Cultural Rave – Wikipedia’s Conspiracy Theory Vibe that I don’t like

The good folks at Wikipedia like to begin articles about conspiracy theories with “________ is a false conspiracy theory which ________” or “__________ is a conspiracy theory in which unproven claims have been made and no one has any evidence for”.

I’m no proponent of blatantly desperate, politically motivated conspiracy theory activism, but I can’t say approve of Wikipedia’s way of talking about these fulfillment-motivated scandals.

If it’s a fucking conspiracy theory, of course it hasn’t been proven fucking true. There are few types of conspiracy theories that could really be proven wrong. It would have to be a very specific theory involving one place, one time, one person, one small situation manipulated some specific way.

And here comes the ephemerally parental mother fucker Wikipedia, giving into the desperation to claim that a conspiracy about government corruption or celebrity crime is indeed false in the very first sentence.

I get you, Wikipedia. You’re operating on the friction of purpose and result. You know that if a neutral-acting, bias-un-aspiring creature like a mega cyber encyclopedia can’t take a stand against the far-fetched accusations of people on the wrong, or whichever side of history,

that anybody could get away with accusing anyone of anything.

But when I see you imply that a government conspiracy theory is wrong before you even start explaining what that theory was,

I can almost relate to the burning hearts of people who are livid at the media for coddling to certain political agendas.

When you show extreme eagerness to defend anyone’s supposed misdeeds, you elicit emotions. And in my opinion, emotion is the side of us that knows that everything is connected and not connected. And that everyone else is trying to exploit that in order to build some better future, or put energy out there that should.

You remind us of a hall monitor. Some kind of impartial-acting judge that isn’t even willing to validate people just a little, and as such, opens themselves up for becoming the source of so much firm disgust.

If you want people to be less motivated to pin conspiracies onto anyone, you’ve got to be willing not to slap their hands away from the devices they use to use the internet.

Saying “that conspiracy is false” just burns their flames, desperate to see you distance yourself from your actions, ready to feel betrayed by the media.

All I’m fucking saying to y’all is,

your articles shouldn’t SOUND like something out of a sci-fi novel.

“This conspiracy is false” is better off as “all evidence points to this conspiracy theory being false”.

At exactly what level of lack of evidence is a Wikipedia article allowed to claim a conspiracy as false? Eventually, you guys will fuck yourselves hardcore when one of these theories turns out to be true.

The government’s just not innocent enough for you guys to be the “guardians against conspiracies” and expect to win each time. People and businesses can stake their reputation on the kind of trust that other people and businesses have not been doing evil things behind the backs of their nations. An encyclopedia should tone down that shit.

And yeah, I fucking I admit that this is partly about you not risking credibility, and partly about you being too happy about making other people feel like the bad guys. That’s called operating on the friction of purpose and result. That’s my fucking theory, my conspiracy theory, about human emotion.

When ranting and raving and marauding on the internet, no one’s really acting on either how they can change people, or bringing justice against them.

Any moral crusade or conspiracy quest is never all about judging someone else or altering someone else. It’s about the tension of those two elements.

Give people a tiny space for their conspiracies to breathe, if you’re so damn confident in the innocence of our governmental overlords. Let them at least be proud of looking for conspiracies rather than feeling shunned for seeking any out.

You guys should be extremely un-emotional.

You shouldn’t have to show a drop of pride or desperation.

Not in anything other than when you beg us moochers for money.

If you want to be seen as not conspiring,

don’t be to them, in any way inspiring.

So says L1 Doubledge.

Published by commanderdoubledge

As strange as Willy Wonka, as sincere as Benjamin Franklin, I am the one who is going to bring purpose to the internet. I am Commander L1 Doubledge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: