Conspiracy Theories

[Cunt]

Alex Jones and his Sandy Hook conspiracy theory is the formost example.

Do you mean him saying something stupid, and getting a gajillion dollar fine?

Or the one where many major social media sites conspired to remove him from platforms in unison, within a suspiciously short time of each other?

Poor example, since there were conspiracies on more than one side.

On to Elon, who obviously isn't to be trusted, since he lets the wrong people add 'community notes' to tweets...

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

Does seem at least a little suspicious

I think because of the difficulty of talking about the subject, people don't do it well. More to the point though, those who are charged with talking about it officially (justice department) just drum up excuses to cover up the clients.

It's easy to connect a dot, when the dots are nearly touching.

[rasetsu]

Weak sauce.

[Cunt]

Weak sauce.

Well, you could post better quality conspiracy theories...

of course, then you would risk having them called 'weak sauce'.

[rasetsu]

Musk replied to this image with a story about former journalist James Gordon Meek pleading guilty to possession of child sex abuse imagery. Over the summer, a fake New York Post headline went viral online. “Award Winning ABC Journalist Who ‘Debunked’ Pizzagate, Pleads Guilty in Horrific Child Porn Case,” it said. The Post never ran such a headline and Meek never published an article debunking Pizzagate—at most, the conspiracy was merely referenced in a story about Syria that Meek co-authored with two other reporters in 2017.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkavwm/ ... te-is-real

You say you're interested in hard questions, here's one for you: Why do right-wingers fall for fake stories so much?

[Cunt]

I would say because the news and government are so often lying, it is easy to dismiss anything. Like pretending that wealthy and powerful people were NOT involved in child sex trafficking.

For instance, the child sex trafficking ring that was busted was CLEARLY serving wealthy and powerful clients. Why do you suppose their identities are still fiercely protected by the US government, and everyone else involved?

To me, some of those involved (Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton etc.) have self-indicted by their silence. Not just for their own actions, but for not calling out anyone else.

But it's a 'conspiracy theory' that is VERY difficult to talk about. Details too gross, criminals too powerful, or something.

If you want an easier one, go historic and look into Jimmy Savile and HIS friends and colleagues.

[Cunt]

You say you're interested in hard questions, here's one for you: Why do right-wingers fall for fake stories so much?

By the way, the vice article states...

The long-debunked Pizzagate conspiracy posits that there was a dungeon underneath the suburban D.C. pizza parlor Comet Ping Pong. The story had it that Washington power players like Hillary Clinton frequented this dungeon to abuse children.

Do you think the whole 'pizza gate' conspiracy theory was about Comet Ping Pong?

A common trick of 'fact-checkers' is to grab onto one tiny piece and claim that the whole thing was 'debunked'. I seem to remember the theory being about a lot more than the pizza shop.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Why do right-wingers fall for fake stories so much?

You're not going to get a genuine answer to that from the guy who loves to promote one bullshit story after another. It would require some self-reflection, objective thinking, and most importantly, willingness to answer the query. The preferred course is dodging and quickly moving to some other topic.

Both far left and far right are prone to swallowing conspiracy narratives, but it's more prevalent on the right.

[C]onservative politicians and pundits can more readily rely on conspiracies as an effective means to activate their base than liberals. And to the extent that ideologically motivated endorsement is most evident among the least trusting of the knowledgeable conservatives, there is all the more incentive for conservative elites to stoke the fires of distrust.

But as we've seen, if that process goes on long enough, it produces two unpleasant results. First, the most engaged conservative voters will be more and more adrift in a paranoid fantasia, wrapped in an epistemic bubble filled with conspiracy theories, hassling politicians about them and making it effectively impossible for lawmakers to do their job in a reasonable way, as Nunes pointed out.

And second, they won't trust conservative elites any more than they trust liberals, scientists, or the media. That means they are not only deluded but unchecked, beyond the influence of any moderating force, easy prey for demagogues and hucksters. They become the conspiracy-addled tail that wags the political dog.

