This post is a case-study in the self-awareness of conspiracy theorists.
Parent post posits a conspiracy theory, in the literal sense, without any evidence.
In fact, it's worse than that. The parent didn't even claim their theory is true! They just sort of throw it out there as a random-ass thought/hypothetical. They didn't say "X is happening and I have proof". Fuck, they didn't even say "X is happening"! They said "Consider the following conspiracy in which X is happening".
But, for some reason, you not only (a) latch onto this theory as if it were plausible without a shred of evidence, but then also (b) slander a large group of people on the basis of... what? One internet user's random-ass thought that sounds kinda-sorta right to you because it tickles the right neurons even though the original claimant not only doesn't provide evidence but doesn't even actually assert that their conspiracy theory is anything other than a random thought!
Your post is close to something like "People who believe in bat-shit-insane conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence tend to distrust the people who those conspiracy theories tell them not to trust".
Which... yeah, no shit. This is why people believe conspiracy theories. Because they are prone to believe bat-shit insane things about people they don't like, regardless of whether there's any rational or empirical justification for that belief. And, not only that, but they are prone to circular reasoning to justify these beliefs. You hit the nail on the head.
a hypothetical occurrence to which there are adjacent real-world occurences. gain-of-function research being perhaps the most damning. if i was doing gain of function experiments, i would at least consider engineering a variant that squeezes out the more deadly ones.
it's not really that dissimilar a line of thinking to the people who want to use CRISPR to release genetically modified mosquitos with dominant traits that lead to eradication of the species as their new genes take over.
> A hypothetical situation is why people don’t trust experts?
it's the real-world occurrences which lead a person's theory of mind to believe that similar experts might feasibly pursue certain hypothetical occurrences. without the hypotheticals, it's mostly individuals who lose their credibility after doing specific things in the real world. but the hypotheticals allow that loss of credibility to spread from individual bad actors to whole groups.
Parent post posits a conspiracy theory, in the literal sense, without any evidence.
In fact, it's worse than that. The parent didn't even claim their theory is true! They just sort of throw it out there as a random-ass thought/hypothetical. They didn't say "X is happening and I have proof". Fuck, they didn't even say "X is happening"! They said "Consider the following conspiracy in which X is happening".
But, for some reason, you not only (a) latch onto this theory as if it were plausible without a shred of evidence, but then also (b) slander a large group of people on the basis of... what? One internet user's random-ass thought that sounds kinda-sorta right to you because it tickles the right neurons even though the original claimant not only doesn't provide evidence but doesn't even actually assert that their conspiracy theory is anything other than a random thought!
Your post is close to something like "People who believe in bat-shit-insane conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence tend to distrust the people who those conspiracy theories tell them not to trust".
Which... yeah, no shit. This is why people believe conspiracy theories. Because they are prone to believe bat-shit insane things about people they don't like, regardless of whether there's any rational or empirical justification for that belief. And, not only that, but they are prone to circular reasoning to justify these beliefs. You hit the nail on the head.