Conspiracy theorists often sound rational, such as this video. He makes a good point that people simply dismiss their evidence ("you shouldn't say that") without taking the time to determine the truth.

I want to discuss why.

The issue is that it's not us rational people who won't take the time to determine the truth, but the conspiracy theorists. They keep dredging up things they don't understand and demand that rational people explain them.
Such is the case in the report cited in the video. The person in video hasn't spent the time to determine the truth about that document. He doesn't understand what it contains. Yet, he demands we explain it to him.
https://t.co/y0h5yEH99k
He claims it's by a military intelligence expert and that's why it's credible. It's not -- it's by a guy Joshua Merritt who worked in the motor pool who flunked out of his intro to military intelligence class.
https://t.co/JkHstBFOta
No, this is not an "ad hominem". It's them saying the "evidence" is credible because he's an expert. Thus, we should point out the guy is not an expert, and that the "evidence" must be judged on its own merits.
Does the evidence stand on its own merits?

No. It's just a misuse of the OSINT tool named SpiderFoot. Such tools aggressively look for POSSIBLE relationships between things, but is not by itself evidence. It's simply the start looking for evidence.
Here's a post that debunks the report point-by-point:
https://t.co/2SiO44L8kk

The thing to remember is that this rational effort to determine the truth is debunking something where no effort was made originally by the other side to determine the truth.
That's the nature of conspiracy theories: it's things they don't understand and can't explain. Since it's all explainable by the theory, the absence of any other explanation becomes proof of the conspiracy.
They make no effort to understand their own evidence. Instead, they keep vomiting up endless amounts of anomalies and demand we explain it all. Anything we fail to explain they insist is proof the conspiracy.
If you have true evidence of voter fraud, then fighting for this issue means you are DEFENDING democracy.

If you have no evidence, but make claims of voter fraud anyway (such as in this case), you are ATTACKING democracy, and the principles this country is founded upon.
That's why people are upset. If conspiracy theorists took the time to determine the truth of a thing before claiming it as evidence, then that would a moral defense of our country. But they cite things they don't understand, which means it's an attack against democracy.

More from Government

Parents in cities, please pay attention to the reopening details from the Whitehouse.

Biden says "small classes". What we need to understand is how they plant to accomplish this.

Through "childcare programs in schools". We see this all over states w/ closed schools.


We need to grasp that the AFT, NEA, & local unions are systematically working to decouple education from childcare.

Their vision is your child sitting on a device all day, watched by a childcare worker, being "taught" from a Teacher working from

This isn't a paranoid conspiracy theory - it is already happening in the majority of districts across the US where schools are closed.

"Learning Hubs" open, supervised by childcare workers, sometimes in the same "unsafe" school

There is NO OTHER WAY to get "small classes" without Hybrid + wraparound childcare. Your child will spend 2-3 days per WEEK supervised by low wage workers and sitting on a laptop.

Here's

Fairfax,
If you're curious what Trump's defense will look like, all you have to do is turn on Fox News. My latest at @mmfa

The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.

And in fact, this predates Trump.

In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop


That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the

In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.

You May Also Like

1/ Some initial thoughts on personal moats:

Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.

Characteristics of a personal moat below:


2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.

As Andrew Chen noted:


3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized

Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than


4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.

After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.

5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.

In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.