Why call a thread silly when you obviously haven’t read it, or you’ve only skim-read it with your mind already made up? You’ve resorted to the point I made in my very first post, ‘…use of “their” weaponised term “conspiracy theory”…’. The term couldn’t have been weaponised if the sort of thinking I describe didn’t exist; there would have been no nonsensical proposals to associate the proposals of conspiracy with.
I’m making a point about an ambiguity of language. The word ‘theory’ gets used in two different ways, which creates confusion, and a lot of defensiveness from a certain sort of people. There’s a difference between “theory”, which is a framework for understanding eg. gravitational theory or music theory, and “a theory”, which should really be called “a suspicion” or “a proposal”
Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model of the corporate media explains Russiagate. We know where that came from; Crowdstrike originated it, and predictably, the corporate media ran with it. Crucially, in doing so the corporate media indulged in conspiracy theory; “Russia” and “Russian hackers” became their explanation for anything and everything.