Conspiracy Theories

[BarnettNewman]

It’s a simile. I didn’t mention lefties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cunt]

What did you mean by 'not being a thing'?

[Cunt]

In other news, there is a new conspiracy theory about a group called AntiFA

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Tero]

Silly woman will latch onto any movement. Must be a big hole in her brain for all this stuff. Had to do with "followers":

I just didn't believe it anymore. It just didn't make sense to me," Vanderbilt told Insider. "I didn't know how a president could be sworn in, it could look so official, and then things could still change."

Having accepted that Trump was out of office, she decided to post a video on TikTok.

"I was wrong," she told her followers.

An NPR/Ipsos study from December found that in a survey of 1,115 American adults, 17% believed this claim — the central tenet of the QAnon conspiracy theory.

Vanderbilt had also believed that several high-profile celebrities were torturing children and drinking their blood. "I even believed that the group had killed some of them [celebrities] off and it was actually their clones

Now:
"I think it's unfortunate that Trump was acquitted," she told Insider. "I don't know why they wouldn't see that he was guilty."

https://www.businessinsider.com/qanon-s ... 2021-2?amp

[Cunt]

Sometimes, I don't want to know if a conspiracy theory is true or not. I'm still that way with sasquatch. At least a little. Like Santa.

Anyway, I don't want to know the truth about this, but I do want to believe.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Cunt]

I'm going to look into this a little later. I have seen wikipedia pages edited by people to 'win' arguments on forums, and I'm SURE it's done for other equally meaningful reasons.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... HQAAAAAQAg

The Lab Leak hypothesis wikipedia entry was “fact-checked” out of existence by a small band of motivated activists. Here’s a WayBackMachine version of it: https://web.archive.org/web/20210210045 ... hypothesis

[Hermit]

I'm going to look into this a little later. I have seen wikipedia pages edited by people to 'win' arguments on forums, and I'm SURE it's done for other equally meaningful reasons.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... HQAAAAAQAg

The Lab Leak hypothesis wikipedia entry was “fact-checked” out of existence by a small band of motivated activists. Here’s a WayBackMachine version of it: https://web.archive.org/web/20210210045 ... hypothesis

There was nothing in that article to be fact-checked because it is not about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. The bulk of it consists of a list of comments about it. The list of opinions contains 22 items. Here are two examples:

On 30 April 2020 at the White House, US President Donald Trump was asked by a reporter: "Have you seen anything at this point that gives you a high degree of confidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the origin of this virus?". "Yes, I have. Yes, I have," said the president, without specifying what. "And I think the World Health Organization [WHO] should be ashamed of themselves because they're like the public relations agency for China." Asked later to clarify his comment, he said: "I can't tell you that. I'm not allowed to tell you that."[citation needed]

On 30 April 2020, the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a press release, stating that the virus was not "man-made" or "genetically modified" and that the Intelligence Community "will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan."[46]

On the whole the article was on opinion piece about opinions - not suitable as an encyclopedic entry. I am glad it has been deleted.

[Cunt]

of course it doesn't mean you disagree with Weinstein, since you studiously listen to others but not him.

I'll consider your opinion on opinions on opinions in light of the opinions you have expressed before.

[Hermit]

of course it doesn't mean you disagree with Weinstein, since you studiously listen to others but not him.

You know fuck-all about my listening/reading habits. I have listened to/read enough of Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, Ben Shapiro, Gad Saad, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan Peterson, Steven Crowder, Tim Pool, Carl Benjamin and others on the right side of the political spectrum to to get their general drift. I've quoted them verbatim and provided actual links to the quotes often enough to make that obvious. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that I spend a greater proportion of my time listening to people I disagree with and reading what they write than you do.

[Cunt]

Well, I don't remember you disagreeing with things he had said, so that is what I meant. Blame it on my memory, I don't mind.

I'll leave you be for awhile, since you seem in a foul mood. Maybe you should consider pulling up a new conspiracy theory to bat around. One that doesn't touch you so personally.

[Brian Peacock]

of course it doesn't mean you disagree with Weinstein, since you studiously listen to others but not him...

So do you disagree with what Kropotkin has to say, or do you studiously avoid him? You could try steelmanning his arguments sometime - unless you're just unduly prejudiced against him and his ideas that is.

.

[Cunt]

I don't like the spelling of his name. It grates, and causes me to steer to other conspiracy theories.

I remember sitting with a bunch of fellow young-uns, high on mushrooms and dreaming along with a talk-radio show about cold fusion. Ah, youth.

[Cunt]

Ha! Got one!

(spoilered, to hide this one from the lumernati)

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[pErvinalia]

of course it doesn't mean you disagree with Weinstein, since you studiously listen to others but not him...

So do you disagree with what Kropotkin has to say, or do you studiously avoid him? You could try steelmanning his arguments sometime - unless you're just unduly prejudiced against him and his ideas that is.

.

Does Kropotkin have a podcast?

[Hermit]

of course it doesn't mean you disagree with Weinstein, since you studiously listen to others but not him...

So do you disagree with what Kropotkin has to say, or do you studiously avoid him? You could try steelmanning his arguments sometime - unless you're just unduly prejudiced against him and his ideas that is.

.

Or, to check in with someone who is still alive. Say, George Monbiot. There are Youtube clips of him saying stuff, so Daggles will be spared having to read.