Conspiracy Theories Kill....

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Funny how nobody raises these questions about the OP.

I've noticed a pattern in your posts lately. Instead of backing up your claims when challenged you start talking about the behavior of other posters.

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Are they a symptom, or are they one of the reasons we're having a legitimacy crisis? When would you say this crisis began?

This is important, because AJ and his ilk have been doing this for decades now. Their entire act is based on fomenting distrust in the government, and society at large. And while they're cheerleading for Trump right now, up until Trump, their agenda was largely non-partisan. AJ hated on George W Bush just as much as he hated on Obama, and he started peddling his crap even before Bush was elected. Remember his big claim to fame was "predicting" the 9/11 attacks.

So how far back would this crisis have to have started for this to be a symptom, rather than a cause?

Cts REALLY got traction after iraq and haliburtons dodgy contracts. Then the financial crisis hit and the drunk drivers of wall street didn't even get a slap on the hand for their recklessness.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I've noticed a pattern in your posts lately. Instead of backing up your claims when challenged you start talking about the behavior of other posters.

Selective argumentation doesn't seem to merit anything more substantial than that.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Selective argumentation doesn't seem to merit anything more substantial than that.

You're absolutely free not to make an argument for your assertions. But if you're not interested in discussion, why on earth do you come here?

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by Baylor

Black Lives Matter member Micah Xavier Johnson murdered 5 police officers in Dallas after being radicalized to believe cops were hunting black people on the streets.

Black supremacist and separatist Gavin Eugene shot 6 police officers, killing three in Baton Rogue, LA. He was a supporter of BLM and lauded Michah Xavier Johnson's murder of 5 cops. Eugene also believed the canard that cops target blacks. A conspiracy theory that many people on this forum believe.

It's only a conspiracy theory when it supports right wing talking points. When it supports the left wing talking points (e.g., the black lives are "systematically targeted for demise" CT that is the foundation of the whole BLM movement), it's true. And you're probably racist if you disagree.

[Georgio]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

It's only a conspiracy theory when it supports right wing talking points. When it supports the left wing talking points (e.g., the black lives are "systematically targeted for demise" CT that is the foundation of the whole BLM movement), it's true. And you're probably racist if you disagree.

Yep. The term 'conspiracy theory' has become politicized; both 'sides' selectively ignoring their own use of them while condemning the other sides'. Some people are very good at holding both sides to the same standards, though.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I disagree. Conspiracy theories aren't the problem. Most people don't kill. Some people are crazy. If it wasn't one excuse it would be another. Or none at all. Or some banal truth elevated to murderous fetish. When it comes to mass murder, motives are incidental.

Not so.

People are often incited to murder. They are, to be sure, easily influenced, on the edge and likely to do something horrible. But the things that set them off are influenced by those they listen to.

It's not clear to me at all that the Florida bomber, for instance, would have been anything but a loser if he hadn't clung to Trump's rhetoric. It's not at all clear that the Squirrel Hill shooter would have done anything like this if he hadn't clung to anti-Jewish rhetoric. Not all potentially crazy folk do crazy things. There is often an additional trigger.

None of this should be taken to mean that the Squirrel Hill shooter or the Florida bomber is not responsible for his actions (nor, of course, that he is -- some folk are genuinely incapable of rational decisions). When I say that people are "incited" to murder in these cases, I don't necessarily mean that others are ultimately responsible for these crimes, but that crimes like these may well have never happened, but for the impetus provided by the words of others.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by theprestige

As a methodology, "define a universe of recent mass murders and identify their motivations event-by-event" seems extremely vulnerable to cherry-picking, as well as being a stalking horse for a multitude of other fallacies. But let's give it a try.

Here's a universe:
- Jonestown
- Columbine
- Sandy Hill
- Dylan Roof
- The DC Sniper
- The Congressional Baseball Game Shooting
- The Charlie Hebdo Killers
- The Thalys Train Attack
- The Boston Marathon Bombing

What would you suggest we make of this universe?

It's a fairly arbitrary list. How did you choose, for instance, to include Jonestown in this list? Most of the people there, I think, literally drank the Kool-Aid.

[baron]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Not so.

People are often incited to murder. They are, to be sure, easily influenced, on the edge and likely to do something horrible. But the things that set them off are influenced by those they listen to.

It's not clear to me at all that the Florida bomber, for instance, would have been anything but a loser if he hadn't clung to Trump's rhetoric. It's not at all clear that the Squirrel Hill shooter would have done anything like this if he hadn't clung to anti-Jewish rhetoric. Not all potentially crazy folk do crazy things. There is often an additional trigger.

None of this should be taken to mean that the Squirrel Hill shooter or the Florida bomber is not responsible for his actions (nor, of course, that he is -- some folk are genuinely incapable of rational decisions). When I say that people are "incited" to murder in these cases, I don't necessarily mean that others are ultimately responsible for these crimes, but that crimes like these may well have never happened, but for the impetus provided by the words of others.

But that's an academic exercise and, especially when politics or the media get involved, a biased one. If a Trump voter does something bad it's so easy to go back through the things Trump said, pick something tenuously related and say There! That's the trigger! Psychologically speaking, that's impossible, it doesn't happen. The truth is that the person's mental state and life experience led to the eventuality and things over a long period of time would have contributed to the act - a bad relationship, losing a job, a recent argument, losing a game of cards, a hangover, anything, not to mention mental illness itself. If things had been slightly different the guy might have been killing someone in a bus queue or blowing up his local tax office.

