Its been pushed into them from every angle thanks to great efforts by the CIA to push people away from believing their own eyes on the Kennedy assassinations. The best, most expensive brainwashing money can buy.
But beautifully the tides are turning. The majority believe the truth. It only took a decade of the powers that be fucking up consistently.
Aren't you the same kid who posts to conspiratard and was trying to give out medical advice regarding vaccines, even though you aren't even going to school for medicine?
Haha, wow you actually went all through my account history for one post that is not related to /r/conspiracy in any way? I mean, I'm all for dedication but that's a little sad don't you think?
And also, you make out like I always post to conspiritard as if it nullifies my opinion. I also post a lot on Reddit, this must have taken a long time to find.
Fellow conspiratard comes to save his fallen bretheren, writes a bunch of nonsense to attack the messenger.
Edit: You forgot to include the sentence beforehand,
You lied. I caught you in a lie.
Your cohort lied. I'm surprised you framed your retort as an attack on me. It would make you a true brother to your fellow conspiratard. Which one of you gives the reach around?
The real reason to why I "attacked" you is that there's zero value to anything you add to the conversation
I added the fact that your fellow conspiratard lies. We wouldn't be talking if I hadn't pointed that fact out.
I actually caught the conspiratard red-handed (the proof you and your ilk always demand is staring you in the face). I'm sorry you need to attack the messenger. Maybe you can attack your fellow conspiratard for tarnishing the conspiratard name.
A user's credibility is of no value? That is a popular idea on conspiratard.
you're being way too dramatic and serious about this
You started the conversation. The conversation must be somewhat serious for you to keep messaging me about it. If it weren't serious, why are you still talking to me about it?
Edit: What is the value in proving your ilk demands proof? That's a rhetorical question, carry on.
I'm assuming then that you're unable to provide any proof for your claim. Know what that means? You lied. I caught you in a lie. I caught you red-handed. Sorry for stealing your catchphrase, but it seems fitting since I beat you at your own game.
Playing "I-win" with a child always ends up like this.
Ad hominem and strawman. Attack followed by argument created by you solely. Nobody said you were here to do that, only that you lied and that you were wrong.
Maybe you misunderstood. I said that I happen to agree with that Conspiratard's statement.
They said:
you caught me I'm here specifically to create a huge illusion just to get you to wrongly believe something.
Don't you agree? That user is here to create an illusion (disinformation) and to get people to wrongly believe something. Just because the statement was said in a facetious manner, that doesn't invalidate it.
I didn't understand but as well, taking this stand makes us look paranoid.
Conspiratard was made for the sole purpose of attacking people with different view points. Right, wrong, crazy or sane as our points or views, these people are always in the wrong, regardless. They add no value to anything.
Strengthening our arguments, and throwing out our weaknesses will completely undermine their childish presentation that they call a counter-argument.
So I see what you're saying, yet still feel it is wrong, although I am not above having made the same mistake. Regardless of whether he is or isn't, we can never prove it to be true, and must stick to discussing the things other people refuse to discuss, while not attributing to the cliche of that of someone who researches conspiracy related material.
to help circumvent your linguistic tap dancing routine with the other truth seeker. Here's the full quote from the conspiratard which you agreed with:
Alright, Snowden, you caught me I'm here specifically to create a huge illusion just to get you to wrongly believe something.
You misrepresented a conspiratard to fuck with two truth seekers.
Please explain why you left out "Alright, Snowden" in your defense of a known conspiratard? You haven't explained it to anyone yet. Let's see if you have it in you to man up and not run away with a child's excuse.
You believe that, I do not. I quoted specifically what was relevant to my point and the point was made. Now whether you accept my intentions or not is not my concern.
Your intentions are to misrepresent what a person says in order to prove a point for a conspiratard. That's the issue. You might as well be a conspiratard. You do a poor job trying to fit in.
Alright, Snowden, you caught me I'm here specifically to create a huge illusion just to get you to wrongly believe something. Jesus, you need a life.
You decided to leave the bold part out of your retort. The cut/paste hack job you did proves you are a liar. I don't care what you say. You're /u/myconspiracyname, so I know how to school you any day.
Ad hominem. Attack after being caught lying to diminish commentator character to draw light away from your character flaws. Oldest trick in the book, literally.
