I think it would help if this community had a clear standard for the burden of proof (or remove any burden of proof completely).
During pizzagate I argued with a lot of people, but I never advocated the threads be removed. They thought there was something there, I didn't. I said my case, and moved on. I mostly just argued about what constitutes circumstantial evidence anyway but in retrospect it was probably just people using a term that has a specific legal meaning in a lay conversation.
I always thought the standard on this sub was post what you want, back it up the best you can, and, if you can't, others will call you out on it. Self-regulating in a way. You see crazy shit here all the time and it doesn't get removed. I guess the rules don't get followed that often anyway, considering rule ten. Shill gets thrown around all the time.
I understand the need to regulate subs. I think subs like r/askhistorians are better for it. But it was kind of weird to see a sub that loves calling other subs out for removing posts that get attention do the same.
Literally the day after Trump won I said it would be interesting to see what happens with the sub and so far I think I've been right. At least if nothing else it's making some good subredditdrama material.
I'd love to know the real reasoning behind the censoring of something that was all over the news. There are sections in that 35 page document that are DIRECTLY related to things we encounter here (and may be tied to the founding of t_d), which makes the censorship all the more fascinating.
I'll argue with Moon-landing-deniers or Flat Earthers, or Nuke deniers or whatever all day long, but when people start banning them from contributing is when I'd stand with them and say no.
The point of a conspiracy sub is to talk about conspiracies, regardless of how little information or verifiable factual evidence is actually behind it (Cough Pizzagate Cough.) It's up the the reader to weigh up the arguments provided and judge themselves.
True, but I don't think the point of this sub is to be flooded with the same completely unsubstantiated theory, and it's even worse when it's a blatantly partisan political theory that is greatly pro (the very soon) head of the federal government.
Seems like theories questioning leadership should be given more time than theories pushed at the behest of leadership.
Totally agree. I'm a bit of a Trump fan but he's got big issues himself. If I read a conspiracy about him that seemed somewhat plausible, given the extreme prejudice against him and utterly excessive coverage elsewhere, I'd still take a look and give it some thought. That said, if /r/conspiracy just regurgitates the anti-trump narrative on buzzfeed or Huffpost or Washington Post then it isn't useful either. My personal belief if is that conspiracy more likely resides within the State (CIA, NSA, security councils) as that is they are paid to be experts in, rather than with the tone-deaf, real-estate selling, reality TV star. I think you see a similar bias in many other readers/posters which is why it feels like it has Donald slant. When the MSM and establishment tone down the attacks and it's not interesting anymore this place will go back to what it was.
It's all about where people's energy and excitement is these days. One can just scroll down.
Agree with you. Not a big Trump fan but I'd like to give him enough of a chance to get in office and do what he feels compelled to do to drain the swamp. Isn't that what we typically do, judge the first 100 days in office?
Everyone, talk yourself off the edge, and surely don't go out on one because Buzzfeed (lol this is a joke like the Onion), CNN, whomever the highest paying org is paying tells you to get on that ledge and flail frenetically.
Relax. Love one another, hope for best with positivity, be vigilant for the worst.
Well, buzzfeed killed their story on the urine thing. But mods don't tag things that are hoaxes that have credible or even plausible possibility, do they? If so, I have not seen it.
Buzzfeed was the source and they dismissed it. So the source of the fake story admitted it is fake. No conspiracy here other than why Buzzfeed started it. Might it just be a joke, like something the onion would pull?
i didn't vote for her. i'm not a liberal. let's get that out of the way. Also, just because I don't devote my life to reddit, doesn't mean I can't contribute once in awhile
fair enough....i've only recently started contributing rather than being a lurker with a username, so I see where you are coming from. I really don't support shillary though...I just try to read the writing on the wall. not saying she shouldn't be prosecuted, just that it seems that's taken a back seat to the other recent controversies. I'm a left leaning conservative who doesn't fully agree with Trumps policies, but am hopeful he can restore some order
Sorry to seem harsh dude.Just being on guard after this weeks shilling.
