I think it comes down to imagination and confidence. Some people cannot construct scenarios in their mind and analyze their likeliness. And others just want to be accepted and part of the mainstream.
There are also people who simply aren't interested in learning about topics yet feel free to blast their opinions about them. Kind of like how I might say 'country music sucks' when actually there's a lot of good country music but I haven't tried very hard to find the artists I like.
Re:William Binney Explains Snowden Docs
by rhizome on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @02:40AM
(#8393138)
What is it that in fact makes the subject so far-fetched and a topic treated the same way as the "the president is a man-reptile from neptune" kind of conspiracies?
Describing something as a conspiracy is to spin it as something far-fetched. This isn't to say that there aren't far-fetched conspiracy theories, but some yet-to-be proven conclusions have enough data as to be near-fetched. After all, math and the sciences are full of conjectures.
I see this a lot and I honestly wonder. A lot of us knew-without-proof what was going on... suspected strongly may be better wording. We didn't talk about it because either people wouldn't be interested without proof, or we assumed other people knew just as much.
What is it that in fact makes the subject so far-fetched and a topic treated the same way as the "the president is a man-reptile from neptune" kind of conspiracies?
I am really trying to figure out what, in my education (or what little I had of it seeing as I left high school fairly early), caused me to see things in a less "that's crazy talk" way and more as a "it's technically possible and they have endless resources, why wouldn't they do it" subject while other people dismissed it (and some still do).