4 ms·

Still, no. If you are insisting that a conspiracy is a secretive action towards a common end, then the US Marshals and TechDirt are the colluding parties based

by II2II 5y ago

Still, no. If you are insisting that a conspiracy is a secretive action towards a common end, then the US Marshals and TechDirt are the colluding parties based upon the information provided. The person who made the post is the stated target. That being said, the definition of conspiracy involves illegal or immoral actions. There is no evidence of the former in the article. The latter is largely an individual judgement call, yet there is no evidence that data exchanged hands (simply that it was preserved for a longer duration than it normally would have) so I trouble seeing it as immoral. Calling or implying that the US Marshals' actions with respect to TechDirt a conspiracy is a large part of the reason why people dismiss conspiracies as fictional.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
I’m not insisting that’s what the word means. That’s how it’s defined in the dictionary. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspire https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspire It’s usually used to describe something secretive, or illegal, or wrongful on some level (and anything can be considered wrongful or harmful depending on your perspective), but that’s certainly not a required condition by definition. Just about everything the government does is by definition part of a conspiracy. Everything the government does in secret is most certainly part of a conspiracy. The word has just be morphed into having a seperate implied meaning, where people simply describe something as a “conspiracy” or “conspiracy theory” as a way of dismissing a claim or criticism without actually engaging with it on any level. This article describes a conspiracy fact, and as far as I can tell, none of the facts reported in the article are in dispute. One of the parent commenters postulates a motive, a claim which is dismissed by suggesting that would be a conspiracy. That response lacks any level of substance whatsoever, because it is factually a conspiracy no matter what the motive.

by II2II 5y ago

AmericanChopper 5y ago

I’m not insisting that’s what the word means. That’s how it’s defined in the dictionary. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspire https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspire It’s usually used to describe something secretive, or illegal, or wrongful on some level (and anything can be considered wrongful or harmful depending on your perspective), but that’s certainly not a required condition by definition. Just about everything the government does is by definition part of a conspiracy. Everything the government does in secret is most certainly part of a conspiracy. The word has just be morphed into having a seperate implied meaning, where people simply describe something as a “conspiracy” or “conspiracy theory” as a way of dismissing a claim or criticism without actually engaging with it on any level. This article describes a conspiracy fact, and as far as I can tell, none of the facts reported in the article are in dispute. One of the parent commenters postulates a motive, a claim which is dismissed by suggesting that would be a conspiracy. That response lacks any level of substance whatsoever, because it is factually a conspiracy no matter what the motive.