Conspiracy Theory anyone?

NotSpaghetti

namsnanny - if there was anything in this it wouldn't have had to be self published!

Did you know it's an old non-story being rehashed by Trumps right wing?

www.lemonde.fr/en/m-le-mag/article/2025/03/13/who-is-candace-owens-the-pro-trump-influencer-who-is-spreading-transphobic-fake-news-about-brigitte-macron_6739123_117.html

No I didn't know Trump was involved

I know it took 8 years to publish and XP has yet to be taken to court over it.

I also know it is being used around the world to claim that Macron has lost his mind (in China at least). Which obviously it would be, (used politically by his enemies, I mean).

Another one I had forgotten about is poor Diana Princess of Wales death.

I haven’t read the docs myself . Maybe you should.

NotSpaghetti

I think he's called Poussard by the way.

Thanks I do make many mistakes and probably will make many more.

Barleyfields

^I haven’t read the docs myself ^. Maybe you should.

why?
As I said this thread wasn't about the veracity of the book. More about peoples responses to it .

Perhaps we should go through them one by one.
Co2 is causing the earth to overheat is it not ?

Allira

^In chat because it could be interesting and lighthearted^

Sorry, but I don't think the slurs about Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are at all light-hearted or indeed interesting.

They could well be slurs, but if it was true does it change anything?

Should we not speak negatively of some people, but we can call others names?
Why?

Should we suppress an idea for fear it is a slur, or examine it to find the truth?

loopyloo

Perhaps we should go through them one by one.
Co2 is causing the earth to overheat is it not ?

Interesting. It might be better on a thread under environment though?

Namsnanny

Barleyfields

I haven’t read the docs myself . Maybe you should.

why?
As I said this thread wasn't about the veracity of the book. More about peoples responses to it .

Well that’s my response.

Namsnanny

Allira

In chat because it could be interesting and lighthearted

Sorry, but I don't think the slurs about Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are at all light-hearted or indeed interesting.

They could well be slurs, but if it was true does it change anything?

Should we not speak negatively of some people, but we can call others names?
Why?

Should we suppress an idea for fear it is a slur, or examine it to find the truth?

But why is it interesting to anyone but the people themselves and their families, particularly their children?

It's intrusive and just plain nasty.

And no, I'm not narrow-minded as one poster called some of us - narrow-minded is being interested in this kind of salacious gossip.

My response is that it's unkind to perpetuate theories about Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama.
Also the constant searching for what happened to Princess Diana is wrong.
She died and she still has family who mourn her.

love0c

I know a journalist of a very well known newspaper and they informed me that they had seen photographic evidence to prove that she was born a man. Were the photos fake? Who knows. I most definitely believe the journalist though. They were not allowed to publish them.

So your perspective would be (and I don't want to put words in your mouth), you trust your journalist friend, and they have actually seen photos, so you trust the evidence your friend has seen?

You raise such a good few points in your post love0c.
If there were no restrictions on publication (to preserve the perceived position of BM) the public would have more information to decide for themselves how they feel about a trans man/woman being connected to a head of state, and how they feel about a head of state choosing a trans man/woman as a partner.

Why infantilize the public?

The point about trusting your source is more complicated in as much as it brings in an emotional response to the subject.
Which of course (not saying in your case) means we are capable of being easily manipulated through our emotional reactions by outside forces, ie, media etc.

Thank you for your post, it gave me something to think on

Namsnanny I believe my friend that they have seen photos. But were they real? Photos can be altered. In my opinion the one of Prince Andrew with the young girl looked fake to me.

Ilovedogs22

Some very rude & slightly narrow-minded Grans responding to the original poster on this topic!
Remember the saying.........
'There are more things in Heaven and Earth"
Sorry can't remember the rest!
I blame the dog for woofing for his walk. 🥴

"Than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio"

I hope dog enjoyed his walk.

Although I think most CTs and unsubstantiated rumours are rubbish, there is at least a grain of truth in some of them; including some of the ones cited by the OP.

The thing to remember is that the more you try and convince a conspiracy theorist that they are wrong, the more they become convinced that the conspiracy must be true - otherwise you would not spend so much time trying to convince them it is wrong .

So faced with someone who is capable of signing up to this mish mash list selection.of conspiracy theories and facts without discrimination. The only thing to do is to shrug and say 'whatever' and move on to another more intellectually challenging thread - like 'How to open a tin of salmon'

Allira

Namsnanny

Allira

In chat because it could be interesting and lighthearted

Sorry, but I don't think the slurs about Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are at all light-hearted or indeed interesting.

They could well be slurs, but if it was true does it change anything?

Should we not speak negatively of some people, but we can call others names?
Why?

Should we suppress an idea for fear it is a slur, or examine it to find the truth?

But why is it interesting to anyone but the people themselves and their families, particularly their children?

It's intrusive and just plain nasty.

And no, I'm not narrow-minded as one poster called some of us - narrow-minded is being interested in this kind of salacious gossip.

But you miss the point, the thread isn't about salacious gossip, well not by me as can be seen by the lack of info I have covered.

This is about why some ideas are attacked and the people who espouse them by implication.

Take David Icke, for example. If he believes in lizzard people why would I go out of my way to attack him?
It's easy for me to pass on by. Ignore him.

If she was previously male (supposed to be her brother) why did both of them receive damages?
That makes no sense to me!

(Are both trans for this to work?)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0l0z1p628o

...and why would it matter anyway?
And who are her children?
The whole thing feels nuts to me.

Allira - you say you've got a huge map of the Earth at home, and it's flat well I agree the hypothesis is tempting - but if it's flat it must be very stretchy (or made of, say, jelly or bubblegum) - as I've also got some big maps that are flat but it doesn't explain all the different protections...
🤔

M0nica

The thing to remember is that the more you try and convince a conspiracy theorist that they are wrong, the more they become convinced that the conspiracy must be true - otherwise you would not spend so much time trying to convince them it is wrong .

So faced with someone who is capable of signing up to this mish mash list selection.of conspiracy theories and facts without discrimination. The only thing to do is to shrug and say 'whatever' and move on to another more intellectually challenging thread - like 'How to open a tin of salmon'

Exactly. Whatever.

love0c

Namsnanny I believe my friend that they have seen photos. But were they real? Photos can be altered. In my opinion the one of Prince Andrew with the young girl looked fake to me.

Yes good point, what we see nowadays isn't always the truth.

If conspiracy theories are warped ideas, which confuse, how easy it is/will be to control the narrative with images.
How will our gchildren tell what is what?

No, Namsnanny by introducing libellous/salacious “gossip” even to discuss conspiracy theories is just one very small step from the gossipers.
It’s a well known journalistic ploy ask a scandalous question in banner headlines”Was Prince Philip Gay?” Or “Did the Queen Mum have an affair? “ (both totally ridiculous ) and then proceed to answer this hypothetical question in the negative.
But the damage is done.
Your OP was egregious whether or not your intention was, is up to you to decide.

I don't agree with conspiracy theories at all, but I find this thread interesting, the OP is just trying to ascertain what other posters think.
Every poster has a right to a opinion, but some have been a bit mean. The theory on Brigitte Macron is interesting though.

I should have added I don't believe it though.

M0nica

The thing to remember is that the more you try and convince a conspiracy theorist that they are wrong, the more they become convinced that the conspiracy must be true - otherwise you would not spend so much time trying to convince them it is wrong .

So faced with someone who is capable of signing up to this mish mash list selection.of conspiracy theories and facts without discrimination. The only thing to do is to shrug and say 'whatever' and move on to another more intellectually challenging thread - like 'How to open a tin of salmon'

Oh M0nica you do make me laugh! Yes the mish mash was a bit of a marmalade selection.

But it doesn't really matter what the list was, it was only there for some information.

You could I'm sure come up with some more edifying conspiracy theories, maybe the one on Thorium is more to your liking?

The point being missed is what makes people become so entrenched in their own belief systems?
Entrenched or indoctrinated enough to throw ad hominem remarks around?

Even more astounding is how just remarking on a subject it is possible to get a dusting down from someone who thinks the subject is off limits, but not off limits enough for them to just pass on by.

Open debates need free speech, which can't be had if people drown out others.

I get it this isn't a topic for you, that's OK we are all different.

Actually, being a naturally curious person (DH says nosey) I used to like some of the more light hearted CT, but after Diana died and then through COVID those perpetuating CTs became a little manic and went far far down the rabbit hole whilst calling the rest of us “sheep”

It all became a bit much for me

RosieandherMaw

No, Namsnanny by introducing libellous/salacious “gossip” even to discuss conspiracy theories is just one very small step from the gossipers.
It’s a well known journalistic ploy ask a scandalous question in banner headlines”Was Prince Philip Gay?” Or “Did the Queen Mum have an affair? “ (both totally ridiculous ) and then proceed to answer this hypothetical question in the negative.
But the damage is done.
Your OP was egregious whether or not your intention was, is up to you to decide.

I have decided that my intention was to highlight, examine and discuss why people are dismissive of some ideas and rude to those who espouse them, what influences us to change our minds and much much more .

You have your opinion of the op fine, stick with it.

Watch the thread and count how many times I try to become salacious, or libellous, or gossip. That may show you whether you might think differently later on.

Or it might not.