A Conspiracy Masterclass with Bret Weinstein!

[@truwth]

When he stops his babbling and Heather looks at him bewildered and says "what are you asking ?" is the essence of the Weinstein brothers.

[@WildFungus]

both of them engage in magical thinking while pretending to be giving like lectorial fact.

[@turner373]

Have you considered that he may be running 70 different paradigms at any given time?

[@victorhiggins2118]

Never imagine nefarious conspiracies when incompetence explains the facts..

[@sspbrazil]

I’m amazed that Brett Weinstein has gotten through life as far as he has, it’s pretty miraculous actually.

[@alansmith4655]

He's just further proof that there is an audience for everything. I mean, Dave Rubin and Tim Pool are millionaires 😂

[@sathrielsatanson]

It's not, disregarding his slide into crazy rabbit holes he is pretty intelligent guy. And they are much more stupid people who became Kings of the World, just look at Elon Musk :D Seriously tho, Weinstein's are great examples of the truth that being intelligent does not prevent you from being stupid. Even the most intelligent people's brains can be broken.

[@iv2sab512]

@@alansmith4655 You just have to have no principles and no moral compass. Easy-peasy.

[@dan.lucking]

The fact that it’s even plausible is stunning

[@natalyawoop4263]

I'm fascinated with how far he's been able to go on bullshitting alone

[@puckerings]

The null hypothesis ABOSLUTELY IS that it's one person. Because we know there was that one person involved, who did the actual shooting. Anything beyond that NEEDS EVIDENCE.

[@yurona5155]

Heather: "*snore*...what"? Bret: "Does that sound reasonable?" Heather: "Sure. Uhm btw, let's throw out that icky Ockham's razor thing, it's just an obstacle to what we're trying to do here..." Great choice of clips!

[@topologyrob]

This is the first time I've seen the Decoding blokes, but have listened to heaps of the podcasts. I had a completely different mental image of how they both looked.

[@L_Train]

Yeah I always pictured one as an Eskimo and the other shirtless.

[@gt6808]

Yeah, I always pictured Chris as a bald, craggy man in his sixties with glasses

[@gt6808]

No beard

[@gt6808]

Very short

[@decodingthegurus]

Everyone says that! What was your image.

[@danielmacdougall2697]

the segue to Mt Rushmore in Brett's monologue speaks volumes to Bretts mind set, as does the cause of Brett's academic demise over racism.

[@bengreen171]

It's rather telling that Heather didn't have a clue what Bret was asking her. He just spouts goo that pretends is meaningful and cogent.

[@atheosmonde]

Its more meaningful and coherent than your slop of generalities.

[@inpugnaveritaas]

@@atheosmondenothing Bret has ever said has been meaningful or consequential.

[@rs1803]

And before she knows it, she's married to him...

[@MADDcartman]

There’s been 12 nominees/presidents/incumbents with serious attempts at their lives in our history of 46 presidents. 26% if you allow me to include nominees and incumbents. A pretty dangerous job. Let’s give the secret service some credit in this incredibly hard job.

[@sathrielsatanson666]

Yeah, in a country with hundreds of mass shooting each year, some politically motivated political violence is pretty common.

[@darkfeign]

We used to think Bret was very smart, but it turns out hes just r/IAmVerySmart

[@archaeopteryx981]

Bret and Heather have identified the critical flaw in Occam’s Razor: You can’t sound intellectual, maintain a podcast, and hold a captive audience of kooks if you entertain the simplest possibilities.

[@willjdeanie]

What do you think these guys are doing then?

[@fabians228]

@willjdeanie Not the same thing. The weinsteins and Heather are hyperbolic glory hounds and no matter what happens to be going on at the intersection of politics and science, these 3 people are so full of shit. Maybe these guys are too. They're definitely not pretending that they know everything and I don't think they are even as hyperbolic and full of it. Neither they nor the individuals who are featured on this channel are special, or have knowledge that hasn't been mentioned before with less acclaim

[@ogolthorp]

Wouldn’t it just make sense for the top secret service agents to be on Bidens detail (the current president) instead of trumps (a former president)?

