re: #127 Anymouse 🌹🏡😷

I don’t know why you’re so invested in this.

Because I don’t like confirmation bias being presented as proven facts. And why are you invested in pushing the least credible explanation?

As I noted the last time I was here, Matt Schlapp has been photographed hanging out with actual Nazis and Klansmen

Where? Post the photos.

And it’s not even “well, maybe it could be a Nazi rune and maybe not” but a vehement denial it could be at all.

Nope, that’s twisting my words. I explicitly wrote numerous times that the explanation that the rune was intended is possible. (“Possible” and “probable” are not to be confused.)

I also wrote that the shape itself is not a rune, and this holds regardless of intent.

As to why the shape matters, it’s simple - this raises the probability of the “coincidence” explanation. On the other hand, it is entirely possible, for example, that the designer was a prankster, and thus the rune part of the stage was intentional. So “the rune was nevertheless intended” is not ruled out.

This fits into the rule about conspiracies: The more people involved, the less likely a conspiracy is the explanation. Aside from the people actually doing the construction, dozens of people would have been involved in allowing such a prank past them without a single one thinking “you know, that looks like a Nazi symbol which comes up at the very top of a Google search” both at the design company and at CPAC.

Except this explanation raises other problems undermining the hypothesis.
OOH you assume the rune to be famous enough to have been caught by someone.
OTOH you assume it to be obscure enough so that it was intended to appeal only to a very small segment of the population, but - magically - it was supposed to have been ignored by everyone else. Care to explain how this was supposed to be achieved, by the way? Do you really not understand that CPAC leadership cares enough about PR to not have done something like this intentionally even if they were secret skinheads?