*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

No thanks, I don't actually want to have a vested interest in this. Also, idk what shit Trump's lawyers are talking.

You're trying to be cute here.

Not at all. That was an honest post. What would you guys talk about if I wasn't here? You'd all just tell each other how bad Trump is, and how shit Brexit is, while jerking each other off. You should appreciate me taking an opposing view.

[Poopadoop]

No thanks,

It's almost as if you suspect deep down that a lot of the bettors on the Trump Wins outcome must be idiots.

[OngBonga]

It's almost as if you suspect deep down that a lot of the bettors on the Trump Wins outcome must be idiots.

They are idiots. I'm not going to argue with that. If I thought it was a good bet, I'd have taken it.

[boost]

No thanks, I don't actually want to have a vested interest in this. Also, idk what shit Trump's lawyers are talking.



Not at all. That was an honest post. What would you guys talk about if I wasn't here? You'd all just tell each other how bad Trump is, and how shit Brexit is, while jerking each other off. You should appreciate me taking an opposing view.

True, everyone needs a villain. But if you didn't present such asinine arguments, I'd probably be arguing with Poop or Mojo and their milquetoast liberalism

[OngBonga]

I've actually tried to be neutral on this election fraud issue, but you guys have a tendency to beat me into a corner if I don't blindly agree with what you have to say. All I said was that nobody here knows if large scale fraud actually happened. And that's true. Granted, the only "evidence" I've presented that it's not as simple as you guys seem to think is betting action, which is tenuous, but I haven't seen any evidence from you guys either, just nodding agreement that Trump's lawyers are idiots. You guys aren't exactly providing anything to convince me that no such fraud happened. That doesn't mean I think it did happen, it means I remain on the fence.

[Poopadoop]

True, everyone needs a villain. But if you didn't present such asinine arguments, I'd probably be arguing with Poop or Mojo and their milquetoast liberalism

Salty. But that's ok, the deterministic universe makes you that way.

[Poopadoop]

I've actually tried to be neutral on this election fraud issue, but you guys have a tendency to beat me into a corner if I don't blindly agree with what you have to say. All I said was that nobody here knows if large scale fraud actually happened. And that's true. Granted, the only "evidence" I've presented that it's not as simple as you guys seem to think is betting action, which is tenuous, but I haven't seen any evidence from you guys either, just nodding agreement that Trump's lawyers are idiots. You guys aren't exactly providing anything to convince me that no such fraud happened. That doesn't mean I think it did happen, it means I remain on the fence.

You've ignored everything we've said about none of the cases holding up in court, and it's not like we can get you to read anything.

[MadMojoMonkey]

True, everyone needs a villain. But if you didn't present such asinine arguments, I'd probably be arguing with Poop or Mojo and their milquetoast liberalism

I'm always ready to have my mind opened.

[OngBonga]

You've ignored everything we've said about none of the cases holding up in court, and it's not like we can get you to read anything.

That's because you've been talking opinion, not fact. Pennsylvania is seemingly going to the Supreme Court, and Wisconsin and Georgia are not finished yet. So you talk about how his legal defence isn't holding up, while his supporters say the opposite. Why should I believe you and not other internet randoms? Everyone is influenced by their bias, you guys included. I don't think you even realise it.

I mean, I'm reading things like this...
Pennsylvania Judge Rules 2020 PA Election Likely Unconstitutional – Trump Case “Likelihood to Succeed”

Do I believe it? Not really, I'm still on the fence. Whoever posted that is probably biased.

idk what the fuck is going on. Neither do you guys, only you pretend you do.

[boost]

THEY FILED A BUNCH OF LAW SUITS AND THE JUDGES WERE LIKE SUP WHAT YOU GOT FOR FRAUD EVIDENCE AND RUDY & CO WERE LIKE LOLNADA

tHis iS nOt oPinIon, kthxgg

[boost]

Salty. But that's ok, the deterministic universe makes you that way.

Ha. Universe doesn't need to be deterministic. Have all the randomness you want, you still aren't the author of that random quirks appearance here or there.

I'm always ready to have my mind opened.

Mostly just thought I'd lob a grenade in someone else's direction.

[OngBonga]

So what's up with PA?

[boost]

So what's up with PA?

Of all the judges, many of them republicans, they found one political hack of a judge that has issued an unprecedented order slightly in their favor to delay certification. It is being appealed now, the order will be struck down, and PA will certify it's votes.