My reading of the situation is that Trump is playing possum until he gets in the White House.His statement on not prosecuting hitlery used weasel words as to not rule it out but divert attention away from it.
i dont necessarily see this sub "turning into T_D 2.0"
what i do see is people here that have been brigaded, harassed, threatened and made silent by people bought and paid for by the DNC, and that what you may perceive as pro-trump is the natural backlash to being manipulated by paid democrat shills.
being exposed to what happened in r/politics turned many, many bernie voters into raving trump "pedes".
hillary and people she surrounded herself with should be sent to jail.
being exposed to what happened in r/politics turned many, many bernie voters into raving trump "pedes".
If rude people on reddit can make you go from supporting a lifelong socialist liberal, to supporting an authoritarian populist conservative, you shouldn't even be allowed to vote, because that is literally retarded.
I've said it before, but there honestly needs to be an IQ threshold for voting. Some of the people you see voting on massively important decisions, and their reasoning for their choice, just make you want to introduce their face to a brisk.
Socialist liberal is an oxymoron in some circles. Socialists generally refer to most capitalists as liberals. Just saying, it confused me for a second.
Agreed. Conspiracy communities are for some reason Pro-Trump. Some communities are also anti-abortion. (Which is hypocritical because they always scream "THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS". But excuse me, women have the right to do what they want with their bodies!)
It's something I don't like and something that gives the community as a whole a bad name.
I think it's because by-and-large conspiracy communities tend to both distrust government powers, and lean conservative as such because they want to lessen said government's power due to distrust.
If you click the controversial tab then this sub is pretty great. I had stopped browsing after all the trump circle jerking and pizzagate BS, but now that I've found the controversial tab I' back to browsing.
I understand why Trump supporters are here, but I really can't wait until everything dies down so that all the MAGA posts and the anti-trump circle jerk goes away.
I'd love to know the real reasoning behind the censoring of something that was all over the news. There are sections in that 35 page document that are DIRECTLY related to things we encounter here (and may be tied to the founding of t_d), which makes the censorship all the more fascinating.
i didn't vote for her. i'm not a liberal. let's get that out of the way. Also, just because I don't devote my life to reddit, doesn't mean I can't contribute once in awhile
I'll argue with Moon-landing-deniers or Flat Earthers, or Nuke deniers or whatever all day long, but when people start banning them from contributing is when I'd stand with them and say no.
The point of a conspiracy sub is to talk about conspiracies, regardless of how little information or verifiable factual evidence is actually behind it (Cough Pizzagate Cough.) It's up the the reader to weigh up the arguments provided and judge themselves.
61 comments
n/a IM_NOT_CIA_PROMISE 2017-01-12
Which oddly enough, requires a conspiracy.
n/a LurkMcGurck 2017-01-12
don't look in the community info for subreddits related. That's forbidden.
n/a LurkMcGurck 2017-01-12
KingHodor I'm assuming a game of thrones reference. Mmm memory tastes good
n/a rkk2 2017-01-12
I think it would help if this community had a clear standard for the burden of proof (or remove any burden of proof completely).
During pizzagate I argued with a lot of people, but I never advocated the threads be removed. They thought there was something there, I didn't. I said my case, and moved on. I mostly just argued about what constitutes circumstantial evidence anyway but in retrospect it was probably just people using a term that has a specific legal meaning in a lay conversation.
I always thought the standard on this sub was post what you want, back it up the best you can, and, if you can't, others will call you out on it. Self-regulating in a way. You see crazy shit here all the time and it doesn't get removed. I guess the rules don't get followed that often anyway, considering rule ten. Shill gets thrown around all the time.
I understand the need to regulate subs. I think subs like r/askhistorians are better for it. But it was kind of weird to see a sub that loves calling other subs out for removing posts that get attention do the same.
