Ironically I came here to post that anything you can do proves “conspiracy theorists” right- the nature of such thinking tends to be self validating. When someone is talking about a moon landing or a new technology etc- and says that governments and corporations are in league and it’s a conspiracy- if you provide no response or proof they will say: “SEE? They can’t prove it. They have no response that won’t make them look worse!” If you provide proof or evidence, reassurances etc, they will say: “SEE? As I predicted, more propaganda from the elites. They’re dialing up their response because we are on to them!” But let’s ignore that for a moment- let’s look at cases where “conspiracy theorists” made predictions on what would happen and then… it happened.
So someone says: “it’s a conspiracy and next they will <blank>.” <Blank> then happens! They must have been right!
Well…. Sort of. No though? If the rain priest says: “you have sacrificed a goat as required and now the giant weeping alligator will make it rain!” Then it rains! Were they “right”? They were right it would rain yes, but the reason they think it would rain is not correct. So they either guessed and got lucky, or they took clues from context. The air and feeling of the atmosphere, past patterns, the way the sky looks etc. The same can be true of an economist predicting a market. An expert may have data and such to back them, but a “blue collar uncle” can also buy the next huge stock saying “it will be big!” When you ask how they knew- they may say: “The trade name of the stock was “WIN”! Etc. They got the outcome right- but not for any logic that is reliable.
Some things are also just pretty evident cause and effect. If I “predict” that a guy in a bar will punch me, then walk up to him and get in his face, pin him in a spot and keep persisting and basically take the situation to a point where anyone watching would expect them to do something….
It’s not exactly predictive with things like what is going on in Canada. People like to compare the Convoy to BLM but really-
It is a better comparison to something like occupy wallstreet- a peaceful assembly/blockade against the system which saw police in “riot gear” ultimately called to disperse it after a long stint and failure to gain control.
Any government will resort to force when their authority is pressed. That’s why we have police and military. So the “foresight” to predict a government will stop disruption when they lose control doesn’t require conspiracy theories to predict.
“You may want to listen. We’ve been right about everything else lately.” I believe that, and “stop proving conspiracy theorists right” was the topic yes?
And on that topic I pointed to recent examples of where conspiracy theorists were “right” in an outcome, as well as why being “right” in such cases on an outcome doesn’t actually validate the theory, but as I say in the opening, such theories tend to be self validating. Regardless of the outcome or evidence against it the person believing the theory will believe it if they choose to.
The topic was conspiracy theorists being right, the response was topical to that.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day- as they say- but if one insists their clock is not broken because it is often right- I would say that logic is flawed.
Who was Epstein trafficking kids to?
Who was found to have bugged the Whitehouse and Trump Tower?
Plant made up evidence of Russian collusion?
How many leaders have been found to be marching in lock step with the WEF and it's "Great Reset"?
Haven't banks been deputized against supporters of political opponents?
A national leader is openly destroying a western nation's rights charter.
Disparity of consequences between a right-winger being locked in isolation for being a voice of a peaceful protest, versus a violent madman getting to walk after deliberately running down and trying to murder people the government doesn't like.
Nah, don't bother responding. I'm done talking to people who try to dispute the indisputable or defend the indefensible.
I’m not defending the indefensible or disputing the indisputable.
Where in my reply do I defend these people or institutions?
I’m pointing out that to exact topic, being “right” about an outcome doesn’t prove a conspiracy.
Your own examples highlight it.
Epstein was trafficking kids to a bunch of rich powerful people around the world of various political affiliations. That’s what high end sex traffickers do. Those people were covering up their involvement- that’s what criminals do.
The tapping of Trump Tower regards an investigation of a man living and doing business there, who is: “The FBI” and Donald Trump is on record as dismissing his own claims and stating he didn’t mean “wire tapping” and that it was just a “feeling.”
The Russian Collision issue is debatable based on whom we believe- with all involved having potential political and other reasons to lie- but an investigation did not produce criminal charges.
You will find numerous world leaders in “lock step”…
… with numerous special interests. We have an entire position known as “lobbyist” which exists as a person who’s job it is to sway politicians opinions to a certain interest. Calling it a “conspiracy” is like saying that there is a “conspiracy” of Soda because most places carry Coke or Pepsi. Coke and Pepsi have lobbied, partnered, and used their leverage to cement a position of market dominance, enabled by people serving their goals because it suits their self interest. For example- many parks use Coke products because Coke will provide the soda for free if your market presence is strong enough. They charge for the branded cups. It is an arrangement that suits the park owners and the soda company to succeed and make money.
