3 ms·

I’m not sure you will make any converts with this style of conversation.

• pjkundert 4y ago
  The question was "how those are [considered] conspiracy theories". Answer was implying that they are not, but "try introducing evidence supporting them", and see what happens -- that's why the original poster's implication that they are "about conspiracy theories" is assumed, in the first place. None of these are "conspiracy theories". They are testable claims -- that you are not really allowed to discuss, even on HN, where one would assume testing claims is expected and allowed. Some of these might be false. On HN, unfortunately, we'll never be in a position to know... And sometimes -- forceful claims that evoke "that's ridiculous -- HN is better than that!" responses are a good way to lead people (perhaps such as yourself) to the next realization: Holy smokes -- even HN now suffers from "Eternal September", and we need to work hard to eject those who now control the debate to such as extent that discussion of anything they believe is in support of a "conspiracy theory" is verboten.