@famousone From what I could dig up, it was started back when he ran for Senate in '04 by his Republican opponent Andy Martin. Some Clinton supporters did circulate is as well though, so yeah, it wasn't just Republicans, but mostly.

Here's the thing. I don't look at usernames when I reply because I don't care who wrote it, if it's a topic I find interesting, I'll reply to the thread because I like debates. The only thing I was hoping for here is that you'd actually reply to what my comment said instead of immediately attacking my person. I've tried this on multiple threads already and so far you always defaulted to "well you said my opinion was terfy this one time, you're a vile hypocrite" and the convo ended there. Possibly with famous chiming in to show support to you, which I'm not gonna lie, is cute in a way. All I want is for people to address the topic at hand instead of endlessly gossiping over some months old disagreement. Is it really that much to ask?

Actually you brought it up twice already, hence why I was so confused as to why you're doing it again.
The wishing death thing was a joke that made sense in that particular context, at least to me. Maybe my sense of humor isn't for everyone, which is entirely fair. Maybe it was even in bad taste. But I did clarifiy that it was meant as a joke back then, and subsequently every time you brought it up again, which is like the third time now.
I've never said anything about you, only to you. I hate gossip and would never do that over a disagreement. Then I caught you gossiping about me on multiple posts. And yet I'm the hypocrite.
I haven't called anyone out on using strawmen in a long time. Exactly zero times in this convo, for instance.

That's not at all what that means and you know it. Anyway I'll just be chilling, waiting for someone who's willing to discuss facts instead of spreading gossip.

Of course I am! Nobody's given me a substantive reply yet

Oh I'm pretty much the opposite of a snob, I just write long comments because I want to be clear and avoid misunderstandings. Which unfortunately even with my long comments I can't seem to be able to pull off as people misunderstand and then even lie about situations.
Though to be fair, although I despise snobbery, it's probably preferable to telling someone "I refuse to treat you in a civil way because you disagreed with me back there". Snobbery sucks but it's better than shit flinging.
Thank you for the feedback though, I didn't realize getting so in-depth into a topic would seem so unbearably snobbish.

What's "it"? Trying to communicate in a civil way?
Could you address my points? Or, y'know, at the very least read the thread?

I do indeed expect civility after voicing my disagreements with you, and it's strange that you find it so outlandish. Isn't being bullied off a platform for having a different opinion the prime right wing victim narrative? Y'know, woe is me, I'm being targeted by the Twitter mob for having different opinions, all that? And now you're saying you will under no circumstances treat me in a civil way because I've voiced disagreement with you in the past. Curious. Perhaps for once you could react to points instead of trying to discredit the person making them?

I beloooooong

Also, a small nitpick (please don't take offense at this, I don't mean it as an attack on your person, just pointing out the conversational dynamic) – quoting what I wrote and only adding "How extraordinary" or "I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right" adds absolutely nothing of value to the conversation. Metaphorically rolling your eyes at a point I made and expecting I'll understand your counterargument from it doesn't work. Maybe it works with other people, but I like to use words to communicate, not "reading between the lines" and stuff like that. I assume it means disagreement, but can't tell anything beyond that. If you state your disagreement, it'd be nice to also say why you think what I say is wrong, because then the conversation will devolve into nonsense.
Alright that's all, I hope I made everything clear and hopefully we can have a civilized conversation.

This is a phenomenon called 'Securitization'. A politician/media figure will, through talking about it, make something be perceived as a threat by the populace. For instance, the flow of refugees is a threat to national security because they will come and do crimes etc. The thing in question wasn't originally perceived as a threat to the security of the country, but someone made it so through talking about it. Hence, if we label a specific person evil, bad, selfish, there is a lesser sense of "let's do something about it" because it's not a security threat. But if you claim that a movement or refugees or whatever are a threat to the security or even existence of the nation, people become scared, and when they're scared they're more likely to vote for legislation and people that will make the threat go away, even if the person they're voting for is an authoritarian asshole. This is why I see the labelling of something or someone a threat as worse than labelling someone a bad person.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you feel a certain "vibe" from someone it's alright to mention it, but I am saying now in good faith that I don't think I'm doing that and I'd like to see concrete proof of me giving any merit to left wing conspiracy theories, because I think any that exist are equally dumb as right wing ones.
So, let me explain the whole "evil person" vs "demon wanting to destroy civilization" thing. Labelling something or someone a threat to our civilization, culture, values etc. has a much bigger chance that people will retaliate against it/them. Saying "Jeff Bezos is an asshole who treats his employees like shit" is calling him evil but even if you sympathize with that you don't really feel the need to stop him personally, maybe just tweak the system that allows him to do that, by improving employee protection laws for instance. But saying "BLM is a threat to the democratic process of this country" will make people retaliatiate, as they feel threatened.

