told that we could stop wearing masks if we got the ”vaccine?”

Look up gaslighting; you don't know what it means. Your question has nothing to with my point that (1) millions were saved and (2) you have constitutional right to not wear a mask.

 

[Gamolon]

The hoax was that it was a vaccine in the sense that once you got it, you would not catch COVID, not spread it. The reason was for the producers of the vaccines to make money, and to gain further control over people’s medical decisions.

At the time, “conspiracy theorists” said that this is an experimental vaccine, that isn’t even fully approved, that we have no way to know whether it will provide the promised immunity, and that we did not know what harmful side effects there would be.

Hmm.

I see.

So according top you, the COVID vaccine did nothing whatsoever, was a placebo, and was created for the sole purpose of making money?

 

[Skylar]

Yes, you talked about Epps. Agree to disagree.

There's literally no evidence that Epps worked for the feds.

There's no evidence that Epps committed any crime.

There's no evidence that Epps started the attack on the capitol.

With Epps, under oath, denying he works for the Feds.

There's not much to 'agree to disagree' about. All the evidence is on one side of this issue.

Why don’t you want to talk about the three hoaxes that I mentioned?

I’ll start. The Russia collusion hoax was itself a conspiracy theory, and one of the few CT’s that we know was deliberately orchestrated, as opposed to spontaneously developing like a rumor. We know who, how, when, and why it was orchestrated.

But do we? The accusations that have come the conspiracy theorista bout 'who, how, when, why' vary wildly. Accusations of 'treason' (which is laughable), an attempted 'coup', and hysteric calls for mass arrests and executions of Trump's political rivals.

This is the product of the conspiracy mindset. You're ignoring almost all conspiracy theorist accusations and reasoning and instead presenting the view of a sanitized, hypothetical conspiracy theorist who simply 'knows'.

If you're going to have a real conversation about the utility of conspiracy reason, you can't try and sanitize it. ALL of the insane theories, calls for brutal violence, wild speculation, absurd misunderstandings of the law, and all the provably false nonsense are part of your dataset.

If you only count 'hits' and discount every miss, I can flip a coin and get head's 50 times in a row....100% of the time.

You're cherry picking so completely that you have to invent a hypothetical conspiracy theorist.

 

[Gamolon]

The hoax was that it was a vaccine in the sense that once you got it, you would not catch COVID, not spread it.

Who told you that? My doctor AND my wife (who is a nurse) told me it would help against getting really sick from it. They NEVER told me it would prevent me from getting it OR stop me from spreading it.

Do you believe all vaccines prevent you from getting whatever the vaccine is administered for?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I see.

So according top you, the COVID vaccine did nothing whatsoever, was a placebo, and was created for the sole purpose of making money?

Did you reply to the right post? I said nothing like that. The purpose of claiming that the Vaccine was ready, and would prevent COVID from being caught by or spread by the vaccinated was to make money when the Pharmas said it, but others repeated the lie for other reasons.

Trump pushed the creation of the virus so that the economy could get back on track. He would have done far better to lead the country to adopt the COVID policy of Sweden, which allowed them to keep their economy and have similar health outcomes to countries that crashed theirs.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Who told you that? My doctor AND my wife (who is a nurse) told me it would help against getting really sick from it. They NEVER told me it would prevent me from getting it OR stop me from spreading it.

I guess they were smart enough not to listen to Fauci:

Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Biden, said during a discussion on Sunday about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) decision to drop mask recommendations for fully vaccinated individuals that vaccinated people become “dead ends” for COVID-19

Fauci: Vaccinated people become ‘dead ends’ for the coronavirus

Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Biden, said during a discussion on Sunday about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) decision to drop mask recommendati…

thehill.com

Do you believe all vaccines prevent you from getting whatever the vaccine is administered for?

No, that’s why I didn’t believe Fauci, either.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There's literally no evidence that Epps worked for the feds.

There's no evidence that Epps committed any crime.

There's no evidence that Epps started the attack on the capitol.

With Epps, under oath, denying he works for the Feds.

There's not much to 'agree to disagree' about. All the evidence is on one side of this issue.