[@spiritualanarchist8162]

'What are you saying '? ...That sums it up pretty well.

[@AndoShy]

I just don't understand why people can't accept that sometimes people f-up and make mistakes, even the most competent among us have off days...

[@KenAttenborough-d6y]

It's a HUGE f up though. There has been now two instances where the Secret Service has failed to prevent an individual with a long rifle within a few hundred yards of the target. I'm not sure we should immediately dismiss it as a couple of 'off days'.

[@AndoShy]

​​​@@KenAttenborough-d6yActually the secret service did their job. They stopped the gunman both times, or was there a funeral for Trump that I missed?

[@KenAttenborough-d6y]

@@AndoShy 🤯 Are you serious, or just being silly?

[@AndoShy]

​@@KenAttenborough-d6yGo look up the history of security incidents involving the president over the past few decades. There are many "close calls". It's just that when this sort of thing happened to Obama or Bush no one cried conspiracy. Granted, Trump getting grazed is a big f-up, however the event at the golf course has been way over blown.

[@AndoShy]

The incident in Pennsylvania was a big f-up, however the golf course was routine and has been way over blown. Look up the history of presidential security incidents, nearly every administration in the last few decades has multiple close calls. It's just that when it happened to Bush and Obama no one cried conspiracy.

[@devalapar7878]

They are trying really hard to make a conspiracy out of this.

[@virgil_io]

“It is to the unknown one yields most impulsively; it is toward the unknown that one feels the most total, the most instinctive obligation.” ―Jean Baudrillard

[@dafarii]

The intellectual dark web ladies and gentlemen!

[@johnanderson1421]

Am I wasting my time? I could be reading Kant, but flaming clown car wrecks are so fascinating!

[@alansmith4655]

At 17:31 did Heather actually correct her use of the term "conspiracy theorist" and corrected it to "conspiracy hypothesist"?? 😂

[@iv2sab512]

That's right. Because Heather isn't some loony conspiracy theorist. She's a conspiracy hypothesist, thank you very much.

[@fyt54321]

Always here for Weinstein exposure. I can only wonder what fun impressions Michael Brooks would have made of Bret and Eric.

[@50-50_Grind]

Awesome content -> subscribed

[@whussung]

I love the implication, deliberate or not, that Bret Weinstein is Vincent Adultman

[@SparklyCoconut-le3fu]

It is scary to see how they imitate legitimacy

[@robertpaterson5477]

"Our tax dollars are poured into holes carved in the universe for reasons that are never explained". Does anyone know what he meant by this?

[@43bg1]

He’s saying that the government misuses our tax dollars, but in a florid way that invites the audience to imagine the government doing clandestine, shady things.

[@robertpaterson5477]

@@43bg1 but what are the holes he's talking about?

[@D.S.handle]

Maybe The Onion reference? :D kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJ-7XndqoNCDhbMsi=Cg0KPvMtFZ8qhids

[@millamulisha]

Bret is the stereotypical academic who thinks he knows way more about other fields than he really does. Whenever he talks about anything other than biology he just sounds so dumb (but confident!). 😂

[@decodingthegurus]

Bret is bad when talking about biology too.

[@davidcamp1231]

Wasn't he just a teacher in evolutionary biology? When you listen to his takes on evolutionary biology and how he use it to extrapolate other philosophies into his worldview it makes you realise he's only making all of that shit up too. You forget to mention Jordan Peterson is completely smacked out on Valium. I'm a guitar player , and in the past I've got high on Valium too and rift on my guitar the same way Jordan Peterson riffs on his ideas. When I look back on those recordings though. None of them make any sense after the fact. More emphasis needs to be put on the fact that Jordan it's just a junkie mate. Try and tell me that a clinical psychologist doesn't know the risks of describing yourself Valium to relieve anxiety. If Jordan was so smart, and honest with himself , he would've avoided the Valium . Jordan Peterson on Piers Morgan the other day was just hilarious. Peterson has really become the villain.

