HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Re: those supposedly “cra...

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 07:48 PM

Re: those supposedly “crazy” conspiracy theorists, guess what?

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Skinner (a host of the General Discussion forum).

http://exopermaculture.com/2013/08/23/re-those-supposedly-crazy-conspiracy-theorists-guess-what/

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

120 replies, 5821 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 120 replies Author Time Post
Reply Re: those supposedly “crazy” conspiracy theorists, guess what? (Original post)
Jackpine Radical Aug 2013 OP
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #1
CJCRANE Aug 2013 #4
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #11
CJCRANE Aug 2013 #14
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #21
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #7
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #10
CJCRANE Aug 2013 #15
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #17
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #19
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #29
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #31
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #33
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #35
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #36
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #39
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #41
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #44
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #47
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #50
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #52
xiamiam Aug 2013 #67
laundry_queen Aug 2013 #110
Lordquinton Aug 2013 #23
CJCRANE Aug 2013 #28
William Seger Aug 2013 #84
Lordquinton Aug 2013 #99
Gore1FL Aug 2013 #69
HoneychildMooseMoss Aug 2013 #87
Gore1FL Aug 2013 #93
Lordquinton Aug 2013 #98
comrade snarky Aug 2013 #105
BrotherIvan Aug 2013 #108
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #16
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #18
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #25
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #27
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #38
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #40
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #42
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #46
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #49
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #51
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #53
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #57
fascisthunter Aug 2013 #77
Lordquinton Aug 2013 #26
Cerridwen Aug 2013 #32
sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #22
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #24
Ocelot Aug 2013 #68
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #71
Ocelot Aug 2013 #72
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #75
Thinkingabout Aug 2013 #2
Laelth Aug 2013 #3
Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #5
nightscanner59 Aug 2013 #6
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2013 #116
sufrommich Aug 2013 #8
Just Saying Aug 2013 #58
NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #61
Rex Aug 2013 #9
Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2013 #107
JI7 Aug 2013 #12
Eddie Haskell Aug 2013 #20
Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #62
dionysus Aug 2013 #85
Union Scribe Aug 2013 #95
kentuck Aug 2013 #13
snappyturtle Aug 2013 #54
Warpy Aug 2013 #30
arcane1 Aug 2013 #34
Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #63
dixiegrrrrl Aug 2013 #37
Rex Aug 2013 #43
Pharaoh Aug 2013 #45
Vic Vinegar Aug 2013 #48
spin Aug 2013 #55
LuvNewcastle Aug 2013 #114
Bolo Boffin Aug 2013 #56
izzybeans Aug 2013 #59
NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #60
William Seger Aug 2013 #64
dionysus Aug 2013 #86
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2013 #92
Number23 Aug 2013 #104
cpwm17 Aug 2013 #65
cui bono Aug 2013 #103
Curmudgeoness Aug 2013 #66
Electric Monk Aug 2013 #94
Ocelot Aug 2013 #70
Recursion Aug 2013 #73
felix_numinous Aug 2013 #74
fascisthunter Aug 2013 #76
BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #78
ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #111
polynomial Aug 2013 #79
Manifestor_of_Light Aug 2013 #80
Timbuk3 Aug 2013 #81
Timbuk3 Aug 2013 #82
Egnever Aug 2013 #83
Number23 Aug 2013 #102
Egnever Aug 2013 #112
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2013 #88
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2013 #89
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2013 #90
colsohlibgal Aug 2013 #91
mick063 Aug 2013 #96
rhett o rick Aug 2013 #97
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2013 #117
cui bono Aug 2013 #100
sagat Aug 2013 #101
Politicalboi Aug 2013 #106
blkmusclmachine Aug 2013 #109
Helen Borg Aug 2013 #113
Enthusiast Aug 2013 #115
Chemisse Aug 2013 #118
SidDithers Aug 2013 #119
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2013 #120

Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 07:53 PM

1. If we're talking about NSA/CIA overreach...

...then one has a right to "theorize" given what we know now.

Chemtrails or 9/11 building implosions/missiles? You're on your own.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 07:58 PM

4. That doesn't make sense. You're implying that we should theorize about things we already know. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:09 PM

11. I used "theorize" in quotes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:14 PM

14. So what about *before* the Snowden revelations?

How valid were "theories" about the NSA then?

You can't "theorize" about something which is now proven to be a fact.

Conversely, if you wait for the government to admit the truth you might be waiting a long time and decide to turn to "theorizing" about various events...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:28 PM

21. We only knew what the government told us...

...any "theory" was confirmed by Snowden, and then multiple sources afterwards.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:06 PM

7. What about agent orange and not accepting the official story?

You selected "NSA/CIA overreach" and compared to "Chemtrails or 9/11 building implosions/missiles"

The way you reached for the extreme in order to compare to the "moderate" shows you're using a rhetorical tool rather than a true argument.

