4 ms·

>problem with conspiracy theories is not that they're based on a lack of trust, but that they're not rational. Rationality isn't some sort of absolute paramete

>problem with conspiracy theories is not that they're based on a lack of trust, but that they're not rational. Rationality isn't some sort of absolute parameter, it's determined wrt available information. And with information coming from outside it's certainly an issue of trust. FWIW such unconditional claim as "DC will harm your community" is a shiny example of this, as you don't even care to talk about a particular DC, and obviously cases (community problems, and interests, and the way a DC placed or build) can vary a lot. Apparently, you just don't believe them at all, don't you? >You can't treat all distrust as unreasoning. I don't. I just noticed that arguments you believe are central are very stretchy, and can 'prove' anything, including conspiracy theories.

Planktonne 2mo ago
> Rationality isn't some sort of absolute parameter, it's determined wrt available information The available information is very clear that cellphone towers are not mind control and that the current leaders of the tech world do not have the best interests of people in mind. We don't need to talk about a particular DC, because that's beside the point: people have very legitimate reasons to oppose them on principle.
- throwaway2037 2mo ago
  > the current leaders of the tech world do not have the best interests of people in mind. Did they ever?
- broken-kebab 2mo ago
  And "available information" translates to "the sources I trust provide information that ..." I guess you don't get the comparison cause cell towers aren't controversial anymore since they are a usual part of landscape. They used to be, however, and lots of arguments are literally the same. Including, of course "on principle".