[@Luke-id8ql]

@@davidcamp1231isn’t it funny how the guy warning people about marxists now has to go to re education camp

[@prodigal_southerner]

Are you trying to say Marxists hold any institutional power in North America? Because that would be a profoundly stupid take. We need to give Marxists that power, but that won't happen until after a major fight.

[@davidcamp1231]

@@Luke-id8ql if that was true it would be ironic

[@KristaErrickson]

I have a request. Decode the fascism of Matt Taibbi and the misanthropic anarchy of Chris Hedges.

[@devalapar7878]

The random event is the null hypothesis. If it is random, it satisfies the null hypothesis. Usually, you try to disprove the null hypothesis and show that the event was not random by showing how incredibly unlikely the event is. And to do that, you need to calculate the probability of the confidence interval. If the event is outside the interval, then it is extremely unlikely and probably not just a coincidence. Considering all possibilities has nothing to do with the null hypothesis. For example, the null hypothesis could be that there is no conspiracy and that it was a random shooter. But Bret's null hypothesis makes zero sense!

[@coreyander286]

"It is time to unify the nation, to bring Right and Left together. That is why I am urging Republican Alex Jones to run with Democrat Roseanne Barr on a unity ticket."

[@TheManicMan-p6l]

Do we actually know for certain that Trump's ear was actually clipped by a bullet and not just some flying shrapnel?

[@sathrielsatanson666]

No, I think SS posed it as, call it a hypothesis, that it might have been glass. I don't think there is credible proof either way.

[@willmosse3684]

Or that his ear was really injured by anything at all? He raised his hand to his ear before we see blood. Could easily have popped a capsule.

[@WildFungus]

a bullet is flying shrapnel.

[@TheManicMan-p6l]

@@WildFungus Well, I meant flying shrapnel produced from the bullet hitting something else (like the teleprompter) rather than the actual bullet itself.

[@Lplover007]

Idk about how certain it is but the FBI was initially reluctant to say it was a bullet and later changed their tone to say it was a bullet so I'd say it was probably the bullet itself

[@sprink88]

I just can't bear Weinstein's voice and intonation, especially his overpronunciation and resultant salivous ASMR clicking.

[@tatva_invicta]

The combination of DtG + Weinsteins is always fun!

[@rebeccarightnow]

The Majority Report recently speculated that there might be trouble in Bret and Heather’s relationship and I wouldn’t be too surprised if that was the case

[@sathrielsatanson666]

The Majoritu Report are bunch of morons... and Sam Seder. It's also mega cringe to speculate about someone's relationship or mental state without knowledge of those.

[@Nickname006]

Bret is getting crazier and crazier and bouncing off the walls.

[@tomwheatley3923]

The mhmms from Heather are so arrogant and annoying to the listener 😂

[@MADDcartman]

The dark horse podcast was actually really good until post vaccine-ready Covid. I swear I’m not coping. I literally can’t get through an episode now. This might be the biggest case of audience capture I’ve ever seen. My only explanation really.

[@sathrielsatanson666]

Thia is what often happens with people: something happens to break their brains. However Bret had his brain broken long before the pandemic. It happened in 2017 around the Evergreen incident.

[@MADDcartman]

@@sathrielsatanson666 maybe, but his commentary about Evergreen was completely coherent and liberal for many months directly after

[@sathrielsatanson666]

@@MADDcartman I have not consumed that much Bret's output but from what I remember is that Bret was right about the slightly unhinged protesters at Evergreen. He used that however as a springboard to put himself in the limelight by blowing the matter out of proportions and suing the college for almost 4 mln bucks in damages. So even tho he migjt have been coherent I'd still question his motives.

[@monkerud2108]

The issue is that human beings seek reasons for stuff. And the fact is, random stuff that doesn't make any sense happens every day. Most of it is just somewhat out of sight.