But do we? The accusations that have come the conspiracy theorista bout 'who, how, when, why' vary wildly. Accusations of 'treason' (which is laughable), an attempted 'coup', and hysteric calls for mass arrests and executions of Trump's political rivals.

This is the product of the conspiracy mindset. You're ignoring almost all conspiracy theorist accusations and reasoning and instead presenting the view of a sanitized, hypothetical conspiracy theorist who simply 'knows'.

If you're going to have a real conversation about the utility of conspiracy reason, you can't try and sanitize it. ALL of the insane theories, calls for brutal violence, wild speculation, absurd misunderstandings of the law, and all the provably false nonsense are part of your dataset.

If you only count 'hits' and discount every miss, I can flip a coin and get head's 50 times in a row....100% of the time.

You're cherry picking so completely that you have to invent a hypothetical conspiracy theorist.

I acknowledged that not every conspiracy theory is valid, which I never claimed they were. That doesn’t change the point of my OP, which is NOT the utility of conspiracy theories. That might make an interesting thread, or an interesting tangent to this thread, but it is not this thread.

It is you who are cherry picking to paint everyone who doubts the official stories that you accept as the same as the most irrational conspiracy theorists.

You refuse to talk about conspiracy theories for which people were ridiculed and turned out to be completely valid. Not one for checking people’s posting history, but I suspect that if I checked yours, I would find you among the ridiculers of people who opposed the Russia Collusion Hoax.

 

[Skylar]

I acknowledged that not every conspiracy theory is valid, which I never claimed they were. T

Have you seen the list of failure? Its absolutely enormous and merely what I could remember off the top of head.

Conspiracy reasoning results in almost perfect failure.

And even on issues like 'Russian Collusion' where the Durham report might affirm some claims of conspiracy theorists, it disproves so, so many more. Even when conspiracy theorists blunder upon some element of accuracy by sheer volume of accusations, they're still overwhelmingly wrong.

As these claims don't come in distinct, sanitized quanta. But in steaming piles of hysteric speculation that is almost always entirely inaccurate.

You're digging in a massive pile of shit, plucking out of piece of corn and saying 'Eureka!'

And even now, with the Durham report in black and white on a page, the conspiracy interpretations are a festival of hot garbage, more wild speculation, more of the same steaming rhetorical piles that preceded the report.

And every single tiny bit of batshit.......is part of your dataset. Every threat, every call for mass televised executions, every bleating accusation of 'treason', every insistence of a coup, every threat of civil war, every tie to ANOTHER unsupported conspiracy theory (fedsurrection, anyone?), every piece of rabid speculation, pseudo-legal nonsense and hopeless imagination...

.....are all entirely yours.

That's your 'common sense'. You don't get to ignore the misses. And the misses are LEGION. While the hits are tiny pieces of shit covered corn.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Have you seen the list of failure? Its enormous and merely what I could remember off the top of head.

Conspiracy reasoning results in almost perfect failure.

And even on issues like 'Russian Collusion' where the Durham report might affirm some claims of conspiracy theorists, it disproves so, so many more. Even when conspiracy theorists blunder upon some element of accuracy by sheer volume of accusations, they're still overwhelmingly wrong.

As these claims don't come in distinct, sanitized quanta. But in steaming piles of hysteric speculation that is almost always entirely inaccurate.

You're digging in a massive pile of shit, plucking out of piece of corn and saying 'Eureka!'

And even now, with the Durham report in black and white on a page, the conspiracy interpretations are a festival of hot garbage, more wild speculation, more of the same steaming rhetorical piles that preceded the report.

And every single tiny bit of batshit.......is part of your dataset. Every threat, every call for mass televised executions, every bleating accusation of 'treason', every insistence of a coup, every threat of civil war, every tie to ANOTHER unsupported conspiracy theory (fedsurrection, anyone?), every piece of rabid speculation, pseudo-legal nonsense and hopeless imagination...

.....are all entirely yours.

That's your 'common sense'. You don't get to ignore the misses. And the misses are LEGION.

You’ve taken the thread far afield.

Let me ask you to answer the question implied in the OP, since you may have missed it.

Do you believe that the official versions that we hear about controversial events is always true and complete?