Statist Tools: Restricting the Rational

Two examples how rational, comparative argument has become restricted:

1. Those who invoke Godwin's Law for the purposes of censorship. They've expanded Godwin's observation from implying that "listing key points of an issue has been exhausted" to declaring that "there has been a breach of what may be considered a legitimate argument." It is a fact that Hitler and his NAZIs started off as less outrageous and increased their powers incrementally. When some group begins to follow a path similar to Hitler's, and reports of such behavior is forbidden, rational argument has become restricted simply by barring the introduction of such comparative evidence.

2. Those who reflexively shut down their brains when something sounds conspiratorial. The repeated airing of absurd conspiracy theories (a persistent campaign by Michael Medved) serves as a preventative to rational discussion of plausible conspiracies. An excessive parade of the former type, of groaners easily ridiculed, sets up in the reflexive thought "not another one" whenever a latter type appears. Statists are thorough and operating in plain sight if one would only recognize it. The upshot of it all is that in most cases, the person who introduces a conspiracy is dismissed as paranoid or simply nuts. Yet it is a fact that the Roman republic was undermined by contractual conspiracies between powerful men who, it turned out to be, were mortal enemies of each other. They are known to us as the First and Second Triumvirates.

Avoiding comparisons of what transpires now with what transpired then is evidence of either the irrational or of self-restricted rationality.  Where it is self-restricted, we are either witnessing reflexive action or the willful practice of double-think.  Whatever the cause, rational thought has been dimished.

That MSM and fellow travelers did not do that to Hillary Clinton when she introduced the phrase vast right-wing conspiracy tells you all you need to know.  Progressives and their conditioned idiots legitimize "attacking a conspiracy nut" selectively.

Bottom line: The charge of “conspiracy theory” presumes that there is no possibility of any such thing, which, given history, is obviously ridiculous. Thus, the exclusion of real evidence, review and discussion of conspiracies is itself irrational.