[mladenkovacevic]

Nobody was (or at least I wasn't) claiming 100% that this was the result of NSA spying. My big frustration was that in a matter of half an hour, 2 very viral denouncement posts appeared from honest-to-god journalists, basically belittling this woman's claims implying that she is an idiot, an attention whore or a hoaxer, without any additional facts or insights.

If anything it is a stark foreshadowing of how we will be shamed and mocked into the status quo not by our government but by our peers, eased into it like an old man gently lowering his body into an uncomfortably warm bath.

[phpnode]

I'm confused by your point. Are you suggesting that we should assume everything we read is true until we have 'more facts' or 'additional insight'?

The reason her story was denounced by a few people is because those people had not let their ability to think critically be clouded by the current NSA/Snowden frenzy.

[PebblesRox]

I think the point was that while skepticism is good, assuming the worst of someone is bad. It's not good to default to belief, but defaulting to abusive disbelief is also a problem. I think it is good to point out what we don't know and ask questions, but not to accuse someone of being a malicious liar. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they at least mean well, even if they are probably mistaken.

[gohrt]

If we don't mock the hoaxers, we run the risk of genuine stories getting politely ignored along with the hoaxes.

Remember the story of the Child Who Cried Wolf.

[mladenkovacevic]

It wasn't a hoax. She genuinely believed the visit resulted from her search.

Why must we either mock or promote it. Just look into it, settle what the truth is, and move on.

[mpyne]

What if the child who cried wolf genuinely believed he'd seen wolves?

It's the same result in the end (no one believes you when it's most important), which is why it's necessary not to jump to conclusions that are not supported by evidence, especially conclusions that naturally mesh with your worldview.

[mladenkovacevic]

"Jumping to conclusions" is a funny phrase to use. It seems to imply that there were actual conclusions being drawn out of the initial suspicions, instead of a "Hey let's look into this thing".

Now what if the child had cried wolf for the very first time and some of the villagers were all like "Shuttup you stupid kid, who do you think you are that the wolf would wanna eat you anyways! OOH LOOK THE WOLF IS GONNA EAT MEEEHHH! Stupid idiot."

Then once it was determined that there was no wolf, those same villagers proceeded to deride and mock the few people who actually tried to shine a light into the forest to see if there was a wolf in the first place: "I can't believe you fell for that you stupid idiots. Told ya there was no wolf!"

In conclusion, let's not allow our relationships and decisions rely TOO much on children's tales.

[danielweber]

Years back an online friend coined Japhy's Law: the facts you most want to be true are those you should be most suspicious of.