Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Republicans

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Smitty's new / old conspiracy of the week! 24

Journal by damn_registrars
Yeah, it's the old "January 6th was an inside job because ... because ... because ... I don't like your team!".

He's played this card before, of course. I just don't know that I mentioned in specifically. This time after smitty started with a classic bit of his trolling, he eventually found himself needing to bring up his conspiracy on January 6th .

While this is in no way a new conspiracy, I will give it credit that it returns to the old form of being an un-disprovable one. Every possible counter just leads to another "whatabout" type response. Even if every person on all the films (ignoring of course the hundreds if not thousands of hours of tape that have been "lost" by Speaker Johnson) were identified by name and handled accordingly, there would still be allegations of shadows, shadow organizations, photoshop, and the like.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smitty's new / old conspiracy of the week! More

Smitty's new / old conspiracy of the week!

Comments Filter:
    • You have acknowledged that there is zero factual support for your Jan06 conspiracy. You have made excuses for why that doesn't matter. On top of that the way your conspiracy is crafted there is no way to ever prove it to be untrue, which makes it just as great of a conspiracy for you as so many others about President Lawnchair and those who were in his orbit when he was in the White House.
      • How many times must I declare you the universal winner?
        • You keep presenting conspiracies that have no factual support, and then telling me that I'm the crazy person for doubting them. Some of them eventually fade from popularity, but all have the shared characteristic of being un-disproveable.

          All I want is for you to take a moment and think about why you so happily embrace these conspiracies.
          • You are impervious to any evidence, and I want you to know that I love you despite this.

            • You are impervious to any evidence

              Being as your conspiracies all share the characteristic of being completely lacking in any kind of factual supporting evidence, you will have a very hard time supporting that claim. You're in the same realm as bigfoot and UFO proponents.

              • completely lacking in any kind of factual supporting evidence

                Or maybe you're just quibbling?

                • completely lacking in any kind of factual supporting evidence

                  Or maybe you're just quibbling?

                  Your top four most-mentioned conspiracies:

                  • Benghazi - requires time travel, has no supporting evidence that time travel was available to prevent the attack
                  • White House Cocaine as a mechanism to get rid of VP Harris - no supporting evidence whatsoever, and no sign of any effort to get rid of her
                  • Jan06 as an "inside job" - dependent on "top secret" evidence and a whole lot of people willing to plead guilty to felony charges for no apparent benefit
                  • President Lawnchair running a shadow government from his home in
                  • What they all have is toadies hiding the truth.

                    • What they all have is toadies hiding the truth.

                      Which makes them as supported as bigfoot. And just like bigfoot conspiracists, you're unlikely to ever give up on them, because there is no situation under which you would consider your conspiracies to be invalid.

                    • There are plenty of known, acknowledged hoaxes, e.g. Russiagate. Oddly, they are frequently perpetrated by Your Team.
                    • You can't find a single bit of evidence to support any one of your favorite conspiracies. I expect within a few weeks you'll parade out a new one, and try to pretend that you didn't already have a long list of unsubstantiated ones that you were enthusiastically promoting.

                      Really, how can you defend a thesis like this? Good science is based on facts, not belief systems. The arguments you present here wouldn't even fly in a school of divinity.
                    • You know there is copious evidence, but I see that it is cheaper for you to avert your gaze than face the truth, so: why bother with you?

                    • You know there is copious evidence

                      If there is "copious evidence", why can't you be bothered to show ANY of it? You keep rolling out one conspiracy after another and you can't find a way to support any of them with factual evidence.

                    • I've given you links, and you dutifully avert your gaze.
                    • I did not 'avert my gaze', as you accuse. I showed you where your data was lacking. Your conspiracy about the military is particularly fact-deprived, and yet you claim the lack of factual data for it to somehow be my fault.

                    • Your conspiracy about the military

                      1. I have no "conspiracy" about the military. Maybe you need a new word? Nah, hold the dirty diaper you've got.
                      2. The military is a shambles. We veterans know this. We talk. These kids are wildly out of shape, but they've had their pronoun training!
                      3. Making some pedantic argument about year-on-year recruiting numbers, while sensible from an academic view, I suppose, is really stuck in foopid from a real-wold perspective. Keep it up. Makes your butt look big.
                    • Your conspiracy about the military is that whatever state you think it is in is somehow solely the fault of Biden, and it happened only since his presidency while things were perfectly hunky-dory under Your Dear Leader.

                      I keep bringing up the recruitment numbers for two reasons
                      • You brought them up specifically
                      • it is the only part of your conspiracy that one could evaluate numerically.

                      You said recruitment is down. IF that is the case - and you give me more and more reason to doubt it - then it should be re

                    • You said recruitment is down. IF that is the case - and you give me more and more reason to doubt it

                      Oh, shut up. There is copious evidence [defense.gov], but it takes intellectual honesty to deal therewith.

                    • You said recruitment is down. IF that is the case - and you give me more and more reason to doubt it

                      Oh, shut up. There is copious evidence, but it takes intellectual honesty to deal therewith.

                      You found yet another article comparing recruitment numbers with recruitment goals - for the same year. That says NOTHING about how recruitment compares to any other year. Where did the goal numbers come from? How did the compare to results from other years? Yet again you gave us an article that doesn't support or refute your original claim. An article on who won the 1994 Super Bowl would be just as useful.

                    • And again, nothing on how this year's recruitment compares to any other year. They set a goal for this year, and did not meet it. That doesn't tell us anything about last year's numbers. The military is shrinking, but that doesn't tell us how recruitment fits in to that. Maybe a large number of people left for private sector work? I have an uncle who left the Army and then returned to the same base as a contractor where he performed the same job at the same base for more money; that would count against

Slashdot Top Deals

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion

Close