-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter zorbees
- Start date
I believe the term conspiracy theory is itself a conspiracy to undermine the public's understanding of the word theory.
kind of related, but i kind of feel like the government tries to make up a lot of dumb, pointless conspiracy theories to brand "conspiracy theorists" as loonies, so that the actual conspiracies involving the government seem less credible
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Crux a long time ago randomly linked me a video that had the idea that Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson from One Direction were secretly boyfriends. I thought it was stupid shipping crock until I watched the video.
I had never been so thoroughly convinced of something in my life.
I had never been so thoroughly convinced of something in my life.
destinyunknown
Banned deucer.
global warming isnt real
That sites like GlobalResearch, several YouTube channels, and a whole host of blogs with white text on black backgrounds, are created and run by the CIA. You go in there as a normal guy with a healthy skepticism of US foreign policy, and leave it a raving lunatic, blabbering about vaccines and lizard people. The people most likely to notice shady things in society are also those most prone to believing stories about shady things in society, so the government steadily feeds them bullcrap to keep them occupied, while also making examples of them to discourage others from investigating shady things.
jfk shot mlk
bush did titanic
the russians sent numerous cosmonauts into space in what the government knew would be one-way missions and there are several unknown cosmonauts who disintegrated upon reentry or are still up there drifting around through space, their bodies long dead but aimlessly floating, waiting to see if humanity will ever get up into space in enough of a capacity to find them and bring them home or if they'll drift forever
bush did titanic
the russians sent numerous cosmonauts into space in what the government knew would be one-way missions and there are several unknown cosmonauts who disintegrated upon reentry or are still up there drifting around through space, their bodies long dead but aimlessly floating, waiting to see if humanity will ever get up into space in enough of a capacity to find them and bring them home or if they'll drift forever
Last edited:
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I believe that the first moon landing was faked.
There's no way USA could be so advanced in technology compared to other countries.
There's no way USA could be so advanced in technology compared to other countries.
The only conspiracy theory which I'm thoroughly convinced by is that Jeremy Corbyn rigged the labour leader polls by bribing people. There's no way a man as incompetent, unelectable and stupid could possibly be popular through any legitimate means after how badly he fucked up with the EU referendum.
Speaking of that, I'd make a conspiracy theory that those were rigged too, but the vote was too close to seem feasible. That said, people in the radio business have to be specifically spiting anti-brexit voters when telling people what to say to the media; I'm getting pissed off by people saying "the people have chosen brexit" on the radio despite the fact that it almost a 50:50 vote. Don't talk for me you sheltered asshats who clearly don't know the difference between 50% and 100%.
Speaking of that, I'd make a conspiracy theory that those were rigged too, but the vote was too close to seem feasible. That said, people in the radio business have to be specifically spiting anti-brexit voters when telling people what to say to the media; I'm getting pissed off by people saying "the people have chosen brexit" on the radio despite the fact that it almost a 50:50 vote. Don't talk for me you sheltered asshats who clearly don't know the difference between 50% and 100%.
If you were to meet Neil Armstrong and say that he'd probably punch you.
The first only? What about the subsequent ones? They were all achieved with the same rockets and the same technology. And the equipment they left on the Moon can still be seen there today.
By the way, the Soviets had lunar ambitions too. The problem was just that their N1 rockets were too complex, with thirty engine bells that had to be synchronized perfectly (the Saturn V had five engines), and when errors occured, things went spectacularly splodey.
I'm not even sure what to believe on this, but I am very confused by and interested in the Berenstein/Berenstain Bears switcheroo conspiracy. I have not seen a single person say that they remember it as "Berenstain", not even just to be annoyingly contrarian. Everyone is so shocked by it that they can't even troll. I'd like to see actual psychological research into why everyone remembers it incorrectly.
Ya the whole Mandela Effect thing really interests me, another popular one is people remembering a movie called Shazaam starring Sinbad as a genie that was distinctly unique from the similar sounding Kazaam. I definitely remember this movie as well.
My theory is that this can all be contributed to a misinformation effect, the TV show pronounced it Berenstein and The Sinbad Show was very popular around the time Kazaam came out and an episode had a similar theme to the movie.
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
It's difficult to tell which ones are real and which ones are fake, I suppose.
But the first few should be fake, in my opinion.
And just because they claim the equipment were left on the Moon, doesn't mean they really are there.
They can just gang up and say that there's stuff on the moon, and you can never tell if they are really there.
I can see how real moon landings happen starting from the 80's or 90's, but I just don't think they can do it earlier than the 80's.
