How about less conspiracy posts? September 12, 2005 2:11 AM   Subscribe

American concentration camps! Rex 84 and the trifecta of evil! How about less conspiracy posts? I'm pretty sure there are more that have already fallen off the front page, but, sheesh.
posted by blacklite to Etiquette/Policy at 2:11 AM (18 comments total)

There are some borderline ones that I think are sort of okay. The Davis-Bacon act would sound like crazy ranting any other time, but it's backed up by a Washington Post story. Good post. This thing on extradition is worded a little rantingly, but it's news, too. The Blackwater thread was backed up by real news (although, of course, I'll accept a handful of corroborating independent blog stories, too).

I'm not saying we need an official line -- the above is just my impression -- but at least a little bit of a point would be nice. We're supposed to have links on MeFi, not a + b + c = the administration is going to take your house away. Original material goes on blogs, right?
posted by blacklite at 2:19 AM on September 12, 2005

*grabs popcorn and beer, prepares to watch blacklite and/or thread drown in fuzzy quagmire*
posted by loquacious at 3:17 AM on September 12, 2005

Don't I at least get points for putting together 'Rex 84 and the trifecta of evil'?

I should start that band.
posted by blacklite at 3:54 AM on September 12, 2005

Well, while trifecta is fun to say and type it's not really an appropriate use of the word. Triune might be better in light of the religious beliefs ascribed to the current administration or even better and yet more obscure, ternion.
posted by Dagobert at 4:23 AM on September 12, 2005

The problem with this is that where do you draw the line between something like what y2karl posts, and stuff like augustweed has been posting?

Sure, there's plenty of arbitrary qualities available for judgement of relative factuality, degree of paranoia, subjectivity, or ranting. But from a perspective of "original content", where do you draw that line?

And if comments can be considered "original content", what about the posts themselves?


One of the points I ineffectively tried to make in the infamous "OMG Katrina Scalar weather control DOOM" thread is that if a given post or idea or statement is so blatantly crackpotted or untrue, then debunk it. That's what science is for, right?

I don't at all mean "If you can't debunk it, this (given crackpot/paranoid idea) must be valid and true!". I simply mean shoot it right out of the sky. It's a service that people should be glad to perform - it helps set the record straight, it informs, it teaches. What one person grasps as inherently obvious may not be so to the next person.

Otherwise, flag it as "noise", it "breaks the guidelines" or whatever and move on.

The less subjective and fuzzy rules there are around here the better, IMO.
posted by loquacious at 4:28 AM on September 12, 2005

What's the problem with "trifecta"? Is it racist?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:34 AM on September 12, 2005

black helicopters stuff is occasionally very funny -- I really liked that massive "lizard Illuminati destroyed New Orleans" comment from last week. I wouldn't read more than, say, a post like that a week, but in moderation they're good entertainment
posted by matteo at 4:36 AM on September 12, 2005

"What's the problem with "trifecta"? Is it racist?"

Yes. And I'm still waiting for my apology.
posted by nthdegx at 5:13 AM on September 12, 2005

I want reparations!!!

posted by johnj at 7:01 AM on September 12, 2005

I want a tasty bagel toasted crispy brown and a steaming mug of Earl Grey tea.
posted by loquacious at 7:35 AM on September 12, 2005





posted by Pollomacho at 7:49 AM on September 12, 2005

I fully support Blacklite's hopeless quest.
posted by LarryC at 7:50 AM on September 12, 2005

If you want you know where to find it.
posted by darukaru at 8:22 AM on September 12, 2005

Seriously though . . . who will be the arbeter of valid theory. I mean some seeb blatantly silly and other do, as was noted upthread, walk a fine line.

Can anything be done about it?
posted by johnj at 9:24 AM on September 12, 2005

nthdegx did I miss something? I owe you an apology?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:39 AM on September 12, 2005

Giggity giggity.
posted by wakko at 10:15 AM on September 12, 2005

These posts are not crap. They are well put together and deserve sound comments. Sure, the tin foil hat jokes are fun, and the easiest thing to do here is to simply write these posts off as "conspiracy theory". Speaking of which, Mel Gibson's character in the movie was right all along, wasn't he?! Think about it.

Perhaps the truth won't be as full-blown as "concentration camps" and "slave labor", but as far as personal rights goes, we could well be headed that way.
posted by snsranch at 5:26 PM on September 12, 2005

Boys and girls should pe permitted to cry "Wolf!" whenever they so desire. To prevent them doing so would be most unfortunate.

Naturally, when an individual wolf-cryer is proved wrong, his/her credibility will suffer. The commentary will demonstrate this to anyone who looks at the thread.

But every so often, there really is a wolf, and I, for one, would like to read about it (or even post about it) on MeFi as early as possible during the herd-devouring process.
posted by cleardawn at 10:39 AM on September 13, 2005

« Older Private tags instead of bookmarks?   |   DC Meetup Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments