I'm still sympathetic to the pro-conspiracy responses' general conclusion ("something weird is going on"), but what confuses me is how some attempt to defend that conclusion.
If it was strictly a matter of saying, "yes, Rov_Scam has reduced the apparent probability of there being a conspiracy by undermining some folk narratives, but there are still discrepancies x, y, z which may still outweigh the anti-conspiracy evidence" then I wouldn't be aghast at it (as someone who has absorbed the Epstein death conspiracies through osmosis I'm still on the fence about the security camera issues but don't feel confident staking out a position) but some of the responses almost sound like a parody of conspiratorial reasoning, taking it as a given that Epstein was murdered and then discounting evidence against it per the anticipated conclusion.
p
I'm still sympathetic to the pro-conspiracy responses' general conclusion ("something weird is going on"), but what confuses me is how some attempt to defend that conclusion.
If it was strictly a matter of saying, "yes, Rov_Scam has reduced the apparent probability of there being a conspiracy by undermining some folk narratives, but there are still discrepancies x, y, z which may still outweigh the anti-conspiracy evidence" then I wouldn't be aghast at it (as someone who has absorbed the Epstein death conspiracies through osmosis I'm still on the fence about the security camera issues but don't feel confident staking out a position) but some of the responses almost sound like a parody of conspiratorial reasoning, taking it as a given that Epstein was murdered and then discounting evidence against it per the anticipated conclusion.
More options
Context Copy link