so basically "I don't like arguing with theorists because they give me information and evidence to support their claim".
More like "I don't like arguing with conspiracy theorists because they give me so much information and evidence that
does not support their claim." Just because it's tangentially relevant and can be interpreted as significant when you apply the "everything is connected, nothing is as it seems, and nothing happens by accident" mindset, does not mean it's actually sufficient to support the absolutely absurd theories on show here.
so the process of an investigation and the mindset of seeing connections is demented somehow? Because that's literally how all investigations ever carried out in all of human history have been structured.
It is when you get carried away with it. A proper investigation rules out connections that are too flimsy to be of use, and focuses on the promising leads. A conspiracy theory investigation has no quality control for when dumbasses are linking two businesses together with a telephone style chain of affiliations and thematic similarities. Everyone just takes pathetic connections like those and runs with them, gathering more bullstuff into the web and never looking back.
The chain of "weak affiliations" you described there is not only pretty rhetorical but doesn't represent what is happening here whatsoever, there is no "my cousins friend's uncle's brother" stuff going on here, there are direct affiliations to these sketch people that the Clinton's/Podesta's have here.
It happens all the time. See the pizza place that was named the same as one which was a shareholder in a shareholder in a shareholder etc. into one that was involved in a money laundering scheme a few years ago. Sure there might be some solid links in there but it's not worth reading over until someone can carve it out from all the useless drivel. Know anyone who's actually done that? I looked the other night on the Voat community for such a thing and found someone hopping through a few companies, a few personal affiliations, and some other leaps of logic to bring the MK-Ultra bullstuff into the loop, which was almost a proof by reduction that they were completely demented.
But apparently when one thing heavily relates to another thing through direct relations it's just a non-coherent idea, keep telling yourself that kiddo because that's not how this stuff works.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. You may indeed find many valid and solid connections while obsessively researching leads at random, but it doesn't support the core theory at all if you have to get to it through a nonsensical conjecture somewhere down the line, and everyone seems to ignore those.
I absolutely respect the first part there, but the people doing this aren't "insane" by any means, their just taking it upon themselves to carry it out because the FBI or any branch of the government won't themselves.
Or they already have, through non-ridiculous means, and found nothing? But hey, if an authority figure says something that indicates you may be wrong, it must mean that they're in on it, right?
And the being presented in a stuffty way part is loving great, it's not like detailed info-graphics and multiple compiles of information have been gathered already to present this to people who have a hard time going through it all themselves, not to mention said info-graphics and compiles of info being linked and posted in this thread multiple times already.
Almost every "info-graphic" I've seen so far has been a jumble of screenshots where I can only imagine someone has deliberately put in the effort to arrange them in a way that relays as few conclusions as possible. I have seen a couple that graphically show how X is linked to Y, in turn linked to Z, and so on, but that just goes back to my earlier point that chains of links made by people who fixate on the strong ones and take the weak ones for granted are inadmissible. The compilations end up being jumbles of more and more links that again, do very little to tie back into this central theory. Maybe I've just been clicking on all the pointless links by random chance, but there really shouldn't be any of these tangentially related articles that form no conclusions in them in the first place. It's all quantity over quality taken to a ridiculous extreme. So yes, I do think it's presented in a stuffty way. Conspiracy theorists seem to have a knack for it, in my experience.
"disregard for attention to detail", yet this entire investigation has had complete regard for attention to detail, how can you not exhibit that when going through 30,000+ emails....
In the collection phase, granted. I was referring to the part where you take stock of everything collected. How often do you see someone say "hmm, this link seems really flimsy, can we get something more solid here before bothering to investigate this further" in a conspiracy theory investigation? I suppose it's perfectly okay to ignore the weak links if you take it for granted that there are an infinite number connections to be found between any two things anyway, and once you've found one chain you can draw whatever conclusions make both parties seem as nefarious as possible.
once more "I don't want to listen to you because you're giving me information and making me read".
If you hand me a five foot stack of papers, and I read a few pages and find that they're bullstuff, I'm not going to subject myself to the rest of them before reaching the conclusion that there was no quality control involved. Even if a few pages in that pile are solid, because of the wide range on display I'd just attribute it to random chance rather than the result of any of your efforts, and tell you to go back and filter it down to the ones that aren't a waste of my loving time.
