3 ms·

a conspiracy theory is not 'something that has been proven to not be true' Snowden's leak is a good example of something that proved a lot of conspiracy theori

a conspiracy theory is not 'something that has been proven to not be true' Snowden's leak is a good example of something that proved a lot of conspiracy theories to be true

jacquesm 6y ago
You are missing the point. The theory that the NSA was hovering up everything in sight was just a theory. We did not have proof one way or the other, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to conclude that it was in fact happening. At that stage it was 'just a theory', with little support. That some people then went a step further and mislabeled it is mostly their problem, they should have realized that the standard of proof required to shift it one way or the other wasn't available. Snowden gave us that proof. Your average conspiracy theory is trying to make claims that go against available evidence to try to come up with some kind of alternate history of what must be true. Typically these involve privileged knowledge, powerful people and internally inconsistent claims. The NSA could be listening in on a lot more than they are letting on theory never had any of those problems.
- ColanR 6y ago
  I think you're the one missing the point, which is that you're misusing the term 'conspiracy theory'. The NSA engaged in a conspiracy, which was to "hoover up everything in sight". There was a theory (which was largely dismissed) that the NSA was in fact doing this. It was therefore a conspiracy theory that the NSA was doing what it was doing. That is the point: please use the phrase correctly.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    If I combine apples and sauce I don't necessarily get applesauce. It is a clever linguistic trick but you are not helping by making such a disingenuous argument. Juxtaposition of terms in frequently used combinations can have a different meaning than terms used separately.
    - ColanR 6y ago
      I'm not making a disingenuous argument, I'm saying exactly the same thing that most of the people replying to your original post are saying. You've taken the phrase and made up a new definition for it. I'm saying that the phrase already has a definite meaning. Feel free to make up your own phrase though...so long as it's unique.

a conspiracy theory is not 'something that has been proven to not be true' Snowden's leak is a good example of something that proved a lot of conspiracy theories to be true

jacquesm 6y ago

You are missing the point. The theory that the NSA was hovering up everything in sight was just a theory. We did not have proof one way or the other, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to conclude that it was in fact happening. At that stage it was 'just a theory', with little support. That some people then went a step further and mislabeled it is mostly their problem, they should have realized that the standard of proof required to shift it one way or the other wasn't available. Snowden gave us that proof. Your average conspiracy theory is trying to make claims that go against available evidence to try to come up with some kind of alternate history of what must be true. Typically these involve privileged knowledge, powerful people and internally inconsistent claims. The NSA could be listening in on a lot more than they are letting on theory never had any of those problems.

ColanR 6y ago
I think you're the one missing the point, which is that you're misusing the term 'conspiracy theory'. The NSA engaged in a conspiracy, which was to "hoover up everything in sight". There was a theory (which was largely dismissed) that the NSA was in fact doing this. It was therefore a conspiracy theory that the NSA was doing what it was doing. That is the point: please use the phrase correctly.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  If I combine apples and sauce I don't necessarily get applesauce. It is a clever linguistic trick but you are not helping by making such a disingenuous argument. Juxtaposition of terms in frequently used combinations can have a different meaning than terms used separately.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    I'm not making a disingenuous argument, I'm saying exactly the same thing that most of the people replying to your original post are saying. You've taken the phrase and made up a new definition for it. I'm saying that the phrase already has a definite meaning. Feel free to make up your own phrase though...so long as it's unique.