As ridiculous as FE seems, prima facie, until it's proven false, I keep my mind open to plausible explanations for why:
A) the moon landings were all fake and we've never "been back"
B) there are no actual photos of the entire earth from space (unless you believe the sizes of the continents are changing by 30-60% every decade or so)
C) the only people on earth that we give billions of dollars to, to go to space, are faking any, let alone much (or all) of the footage, using green screens, parabolic "zero gravity" flights, actual hair spray to make their hair stand up, underwater studios (unless you believe in air bubbles in space)
You might say "but these items have better explanations than FE". Well let's hear those theories also. Let's not shoot down those who are proposing an outlandish, yet mostly comprehensive, theory, one that explains these anomalies as well as a plethora of others, like how did they use radio frequencies that don't even purportedly bounce off the ionosphere to communicate hundreds of miles during WWII, how can the horizon be seen above an item whose entirety should be hidden behind it, why is Antarctica, aside from a tiny portion, entirely off limits to most civilians, how was Felix Baumgartner able to slowly float up to nearly 30 miles without drifting a thousand or more miles because of the earth's rotation, etc.
Suggestions that these things are not even worthy of discussion, on a forum dedicated to conspiracy theories, have to be disingenuous.
Original Research
Let's not also forget that FE researchers are literally the only conspiracy theorists doing original research. These people will buy lasers that cost thousands of dollars, cameras, etc., and go to some large body of water (large lakes, bays, etc.) where they can test their hypothesis with an actual experiment. Everything else I see on here is pure speculation, or videos of interviews involving various professionals with dubious backstories (Malone, etc.).
Does it Matter
Pertaining the "would it even matter" argument, you honestly don't need a lukewarm IQ to imagine how much it would matter, if FE was real.
Principles
Most of us are here because we couldn't speak freely elsewhere, because "hate has no place on our platform" type communist bullshit. Now we're going to make the same kind of rules, especially banning arbitrary content that is desired by a clear majority, on a platform with already-existing mechanisms for getting rid of low quality postd (downvoting, hiding)? If FE posts are banned, this place is no better than TGA, and don't even pretend to be pro constitution when you can't even stand up for free speech about a conspiracy theory in a conspiracy theory forum.
I'm out of here, for good, if FE is banned. Aside from spam, illegal, doxxing, banning has no place on our platform.
Im not disagreeing that things can be done better - but to stop/censor them, because they arent up to some arbitrary snuff seems self defeating to me.
I get your frustration. I truly do. Those that claimed no planes hit the towers or that they were lasers were annoying, they deflected from real questions, etc, etc, etc.. I don't disagree with what you see. At this point we are likely in 100% agreement.
My concern is that talking is always better than not talking. Many people haven't been at this as long as members here, or those that are "awake" and those first steps are crucial for breaking free of the conditioning. Sure the first steps are awkward, filled with silliness - but if they are mocked, ridiculed and censored when they step out -they will never come back, they will never get the logic, rationale and reason that disproves most of the conspiracy or mainstream theories. They are a lost soul. That bothers me.
Does that make some sense?
It does - however, personally, after my decade plus in the “community” allowing people who are wannabe priests of the cult of FE (note - NOT the honest, but misinformed seekers you describe) free reign results in more of those “lost souls” you mention turning away, never to return.
Is that at least plausible to you? That people could be turned off of the community because of the (undue, artificial, astroturfed even) prominence of certain voices?
Absolutely that is a concern. If someone was awake enough to think something like 911 didn't smell right, and came here to only see things about lasers, and drones and holograms they would rightly think the entire sub was batshit insane. But again - so what?
When the people that state those things say it, counter it with logic, reason and rationality.
Lets go back to the FE. It takes all of 30 minutes to prove to yourself the shape of the earth. There is no counter argument for 90% of the proofs of a globe. Logic, reason and rationality FTW !
IMO anyway. lol. Be well, now I am really leaving. Thanks for the convo!
I think this is really important.
Kookifier is a term that needs to come into play here. I'd hope everyone here agrees that there are nogoodnicks in the world? Further, that WEF is a central hub of them and Klaus Schwab is not acting alone? Further yet that all such tyrants need to be killed and there is no political solution; ok some may not realize that yet but we can't just continue to gawk at the problem and do nothing.
So alienating people from the larger cause has dire consequence.
I think the very best solution is to organize info and discussion by topic. Most topics here can't be organized any way better than simply being here. FE has a dedicated .win, c/FlatEarthResearch
People interested in it can explore to their heart's content. People who don't want to engage in that topic at all don't get bombarded with it in unrelated conversations, which was my experience back when I used to try to engage here.
That's the exact opposite of censorship.
That is a very fair point, but I think old school Chomsky would disagree with you on the "opposite of censorship". I believe it would be his position that when you separate those things out you are censoring the separated one.
Paraphrasing him: "To give the illusion of free speech is very easy. First you decide what can be said within a desired band. Then you promote active, vigorous debate and discussion within that narrow band. When someone tries to speak outside of that band, claim it is harmful/dangerous/*ist/etc and when they complain about free speech, you point to the great discussion in the allowable area".
And just like that people are snowed into thinking one thing, when in reality the opposite is true.