And that's exactly what we're seeing unfold on the right. Low-trust, high-knowledge conservatives — a.k.a. the conservative base — are bending the political system to their will on the basis of fever dreams that neither the media nor politicians can afford to ignore. Lacking the language or institutional means to dismiss popular conspiracy theories for what they are, feckless US political and media elites are instead normalizing them, "defining deviancy down" as the old phrase goes.

The research suggests that there is only one way to mitigate or reverse this process: restore some level of trust in the US political system. But conservative elites — who have the ear of their base — have no incentive to do so, and it's not clear that anyone else has ability to do so. Declining trust in institutions is broad and deep in America; it may very well be unstoppable. As long as it continues, conspiracy theories will play a larger and larger role in public life.

[source]

[Cunt]

Such a left-leaning source suggests you might be part of a choir...
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vo ... media-bias

What does a “Left” media bias rating mean?
Sources with a Left AllSides Media Bias Rating™ display bias in ways that strongly align with liberal, progressive, or left-wing thought and/or policy agendas. Some of these sources may be considered "left-wing news."

But ya, their opinion on the political right is probably every bit as accurate as any source you would cite.

[Cunt]

You're not going to get a genuine answer

lol

You missed my genuine answer in your rush to promote some left-wing site. Good job!

[Joe]

Alex Jones and his Sandy Hook conspiracy theory is the formost example.

Do you mean him saying something stupid, and getting a gajillion dollar fine?

Or the one where many major social media sites conspired to remove him from platforms in unison, within a suspiciously short time of each other?

Poor example, since there were conspiracies on more than one side.

On to Elon, who obviously isn't to be trusted, since he lets the wrong people add 'community notes' to tweets...

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1729511790638145918

Does seem at least a little suspicious

I think because of the difficulty of talking about the subject, people don't do it well. More to the point though, those who are charged with talking about it officially (justice department) just drum up excuses to cover up the clients.

It's easy to connect a dot, when the dots are nearly touching.

No, the one where people who had to bury the bullet-riden bodies of their children were harrassed by Jones and his cuntmonkeys. It's a perfect example of why conspiracy theorists are often held in contempt.

[rasetsu]

I would say because the news and government are so often lying, it is easy to dismiss anything. Like pretending that wealthy and powerful people were NOT involved in child sex trafficking.

For instance, the child sex trafficking ring that was busted was CLEARLY serving wealthy and powerful clients. Why do you suppose their identities are still fiercely protected by the US government, and everyone else involved?

Probably for the same reason that others suspected of crimes aren't named until and unless a charging document is filed. Are you saying that government or the media claimed that certain persons weren't involved in a child sex trafficking ring? That doesn't sound like something either of them would have done. Can you point to an example of either declaring such a thing?

[Brian Peacock]

I would say because the news and government are so often lying, it is easy to dismiss anything. Like pretending that wealthy and powerful people were NOT involved in child sex trafficking.

For instance, the child sex trafficking ring that was busted was CLEARLY serving wealthy and powerful clients. Why do you suppose their identities are still fiercely protected by the US government, and everyone else involved?

To me, some of those involved (Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton etc.) have self-indicted by their silence. Not just for their own actions, but for not calling out anyone else.

But it's a 'conspiracy theory' that is VERY difficult to talk about. Details too gross, criminals too powerful, or something.

If you want an easier one, go historic and look into Jimmy Savile and HIS friends and colleagues.

You don't really need to invent secret cabals to explain this kind of stuff, the power politics of patriarchy and capitalism are more than enough. What you might want to think about is the kind of people who've primed you to assume that anyone who calls out fake, fabricated, and far-fetched claims automatically outs themselves as a supporter of the imagined secret cabals - whoever they're supposed to be this week. You also might want to ponder on the fact that just because others are not reflexively and constantly broadcasting their #OUTRAGE at the likes of Epstein and his clients doesn't mean they're secret admirers of Epstein or supporters of those who've acted very shadily in that matter.