Literally the day after Trump won I said it would be interesting to see what happens with the sub and so far I think I've been right. At least if nothing else it's making some good subredditdrama material.
n/a dejeneration 2017-01-12
I'd love to know the real reasoning behind the censoring of something that was all over the news. There are sections in that 35 page document that are DIRECTLY related to things we encounter here (and may be tied to the founding of t_d), which makes the censorship all the more fascinating.
n/a dejeneration 2017-01-12
Also, to help out with what I was alluding to there - pages 5 and 6 of the dossier are worth reading.
n/a Cptcutter81 2017-01-12
I'll argue with Moon-landing-deniers or Flat Earthers, or Nuke deniers or whatever all day long, but when people start banning them from contributing is when I'd stand with them and say no.
The point of a conspiracy sub is to talk about conspiracies, regardless of how little information or verifiable factual evidence is actually behind it (Cough Pizzagate Cough.) It's up the the reader to weigh up the arguments provided and judge themselves.
n/a heelspider 2017-01-12
True, but I don't think the point of this sub is to be flooded with the same completely unsubstantiated theory, and it's even worse when it's a blatantly partisan political theory that is greatly pro (the very soon) head of the federal government.
Seems like theories questioning leadership should be given more time than theories pushed at the behest of leadership.
n/a TheMadQuixotician 2017-01-12
Cheeto Benito!
Take my upvote you brilliant wordsmith.
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-12
I don't get these posts. If you don't like that this sub doesn't have a lot of conspiracies against Donald, you can find some. Or post ones you find.
n/a bleepul 2017-01-12
Totally agree. I'm a bit of a Trump fan but he's got big issues himself. If I read a conspiracy about him that seemed somewhat plausible, given the extreme prejudice against him and utterly excessive coverage elsewhere, I'd still take a look and give it some thought. That said, if /r/conspiracy just regurgitates the anti-trump narrative on buzzfeed or Huffpost or Washington Post then it isn't useful either. My personal belief if is that conspiracy more likely resides within the State (CIA, NSA, security councils) as that is they are paid to be experts in, rather than with the tone-deaf, real-estate selling, reality TV star. I think you see a similar bias in many other readers/posters which is why it feels like it has Donald slant. When the MSM and establishment tone down the attacks and it's not interesting anymore this place will go back to what it was.
It's all about where people's energy and excitement is these days. One can just scroll down.
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-12
Agree with you. Not a big Trump fan but I'd like to give him enough of a chance to get in office and do what he feels compelled to do to drain the swamp. Isn't that what we typically do, judge the first 100 days in office?
Everyone, talk yourself off the edge, and surely don't go out on one because Buzzfeed (lol this is a joke like the Onion), CNN, whomever the highest paying org is paying tells you to get on that ledge and flail frenetically.
Relax. Love one another, hope for best with positivity, be vigilant for the worst.
n/a Cptcutter81 2017-01-12
I mean, we people still even holding out hope for this? Just look at his picks, the only place the swamp is draining is directly into his cabinet.
n/a krom_bom 2017-01-12
What's the point? The mods will just tag it as a "hoax" and then delete it. Just like with the "pissgate" posts.
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-12
Well, buzzfeed killed their story on the urine thing. But mods don't tag things that are hoaxes that have credible or even plausible possibility, do they? If so, I have not seen it.
n/a krom_bom 2017-01-12
Literally the only post I've ever seen, in several years of visiting this sub, to get tagged as a hoax.
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-12
Bad timing on your part. Buzzfeed disowned it, and people were still posting it as real. Had to tag it to deal.
n/a purpleReign2 2017-01-12
But it's not been dismissed as fake, so until you can quote where it has been from a reputable source, this is a conspiracy.
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-12
Buzzfeed was the source and they dismissed it. So the source of the fake story admitted it is fake. No conspiracy here other than why Buzzfeed started it. Might it just be a joke, like something the onion would pull?
Sorry shillbot. Keep trying though!
n/a purpleReign2 2017-01-12
You have a link from a credible agency saying it's fake? If not, you have 0 credibility. That's how this works.
