What is a conspiracy theorist?

Without Rights

Muse
Without Rights
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
928
Before coming to JREF I thought of conspiracy theorists as people who believe crazy things, like David Icke believing the elite are reptiles and the like. I never considered tax protestors as CT's. Or people who belong to a political party other than Dem or Rep as CT's, or people who just question the government in general as CT's, or people who believe corporations will do evil things for money as CT's. But that's what I get here. I have been labeled a CT so many times since I have been here that it frustrates me and makes me want to leave. I find it funny, the way I came here was on referral because I had questions and my friend said this was a good place to get them answered. Instead I get bombarded with slurs and ad hominems and get labelled a CTer because I don't completely and utterly trust every aspect of Government and corporate worlds.

I don't think 911 was an inside job, but I question the official account, does that make me a CTer? I am not rep or dem, so am I a CTer? I think corporatations brainwash people with the TV so they will buy their products and the image potrayed in the commercial along with it, much in the fashion of Noam Chomsky, does that make me and him a CT?

I thought I would get intellegent responses but they are actually few and far between (I have met some very intuitive and intelligent people), between the slander and name calling. And then when I get mad and start name calling back I get S*** for that also.

Some of you claim you run people off this forum with facts that contradict their beliefs, I beg to differ. I think you run off everybody with insults and teaming up on people and that frustrates them and makes them want to leave. You are not going to win the hearts and minds with slander. All you are going to do is erect a forum where everybody has pretty much the same ideologies and when somebody new comes along the bashing will drive them away so you can claim they it was the facts that drove them out.

Let the bashing begin!!!
 
Last edited:
A conspiracy theory attempts to attribute the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary as late as 1997.[1]
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws.[2] The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end."[3] However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics, politicians, psychologists, and the media cuts across traditional left-right political lines.
Click to expand...
conspiracy theoristWP
belief that event is plot: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance
Click to expand...
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy+theorist

a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Click to expand...
http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/conspiracy theorists

also http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=conspiracy+theorist

fwiw
 
Well since I've been dealing with them (yeah I know I'm new here but I've clocked over 5000 posts on BAUT and 2000 on ApolloHoax) I've always considered a CT to be someone that automatically jumps to the conculsion that some "higher up person or people (TPTB)" is covering up "The Truth" of a specific matter. Usually this means that they instantly dismiss the "official version" and claim "the government" (I always wonder why the US Government is THE Government, I mean we have our own bunch of idiots down here, why don't they count?) is lying about it.
 
Usually this means that they instantly dismiss the "official version" and claim "the government" is lying about it.
Click to expand...

Jumping to conclusions is one thing, being on the fence gets you the label in here. I have no conclusions but when I ask a question everybody jumps like a hungry dog on a bone.

(I always wonder why the US Government is THE Government, I mean we have our own bunch of idiots down here, why don't they count?)
Click to expand...

I guess that is just a internet fallacy. I am used to calling my government the government because I mainly speak with Americans. If I said American government to them they would be like "I know what Government your talking about moron"
 
why are we arguing its definition? its in the dictionary. that's the only definition we should use.
 
Without Rights said:
Jumping to conclusions is one thing, being on the fence gets you the label in here. I have no conclusions but when I ask a question everybody jumps like a hungry dog on a bone.
<snip>
Click to expand...
Such is the risk one runs when visiting 'net message boards; especially ones that have had a long string of sock-puppets and people misrepresenting themselves. That said, try not to let it bother you. If you have legitimate questions, ask them, take the quality answers, ignore the cruft.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Such is the risk one runs when visiting 'net message boards; especially ones that have had a long string of sock-puppets and people misrepresenting themselves. That said, try not to let it bother you. If you have legitimate questions, ask them, take the quality answers, ignore the cruft.
Click to expand...

I would rather join another forum where I don't get bashed. It is too hard to take an insult lying down, it is my nature to fight back.
 
A few problems, we have no examples of what you have posted as your doubts of the official story so we cannot judge how good your ideas are or how they were received.

