#conspiracy vs. theory

[marril96]

Criminal Minds 17.05 | Conspiracy vs. Theory

[skaldish]

Look, I get people with higher privileges are more likely to be jackasses, but being straight, or cis, or white, etc. doesn't automatically make someone "problematic" because core identity is never the source of problematic behavior.

As soon as you've decided someone must be problematic because of a feature about their identity, you've lost. You've walked straight into Nazi logic.

There's only one point of measurement that matters when it comes to determining if someone's being problematic: Their behavior.

And then, before you decide that person's evil for behaving a certain way, you investigate why they're behaving the way they are, because malice isn't always the reason. Problematic behavior can also come from places such as ignorance, stress, or brainwashing.

I'm sorry, but we don't live in a world where people are categorically good or bad based on character tropes.

We just don't.

[stealthetrees]

God I wish conspiracy theorists were as much a problem in real life as on the internet. I wanna meet someone who doesn’t believe in the moon landing and tell them that no, actually, the moons not real it was blown up by a British guy named Tim.

[professional-court-jester]

i’m genuinely of the belief that the megamind sequel/tv show was meant to premiere on nickelodeon in like 2011 alongside their other spinoff shows, but then got shelved after the movie flopped financially and has been sitting around in some archive gathering dust until peacock decided to release it as “new content.”

like, can we just look at the visual evidence alone?

he fits right in with this lineup. peacock, i’m onto you

[anthroxlove]

What comes to mind when you think of Amber Heard? Liar? Survivor? Narcissist? Millions of us watched the celebrity trial of the century, Depp v Heard, in 2022. Amber Heard lost and Johnny Depp was vindicated. But what if Amber was actually the victim of an organised trolling campaign? What if the online hate against her was manufactured? Alexi Mostrous, the reporter who brought you Sweet Bobby and Hoaxed, investigates what happened to Amber and who might have been responsible. It’s a story about how our own thoughts and opinions can be moulded without us even realising.

[thestreamweaver]

Just remembered the "What If V2" series of the older marvel comics. Ororo and Logan's daughter Kendall/Torrent was soo cool!

Also (alongside Logan looking so comfortable), they have a very young son too, but he wasn't named.

What do you think his name is or should be? What kind of powers would he have?

I don't know this for sure... but I heard a theory that his name might have actually been (....wait for it....) Evan Munroe...

I don't know if this is actually true or just someone tossing flames, but if it was, then this would make a lot of sense

It seems kind of far-fetched to think this to many, myself included... but if you look at different places in the episodes of Evolution where Evan Daniels is, there are subtle hints. Like when he signed up for the skateboard competition...

Spoiler alert: he didn't sign on where the D's were...

Also how Ororo is specially connected to him (of course if he is her nephew then she'd be particularly interested in him just in general) it also looks like he and Logan got familiarized a lot in the show to......... of course that would happen with the whole teacher/ student thing, but I personally think there's more to it. I input it in the fanfics that I write.

Personally, I have a theory that Ororo and Logan were together before the series started and had a son together, then they were forced to split ways because of Weapon X. When he disappeared, she went to look for him and had to leave their son with her sister and brother in law. After it became clear that Logan was so debilitated mentally that he couldn't be the dad they all wanted and needed him to be at that time, she decided that it would be best for everyone involved to leave little Evan with his aunt and uncle, and they ended up raising him as their own. He found out the truth during the show, and that's one reason he acted out so much... they just hid it because you know how Marvel's handled that couple so far 😞

The only countering factors would be I don't think Ororo would abandon her child like that... but then again, she loves Logan more than anyone ever, so maybe her heart just couldn't take it 🤷🏼‍♀️

I could debate myself and others on the subject for days, hahaha 😅

But, back to the original question..... I don't know... it could be my theory, or it could be something else... I have a name for one of their kids in my fanfics. Their youngest son (so far 🤭) is Ayotunde. Which means "joy has come again" in Yoruba.

What would your preferred name for him be? Do you have a name idea?

