Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
There is this idea that people have that if a conspiracy theorist isn't able to name names and say exactly how something is done, then one must believe whatever the official story is.
That isn't the problem. The problem is that many CTists want to flip the burden of proof with respect to extraordinary claims, and then use an inability to conclusively and affirmatively disprove extraordinary claims as evidence of the plausibility of the CT.
For example, I can't affirmatively disprove the allegation that Democratic elites that are drinking the blood of children to get their daily adrenochrome fix. But that isn't evidence of the theory's plausibility.