It's lazy thinking to go at these things with an agenda, like the mainstream media always do. When Darren Osborn ran down and killed a Muslim outside Finsbury Park mosque the BBC made a big show of how he had been on far right websites and how that was the trigger. The fact Osborn himself stated that the BBC drama '3 Girls' was the trigger was somehow ignored, as was the fact he was an unstable loner alcoholic with a history of unpredictable behaviour. Before he sat down and watch TV that night he didn't even know what a Muslim was. If things had played out a tiny bit differently in his life then sooner or later he would have done the same thing but with a different victim demographic, because that's how it works.

[AnonyMoose]

Conspiracy theories help to reinforce the thought processes already rattling around in the empty skulls of nutbags... and some of these nutbags may or may not be on the verge of snapping and going postal.

The more a person seeks out an echo chamber, the more fuel they receive to feed their inner thoughts. And the more those inner thoughts get fed, the more chance there is for said person to act on those inner thoughts because of how powerfully overwhelming the obsession might become in their head.

A self-fulfilling prophecy per se.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Not so.

People are often incited to murder. They are, to be sure, easily influenced, on the edge and likely to do something horrible. But the things that set them off are influenced by those they listen to.

It's not clear to me at all that the Florida bomber, for instance, would have been anything but a loser if he hadn't clung to Trump's rhetoric. It's not at all clear that the Squirrel Hill shooter would have done anything like this if he hadn't clung to anti-Jewish rhetoric. Not all potentially crazy folk do crazy things. There is often an additional trigger.

None of this should be taken to mean that the Squirrel Hill shooter or the Florida bomber is not responsible for his actions (nor, of course, that he is -- some folk are genuinely incapable of rational decisions). When I say that people are "incited" to murder in these cases, I don't necessarily mean that others are ultimately responsible for these crimes, but that crimes like these may well have never happened, but for the impetus provided by the words of others.

What you just stated is nothing but speculation; the closest anyone came to claiming what you are saying is Vincent Bugliosi when he said Manson influenced those killings... yet, when it came to convicting Watson, Krenwinkel, and Sexy Sadie, Bugliosi said those 3 were responsible for their actions. He actually got it both ways.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by No Other

What you just stated is nothing but speculation; the closest anyone came to claiming what you are saying is Vincent Bugliosi when he said Manson influenced those killings... yet, when it came to convicting Watson, Krenwinkel, and Sexy Sadie, Bugliosi said those 3 were responsible for their actions. He actually got it both ways.

I think that if you read what I wrote, you'll see that I expressed no certainty and surely didn't say that Trump or others should be charged.

Or, you know, go a little *******, if you prefer.

[Norman Alexander]

I'll toss this into the argument: CT's are more prevalent and to a more dangerous extent in communities that are more highly religious and less skeptical.

My 2c.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by No Other

What you just stated is nothing but speculation; the closest anyone came to claiming what you are saying is Vincent Bugliosi when he said Manson influenced those killings... yet, when it came to convicting Watson, Krenwinkel, and Sexy Sadie, Bugliosi said those 3 were responsible for their actions. He actually got it both ways.

In an actual conspiracy (not the pretend one you like to argue for concerning the JFK assassination) people are responsible not only for what they do, but for what others in the conspiracy do -- so the getaway driver waiting outside the bank in the getaway car during a bank robbery gone bad is just as responsible for the security guard getting shot and killed as the conspirator inside the bank who held the gun and pulled the trigger.

That's the way the real world works.

So yeah, Manson was properly judged guilty of murder, as were the conspirators inside the house who actually murdered (at the direction of Manson) Abigail Folger, Sharon Tate and the others on the property.

Those posting nutty conspiracy theories on the internet can't be defined or tried as co-conspirators because some nut job actual believes your posts.

Hank

[Cosmic Yak]

This was on the BBC today:

Quote:

Widespread sharing of false rumours on WhatsApp has led to a wave of violence in India, with people forwarding on fake messages about child abductors to friends and family out of a sense of duty to protect loved ones and communities.
According to a separate BBC analysis, at least 32 people have been killed in the past year in incidents involving rumours spread on social media or messaging apps

[baron]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

This was on the BBC today:

I saw the report last night (the early hours, actually). It was quite humorous. The failing BBC are obviously wanting to turn people away from alternative news sources, primarily the right-wing ones, and have started a campaign to disparage any news that doesn't come from them. The bit I found humorous was when they live interviewed an expert in the area of these Indian 'hysteria' killings (where people are randomly accused of kidnapping children and murdered on the strength of it) and prompted him to state the fake news on social media was the primary cause. He replied (paraphrased), "No really, no." Which is pretty obvious, because the BBC didn't bother to distinguish between fake news and social media gossip. Never mind, now they've set the scene (fake news = non-BBC news = mass murder) they can focus in on their intended target - the right (and, of course Trump, watch this space).

[The Great Zaganza]

Sounds like FB in Myanmar, which is at least partially responsible for a number of assaults and killings of Rohingya.

[baron]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Sounds like FB in Myanmar, which is at least partially responsible for a number of assaults and killings of Rohingya.

The slight difference there is that the military allegedly had a role in disseminating the rumours. Still not fake news, but an element of governmental manipulation.