[Cunt]

No, the one where people who had to bury the bullet-riden bodies of their children were harrassed by Jones and his cuntmonkeys. It's a perfect example of why conspiracy theorists are often held in contempt.

Yes, but they settled. Apparently for FAR less than the original bajillion settlement, or whatever the initial amount was.

Was an interesting case to hear about. From the MSM AND from Jones.

I would say because the news and government are so often lying, it is easy to dismiss anything. Like pretending that wealthy and powerful people were NOT involved in child sex trafficking.

For instance, the child sex trafficking ring that was busted was CLEARLY serving wealthy and powerful clients. Why do you suppose their identities are still fiercely protected by the US government, and everyone else involved?

Probably for the same reason that others suspected of crimes aren't named until and unless a charging document is filed.

'Probably'? Is that some logical assessment based on blind trust of the justice system?

Are you saying that government or the media claimed that certain persons weren't involved in a child sex trafficking ring?

If you had read my post, you would see that I did not say that.

That doesn't sound like something either of them would have done. Can you point to an example of either declaring such a thing?

No, because you made up a ridiculous conclusion about something I wrote, and of course they don't declare people innocent.

That's not how the justice system is supposed to work in that country. (though many countries seem entangled)

They busted both for sex trafficking children. So they must have known that they trafficked children.

To who? Well, they didn't want to say.

Do you think it's acceptable? Considering who their 'frequent fliers' were? Or just a little suspicious?

The media, and 'news people' circled wagons and, where we found out about it, just hid the story. I think it's extra funny that Disney/ABC was the one caught doing it.

But you are asking who was declared innocent. Well, the media has no problem going after someone's character, digging up their past and ruining them. Except in this case.

Weird, no?

You don't really need to invent secret cabals to explain this kind of stuff, the power politics of patriarchy and capitalism are more than enough. What you might want to think about is the kind of people who've primed you to assume that anyone who calls out fake, fabricated, and far-fetched claims automatically outs themselves as a supporter of the imagined secret cabals - whoever they're supposed to be this week. You also might want to ponder on the fact that just because others are not reflexively and constantly broadcasting their #OUTRAGE at the likes of Epstein and his clients doesn't mean they're secret admirers of Epstein or supporters of those who've acted very shadily in that matter.

No, but if you KNOW that Gates is his pal. And you know that his divorcing wife cited Gates' relationship with the convicted sex-pest was part of why she left, do you think it's cool that media still treats him as just fine?

I mean, he never said nasty things about a tragedy, so he can't be 'Alex Jonesed', but how is it that Jones is persona non grata for saying a few awful things, yet Gates isn't?

It's a large contradiction. Like respecting the Clintons or their Foundation, after knowing how often Bill met with him...or seems to be.

[Cunt]

BioClandestine is at it again...kind of related to the dismissal simpleton fact-checkers like vox made, about the pizzaria being shot up.

https://t.me/bioclandestine/2597

Reminder that Pizzagate was not about the basement of Comet Pizza.

It was about the Wikileaks emails from Hilary’s campaign manager, John Podesta, and his brother Tony, using FBI-documented code words for pedophilia. They also had a spirit-cooking dinner with infamous satanist, Marina Abramović. She is also very close with Zelensky and was just appointed to an Ambassador position to rebuild schools in Ukraine…

Would the libs keep voting blue if they knew their leaders were satanists and pedophiles?

I don't think satanists would be more of a deal-breaker than any other religious stripe.

[Joe]

No, the one where people who had to bury the bullet-riden bodies of their children were harrassed by Jones and his cuntmonkeys. It's a perfect example of why conspiracy theorists are often held in contempt.

Yes, but they settled. Apparently for FAR less than the original bajillion settlement, or whatever the initial amount was.

Was an interesting case to hear about. From the MSM AND from Jones.

Yes. I'm glad we agree on the important thing.