The corporations thing is baffling to me. Essentially you say they advertise. So do small businesses, charities, religions, politicians, and lobby groups among many others. If by brainwashed you mean influenced in their buying decisions, I can understand it. If you mean there's some nefarious greater plan than getting them to buy a box of wheaties, you are going to have to offer some proof. I must admit though, its not a very impressive start (in my less than humble opinion).

I have yet to see any negative reference to other political parties (you even have them in the US? I have seen negative inferences for both Republicans and democrat)? Maybe I missed something, another point where a few examples would help.

It might just behove you to thicken your skin if you are going to frequent a skeptical forum. I take a fair amount of crap for my marijuana advocacy, c'est la vie.
 
Without Rights said:
Jumping to conclusions is one thing, being on the fence gets you the label in here. I have no conclusions but when I ask a question everybody jumps like a hungry dog on a bone.
Click to expand...
Well, I'll give you one example.

For years, CTers have claimed that Larry Silverstein made huge profits out of the attacks.

For years, people like yours truly have challenged the CTers to prove that claim. Also, for years, people like yours truly have given a quite detailled breakdown of Silverstein's profits and losses, proving there is no profit, quite the contrary.

Nevertheless, CTers keep jumping to the conclusion that Silverstein somehow made huge profits, never mind the evidence proves this wrong.

And the same goes for many of the CTers claims. They don't resist honest scrutiny, yet CTers keep repeating them as if they never have been debunked.

Does this justify ad-hominem against CTers? In my book no.
But don't expect that the "arguments" of the CTers will be treated nicely. They are mostly rubbish, and when you read the same rubbish for the 100th time, well, you are not so nice anymore.

Please, instead of jumping to conclusions, read the arguments, try to understand them, try to address all the facts, not the arbitrary selection CTers are so fond of.
 
Without Rights said:
Before coming to JREF I thought of conspiracy theorists as people who believe crazy things, like David Icke believing the elite are reptiles and the like. I never considered tax protestors as CT's. Or people who belong to a political party other than Dem or Rep as CT's, or people who just question the government in general as CT's, or people who believe corporations will do evil things for money as CT's. But that's what I get here.
Click to expand...
Personally, I have a vary narrow definition of a conspiracy theorist. To be certain, conspiracies do exist, have existed, and will continue to exist as long as humans are around. However, my definition of a conspiracy theorist is as follows:
A person who takes, on faith, the existence of vast, interconnected groups of people whose primary intention is to do harm to the public in complete secrecy, and a person who actively searches for evidence to support that belief.
Ancillary qualifications as follows:
-Rejects all evidence contrary to the conspiracy theory
-Accepts all evidence supporting the conspiracy theory regardless of source
-Displays complete ignorance towards the nature of science, mathematics and proper investigative practices.
-Lacks critical thinking skills and the ability to logically analyze the validity of an argument.
I have been labeled a CT so many times since I have been here that it frustrates me and makes me want to leave. I find it funny, the way I came here was on referral because I had questions and my friend said this was a good place to get them answered. Instead I get bombarded with slurs and ad hominems and get labelled a CTer because I don't completely and utterly trust every aspect of Government and corporate worlds.
Click to expand...
Quit whining. Words on the internet are as ephemeral as that fart I just let out, and none have the power to do you harm.
I don't think 911 was an inside job, but I question the official account, does that make me a CTer?
Click to expand...
That depends on whether your questions are based upon ignorance of the official account, or upon consistent, logical analysis. Present your objections and see what other critical thinkers say about them.
I am not rep or dem, so am I a CTer? I think corporatations brainwash people with the TV so they will buy their products and the image potrayed in the commercial along with it, much in the fashion of Noam Chomsky, does that make me and him a CT?
Click to expand...
Even Noam thinks 9/11 conspiracy theories are stupid.
I thought I would get intellegent responses but they are actually few and far between (I have met some very intuitive and intellegent people), between the slander and name calling. And then when I get mad and start name calling back I get S*** for that also.
Click to expand...
Show you're the bigger man, and don't get angry at what people say to you on the internet?
Some of you claim you run people off this forum with facts that contradict their beliefs, I beg to differ. I think you run off everybody with insults and teaming up on people and that frustrates them and makes them want to leave.
Click to expand...
It is unfortunate that you feel this way about the forum. Personally, I think newbies get a fair chance to make their case. Their frustration seems to come from poor reasoning skills and the realization that their fundamentally held beliefs are assailable through logic.
You are not going to win the hearts and minds with slander. All you are going to do is erect a forum where everybody has pretty much the same ideologies and when somebody new comes along the bashing will drive them away so you can claim they it was the facts that drove them out.
Click to expand...
Once again, to those who are new, grow a thick skin. This is a forum for critical thinkers, and conspiracy theories have consistently been shown to be devoid of any critical thinking.
 