[@sebleblan]

It's always hard to determine whether the Weinsteins believe what they say. I want to believe it's just a grift, but they are pretty convincing in their delivery...

[@myyoutubeprofile-c3u]

Anytime someone starts bringing out the big grand introduction that includes their academic training, you know you're in for something you dont need to hear.

[@lindsv]

I can understand Cusack thinking this way - I did too - altho I know it's bs. The thing that made me immediately suspicious was the pics of Trump, blood on ear, raising his fist with the US flag at exactly the right angle behind him. What serendipity favoured him this way?

[@jumbo4billion]

Links here get taken down, look up the photographer Evan Vucci's interview with The Guardian. He talks about how he got the shot

[@lindsv]

@@jumbo4billion Interesting thanks. Just a last note - and I have to say - as I work in editing pics a lot - that pure blue sky behind would make it a tad easier to rotate the flag to the exact angle ! I know this is petty and that it was more likely just a brilliant shot by this seasoned photographer! Shows you how jaded and skeptical some of us have become.

[@alantasbler4581]

Here's a hypothesis. Bret is a shameless grifter who doesn't believe a word of what he says. That would make the null hypothesis that he has been absorbed by the cult of the extremely insular online conspiracy sphere.

[@alantasbler4581]

Holy insanity Batman! Mind control?

[@alantasbler4581]

MK Ultra was a real program designed to research mind control against no -consensual victims. A woman in Canada did win a lawsuit after she was confined to an asylum and given mega-,doses of LSD and electroshock "therapy.". They succeeded in destroying much of her memory. But not a single case of successful mind control has ever been unearthed.

[@alantasbler4581]

Bret, are "they" in the room with us right now?

[@brentwalker8596]

Cusack was hardly the only person to make those obvious observations. The idea that it was either allowed to happen by the Secret Service or just sloppy work by the Secret Service was widespread.

[@Cumdown]

They didn't have video clips of your mate down the pub

[@m0use1983]

Oh my God, I just listened to Rafa Heydel-Mankoo on triggernometry. You guys should definitely have a listen. Its a painful slog through apologetics for the British empire. and at one point the Kissins ventriloquist dummy suggests that Britain can only be culturally British if its majority white. I'd love to hear what you guys think.

[@sathrielsatanson]

MOINK returned :D

[@eeor]

Love your channel. Stop the vaping on stream though. Young people look up to you.

[@raincadeify]

Also, it doesn't matter how much you spend on your mics if you're going to pound the table or drag you sleave over them. Move them back, they're pretty but they don't need to be in the shot.

[@rumidude]

If you look hard enough, there's always a conspiracy theory to explain everything.

[@inpugnaveritaas]

You don’t have to look hard. You just have to believe you know the answer already and go seeking confirmation.

[@monkerud2108]

The null is like just defined in relation to an hypothesis, or test right, they know this right? It doesn't make any sense to say i do declare the null to be cheese filing lawsuits.

[@monkerud2108]

Even the notion of assigning creedence to logical possibilities at all is silly, creedence comes from evidence, weak or strong. Which is the oart ofncreative scientific think of saying, is it possible, yes, is it likely theoretically, maybe maybe not, is there any indication of it, perhaps perhaps not and so on, and then finally is there concrete evidence to be found if we investigate it. All of those are valid questions to ask, but you have to consider them before testing anything to even know or have ideas about what might be a gold thing to test, all of that happens informally and is fine, its just a methodology of guessing really, and evaluating what guesses seem reasonable to investigate theoretically or empirically. We don't have very rigid methodologies of guessing, in science or outside it, but we have brains that evolved to try very hard at making those assessments, so scientific methods just builds from the formal rigour of mathematics down towards less and less rigorous parts of out reasoning processes, we will probably never formalize the guessing exactly, we won't have a theorem of how to form an hypotheses, and thats okey, we can't make language or science completely formal, but that doesn't mean its unreasonable to suspect that a guess that aliens had something to do with it, is probably not going to be very helpful. The formalisation of that level of the processes of forming hypotheses, would have a form that was also a guess, for what turns out to make most progress that is actually useful, and so on, and we can't really close that gap, its a silly way to think of science, we have treat in oart some of our assumptions as intuitive or philosophical or based on circumstantial evidence, maybe we can find criteria for when those assumptions are bad, but they will still remain both important and informal. Otherwise we would habe to prove that cheese didn't hack into our data collection software every time we try to analyse data, we just have tl draw a linenof plausibility somewhere, and instead collect generic evidence when we don't know where to draw it and try again later with perhaps more insight. Creedence should be thought of as coming after selecting some plausible hypotheses, when we have some indication it might be relevant.

