4 ms·
Most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true. I'd ask you to quantify -- but no one is saying, or even insinuating, that it's "batshit c
by aguaviva 2y ago
Most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true.
I'd ask you to quantify -- but no one is saying, or even insinuating, that it's "batshit crazy conspiracy stuff". Only that they don't see any particular evidence for it.
The fact that you're making such an obviously ungrounded implication (or you don't see the huge difference between the two positions) suggests you've become unduly caught up in your own semantically confused internal dialogues.
I'd call this 'evidence based'.
Except it's not, and in fact you're engaging in very common form of faulty generalization.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y agoIf you say so? shrug
- aguaviva 2y agoNo, because you made a strawman argument. It seems you're also unclear as to what "evidence-based" actually means.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y agoNo. I've just grown very bored with people citing this and that over about five decades of living, which goes against my personal experience :-) Of course this will confirm to you that I'm just a stubborn old fart, getting more and more senile and set in my ways. But again: Shrug?
- aguaviva 2y agoThis is a safe space, and you can be as stubborn as you want to be. I'm tired of citations as well. I just find that reality is often greatly more nuanced, and contains many more contradictions and exceptions than we might want it to be/have. That's why I tend to be a suspicious of broad, predictive patterns, and prefer to sit back and wait for the boring factual details to trickle in. Either way, thanks for clarifying.