OP I gave this some thought and I have a theory.

Democratic candidates typically get scientifically-minded voters, at least as of late. The younger generation (18-30) has within it a fairly large subset which ascribes to a policy which could quickly be described as "scientific evidence or gtfo".

Therefore appeasing them would mean giving them shallow, scientifically-oriented hypotheses they can easily debate and defend with their arm-chair knowledge. I readily admit, I'm one of those youth.

In other terms, it's associating the notion of science and science discussion with the candidate, thereby making them seem subliminally more appealing to that particular scientifically-oriented subset of the young voters. Democrats rely on the youth - they elected Obama. If Hilary or Sanders gets elected, it'll have been the youth vote that brings them in.

Just a thought, but it plays right along with the traditional reddit user base: young, computer-oriented male. I'm a marketer: the first rule is "know and relate to your target audience". It applies to political campaign all the same. After all, both are trying to sell you something. Whereas I try to sell burritos, politicians try to sell ideas.

Tell you what though, one weighs more than the other in your stomach.

Pluto is the Roman god of the underworld and ruler of the dead.

This year will end very badly.

All I'll say is that this emphasis on Pluto/Hades is just one of many warning signs that something bad is going to happen this year. The shmita, blood moons, the pope's visit to America are a few more warning signs.

Maybe archetypical is a better description.

I bet you believe in horoscopes.

/u/BillionaireBob is a lot like me. He hovers around /r/conspiracy because he's interested in conspiracy-type theories. I'd be willing to bet he ascribes to certain ones. He'd almost certainly admit that the JFK assassination, for instance, likely did not happen as the official story tells it.

The thing I've noticed about him that's similar to myself is that he's an otherwise rational, well-thinking person. He's got a skeptical (yet open) mind, and he recognizes bunk for bunk. He just expects people to back up their assertions, and recognizes the signs of a person who isn't going to. Further (again, similar to myself), it's apparent to me that after it's been made clear that whomever he's talking to is not going to listen to reason (they're firmly planted in their line of thinking, regardless of evidence), /u/BillionaireBob will start tongue-in-cheek trolling. It's trolling in the sense that he's stopped giving a shit about what they're saying and he's just poking a few jabs at someone. "Teasing" would be a better definition, in my opinion.¹

That being said, he's also usually a lot less verbal than I (being wordy is simultaneously a talent I'm proud of, and also, a burden and a curse), but he's basically got the same idea. Remember I just said this, right?

Therefore appeasing them would mean giving them shallow, scientifically-oriented hypotheses they can easily debate and defend with their arm-chair knowledge. I readily admit, I'm one of those youth.

/u/BillionaireBob is one of those people too, though I don't know if he'd admit it or not.² That's why he posts on many flat-earth theories. Remember: I said shallow, scientifically oriented hypotheses. I've had and expressed a theory that the entire flat-earth nonsense is meant to distract that same scientifically-minded group (18-30) from discussing legitimate issues using those rational minds: issues such as world-banking, TPP, and the concept of 'terrorism'. These 'theories' – which is an affront to the word, being that they fly in the face of everything science knows – only serve as low-hanging fruit to take up the time of people who, while open to conspiracy theories, are also rational and educated folks.

Now this is all just an armchair-view from one regular /r/conspiracy poster to another regular /r/conspiracy poster. Take it with a grain of salt. I could be totally off-base. He might just be some shill, or some SJW, or some Jew, or some Rothschild, or some [insert whatever bogeyman you care to have here]. I don't know him. I just know what I've seen on this subreddit over the past half-a-year. There's about 50-100 on/off people who post/argue/retort/etc, and you can pretty clearly divide them along certain lines, scientific inquiry being one of them. The rest are mostly just lurking and/or passing users – ones who don't stick around very long.

^{1. A troll is someone who tries to conceal the fact that they are teasing [or more destructive purposes]. This user doesn't try to conceal that, unless you consider the lack of an "/s" to be 'deceptive'.}

^{2 I welcome the discussion Bob - we've never really chatted, despite often being pitted against the same ignorant ideas.}

I've posted there too.

Regarding Bob, it's just basic psychology and being aware of who's posting what.

I don't participate in the world is flat. I was banned. I didnt really say much, but once you go against the grain there you get the ban hammer. At the point the only time I participate in flat earth theory threads is when they are here, and it's usually for a laugh.

Awesome, actually.

