There are always differences of opinion, but conspiracy theories deviate from that in predictable and harmful ways - and I will call it out whenever and wherever I see it. It is toxic and incompatible with maintaining a minimally educated democracy.
Is it the eloquence or the subject matter that constitutes believability.
The veracity of the evidence, credibility of the communicator, support from broader generally credible sources, openness to counter opinion, lack of "others" conspiring against those who "see" the conspiracy, non-use of tired racist/anti-Semitic tropes, non-use of tired "one world order cabals", lack of extremely convoluted strings of "connected" evidence that are more random than connected, lack of implication that the teller is "in the know", lack of an ever shifting story in the face of counter-evidence, lack of complete disbelief of all sources except a small select few who are also "in the know", etc. But conspiracy theories always win the narrative prize - they survive by weaving unrelated threads in a way that "explains all".
And that proves what??
That your ignorant
You are hitting all the checkboxes on this thread - well done.
www.npr.org
Oy vey. This meshuggener is makin’ me verklempt.
Putin needs to die. Only way to stop the maniac. mtmuley
Your the one that wanted the info. Then you call me a conspiracy theorist after I give you information. I didn't call you stupid I called ignorant. One of the meanings is uninformed But the line is getting pretty blurry with the other meaning.
Not arguing that - but that is not for US Govt officials to tweet.
I feel quite informed that any world view that leans heavily on the Rothchilds, is a view that is filled with ant-Semitic “one world tropes”.
