9/11 conspiracy theories

Here's the thing, Leosb, *someone* *somewhere* will always be offended by something done. especially humor. I'm offended by rape jokes. Nebby is offended by jokes about babalonyan kings who make shitty ass gardens. The question is, why are you offended. Is the joke putting down someone? Is the joke making fun of situation that was harmful? or is it just a joke about something "sacred", like 9/11. we tend to dis the sacred here, cause sacred clowns should always be challenged. If it's truly offensive to someone because it is harmful, because it makes fun of them, or because it belittles THEM (not the sacred cow, but themselves) then please explain our offense, and I will make sure i fight with you. but just saying it's disrespectful or insulting isn't harm.

Here is My Thing Godot, yeah someone, somewhere is always offened by something, but in the case of 9/11, I would expect 10 to 15,000 people are offended by this. Get my drift? It's me that is offended, it is me trying to respect the 10s of thousands of people that are. Leave a reply please.

Yes, the article is poking fun at truthers, not 9/11 victims. You seem to be failing to grasp this concept.

And, BTW, aren't all gardens shitty?

Are you kidding me, no conspiracy theorist every assumed goats and wikiiest's did 9/11. This isn't a theory, this is snark too far. If I lost a relative in 9/11 and went on RationalWiki and saw some snark guy wrote goats did it, I would be furious and demand it takdn down.

"I think we may be going a snark too far."

ROFLCOPTER etc... An insightful comment about the state of RW.

Leo - it's not going to bother most relatives, cause it's about conspiracy theories, and making fun of how stupid they are. If our joke said "9-11 survivors are all goats", i'd get why they would be offended.

Again, being offended becasue you've attacked a sacred goat is not sufficient to me, to justify saying "this is harmful, painful, bothersome". you have to show where it harms anyone. and all you've done is **claimed** it offends people.

The thing about conspiracy theories that are dealing with large scale events is that people affected by then feel bad that truthers and conspiracy theorists are trying to prove other alternate ways that their relatives died. On our RationalWiki article for 9/11, it even says- Sadly 9/11 has been a magnet for many conspiracy theories. Imagine yelling out in Lower Manhattan that goats and readers of Wiki did 9/11 and see what happens next.

You'd be laughed at, leo I don't think anyone would say "how dare you, sir". seriously.

You just don't get it, you'd get beat up. People hate it when stuff like this is mentioned. It's like saying the Holocaust never happened.

Wait, wait ... are you arguing that making fun of false accounts of historical events is the same as denying true accounts of historical events. Are you an idiot, or trolling?

Obligatory.

First of all, what is trolling? People get offended when you say stuff like the government did 9/11and stuff because this was such an horrific day in American history no one likes to challenge the mainstream. If a conspiracy theorist personaly tells a family of an alternate way their loved one died they would break down. I'm not the idiot here, you guys just aren't grasping this concept. Now, is it really a life changing deal if one out of a million snark statements on this wiki is taken down?

"Trolling" is a way of fishing where a hook with a bait is dragged through the water.

As for the 9/11 bit, there is such thing as "context", and there is a large difference between a sentence in an article on a wiki known for its sense of humour, and the same sentence spoken in isolation from other sentences on a New York street.

No. It's really not. and I think you are seriously exaggerating. But, never the less, the snark stays from my point of view. I did try to get you to show why it was a problem other than upsetting sacred cows. you go back to that, endlessly.

I suppose, John Glenn finally punched out a "we never went to the moon" guy. heh.