The debate here has become somewhat polarised, in my opinion, and perhaps newbies aren't given as much chance to explain their position as they should get. Nevertheless, it is more productive if you can calmly outline your concerns and be specific. Bear in mind also, that many of the CT activists who have come here play frustratingly coy games about what they believe which makes seasoned posters inclined to provoke them and call them out. If somebody accuses you of being something you're not, then tell them why they're wrong. Engaging them in a flame war won't lead to a constructive discussion.

Talking about tax protesting or politics outside Democrats and Republicans or Chomsky doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, but it also not relevant to this sub-forum. Politics is over here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6

Do you have an example of somebody accusing you of being a conspiracy theorist on the basis of your political view?

Any questions that you have about 9/11 that suggest a conspiracy make you, by definition, a conspiracy theorist - even if only a mild one. This doesn't mean that anybody is accusing you of being like David Icke - merely that you are speculating about a possible conspiracy. Again, I'd rather that people stuck to specific arguments and didn't draw general conclusions - but if people get it wrong, the best thing to do is calmly point out why. If you are asking questions that don't imply a conspiracy, then why are you asking them in a Conspiracy Theory forum?

Again, rather than a general rant, I'd like to see specific examples of people getting it wrong and insulting you.

Overall, it's best not to worry about labels and to focus on specific arguments.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
I never considered tax protestors as CT's. Or people who belong to a political party other than Dem or Rep as CT's, or people who just question the government in general as CT's, or people who believe corporations will do evil things for money as CT's. But that's what I get here.
Click to expand...



How do you define "tax protestors"? Because that's the only group you mention that I've ever seen automatically labelled CT. Being annoyed at paying taxes, or thinking taxes should be lower, isn't CT. But believing that you aren't legally reuqired to pay taxes because a flag has a fringe, or because you use your own personal definition of "income" or some such definitely is CT-ish.

For the others, you'll find, if you look with an open mind, a lot of people here who "belong to a political party other than Dem or Rep ..., or people who just question the government in general ..., or people who believe corporations will do evil things for money ..."

The difference is when you start believing that only parties other than Dems or Reps are valid, that government does nothing but lie, and that corporations are wholly evil without limit, that you get into CT territory. Believing all that at once compounds the problems.


Without Rights said:
I don't think 911 was an inside job, but I question the official account, does that make me a CTer? I am not rep or dem, so am I a CTer? I think corporatations brainwash people with the TV so they will buy their products and the image potrayed in the commercial along with it, much in the fashion of Noam Chomsky, does that make me and him a CT?
Click to expand...



Not any one of those things. All those together, and the dedication with which you believe them (in the face of evidence to the contrary), may be what makes you a CT.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
I never considered tax protestors as CT's.
Click to expand...

Most tax protestors aren't CTs but many are. Generally these people want to talk about the Federal Reserve, the elite bankers, and the Rothschilds (and the Zionists). The two groups tend to overlap in the extreme because both the income-tax arguments and conspiracy-theories are appealing in similar ways.

However, the tactics of tax-protesters and CTs are scarily identical. Essentially they both boil down to horrible misinterpretation of reality, terrible logic, and a total disregard for experts. In one case it happens to be scientific, and the other happens to be legal.

Personally, I love the income tax arguments because it's so trivial to dismantle tax protester arguments because the entire system is man-made with defined answers. CT claims are more difficult because the system is natural and the answers aren't always easy to find (or even possible to find).
 
Personally, I think that asking questions, even if phrased nicely, seemingly with no ulterior motive, can indeed be viewed as an indicator of a conspiracy theorists (the woo kind).

