Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …
Home › Forums › DISCUSS › General Discussion and Questions › Your input requested – How should “Controversial Topics” be handled? › Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …
agitating prop wrote:
Jon Brooke wrote:
I actually rarely do this, but your response was so stunningly unconscious, I couldn’t resist. Forgive me.
I do forgive you, but note also that you are still doing it.
My response wasn’t unconscious. I think you have taken my statement that "I have no view on that particular conspiracy theory." to mean that I don’t believe that conspiracy theory, when in fact I really did mean that *I have no view on that particular conspiracy theory* and nor am I likely to form one as it doesn’t really interest me.
If you have no opinion because it doesn’t interest you, it likely means you haven’t given the subject more than a cursory glance. If this is the case, how would you know if it was conspiracy "fact" or "theory"? You inadvertantly got to the very heart of the issue, that being, closer examination in General Discussion is needed.
Separating out screwball theory from theory backed by fact, to present a strong circumstantial case, is an interesting exercise. The mainstream consensus supports this almost lewd perception of "conspiracy theorists" as sub-persons, half wits, suited for condescending remarks and arrogant treatment. Those looking over their shoulders, desparate to be seen as "credible" whatever the heck that actually is, just suck up this social, cultural dynamic. Pity. All form over substance.