> Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] might actually be intended as an answer to a "who is the 'we'" question quoted directly above it, not a separate sentence fragment for you to come up with an obtuse response to

I realize that.

Feel free to explain how you acquired knowledge of consensus belief among the people you are referring to.

> ...I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text.

I have more certainty than you. I believe I am correct, and I encourage you to demonstrate that you are correct (you do possess this knowledge, and can explain how), or that I am incorrect (in presuming you are speculating).

>> What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

It's a popular meme and is often used to represent victory in internet disagreements, but it is not nearly as magical as it seems. After all, I too can post links to various memes and declare victory too.

We are in disagreement over a precise point of contention, that meme is not applicable. But feel free to pretend that it is.

> Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists.

A problem: you are evaluating a simulation of reality, not reality itself. You do not actually have knowledge of the activities of all these people.

It is amazing that conspiracy theorists get laughed at by normies suffering from delusions of omniscience. Amazing, but fitting in a way.

> And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly.

I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots (they are humans after all), and I've made no claim about them having superpowers. Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning.

> But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of.

And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15. Dare to dream!