8 ms·
Particularly when searching for information that our governments have been paid by corporations to keep us from finding. Google is massively censored.
by Lambdanaut 5y ago
Particularly when searching for information that our governments have been paid by corporations to keep us from finding. Google is massively censored.
- the-dude 5y agoSuch a claim warrants some examples.
- burnafter182 5y agoHow do you present examples when all it takes is a narrative of "conspiracy theory" to dismiss them? We know both government and corporations are, remain, and will continue to remain corruptible. We know they've done bad things, we know they do bad things, we know they can continue to do bad things.
- cmeacham98 5y agoSo to be clear you have no examples, or proof of any kind for this claim?
- mavhc 5y agodon't you see, the lack of examples is proof I am correct!!!
- jacques_chester 5y agoIt's that there's a conspiracy, but if they provide an example, you will accuse them of believing there's a conspiracy, which would distract from the argument that there is a conspiracy.
- berkes 5y agoOr citation, or any credible resource, really. This reeks like Conspiracy Theory all through. And if it is legit, that is a pity, because most, or many people will dismiss it for "quacking like a Wacky Conspiracy Theory".
- AlbertCory 5y agoThe assertion "<x> is a wing nut conspiracy theorist" is itself a conversation-ender. Or at best, the opening to a never-ending version of Culture Wars, V304,045. Over the weekend we had a very civilized discussion about tribal stupidity (prompted by the Dietrich Bonhoeffer essay), and the reason it didn't descend into CW is that no one provided any examples. The instant anyone gave an example, the particulars of that example would have taken over. So I can appreciate the desire for citations, but you have to realize that if he'd provided any, everyone would have just argued about those.
- magicalist 5y ago> and the reason it didn't descend into CW is that no one provided any examples. The instant anyone gave an example, the particulars of that example would have taken over. On the other hand it's easy to think you're pontificating wisely but you've become untethered from reality. Absolutely it's easy for broad discussions to get distracted by lawyering examples, but the GGP made a specific claim, so they invited the request for evidence.