I get why memes like this are popular—they’re funny and make you think. But honestly, I think they can be a bit dangerous too. Sure, some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, but way more often than not, they’re just nonsense.
The problem with stuff like this is that it makes it seem like most conspiracy theories are worth taking seriously, which can lead to some real issues. People start distrusting everything—governments, science, journalists—even when there’s no good reason to. It can also give way too much credibility to wild ideas that just aren’t backed up by facts.
Healthy skepticism is important, but it needs to come with critical thinking. Just saying, “What if it’s true?” doesn’t really help—it just feeds into the chaos. I feel like we need more “let’s look at the evidence” and less “trust no one.”
But “look at the evidence” IS “trust noone”. Neither science nor journalism has been built on “trust me bro”, religion and politics was.
The line of thinking you’re promoting is how dedicated political party fans behave, they distrust anyone who says the party has done something wrong. That’s also the exact mechanism of how child rapes have been and are happening in the catholic church. The good priest may have told little Pete to suck him off, but he’s an authority and why should we trust a kid over him.
I hear where you’re coming from, and I agree that “trust no one” has its place when it comes to questioning authority, especially in systems that have historically abused power, like politics or religion. But I think there’s an important distinction between blind trust and informed trust.
When I say “look at the evidence,” I mean fostering a mindset where we evaluate claims critically, whether they come from an authority figure, a journalist, or a random Redditor. It’s not about blindly trusting anyone—it’s about examining the quality of their evidence and reasoning. Science and journalism, at their best, aren’t about “trust me, bro”; they’re about transparency, peer review, and reproducibility.
I get why you’d connect my point to political party loyalty or abuse cover-ups, but I think that actually supports what I’m saying. Those cases happen when people don’t question authority or demand evidence. Blind loyalty, whether to a priest, a politician, or even a favorite conspiracy theory, is the problem. Critical thinking is what prevents us from falling into that trap.
It’s not “trust no one” in the absolute sense—it’s more like “trust, but verify.” If the evidence holds up, great. If not, we should keep asking questions.
I get why memes like this are popular—they’re funny and make you think. But honestly, I think they can be a bit dangerous too. Sure, some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, but way more often than not, they’re just nonsense.
The problem with stuff like this is that it makes it seem like most conspiracy theories are worth taking seriously, which can lead to some real issues. People start distrusting everything—governments, science, journalists—even when there’s no good reason to. It can also give way too much credibility to wild ideas that just aren’t backed up by facts.
Healthy skepticism is important, but it needs to come with critical thinking. Just saying, “What if it’s true?” doesn’t really help—it just feeds into the chaos. I feel like we need more “let’s look at the evidence” and less “trust no one.”
But “look at the evidence” IS “trust noone”. Neither science nor journalism has been built on “trust me bro”, religion and politics was.
The line of thinking you’re promoting is how dedicated political party fans behave, they distrust anyone who says the party has done something wrong. That’s also the exact mechanism of how child rapes have been and are happening in the catholic church. The good priest may have told little Pete to suck him off, but he’s an authority and why should we trust a kid over him.
I hear where you’re coming from, and I agree that “trust no one” has its place when it comes to questioning authority, especially in systems that have historically abused power, like politics or religion. But I think there’s an important distinction between blind trust and informed trust.
When I say “look at the evidence,” I mean fostering a mindset where we evaluate claims critically, whether they come from an authority figure, a journalist, or a random Redditor. It’s not about blindly trusting anyone—it’s about examining the quality of their evidence and reasoning. Science and journalism, at their best, aren’t about “trust me, bro”; they’re about transparency, peer review, and reproducibility.
I get why you’d connect my point to political party loyalty or abuse cover-ups, but I think that actually supports what I’m saying. Those cases happen when people don’t question authority or demand evidence. Blind loyalty, whether to a priest, a politician, or even a favorite conspiracy theory, is the problem. Critical thinking is what prevents us from falling into that trap.
It’s not “trust no one” in the absolute sense—it’s more like “trust, but verify.” If the evidence holds up, great. If not, we should keep asking questions.