This isn't meant to succeed, it's meant to pad Trumps fall from office. It's meant to give him the ability to continue claiming to have had the election stolen so he can keep the grift going.

Stop grasping at straws. There are a lot of being who have been conned and are now committed to living in the reality of the grift, less the face the pain of the real reality. You'll forever find some dwindling minority who will insist the election was stolen from Trump, just like you still have foamy mouthed hysterics that will scream "wHaT aBouT bEnGhazI?!" any time Clinton or Obama are mentioned.

I mean, ffs, he's been president for four years. He led a campaign tasked with revealing Obama's foreign birth for longer than his POTUS tenure. So he's had access to some of the most powerful spying agencies for four years, and hasn't been able to prove his birther conspiracies? Yeah, because they weren't meant to be proven, they were grifts. He's a grifter and he peddles in untruths to that end. It's that simple.

[OngBonga]

Stop grasping at straws.

I must have put the words in the wrong order, sorry about that.

Fuck a don't I give.

Maybe it is as simple as you say. But Trump's odds have shortened since this PA thing hit social media. And yes, it could totally be idiots who think this is a good enough reason to take the current odds. But from what I can tell, this isn't over yet.

Let me say again, just to clarify. I hope the legitimate winner prevails. Sincerely. I don't want Trump or Biden to steal the election. I want democracy to prevail. I just find it hard to believe anything I read about this, from either side.

[CoccoBill]

That's what I'm afraid is largely going on. Distrust in mainstream media makes people grasp for straws and fall into conspiracy theories.

[OngBonga]

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is very much misused. It's used in a context that implies such a theory is crazy and bullshit. But there are lots of examples throughout history of conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be true.

The MSM have only themselves to blame for losing the trust of the masses.

[CoccoBill]

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is very much misused. It's used in a context that implies such a theory is crazy and bullshit. But there are lots of examples throughout history of conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be true.

Such as? And how many does that make out of all of them?

[OngBonga]

MK Ultra is the first one that springs to mind.

[Poopadoop]

You mean the Lizard Pedo Pizza Shoppe theory isn't true?

[OngBonga]

Most conspiracy theories are inconclusive, so I can't really answer your second question. I mean, I'm still convinced 9/11 was an inside job.

[OngBonga]

You mean the Lizard Pedo Pizza Shoppe theory isn't true?

Well done for making my point for me.

As soon as you see the phrase "conspiracy theory", it's lizards and pizzagate.

[OngBonga]

Watergate was a conspiracy, by the way.

[Poopadoop]

I hope the legitimate winner prevails.

But you don't care enough to try to find out what is going on beyond the Betfair truth meter.

[Poopadoop]

Well done for making my point for me.

As soon as you see the phrase "conspiracy theory", it's lizards and pizzagate.

It's also Lizard QEII, 5G Covid, Vaccine Microchips, Flat Earth, Moon Landings Faked, etc.

There's a reason they have a bad name in general.

[OngBonga]

It's also Lizard QEII, 5G Covid, Vaccine Microchips, Flat Earth, Moon Landings Faked, etc.

There's a reason they have a bad name in general.

Yeah, because idiot theories like the ones you cite are lumped in with reasonable theories by people who just go "mwaaa conspiracy theory".

[OngBonga]

But you don't care enough to try to find out what is going on beyond the Betfair truth meter.

True, I don't care. I don't really know how many more times I need to say it.

I'll say it one more time.

I don't care. It's just a topic of discussion to me, nothing more.

[Poopadoop]

Well with regards to the election, a reasonable theory of systematic fraud would be one with some actual evidence to support it, not just Rudy Guiliana parading "eywitnesses" in an alley behind a landscaping company, and MAGAtards on twitter going "Arrrrgggh, rigged!", and dipshits on a betting site taking the above seriously.

[OngBonga]

Well it's still not scientifically illiterate shit like flat earth and the like.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I can't speak to all the election fraud claims, ong, but the prominent ones were all tossed out summarily when the lawyers were directly asked by the judge if they had any direct evidence of fraud, and the lawyers had to admit they did not.

The lawyers can say whatever they want to the press, but when it comes to intentionally misleading a judge in a court of law... their credentials are on the line. They cannot intentionally mislead the judge and remain a lawyer.

The highest profile claims have already been before various judges and so far, all have been thrown out.


