あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]HaltNWO -9 ポイント-8 ポイント  (11子コメント)

They deal with conspiracies that have enough evidence to be proven true.

[–]SaxonWitch 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Well good luck with that. If conspiracies could be so easily proven, they wouldn't be conspiracies, they'd be historic facts.

The whole point of being aware, is to read past the 'official' explanations and that is very often hard to prove, mainly because when people try and prove it they are silenced.

So to say that only 'proven' conspiracies are true is a ridiculous statement.

[–]HaltNWO 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

If conspiracies could be so easily proven, they wouldn't be conspiracies, they'd be historic facts.

You might want to consult a dictionary ;)

[–]SaxonWitch -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

A dictionary? I assume you want me to read up about the meaning of the word conspiracy? I am not disputing that there are 'proven' conspiracies, because hindsight is 20/20 and frankly the evidence in some of them is quite disputable.

There are many other conspiracies happening right now, those that will have an impact on our lives, which cannot be discussed on those subs. That is what I was talking about.

Why am I writing the same thing again? Was my post that confusing?

[–]HaltNWO 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Can you explain to me how a conspiracy being proven means it wasn't a conspiracy?

[–]Throwaway4Censorship 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

/u/SaxonWitch, for your convenience I've provided context to this question below:

If conspiracies could be so easily proven, they wouldn't be conspiracies

Your words, which /u/HaltNWO was responding to initially.

[–]Throwaway4Censorship -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Note: This is a throwaway, because I don't particularly like this sub and don't want my main associated with it even a little bit. Read into that what you will.


Well good luck with that. If conspiracies could be so easily proven, they wouldn't be conspiracies, they'd be historic facts.

You don't know the definition of conspiracy then.

Conspiracy - "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."

For instance, The Tuskegee Experiments were conspiratorial: they were kept secret, they were criminal, they were done on purpose. But they were found out and exposed. It was still a conspiracy. The act of finding them out did not make it not a conspiracy. A thing can be a historical fact and a conspiracy simultaneously.

The Business Plot is another good example, as is MKULTRA. These are well-documented, actual conspiracies that happened (or attempted to happen, in the case of The Business Plot).

The difference between this sub and /r/actualconspiracies is that the latter requires evidence, and mods there will delete your post if it's just speculative. This sub exists only as a speculative group: I rarely see people demanding evidence. Rather I see people more often than not just accept what they're told and say pitiful things like, "But what can we do?"

I can speculate nearly anything here and be upvoted for it (and many here do) – so long as it's juicy enough to want to believe.1 I can see knives in every shadow. I can assume that anyone who disagrees with me is a shill, and paid to do so.2

But speculation doesn't hold up to science, to reason, or to law. Put it like this: I don't speculate as to whether vehicles are coming before I cross the road. I evidence 'yes' or 'no', and then cross the road.

While /r/conspiracy does tend to downvote it's own wild speculation (I lurk here a lot, and /r/conspiracy/new is filled with trash that 90% of which doesn't make it far), more often than I'm comfortable with this sub will upvote it 'for discussion'. Conversely, /r/actualconspiracies recognizes that this is too easily made into witchhunting, or simply a waste of time.

We can speculate and theorize all day long about ancient aliens breeding demi-god humans and those demi-gods' great-great-great- ... -great-grandchildren are now the Rothschilds. None of that is evidenced: not even a little bit. It turns into "I'm just asking questions" type talk, whereby a person will make outrageous claims in the form of a 'what if' question, and viewers/readers will forget the 'what if' and just accept the claim might be true (why else would we talk about it, right?). Ancient Aliens producers know this hattrick well, so well in fact that Von Danikken has basically used it as his primary defense: "I was only asking questions". To him I say 'Bullshit sir, you started an entire quasi-religious movement that undermines countless man-hours spent by educators and historians across the world, all to sell a few books and TV shows'. Alex Jones and the rest of Conspiracy Inc are no better. They use the same hattricks over and over.3

And let's not pretend that "Just asking questions" isn't dangerous: I don't care how Orwellian it sounds, "just asking questions" is very much a dangerous act when it's done irresponsibly. If I constantly ask, "Are black men more prone to raping women than white men?" over and over and over again, without presenting any evidence, I am bound to convince some people this is the case. /r/Conspiracy does this over and over and over again, and frankly, it's a little pathetic.

Just my two cents though. Again, I'm a lurker, and one who does so because I find this all entertaining. I love a good ghost story; I love a good conspiracy story. I don't believe in ghosts, and I wash talk of conspiracies through logic and reason and see if it crumbles in the drain. More often than not, here, it does.


1 This is easy here: Just cast the Jews/corporations/rich people/gub'ment in a bad light and you'll be upvoted here. That's another incredibly woeful part of /r/conspiracy that keeps a lot of otherwise like-minded people out. Even the non-Stormfront, non-racist members of /r/conspiracy must have a tough time not hating the Jews after being exposed to so much vitriol and hate directed at them for so long.

2. ..and many here do exactly that - see the top post in the sub right now regarding Monsanto. I won't argue that they're all not shills, but it's entirely unreasonable to assume that every or even most downvotes were paid for, and that's the speculation that's getting attention today

3. Yeah yeah, 'CIA Operatives', "Jones is a double agent", whatever.

[–]thefuckingtoe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

2.25 seconds of free fall during WTC7's controlled demolition on 9.11.01 is a conspiracy.

[–]George_Tenet[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

im actually sort of happy you wasted your time posting

[–]Throwaway4Censorship -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If one lurker sees through your bullshit, its all worth it to me. My only agenda is evidence and education. I'm not using rhetoric and propaganda tactics, I'm just having conversation.

You haven't forced me into typing reasonable comments (its fun for me), so please don't take some sort of credit for wasting my time.

It is mine to waste, and I'll do with it as I care to.

[–]George_Tenet[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

fair enough

[–]George_Tenet[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

if you took "actual conspiracies" to mean the same as r/actualconspiracies

its not