Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: In an online context, "conspiracy lust" is a lot like blood lust. [View all]WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)33. Eyewitnesses can be wrong, can be fooled, can see what they want to perceive, and can lie. NOT
saying anything about whoever it is you are choosing to find credible; just saying in general.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
58 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
In an online context, "conspiracy lust" is a lot like blood lust. [View all]
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2014
OP
When you want to push a good conspiracy theory, you will cite just about anything...
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2014
#4
Really? So you don't think or read about ANY event until you are CERTAIN all the facts are in?
WinkyDink
Mar 2014
#16
Pseudo-intellectuals seem to believe in every conspiracy theory put in front of them.
PhilSays
Mar 2014
#3
And Iran-Contra never happened, nor "Watergate," nor Tonkin Gulf, nor Caesar's stabbing.
WinkyDink
Mar 2014
#18
I use the term because I think it is a pathological condition for many. nt
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2014
#11
Where are battles won? Not the playing fields of Eton; rather, the suites of Wall Street.
WinkyDink
Mar 2014
#58
I'm not getting into a discussion about which nations are better than others.
bemildred
Mar 2014
#55
Here's your problem: If ANY "conspiracy theory" uncovered truth that the govt doesn't want you to
WinkyDink
Mar 2014
#24
If you don't tell people the truth, they will speculate and invent conspiracies.
bemildred
Mar 2014
#32
But where the espoused theory flies flat in the face of actual perception....
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2014
#22
WTC-7 wasn't hit by a plane, and no-one saw any do so. The S.H. claim is accepted nuttiness*. As for
WinkyDink
Mar 2014
#26
Somehow, I feel as if they are in a far, far better position to comment than you are. nt
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2014
#23
Eyewitnesses can be wrong, can be fooled, can see what they want to perceive, and can lie. NOT
WinkyDink
Mar 2014
#33
You're providing interesting facts, but not supporting an overall theory.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2014
#40