originally posted by: Greggers
Go with pointless.
I already had before I even hit the "reply" button. At least we agree on something.
Lunatics = the people willing to believe it without checking sources, although that's not necessarily what makes them lunatics.
Hell, if that's your metric for measuring who is a lunatic when it comes to trusting information without checking sources, that encompasses probably
95% of the American public. I'm one of the very few people that I know personally, other than my wife and a couple of friends, who actually attempt to
verify information on a story or report. Most people don't, and on top of that, most people don't even read a story or watch a report, they just see a
headline and run with it.
Unbalanced people are everywhere, yes. But the "official story" of any given conspiracy doesn't attract them per se. They do, however, tend to
flock around conspiracies in droves.
Right, but what you're failing to credit these "unbalanced people," as you're willing to call them, with is that they often do a lot of research into
an event before believing that the official story is false. No matter how 'far out' their claims are concerning the falsehood of the official
narrative then becomes irrelevant to people who consider them "unbalanced," as they just get lumped into the stereotype of "conspiracy theorist" and
often viewed as irrational, often by the people in that 95% that I mentioned who are apathetic about researching the veracity about claims in any
given news report.
Do you see the irony in that?
In some cases, I consider those who buy into the official narrative more of a "lunatic" than those who are willing to question that narrative. In most
cases, I think that apathy is the most prevalent quality in the American people these days, and I applaud anyone willing to dig deeper and try to
connect dots that, say, the MSM or official mouthpieces fail to recognize or seemingly attempt to distract from or, in the worse cases, cover up.
Like Draoicht points out (and to which point you think is seldom true), when the story doesn't sit right, (some) people employ critical thinking
skills, and this is what leads to a distrust in officials and official narratives, and the stench of lies from these sources is getting palpable these
days--it's no wonder that the default stance of some anymore is to distrust the 'facts' from the first published reports, especially when these source
would rather be first than be correct the first time. I'm not saying that it's the best approach nor the one that I take, but I am certainly always
skeptical if we're being lied to, even by omission or innocent mistake, and that's why I constantly check multiple sources for important stories in
order to get a more accurate picture.
And, you know, if that picture doesn't add up, then let the dot connecting begin, because where there's smoke, there's usually a raging fire that
someone is trying to cover up in order to snuff it out before all of the looky lous show up. The real question is, what is actually smoke that leads
somewhere, and what is just condensed breath from all of the hot air?