Let's say someone comes into a forum/thread with this: "Has anyone here heard about the reports that named hijackers were found to be alive after 9/11?"

On the surface, it looks like a simple question and it could be, easily answered by "It took time, but they have identified all the hijackers, and they are dead." However, what is far more likely is that this person already believes that 9/11 was some kind of "inside job" or at least that the government has "important" information that they are not revealing to us about the 9/11 attacks - both of those situations, in my mind, would identify a CTer by broad distrust of the government and/or authority in general.

As far as you're specifically concerned, Without Rights, I went over your initial participation here through your posting history and found that you opened somewhat belligerently (and regarding a point that had been cleared up within the thread of your first post, hours before). You were accused of being a conspiracist without having made any CT claims, though I find that almost understandable considering your handle which brings with it a set of preconceptions all its own. Further, in your first thread you managed to initiate a ****ing match by calling Al Gore "an idiot" because you disagree with his views. Now, it might be that I agree with you on that issue (well, both of them to some degree), but when you say something like that you're establishing the level of discourse about which you're now here complaining.

I haven't the time or the inclination to go through all of your posts, but the idea that you were somehow wronged just doesn't look accurate to me. It looks more to me like you were an aggressive bull coming out of the gate who is now trying to play Ferdinand...
 
The truth is, many right-wing JREFers use the label conspiracy theorist, CT, or woowoo, as a tool for silencing dissent, or as a partisan smear against liberals. I've been called a woo-woo on several occasions. It's not very inspiring.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I've always considered a CT to be someone that automatically jumps to the conculsion that some "higher up person or people (TPTB)" is covering up "The Truth" of a specific matter. Usually this means that they instantly dismiss the "official version" and claim "the government" (I always wonder why the US Government is THE Government, I mean we have our own bunch of idiots down here, why don't they count?) is lying about it.
Click to expand...

You see it as "jumping to conclusions." A CTer who has studied several CTs for years might not be "jumping" to their conclusions, but rather arriving at them swiftly. Connecting the dots they have studied intensely.
 
Babbylonian said:
I haven't the time or the inclination to go through all of your posts, but the idea that you were somehow wronged just doesn't look accurate to me. It looks more to me like you were an aggressive bull coming out of the gate who is now trying to play Ferdinand...
Click to expand...

It happened to me too when I first came here. I asked a few questions, and was called a JAQ-off immediately. Oh, and a sock puppet, and other things.
 
Connecting the dots they have studied intensely.

Yeah, like a blind man playing connect the dots on a dalmation.
 
Without Rights said:
Before coming to JREF I thought of conspiracy theorists as people who believe crazy things, like David Icke believing the elite are reptiles and the like. I never considered tax protestors as CT's. Or people who belong to a political party other than Dem or Rep as CT's, or people who just question the government in general as CT's, or people who believe corporations will do evil things for money as CT's. But that's what I get here. I have been labeled a CT so many times since I have been here that it frustrates me and makes me want to leave. I find it funny, the way I came here was on referral because I had questions and my friend said this was a good place to get them answered. Instead I get bombarded with slurs and ad hominems and get labelled a CTer because I don't completely and utterly trust every aspect of Government and corporate worlds.
Click to expand...

This is a great place to find answers. If you search through the threads, or even better if you go to one of the threads created by "ref" that has the main topics listed, and the threads they have been discussed in along with them, you will learn a great deal.

Your visit/time here has likely gotten you alot of flack/namecalling/etc...because many people here suffer from time to time with WFS (Woo Fatigue Syndrome). You see many of the regular posters answer the same questions you ask hundreds of times. Most of the time, the asker is a CTer laying in wait for a good fight, so when the answer comes, the asker then throws a barrage of "well what about this" and "But this article says that" and after you dance this dance with the 30th or 40th "questioner" answering in a consistently kind, benign way can become...difficult...hence, Woo Fatigue Syndrome.

Don't take it to heart, but it never hurts to qualify your questions, letting people know where you stand on the whole thing before hand.

I don't think 911 was an inside job, but I question the official account, does that make me a CTer?
Click to expand...
No.

I am not rep or dem, so am I a CTer?
Click to expand...
No.

I think corporatations brainwash people with the TV so they will buy their products and the image potrayed in the commercial along with it, much in the fashion of Noam Chomsky, does that make me and him a CT?
Click to expand...
No.

I thought I would get intellegent responses but they are actually few and far between (I have met some very intuitive and intelligent people), between the slander and name calling. And then when I get mad and start name calling back I get S*** for that also.
Click to expand...

Mudslinging tends to be a repetitive sport. It rarely stops after one sling per participant.

Some of the posters are right, in that this is a "skeptics" forum, and part of that skepticism will often go into whether a "new poster" is legit, or exhibiting the "Mark of Woo" (coming here acting naive and "just asking questions, as a rouse to instigate an argument or to lure somebody into a position on something, followed by a "bring the hammer down" retaliation). Hence as a new poster, if your position is ambivilent, you might he wise to have a tough skin.

Some of you claim you run people off this forum with facts that contradict their beliefs, I beg to differ. I think you run off everybody with insults and teaming up on people and that frustrates them and makes them want to leave. You are not going to win the hearts and minds with slander. All you are going to do is erect a forum where everybody has pretty much the same ideologies and when somebody new comes along the bashing will drive them away so you can claim they it was the facts that drove them out.

Let the bashing begin!!!
Click to expand...

While I agree this can happen, most of the time it does not. If I have seen it, it has been where the person is an obvious truther or instigator or sock puppet for a banned idiot. Compared to other forums, where people have no choice, and are forced to leave via banning, here people leave by choice, even if it is because they are verbally beat upon.

TAM:)
 
What dots do you connect? Or do you just let Fox News do it for you?

I don't watch FOX, I'm not American (thank god for miracles.) What I do is get information from as many sources as possible and evaluate them based on science and logic and go where the evidence leads regardless of my own personal beliefs. I don't do what 99.9% of CT'sd do and start out with a belief and then try and manipulate the evidence to fit my wishes.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Clever.

What dots do you connect? Or do you just let Fox News do it for you?
Click to expand...


You can get your dots from anywhere, as long as when you connect the dots, you notice the bad ones, accept corrections, and reconnect your dots where shown.

Its been shown a lot that there may be connections, but the mindset in a CTer is to force the connection, even if no dot is there.

........ .. . . . . . .............
 
PhantomWolf said:
What dots do you connect? Or do you just let Fox News do it for you?

I don't watch FOX, I'm not American (thank god for miracles.) What I do is get information from as many sources as possible and evaluate them based on science and logic and go where the evidence leads regardless of my own personal beliefs. I don't do what 99.9% of CT'sd do and start out with a belief and then try and manipulate the evidence to fit my wishes.
Click to expand...

Very good sir, the ability to dismiss personal bias is the biggest stumbling block any CTer has.
 
For what it's worth, I believe a conspiracy theorist is someone who believes in a conspiracy theory...

The million dollar questions "What is a conspiracy theory?".

For your examples given... it's not so much the belief itself, but the NATURE of the belief that makes it a conspiracy theory.

For example, if we take the "brain washing to buy product" angle...

If you think they quite literally brain wash people to control their thoughts, then yes, I'd call that woo, and it probably classifies as a conspiracy theory if there some sort of conspiring going on.

However if what you MEANT was corporations use demonstratably successful advertising techniques to influence their market audience and encourage brand loyalty, then no I'd say you're not a conspiracy theoriest, but just someone who understands advertising.

(For what it's worth, television advertising isn't actually very effective, but don't tell the corporations, or I'll be out of a job...;))

-Gumboot
 
Very good sir, the ability to dismiss personal bias is the biggest stumbling block any CTer has.

I've learned that the only personal bias the Universe plays by is its own.
 
