h a l f b a k e r y
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a rich, flaky crust
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Some people will believe anything as long as there's no
proof and the claims are absurd enough.
I want to help these people but usually they're so far
on a particular subject that facts just make them angry.
So I propose planting a conspiracy theory that engages
their little brains
to follow one clue to the next until
reach a conclusion completely opposite their original
presumption, then starting with this new premise they
the clues from this new starting point and it leads back
to the original assumption.
So you tell them "A" planned to blow up building to start
war to get money from party "B" who was in league with
party "C" who is an arch enemy of party "A" who now it
looks like was the person who stood to gain the least
the plot implicating party "C" as the new obvious villian.
So we now assume "C" was behind it in league
with "D" who was a clear ally of (back to) "A" and start
Make each contention, that "A" is guilty and that "C" is
guilty mutually exclusive and incontrovertible, list plenty
of facts that prove both opposite conclusions.
They'll either figure out the concept of not believing
everything you read or sit their for the next few years
going around in circles like trying to find a nut in the
corner of a round room. Either way it would keep them
busy so I wouldn't have to listen to them.
||Only useful for that subset of people who shut up when they're confused, and that subset is not the problem.
||I hope I understand the idea correctly from the title, because
I had no patience to read through the whole thing.
||+ Anything that will help truthers see their fallacy.
||Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
||I thought common core was all a liberal conspiracy.
||Sounds a bit like Reductio ad Absurdam - assume the
opposite of what is true and work your way back to a
||Conspiracy theories generally strike me as distractions
from the consequences of events. If people are engaged
in thinking about things in that way, it gives them a sense
of inside knowledge, thereby conferring a feeling of
superiority, but doesn't involve engaging with the
perceived outcome of the agreed consensus on what
happened. That is, 9/11 was not a conspiracy but it was
convenient, for example.
||[doc], I think you are barking under wrong bridge after the horse
||Conspiracy theorists are absolutely brilliant, and should be
cherished. While they are theorising, they are not competing with
the rest of us in the job market or elsewhere.
||What is more, they can be tapped for money quite easily, for
example by selling them anti-chemtrail shoes or mind-ray-proof