Compare apples to apples and stop trying to compare oranges to the moon landing.

edit: major typo

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:09 PM

10. Whuh?

You used a KNOWN, historical fact (the use of Agent Orange and its effect on our military and the civilian population in VietNam), and try to paint me as a... I'm not sure. You're making little sense.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #10)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:15 PM

15. You're missing the point. Before something is a known "fact", it is a theory.

Even gravity was just a theory.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:21 PM

17. No he's not. He's actively avoiding it.

A subtle but huge difference.

Though I presume you're trying to be nice. That's a good thing.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #17)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:25 PM

19. Not avoiding anything, Skippy...

...just trying to figure out what you're attempting to say.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:38 PM

29. No. You're trying to twist what I have to say.

You have the mistaken impression I'm going to allow you to twist my words into what you're trying to say I said rather than what I said.

Wrong "Skippy" with whom to do so.

I've actually worked in politics and dealt with the republicans who tried to twist my words against me and I grew up in a family of bullies who did the same. They didn't succeed either.

Which reminds me; save your condescending claptrap for someone who will succumb. I can guarantee you my "high horse" is much taller than yours.





Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:42 PM

31. And we'll leave it at that...

...since a gasket has been apparently blown.

Rest up, and we'll talk about this tomorrow.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #31)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:44 PM

33. I guess hysterical was too obvious a word.

I am not at all surprised you equate someone accepting your challenge as someone who is "too emotional." Another moderate to extreme false equivalency.

Thank you for going public.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:50 PM

35. You use "too emotional" in quotes like you're attributing it to me

Thank you for intellectual dishonesty! Now get some rest, Skippy!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #35)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:54 PM

36. Aw. The "I project onto you what I just did defense".

I just thought you were

Well, DU rules and all that.

Now I see you have

Well, DU rules and all that.

I'm not tired. So sorry you got that way when you found out I wasn't falling for your

Well, DU rules and all that.

Wanna play who gets the last word, next?

It's not quite 6 pm where I am.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:59 PM

39. This has to be...

...the worst haiku ever!

DU rules, and all that.

Kitten, meet yarn.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #39)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:03 PM

41. Keep posting. Oh wait, I have the Black Knight.

Do you remember omc? He was one of the best examples of this.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #41)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:06 PM

44. Now, THIS is fun!

You fall back on the Holy Grail! What's next... the parrot sketch?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:09 PM

47. "There's comparison... ...and there's contrast. Look them up. They aren't the same, Skippy."

I can do this all night.

Might piss off a few DUers.

Please, just hide thread if this is bugging you.

Or hang out and watch.

Please, tip your server.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #47)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:12 PM

50. I can... do this... all night too!

I am

Having Fun

With You Skippy!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:16 PM

52. And now I'm bored.

But I am so glad I was able to point out the stuff you were posting and your tactics that look so similar to

DU rules, and all that.

I don't much care for the "yes you did" "no I didn't" and this has devolved into that.

Hopefully I was able to expose a few things for those who took the time to read.

I come here to learn, teach, and learn, and teach.

You come here to

DU rules, and all that.

Have a great evening. I hope you get everything you hope for; every single bit of it.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:14 PM

67. actually cerridwen, this is right on target..love it and thank you..nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #29)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 02:27 AM

110. I grew up in the same type of family

and was married to a master word twister. You are spot on with your assessment here and down thread.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:29 PM

23. No, Gravity is not "Just a theory"

Gravity is a scientific theory, which is supported by facts, and much different from the theories that are talked about here, which are mostly speculation and untested. Gravity is very much tested.

common theories are much different than scientific theories, do not confuse the two, it may save your life.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #23)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:35 PM

28. Notice I said "was". There was a time before Newton when it wasn't a proven fact.

A theory is just an idea, it can be a good idea or a bad idea.

I had a "theory" back in mid-2007 that the economy was going to decline, so I paid off my debts and started saving.

Sometimes it pays to come up with your own theories (based on evidence) instead of waiting for the experts to tell you. As we know quite often the experts say "we all got it wrong".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:56 PM

84. That's not what "fact" and "theory" mean in science

I dare say that the phenomenon of gravity has always been accepted as a "fact" in the scientific sense of the term, i.e. accepted as a "real" phenomenon, based on highly repeatable observations -- observations so credible, repeatable, and apparently universal that it would be irrational to deny that gravity exists. On the other hand, scientific "theories" attempt to provide a logical framework for understanding the facts. Newton's theory of gravity is a purely mathematical framework that quantitatively describes the behavior of objects reacting to gravity. It has the useful attribute of allowing accurate predictions of future observations, but theories are never "promoted" to be facts; they're two different things. We still use Newton's math for sending rovers to Mars, but we now know that for objects moving near the speed of light, we need to use a different framework: Einstein's theory of gravity.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #28)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:19 AM

99. You are confusing scientific theories, and common theories

the two are very different, one is supported by tons of evidence, and regularly tested to see if any new information has been found. The other is rarely tested, and never proven wrong.