I could go on. It’s a version of the “cave problem.” If a group of people only see a cave wall in front of them, they may believe that the shadows on the wall are real physical things as opposed to realizing that those shadows are just being cast from behind them and beyond the cave.
When we narrow our vision too far, we can see every aspect of a singular thing but that is all we can see.
There are real conspiracies- and in some of your examples individuals conspired together for various reasons, but not all cooperation is conspiracy. The WET would be rather foolish to announce their “reset” so openly if they hoped to launch a grand conspiracy. They have a plan and a goal. Banks being an example you made- banks generally serve the government and the government generally uses its economic control to enact its will. It is common for economic leverage to be used for control. That isn’t a “conspiracy.” We live in complex systems.
If we understand the way systems work and why, we can wave away most (not all) “conspiracies” the same as by understanding science we can say that a crying sky alligator doesn’t make it rain when it’s happy to get a sacrifice. We can understand to some degree how and why things work. It doesn’t seem odd to you at all that most people find things like complex economics and politics to be a tangled mess that’s hard to understand yet conspiracies in popular media are often so direct and “clean”? There is usually at least a “good guy” and/or “bad guy”, logic that’s is intuitive to follow to the lay man as if the complex systems of the world follow the logic of our own daily lives, and they usually feed directly to a zeitgeist? Heck of a coincidence. I smell… a conspiracy!
Well…. Sort of. No though? If the rain priest says: “you have sacrificed a goat as required and now the giant weeping alligator will make it rain!” Then it rains! Were they “right”? They were right it would rain yes, but the reason they think it would rain is not correct. So they either guessed and got lucky, or they took clues from context. The air and feeling of the atmosphere, past patterns, the way the sky looks etc. The same can be true of an economist predicting a market. An expert may have data and such to back them, but a “blue collar uncle” can also buy the next huge stock saying “it will be big!” When you ask how they knew- they may say: “The trade name of the stock was “WIN”! Etc. They got the outcome right- but not for any logic that is reliable.
It’s not exactly predictive with things like what is going on in Canada. People like to compare the Convoy to BLM but really-
It is a better comparison to something like occupy wallstreet- a peaceful assembly/blockade against the system which saw police in “riot gear” ultimately called to disperse it after a long stint and failure to gain control.
Any government will resort to force when their authority is pressed. That’s why we have police and military. So the “foresight” to predict a government will stop disruption when they lose control doesn’t require conspiracy theories to predict.
And on that topic I pointed to recent examples of where conspiracy theorists were “right” in an outcome, as well as why being “right” in such cases on an outcome doesn’t actually validate the theory, but as I say in the opening, such theories tend to be self validating. Regardless of the outcome or evidence against it the person believing the theory will believe it if they choose to.
The topic was conspiracy theorists being right, the response was topical to that.
Who was found to have bugged the Whitehouse and Trump Tower?
Plant made up evidence of Russian collusion?
How many leaders have been found to be marching in lock step with the WEF and it's "Great Reset"?
Haven't banks been deputized against supporters of political opponents?
A national leader is openly destroying a western nation's rights charter.
Disparity of consequences between a right-winger being locked in isolation for being a voice of a peaceful protest, versus a violent madman getting to walk after deliberately running down and trying to murder people the government doesn't like.
Nah, don't bother responding. I'm done talking to people who try to dispute the indisputable or defend the indefensible.
Where in my reply do I defend these people or institutions?
I’m pointing out that to exact topic, being “right” about an outcome doesn’t prove a conspiracy.
Your own examples highlight it.
Epstein was trafficking kids to a bunch of rich powerful people around the world of various political affiliations. That’s what high end sex traffickers do. Those people were covering up their involvement- that’s what criminals do.
The tapping of Trump Tower regards an investigation of a man living and doing business there, who is: “The FBI” and Donald Trump is on record as dismissing his own claims and stating he didn’t mean “wire tapping” and that it was just a “feeling.”
The Russian Collision issue is debatable based on whom we believe- with all involved having potential political and other reasons to lie- but an investigation did not produce criminal charges.
You will find numerous world leaders in “lock step”…
When we narrow our vision too far, we can see every aspect of a singular thing but that is all we can see.
There are real conspiracies- and in some of your examples individuals conspired together for various reasons, but not all cooperation is conspiracy. The WET would be rather foolish to announce their “reset” so openly if they hoped to launch a grand conspiracy. They have a plan and a goal. Banks being an example you made- banks generally serve the government and the government generally uses its economic control to enact its will. It is common for economic leverage to be used for control. That isn’t a “conspiracy.” We live in complex systems.