A two time White House physician to the president, Ronny Jackson, has lifted the lid on the most concerning signs of President Joe Biden's mental decline observable as early as 2019.
The term “conspiracy theory” carries a dismissive tone, implying wild, unfounded speculation or paranoia.
The distinction is important: yes, it was a conspiracy in the literal sense—a coordinated effort by individuals or groups to cover something up.
However, it’s not a “conspiracy theory” to talk about it, especially when the events in question are backed by evidence or widely acknowledged as fact.
But once the information is proven true or widely verified, it transitions out of “theory” territory and becomes a matter of public record or investigative reporting.
Seems like you did a little research and now you’re backtracking. Dude, you were mocking it as a “conspiracy theory,” implying it didn’t actually happen. Your exact words: “I’m a person overseas laughing at a guy who needs a tinfoil hat.”
Now you’ve realized it was true and not just a “theory.” It’s okay to admit you were wrong or that your tone might have come across differently than you intended.
You’re not even in the fucking US, yet you thought you knew more than reporters actually writing about it! Fucking Lemmy, man… lmao
I’m not, it is a theory about a conspiracy. That’s a conspiracy theory. It’s okay, and there’s a reason it’s associated with such stigma.
It seems a little ridiculous to me that someone would think the country that considers itself the best would intentionally keep a senile in place of power. So this particular conspiracy theory kinda fits the reputation. And being insistent on it is a bit weird.
It seems a little ridiculous to me that someone would think the country that considers itself the best would intentionally keep a senile in place of power.
Except that we have major news orgs reporting it. Because it happened. Thanks!
Your country has major news orgs saying your country’s major news orgs are misleading. So do we trust major news orgs, or do we trust them not to always trust them?
So, do you trust major news organizations when they report this story, or do you trust them when they say not to always trust them? You can’t have it both ways.
The reality here is simple: you don’t like Trump. You’re not even in the US, but you saw this article and thought it’d be a fun “gotcha” moment with someone you assumed was a Trump supporter.
But you got it wrong—I’m not a Trump supporter. Now that your assumption didn’t pan out, you’ve shifted the conversation into a philosophical debate about truth, conspiracy theories, or whatever else.
That’s fine, but let’s be honest: I see what you’re doing. Changing the angle doesn’t change the fact that your initial argument was based on a false assumption.
Friend, I’m retired. I can legit just argue back and forth with you all day, every day. And I enjoy it. Lemmy is my hobby. I have no problem and no guilt with being on here 24/7.
So you do what you gotta do, but you won’t tire me out. I promise. Thanks! :)
Well argue your point then! “oh news orgs report on it” is not a good argument. And you know it. Nor is going with personal attacks nor making presumptions about me.
If you’re gonna argue, argue. Right now you’re shitting the chessboard
The term “conspiracy theory” carries a dismissive tone, implying wild, unfounded speculation or paranoia.
The distinction is important: yes, it was a conspiracy in the literal sense—a coordinated effort by individuals or groups to cover something up.
However, it’s not a “conspiracy theory” to talk about it, especially when the events in question are backed by evidence or widely acknowledged as fact.
But once the information is proven true or widely verified, it transitions out of “theory” territory and becomes a matter of public record or investigative reporting.
Seems like you did a little research and now you’re backtracking. Dude, you were mocking it as a “conspiracy theory,” implying it didn’t actually happen. Your exact words: “I’m a person overseas laughing at a guy who needs a tinfoil hat.”
Now you’ve realized it was true and not just a “theory.” It’s okay to admit you were wrong or that your tone might have come across differently than you intended.
You’re not even in the fucking US, yet you thought you knew more than reporters actually writing about it! Fucking Lemmy, man… lmao
I’m not, it is a theory about a conspiracy. That’s a conspiracy theory. It’s okay, and there’s a reason it’s associated with such stigma.
It seems a little ridiculous to me that someone would think the country that considers itself the best would intentionally keep a senile in place of power. So this particular conspiracy theory kinda fits the reputation. And being insistent on it is a bit weird.
But until that is proven, it’s just a theory.
PS. yes I am very bad at figurative speech
Except that we have major news orgs reporting it. Because it happened. Thanks!
Your country has major news orgs saying your country’s major news orgs are misleading. So do we trust major news orgs, or do we trust them not to always trust them?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/12/media/fox-news-coronavirus/index.html
So, do you trust major news organizations when they report this story, or do you trust them when they say not to always trust them? You can’t have it both ways.
The reality here is simple: you don’t like Trump. You’re not even in the US, but you saw this article and thought it’d be a fun “gotcha” moment with someone you assumed was a Trump supporter.
But you got it wrong—I’m not a Trump supporter. Now that your assumption didn’t pan out, you’ve shifted the conversation into a philosophical debate about truth, conspiracy theories, or whatever else.
That’s fine, but let’s be honest: I see what you’re doing. Changing the angle doesn’t change the fact that your initial argument was based on a false assumption.
Friend, I’m retired. I can legit just argue back and forth with you all day, every day. And I enjoy it. Lemmy is my hobby. I have no problem and no guilt with being on here 24/7.
So you do what you gotta do, but you won’t tire me out. I promise. Thanks! :)
Well argue your point then! “oh news orgs report on it” is not a good argument. And you know it. Nor is going with personal attacks nor making presumptions about me.
If you’re gonna argue, argue. Right now you’re shitting the chessboard
I already told you what I think. You keep trying to get blood from this turnip.
I believe him. I don’t care if you agree or not. It’s really that simple.
And I also believe that you just want to keep having the conversation. For no other reason than ego. Thanks!
Well you’re boring, just another personal attack. I kinda expected more when you pulled out receipts
Sorry to disappoint. I guess that means our conversation is over. Oh well, thanks for everything and hope you have an awesome day! :)