I know this subject is emotionally charged for most people. If you read my statements objectively I hope to help you perceive a different perspective, no need to embrace it. I wish you well.
I read your statement objectively. You said that if she had manufactured this crisis, it would be a machiavellian stunt.
Can you present even a single shred of evidence that she's manufacturing the crisis? Because until you present that evidence, you're not actually presenting facts that are relevant to the discussion. You might as well say "If she were an alien, this might be part of her plan to take over the world". It's impossible to respond to that, because while it might be true (if she were an alien, maybe you've discovered her plan!) but to the best of our knowledge, she's not an alien and hypothesizing about her motives if she were is a waste of everybody's time.
What's even worse is that you're presenting hypotheticals as facts and then pretending not to understand what you're doing and claiming that people are disagreeing with you on emotional reasons, when the only emotion they're feeling is rage that you're wasting their time. This could be an opportunity for an actual discussion and you're just chucking garbage at the wall and then asking "jeeze you guys why don't you like my garbage?"
I do not know of any evidence, nor do I wish to investigate if there is any with regards to the 'manufactured' hypothesis. Reading the article, I had a flash of an interesting twist of events (as improbable as it is). This whole debate is not even about her, but how some people could use this scenario to manipulate the public's attention and polarize the discussion. I like considering things from different angles, which I thought was what Hacker News was about in some measure.
The last paragraph explicitly calls out your theory. You can consider things from different angles all you want, but when the angles you're considering are provably fiction, it's hard to see how they have a place in a discussion of facts.
Considering things from different angles is a useful thing to do, and may well be what Hacker News is about. Considering things from useless angles that have no bearing on the discussion doesn't contribute to anything and only serves to confuse the issue at hand. What is the benefit of discussing an arbitrary hypothetical that's so radical and unsupportable that even the individual who proposes it immediately backs off of the position instead of putting an ounce of effort into providing evidence?
Maybe the whole thing is manufactured by Putin. Maybe the entire chain of events is related to the Kennedy assassination. Maybe Anita Sarkeesian is actually the Lindburgh Baby. Maybe Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend is the son of the gunsmith who made the Magic Bullet. There are millions of hypotheticals out there, and no benefit to discussing all of them.
You're a literal conspiracy theorist; do you understand that you're equivalent to somebody posting that picture of the UFO and saying, "I believe!"?
