Been thinking lately about what it means to be factually incorrect, but ultimately "right." A 9/11 truther isn't in tune with immediate reality when he suggests

Been thinking lately about what it means to be factually incorrect, but ultimately "right." A 9/11 truther isn't in tune with immediate reality when he suggests the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, but he still has his finger closer to the pulse in the broader conversation around a military industrial complex and an imperial foreign policy. If more voters were as cooked as he is, the world would somehow be a peaceful place. Oils are a source of empty calories and synonymous with processed foods. The hysteria around certain forms, even if misguided, seems to have gotten people thinking more carefully about their general diets. Entertaining this conspiracy yields neutral to positive results. "Smart" people are held back by their pride. They waste so much energy avoiding the shame of being incorrect and contort their thoughts into a rigidly consistent narrative, assigning an identical weight to each of them. I think it's healthier to recognize inconsequential thought patterns (most of them) and let them play out in parallel, even if they're barely informed or completely contradictory.