re: An article many of you need to read

quote:

---

For those concerned about the rise of conspiracy theories in the church, it is rather distressing that three-quarters of evangelicals agreed that the mainstream media produces fake news compared to only 54% of non-evangelicals

---

Only distressing because mainstream media does produce fake news.. and anyone with half a brain understands that

quote:

---

I don’t know who Klarvin supports so I can’t speak to the analogy for him. My guess is he’s got some right leanings, may vote Trump in 2020 but is critical of conservatism sometimes so this board calls him a communist cocksucker.

---

I don't care if he is Rush Limbaugh in real life. You can't come on here spouting bullshite about "An article many of you need to read" pissing and moaning about how illogical, embarrassing, and outlandish right wing conspiracies are, without being told to GFY.

We have just been through 3 years plus of the most promoted, legitimized, volumized, and propagandized conspiracy theory in the history of mankind. A conspiracy theory illegally used to attempt a fricking coup in the United States of America! I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to leftist bullshite about tamping down right wing conspiracy theories from anyone!

Get lost

Actually the real question... is there any reasonable person left who doesn't believe that the mainstream media promotes a steady diet of conspiracy theory / fake news... Even the most liberal of my friends concede that this is the case

quote:

---

Roger Klarvin

---

Good article.

The guy expressed dread that 75 percent of his community thinks the msm produces fake news.

Elation would be a rational response.

Ah, the old “let’s take the most outlandish thing I have heard and lump in all criticism with it” bullshite

Fundamentally dishonest

Screw you

quote:

---

Sure, but when discussing conspiracy theories most aren’t referring simply to a lack of transparency from the government.

---

Incredible dodge of point. "A" for effort.

Alas, when people like you "speak of conspiracy theories", you're referring to a whole host of things that are not simple "lack of transparency".

Sheesh. I'll bet you use the phrase "lacked candor" in real life, don't you.

quote:

---

Believing the government fudged quarterly budget data is very different from believing they blew up the WTC towers.

---

Good Lord, now you're just embarrassing yourself with an obvious rhetorical device.

yes. Those two are different. Alas, a shite ton of what your ilk calls "conspiracy theory" is at neither end of your absurd false dichotomy.

Look. If you're doing to debate dishonestly, expect to be treated like Texridder.

Do better.

In the spirit of honest debate, I read it. These were my two biggest takeaways:

1. It’s a little hard to even start on an article that takes such a condescending and contemptuous tone toward its supposed target audience right from the headline. Who, Christian or otherwise, actually espouses gullibility as a virtue or aspires to be more gullible? That’s not exactly a term that connotes anything the least bit positive or flattering, much less as lofty as “virtue”. I’d maybe stipulate that some people could be misinterpreting “open-mindedness” or “tolerance” as meaning they should entertain all manner of ideas, regardless of veracity ... but how much of the emphasis on those particular characteristics is really coming from other evangelical Christians in the first place? Probably not the majority of it, if we’re being honest.

2. Despite those inherent flaws, there’s some potentially useful information in here. I’d say that the suggestions to limit your time online, to avoid responding in anger, or to question what your emotional responses reveal about you is valuable advice, although that’s in no way exclusive to evangelical Christians. Where it again devolves into a counterintuitive muddle of unsupported assertions is when it offers no real guidance as to how to separate truly crackpot “conspiracy theories” from events that may not have been fully elucidated to this point, but are backed by enough empirical evidence as to raise genuine moral and spiritual questions/concerns for evangelical Christians. (It’s not as though there’s no historical precedent for such events. ) Failing to differentiate those situations further undermines the authors’ premise that Christians are obligated to speak truth at all times, and rather suggests that Christians are instead obligated to restrict themselves to speaking only certain pre-approved truths that conform to some popular or authoritative (but totally unspecified) criteria.

Based on those points, the article came across to me as though it were written not as so much as a well-intentioned appeal for Christian integrity and temperance as it is a thinly-veiled attempt at pandering to an entirely different audience.