The Dangers of Dismissing/Embracing "Conspiracy Theories"

because i dont need the world to be fair to enjoy life.  since everyone has a different idea of fair any 'fair' world would be a dystopia.

A) One of us doesn't have any evidence, and is squandering their time and credibility in pushing a theory without basis, and which serves evil.

B) Assertions without evidence.

One of us is a line blurrer to be sure, and projection is very much a thing.

But you do you - you're right more often than wrong, but just so incredibly annoying in the latter instances.

Shannon is SO good!

In regards to B) you're constantly doing this.

Guilty as charged, but I'm almost invariably correct in my assertions.

Do I need to prove more people will miss actual resto than assume it's there when it isn't?

I don't know what you need to do, but it would be interesting to see you attempt this, yes.

That's just common sense.

Assertion without evidence.

Meanwhile, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence in either direction for A) but as a jury have concluded that A) is what you say it is despite any evidence. which is exactly what you're accusing me of.

Are you familiar with the term "word salad?"

Regardless, you have no evidence.

None at all.

And it's not up to anyone to provide evidence to disprove your evidence-free theories.

But thank you for stating that I'm more often right than wrong. I agree.

Common ground.

An okay-ish article on how one might respond to those enamored of, or obsessed with, conspiracy theories:

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/through-the-social-science-lens/202005/how-should-we-respond-people-who-spread-conspiracy

Not surprisingly, it's heavy on the liberal side, and regards conspiracy theories as dangerous rather than (for instance) sometimes true, annoying, valuable exercises in mental agility, ridiculous, and so on.

I regard the theories and theorists as a mixed bag, and feel they have value if not pressed on others to the extent that the theorist destroys their own credibility, alienates (or actively antagonizes) those around them, distracts from demonstrably REAL issues surrounding a given concern, or (as the article expresses alarm over) they cause harm.

One sentence stands out for me:

If one is to engage, it is best done in a non-social media venue and calmly.

In other words, best to discuss in person.

My experience is that this can be as disastrous and counter-productive as online discussion due to the personalities common to most theorists, but it is an interesting bit of advice.

Interventions can work.

Or backfire.

In my experience, conspiracy theorists tend toward extreme inflexibility, so I don't think any venue really works to pry them free of beliefs true or false.

Are you convinced it was NOT a government conspiracy? There are a lot of weird things about that day, including surrounding buildings that were untouched falling like they were blown up. 

People say it's crazy to think that way but governments have sacrificed their own people MANY times in the past.

If you spoke out against this study while it was happening, would you be called a conspiracy theorist back in 1950?

Likely. 

And yet many years later, we found out it was true. 

Tuskegee Syphilis Study is just such a government experiment. 

The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[1][2][3] (informally referred to as the Tuskegee Experiment or Tuskegee Syphilis Study) was a study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on a group of nearly 400 African Americans with syphilis.[4][5] The purpose of the study was to observe the effects of the disease when untreated, though by the end of the study medical advancements meant it was entirely treatable. The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.