4 ms·

Meh. All I'm saying is that when real bullets are flying, you'll find you have a much (much) harder time selling people on conspiracy theories. Trying to convi

by ajross 4y ago

Meh. All I'm saying is that when real bullets are flying, you'll find you have a much (much) harder time selling people on conspiracy theories. Trying to convince people that it's really western illuminati at fault works poorly when it was the other side that rolled the tanks.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
Exactly. So there's incentive for shenanigans because it's so easily dismissed. History, especially recent history*, is clear...don't underestimate the nefarious, especially when their reputations aren't properly understood. Especially when they're so adept at controlling the narrative of their story. * For example, just last week there was this: https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/citing-new-evidence-surviving-family-members-sue-feds-raytheon-and-lockheed-martin-over-1996-twa-crash/ https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/citing-new-evidence-survivin... To continue to label the established MO of these outfits as "conspiracy theory" is lazy and out of touch with reality.
- ajross 4y ago
  > Exactly. So there's incentive for shenanigans because it's so easily dismissed. "It must be true because it seems to be false" is a giant red flag for conspiracy rhetoric, FWIW. Again, I'm not interested in engaging on the subject. I'm explaining why regular people looking at real wars don't see things your way.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    > I'm explaining why regular people looking at real wars don't see things your way. I'm explaining the same thing, the difference is my interpretation is based on actual historic events. That is, ultimately, what regular people believe isn't an accident.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]