Entertaining thread. Thanks @luke_j_obrienhttps://twitter.com/drbairdonline/status/1080967346385108992?s=21 …
1:22
-
I despise the nuclear truthers.https://twitter.com/nuclearanthro/status/903075342830538752?s=21 …
FWIW, as far as I can tell every other brand of "truther" thinks these people are idiots. I've seen them get shut down in conspiracy forums as wasting other conspiracy theorists' (obvs very valuable) time.
-
-
Oh. Well they are probably wrong then
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Finding yourself at the bottom of the “truther” hierarchy is probably enough to be kicked out of your parents basement.
-
god now I'm wondering what the full hierarchy is. like flat earthers are above the nuke deniers, and I would IMAGINE they are a lot lower than the Apollo fakers, but is it true?
-
The one conspiracy guy I know kinda well (from before he was a conspiracy guy) thinks the JFK stuff is OBVIOUS and 9/11 stuff is COMPELLING but basically thinks everything more "out there" than those two are TOTALLY CRAZY/STUPID. But I don't know if he's typical or not.
-
There must be an "escalation ladder" of conspiracies, as you get further and further away from something plausible.
-
I mean what metric would you use? Number of believers? Or level of plausibility? Or something else?
-
‘levels of plausibility’ raises the question of ‘to whom?’
-
Good point, I suppose the only quantitative data point would be number of believers.
-
Why it gotta be quantitative? And there are other variables (+\- mentions in discourse, site visits, content analysis of comments, etc) that COULD be operationalized for quant analysis if you want to. But the question itself is partially flawed as formulated.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.