What are some conspiracy theories you absolutely believe to be true?
Was reminded how Epstien not killing himself was/is so accepted yet it’s still a conspiracy theory. Is there any similar ones you guys believe to be completely true ?
It all started with Harambe. A series of events each more ridiculous than the last. At what point will they finally realize it’s all fake? Tune in next week for the next thrilling installment!
I don’t necessarily subscribe to this idea, but everything seems to ridiculous to me at this point. Idk how to explain it, but I feel like there was a big change in reality. Everything is so different than it used to be. Not sure if it’s just me aging and being more conscious of certain things, or if there was actually a change.
There was a comment a few years ago, during the height of Trump and COVID, that basically said “You all remember when that Large Hadron Collider experiment went off and they said it was totally okay? You sure about that?”
I think it hits the same idea you’ve got. And I know this is crazy, but several years back (at a completely different time), I had the same feeling you’re describing. I woke up with the feeling like there’d been a switch thrown and now reality was on a different track
I’ve always toyed around with the idea that we are living in a simulation but it was just that — an idea.
But lately? Some days I feel like I’ve been asleep for weeks and haven’t woken up. Other days it feels like the world around me was generated by demand (dynamically) and all my memories were just implanted to fool me into thinking it’s all real.
I realize I probably sound like a real nutter by now, but when these feelings come up they’re fleeting and temporary so I don’t know what to think.
Because reality hurts normies, they still believe their votes count, there are rich benevolent daddies taking care of them and they merely a temporarily impoverished millionares
Votes do count, of course they do. (Depending on the country), but the problem is the industrialised propaganda machine consistently convincing people to vote against their own interests time and time again in order to protect the wealth, status, and motivations of the richest in society around the world.
They drum up news stories on culture war bullshit and pick scapegoats to direct anger towards. Immigration, LGBTQ+, Race, currently Trans people appear to be the popular target. They do this so we continue to direct anger at each other and not the people in charge.
If you can convince someone the reason they didn’t get a payrise, or are struggling during an economic crisis, is because of someone else, then nobody is going to be aiming at the few who are hoarding all of the wealth and building their own mini-empires.
I’m more about “we’re living in a make-pretend kind of illusoric construct, that is fragile and completely fake”. All this, the law, society, traditions, possibly our history and more, it’s all so manipulated that even the curators of this illusion no longer can tell how things are and were.
Conspiracies require more than one actor. Who are the others? Otherwise, he’s just a bloated orange painted Cheeto with objectively tiny hands committing crimes.
in the United States of America you would be innocent until proven guilty. Yet, I believe he is guilty. And, to answer not only your question but also our friends here : @MountNDoU @toiletobserver
i search this …
2023 Aug. 3, Trump pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy and one count of obstruction, all related to the Jan. 6 insurrection. (many sources easy to find).
Finally, I also believe he should be found guilty in many other such cases.
During the Trump administration the DoJ successfully prosecuted a few people in his campaign for collaborating with Russians. They were later pardoned by Trump.
Because patriotism was always only a tool to let them attack their fellow Americans, when Putin offers a better way of attacking liberals and progressives they’ll happily support Russia.
I agree. I think that he knew that Russia was going to attack Ukraine. (It is weird how trump got involved with Zelensky during that infamous phone call.)
Trump tried to get us (US) out of NATO so bad because then we would be free to use our military power in favor of Russia against Ukraine.
Trump being on the ruzzian payroll is not a secret. He’s a puppet.
When he was elected (with the help of russia), he was brougt into a dark smoke filled room that smelled like sigarettes and cheap vodka, with a dosen men was sitting behind their desks. He couldn’t see any faces. No words said before Trump said: “what’s my agenda?”
What I wouldn’t do to have the transcripts of his private conversation with Putin that only one other US personnel, the interpreter, was allowed to attend. Just Putin, Trump, and the translator. No one else was allowed in other than Putins translator.
Try to tell me Putin wasn’t giving orders or giving information to Trump that he expected Trump to use in Putins favor…
I suspect that Trump’s taking national classified documents included these documents. Trump classified these with the highest of secret classifications at the time to hide them, and he did not dare leave them for Biden to get his hands on.
If Biden’s administration could still could get these transcripts, they could have been redacted to take out the sensitive parts and been declassified. We are likely to not have all the secret documents that Trump took, still.