[aliusfrater]

there's something to say about the fact that this fandom doesn't seem to have changed

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/antisemitic-attitudes-america-2024

By: Center for Antisemitism Research

Published: Feb 29, 2024

Executive Summary

In the months since the October 7th, 2023, terrorist attack in Israel, the global Jewish community has witnessed an increase in antisemitic activity, unprecedented in recent years. For many in and around Jewish communities, this period has felt inherently different, a sentiment that has raised several critical questions about the current scope, nature, and implications of antisemitism.

To explore this, the ADL Center for Antisemitism Research has collected data since October 7th related to the scale and structure of the phenomenon of antisemitism in the United States and compared results to past findings.

This study of 4,143 Americans, fielded between January 5th and January 18th, 2024, (with a margin of error of approximately 1.5%) found the following trends:

Anti-Jewish trope beliefs continue to increase, and younger Americans are showing higher rates.

From 2022 to 2024, the average number of anti-Jewish tropes endorsed by Americans increased from 4.18 to 4.31 out of 14. Using the original 11 statements comprising the ADL Index, agreement with 6 or more anti-Jewish tropes increased from 20% of the U.S. population in 2022 to just under 24% in 2024.

In a reversal of past trends, younger Americans are more likely to endorse anti-Jewish tropes, with millennials agreeing with the greatest number of anti-Jewish tropes on average, at 5.4. They’re followed by Gen Z at 5, Gen X at 4.2, and Baby Boomers at 3.1.

In addition to individual attitudes, more than 42% of Americans either have friends/family who dislike Jews (23.2%) or find it socially acceptable for a close family member to support Hamas (27.2%).

Conspiratorial thinking and social dominance orientation are key predictors of anti-Jewish belief.

Belief in conspiracy theories continues to be one of the main correlates of antisemitic attitudes, with an overall average correlation of .378 with anti-Jewish trope belief. Respondents who fall in the upper quartile of conspiracy theory belief endorsed over twice as many anti-Jewish tropes, on average, as those with the least conspiracy theory belief.

Anti-Jewish belief also correlates heavily with social dominance orientation – the belief that there should be higher status groups and that they should suppress lower status groups. For example, respondents who at least somewhat agreed with the statement that some groups of people are inferior to other groups were 3.6 times more likely to fall in the top quartile of anti-Jewish trope belief compared to those who did not.

There was also a strong relationship with the belief that the problems in the world “come down to the oppressor vs the oppressed.” Those who at least somewhat agreed with this belief were 2.6 times more likely to fall in the top quartile of anti-Jewish trope belief compared to those who disagreed with the statement.

A significant percentage of Americans hold anti-Israel positions, but also support a Jewish state’s right to exist.

Significant percentages of Americans hold certain anti-Israel positions, such as 20.1% who expressed support for removing Israeli products from a local grocery store and 30.4% who said supporters of Israel control the media. Younger Americans take these positions at significantly higher rates.

However, support for an independent Jewish state remains high, with 88.8% saying Jews have the right to an independent country. This is true even among those who take other anti-Israel positions. For example, 83.8% of people who believe that Israelis intend to cause as much suffering to Palestinians as possible believe that there should be a Jewish state.

October 7th and the ensuing Israel-Hamas war has not resulted in major changes in the percentage of Americans who hold anti-Israel positions.

However, in just about every anti-Israel position assessed, increased polarization appears evident. The proportion of respondents strongly agreeing or strongly disagreeing with Israel-related policies grew from the summer of 2023 to the present, whereas the proportion of those who somewhat agreed or somewhat disagreed shrank.

Individuals who held negative attitudes toward Israel-related policies, Israeli people, and Israel-oriented conspiracy theories were significantly more likely to believe anti-Jewish tropes.

Respondents not comfortable buying products from Israel were 3.4 times more likely to be among the top quartile of believers in anti-Jewish tropes.

Respondents who do not think Jews have the right to an independent country were 3.7 times more likely to be among the top quartile of believers in anti-Jewish tropes.

Respondents who believe Israelis intend to cause as much suffering to Palestinians as possible were 4.6 times more likely to be among the most antisemitic Americans.

Respondents who believe Israeli operatives are secretly manipulating US national policy through AIPAC or other influence tools were 7.5 times more likely to be among the top quartile of believers in anti-Jewish tropes.

