Ah, OK. Apparently I didn’t read to the end.
There wasn’t one. That was my point.
If I have been following correctly, an objection to the use of “conspiracy theory” to any idea or theory one doesnt like was voiced by @finley.
@yyy countered with his unique definition of “conspiracy theory” trying to imply there is no negative connotation synonymous with the use of “conspiracy theory” from his OP.
the definition of “conspiracy theory” is a theory about a conspiracy, whether correct or incorrect, and therefore any use of the term in reference to a theory does not necessarily imply anything about the correctness or otherwise of the theory.
The idea the use of “conspiracy theory” does not “necessarily imply anything about the correctness or otherwise of the theory.” Is in my opinion numpty nonsense.
However my resolution for 2024 is not to engage in debates which I think are inane and silly, but will endeavor to be helpful and point out that’s exactly what they are.
2 Likes
I think @yyy was attempting to start a different conversation, unrelated to the original (rather unproductive) exchange.
It bothers me that people these days seem completely unable to distinguish between objective facts and theories about those facts, and get so animated about anyone discussing them that they have to hit the mute button. Imagine this:
“In 1963, JFK died after being hit by two bullets while riding in a motorcade in Dallas”
“Hah! That’s just a conspiracy theory! You’re muted, buddy!”
There are various levels of speculation about who shot JFK (or who might have arranged to have him shot), with various bits of evidence to support/refute them. None of these theories/hypotheses have any bearing on the incontrovertible fact that he was shot and killed.
4 Likes
You’re just making up nonsense now.
That’s what he said.
Do you dispute the particular facts I posted above re. SPI-B etc? I believe them to be as accurate as “JFK was assassinated in 1963”. If they are accurate, then Noper’s meltdown is completely unwarranted.
The thing I find amusing is when totally unrelated topics and conspiracy theories are thrown into the mix as part of the ad hominem attack. Things like racism, misogynistic, transphobic, Trump supporters, flat earth … etc.
Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau is famous for this sort of thing.
3 Likes
Amoung a specific subgroup of people, maybe
Yes, the target subgroup who were paying attention when he said it.
Yes, the Canadian “President” . . . no doubt is something. 
Guy
1 Like
So, seems likely you’re just making up nonsense.
I must have skipped over them
I don’t.
2 Likes
Well, yes. That’s the way it goes, isn’t it? It doesn’t even matter these days what has been said. People who disagree with mainstream opinion are wrong, and that’s all there is to it. I honestly never thought Western culture could fall this far, this fast. And yet here we are, where people not only won’t acknowledge the facts, they won’t even look at them. I’d really love to know why not.
1 Like
You have your very own brain, sir. I’ve seen it working. Yes, you do. It’s quite lovely. Your reality as you present it, not your brain. That thing is just gross.
1 Like
It’s easy to prove that I have my own brain. Less easy to prove that I live in a different reality. That’s just a guess.
That’s not why I skip over most of what you write, but you and I have been over this before so no need to rehash those tired old facts.
We’re definitely post truth
They planned to market it as peanut bugger but didn’t want to draw attention to the bugs.
2 Likes
Are those your words?
1 Like
No