I can’t see a situation where the US would have actively supported Russia, but it’s 100% believable that our support for Ukraine would be significantly muted if Trump were still president. And this would almost certainly also translate into reduced support from the rest of NATO.
I do not think that Putin would let Trump have that information. Trump would blab it, and Putin knows that he would.
Convincing Trump that America should realign with Russia to take down China (and Europe) a few notches is more likely. That was obvious when the Republican Party changed their platform concerning Russia back in the 2016 election. Putin still was being fed a bunch of BS by his intelligence agencies and thought that his little green men could again take over another small satellite country. If America had not started helping with training Ukrainians to defend their country, that would have been the outcome. Simply refusing to aid Ukraine would have been enough. Even our intelligence thought that Russia was a major military power at the time.
Apologies for sort of weaseling out of a committed answer…but I do think the Dead Internet theory will be true at some point, and that we’re already on the way there. However, I don’t think it’s absolutely true right now.
Basically the internet is made of primarily bot accounts interacting with each other and the majority of content online is not people interacting with people.
It’s a gross oversimplification of the theory, but I’m of the same mind. We’re getting really close to it.
In summary, some web retailer somewhere runs a bot to buy an item from someone else, mark it up, and resell it. When poorly managed, a bot run by one vendor winds up trying to pull stock from a bot from other vendor doing the same thing, and then that vendor tries to the pull-and-markup scheme on the first vendor. The net result is both bots getting into an infinite circular markup loop trying to buy the same item (which doesn’t exist) from each other at an increasingly insane price. This only continues because no living person actually notices.
We’re definitely at the “self-digesting” phase of the internet. Content is regurgitated again and again based on what’s already there. Currently it’s only AI-assisted, mostly, but we’re on the way to autogenerated bullshit.
Repost are not an indication of the Dead Internet as long as human beings do it. Regular people don’t expect each topic to only be brought up a single time ever. They want to add their opinion too.
You may have also seen the article shared here on Lemmy earlier that mentioned someone was publishing ai-written novels and impersonating real authors to get sales. The dead internet is spreading offline!
Does this theory even need to be true for the impact to have a similar result? The algorithms are doing all the heavy lifting whether the content is human or AI. We already are incredibly manipulated by the information we are fed by algorithms, whether they are human or bot.
You make a good point. I think the difference would be the measurement of real human engagement / interaction with the web. While both are very bleak, there’s a difference between humans consuming (and responding to) a bunch of bad bot-and-algorithm-generated content and bots just talking to each other while the humans are out of the equation entirely (watching passively, being completely lost in the noise, etc). I assume you and I are both human, for example. I know I’m splitting hairs here, but I guess you could say it’s the difference between a terminally ill patient and a dead one.
Let’s say 1/20 believable conspiracy theories are true. If I disbelieve all of them I’ll be 19/20 = 95% correct.
If I believe in one of them there is a 1/20 chance I’ll pick the right one and be 100% correct and 19/20 chance I’ll pick the wrong one and have two incorrect beliefs (one false positive and one false negative). 1/20100+19/2090 = 90.5% correct.
Feel free to correct my not even a napkin math. Or challenge the assumption that only 1/20 believable conspiracy theories are true. Or just agree and outsource the effort of thinking to someone trying to compensate lack of sleep with egregious amounts of caffeine.
Recently been seeing few American military and govt personnel coming out providing testimony against higher level of secrecy within the system. Is that actually stirring anything
It was believed by a gun / ballistics expert who was the only person to complete the Oswald shot challenge in the time the shots were fired (I know, appeal to authority). It would also explain why there would be a coverup, as it would be deeply embarrassing during cold war times.
This theory is complete bollocs and ridiculous. There is not a single witness who saw this happen. Almost all heard the shots coming from the book depository, not two from there and one from the limo. The shot that killed JFK was vastly different from one that would be fired from an AR-16. Furthermore, this person who, according to this theory “shot kennedy” testified, that they were long in the overpass when he reached for his gun. Also it is PROVEN that oswald fired 3 shots, by 3 shell casings and massive amount of witness testimony.
Not to mention the fact that he wasn’t the only one to complete the oswald shot challenge. His shots were easy to reproduce, by anyone who would try it.
