Well, it keeps them out of mischief, I suppose.
1 Like
Oh. My. Discobot. Do you really not notice any of the stuff people get wrong?
I love the one a few months ago that basically said turn off all your devices tomorrow because they’re finally going to zap everyone with the 5G brainwashing signal and all the jabbed people will turn into zombies and only we unjabbed people will escape but we should turn off our devices too anyway and then the next day when nothing happened, people just carried on as usual… and a few days later someone came up with an explanation about how “white hats” or whatever foiled the evil plan and people just filed the information away like oh yeah of course that’s totally what happened, completely obvious.
If you’re not aware of this kind of stuff, you’re missing a lot of what goes on. If you are aware of it but still believe what your Picard meme says, you’re redefining words to mean whatever you want them to mean (again). 
I think perhaps we have to draw a distinction between people who point out, on the basis of strong evidence and explanatory power for existing observations (hence the word “theory” rather than “hypothesis”), that there are conspiracies afoot, and people who just make shit up.
Has anyone actually show the existence of RFID devices in vaccines? No. Is it even technically possible? No. Then it’s not a theory, it’s wild conjecture.
2 Likes
There’s a difference between conspiracy theorists who consistently got it right, and crackpots who think pigeons are CIA spy robots. Learn the difference.
3 Likes
The difference is Nazis were actually arrested and executed for crimes against humanity. Endlessly haranguing us laypersons about the crimes against humanity committed by the medical profession makes as much sense as haranguing us about the crimes against humanity committed by Nazis while they continue to roam free.
Nazis were able to commit crimes because a large fraction of “us laypersons” either tacitly agreed with them, vocally agreed with them, or failed to do anything about their existence.
If you don’t like being mocked, then you shouldn’t have gone along with it all.
2 Likes
That’s not how language works.
A: Apples are always delicious.
B: Yesterday I bit into an apple, and it was gross.
A: There’s a difference between apples and garbage. Learn the difference!
They were, and iirc it took quite a while for that to happen, plus the defeat of all the regimes that plausibly would have been able to prevent the arrests from occurring. If the regimes had not been defeated and therefore the arrests had not occurred, would that mean the crimes had also not occurred? 
The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ is a convenient term to dismiss anyone for virtually any reason.
Leftists often misuse and abuse the term by applying it to anyone who doesn’t agree with them or their ideology. It’s often over-generalized to include crackpots and the mentally insane.
How long was the Epstein child trafficking ring a conspiracy theory before it was taken seriously?
2 Likes
Probably right around the time Alex Jones was banned from the ZuckerCorp.
1 Like
Uh … yeah, it is. “Conspiracy theory”, as long as you’re not just using it as a meaningless insult, implies that a theory is involved. “There are microchips in the vaccines!” is not a theory, because it’s unsupported by even the slightest speck of evidence.
2 Likes
Should be called a “Crackpot theory”.
I gave you a dictionary definition (literally) a few posts ago and a True Scotsman style dialog to illustrate the point I was making. If you still don’t see my point, let’s just agree to disagree and hope that the funny pictures will resume.
To Finley’s point:
Right. There we go. Does “The 5G towers are going to trigger your RFID implants” explain any observed facts? Does it have predictive power? Is it “coherent”? No. It’s just bollocks.
The “conspiracy theorists” - and I’m speaking here of people who looked at the data and the wider context, and then developed, discarded, and refined theories around it - were right precisely because they had homed in on an accurate “model” that fully explained existing observations and therefore was accurate in predicting future outcomes.
1 Like
What was the point of that?
This would have been more accurate representation of the point I was making:
A: Apples are always delicious.
B: Yesterday I bit into a lemon, and it was gross.
A: There’s a difference between apples and lemons. Learn the difference!
If you’re trying to imply I was using the “No true Scotsman” fallacy you fail to understand that logical fallacy.
If the term conspiracy theorist is over-generalized, which it is, and I point out that a crackpot is not a conspiracy theorist, then it would be a matter of clarification rather than an example of the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy.
2 Likes
Sheesh.
Being a conspiracy theorist does not mean one is necessarily a crackpot or vice-versa.
Also, being a crackpot in no way prevents one from being a conspiracy theorist or vice-versa.
You know how Venn diagrams work, right?
Still not a “No true Scotsman” fallacy unless I appealed to the purity. I’m saying what was presented as a ‘conspiracy theory’ was not a ‘conspiracy theory’ but the ramblings of a madman / crackpot.
Second point. I never made a generalized statement about ‘conspiracy theorists’. Again negating your “No true Scotsman” claim. If I said something like ‘All conspiracy theorists are X’ you may be on to something.
Do you even understand the logical fallacy? Or did it just sound good in your head before you banged it out on the keys?
It’s a theory, and it’s about a conspiracy, ergo it’s a conspiracy theory.
You may prefer not to use the term to describe bad theories about conspiracies, just as some people may prefer not to use the term to describe good theories about conspiracies, but either way that’s just a preference.
I wish you a pleasant day. 