Something's going on here: Building a comprehensive profile of conspiracy thinkers

submitted by [deleted] from (theconversation.com)

all 4 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What is your purpose in posting this article?

[–]FormosaOolong 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

My first thought was that it was to demonstrate that there is a propaganda campaign promoting this BS. It's the second article of its ilk, and it's so off.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah it honestly makes me question the poster's intentions... he seems dedicated to associating saidit with "conspiracies" even though we made saidit partially so we can get away from being forced to use that word which immediately discredits us in the eyes of the mainstream... on reddit everything controversial was forced on to /r/conspiracy but here on saidit we can post in any sub and he's still choosing to use that word as frequently as possible. Raises a lot of questions tbh. Not sure if OP is trying to help saidit or hurt it

[–]FormosaOolong 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fair dinkum, I haven't popped in in a few days, and don't know OPs post history. It is interesting to note now three outlets (likely more) are shoving this pablum down the public's throats.