Depends on your definition of conspiracy theory I guess, but serious people take it seriously https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1463219980506439691
There may be no direct positive evidence for it, but that doesn't mean it's all that implausible.
I'm inclined to agree that this story probably leads to nothing, either because it is absolutely nothing or because the corruption here is too vague to nail down (that's the smart kind to do).
But after living through the media's credulity toward the war on terror, credulity toward the war on drugs, credulity toward the satanic panic of the 90s, credulity toward the broken forensics that have gotten innocent people executed, dismissal of Juanita Broaddrick and vilification of Edward Snowden, I'm inclined to believe they are totally capable of a kind of mass group think without any need for a belief in a kind of conspiracy.
I have not dismissed the possibility there is a conspiracy.
I'm only calling out that asking a leading question like this doesn't add to the conversation at all.
There is an incredible irony to accuse me of providing no rational when this whole thing is about somebody alluding to a conspiracy with no rational at all.
The starting point to a conversation should be "hey, there is a conspiracy here, this is why."
reply