Why is anyone who challenges incomplete information labeled as a conspiracy theorist? The circumstances of Epstein's death are highly suspect and make no sense at all. There are questions that need to be answered
A skeptic, when faced with incomplete evidence, concludes they don't know. Maybe they would like to know more, who knows.
A conspiracy theorist, when faced with incomplete evidence starts speculating about what could really be going on, and takes the absent evidence as a sort of soft proof they are right. Why else would evidence be missing, after all, if lizard bigfoot wasn't secretly running the shadow government.
So for example, strictly speaking, very few of us have solid proof Epstein even existed, let alone died. We haven't seen him in person, haven't been to a lot of the places, only seen pictures and documents and 3rd hand accounts. This is reason to have some level of doubt about this, but does not elevate any other hypothesis to credibility, they're also just as doubtful if not more so. That's the difference between skepticism and conspiracy theory: staying at "I don't know".
There are a great deal of things we have no cause to say we know for certain. That's just how it is.
that's not scepticism
Starting from a position of not knowing, I have not seen empirical proof of Epstein's existence. I have not met him, I haven't met anyone who has met him, I've only seen things written about him, and regarding things written when I read about things written about the sort of things I know well myself, they're often wrong or incomplete. I don't judge the evidence for his having existed as incontrovertible. I'd say it's probably likely he existed, but I can't prove it. And as a skeptic, I would say of the things I can not prove, that I never left my starting point: I don't know.
The point is that there's a sliding scale of certainty. I've seen my mother with my own eyes, but not the Eiffel tower, only been told about it and been shown pictures.
I have far more reason to believe the former exists than the latter. I could of course probably go to Paris and check if for some reason I wanted to be certain, bringing them up to parity, but until I have, they're not, and I have at least some reason to be doubtful about its existence. I could check is not the same as I have checked.
Unfortunately at worst it is a tool of control, as it makes discussing any original points nigh impossible. Once conversation has been sufficiently inundated with terminology and theory, where were we again?
Given just how verbose you have been, I must say I don’t know which it would be, but either seems quite possible.
Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent.
This slippery slope feels like a water slide.
I'll argue this is a misapplication of skepticism. Where it needs to most urgently be applied is toward the things we think are definitely true. It will eat away at your assumptions and reveal they're actually mostly things that seem true.
> Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent.
Given the minds of others are unknowable, you will never know. I will also never know your intent with regard to any action. But I also don't think intent matters.
The true nature of things doesn't require faith or believers. The sun is still shining even when a cloud obscures it.
That is this prompt:
> Why is anyone who challenges incomplete information labeled as a conspiracy theorist?
> The circumstances of Epstein's death are highly suspect and make no sense at all.
I don't think the actual circumstances matter. The same standard should apply.
Do you want less information?
Only if you put a lot more trust in your sense than in your social cognitive abilities. You're only making this point from inside this argument's steam cloud, and if you were to distrust your social context as much as you claim here, you'd be as incapacitated in your daily life as you would if you were blind.
For example, IMO it’s more likely that Epstein was murdered than he committed suicide. My basis comes from a doctor’s analysis of the bruises of Epstein’s neck that show the force applied was more than what could be applied from hanging himself as described in the report. Also, it seems highly unlikely that the guards would be asleep the same day the cameras went out, and they removed his room mate from his cell (which the court ordered him to have a room mate at all times). There’s too many unlikely variables that occurred.
Many will label me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m just stating what I think is the most likely outcome. I’m not saying I definitively know
Did he or did he not have girls inside the high school getting paid to solicit and bring other high school girls to his house to give him massages?
Like what was Ghislaine Maxwell's defense? He was innocent and so was she? None of it happened? Some of it happened?
Having said the above though I care little about Epstein or the circumstances regarding his death. (Marvin Minsky, who I used to have an admiration for I have come to loathe from his association with Epstein.)
There were already prominent and rampant conspiracy theories long before his 2019 arrest and death.
I look at this kind of thing and think "maybe?" but like there are open-air conspiracies 1000X worse that play out in the media or every detail gets leaked at every step. It just seems unlikely that there really are much more salacious details to uncover.
https://womeninthebible.net/women-bible-old-new-testaments/r... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#Biblical_acc...
The label conspiracy theory was coined as far back as 1863 but was popularised by the CIA and no doubt other security services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Origin_and_U...
Honey Traps do seem to be the preserve of educated people, older people and security services personnel.
"Conspiracy Theory" tends to be more related to males, where as the female equivalent is "gossiping" and "rumour mongering".
The legal equivalent is "heresay".
I entirely agree. On the other hand, a lot of people insisted Epstein had been done in by the Clintons, (without specifying how of course), ignoring both the fact of Barr as AG being ultimately responsible for his safety and Epstein and Trump had a long-standing social relationship. So a lot of people who were 'just asking questions' seemed to be highly selective about which questions they were willing to entertain.
One can generalize from this case to the wider moral panic underway at present about pedophilia. A great deal of it is in bad faith and aimed at injuring political opponents rather than making anyone safer or figuring out the truth.
It's meaning isn't specific and will change depending on who's using it and in what context.
I'll weekend my understanding, if I hear a definition of conspiracy theory that doesn't contain an ad hominem assessment.
Literally everything happening right now goes against the conspiracy theorists' theories. Hell, they were trying to decode secret messages in Democratic Party emails about nonexistent sex dungeons in pizzerias when this broke, Epstein wasn't even on their radar. Now they're insisting they were right about everything all along.
They're discredited because their thumbtacks and string bullshit always harms legitimate inquiry and discourse more than it ever helps[0..2]. They're only ever right in the same way a broken clock is.
[0]https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-qanon-impedes-legitimate-...
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/technology/qanon-save-the...
[2]https://www.antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/a...
edit: posted sources.