Doubting Duke’s volleyball player is a ‘conspiracy theory’ – OutKick

You know you’re losing an argument when you have to resort to insults and suggest people are conspiracy theorists instead of making legitimate arguments.

A USA Today writer had no conclusive argument in a recent opinion piece, given how difficult he tried to combine multiple types of name calls.

Desperation to defend Rachel Richardson’s rapidly disintegrating story has led far-left virtue flaggers to cancel events with BYU and other teams pledging allegiance to entirely unsubstantiated allegations.

Rachel Richardson at BYU

But that’s not far enough for Mike Freeman, who, in classic activist fashion, likened the questioning of Robinson’s story to a “right-wing conspiracy theory” and QAnon.

Freeman claimed he would “bust the absurdity of it all,” but his first example of why to believe her is perhaps the most absurd thing you’ll read all day.

According to him, one of the main reasons she couldn’t be wrong about what she heard was that she called her dad in tears after the game.

Her dad’s interview, on CNN of course, says the call with Rachel wasn’t normal:

“After the game she called,” he said, “and it was a different call.”

This is supposedly part of the “proof” that it happened.

But if she thought she heard racial slurs at the game that never happened, of course she would be upset and in tears. It is certainly possible that she thought she heard something during the game. And it’s also possible that she made it up. There is simply no evidence that the incident happened exactly as she described it.

Freeman continues with a list of why it’s just impossible to believe she would make it up. This is not a good list:

“1. Say, just for the sake of argument, that Rachel Richardson made up this story. You have to believe she did it knowing that it was jeopardizing not only her volleyball future, but also her academic future as a student at Duke. She would be forever tarnished as a liar. One of the worst liars.

2. You have to believe that she then lied to her father. What is possible. Children lie to their parents, but about it? But also…

3. One would have to believe that she would then let her father go on CNN and repeat that lie.

Except, of course, Richardson wouldn’t be putting his future at risk by making up a story alleging racism.

Bubba Wallace banned from NASCAR? Obviously, these are slightly different situations, but aside from Jussie Smollett actually planning a fake hate crime, what consequences have there ever been for incorrect allegations?

It’s also obvious that if she was making it up, she would have to lie to her parents. One lie begets another, especially if the story is not immediately retracted.

Freeman is also completely unaware that one of the underlying motivations for making up a story, if it were in fact made up, would be to get national media attention.

She would absolutely let her friends or family go on national television and tell the story, because that’s the whole point.

But it’s abundantly clear that Freeman isn’t particularly good at arguing, only defending what he wants to believe.

The writer claims that if you don’t believe an insult happened, you believe in a conspiracy theory.

It’s getting worse.

After his nonsensical “defense” of his story, he claims that the fact that no one heard racial slurs shouted at Richardson doesn’t matter:

“What conspiracy theories basically boil down to is one thing: no one heard Richardson being called the insult. The belief, suddenly, is that the microphones pick up every word in the arena or the student section. Or that the cameras see and know everything, like one-eyed mini gods.

But Freeman is unaware that it’s not just microphones or cameras, there hasn’t been a single eyewitness to come forward from the event to corroborate his story. Not one.

Police confirmed they heard nothing. Local newspapers conducted independent surveys asking countless attendees if they had heard anything. Nobody did.

Not to mention, if someone shouted racist words at a young black woman every time she served, as the story goes, how could there not be a single person in an arena of thousands ready? take out your phone and record a 10 second video?

It forces gullibility beyond the breaking point to believe it happened as she claims without a single person showing up to confirm it on the disc or with a recording.

But Freeman has no credulity, because he wants to believe it.

Yet somehow, in the next sentence, he says he’d be the first to admit he was wrong if it turns out that she lied about the incident :

“If I’m proven wrong, I’ll be the first to say it and write it down, but I haven’t seen anything to show that she made it up.”

Short of admitting that it’s possible she lied, or at least made a mistake, that means it can’t be a conspiracy theory.

But that requires logic, reasoning, and critical thinking skills, which Freeman unfortunately doesn’t have all three of.

Unsurprisingly, he tries to tie the whole episode to racism, JFK, and COVID, because he knows how flimsy his argument is. You can really feel the desperation when you call OutKick founder Clay Travis a “right-wing extremist.”

Finally, he gets to the heart of her own incompetence, suggesting that it’s a conspiracy theory to believe she lied because she lied to so many people:

“So at this point, according to conspiracy theorists, she lied to her teammates. His coaches. BYU coaches. BYU’s athletic director. The police. His godmother. His father. The world because of his declaration. ESPN. Then allowed his father to lie to a CNN audience. What’s more likely? All that? Or is she telling the truth?

On the one hand, Freeman asserts that millions of MAGA Republicans believe in conspiracy theories due to institutional lying, while asserting that it is impossible to believe that someone would lie about something to gain attention and help promote the political campaign of his godmother.

Only someone with his remarkable disconnect with reality wouldn’t see the absurd lack of logic displayed here.

But Freeman’s lack of logic is only part of his offensive intellectual dishonesty, incompetence, hypocrisy, and impossibly thin arguments.

Quite simply, despite all the facts available, he wants his story to be true because it confirms his prejudice against anyone who disagrees with his political ideology. Then he accuses others of what he is guilty of; believing something to be true without any supporting evidence.

Classic leftist madness.