[Pearse]

I've read your comment a few times and I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

In the article she talks about people being suspicious of science or other authorities. She says its that lack of trust that we need to deal with not the difference in opinion.

And you seem to be saying, this is bulls*it, I don't trust this person?

Have I misunderstood your comment or the article?

[_Nat_]

Apparently the parent-commenter believes that the article is propaganda meant to discredit conspiracy-theory.

Regarding:

> I'm also missing a list of all those so called conspiracy theories which turned out to be true.

They probably meant to suggest that the article is obviously unbalanced as it's consistently critical of conspiracy-theories, without offering a list of counter-examples of conspiracy-theories that turned out to be true.

[Pearse]

That makes sense, thank you.

[MrYellowP]

Authorities.

Who declares themselves to be one?

Who are we supposed to trust?

Why should we trust someone who does not earn it?

Why should we trust anyone who governs us, when there is no evidence that they are to be trusted?

Why should I trust "science", when "science" in any big-scale-context only means that those who govern us control what "science" is/means/gets attention?

Why should I not trust my own ability to analyse and deduct what is, and is not the closest to the truth? It's not my fault that I'm literally surrounded by literal idiots.

Mate. You don't understand. You have to look at all of this from a meta perspective. Most of the bullshit you get to read is propaganda simply because it is meant to steer your thinking into certain directions. It's not just about "lies", or "omission of truth/detail", it's also about you thinking only about what you're supposed to be thinking about.

This includes things you read which are meant to distract from other things.

Examples?

By whom's authority are people declaring themselves authority, which includes the self granted privilege of telling us what is true and real?

By whom's authority are those, who are being declared authority, more authority than those who disagree with them?

99% of the people reading this post will be too stupid to even consider that they could just look up a list of actually proven conspiracy-"theories" and that's not because I'm the one supposed to be doing it for them, but because they're so submissive to __authority__, they think high of themselves when it comes to those who have time and time again proven that thinking critically is the only sane way to go.

If you actually were a critical thinker, as you *MOST LIKELY BELIEVE OF YOURSELF*, then you would NEVER dismiss anything at all just because a self declared authority tells you!

You would INSTEAD seek out the opposing opinions. You would seek understanding of why opposing voices, regardless of experteese, are always being ridiculed and socially shunned, instead of critically listened to.

So, to end this post ...

We ABSOLUTELY need to deal with the difference in opinion!

The difference in opinion is what makes sure that ...

*... we don't all think the same!*

Our core problem is that 99% of the people do not think critically at all and are seriously just mindless morons parrotting what's being presented to them on a massive scale. A lie only has to be repeated often enough until it is being accepted as truth!

Get it now?

[_Nat_]

Ya know, folks make up conspiracy-theories for fun. It's a major hobby, e.g. [the SCP Foundation](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ ) -- which has a colorful presentation, but is perhaps more honest about its fictionality than most. Also folks might make up junk for other reasons.

That said, why might you take such things seriously?