You can't simply "take a case to the supreme court." That's not how it works. You have to try and lose the case on the local and several appellate levels before the case is even under the noses of the SCOTUS. Then they decide which cases to rule on, and which to ignore. They don't have time for everything, and they get to pick what they rule on.

So no lawyer can "take a case to SCOTUS." That's simply not how it works. They can file local claims and the only way they can say with confidence that they have any chance to get to SCOTUS is if they already know they will lose in the local courts and on all appeals under SCOTUS to get there in the first place.


[EDIT]Oh, and FYI, the appellate courts do not look at any evidence, and no new evidence is allowed to enter at that level of the decision. The purpose of appellate courts is to determine if the original local court followed the correct rules of law. Since there were no juries involved, it's all just what did the lawyers say and do and what did the judge say and do and did anyone break the law during that whole process.[/EDIT]

[CoccoBill]

MK Ultra is the first one that springs to mind.

Are you sure there was a widespread conspiracy theory about a CIA mind control program before 1975?

Watergate was a conspiracy, by the way.

Indeed, though I haven't heard of there being any conspiracy theories about it until Deep Throat blew his whistle.

Yeah, because idiot theories like the ones you cite are lumped in with reasonable theories by people who just go "mwaaa conspiracy theory".

What is the difference between idiot theories and reasonable ones?

The difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories is that the former has evidence to prove it. Any other examples of ones that have been proven to be true? So far I think you're at 0.

[OngBonga]

Are you sure there was a widespread conspiracy theory about a CIA mind control program before 1975?

idk, I wasn't alive before 1975. But even today, people will laugh at you if you say "MK Ultra" as though you're David Icke himself.

What is the difference between idiot theories and reasonable ones?

Literacy. Flat earth is an idiot theory because it makes no scientific sense. Same with 5G covid and shapeshifting lizards. Moon landing hoax, not so much, I mean, at least that's feasible, even if it's incredibly unlikely.

The difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories is that the former has evidence to prove it.

So Einstein's Theory of Relativity has no evidence? I think you're misusing the word "theory", much like poop.

[CoccoBill]

idk, I wasn't alive before 1975. But even today, people will laugh at you if you say "MK Ultra" as though you're David Icke himself.

Just making sure you're aware, "people laughing at you" is not evidence of anything. People laugh at things. If they can back up that laughing with evidence, then you should listen. I can't find any evidence of there being an MK Ultra conspiracy theory before the information about it got public, so it has never been a conspiracy theory.

So Einstein's Theory of Relativity has no evidence? I think you're misusing the word "theory", much like poop.

What kind of conspiracy do you think is behind the theory of relativity?

[OngBonga]

I was attempting to demonstrate that a "theory" is not something lacking evidence, as you suggested.

[OngBonga]

I mean,it seems to me that you have a different definition for "theory" depending on if it has the word "conspiracy" before it.

[CoccoBill]

Of course I do. A conspiracy theory and a scientific theory are completely different things. Just like "theory" and "scientific theory".

[CoccoBill]

As in, if I say I have a theory that you're noticing how wrong you are and are trying to change the subject, I don't mean that I have a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, I just have a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.

[OngBonga]

The word "theory" doesn't change meaning depending on the preceding word. It means...

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena"

A theory can be lacking in evidence, or supported by evidence. I mean, 9/11 is a "conspiracy theory", and there is evidence to support such a theory. Granted, it's not conclusive evidence, but the word "evidence" is another word that is misused. Evidence is not proof.

The "evidence" that flat earthers present can be conclusively proven to be bollocks, but that doesn't mean they're not presenting evidence. It just means their evidence is shit.

A "conspiracy theory" is not "a conspiracy that is lacking evidence", which you seem to think it is. It's better to say "a theory that is not widely held to be true".

[OngBonga]

An example when it comes to science is conformal cyclic cosmology, which myself and mojo have been discussing in the physics thread. This is pure theory, which is an important phrase in itself. It demonstrates that the word "theory", even in a scientific context, does not mean "a hypothesis backed up by evidence". If I argue that the universe started two weeks ago, that's a theory, even if it's complete and utter bollocks and can be proven so.

[OngBonga]

Well, I guess that ridiculous argument that the universe started two weeks ago is a hypothesis, because it is a statement alone, and not actually related to any observation. But as soon as I relate that hypothesis to an observation, then it becomes a theory.

My point is that the word "theory" has nothing to do with whether compelling evidence exists.