On the other hand, I have this;
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-12
Ok.
n/a purpleReign2 2017-01-12
Good work. Glad you outted yourself.
n/a jschuch 2017-01-12
I don't think that is what op was speaking on. I think the gist of it was can we look at non political conspiracy theories.
n/a thebabyseagull 2017-01-12
Hillary is going to jail.
n/a Notorioussea 2017-01-12
Haha, no she's not. Even if a court case was made against her, she would be found not guilty by the corrupt justice system.
Trump is allied with Hillary, but the paid Trump and Democrat shills can't see that.
n/a 6Speedy 2017-01-12
no she's not. no jury would find her guilty and trump already stated that he's not going to follow up on his promise to charge her
n/a thebabyseagull 2017-01-12
Yes she is.
n/a 6Speedy 2017-01-12
come back in a few years to this post and let me know how that played out for ya
n/a thebabyseagull 2017-01-12
Like your account will be around in a few years.Kek.
26 karma , 1 year old, 20 odd posts.
Sorry if I'm suspicious.
Maybe you just lurk and the thought that your beloved high witch angered you engouth to bring you out of the shadows to " correct the record ".
Hmmmm
n/a 6Speedy 2017-01-12
i didn't vote for her. i'm not a liberal. let's get that out of the way. Also, just because I don't devote my life to reddit, doesn't mean I can't contribute once in awhile
n/a thebabyseagull 2017-01-12
We have had a massive number of shills here in the last few days.
A suspicious account supporting hitlery on a conspiracy forum is bound to questioned.
n/a 6Speedy 2017-01-12
fair enough....i've only recently started contributing rather than being a lurker with a username, so I see where you are coming from. I really don't support shillary though...I just try to read the writing on the wall. not saying she shouldn't be prosecuted, just that it seems that's taken a back seat to the other recent controversies. I'm a left leaning conservative who doesn't fully agree with Trumps policies, but am hopeful he can restore some order
n/a thebabyseagull 2017-01-12
Sorry to seem harsh dude.Just being on guard after this weeks shilling.
My reading of the situation is that Trump is playing possum until he gets in the White House.His statement on not prosecuting hitlery used weasel words as to not rule it out but divert attention away from it.
Again sorry if I was unduly harsh.
n/a 6Speedy 2017-01-12
No worries man I totally get it.
And that's actually a good point. He could totally come back at her in the future. Tbh nothing would surprise me these days haha
n/a krom_bom 2017-01-12
Don't hold your breath, kiddo.
Or do, I don't really care.
n/a sweetholymosiah 2017-01-12
think of it as an opportunity to open some minds
Also, I think the best conspiracies are about powerful people, not fictional entities.
n/a 1727301 2017-01-12
i dont necessarily see this sub "turning into T_D 2.0"
what i do see is people here that have been brigaded, harassed, threatened and made silent by people bought and paid for by the DNC, and that what you may perceive as pro-trump is the natural backlash to being manipulated by paid democrat shills.
being exposed to what happened in r/politics turned many, many bernie voters into raving trump "pedes".
hillary and people she surrounded herself with should be sent to jail.
n/a lightning_hophead 2017-01-12
And what you may perceive as anti-trump is the natural backlash to being manipulated by paid Trump shills.
n/a krom_bom 2017-01-12
If rude people on reddit can make you go from supporting a lifelong socialist liberal, to supporting an authoritarian populist conservative, you shouldn't even be allowed to vote, because that is literally retarded.
Harsh, maybe, but it needs to be said.
n/a Cptcutter81 2017-01-12
I've said it before, but there honestly needs to be an IQ threshold for voting. Some of the people you see voting on massively important decisions, and their reasoning for their choice, just make you want to introduce their face to a brisk.
n/a Gr8_M8_ 2017-01-12
Socialist liberal is an oxymoron in some circles. Socialists generally refer to most capitalists as liberals. Just saying, it confused me for a second.
n/a dontkillmehillary 2017-01-12
Welcome to todays "this sub is The_Donald" lite.