Finally, there wasnt a coverup, if any sort. Unless you think a massive report is a coverup, then i can’t help you.
My theory is that Oswald acted alone, fired 3 shots and killed JFK
Interesting. I was just going off of something I heard on a podcast, which I know isn’t necessarily authoritative. I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure, so it’s not terribly interesting to me and I don’t bother with the topic much.
I don’t feel 100% on the data or that the data is complete. Either way, it ultimately doesn’t affect me so it’s fine that I don’t know how much I trust it.
Good question. It was on a Channel 4 or 5 docu over here in the UK. I think it was generic, that he’d done something terrible due to a hangover or something. Bare in mind I saw it about 10 years back.
Oswald shot JFK … but he was aiming for John Connally, against whom he had a grudge because he believed Connally had blocked Oswald’s request to have his dishonorable discharge expunged after he returned from the Soviet Union.
The US actually makes terrorists, and by extension refugees. If 9/11 wasn’t directly an inside job they probably let it happen or created the motive for the people involved.
Australia found an SAS soldier guilty of war crimes and were on video perpetuating a really nasty culture that almost certainly creates martyrs and needlessly extended our time in Afghanistan.
Most if not all of the privacy related services (VPNs, Tor, etc) are compromised. On the plus side, I think that pirating media with those services is completely safe.
Was there a massive behind-the-scenes NWO plan between billionnaires, old aristocracy and top politicians to fuck up the world, reduce population etc? No, the world ran its natural, chaotic course for most of history.
Is there this kind of conspiracy now?
ABSOLUTELY YES.
In 2023 it is not possible to have any influence and not be aware of the climate disaster. Anyone who does have big influence and does not act to mitigate warming and its consequences is doing it willingly and with full conscience. Doubly so if they act to worsen the situation. It’s almost like the elites read some of the crackhead theories and thought “hey, this is actually a decent plan!”
I’d put the cutoff between the “natural” history and emerging NWO around 1995. From whatever little I know the Clinton administration wanted to seriously tackle climate change and use it to reestablish the US as global leader in some regards. In 1992 the first attempt at global climate treaty was sabotaged by big business lobby and it kinda went downhill from there.
fascinating, and also good to have it all in one place.
the subtle bitcoin shill at the end is a cherry on top.
No doubt some bullshit happened in economic policies and capitalist influence, oil crises had their hand, but 1971 is conveniently 26 years after the end of WW2. Which means the boomers entered the job market and society for real.
It might feel almost like that but there’s no conspiracy, just power doing what only power can: protecting itself. These people have billions tied up in fossil fuels; oil wells and coal mines but also the products which rely on them. Tesla is only profitable because it sells its carbon credits to carbon-reliant manufacturers.
None of these people would exactly be left in dire straits if we stopped using carbon fuels tomorrow. But they would lose most of their wealth and thus most of their power.
There are undoubtedly small-scale conspiracies, such as various oil companies covering up what they knew about global warming decades ago, or misleading accounts of emissions. But there is no grand (explicit) conspiracy, just tips and tricks and extremely rich people refusing to become merely rich. Even if it means planning escape bunkers and working out how to control the servants they will need to take with them when their money means nothing any more.
Yes. And they know protecting themselves means destroying lives of billions so they need to make sure the billions won’t go after them. And since the masses are also aware of the situation it means at least short-term planning against the people. This requires at least basic coordination between interest groups and gradual capturing of whatever means of power are still left for the masses. Then they figure out how easy it is to wield even more power and off we go to the land of the tin foil headwear.
Id say we repalce millionares, politicians and all of the leadership with A.I. Im convinced that it will pretty much save us from ourselves, or at least from ashole leadership since they are not capable of making decisions for the greater good, specially when it comes to inequality and global warming. Democracy is a lie, we are playing a videogame and we are the little brother with an unpluged controler being made to think that we are playing, but we are not and the controller is just so that we dont riot.
AI simply reproduces the world it has obtained all its content from. It’s not intelligent in any way, shape or form. It’s a system perpetuator and it’s not going to save you.
But we are close, and it could probably do a better job than the leadership that we have right now if we feed it with the right data. But when i mean A.I. i dont mean language models or machine learning, I mean the singularity type thing that can get better and realize when its failing so that it can correct it and itself.
