version

Who loves ya, baby?
Wonder why they've gone with that. There's obviously the Trump-Russia angle, but anyone who watches the interview will see he claims progressive causes are part of the plot. I guess it's either a company exploiting people's fears to sell products, or a deliberate move to sow further discord.
 

Leo

Well-known member
How QAnon works like a video game to hook people

Game designer Adrian Hon has argued that QAnon is a lot like an alternate-reality game, in which players follow a trail of clues online and off, to solve mysteries or just discover more clues to chase. But QAnon also echoes other game genres, mashing them together to become an all-encompassing, highly addictive experience. Intentionally or not, it has rolled up gameplay components from the past several decades of game design.
 

Corpsey

call me big papa
It occurred to me the other day (my friend was telling me about the Tom Hanks is a paedophile theory) that conspiracy theories are seemingly always focused on people that the conspiracy theorists didn't like in the first place.

E.G. The Epstein conspiracy theorists on the Right are happy to assume Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates etc. are paedophiles, but won't even entertain the thought that the much-more-likely paedophile Donald Trump was involved.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
E.G. The Epstein conspiracy theorists on the Right are happy to assume Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates etc. are paedophiles, but won't even entertain the thought that the much-more-likely paedophile Donald Trump was involved.
I know, right? It's funny watching MAGA types banging on about Clinton's trips on the Lolita Express, and while there isn't much I'd put past the guy, he hasn't - to my knowledge - been accused of raping a 13-year-old. Unlike a certain incumbent president I could name.
 

Corpsey

call me big papa
Of course, it works both ways – in that a Democrat supporter is less likely to believe any allegations about Clinton, assuming they like him.

I'm aware that I'm pointing out something obvious here - that we want to believe good things about people we like and bad things about people we dislike. But it had never actually occurred to me in connection to conspiracy theories before.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
It seems like the ultimate dividing line between conspiracists and non-conspiracists, in principle, is whether or not you believe unfalsifiability is a fallacy.

Reliance on evidence/verification for such-and-such allegations is thrown out the window (or was never in the room to begin with), seeing as most/all channels for the evidence are likely corrupted, etc.

That is, when the conspiracy in question involves the corruption of the media, most generally, the question of evidence/testimony period is almost necessarily precluded, no?

Granted, ideology plays a determining role in this - but how much of ideology is determined by whether or not you think unfalsifiablity is a fallacy?
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Some sort of reality map. The basic building blocks sun moon stars fixed and volatile sea and earth a I last and vegetable. Dunno why he's posting it.
 
Top