[CoccoBill]

The word "theory" doesn't change meaning depending on the preceding word. It means...

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena"

It does, that's why I used the dictionary definitions for "theory" and "scientific theory" in my previous reply. A scientific theory is a special case of what is normally meant by the word theory.

A "conspiracy theory" is not "a conspiracy that is lacking evidence", which you seem to think it is. It's better to say "a theory that is not widely held to be true".

Agreed, and I never said that's the case. I said a conspiracy has evidence to prove it, that is, credible evidence. Conspiracy theories typically lack that.

Any other conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true? I'm still not aware of any. What I mean by that is just because you happen to believe in some, doesn't IMO justify not calling them conspiracy theories.

[CoccoBill]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory
https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory

Having evidence is essential to a scientific theory.

[OngBonga]

Conspiracy theories typically lack that.

You had to qualify this statement with the word "typically". Remove that word and you have a problem.

Any other conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true?

There's no point in answering this question if we can't even agree what it means to say "theory". If I give you an example, you will simply refute "well it's not a theory, is it?".

Having evidence is essential to a scientific theory.

Sure, but I already pointed out that "evidence" is another word we seem to have problems defining. If you're arguing "evidence" is something that can be tested, then you're arguing that conformal cyclic cosmology isn't a theory. There are lots of scientific theories that cannot be tested. That doesn't disqualify them from being a theory.

[OngBonga]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

Note how "theoretical physics" contrasts with "experimental physics". The former is based on mathematical models and abstractions, while the latter is based on experiment.

[OngBonga]

Wormholes are an excellent example of this, by the way. They have never been observed, yet remain a theory. The only evidence is mathematical.

[Poopadoop]

A lot of people consider maths a good basis for a theory. Just saying.

[OngBonga]

That's an irrelevance. It's not testable on its own. It's purely theoretical. Note the word I use there... theoretical. We're talking about what theory means here. It doesn't mean a testable hypothesis.

A theory can be proven, or not. It can be testable, or not. A conspiracy theory can be a conspiracy that is unproven, or proven. Such a theory does not cease to be a theory when it is proven.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A word means what it's user meant when they used the word.

Many, many words have multiple definitions, sometimes those definitions are antonyms. Words are not a consistent system. Especially not English words.

An example when it comes to science is conformal cyclic cosmology, which myself and mojo have been discussing in the physics thread. This is pure theory, which is an important phrase in itself. It demonstrates that the word "theory", even in a scientific context, does not mean "a hypothesis backed up by evidence". If I argue that the universe started two weeks ago, that's a theory, even if it's complete and utter bollocks and can be proven so.

No. CCC is a hypothesis, not a theory... in scientific terms.

The theory of General Relativity is a theory because after Einstein proposed the hypothesis, it has been widely tested by numerous independent researchers using a wide range of methods, and exactly none of those tests showed that hypothesis to be false.

Scientifically, a theory is as close to fact as we have. In science, theory and Law are basically the same. A theory may be composed of multiple laws, or a theory may be a single law.

Colloquially, it's a very different matter. Colloquially, a theory and a hypothesis or a (subjectively) well-thought-out opinion are the same things. If someone says, "I have this theory about XXX," that's not a scientific opinion, not a well-tested and established proposal... it's a guess. Maybe a good guess, maybe a bad guess. Just a guess, though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There are lots of scientific theories that cannot be tested. That doesn't disqualify them from being a theory.

As a scientist, I disagree with this wholeheartedly.

If it cannot be tested, it cannot ever be a scientific theory. The definition is radically different inside the scientific communities than in colloquial usage. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

You can't just insist that someone meant something they didn't mean. You can bully dumb people into believing you're an ass, sure. Even smart people would agree with them.

Just listen to what people are saying and try to hear their intended meaning. Anything less is not communicating in good faith.

[OngBonga]

A word means what it's user meant when they used the word.

Could you clarify what you mean by this please? I think I know what you mean, but I need to be sure what you mean when you say the following words...

"A", "word", "means", "what", "it's", "user", "meant", "when", "they", "used", "the" and "word" (perhaps you mean this is a different context this time).

I apologise for the sarcasm, but I don't know how else to point out that what you say is absurd.

As for "theory", what does "theoretical physics" mean? The opposite of "theoretical"? I'm genuinely confused how this can be.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Theoretical Physics is the search for new scientific laws through mathematical hypotheses and extrapolation of the current model(s).

