4 ms·
Crackpots true believers also usually claim to be neutral on the subject and say that they're only interested in transparency. Then when you point out the glari
by bnralt 3y ago
Crackpots true believers also usually claim to be neutral on the subject and say that they're only interested in transparency. Then when you point out the glaring issues with the conspiracy (for instance, pointing out Grusch's claims about Mussolini capturing an alien spacecraft in the 30's and the Vatican helping the U.S. take it), these "neutral" individuals rush to defend the conspiracy theory.
- david-gpu 3y ago> Crackpots true believers also usually claim to be neutral on the subject and say that they're only interested in transparency. Then when you point out the glaring issues with the conspiracy Have you considered that when you feel neutral about a subject your arguments will naturally align against both extremes of the discourse? In HN where the majority of the sentiment is ridicule against the NHI hypothesis you will find me offering arguments in favor of releasing data and investigating the claims made by high-ranking officials. In other websites when somebody defends that a blurry dot in the sky cannot possibly have mundane explanations you will find me defending a more prosaic interpretation. My viewpoint is the same in both cases, but in one of them you will label me as a "crackpot" and in the other one you may see me as the voice of reason. I hope this helps you understand the more nuanced takes on the UAP issue.