Comment on Ex-White House doctor reveals dead giveaways Joe Biden, 82, is suffering from mental decline
UniversalMonk@sh.itjust.works 1 week agoThe distinction is important: yes, it was a conspiracy in the literal sense—a coordinated effort by individuals or groups to cover something up.
However, it’s not a “conspiracy theory” to talk about it, especially when the events in question are backed by evidence or widely acknowledged as fact.
The term “conspiracy theory” carries a dismissive tone, implying wild, unfounded speculation or paranoia.
But once the information is proven true or widely verified, it transitions out of “theory” territory and becomes a matter of public record or investigative reporting.
Seems like you did a little research and now you’re backtracking. Dude, you were mocking it as a “conspiracy theory,” implying it didn’t actually happen. And you know that. Stop pretending.
Now you’ve realized it was true and not just a “theory.” It’s okay to admit you were wrong or that your tone might have come across differently than you intended.
Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 week ago
I’m not, it is a theory about a conspiracy. That’s a conspiracy theory. It’s okay, and there’s a reason it’s associated with such stigma.
It seems a little ridiculous to me that someone would think the country that considers itself the best would intentionally keep a senile in place of power. So this particular conspiracy theory kinda fits the reputation. And being insistent on it is a bit weird.
But until that is proven, it’s just a theory.
PS. yes I am very bad at figurative speech
UniversalMonk@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Except that we have major news orgs reporting it. Because it happened. Thanks!
Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 week ago
Your country has major news orgs saying your country’s major news orgs are misleading. So do we trust major news orgs, or do we trust them not to always trust them?
www.cnn.com/2020/03/12/media/…/index.html
UniversalMonk@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
So, do you trust major news organizations when they report this story, or do you trust them when they say not to always trust them? You can’t have it both ways.
The reality here is simple: you don’t like Trump. You’re not even in the US, but you saw this article and thought it’d be a fun “gotcha” moment with someone you assumed was a Trump supporter.
But you got it wrong—I’m not a Trump supporter. Now that your assumption didn’t pan out, you’ve shifted the conversation into a philosophical debate about truth, conspiracy theories, or whatever else.
That’s fine, but let’s be honest: I see what you’re doing. Changing the angle doesn’t change the fact that your initial argument was based on a false assumption.
Friend, I’m retired. I can legit just argue back and forth with you all day, every day. And I enjoy it.
So you do what you gotta do. Thanks! :)