• Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    That looked good at first but it has too many conspiracy theories:

    This includes during the Ukraine War when Russia began using Starlink (9) while it was claimed they got them third party and not from Musk himself; however now appears imo to show Elon is a doublecrosser.

    Such a claim can’t be attributed to “imo”

    Crypto trading, especially memecoins, appears to be an obvious scam to most because it’s the stock market without ownership. So why were these 4chan pedophiles and nazis doing so well? Because it was just meant to give them money the whole time. And crypto is great for transferring money internationally from shady organizations to shady people (24). Far right catchphrases and meme campaigns dispersed online including X, give out the key words/catchphrases for the new coin that isn’t a scam and will disperse money.

    Classic conspiracy theory ignoring Occam’s Razor

    “If you can watch your vote counter, if we can bring God down from heaven (he’s referencing Starlink), we can win this, win California, win a lot of states.”

    Because religious people never talk about god?

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Occam’s razor isn’t a rule. It’s specifically for proof of God in a medieval philosophy context and is the observation that if you need a very convoluted theory on which a much simpler hypothesis also fits, the simpler one is more likely.

      However it doesn’t state that the simpler solution must be true.

      • Lojcs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I didn’t say anything about the simpler solution having to be true? Having complicated and interconnected answers to simple unrelated questions is an indicaior of a conspiracy theorist, and Occam’s razor gets that point across without spelling it out

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          You said ‘ignoring Occams razor’, as if that invalidates any hypothesis. And it doesn’t

          However I have but that technicality to spell out, I’m not implying the truth of the matter either.

          I’m just crusading about the misunderstanding of the use of Occams razor, I’m not trying to undermine your comment.