All options submitted must be conspiracy theories* that have not been proven true as of the time they were submitted and were not included as options in this market:
Any option that doesn't follow these criteria will resolve N/A. Options may also resolve N/A if it is not sufficiently clear what would count as the theory being true or not. Otherwise, options will resolve YES if they are proven to be true by 2100 and NO if they are not. "Proven to be true" means that the proof should be widely accepted by experts on the event, and that it is possible for members of the general public to access the information which proves it true (so, a small secluded group having access to proof that a conspiracy theory is true doesn't count if this proof is not widely disseminated). It also means that the option is proven to have been true at the time it was submitted, so, for example, if someone submits "The U.S. government is hiding aliens in Area 51" in 2024, and then the government actually starts hiding aliens in Area 51 in 2050, with proof of this coming out in 2070, it will still resolve NO.
If there is a controversy over whether a certain theory has been proven true or not and I am not around to adjudicate it, mods have permission to use any system they have in place for determining whether controversial markets with inactive/dead creators should resolve to YES or NO (e.g., determining it by a vote among mods). If no general system exists at the time, they have permission to form a panel to determine the resolution.
*To count as a conspiracy theory, all of the following are necessary conditions:
The theory is not currently known to be true by most of the world - e.g., if the North Korean government hides some wrongdoing from the North Korean public, but the wrongdoing is known to the public in other countries, then I wouldn't count North Koreans theorizing about the wrongdoing as a conspiracy theory for the purposes of this market.
The theory runs counter to what most mainstream sources and experts currently say. This means that most of these sources that discuss the theory or the events that the theory is about either explicitly say the theory is false, describe events in a way that implies that the theory is false (e.g., endorsing an alternate theory), or consistently refer to the theory as unproven, fringe, a conspiracy theory, or something similar in a way that makes it clear that they don't think the theory is true.
The theory alleges some sort of cover-up. In other words, it's not just saying, "Currently accepted fact X is actually wrong," but also that people know X is wrong and are hiding this fact. So, for example, "I think scientists are mistaken about X because I looked at the experiments and I think the methodology is off," doesn't count as a conspiracy theory, but, "Scientists are lying about X" does.
1,000
3.00I bet no on the culture war amplified by the wealthy option, here's why. I do believe that the culture war is amplified by the wealthy in order to distract from class conflict. However, I am not convinced this strategy has the status of a conspiracy. It seems to me to be too decentralised, and rarely explicitly conceptualised in those terms by the actors themselves, hence I thought there was a reasonable chance it would resolve no for conceptual reasons, and so was overvalued and 91%
@PlasmaBallin The thing that makes creationism a conspiracy theory is the claim that scientific conclusion about how life evolved and the age of the earth are false, not the claim that the universe was created by someone.
@duck_master If you want, I can edit the option so that it says something about the theory of evolution being false instead, since that would count as a conspiracy theory.
Though I guess technically, the definition in the market also requires scientists to be lying about evolution or hiding evidence, rather than just mistaken. But I think a lot of creationists already think that.
@PlasmaBallin i mafe a third try, which is based on Genesis 1 prima facie
@duck_master Yeah, I'll count this one, since it would imply that everything we know about biology and geology is false, and therefore that scientists must be lying to us.
@PlasmaBallin ... I was intending it to be a steelmanned version of creationism, which is a conspiracy theory, though
@Bayesian this one in combination with Vladimir Putin died in 2014 and was secretly replaced by a body double is 100% true
@duck_master just making sure, you're referring to the conspiracy that people designed the covid vaccines at least in part to purposefully change people's DNA in a way that has behavioural or health effects; some random cell interacting with the vaccines and getting a single genetic mutation that does nothing wouldn't count? like the literal phrasing might allow that but then that's not a conspiracy theory
@Bayesian I think I would count either of the following things:
COVID vaccine intentionally designed to change DNA
The COVID vaccine makes substantial changes to DNA (more than just a few random mutations that have no effect), and this fact is being covered up/suppressed.
@bohaska What exactly is meant by this option? Trump has already openly admitted that this is why he doesn't want the border deal to go through. So, at least the way I'm interpreting it, it's already public knowledge, not a conspiracy theory.
@bohaska Well, it depends on what the option is supposed to mean. If it's broad enough that, "Republicans won't do a border deal because they think going through with it would help Biden win the election," then yes, I think that is more or less already proven true. But if it means something more substantial than that, like they've been actively sabotaging it for his entire term, then I would say it's still a conspiracy theory.
@bohaska Hm, actually, I think I should probably leave it open regardless because even if the way I initially interpreted it is right, Trump's statements could be interpreted as just saying that he didn't want to give Biden something that looks like a win, rather than him actually thinking that opposing the bill would make the border worse but benefit him.