The bottom fox should look the same as the top fox. After they've believed it for decades, their ego is on the line. They will argue that the evidence is bad, or it was always obvious, or that it's overblown.
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
854 points (94.4% liked)
memes
10857 readers
4257 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
bottom fox
Poor choice of words.
Phrasing, Lana!
It's never a question of how evil they're capable of being, but how competent.
Plenty of conspiracy theories don't work because they'd require hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people to completely shut up.
Yeah. MK Ultra tracked, faking the moon landing didn't.
I feel like Conspiracy theories are at least partially the result of a lack of regulation and oversight for governing bodies and corporate entities.
For example... the atomic energy commission approved experimenting on disabled children by feeding radioactive oats to them.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spoonful-sugar-helps-radioactive-oatmeal-go-down-180962424/
It's one of the reasons we have laws like informed consent now.
Everytime we run into something new, like radiation, some company or government branch does some seriously unethical shit with it and new laws and regulations are written.
So it's like we're all just waiting to find out what new fucked up thing has happened, and how many corporations are gonna fight any proposed regulations regarding it.
Its already happening again with meat, dairy, poultry, fish, and alcohol.
Lesser known ones like bath soaps and shampoos, detergents, lotions, gas ovens and heaters are also experiencing this.
It's why we should regulate them into the ground, and give them 0 trust. Get rid of lobbying, screw profit, the economic damage from all the scams, suffering, and death in the long-term is more than enough to make any gain in profit meaningless.
how else are we supposed to get data on how radiation effects children? Fukushima? Hiroshima? No, neither of those was controlled and both of thosehad goals like "reducing exposure" and "saving lives" by the local government.
how else are we supposed to get data on how radiation effects children? Fukushima? Hiroshima? No, neither of those was controlled and both of thosehad goals like "reducing exposure" and "saving lives" by the local government.
And that's why i say that US law is one of the most reactive.
Issue being, a large number of conspiracy theories are just utter bonkers (moon nazis theory, etc.), would be really ineffective in practice (chemtrails, etc.), or tries to blame capitalism's problem on a small number of people within the system (International Jewry, etc.). In fact I kind of have a theory that the more "skizo" stuff was put out to make the real stuff look impallatable for people believing the institutions are serving them.
I know at least some opportunistic far-right people that use conspiracy theories to make their ideology look better, met at least one Holocaust denier that just wanted to whitewash the third reich for newbies until they prove they're ready for the truth through proof of loyalty, and one denies the CIA's involvement in toppling the Salvador Allende governance to make Pinochet look even more badass.
Alex Jones amd David Icke are CIA
If they didn't exist. The CIA would create one. They need lunatics like that to leak documents to if they want the information within to be discreditted.
I get why memes like this are popular—they’re funny and make you think. But honestly, I think they can be a bit dangerous too. Sure, some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, but way more often than not, they’re just nonsense.
The problem with stuff like this is that it makes it seem like most conspiracy theories are worth taking seriously, which can lead to some real issues. People start distrusting everything—governments, science, journalists—even when there’s no good reason to. It can also give way too much credibility to wild ideas that just aren’t backed up by facts.
Healthy skepticism is important, but it needs to come with critical thinking. Just saying, "What if it's true?" doesn’t really help—it just feeds into the chaos. I feel like we need more “let’s look at the evidence” and less “trust no one.”
But "look at the evidence" IS "trust noone". Neither science nor journalism has been built on "trust me bro", religion and politics was.
The line of thinking you're promoting is how dedicated political party fans behave, they distrust anyone who says the party has done something wrong. That's also the exact mechanism of how child rapes have been and are happening in the catholic church. The good priest may have told little Pete to suck him off, but he's an authority and why should we trust a kid over him.
I hear where you’re coming from, and I agree that “trust no one” has its place when it comes to questioning authority, especially in systems that have historically abused power, like politics or religion. But I think there's an important distinction between blind trust and informed trust.
When I say “look at the evidence,” I mean fostering a mindset where we evaluate claims critically, whether they come from an authority figure, a journalist, or a random Redditor. It’s not about blindly trusting anyone—it’s about examining the quality of their evidence and reasoning. Science and journalism, at their best, aren’t about “trust me, bro”; they’re about transparency, peer review, and reproducibility.
I get why you’d connect my point to political party loyalty or abuse cover-ups, but I think that actually supports what I’m saying. Those cases happen when people don’t question authority or demand evidence. Blind loyalty, whether to a priest, a politician, or even a favorite conspiracy theory, is the problem. Critical thinking is what prevents us from falling into that trap.
It’s not “trust no one” in the absolute sense—it’s more like “trust, but verify.” If the evidence holds up, great. If not, we should keep asking questions.
view more: next ›