This is just a few loose thoughts that I've gathered in my time on this sub, that I would like to start a sort of meta-conversation about.

1. "The Left-Right divide is meaningless."

   This is true in general in areas of maybe foreign policy (Trump compared to Obama compared to Bush compared to Clinton and so on differ around the edges but have all continued / sustained / started wars in their own ways) and a couple others, but the two parties are not the same. Democrats want gun control, right? Does that mean they're the same as Republicans, or different? Republicans want transgender bathroom laws. Just like Democrats, right? Those are real issues. You can't act like voting for one party over the other doesn't matter when they differ on significant issues. They don't differ enough on every single important issue, but they do on enough of them that it still matters who you vote for.

2. "This sub is being brigaded by /r/Politics / /r/The_Donald."

   Sometimes people disagree with you. Conspiracies aren't committed solely by Democrats or Republicans, and conspiracy theories aren't imagined solely by Democrats or Republicans. "George Bush did 9/11" and "Obama is the antichrist" aren't usually two thoughts held by the exact same group of people.

   When you see something you disagree upvoted to the top of a thread in /r/Conspiracy, it is not proof that the subreddit is being brigaded. I mean, it's proof of "something", but not necessarily "brigade". Sometimes people disagree with you. Sometimes it just happens that there are more Trump supporters here than usual. Sometimes there's fewer. It's not just because it's a coordinated attack. Sometimes Trump does something embarassing and his supporters get off reddit and the majority of people left are left wingers who upvote left wing stuff.

3. "You're clearly a [ correct the record, internet research agency, share blue, russian, koch brothers, soros-funded ] shill."

   There are shills on reddit. But, there are also people that disagree with you. Maybe the person you're arguing with really is a shill, but nothing productive comes from just tossing that accusation around.

   Also, calling somebody who has been arguing with you for several comments in a row a "bot" is borderline stupid. Nobody is writing bots smart enough to have actual conversations. The "bots" are more likely to be the comments that throw out one highly controversial statement and then don't respond to anybody that challenges them (because they're bots, they wouldn't know how).

4. "If you don't believe my conspiracy theory / if you poke holes in my theory, you're not truly part of this community."

   I enjoy conspiracy theories. I like watching documentaries where people talk about stuff like the real meaning behind the pyramids, where Hitler disappeared to after they faked his death, who really shot JFK, etc. I don't believe 99% of the theories I read about those things. In fact, since most of the conspiracy theories about those events contradict each other, you'd have to be literally insane to believe probably any two of them. However, of course I still enjoy reading them. It's like a fun "what if" type thing.

   I also believe in certain, um, "more serious", conspiracy theories. Like ones involving corporations dividing the world up into fiefdoms they can control and extract money from.

   I think the earth is round. I'd still like to read your theory on why it's not. But the second you call me a "shill for round earth" of course I'm going to downvote your comment.

5. "The downvotes prove how right I am."

   I mean, this is just stupid on its face. It's the rallying cry of idiots who've already lost the argument. Now, of course, there are times where the person who is correct is being downvoted. But there's also times where the person who's incorrect is being downvoted. So no, downvotes aren't proof of anything.

6. "If the mainstream media is saying it, obviously the opposite is true."

   Even if you believe the media coordinates its messaging in order to mislead the public, it'd be silly to think literally everything they said is exactly 100% wrong. They would lie by outright lying sometimes, omission of truth other times, selective truth sometimes, and sometimes they'd just tell you the actual truth because the truth fits with what they want you to think anyway. If the mainstream media comes out and says something negative about the politician you like, you can't assume that just because they said it it's automatically not true.

   By the way, you interested in a real conspiracy? The term "mainstream media" is a marketing ploy developed by the conservative media to paint themselves as the "truth telling underdogs" in a world dominated by the "liberal media", while those same conservative media figures constantly talk about how they are the most watched and listened to. Ben Shapiro claims to have the most listened podcast behind Oprah. Fox News claims to be the most watched cable news network. Rush Limbaugh claims to be the most listened to radio talk show host. But at the same time, they all claim to be the underdogs compared to the "liberal media". It's a marketing ploy. It's one media company, telling you not to patronize the other media company. Mar-ket-ing. Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, whoever, these people exist to get you to listen to their shows more, so that you'll listen to the commercials that air during their show, so you'll buy more bullshit, so those companies will pay them more money. That's it. They don't like you. They don't give a shit about your life.

   Dude if Pepsi walked up to you and said, "don't believe the lives of the mainstream soda company (((coke))), we're clearly the superior brand" you'd laugh in their faces. But when your media company you prefer says it, you adopt their corporate advertising logo into your own vocabulary. Gross.