> Since you both seem unable to google

Is that how you feel? Why? I mean... 'Crazy' is your view. How do you expect other people to find stuff that supports that? I just wanted to know what you meant. I wasn't challenging your view, I was just curious.

But ok...the way you reacted was interesting. I wanna dive into that.

So you expect other people to just think the same as you? Because it's other people's fault if they don't go to Google to back up your claims? As if what you say is some Holy Text or proclamation and they just need to be enlightened, or figure out on their own how true it is? Hahaha! :)

Expecting others to provide support for what you say is an abuse of responsibility, as it's on you to support and detail what you say. Anyway...

This is an important point to understand about discourse. When you do that, it's a form of passive aggressive resistance. You start a discussion, then resist participating, but attack others that do. It's like you want to pretend you're view is the only right one, without having to talk to anyone to figure out how they think about it. (Strangely authoritarian viewpoint for someone who talks like they against that tho! :))

I get doing it that way is a good feeling, and it's OK to nurture yourself like that emotionally, to protect the nascent seed of an idea or realization from outside hostility, say. But if you're not ready to test your views, it might be better to not share them, if you only expect or want assent from others, right?

Otherwise it's just abusive to other people: you say something potentially provocative, then blame them and even attack them if they don't agree, which is not a nice way to treat people.

I think you're just trying to deal with the crazy zeitgeist we're in--and admittedly that's very hard to deal with!--but when you do it this way, it does make you look...not nice.

Anyway...

---

> If you think Jan 6th was an inside job you probably think 9/11 was …

OK, he probably is talking about conspiracy theories to boost his support. That would be a smart strategy since it's popular.

But conspiracy theory is a subjective label, it's not objective truth. And these things, like 9/11 and 1/6 are hardly settled questions.

The weak hypothesis, that's well established, is that US intelligence has some sort of foreknowledge of 9/11, but didn't prepare. There's certainly conceivable motivation to use an attack on the homeland as a pretext for a war that was desirable from a certain calculus. And there's various stronger versions you can escalate to from there...

Regarding 1/6, it's also well established that many of the participants were in fact undercover FBI agents. And, sadly, they even encouraged, orchestrated and ring-led others, effectively coaxing or even coercing them into the acts that, later the same entities then prosecuted those, for participating, in the acts that they had encouraged. So while the entire thing may not have been an "inside job", the fact of LE involvement in boosting it is well established, I think. (Again, strange view for an anti-authoritarian, that kind of 'secret police' type behavior is not exactly the image of fairness and justice).

So it might be a bit challenging to say those things are "batshit", when there's support for both the positions that Vivek mentioned in that BBC article you linked.

> If you think Jan 6th was an inside job you probably think 9/11 was …

So, if you're willing to consider the evidence and think outside of a mainstream official line, then...yeah and? Hahah! :)

It's wise to adopt an attitude of trust toward the government and corporations, but it's also true that there may be cases where you place too much trust in them. Unpalatable and painful as it is, is it so unreasonable to consider that these large entities and institutions might lie or dissemble, or even actively try to undermine the interest of particular groups? I don't want to think that's true, but I have to face that reality, if it is.

You don't strike me as someone who would doubt that, necessarily. But...I don't know. We live in strange times, maybe you have all kinds of different crazy ideas, idk. Maybe you just haven't thought it through and are just generally dispeptic toward the world as a reflection of your life. But I think you genuinely have a good valence, even if maybe you're misinterpreting some people and events.

Regarding you being brown and Indian, I guess it must be hard for people who feel they share some cultural or skin color or experience connection with Vivek to see him saying and achieving these things. It could cause all kinds of emotions to arise. Is it impossible that some of your reaction to him could be expressing that?

Maybe, he's this really successful immigrant (2nd gen) and he's accepted by the mainstream American culture seemingly, and there's a kind of sense of betrayal or jealousy toward him by others who feel ownership over or kinship with those cultural experiences he came from? Or is it like a caste thing, like he seems like the kind of rich-kid Indian guy who was pushing other Indian kids around and acting like he was better than them?

I was thinking this when I saw one of the town halls. He got very passionately hostile questions from a lady who I guess was Indian.

I was genuinely interested in what you had to say. But if you don't want to participate, and instead want to play the fake victim oppressed by an evil HN majority, then just don't participate. No need to be hostile about it. That's not about anyone but you. And you seem like you're a good person...maybe a bit sad...but good.

Hahaha. Like I don't think people should use the zeitgeist political discourse fractures as ways to take out their own emotional issues. Gotta be other avenues for that that don't try to rope in other people and actually are more productive for the folks using it to take out their issues. Hahaha! :)

No need to take that out on others, right? :) Anyway, have a good one man! :)