"are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?"
Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff. Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet.
However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.
Much as I'm skeptical of many conspiracy 'types', I think dismissing them in such a facile manner is just stupid, especially if it's true that 'a sizeable proportion of the readership believe it'. If the latter is true, at least it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'.
"it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'"
That's not how the world works. If someone says "I think the government did 9/11", then it doesn't matter how many people agree with him. His opinion is still idiotic.
Similarly I do not have to respect anti-vaxers or Scientologists, just because there are many of them.
So you're saying no matter who says it in whatever demographic, you've made up your mind about this issue and that's that? If so, I pity your closed-mindedness, and I think we can't have a productive conversation.
(to be clear, I'm highly skeptical of overt conspiracies in general. But if a significant portion of my peers (HN readers) believe a thing, at the very least I try to seriously consider their point of view. Because I'm not infallible. Apparently you are?)
Comments
"are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?"
Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff. Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet.
However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.
For the vast majority of internet users, this is true.
Clarification: Maybe not actually read as most people understand the term, but collect, store, and analyze.
Much as I'm skeptical of many conspiracy 'types', I think dismissing them in such a facile manner is just stupid, especially if it's true that 'a sizeable proportion of the readership believe it'. If the latter is true, at least it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'.
"it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'"
That's not how the world works. If someone says "I think the government did 9/11", then it doesn't matter how many people agree with him. His opinion is still idiotic.
Similarly I do not have to respect anti-vaxers or Scientologists, just because there are many of them.
So you're saying no matter who says it in whatever demographic, you've made up your mind about this issue and that's that? If so, I pity your closed-mindedness, and I think we can't have a productive conversation.
(to be clear, I'm highly skeptical of overt conspiracies in general. But if a significant portion of my peers (HN readers) believe a thing, at the very least I try to seriously consider their point of view. Because I'm not infallible. Apparently you are?)
"I pity your closed-mindedness"
This is the main fallacy of the conspiracy theorist, that those who reject the absurd conspiracy have closed minds.
For more on this, see here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/answering-consp...