You dismiss the history as innacurate because information has been tampered with in a biased fashion, and yet the only evidence you point to is from a newspaper obituary, a forum of information traditionally uninformed and biased. My priors for “mascots” being fictitious are outweighed by my priors for conspiracy theories being fictitious. You say you know modern history’s opinion has been changed, which implies that there exists at least some piece of convincing evidence that they did NOT manage to change, which you have read. Show it please.
Hmm, that’s fair. My beliefs in that sort of structure influencing how we perceive history is a lot stronger than the conspiratorial version. On the other hand, I still need more evidence than we have to posit that the feminist prospiracy actually existed and influenced things as opposed to any other one.
You dismiss the history as innacurate because information has been tampered with in a biased fashion, and yet the only evidence you point to is from a newspaper obituary, a forum of information traditionally uninformed and biased. My priors for “mascots” being fictitious are outweighed by my priors for conspiracy theories being fictitious. You say you know modern history’s opinion has been changed, which implies that there exists at least some piece of convincing evidence that they did NOT manage to change, which you have read. Show it please.
You’re confusing conspiracy and prospiracy.
Hmm, that’s fair. My beliefs in that sort of structure influencing how we perceive history is a lot stronger than the conspiratorial version. On the other hand, I still need more evidence than we have to posit that the feminist prospiracy actually existed and influenced things as opposed to any other one.