Submitted 5 weeks ago by nzmaa@lemy.lol to greentext@sh.itjust.works
I’ve always said the difference between a true conspiracy theorist and a fucking loon is proof.
There’s tons of stuff we know happened and have almost overwhelming proof of but the powers that be for some reason will not prosecute, that’s a conspiracy and they might even be part of it.
If you believe that a myriad aliens are pretending to be human and secretly controlling the world and the only immediate proof is that we are becoming more inclusive, you’re a fucking loon.
I disagree. Once there’s proof you aren’t a conspiracy theorist, you’re just someone who believes in evidence based reality. I’d argue that it’s evidence and a believable narrative.
At one point you were a complete loon for believing the us government was attempting to do mind control using lsd. Then after the evidence was leaked you were a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Now after it’s been admitted to by the us government you’re a loon if you insist it didn’t happen.
“Conspiracy” assumes the government is functioning in a fundamentally honest manner.
In the 70s, the public was frankly shocked to learn about the Watergate Scandal, because they assumed America operated in a fundamentally honest manner.
After Watergate, the “conspiracy theorist” developed. Because if Watergate is true, what else is going on?
Around that time, AM radio was looking for new programming after the public’s music listening transitioned to FM and we got a steady diet of extremist religious programming and Conspiracy-laden talk radio. Shortly after the Fairness Doctrine ended and things really took.off. One of the biggest TV series of the 90s was the X-files.
Anyways, if you have a conspiratorial government (e.g.China), you’re not a “conspiracy theorist” to believe in conspiracy. There are very obvious conspiracies at work.
The corruption epidemic the US is now facing (post Citizens United) means we no longer have a fundamentally honest government.
Conspiracy theorists aren’t actually truth seekers. They’re not out to discover the truth. They want to proclaim the truth and feel like special people who have hidden knowledge so they can feel superior. It’s all about their ego, their sense of security, and nothing else.
All of this stuff is out in the open for all to see so the theorist nut jobs don’t get to feel special by trying to expose it.
Conspiracy theorists disagree with official narratives. They are lie finders, not truth seekers.
If they were any good at it they’d be employed as journalists and win Pullitzer Prizes for their work. Nixon having his goons break into a hotel to steal information from his opposition is a hell of a “conspiracy theory”. But we don’t consider it that because Woodward and Bernstein put in the work to find the evidence.
Your typical internet conspiracy theorists are just plain lazy and very susceptible to selection bias. They make up things to fill in the gaps of their theories and refuse to change the made up bits even when they find evidence to the contrary. The general contrarianism of the internet pushes people to think the opposite of establish facts.
In the end it’s just a mess of made up shit that conforms to the emotions of the person that made it up. These conspiracy theories are promoted among those with similar feelings. They push way more lies than anyone else.
The good ones are like finders… The shitty, usually conservative, ones like the post is talking about love to spew their own garbage “truths”… Definitely not truth seekers, just “truth” spewers
It’s almost as if the Right was playing the game of “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty”
Ya know, like Gobbels told Hitler to do.
It is known. Their justification is that it was done to them in 2020 so its fair that they do it now.
Real conspiracies don’t even bother hiding. They have the power to do whatever they want, so they just tell us this is what’s happening now.
On the internet, the first to make an accusation wins. If if the accusation is false, they still win. So even when they actually do the things they falsely accuse others of doing, they’ve already won the argument on the internet.
“You’re just accusing us of doing what you did” is stronger than “You’re now doing what you accused us of in the past” when the rhetoric is more important than the facts.
This isn’t greentext though.
As someone who has used 4 chan but never spent any considerable time there, what’s the difference? When is the text green?
Greentext involves using the > to indicate or imply actions, thoughts, etc.
> be me > went to the store > bought eggs > got home > half the eggs were cracked > mfw
People seem to be upvoting and enjoying the discussion on this one, so I think we can let it slide this time.
ty
They’re tribalists, not idealists. In other words, it’s on their side now so they don’t mind. I see a lot of people always attacking the double standard aspect, but its not the point. They don’t mind double standards, they just want their tribe to win.
Literally every group seems to be that way. Can we stop being groups now and protect “the individual” in general?
“Conspiracy theories” aren’t about conspirators, they’re about feeling smarter than everyone else.
Noticing when powerful morons do crimes in the open doesn’t make your brain do the happy juice.
“Truth isn’t funny. Batter just made up my own, it make me feel better.”
Make that 3 sex traffickers, he’s friends with Vince McMahon.
the more concerning conspiracy for the right is that a black person might be president, again
Even worse! It’s going to be a women. A black woman.
The right will fill with anger if that happens.
There’s just not true. The orange guy isn’t a billionaire
He’s their useful idiot!
But that’s boring stuff, you can’t make yourself superior to others if you believe in this stuff…
I sure feel superior to the MAGA tresh tho 🚮
Sure, so do I… but that’s a mighty low bar!
It’s not about the thought process or logic. Many of these people have been taught to only use their emotions for decision making.
screaming into a diaper*
From the same site that brings you
You use that as a means to discredit the site, but if you actually read the article, you’d see that it’s very explicit about the speculative nature of its subject. It makes no false claims; it only describes an interesting (if improbable) theory and attempts to explain the rationale behind its inception. Seems above board to me.
Rookwood@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I mean it’s classic Orwellianism to make up wild claims so that they seem normal when you do it. It’s also called hypernormalization. Say crazy outlandish thing that doesn’t exist. Then when it happens no one is surprised. The Big Lie. Etc.
Teppichbrand@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Not sure of you got hypernormalisation right.
It’s when state and population play along in a fake-reality, pretend everything is fine because
wethey are not able to think of another way of living.