Difference between revisions of "Talk:Limited hangout"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:::*[[Weasel word]] | :::*[[Weasel word]] | ||
:::*[[Willful ignorance]] | :::*[[Willful ignorance]] | ||
− | + | Also, would the [[Panama Papers]] be considered a limited hangout that hurt few Americans? | |
~ [[User:JasonCarswell|JasonCarswell]] ([[User talk:JasonCarswell|talk]]) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (IST) | ~ [[User:JasonCarswell|JasonCarswell]] ([[User talk:JasonCarswell|talk]]) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (IST) |
Revision as of 00:06, 17 August 2016
Include Concept(s) Or Part(s)?
I read this WikiSpooks Article identical to the Wikipedia article with additions, and the RationalWiki article. The RationalWiki had the following section I thought might be worthy for your consideration to re-edit and include:
- =Counter-examples=
- Conspiracy theorists in their paranoia tend to be over-sensitive to seeing "limited hangouts" where none exist. For example 9/11 and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists are notoriously fractious, often accusing each other of being part of the cover-up by only revealing selective information.
- Selective reporting is a sort of flip side of a limited hangout, deliberate overreporting of minor events to make a political point or stir up moral panic.
- =See also=
- =Counter-examples=
Also, would the Panama Papers be considered a limited hangout that hurt few Americans? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (IST)