Characteristics of a conspiracy theorist

  1. Even if he claims to be a "researcher" he will never do any first hand research. He won't go to Dallas, the crash site in Pennsylvania, or the Moon*. He'll investigate using second or third hand sources - and they'll be, by preference, visual rather than texttual.
  2. He won't comment on matters where he has any personal knowlege or experience. If he's commenting on the "magic bullet", you can be sure he's never worked with ballistics.
  3. He'll be verbose, and impossible to pin down.
  4. He'll ignore corrections to factual errors, even when they've been pointed out and even when he's accepted the correction.
  5. He regards himself as having an insight denied to the ordinary sheep.
  6. He will apply non sequitors ruthlessly. Do you really think no government ever told lies about anything ever? So WTC7 must have been demolished.
  7. Paradoxically, he has a touching faith in government and officialdom. He can't believe that buildings designed to withstand an aircraft impact might not do so. He can't believe that the Pentagon wasn't protected by a ring of missiles. If the government tells you to keep quiet, of course you'll keep quiet.
  8. He has no faith in determined individuals. No way could one guy with a gun shoot the president.
  9. He's patriotic. No way could a bunch of dirty, ignorant arabs take over a plane full of Americans.
  10. He will show no understanding of objectivity whatsoever.
Feel free to add to this.
 
In the same vein, I like the classic The rational thinker versus the paranoid


The rational thinker | The paranoid
1. Checks the evidence carefully and doesn’t rely on uncertain evidence|1. Grabs onto a few pieces of evidence and defends them inflexibly.
2. Doesn’t care which evidence he must let go.|2. Seemingly irrationally seizes onto something and won’t let go.
3. Seeks a realistic answer in simple and familiar processes.|3. Invokes complex, unrealistic scenarios controlled by powerful forces behind the scenes.
4. Accepts only what he can critically assess (falsifiable ideas).|4. Deals in explanations that can never be critically assessed (unfalsifiable theories).
5. Is willing to live with unresolved explanations for long periods.|5. Demands quick, even immediate explanations.
6. Accepts the roles of chance and human foibles. |6. Invents scenarios when nothing ever goes wrong.
7. Uses same rational approach in the rest of his life.|7. Approaches many other “events” in the same irrational, paranoid way. (i.e., both people are consistent across their lives.)
8. Finds empowering explanations.|8. Feels powerless before these huge forces (victims).
9. Accepts all demonstrated evidence.|9. Will not face evidence that destroys his theory.
10. Is willing to live with some fraction of unexplained or contradictory evidence.|10. Insists on fitting everything into his explanation, often by explaining difficult items as further evidence of conspiracy.
11. Tries to keep everything in proportion.|11. Often seizes single pieces of evidence and blows them out of proportion.
12. Will change ideas a new evidence emerges.|12. Sticks to preconceived notion regardless of new evidence.
13. Open, flexible, empowered, strong.|13. Preconceived, rigid, victimlike, cowardly.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
... Instead I get bombarded with slurs and ad hominems and get labelled a CTer because I don't completely and utterly trust every aspect of Government and corporate worlds.

I don't think 911 was an inside job, but I question the official account, does that make me a CTer? I am not rep or dem, so am I a CTer? I think corporatations brainwash people with the TV so they will buy their products and the image potrayed in the commercial along with it, much in the fashion of Noam Chomsky, does that make me and him a CT?

I thought I would get intellegent responses but they are actually few and far between (I have met some very intuitive and intelligent people), between the slander and name calling. And then when I get mad and start name calling back I get S*** for that also.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I'm not sure I've even read any of your posts since I haven't been hanging around here much lately. I needed a break.

Anyway, you're sort of exaggerating things. I certainly don't think anyone here believes and blindly trusts everything governments do, or would suggest you do the same. Most of us are here because we have a healthy amount of skepticism and a love for the truth. We will question the government but we don't try to pin every evil upon it.

Now you say you question the "official account." That's fine. But you'll find that around here we will ask you to support your positions with evidence and facts, not innuendo and suspicion. Ask yourself honestly if you mistook this for hostility. You'll also find that there's not much patience around here for redirection, obfuscation and verbal gymnastics.

One example, if you'll indulge. You make the claim that corporations brainwash people into buying their products.

1. Please define the term "brainwash."

2. Please provide evidence for your claim.

See, that's how it works here. Again, please don't mistake this for hostility. It's just the way it works. Now if your response is that I'm a shill, or you ignore the question or play games, you will reap hostility. I'm afraid there just isn't much patience for that on JREF.
 
Last edited:
Quit whining. Words on the internet are as ephemeral as that fart I just let out, and none have the power to do you harm.
Click to expand...

They can't do me harm, no, but what they can do is make people fell unwelcomed and want to leave the forum. What is the purpose of that? Then the people claim that their logic prevailed when their so-called logic that drove the people away was personal attacks from a polarized group of thinkers who team up on people for the sole purpose of shutting them up and making them look foolish. If it was a forum of 12 year olds I would expect such behavior. But from a group who claims to be intellectual, I find it most obsured. The fact that this forum is filled with insult after insult of people with unique ideas contradicts the statement under the title above "in a friendly and lively way".

That depends on whether your questions are based upon ignorance of the official account, or upon consistent, logical analysis. Present your objections and see what other critical thinkers say about them.
Click to expand...

Question are always based on ignorance. If I was knowledgable of the issue then I wouldn't have questions, so by default if I merely ask a question I am ignorant to the answer. The real problem is in the way the questions are handled.

Even Noam thinks 9/11 conspiracy theories are stupid.
Click to expand...

And he reponses with intellect not insult.

Show you're the bigger man, and don't get angry at what people say to you on the internet?
Click to expand...

That negates the reason for me being here. I came here to have intellectual discussion (which is what is claimed) and it appears I have signed up in the wrong forum.

It is unfortunate that you feel this way about the forum. Personally, I think newbies get a fair chance to make their case. Their frustration seems to come from poor reasoning skills and the realization that their fundamentally held beliefs are assailable through logic.
Click to expand...

That has not been my experience. My very first post I was attacked and called a CT because I don't agree with a tax on gas to end global warming. Where is the conspiracy? And it wasn't just one person, it was everybody in the thread (bar a few). Since then I have seen the same thing over and over. If you disagree with any aspect of people's beliefs you are automatically labelled CT, even if no conspiracy is implied. This is not intellectual debate as claimed.

Once again, to those who are new, grow a thick skin. This is a forum for critical thinkers, and conspiracy theories have consistently been shown to be devoid of any critical thinking.
Click to expand...

But even if you offer no conspiracy the result is the same. If you want to be involved in discussion without prejudice you had better cling to the ideology of 90% of the members or you can expect to be called a stupid CT without any statements supporting such an attack.
 
See, that's how it works here. Again, please don't mistake this for hostility. It's just the way it works. Now if your response is that I'm a shill, or you ignore the question or play games, you will reap hostility. I'm afraid there just isn't much patience for that on JREF.
Click to expand...

I've never called anyone a shill. And this response is not hostile. You are assuming things with no bases for you assumptions. If I open a thread right now that talked about the possibility of corporations using the TV to exert influence through manipulations I would not have to say another word before the attack dogs come out. This is not debate in any since. If the nominees for president debated and started calling eachother junior high names and insulting eachothers intellect then it would be obvious, but since we are in a forum I guess intellect has a different definition here.
 
Without Rights said:
Before coming to JREF I thought of conspiracy theorists as people who believe crazy things, like David Icke believing the elite are reptiles and the like. I never considered tax protestors as CT's. Or people who belong to a political party other than Dem or Rep as CT's, or people who just question the government in general as CT's, or people who believe corporations will do evil things for money as CT's. But that's what I get here. I have been labeled a CT so many times since I have been here that it frustrates me and makes me want to leave. I find it funny, the way I came here was on referral because I had questions and my friend said this was a good place to get them answered. Instead I get bombarded with slurs and ad hominems and get labelled a CTer because I don't completely and utterly trust every aspect of Government and corporate worlds.

I don't think 911 was an inside job, but I question the official account, does that make me a CTer? I am not rep or dem, so am I a CTer? I think corporatations brainwash people with the TV so they will buy their products and the image potrayed in the commercial along with it, much in the fashion of Noam Chomsky, does that make me and him a CT?

I thought I would get intellegent responses but they are actually few and far between (I have met some very intuitive and intelligent people), between the slander and name calling. And then when I get mad and start name calling back I get S*** for that also.

Some of you claim you run people off this forum with facts that contradict their beliefs, I beg to differ. I think you run off everybody with insults and teaming up on people and that frustrates them and makes them want to leave. You are not going to win the hearts and minds with slander. All you are going to do is erect a forum where everybody has pretty much the same ideologies and when somebody new comes along the bashing will drive them away so you can claim they it was the facts that drove them out.