It's not that every theoretical physicist produces theories. I mean... sure... all of their longest-term goal is to find something that will be promoted to a theory, but no one person in any science community gets to decide when something gets promoted from a hypothesis to a theory.

The entire fields of String Theory have not yet produced a String Theory. There are dozens if not hundreds of String Hypotheses as of now. The search for a theory does not mean that every hypothesis in that field is a theory.

In a conversation with non-scientists, I wont nitpick the use of the word theory, but when in the physics dept. and on the clock, I do ask clarifying questions when a student uses the word theory. Regardless of if I know their intended meaning, it's still good practice to help teach them when to be careful with the word having overloaded definitions that are at odds with each other.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Could you clarify what you mean by this please? I think I know what you mean, but I need to be sure what you mean when you say the following words...

"A", "word", "means", "what", "it's", "user", "meant", "when", "they", "used", "the" and "word" (perhaps you mean this is a different context this time).

I apologise for the sarcasm, but I don't know how else to point out that what you say is absurd.

As for "theory", what does "theoretical physics" mean? The opposite of "theoretical"? I'm genuinely confused how this can be.

You forgot to do this:

Just listen to what people are saying and try to hear their intended meaning. Anything less is not communicating in good faith.

[OngBonga]

I mean, you're seemingly unaware of the contradiction in your post. On the one hand, you're arguing that words can mean whatever the user intends, and on the other, you're telling me what theory means.

[OngBonga]

Just listen to what people are saying and try to hear their intended meaning. Anything less is not communicating in good faith.

The problem is that it causes confusion. This discussion began with "conspiracy theory", and the use of the word theory here implies to poop and cocco "unproven", while you're saying that the word "theory" in a scientific context means the opposite.

Also, if we have different ideas what a word means, we're not actually talking about the same thing.

[OngBonga]

And why do we even talk of "string theory" if it's not a theory?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm only trying to shed light on the fact that you, ong, have started insisting on what other people mean when they use the word "theory."

There are multiple definitions, and depending on the context, the users intended definition may be a near antonym of another user's intended usage, or even the same user in a different context.

I'm just saying that when everyone agrees on the usage, there's no difficulty in conversation.
When words are being interpreted differently by the listener than the speaker, then both need to pause and get on the same page.


That's all I'm really saying.

I don't care how you choose to talk about conspiracy theories... just that it makes no sense to keep talking if you don't even agree on what counts as a conspiracy theory. If you're just nitpicking language as opposed to engaging intellectually, then that's not communicating in good faith.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean, you're seemingly unaware of the contradiction in your post. On the one hand, you're arguing that words can mean whatever the user intends, and on the other, you're telling me what theory means.

I'm telling you there are multiple definitions and those definitions are near antonyms of each other, and the context and usage matters a great deal.

I'm telling you that within the context of scientific theory... the definition is one thing. BUT beyond that context, it means something else.
Just make sure you understand the context of the user's intended meaning before you tell them they said something wrong. If you don't actually know what they meant to tell you, then you don't even know what they said, let alone if it's right or wrong.

EDIT:
Yeah... this

Also, if we have different ideas what a word means, we're not actually talking about the same thing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And why do we even talk of "string theory" if it's not a theory?

Because, as I said, the goal is a search for a theory. We don't have any scientific theories about strings, yet.
We have colloquial theories - scientifically called hypotheses - about strings... but they're not theories because they either cannot be tested or have been tested and shown to be in disagreement with already gathered data.

It's not a matter of whether those people working on string theory are doing one thing or another. It's just a matter of the "jargon" usage within a specific field's context being different from the "standard" usage. It's stupendously common for just about all fields to use jargon, and the fact that you're pretending this is weird or somehow the fault of those fields or even the words themselves is neither here nor there.


Just agree on what word makes the most sense to use in this context that grants the easiest synonymous meaning to all parties.
What's so hard about that?

[OngBonga]

I'm only trying to shed light on the fact that you, ong, have started insisting on what other people mean when they use the word "theory."

This works both ways. I'm being told I'm wrong to use the term "conspiracy theory" to refer to proven theories. And we still have the absurdity of poop and cocco telling me that theory means the exact opposite of what you're telling me it means.

I mean this is a kind of ridiculous situation here. This is why words have meaning.

[CoccoBill]

Isn't it peculiar that you've been given the literal dictionary definitions of the words and terms we're discussing, and you feel that everyone else is somehow mangling what words mean.