Views of Hamas are also deeply concerning, with more than half of Gen Z expressing some degree of comfort being friends with a Hamas supporter.

[ Continued... ]

[tomorrowusa]

Today is Super Tuesday. It's more than just presidential primaries.

Last night Rachel Maddow spotlighted some of the wack Republican candidates and wove them together to describe how bizarrely extremist the GOP has become. This is NOT your grandmother's Republican Party which gave us sane people like Gerald Ford or George Pataki.

If you are not taking the threat seriously then you just haven't been paying attention.

Ms. Maddow goes on to say that it's up to us to stop a MAGA Republican takeover of the US. We cannot rely on some legal gimmick to stop Trump.

In the words of civil rights icon Rev. Jesse Jackson: "Nobody will save us from us but us."

[brick-van-dyke]

TERFs 🤝 Zionists

Using the exact same talking points and rhetoric.

[moriarty1234]

T*LC Refutation (but decidedly NOT johnlock refutation)

[Note: I love and ship johnlock because I saw it for myself in the show when I watched it and was part of the general audience in the past. I even want it to become canon in some Holmes adaption in the future. But T*lc needs to get sucked into obscurity and forgotten. Other fandoms like Good Omens, etc., are following the same rhetoric in their "meta" posts, and that needs to go. This is crucial for our basic critical thinking skills and objectivity.]

Read Part - 3 : Everything wrong with "subtexts" and "symbolisms" here.

Part-4: The Harmful Aspect of T*LC:

Let's move on to some more serious issues, or why we (Kim and I) don't believe for even a second that hardcore t*lcers (the ones who're rabid about this theory) ever cared for any type of representation, or even johnlock in itself for that matter.

I say hardcore t*lcers because the normal ones simply believe in t*lc and keep that shit to themselves. I'm even mutuals with them on Tumblr (although I know that when the show was on air, hardcore, insufferable, and deeply problematic t*lcers were in the majority).

1.) The very definition of t*lc : The general idea of t*lc is that johnlock has been planned since 2010 (right from the first episode of S1), this whole show is essentially a love story between Sherlock and John, the cases are not so important, and that johnlock is going to be the endgame canon ship. When the writers deny anything related to johnlock in their own show, they're lying to keep their elaborate plan under the wraps. When Sherlock and John kiss on screen, it'll be a rug pull moment for all the non-believers, their love story will be groundbreaking queer representation in mainstream media, and BBC Sherlock will become a culturally iconic Holmes adaptation. Because sometimes, the queer characters can be the heroes of the story.

All this sounded so nice and fancy to me when I was new to shipping johnlock. Because BBC Sherlock was my first fandom that I ever participated in. Johnlock was (and is) my first ship. I used to be a non-shipper before this, because I'm not exactly a Romance-genre fan in published fiction.

Now I don't like the general idea of this at all. Not because I don't want johnlock to become canon in some version (I really do), but there are so many flaws in the very idea of t*lc.

a.) They didn't even plan what they were going to do with Rosie Watson in S4. They just introduced the pregnancy subplot to raise the stakes in HLV. Only for shock value purposes. This was Mark Gatiss' statement (now I can't find the link but I've seen an article about this before). To think they'd planned an entire romance storyline, but it was just under the wraps the whole time, is unrealistic.

b.) While it's true that showrunners or directors do lie to their fans before a work is published to maintain an element of surprise, Moffat and Gatiss had denied anything related to johnlock too many times, and almost vehemently for most viewers to believe that they're just lying. One can only lie too many times, after all. And something needs to be there in the actual show for (maximum) fans to catch on that they're indeed just lying. There wasn't enough evidence for that. Too many of those scenes just came off as gay jokes instead of anything of real substance. That wasn't a good look.

c.) The third part is really what gets me the most here, and one of the main reasons why Kim and I began to actively despise t*lc, even though we're both still pro-johnlock. These people really thought the ultimate rug pull moment for the entire audience should be... that John and Sherlock are in love? Really? That's it? That's highest standard you have for supposedly groundbreaking queer representation? That doesn't sound right. Queer representation really shouldn't be used for shock value. As if we're not marginalised and isolated from most people already. Especially in my country. That just sounds as though you want to place these two characters in a museum as though they're some exotic beings or something. That's the opposite of a healthy queer rep.

d.) Even if johnlock were canon, it would've hardly been groundbreaking for the purposes of queer representation. Even in the 2010s. Because shows like Breaking Bad (a show from 2008, i.e., before BBC Sherlock, in which a very significant character is canonically gay and black), Elementary (where Mrs Hudson is canonically trans, Joan Watson is a well written character even as a poc female lead, Jamie Moriarty is also properly characterised when mainstream media doesn't have a lot of well-written female villains to begin with), London Spy (which is also a BBC show from 2015), Money Heist (which also features a significant canonically gay character), etc., still existed. I'll even list The Irregulars as an example, even though the first season of that show was aired in 2021, because that was still before the Sherlock Holmes franchise entered the public domain. Watson is canonically gay and black in that one.

e.) This is a detective show you're talking about. Cases aren't important? You kidding me?

2.) Rabid t*lcers were hypocritical as hell. They used to demand canon johnlock for "representation", but they were all sorts of bigoted people themselves.

a.) They made racist comments about Lucy Liu.

(From Sarah Z's video) :

They've called slurs to fans of colour in the fandom (I can think of one fan specifically right now) for not shipping johnlock.

b.) Characterising Sherlock as a twink, gay baby, or "smol" is fetishistic. It's just homophobia indirectly.

c.) They went rabid about the bisexual Sherlock headcanon, Instead of simply disagreeing with it for whatever reason. You're not doing the queer community any favours by h/cing John as bisexual just for your johnlock shipping, only because he has canonically shown attraction to women.

See this:

Stop playing the victim card right after perpetuating biphobia lol. You need to rewatch the show if you think mere fascination was all he felt for Irene. Also, even if he genuinely didn't show any attraction to any woman in canon, fanon can still be its own thing. Not everything has to be strictly canon compliant.

One more:

Stop straw manning and assuming real people's sexuality. Stop ship bashing. Enough with the biphobia.

This person is a johnlocker and "The One" obviously means johnlock here. No, not everyone is uncomfortable because of johnlock for bigoted reasons. People are allowed to have preferences.

Another one (probably my favourite) :

Talk about hypocrisy. The title of this post sounds so positive to bisexuality, but then OP goes right ahead to frantically claim Sherlock is 100% gay and not anything else!!! 1!!

Sherlock is heavily queercoded in the show, I agree. I don't even care whether that was the authorial intent or not at this point. That's what a non-insignificant amount of people took away from this show.

But his canon sexuality was never specified. People are allowed to interpret his sexuality however they want. You are nobody to state your own headcanons as facts.

More hypocrisy.

d.) The acephobia was rampant in this fandom mostly because of these people. It's a well-documented fact.

e.) The misogyny in this fandom was ugly. The kind of outlandish metas they write trying to disprove adl*ck from the show... jeez. If adl*ck definitely doesn't exist in this show, why would you need to disprove it so many times through your meta posts?

Can't erase something that really isn't there, just saying.

"Irene is just a personification of Sherlock's libido for John." Seriously? Do you even listen to yourself?

Don't get me wrong. I blame Mofftiss equally as much for not writing women properly in general, Irene Adler in particular. They butchered canon Irene Adler (a queen) way too much in their show. But the fans' response to her was almost worst.

It's understandable if the show's version of Mary doesn't sit right with you for whatever reason. People are allowed to have preferences. Personally, I'm quite neutral about Mary Morstan in this show.

But these people used to take their hate for her too far. These people have never been as mad at Moriarty, or even at Culverton Smith, as they all were at Mary for shooting Sherlock. Again, this is a crime drama show. Not all characters are going to be sunshine and roses.

3.) Rabid t*lcers hardly ever tried to explore johnlock in other versions. If you're a fan of Sherlock Holmes, you'll be at least curious about different adaptations that exist out there. Why did they hardly ever posted about The Irregulars when it was aired? An adaptation in which Watson is canonically in love with Holmes? I've been around in the johnlock fandom enough to know that the rabid t*lcers (NOT ALL T*LCers) never really cared about the possibility of johnlock in some other version after it ultimately didn't become canon in BBC Sherlock. They only care for johnlock as long as Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are associated with it.