Let the bashing begin!!!
Click to expand...



I don't think 911 was an inside job
Click to expand...
This quote is what makes you into a CT:er, in a derogatory way (if you have looked into the facts)

Because this leaves you to believe in the Bush adm really wacky CT theory about Ali baba Osama in the cave and the 19 Arab cokeheads. This is pretty wild.

You also have to belive in magic and that the natural laws were suspended on 911 when 3 WTC buildings exploded into dust.

PS: you should really be ashamed of yourself.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
That has not been my experience. My very first post I was attacked and called a CT because I don't agree with a tax on gas to end global warming. Where is the conspiracy? And it wasn't just one person, it was everybody in the thread (bar a few). Since then I have seen the same thing over and over. If you disagree with any aspect of people's beliefs you are automatically labelled CT, even if no conspiracy is implied. This is not intellectual debate as claimed.
Click to expand...

Would that "First post" actually be your fourth post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2335523#post2335523

And you weren't called a CT for disagreeing with the tax, it was for calling Al Gore an idiot, which is pretty much gauranteed to get a response from certain people with the initials PL.

And his asking you if you were a CT did come after this gem:

Without Rights said:
I don't really know anything about this Alex guy (guess I'll do a search if I want to converse on this site) but "that they intend to kill 80% of us", while that statement does twist it, there has been a quite bit of discussion by scientists on the issue and alot of them believe that our intelligence is negating evolution and survival of the fittest, and that we should seek programs to reimplement the phenoms in a controlled manner.

On another note, it is certainly not odd to fear RFID, I can't say the government openly plans on using it to implant chips into people but the technology is here, and nobody loves technology like the government.
Click to expand...


Which, while not being out-right raving loony CT does indicate a certain bias in that direction.

So I'd say part of your feeling put-upon is caused by you not realizing exactly how you sound to others. You thought you were being perfectly normal, but you weren't.
 
See, that's how it works here. Again, please don't mistake this for hostility. It's just the way it works. Now if your response is that I'm a shill, or you ignore the question or play games, you will reap hostility. I'm afraid there just isn't much patience for that on JREF.
Click to expand...

Without Rights said:
I've never called anyone a shill. And this response is not hostile. You are assuming things with no bases for you assumptions. If I open a thread right now that talked about the possibility of corporations using the TV to exert influence through manipulations I would not have to say another word before the attack dogs come out. This is not debate in any since. If the nominees for president debated and started calling eachother junior high names and insulting eachothers intellect then it would be obvious, but since we are in a forum I guess intellect has a different definition here..
Click to expand...

See what happened there? You didn't answer the questions asked, and instead adressed yourself to the end of the post, the part that mentioned what he'd think of you if you didn't answer the questions asked. Then you went beyond that and re-stated your position without providing the requested evidence. That's where you are losing people. (oh, and insulting the entire forum while condemning the forum for being insulting is nervier than I can manage)

You are right, this isn't a debate. In a debate both sides come to the table with evidence that backs their position and evaluate not only the position of their opponent, but whether the evidence that position is based on is sound. Without evidence you cannot have a debate.

I'll also chime in encouraging you to use the search function to answer your question. Many times many theories have been hashed out in these forums, and scientific evaluation of scientific questions is found throughout. If you want an answer to a question it's really worth your time to read through previous threads on the issues, it would also help you get a handle on how the forum functions and the general etiquette. I've been lurking for more than a year myself... it really does help to figure out where things stand sometimes before leaping in feet first hoping for a soft landing.
 
[=pagan;2408730]This quote is what makes you into a CT:er, in a derogatory way (if you have looked into the facts)

Because this leaves you to believe in the Bush adm really wacky CT theory about Ali baba Osama in the cave and the 19 Arab cokeheads. This is pretty wild.

You also have to belive in magic and that the natural laws were suspended on 911 when 3 WTC buildings exploded into dust.

PS: you should really be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

You're lying again, Pagan. No natural laws were suspended on 9/11. You know nothing about the science involved and refuse to make any effort to learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom