> That's a lot of words that could be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'"
This statement is objectively incorrect. The "lot of words" contained within my comment cannot, in fact, be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'"
This is the sort of response that interests me, especially on a high-intellect site like HN.
> My long sentence did not in fact suggest any coordinated behavior at all
This statement is objectively incorrect.
You wrote: "...combined with some [ [conspiracy theories] popular among ["the Tea Party movement"] ] as they were known, [propelled our current president into office].
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy
- the act of conspiring.
- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
- a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
Law.
- an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
.
> nor is there any known evidence to suggest any part of the sentence is wrong
This sounds like you believe that you can assert anything, and the onus is on others to disprove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
> That's the difference between something being proven false, like racist birtherism, and a lack of evidence to support your misreading of my assertion.
I don't think it's actually true that I've misread or mischaracterized your assertion. I have provided some information above upon which my reasoning is based.
More likely, I suspect your objection is that I have interpreted it literally, as opposed to "knowing what you mean" - the issue with the latter approach is, it has a dependency on the manner in which each individual reader unpacks the text you have written into complex ideas in their mind. The advantage of speaking explicitly/precisely/literally is that it is far more immune to errors during transmission. Of course, this can also e a disadvantage, such as when endeavouring to persuade people to believe certain ideas, that are not actually (known to be) True (which is why I suspect my style of writing is so unpopular - it interferes with that process).
> Do I need to provide links for "shots fired in a pizza parlor" or "protesters murdered by car" or "protestors murdered by gun" or "illegal voter intimidation" or "not quite ruling out the possibility that a huge chunk of elected officials and others are part of a cabal of devil-worshipping pederasts who drink the blood of children," really?
No, but it would be preferable if you speak in more precise terms (less vagueness, less rhetoric), or at least acknowledge the form in which you are speaking. But of course, you are free to do whatever you would like.
> You go on a bit suggesting that the only reason any of the above might possibly be considered bad is that it's labeled a certain way
Not quite. I did point out that this labelling is bad, but I also pointed out some specifics of why it is bad. And, I did not suggest that this is "the only thing that is bad" - that is your interpretation of what I've said, an interpretation that is distinctly different than what I actually said. It is this phenomenon (and the increasing frequency of it, on certain important topics) that bothers me.
> but I think you've got that very, very backward. All of the above are considered bad, and it turns out that all of them seem to be....
When you say "they seem to be X linked to..." - what information is your perception of this linkage based on? Did you roll up your sleeve and do the associative backtracing yourself, or did you outsource that to a third party, and accepts the resulting assessment at face value, with no concern for its relative, quantitative accuracy?
> ...linked to a somewhat popular and growing source which happens to fall into a category popularly known as a conspiracy theory. Call it that, or call it harmful garbage, I don't care.
Some of us care. Firstly, I care about what is actually true. Secondly, I care that so many people exhibit signs of not caring about what is true, while simultaneously accusing other people of doing that very thing - and seem to be completely unaware that this phenomenon is occurring. Based on my (admittedly imperfect) understanding of history, the long term consequences of this sort of mindset is often unpleasant.
> This sentence is the one that would give away your game, by the way
That you consider truth to be some sort of a game is similarly concerning.
> That's a doozy, and wrong both in fact and in what I think is its clear intent.
Are you able to point out what is factually wrong with it (and if so, could you please state explicitly what that is)? I am also very curious to know what you think my intent is, as well as how that belief formed in your mind, but that's purely optional.
Lest you allow your intuition that I am "up to something", or "trying to gaslight you" dissuade you from addressing the points that I have actually made (as opposed to addressing inaccurate, non-comprehensive interpretations of them), I would like to preemptively point out that the thinking style I am using here is no different than that which most of us use all day long when we are writing code: disciplined, fact-based (consistent with observable reality) logic. If we write unsound code based on incorrect premises, will our programs not produce incorrect (inconsistent with reality) results, and do we not exert significant effort to ensure that we avoid that? Well then, if that is appropriate for matters in the workplace that affect only small slices of the world population, is there some logical reason that this style of thinking becomes inappropriate when dealing with arguably more important matters: events in the real world, many of which have complex cascading effects on very large slices of the world population?