Marvin Martian wrote:Chuck Everett wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:But you don’t see anything first hand, so what you claim to “see” is just your preference for a cynical conspiracy theory that allows you to feel smart for having figured things out without any evidence verifying you actually are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To each his own brother. Believe what you like. Feeling smart has nothing to do with it. No matter how many shady things happen in pro sports, you guys will just hand wave it away as random rogue actors.
Funny how the conspiracy deniers are the ones who don't actually have evidence to support their position because all of their sources are coming from the people that have 0 incentive to tell the truth.
I’m honestly not sure what “evidence” you’d be looking for here given that I’m largely arguing that we should start by taking seriously what those involved said they were doing.
Like, your conspiracies could potentially get evidence if and when these people start coming out and saying “I was lying the whole time”, but on the anti-conspiratorial side, what would the equivalent even be? One of the people involved saying “yeah, I stand by what I already said” won’t work because you’ve already decided they’re lying, so what else is there?
Of course, I’d say that’s actually the rub:
The beauty of being a conspiracy theorist is never having to admit you’re wrong, because anything that indicates you’re wrong is just part of the conspiracy.
Me? If and when actual conspiratorial evidence comes out, I’ll learn something.
But you’ve created a worldview that will successfully keep you from ever learning a truth that gets in the way of your beliefs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk