4 ms·

>Right, but remember that censorship isn't just bad because it silences truth-tellers. It is also bad because it can amplify falsehoods. True. >Your sarcasm i

>Right, but remember that censorship isn't just bad because it silences truth-tellers. It is also bad because it can amplify falsehoods. True. >Your sarcasm is ambiguous. Perhaps you mean that it's unlikely that all the topics your discussing are conspiracy theories. Perhaps you meant that they are all true and are all being painted as conspiracy theories. Perhaps you meant something in between. I think a third option of 'I dont have a clue.' It sure sounds fishy that these are so established as at least something that should be discussed? That the fishy factor is making me think there's actually truth to it. >The irony is that to me that kind of hedging and sarcasm starts to smell a lot like conspiracy theory rhetoric. What did I ever say or assert? I provided links which are hilarious. The story possibly had absolutely nothing to do with covid19. Do you believe in coincidences? To this degree? Why is discussion about this immediately shot down as conspiracy theories? Why cant we discuss these things?

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
That "I don't have a clue" bit is what the parent was referring to as "conspiracy theory rhetoric." Asking questions without making any assertions, the only real aim of the text is to create doubt. A lunatic can ask more questions than a genius can ever answer. Picking a likely theory and arguing for it is much more difficult than arguing that any of the available theories has a nonzero chance of being true. Don't get me wrong: it's very fun. I love conspiracy theory as recreation. But engaging in actual good faith debate is a different sport entirely. It's both much more difficult, and a much better way to arrive at truth.
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  >That "I don't have a clue" bit is what the parent was referring to as "conspiracy theory rhetoric." Asking questions without making any assertions, the only real aim of the text is to create doubt. So intellectual honesty == conspiracy theorist? I feel like admitting that I don't know is better. >A lunatic can ask more questions than a genius can ever answer. Picking a likely theory and arguing for it is much more difficult than arguing that any of the available theories has a nonzero chance of being true. I provided sources including CBC. It's not an unfounded position, there's plenty of meat to discuss. What can I assert? Nothing, I'm not in manitoba and the only source of knowledge(CBC) is calling themselves conspiracy theorists or unfounded. Which is hilarious to me. >Don't get me wrong: it's very fun. I love conspiracy theory as recreation. But engaging in actual good faith debate is a different sport entirely. It's both much more difficult, and a much better way to arrive at truth. Nobody is going to find out the truth if it's a huge coincidence or not. There is no arriving to the truth. The interesting discussion is how you're not allowed to discuss the subject. This is the same mechanism as why the CBC are calling themselves conspiracy theorists. Which can only be seen as political propaganda.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago

That "I don't have a clue" bit is what the parent was referring to as "conspiracy theory rhetoric." Asking questions without making any assertions, the only real aim of the text is to create doubt. A lunatic can ask more questions than a genius can ever answer. Picking a likely theory and arguing for it is much more difficult than arguing that any of the available theories has a nonzero chance of being true. Don't get me wrong: it's very fun. I love conspiracy theory as recreation. But engaging in actual good faith debate is a different sport entirely. It's both much more difficult, and a much better way to arrive at truth.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>That "I don't have a clue" bit is what the parent was referring to as "conspiracy theory rhetoric." Asking questions without making any assertions, the only real aim of the text is to create doubt. So intellectual honesty == conspiracy theorist? I feel like admitting that I don't know is better. >A lunatic can ask more questions than a genius can ever answer. Picking a likely theory and arguing for it is much more difficult than arguing that any of the available theories has a nonzero chance of being true. I provided sources including CBC. It's not an unfounded position, there's plenty of meat to discuss. What can I assert? Nothing, I'm not in manitoba and the only source of knowledge(CBC) is calling themselves conspiracy theorists or unfounded. Which is hilarious to me. >Don't get me wrong: it's very fun. I love conspiracy theory as recreation. But engaging in actual good faith debate is a different sport entirely. It's both much more difficult, and a much better way to arrive at truth. Nobody is going to find out the truth if it's a huge coincidence or not. There is no arriving to the truth. The interesting discussion is how you're not allowed to discuss the subject. This is the same mechanism as why the CBC are calling themselves conspiracy theorists. Which can only be seen as political propaganda.