Until then Lizard People believers are the perfect stricken argument for discrediting conspiracy theorists. Lizard People believers are often the most brought up while the least common. Interesting how that is.
I still disagree there is anything more than a few select believers. And I have yet to find one.
I honestly think that the fact that people deride /r/conspiracy as a loony bin makes it easier to keep the idiots away.
Swallow your pride and accept that some people are going to find it weird and dislike that you don't take what is presented to you as the "official story" for granted.
79 comments
10 eooxx 2014-02-17
"This guy is from /r/conspiracy"
"This isn't /r/conspiracy"
"Go back to /r/conspiracy"
Every reference i've seen to /r/conspiracy from other subs has never been a favorable one
1 SovereignMan 2014-02-17
That's just a reflection of the intolerance of people in the types of subs you frequent.
1 Entry_Point 2014-02-17
Its been pushed into them from every angle thanks to great efforts by the CIA to push people away from believing their own eyes on the Kennedy assassinations. The best, most expensive brainwashing money can buy.
But beautifully the tides are turning. The majority believe the truth. It only took a decade of the powers that be fucking up consistently.
9 totes_meta_bot 2014-02-17
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!
6 craigdevlin 2014-02-17
No, what makes /r/conspiracy look bad is the people who think everything from Sandy Hook to a minor celebrity's death is a conspiracy.
17 Scoled321 2014-02-17
I've never understood why people assume discussion = belief. People can entertain ideas without believing them.
5 Guano- 2014-02-17
Give them this quote:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
4 reinhardgehlen 2014-02-17
Aren't you the same kid who posts to conspiratard and was trying to give out medical advice regarding vaccines, even though you aren't even going to school for medicine?
2 AZSnakePit 2014-02-17
As opposed, say, to the medical degree owned by Jenny McCarthy. Oh, wait: never mind...
2 lumpnoodler 2014-02-17
Strawman argument, statement never made. Made up your own argument then attacked it.
0 AZSnakePit 2014-02-17
What part of that does not apply to Jenny McCarthy?
1 lumpnoodler 2014-02-17
That sentence was referring to YOUR unqualified presence in the matter, not that of some random celebrity.
-1 AZSnakePit 2014-02-17
1) You might want to check to who he was responding, because it certainly wasn't me.
2) He might have had a point, if only anti-vaccine proponents don't use a Playboy model as their leading spokesperson.
1 lumpnoodler 2014-02-17
Yes, child but you said you agree, welcome to that side of the argument.
That point is moot. That is PURELY speculation on your behalf.
0 AZSnakePit 2014-02-17
Guess that's as close as I'll get to you admitting you were wrong.
0 craigdevlin 2014-02-17
1) I don't post on conspiritard.
2) Saying I believe doctors over Jenny McCarthy isn't giving you medical advice, it's common sense.
10 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
What other lies are you peddling?
-8 craigdevlin 2014-02-17
Haha, wow you actually went all through my account history for one post that is not related to /r/conspiracy in any way? I mean, I'm all for dedication but that's a little sad don't you think?
And also, you make out like I always post to conspiritard as if it nullifies my opinion. I also post a lot on Reddit, this must have taken a long time to find.
8 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
You lied about your account history. I didn't force you to lie.
Your perception isn't in line with the reality. You lied. I caught you in a lie. Now you're twisting and turning. It's fun to watch.
-1 [deleted] 2014-02-17
[deleted]
6 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Fellow conspiratard comes to save his fallen bretheren, writes a bunch of nonsense to attack the messenger.
Edit: You forgot to include the sentence beforehand,
Your cohort lied. I'm surprised you framed your retort as an attack on me. It would make you a true brother to your fellow conspiratard. Which one of you gives the reach around?
0 [deleted] 2014-02-17
[deleted]
5 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
I added the fact that your fellow conspiratard lies. We wouldn't be talking if I hadn't pointed that fact out.
I actually caught the conspiratard red-handed (the proof you and your ilk always demand is staring you in the face). I'm sorry you need to attack the messenger. Maybe you can attack your fellow conspiratard for tarnishing the conspiratard name.
0 [deleted] 2014-02-17
[deleted]
4 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
A user's credibility is of no value? That is a popular idea on conspiratard.