[OngBonga]

No, what I find peculiar is how "theory" means "unproven" in the context of conspiracies, and "proven" in the context of science.

Do you not see this absurdity?

[OngBonga]

By the way, i already posted a dictionary definition of "theory".

[MadMojoMonkey]

All you're being told, ong, at least by me, is that the word "theory" has multiple definitions, and those definitions are near antonyms of each other. If 2 people are using the same word, but they mean the opposite when they say it, that's going to cause serious miscommunication.


I'm emphatically not telling you what you mean or what poop means when you use the word.

What I am telling you is that you should probably just agree to use only 1 definition of the word for the purposes of this conversation.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, what I find peculiar is how "theory" means "unproven" in the context of conspiracies, and "proven" in the context of science.

Do you not see this absurdity?

Yes. It is absurd. No one's saying the English language is not absurd.

The word literally means both itself and it's own antonym, without any fuzziness.
[EDIT]Even that sentence is an unintended pun. Add quotes to the word "literally"[/EDIT]
It is what it is.

Verbal communication is already an awkward symbolic exchange.
All we can do is try to find the right combination of word-things that convey the invisible thought-ideas from our meat-brain to someone else's meat-brain in a way that gets them to think the same invisible thought-ideas we think. That takes cooperation on both sides.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Hang in there, buddy. The first of the month is tomorrow.

[OngBonga]

Ok so to clarify, when I talk of "conspiracy theories", I mean both proven and unproven, ridiculous and reasonable.

Because cocco and poop believe that a "conspiracy theory" is only unproven and/or ridiculous theories, we're in an absurd situation where we can't have a discussion about it without bickering, since we're not talking about the same thing.

Let's from here agree to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to talk about proven theories (even though this itself is absurd), and "conspiracy hypothesis" for the ridiculous.

[OngBonga]

Hang in there, buddy. The first of the month is tomorrow.

It's a good job you're not a maths teacher.

[CoccoBill]

We could do that, that is, agree on what we mean by words and list them here. Or, we could use the dictionary definitions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

"A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4][5] The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence."

[OngBonga]

I wonder why MK Ultra is listed in the examples of conspiracy theories?

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's a good job you're not a maths teacher.

[Poopadoop]

I never said all conspiracy theories were hokum, I said a lot of them are pretty ridiculous, including the presently topical one about the election.

[Poopadoop]

I meant it's the first day of the rest of your life.

fyp

[boost]

Not that we need another hat in the ring, but I always felt that the obvious was that Conspiracy Theories are unproven, or not widely accepted as having been proven-- once proven/accepted as proven they are simply Conspiracies.

Of course, proven have always been conspiracies, and sometimes it makes sense to refer to them as conspiracy theories, such as in this context in which you may want to highlight that this slice of reality was widely treated with the derision often cast on unproven conspiracy theories. So, yeah, language is complicated-- but I'm with MMM here: digging in your heals on the definitions of words is to everyone's detriment. Try to take people's meaning as they mean it, if there's confusion and you can't agree on the usage of words, simply clarify your use, and in response to their use spell out your understanding of their use-- if this is untenable, then end the exchange.


That said, COINTELPRO is an example of a conspiracy theory that was widely disseminated (mostly in the black community in the US) prior to being proven/widely accepted as proven.

[boost]

I never said all conspiracy theories were hokum, I said a lot of them are pretty ridiculous, including the presently topical one about the election.

Honestly, it's the fault of the conspirators that all these "hokum" conspiracy theories have taken root. First, when conspiracies come to light, they sow seeds of doubt in the general population. Second, it's known, at least in the case of the Russians, that intelligence agencies have purposely planted conspiracies abroad to lay the ground work for discontent, and domestically to shroud their actual conspiracies in a fog of "hokum."

[OngBonga]

Second, it's known, at least in the case of the Russians, that intelligence agencies have purposely planted conspiracies abroad to lay the ground work for discontent, and domestically to shroud their actual conspiracies in a fog of "hokum."

Fun fact - this is a conspiracy theory.

[CoccoBill]

Fun fact - this is a conspiracy theory.

Some may regard it as one, but it isn't. There's extensive information about Russian disinformation campaigns going back to the 80s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_INFEKTION
https://secondaryinfektion.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN21518F
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/...rt_Volume2.pdf

I know you're not gonna read any of those, but the more links I have, the more gravitas my argument has. That's another fact.