You can debunk stuff in this thread right? Especially if someone insists on actually believing something on nothing but vague hearsay and insinuation?
A.
I don't know if propulsion and space technology was advanced enough to allow man to visit the moon the late 60s and 70s, but I do know for a fact that film technology wasn't advanced enough to fake what we saw back in the day.
If you actually want to educate yourself:
B.
"They can just gang up and say that there's stuff on the moon, and you can never tell if they are really there."
This logic can literally apply to every bit of information you personally haven't witnessed. That's plain lazy.
Are black holes real? Who knows? Maybe a small clutch of astrophysicists are in cahoots. Does the God Particle really exist? I mean after all it's a bunch of scientists in a hyper exclusive and highly incestuous field that all agree upon its existence. Do vaccines do anything? Was Genghis Khan even a real guy?????
But you don't even need to go that far. They actually left back Retroreflectors and receivers on the lunar surface, so you can literally confirm it independently with your own equipment should you choose to.
A.
I don't know if propulsion and space technology was advanced enough to allow man to visit the moon the late 60s and 70s, but I do know for a fact that film technology wasn't advanced enough to fake what we saw back in the day.
If you actually want to educate yourself:
B.
"They can just gang up and say that there's stuff on the moon, and you can never tell if they are really there."
This logic can literally apply to every bit of information you personally haven't witnessed. That's plain lazy.
Are black holes real? Who knows? Maybe a small clutch of astrophysicists are in cahoots. Does the God Particle really exist? I mean after all it's a bunch of scientists in a hyper exclusive and highly incestuous field that all agree upon its existence. Do vaccines do anything? Was Genghis Khan even a real guy?????
But you don't even need to go that far. They actually left back Retroreflectors and receivers on the lunar surface, so you can literally confirm it independently with your own equipment should you choose to.
You are probably too politically disinterested to know, but Labour used to be run by leftists like Corbyn until Thatcher threw the entire country 10 miles rightward. Apparently people are now starting to realize the Labour party has morphed into a shitty Tory-lite party and want it to move back to its original ideals.
A quick search gave me this page, which lists pretty valid reasons why Mr. Unelectable got elected: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34126758
In general, neoliberal wankers should give up their notion of who is electable and who is not. You probably thought Sanders was unelectable even though he almost beat Clinton and did better in general election polls at the time than she. You probably thought Trump didn't stand a chance. Here's a scoop: just because you think a candidate is stupid, unreasonable, whatever, doesn't mean the general populace thinks a candidate is stupid or unreasonable. Thinking that some conspiracy must have led to Corbyn's election shows that you are probably living in an echo chamber and you are unable to confront the fact that a lot of people who think about politics come to different conclusions than you.
If you ever see me saying "thoroughly convinced by" in the context of most things then you can probably write it off as a trollpost--especially if it is in the context of politics and/or conspiracy. I'm not politically inclined--I'm not even going to pretend that I am--and am a bit of a sheep whilst also really disliking talking about politics for prolonged periods, but I'm smart enough to understand that conspiracies in politics (and, by extension, in most things) are almost always complete horseshit. If I make any "conspiracies" they are for personal entertainment only and never reflect my actual beliefs (i.e. no: I don't think it was just Corbyn bribing people).
As for your article, those explain why he was elected in 2015, but not in the re-election in 2016. I understand that Corbyn was elected largely on the £3 signup fee for labour. However, I also know that the sign-up price was put up for the re-election, and that a big part of why he was re-elected came from the re-election happening before there was an actually good candidate chosen to go up against him. It was Jeremy Corbyn vs. Owen Smith (a.k.a. that guy who nobody knows the name of) for Pete's sake. On the matter of Corbyn, before I even think about whether he is qualified for the job or not, I can tell he's the type of person that if I were to meet him and have a casual conversation with him irl then he'd be completely fucking intollerable, as evidenced by the fact that he said "I’m totally anti-sugar on health grounds, so eat very few biscuits, but if forced to accept one, it’s always a pleasure to have a shortbread" when asked what his favorite biscuit is. Like, seriously, if forced to accept one? Jesus fucking Christ Jeremy, you could've worded that just very slightly differently and not come across as a complete asshole. Not to mention he's a hypocrite, because he's stated that one of his hobbies is making jam--which raises red flags when you start saying you're "totally anti-sugar"--but I'm getting off-track. The biggest issue I have with him is that he doesn't really have a strong opinion on a lot of things, with his EU campaigning being very . He has a history of answering easy questions while dodging around answering hard ones (including in the very same meeting he had the biscuit question in), and in the only Labour leader debate that I was able to find the time to watch consisted of him giving the same vague answer in different words in response to every question--regardless of whether it actually applied to said question or not. He was voted in in the first place because of it only costing £3 to join the Labour party and vote on the leader, and after the re-election there has been a lot of backlash from a number of good voices in politics, such as David Blunkett who said "the re-election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader is a catastrophe", while various people in Labour and/or Labour Co-Operative--including the aforementioned David Blunkett, David Miliband and Ed Balls--have stated he is un-electable, with Miliband writing a New Statesman article back in September which brings up the matter while going over other things. I'm not going to go on because, as I said before, I don't like talking about politics much (that and this thread isn't for discussing the ins and outs of whether Corbyn is competent or not), but yeah I had got going before I even realised and am not going to delete it after typing so much.
