3 ms·
Yes, I agree with you completely that there was significant prior evidence. I would go as far to say as a very large amount of what Snowden revealed was in fact
by JoeSmithson 6y ago
Yes, I agree with you completely that there was significant prior evidence. I would go as far to say as a very large amount of what Snowden revealed was in fact already known. This seems to be the opposite of it being a conspiracy theory - that's why I asked specifically about these "coincidences piling up".
- ColanR 6y agoYou're changing the definition of "conspiracy theory" in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample you were given of NSA spying.
- JoeSmithson 6y agoWhat's an example of a claim that you think was considered a conspiracy theory pre-Snowden, that now isn't? The existence of "NSA spying" I don't believe was ever considered a conspiracy theory.
- ColanR 6y ago> What's an example of a claim that you think was considered a conspiracy theory pre-Snowden, that now isn't? "The NSA has a giant secret building in the midwest where they store surveilance." "The US government is spying on US citizens." I remember the pre-snowden discussions online and offline, and saying the US government was spying on US citizens was tinfoil hat territory. I even had conversations with government contractors who used the line, 'the government could never keep a secret that big'.