... Yup.

(ACD canon Watson was in his early thirties in the first novel. That's not middle aged. Joanlock didn't even become canon - something that was specified since Day 1 - in Elementary lmfao. Also, Lucy Liu was in her forties when Elementary aired. Get your facts straight.)

All these three points are enough to conclude that what t*lcers usually posted about was obviously not "demand for representation", but rather a demand for some extremely specific fantasies acted out on screen with an even more specific choice of actors.

I even joked to Kim about this: The stuff they demand for is so extremely specific that it sounds like a Starbucks order lol.

Part: 5 - Conclusion:

I want johnlock to become canon in some version of Sherlock Holmes adaptation. But I want t*lc as a theory to be completely forgotten and obscured. T*lc is definitely not the way to go about it. Other fandoms (namely Good Omens) have started to write "metas" with the exact same rhetoric in them, and now it's completely unacceptable. It's 2024 now. Let it go.

Some interesting links Kim and I found that are very insightful and relevant to this post:

About cults and the followers

Cult psychology

Conspiracy theory psychology

Science vs pseudo-science

Science vs psudo-science - 2

Conspiracy theory psychology - 2

Signs someone is a pseudo-intellectual

One explanation why even otherwise sensible people seem to believe in t*lc

PS: Not every dark haired character/ blond character is a Sherlock/John mirror respectively. That's not how character-mirroring works. Experts would know this.

T*LC refutation (but NOT johnlock) refutation master post.

[marril96]

Criminal Minds 17.05 | Conspiracy vs. Theory

[ytcomments-archive]

[whumpster-fire]

The funniest / stupidest thing about the whole fairy/walrus discourse going around is how many people seem to unironically believe in walruses. Like I've seen people going "Umm but fairies aren't real" implying that walruses are. Use your common sense, people. It's a marine mammal with goddamn elephant tusks, and unlike the horn on the real life Narwhal they just kind of stick out downward perpendicular to the direction of movement. Just think about how much hydrodynamic drag it would create. And they supposedly use these like ice picks: the problem with this should be obvious if you've ever accidentally bitten into a popsicle. There are numerous other inconsistencies with the lore, like how a walrus is supposedly a type of seal and not related to manatees which look very similar other than the tusks and are actually related to elephants. Possibly due to people confusing them with Elephant Seals which are a thing, but those have trunks, not tusks.

The thing is though that a fairy showing up at your door is at least somewhat consistent with established fairy lore, but the same thing can't be said for walrus lore (which is barely a thing: you're basically talking about a fake cryptid the Beatles made up in a nonsensical song lyric and the internet rediscovered in the mid 2000s because of those "I has a bucket" memes of seals). You might as well ask whether I'd be more surprised to see a dragon or the Jabberwock at my door.

[that-cunning-witch]

The "modern medicine is bad" post has circulated on my dash again and I'm just wondering... why is synthetic supposedly bad?

What about modern/synthetic medicine is not supposed to be in our bodies?

I'm sure the whole idea stems back to some white supremacist conspiracy theory, but until I figure it out, I will forever stew in confusion.

[the-busy-ghost]

Am re-reading Hogg's Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner and I know it's not a new or original thought but it's just striking to me again how young George (younger) and his brother Robert must have been during the tennis match and Black Bull mob scenes.

If the 'famous session' refers to the 1703 session of parliament (or even if it refers to the previous year's sitting which Queensberry also oversaw), and if old Dalcastle married in 1687 (or later), then at most George could have been 16 and his brother 15, and it's probable that both boys are younger.

I don't remember too many of the details from the first time I read this book so will have to finish it before I make any further judgement. However I don't think it detracts from Robert's culpability or nastiness in any way to take into account his probable age in the earlier portion of the narrative. I think makes for a more interesting reading when forcibly reminded that he's a young teenager. Even taking into account different social mores and expectations placed on children in both the period in which the novel is set, and the early 19th century when it was written, it seems to me that that's an element that will still have particular significance for readers in the 21st century, regardless of one's personal experience with extreme forms of Presbyterianism.