They're after all just liberals, not actually lefties. Personally, I see the personality cult of Donald Trump and the calls to rescind elections that didn't go in his favor as a threat to democratic values, more so than woke idiots.
Pizzagate – this one is basically QAnon before QAnon. That Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring in some pizza place. This theory was so believed in conservative circles that some guy went to that pizza shop with the intention to kill people inside. If I remember correctly, they were able to stop him.
Illuminati – you've seen more people on the left, I've seen more people on the right talk about it. Both our experiences are valid.
As for me dismissing conspiracy theories on the right but not left – I really don't think I am. I say all conspiracy theories are bullshit including the ones pushed by Democrats like Russiagate. You'll have to prove to me that that's what I'm doing, because so far you're just going off your feelings.

Obama citizenship – I'm pretty sure mostly Republicans were pushing it back then. I haven't seen Democrat voters questioning his citizenship anywhere, but if you have, alright, noted.
Russia collusion – Yup, that's why I mentioned Russiagate as well. That's really the only conspiracy theory I've seen Democrats pushing, and yeah, it's absolutely stupid.
Election tampering – I ain't even gonna get into that.
Sandy Hook – the conspiracy theory goes that the shooting was faked to make people support gun control, and it was mostly pushed by Alex Jones, a prominent conservative media figure, which in turn influenced his mostly right wing audience into believing it.
Cultural Marxism – okay, that's how you see it, you perceive wokeness as a threat to democratic values. I see it as a bunch of idiot liberals saying "Yas qween trans women are women black lives matter yas", none of them has ever even read Marx or knows what Marxist theory is.

A talking point isn't necessarily an opinion. One can inadvertently share a talking point without necessarily sharing the opinion, or belonging to the group. That's why I wrote what I wrote, I was making darn sure I wasn't labelling you personally anything, yet you still got offended. Also, are you really gonna bring this up every time I happen to disagree with you, when you said worse shit to me? "I now see into your worldview and I see that you're a vile and hypocritical person", "your hypocrisy knows no ends", you verbatim called me "fucking disgusting" and a "terrible person" literally just for disagreeing with you. Are you really gonna bring this one thing up every time, when you said worse shit both to me and about me behind my back? Give me a break.
But alright, let's drop this and get into the conspiracy theory stuff.
Vaccine passports – I agree, shit's authoritarian as hell. But vaccine chips ain't a thing and the theory is cuckoo.

Nice

So yeah TL;DR, since it's so requested, in my experience leftie conspiracy theories are usually just sort of like "this group is abusing their power for their own gain" or like "these businesses are working together to create an oligopoly to control the market" whereas right wing conspiracy theories tend to be more cataclysmic and civilization-ending, like "gay rights are going to be the downfall of the West" or whatever. As for citations, I am going off my own experiences, but that's what we were talking about this whole time, our experiences with being treated a certain way, so I don't think I'm in the wrong for talking about that.

Now, that is not to say lefties don't engage in conspiratorial thinking at all. Just that in my experience, they happen to be more along the lines of "this person/group has a lot of power and they're abusing it" rather than "this person is a demon who's gonna destroy civilization as we know it".
As for 'If you think saying "this is an attack on our culture" is the same as "that person is a radical, racist, extremist, who would commit genocide if given the chance" I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right' ... The point of labeling someone as an attacker on "our culture" or "our values" is to dehumanize and eliminate them. It's to create a sense of threat that we must retaliate against. So I don't think it's too different at all, in the effect it has on people at least. Saying someone's a bad person, or abusing power or whatever, usually just means they're selfish. Saying they're actively trying to destroy you and everything you stand for is a level above that.

Point doesn't remain when it's not true, hahaha. You can't make a point out of a misrepresentation of events.
As for conspiracy theories, we could look at some big recent conspiracy theories and where they come from. From the right we have QAnon, vaccine chips, Obama birth certificate/whether he's a Muslim, pizzagate/Clintons, Sandy Hook, cultural Marxism, stolen election, Illuminati, Democrats are demons from hell... and that's all I can name off the top of my head. From the left, we have Russiagate, and maybe some lefties also engage in 9/11 Trutherism? And that's about it from what I can remember.
Do feel free to add to the list, of course. I'm willing to change my mind if you can come up with some leftie conspiracy theories, but I sure don't know of any in recent history.

My dad's a huge Queen fan and he was kinda mad at the movie for its factual inaccuracies and the ending. But it's not a bad movie. Rami Malek really shines as Freddie.