[@fhviking5]

If you form a hypothesis you have to be willing to have it be proven wrong lmaoo - the first requirement to put on the conspiracy goggles is to misunderstand how all institutions and phenomena involved on the topic work

[@thenewmilescopeland805]

What are these 2 presenters called? The lad on bottom right called?

[@jasonlehfeldt1577]

Who is “they”?

[@sathrielsatanson666]

(((THEY)))

[@patriciasanchezwebb]

The Dark Horse needs to learn to modulate, get a sound board, something. What a perfectly crap use of a good set of mics.

[@librulcunspirisy]

Thanks 👍

[@torlachrush]

How many episodes of the Dark Horse podcast dont use the word hypothesis?

[@JustOneAsbesto]

"Our tax dollars are poured into holes carved in the universe" What the fuck does that even mean?

[@monkerud2108]

Brett is jewish right, i wonder if he will even go as far as reaching the conclusion that it was the jews all along. A scary amount of these rabbits holes leads to ideas like that, what then, when you have been dragged into accusing yourself by leading the audience into insanity. At this point im not even sure whether he believes any of this crap.

[@sathrielsatanson666]

I mean, he would not be the first. Just think of right wing grifters like Blaire White and Dave Rubin. They take advantage of an audience that hates their very being. It was pretty awkward when Rubin was trying to buddy buddy with Ben Shapiro and Benny Biy said he would not attend Rubin's wedding because it would be anathema to his religious beliefs.

[@valentinandreuccimoraru5057]

long time podcast listener here. i thought chris woul look like matt, and matt like chris

[@ColinFinkle]

Why can't there be podcasts that just goof around with conspiracy theories (scratch that itch) under the preamble of "this is just for fun, and the most accepted explanation is probably correct"...?

[@DavidHeffron78]

Why will bo one try and impress Jodie Foster?

[@xtrachrisb488]

I think it was steeged

[@seamarsh3756]

it's kind of beautiful.. this level of melted.. hitherto unknown heights achieved...

[@monkerud2108]

So anyway could not resist a rant. Appriciate the content. I think that bringing up this basic method talk to argue that an idea is plausible just speaks to the lack of any actual indication that any of it is relevant at all. The methodology of science and philosophy of science are important topics on their own, but you should nit try to use them to argue for or against any single hypotheses in particular, if so the argument needs tk be quite solid, like an erroneous assumption, and why that kind of assumption might be assumed, but then you also have ti substantiate it in the case you are pointing at, the case has to be made with regard to the substance not just fluff.

[@jbx30001]

Surprised by the sloppiness? Has he met any other humans?

[@stephanedurette5785]

It's crazy that this video just released and they're not even talking about the most recent assassination attempt.

[@decodingthegurus]

Almost like a video editor made it from older material, like all the other videos on the channel.

[@KenAttenborough-d6y]

Agreed.

[@stephanedurette5785]

@@decodingthegurus just to clarify, that wasn't meant as a dig against the uploads on the channel, but as a comment on how crazy it is that there have been two attempts in so short a time. Sry for the misunderstanding

[@KenAttenborough-d6y]

@@stephanedurette5785 I disagree. I think it's very odd that they didn't manage to address the second attempt. Pretty poor effort on their part to be honest.

[@eze317]

I think you mean attempted attempt.

[@monkerud2108]

If you actually do science seriously you learn this intuetively anyway, even if there is not a recipe for understanding it. You just learn it by doing it, because our brains runs on this stuff entierly when it comes to higher cognitive functions. I think it would be useful to do some work in philosophy of science related to it, both on the pop side and academic side, to more efficiently teach people how it works, so they don't go around talking about objective provable facts, when they mean they are reasonably certain the results are rela and agree pretty well with an idea. But scientists forget that people outside then could get the impression that whatever is being discovered is claimed to be absolute fact or something. And also that some scientist sometimes thinks for some reason that science doesn't involve a bunch of philosophical assumptions all the time, its a second order source if fault, because because we change our minds naturally, and science being empirical does self correct over time, its sill a useful topic to explore its just useful as a means to study what we might be doing wrong, or kinds of category errors we make in science and out it in a neat readable form, either for an advanced audience of scientists that might need helonwith how to filter plausible ideas for someone with a large knowledge base, or for a ley person that just needs to overview not to get confused. Completely valid thing to pursuit, but when its used to create an aesthetic in service of claiming whatever you like, then thats very problematic.

[@monkerud2108]

Even when the cave gets cable, high soeed state of the art rail and fiber optic along it to facilitate efficient repairs to repeaters, optimized and everything, even then we can't see sunlight right, and i think scientists think we are playing 0d snakes and ladders. When infact i'm joking lol. But yeah the red flag is that everything hinges on just so metaphors, the cave is a cool little philosophy of knowledge thing, made to illustrate that assumptions are not obvious in a world where people didn't know anything. Its cute but its also very crude. When the arguments are made about concrete things and leads to the allegory of the cave its a giant red flag.

[@noreturn4396]

You need to dress up as bono and the edge

[@craigm5713]

Where the f are they. In some flamin crypt or something. What is crappy carpet they have stuck to the wall?

[@monkerud2108]

I would like to rant about why its not possible to do science by algorithm and so on, why equipartition of creedence is unworkable in practice. But its too silly a thing to do it in response to. The basic point anyway is that the formally solid scientific method by logical induction/deduction only works if you consider all possible hypotheses, and then you need to know how to evaluate them, and you also need to do infinite work to check even some part of it. It just doesn't make sense to try to do, its why science is informal necessarily to some extent, we have to guess at plausible things to check or try to formalize, and build from there or we won't even be able to start, thats what i think is silly about the chris langoon guy or whatever his name is, the 200iq supposedly guy, idk maybe, not even sure if super high iq measures have any clear meaning but whatever. His thing is logical induction instead of empirical induction, and that just doesn't work, you can't consider an infinite unknown set of options to guess at and then sort them out, its more realistic to try to train yourself to lift a mountain by hand. Can do optimism can go a bit far sometimes. Want to write a good philosophy of science book on this very topic and method in general at some point, focusing mostly on how to avoid errors, like assuming a theorem applies to nature based on criteria derived from the theory or class of theories the theorem comes from for example. But thats kind of sober work, and the practical utility is more about not getting too confused and making errors while trying to formulate plausible hypotheses, and trying to test them, u know normal science, by getting a bit better at the informal side. Scientists are good at finding errors very often on the output side, but not always at knowing what exact criteria you can break when formulating hypotheses. Mostly because i think it would be useful for the more creative side of science like physics, where the maths is so heavy duty in the modern era that it can become taken for granted that a certain way of formulation is necessary when it might not be so at all. Just to enable better speculation basically, which i think is a good thing. But talking about hiw the scientific method works and why it is important to consider that biden might habe hypnotized a teenage for years im anticipation of bad polling data, is something quite unreasonable in comparison lolol.

[@adamjohnson1109]

this is some of the worst facial hair I have ever seen

[@adamjohnson1109]

@@Vroomfondle1066 it's not, but I wasn't talking about his

[@monkerud2108]

... To explore, to go where no man or mam has gone before, into the improbable.