Please expect another post like this later today.
Tomorrows posts will begin between noon and 3pm, or roughly after California wakes up.
n/a The_Hinterland 2017-01-12
Just angry lefties who can't get over the fact that the gubmint won't take care of them anymore. Fuck leftists, kill them all.
n/a JamesColesPardon 2017-01-12
Removed.
n/a 6Speedy 2017-01-12
yes because every democrat lives in california. every. single. one
n/a tultham1 2017-01-12
No one cares if you think it sucks, go away
n/a greenufo13 2017-01-12
Agreed. Conspiracy communities are for some reason Pro-Trump. Some communities are also anti-abortion. (Which is hypocritical because they always scream "THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS". But excuse me, women have the right to do what they want with their bodies!)
It's something I don't like and something that gives the community as a whole a bad name.
n/a Cptcutter81 2017-01-12
I think it's because by-and-large conspiracy communities tend to both distrust government powers, and lean conservative as such because they want to lessen said government's power due to distrust.
n/a greenufo13 2017-01-12
True. But trusting a conman to run the highest office of the United States?
n/a seanr9ne 2017-01-12
Sorry you're butthurt
n/a EKB_ 2017-01-12
If you click the controversial tab then this sub is pretty great. I had stopped browsing after all the trump circle jerking and pizzagate BS, but now that I've found the controversial tab I' back to browsing.
n/a Dawgle 2017-01-12
Same here.
Not gonna lie. I feel like its a conspiracy within r/conspiracy. Check the post history of the accounts here in r/conspiracy.
n/a rkk2 2017-01-12
Conspiracy within a conspiracy? You mean like a RUSSIAN nest doll? Definitely worth looking into.
n/a dejeneration 2017-01-12
Woah, thank you for this. I'd pretty much given up on this sub (historically a new queue dork), but this actually helps a lot.
n/a FORKinmyDICK 2017-01-12
The daily bitch about the donald post
n/a southtexasmama 2017-01-12
Lots of Russian bots here.
n/a mcinla 2017-01-12
Agreed.
The only posts that even remotely involve conspiracy can only be found on the controversial tab.
Which is where I found this post.
n/a SavageCentipede 2017-01-12
LOL Go to another sub. No one will miss you.
n/a Git_Off_Me_Lawn 2017-01-12
I understand why Trump supporters are here, but I really can't wait until everything dies down so that all the MAGA posts and the anti-trump circle jerk goes away.
n/a NATO_SHILL 2017-01-12
Quit concern trolling and post the shit you want to see instead of crying like a little girl.
n/a Sheepshagger_NZ 2017-01-12
No there are still plenty of leftycucks around, just join them on r/politics
n/a zeropoint357 2017-01-12
Google: "Concern troll"
n/a mikelp1973 2017-01-12
I agree with you I'm sick of the damned politics.
n/a dejeneration 2017-01-12
I'd love to know the real reasoning behind the censoring of something that was all over the news. There are sections in that 35 page document that are DIRECTLY related to things we encounter here (and may be tied to the founding of t_d), which makes the censorship all the more fascinating.
n/a 6Speedy 2017-01-12
i didn't vote for her. i'm not a liberal. let's get that out of the way. Also, just because I don't devote my life to reddit, doesn't mean I can't contribute once in awhile
n/a purpleReign2 2017-01-12
But it's not been dismissed as fake, so until you can quote where it has been from a reputable source, this is a conspiracy.
n/a Cptcutter81 2017-01-12
I'll argue with Moon-landing-deniers or Flat Earthers, or Nuke deniers or whatever all day long, but when people start banning them from contributing is when I'd stand with them and say no.
The point of a conspiracy sub is to talk about conspiracies, regardless of how little information or verifiable factual evidence is actually behind it (Cough Pizzagate Cough.) It's up the the reader to weigh up the arguments provided and judge themselves.