I’d be concerned if you made it with your ass and more impressed I’d you made it with your teeth.

All jokes aside it’s beautiful.

Look at this dude with the cart.

Probably depends on the context. The way I see it it works like this.

“You can have these pastries if you agree to vote for me” = Bribe

“Come to our campaign event, we will have snacks” = Not a Bribe

There seems to be a lot of other controversy around this campaign/candidate but buying coffee, tea, and six cinnamon rolls from the establishment hosting your event for the people coming to the event seems like an incredibly low threshold for bribery.

If pastries are enough to swing voters we have bigger problems.

Isn’t that just… campaigning?

I also like science words

Color me surprised

It will probably blow everything out of the water and cost 1K. New boss, same as the old.

Philosophy thrives on unnecessary distinctions based on customized definitions of concepts.

I don’t know that there are that many things that the majority of people consider a conspiracy in terms that absolute. Unless you mean why the majority of people discredit some ideas as only being “conspiracy theories” when it’s impossible to know with absolute certainty that there is no actual conspiracy.

I would say that the majority of people wouldn’t agree that these ideas are necessarily and only conspiracy theories with zero statistical possibility of truth, only that it is extremely unlikely that most of these theories are true and that doggedly pursuing every statistically possible conspiracy is a waste of time. I would also suggest that since the overwhelming majority of popular conspiracy theories never actually reveal a conspiracy we just label any unlikely claim of conspiracy as such.

Interpretations of what? Are you asking why people believe in conspiracy theories or why we label them that way? Or are you asking why large amounts of people believe in the same conspiracies?

I believe the downvotes are because people are interpreting this as a message they should engage people making bad faith arguments as though they were equally willing to engage in honest objective discourse. His point can be true while that particular subtext can rub people who interpret it that way the wrong way.