[@roydaviescoleman1]

So tired of this Winestain, his brother too..

[@monkeybudge]

Holy vocal fry

[@ZennZennster]

Brett is a complete and total hack

[@dillanklapp]

You guys cut straight through their bullshit😂 Have you guys ever thought of making a video where you go over some of your criteria for these type of gurus, and how people can spot them for themselves? With some of the most egregious instances as examples. I would really love a resource like that to send to my family, they are getting too red pilled off this shit😂

[@bobk3]

You missed a huge point that is part of Brett's programming. He keeps calling Trump president Trump and not Trump or former president Trump. 🤨

[@sathrielsatanson666]

He is technically correct. In American English as in many other languages there is a custom that if you attained a high function you are refered by this function even if you no longer serve in it.

[@olander0808]

@@sathrielsatanson666 The Dunning-Kruger is strong around these parts of the tube.

[@bobk3]

@sathrielsatanson666 No. Look up the Former President's Act.

[@sathrielsatanson666]

@@bobk3 fuck me mate, I am talking about the language and you are citing a legal document.

[@TheBeautifulWindsofAragon]

One thing though, for bleeding so much from his ear, no damage was seen after two weeks. Very good healing for such an old man.

[@Yossarianhoenikker]

Makeup and unlimited medical resources can do wonders. No need for everything to be fake

[@LucidityEngine]

Hahaha

[@samstephens5099]

Majority Report has been on to these clowns since the inception

[@triyuga]

What's with that funny voice the host does? Is that his real voice or is he doing a bit?

[@jumbo4billion]

Wait til you hear a french accent, it will blow your mind

[@zograf4572]

To discredit some poor reasoning and stupidity of some people is one thing, but to say that, everything is what it appears to be, or that there is no possibility of some complex "conspiracy" behind world events, is just naive and stupid. There are powerful "forces" who have both interest and ability to shape world events and that is very evident (at least to me). Jus to take the capabilities of many intelligence organizations (some well known, some not so much), is enough to say that there is a lot about historical narratives that need to be questioned thoroughly.

[@KenAttenborough-d6y]

Agreed.

[@Nodiee1]

Ok but you have to have actual evidence of an event being driven by some sort of conspiracy or collusion. You can't just gesture vaguely at an event and say "this thing could very well be a conspiracy" without any half way compelling evidence. Edit: betrayed by swipe to type

[@KenAttenborough-d6y]

@@Nodiee1 The fact that Crooks was able to get on the roof, be seen by others on the roof with a rifle, be identified by a police officer as having a rifle and was still able to fire shots (one of which was extremely close to being lethal) doesn't make you wonder?

[@zograf4572]

@@Nodiee1 Do you really think you can get evidence for something like that? If it is a conspiracy on that level, it will be well covered. My father worked for an intelligence organization of a european country (im not going to say which one) and the stories he told me about what they did and what others did to them is not something you have read about in the history books. He often said how he read in the newspapers about some event and laughing his ass of because he knew what actually happened. He is retired almost 20 tears now and there are some things he still cant talk about. But the thing he always said is how irrelevant their actions were when dealing with C*i*A or M*i6. Those organizations were (and still are) in a universe of their own when it comes to sheer power.

[@prodigal_southerner]

You mean like the way that violence was started by liberal agents at tiananmen square? I was so blown away when I found out that the communists did all they could to maintain peace and only retaliated after liberals set soldiers on fire.

[@primalchaos7]

Another low-hanging fruit Weinstein episode. These guys are just mailing it in now. Change your name to Decoding IDW Grifters.

[@decodingthegurus]

True. Imagine if we had recently done things like a 3-part 11-hour dissection of Dr. K's content... well, we can only dream.

[@davidcamp1231]

You guys are doing a great job love your work!!

[@D.S.handle]

Sometimes it feels good going for the low-hanging fruit. The Weinstein guys are classic conspiracy hypothesizers, they are gifts that keep on giving, the trees that are evergreen.