Oh my god that thread is amazing. A great alternative to hard drugs when it comes to melting brain matter. Has @NuclearAnthro seen this and all of its glory yet?
-
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 -
-
-
“I think that Bush Did 9/11
but come on, even I think this ‘nukes are fake’ thing is going too far!”Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think that’s typical. I have several friends who are otherwise normal well adjusted adults who say similar things. I still haven’t met a single person who admittingly belives in theories like lizard people or that Sandy Hook was staged. Not that I ask lol.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.