We’re not close at all. It’s good at some well-defined tasks, that’s all. It is not intelligent, it cannot think, it is not capable of ruling the world and neither should we want it to. “Hey, here’s all the fucking terrible decisions humans have made in the past, copy them.”
I say that we should feed it diferent data and tune its performance before we set it out, of course we are not gonna put chat gpt as it is as the president and pray, of course not, and yes its not inteligent, neither are our leaders, but it would be able to control logistics amd enforce a judiciary system in a fair way . I think that you are simply not open to that idea and i respect that since there are a lot of risks to the A.I. thing, like it going full skynet on us, but imho it shouldnt do that unless we explicitly program it to destroy all humans, and you cant denny that the cycle of corruption with human leadership is just gonna continue no matter what system or people we put on the kings throne, and given time it will always fail or default into tyrany and fascism. Communism is unacheabable, they never get past the dictatorship part, democracy (even if voting actually did something) ends up defaulting into a popularity contest and the masses in all honestly can be terribly wrong be it by willingly having bad hatefull takes or by being manipulated, and i think i really shouldnt explain why tyrany or fascism are wrong, and anarchic comunities work only in a very small scale like tribes or small villages and even then they are usually reigned by religious believes and traditions. You could have something going with social democracies, but the problem of corruption is always present, and it suffers the same problem as democracies. The only thing that might work is the warhamer thing with the god emperor, (stick with me, im serious on this one) in like the golden age of humanity, since by ourselves we are never acheaving unity, we would need an all powerfull figure to trully unite us all, and since we dont have magical psichic neandertals, and religion is a no go, id say that an omnipresesnt benevolent, A.I. is the next best thing.
I have arthritis in my hands for a start. Secondly belittling another over spelling and grammar when everyone around the world is educated differently has no baring on their actual intellect. Either listen to the messenger or dont.
Industries are making bad products on purpose to weed out consumers with standards, therefore breeding a crop of consumers that exist only to give their money to them if they ask.
Yeah, it’s stuff that shitty shops like Woolworths used to sell for £9.99 but it’s £1 with postage included now and straight from the source.
You can get some total rubbish and you can get some generically shit stuff that’s as good as anything else in the shops, there’s great stuff too compared to other options but it’s hard to find.
Quality is generally better for things designed for the Chinese market, they just sell overstock cheap where as the made for export is made to be cheap.
Really quality isn’t a huge issue in manufacturing for a lot of things because everything is well within basic tolerances of the machines, is it’s just a few bits of plastic and a PCB then they’re going to come out the same from anywhere
It’s not different than other sites. It’s exactly the same as Wish or Ali Express. Extremely cheaply made goods that will probably give you lead poisoning with enough use.
It’s basically the same as AliExpress or Wish but with the junk being warehoused in the US instead of China. So you can get your junk in like a week instead of a couple months.
Do you mean that they are trying to identify, corral, and market heavily to these low-standards consumers so as not to waste their time with the rest (analogous to email scams)?
Or more that they are progressively beating down our collective level of standard so as to make the cheap crap more broadly palatable?
I don’t necessarily disagree with either, but they are pretty different, so just curious which direction you are going.
I think TalkingCat is referring to the Chinese balloons that were recently spotted floating over the USA and into Canada, I believe. The Chinese government said they were merely weather balloons.
I don’t even think it matters whether or not Epstein killed himself. Because even if he did, there was too much incentive for those in power to build in the conditions to make it easy enough to happen. IRCC, he was on suicide watch. There had to be intentional negligence to allow the suicide to occur and it seems unlikely that no one attempted to tip the scale in favor of allowing it to happen.
I agree! I keep saying the same thing. I think he was allowed to kill himself. They put him on suicide watch as a suggestion to him. That way their hands are washed of him by his own hand.
Even if you ignore the rich and powerful, it still makes sense.
If you were the security officer at a facility that was holding a man who trafficked and molested dozens if not hundreds of children, you would probably strongly consider “accidentally” leaving his gate unlocked or taking away any suicide prevention measures.
Agreed! The broken bone in his neck is fairly common for hanging, especially when the person is older. I believe the real conspiracy is that they let him do it not that they did it to him.
Add comment