A quick post before my plane lands, I want debunk TwitterFiles#7 a bit. Musk is turning this into a conspiracy theory.
https://hellscape.substack.com/p/twitterfiles-is-becoming-a-conspiracy
TwitterFiles#7 is cherry-picked to lay out the conspiracy-theory, but demands the reader be ignorant of the Burisma hack and other October Surprises. With context, everything looks normal without the conspiracy-theory.
Can you explain where the line between corruption and conspiracy is?
It seems that the latter category is used to delegitimize protests against the former when it suits on ideological/political basis.
So you could replace all the mention of "conspiracy" with "corruption" in your article and posts and their meaning would remain the same?
Or maybe you've subconsciously tried to support your thesis by using "conspiracy" instead of "corruption" because maybe people are more inclined to dispute allegations of conspiracy instead of corruption?
Something like: let's frame this in a convenient way to oil the argument and make the conclusion seem foregone.
If you ask me, this surgical substitution of "corruption" for "conspiracy" has skyrocketed in recent years.
@post I don't know if there is a line between them.
"Conspiracy" is when you plan with others to work toward a goal, in this case, the accusation that they knew the laptop story was coming, so conspired for months how to cover it up.
"Corruption" in the FBI is like the corruption in my field cyber-security, where we want to see ourselves as the white knights stamping out bad things, rather than as oppressive authority.