Martin phrasing your actual opinion in a somewhat hyperbolic way is a poor attempt at trolling at best. Talking smack about a major political figure in a thread where such statements could be avoided also is quite a remarkable choice for someone who claims he doesn't like to talk about politics.
Anyway, great post. Loved the arbitrary rant on Jeremy Corbyn's distaste for sugary food. Also great: quoting people who have a clear interest in defaming Corbyn as reputable sources on Corbyn's electability. Miliband's piece is an absolute riot to read, love it when he attacks inequality not because it is categorically wrong but because it is economically inefficient, which is just about the most neoliberal thing I could hope to read this week.
As for your actual criticisms on Corbyn (bar the part about his personality, which is a completely banal point): I'm pretty sure Corbyn has a stronger opinion on the EU than he lets on, the guy's anti-EU as far as I'm concerned, but could hardly change Labour's Brexit campaign from Remain to Leave just like that. Probably would be an unpopular decision anyway, and I'll bet a few quid that the guy would rather be found dead than campaigning alongside the likes of Farage and BoJo. Even a more idealistic politician like Corbyn is willing to compromise, trust me. As for the reason why Corbyn won the second time around, I'm guessing it's a combination of him having a natural advantage since he already was Labour leader at that point and the fact that the Labour establishment was trying its best to get him, a democratically elected leader, to step down, which is hardly a good look.
On topic for the sake of remaining on topic: between Ted Cruz being the zodiac killer, Trump being a Russian spy, and the recent John Podesta spirit cooking conspiracy, the American elections have been very fruitful in terms of deliciously ridiculous conspiracy theories. I'm not inclined to believe conspiracy theories but I do greatly enjoy reading about them, they tend to be so outlandish and it's great.
Anyway, great post. Loved the arbitrary rant on Jeremy Corbyn's distaste for sugary food. Also great: quoting people who have a clear interest in defaming Corbyn as reputable sources on Corbyn's electability. Miliband's piece is an absolute riot to read, love it when he attacks inequality not because it is categorically wrong but because it is economically inefficient, which is just about the most neoliberal thing I could hope to read this week.
As for your actual criticisms on Corbyn (bar the part about his personality, which is a completely banal point): I'm pretty sure Corbyn has a stronger opinion on the EU than he lets on, the guy's anti-EU as far as I'm concerned, but could hardly change Labour's Brexit campaign from Remain to Leave just like that. Probably would be an unpopular decision anyway, and I'll bet a few quid that the guy would rather be found dead than campaigning alongside the likes of Farage and BoJo. Even a more idealistic politician like Corbyn is willing to compromise, trust me. As for the reason why Corbyn won the second time around, I'm guessing it's a combination of him having a natural advantage since he already was Labour leader at that point and the fact that the Labour establishment was trying its best to get him, a democratically elected leader, to step down, which is hardly a good look.
On topic for the sake of remaining on topic: between Ted Cruz being the zodiac killer, Trump being a Russian spy, and the recent John Podesta spirit cooking conspiracy, the American elections have been very fruitful in terms of deliciously ridiculous conspiracy theories. I'm not inclined to believe conspiracy theories but I do greatly enjoy reading about them, they tend to be so outlandish and it's great.
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Moving the discussion from the election thread into this thread.
How do you prove that white people are not superior?
I don't want stuff like political correctness.
I want statistics and anthropological studies.
How do you prove that white people are not superior?
I don't want stuff like political correctness.
I want statistics and anthropological studies.
omfuga's ability to play competitive pokemon immaculately will never ever be achieved by any white person ever
your point is null
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
No black person has won Pokemon World Championships ever.
You don't earn prize money for playing Smogon formats.
But that said,
I only know that JohnYiu tops OU ladders often.