I do agree with a lot of this. I'm here because this stuff is interesting and I can get behind a few things I see here. I like when people provide evidence for their discussion. I can say anything here and back it up with "the damn government" or "those zionest Jews" and it'll get supported most of the time, which isn't right. When I realize they can't back up what they say and the discussion is going to go nowhere I sometimes change up my mentality.

No, I don't. I laugh at it. Thanks for the question.

What do you think about crayons?

[deleted]

Because I don't believe in the flat earth theory?

25 seems like a lot. But I'm sure it's less recently, as I've been banned from the dedicated sub for it. For the most part I only ask for evidence for people to back up claims, no matter what thread I'm in. "But the gubment!" doesnt back up a theory. I've been called a shill for it, but whatever.

Here's my hypothesis:

A number of the people on your GMO Shill list (like me) have publicly declared that they have or are engaged in a formal education in the sciences. (One of the users on your list is an actual honest to god astronomer.)

If these people are actually students of science as they claim, and they are anything like my friends from college (who are all huge science nerds) then of course they'd be interested in Pluto- because of its unique place in our solar system and the fact that this mission is the closest look we've ever gotten at Pluto. It's kind of a big deal. All of my friends are following the current Pluto mission very closely.

As far as the Clinton/Sanders thing- Clinton and Sanders are two of the most prominent contestants for the Democratic nomination. Sanders has a serious anti-GMO bent, which is not going to set well with the science crowd in general. So if you're pro-GMO (or at least anti-anti-GMO) the likelihood of you supporting Sanders will be diminished.

If all of this is correct, it lends credence to the explanation that the people on your GMO Shill list are just a bunch of people who are really really interested in science and casts doubt on the assumption that they're getting paid by Monsanto to post about GMOs on reddit.

One would think that the anti-GMO bent would be right up the science crowds alley.

How so?

Scientists are used to looking at and evaluating evidence and then coming to conclusions based off of that evidence. Why would the "science crowd" be anti-GMO when the evidence overwhelmingly is in favor of GMO safety?

The unintended consequences

... you're going to have to be more specific.

Which unintended consequences? People in the US being more overweight because food is cheap and plentiful?

What misinformation? What are these people (and I) saying that is factually incorrect?

How is providing facts and verified evidence considered manipulation?

How do they act like a gang? I certainly don't recall any initiation process to get into that sub.

Well, for one thing, it isn't like they expected it to be, and for another, they are taking HD pics of it and showing us potato images, some of which are actually Jovian moons. It's round, and appears to have a mountain range, which, if they are right about how mountain ranges are made, should be impossible on Pluto.

Mountain ranges are not always made with tectonic forces or an active core. Tectonics easily makes mountains, but so do sufficiently large impacts.

Also, any mountain featured on a dwarf planet would appear larger (more like a 'range') due to the smaller globular sphere.

Just like why the moon appears bigger near the horizon, it's all relative to perspective.

This is an interesting post nonetheless.

My personal opinion is that this system was once occupied by a civilization the secret government is working to discover the secrets of, without disturbing their prison planet paradigm on Earth. How are they going to keep us down on the plantation if we discover our ancestors were a class one civilization; we'd start asking a lot of questions they really don't want to answer, and things could get ugly for them.

OP, don't fall for this horseshit. Here's a high-quality image of pluto — there are more at your fingertips if you look it up; no one has been shown an image of a Jovian moon and been told that it was Pluto; and mountains are not considered impossible on Pluto by any scientists.

As far as /u/s70n3834r's civilization theory, enjoy it as the imaginative science fiction that it is. There's no basis in it, scientific or otherwise. You're dealing with a user who is active in "paranormal" subs. That's really all you need to know.

If I were you, I'd be careful about posts by shills users who use phrases like "that's all you really need to know."

Interesting for such a person to show up and post in this particular thread. Curiouser and curiouser.

Not particularly interesting. As /u/kebutankie pointed out, I gravitate towards flat earth posts on this sub. I'm an aerospace engineer, and seeing people say that my life's work is a hoax is pretty insulting, not to mention fucking stupid.

If I were him, I'd be careful about posts that claim that there's a galactic conspiracy to hide the existence of Plutonion aliens. You know, the kind of post that sounds straight out of a science fiction comic from the '50s.

Theories and observations are great! Science fiction stories posing as facts are not.

I think Pluto flyby was a hoax/pr stunt. What is your analysis about me? :)

That's spot on. I'm a pretty nice, chill guy in person. No grudges against anyone. Most redditors lambaste me for being crazy paranoid conspiracy nutter types. Thanks!

I like you guys. You're not assholes. We should have some beer sometime lol