You started the conversation. The conversation must be somewhat serious for you to keep messaging me about it. If it weren't serious, why are you still talking to me about it?
Edit: What is the value in proving your ilk demands proof? That's a rhetorical question, carry on.
0 [deleted] 2014-02-17
[deleted]
3 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
but two comments ago...
The irony is palpable.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-17
[deleted]
3 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Dr. Conspiratard has a nice ring, doesn't it?
0 C_Hitchens_Ghost 2014-02-17
Playing "I-win" with a child always ends up like this.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-17
[deleted]
0 C_Hitchens_Ghost 2014-02-17
ln /home /usr/local/root
ln / /home
but I'm lazy.
-7 craigdevlin 2014-02-17
Alright, Snowden, you caught me I'm here specifically to create a huge illusion just to get you to wrongly believe something. Jesus, you need a life.
10 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
says the conspiratard troll who got caught lying and now is pouting about it.
1 reinhardgehlen 2014-02-17
He's going to be famous!
Scumbag CraigDevlin
-4 craigdevlin 2014-02-17
Man, you're just obsessing over my profile huh?
5 lumpnoodler 2014-02-17
Ad hominem and strawman. Attack followed by argument created by you solely. Nobody said you were here to do that, only that you lied and that you were wrong.
-4 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Though I can't help but agree with their facetiously made comment.
3 lumpnoodler 2014-02-17
Well that makes an idiot, too. Congratulations.
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Maybe you misunderstood. I said that I happen to agree with that Conspiratard's statement.
They said:
Don't you agree? That user is here to create an illusion (disinformation) and to get people to wrongly believe something. Just because the statement was said in a facetious manner, that doesn't invalidate it.
1 lumpnoodler 2014-02-17
I didn't understand but as well, taking this stand makes us look paranoid.
Conspiratard was made for the sole purpose of attacking people with different view points. Right, wrong, crazy or sane as our points or views, these people are always in the wrong, regardless. They add no value to anything.
Strengthening our arguments, and throwing out our weaknesses will completely undermine their childish presentation that they call a counter-argument.
So I see what you're saying, yet still feel it is wrong, although I am not above having made the same mistake. Regardless of whether he is or isn't, we can never prove it to be true, and must stick to discussing the things other people refuse to discuss, while not attributing to the cliche of that of someone who researches conspiracy related material.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
I have a question for you; do you frequent /r/conspiratard?
2 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Yes. I try to understand my opposition's though process and that requires "studying" them.
Why?
0 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
When your opposition lies, is your first inclination to back the ad hominem and strawman of your opposition?
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Ah. You seem to have misunderstood and are confused. Read the comment I made to the other user about this.
0 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
You left out
to help circumvent your linguistic tap dancing routine with the other truth seeker. Here's the full quote from the conspiratard which you agreed with:
You misrepresented a conspiratard to fuck with two truth seekers.
Edit words
2 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Ah. Yep. You have indeed misunderstood the intentions of my comment.
0 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Thanks for the clarification.
That's 2 times in a row you said I've "misunderstood" without clarifying your remarks.
Fact is you're a bullshit artist who's getting called out. Please don't misunderstand.
2 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
I did indeed clarify my remarks in the comment I alluded to. Your comprehension failure is in no way my problem.
0 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Please explain why you left out "Alright, Snowden" in your defense of a known conspiratard? You haven't explained it to anyone yet. Let's see if you have it in you to man up and not run away with a child's excuse.
2 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Because it's irrelevant to the point I made.
0 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Indeed.
The point you tried to make was deliberately taken out of context. The context is an insult you chose to ignore to fuck with a fellow truth seeker.
Edit words
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Interesting observation of what you believe my intentions were.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Interesting that you haven't explained your intention of leaving the first part of the quote out of your retort...
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Because it's irrelevant to the point I made.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
The point you made is invalidated by the part you left out.
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
You believe that, I do not. I quoted specifically what was relevant to my point and the point was made. Now whether you accept my intentions or not is not my concern.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Your intentions are to misrepresent what a person says in order to prove a point for a conspiratard. That's the issue. You might as well be a conspiratard. You do a poor job trying to fit in.
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
No that's what you believe my intentions are.
I'm not trying to fit in.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
I too just saw the Cure and they are fucking amazing.
You misrepresented a conspiratard to fuck with two truth seekers.
0 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
?
Nope. That is in fact not what I did. That's what you think I did. Sorry!
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Then why did you leave out the "Snowden" insult at the beginning of the quote?
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Because it was irrelevant to the point in which I made.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Insults aren't irrelevant when you decide to take sides /u/myconspiracyname.
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Still not sure who that is.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
Your belief isn't necessary to show you're dishonest.
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
I have yet to be dishonest. You have yet to show dishonesty because there is none. Being truthful gives me nothing to worry about.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-17
You decided to leave the bold part out of your retort. The cut/paste hack job you did proves you are a liar. I don't care what you say. You're /u/myconspiracyname, so I know how to school you any day.
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
That's not proof of being a liar since I did not lie and I do not know who that is.
1 lumpnoodler 2014-02-17
Ad hominem. Attack after being caught lying to diminish commentator character to draw light away from your character flaws. Oldest trick in the book, literally.
2 AssuredlyAThrowAway 2014-02-17
Open discussion makes this sub look bad?
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Why is this comment at the top? I'm confident that the general consensus of legitimate /r/conspiracy users believe Sandy Hook is fishy.
Is the comment being upvoted for the celebrity death part? Seems conspiratardish.
0 Mrg13 2014-02-17
Do not forget the lizard people!
1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
I have yet to meet a /r/conspiracy user who believes in Lizard people. Have you?
-1 Mrg13 2014-02-17
I can not say that I have...Granted I have seen some articles posted that relate to them. (the beiber thing being the most recent)
But please tell me you understood that we were joking/being sarcastic above right....
-1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
I don't circlejerk here. Sorry.
-2 Mrg13 2014-02-17
Well still does not stop the fact that people really do believe in the lizard theory here.
And if they so choose to then let them, also you seem to be lacking a sense of humor.
-1 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Where are these people you speak of?
-2 Mrg13 2014-02-17
They are around somewhere.
0 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
Sureeeee.
Until then Lizard People believers are the perfect stricken argument for discrediting conspiracy theorists. Lizard People believers are often the most brought up while the least common. Interesting how that is.
I still disagree there is anything more than a few select believers. And I have yet to find one.
4 genesissequence 2014-02-17
Oh No! If I wear red shoelaces to school today the cool kids will laugh at me!
4 Ocolus_the_bot 2014-02-17
Upvote and Downvote counts to show that votes come in after a cross-post and are probably uncoordinated
Apparently we are not the only Illuminati subreddit designed to bring down /r/conspiracy.
Upvotes: 13 | Downvotes: 6 | Timestamp of this thread.
Upvotes: 1 | Downvotes: 0 | Timestamp of /r/conspiratard
We have been mentioned 317 times by our fans since I started counting.
Only the most hateful, ignorant and hypocritical things, /r/conspiratard: From an honest perspective!
If this was an error, send me a message
2 HatesRedditors 2014-02-17
These posts never made it past the new queue on a tiny subreddit. And only one of them mentions /r/conspiracy.
1 Ocolus_the_bot 2014-02-17
Upvote and Downvote counts to show that votes come in after a cross-post and are probably uncoordinated
Apparently we are not the only Illuminati subreddit designed to bring down /r/conspiracy.
Upvotes: 13 | Downvotes: 6 | Timestamp of this thread.
Upvotes: 1 | Downvotes: 0 | Timestamp of /r/conspiratard
We have been mentioned 317 times by our fans since I started counting.
Only the most hateful, ignorant and hypocritical things, /r/conspiratard: From an honest perspective!
If this was an error, send me a message
1 Shittymobileacct 2014-02-17
I honestly think that the fact that people deride /r/conspiracy as a loony bin makes it easier to keep the idiots away. Swallow your pride and accept that some people are going to find it weird and dislike that you don't take what is presented to you as the "official story" for granted.
-1 AZSnakePit 2014-02-17
1) You might want to check to who he was responding, because it certainly wasn't me.
2) He might have had a point, if only anti-vaccine proponents don't use a Playboy model as their leading spokesperson.
2 oblivioustoobvious 2014-02-17
I did indeed clarify my remarks in the comment I alluded to. Your comprehension failure is in no way my problem.