No, the experts don't quite often say that, PR often says that for a sound byte, because the experts found new information that clarified a theory.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:28 PM

69. Gravity still is a theory. n/t



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #69)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:00 AM

87. Actually, it is considered a universal law

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HoneychildMooseMoss (Reply #87)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:15 AM

93. The "Universal Law of gravity" doesn't work with Mercury's orbit.

Newton got us too the moon, but his "laws" were only a small part of a bigger understanding. Einstein gave us that with the Theory of Relativity. That's not a full understanding either.

A theory is a hypothesis that agrees with observation and experiment.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #93)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:13 AM

98. Science is based on the premise that it is being don on earth

unless otherwise noted. You leave earth the laws are different, just like the legal system, you leave the US and the laws are different.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #98)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:51 AM

105. That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard.

"You leave earth the laws are different"

Luckily for you ignorance is correctable. May I suggest a book on high school science? You obviously have no idea of the basics.

Or you could try to show where the "laws" of physics differ on say.... Mars?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #93)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 02:16 AM

108. Feynman lives!

A big thumbs up for the mention and thanks for the video!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #10)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:17 PM

16. My apologies. I thought you knew history.

The effects of Agent Orange were once labelled....conspiracy theory. The government denied benefits because it wasn't the cause of all the illnesses being reported.

My point; that you eluded and tried to twist, was that many old conspiracies have recently been proven; as you noted with the "recent" NSA/CIA proof of "overreach."

Many of us knew of those "overreaches" long before they were validated.

Many of those "KNOWN, historical fact"s were once labelled...conspiracy theory. Guess which group of people persisted and had them investigated and eventually entered into the record of "KNOWN, historical fact"s?

It wasn't those who accepted, unquestioningly, the "official" story.

As to your use of the rhetorical tool of using a "moderate" position and comparing it to an "extreme" position; it's a tool of "dishonest brokers" to distract and pervert honest discussion. It's sometimes called, false equivalency.

edit: my typing sucks tonight



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:24 PM

18. First off, I believe the Snowden revelations...

... and used "theorize" in quotes for a reason. My apologies. I thought you knew English.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:30 PM

25. "Chemtrails or 9/11 building implosions/missiles? You're on your own."

The quotes are mine; not yours.

I wasn't talking about the just recently accepted "theories."

I was talking about your quote in the subject line of this post.

You reached for extreme examples to compare to (finally) accepted and now "mainstream" examples. And used those extremes as valid samples. One of these things is not like the others. It's a rhetorical tool used to deflect and obfuscate and to equate things unalike and trying to make them appear the same.

But you knew that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #25)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:32 PM

27. No, I used the extreme to point out a very simple fact...

There's fact, and then there's theories. And then there's crazy-ass theories.

I sense I've hit a nerve.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #27)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:56 PM

38. Aw. You did it again.

"There's fact, and then there's theories. And then there's crazy-ass theories."

And the rhetorical tool you used equated the (now accepted) fact with the "crazy-ass theories."

As I said, false equivalency.

It's still only 6 pm here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:00 PM

40. There's comparison...

...and there's contrast. Look them up. They aren't the same, Skippy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #40)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:05 PM

42. Well versed. And much experience with republicans.

Don't bother looking them up. You wouldn't understand.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #42)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:07 PM

46. More word salad from the Bard of DU.

Man, you are just too easy!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #46)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:10 PM

49. Just like sarah palin, I am.

I'm so glad you decided to expose yourself this way.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #49)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:13 PM

51. You said it... I didn't.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #51)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:17 PM

53. And your depth of intelligence ensures you take it as it was written.

As per my post #52, may you get all you wish for.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #53)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:25 PM

57. Really? Insults? That's all you have?



As per your post #52, you continue to make little sense.

Let me point out to you, Skippy, that I am addressing your WORDS. You, on the other hand attempt to attack me personally by insinuating that I'm not intelligent. Don't let me get under your skin, Skippy. This is an internet message board. Let's be adults and not resort to personal attacks. Friends?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #53)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:47 PM

77. it's ok guppy

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:32 PM

26. Many of these "theories"

are completely 100% made up as well, most of them, to be honest. Sometimes they pan out, but for every truth they happen to find there are dozens, if not hundreds of theories that are completely fantasy. Chem trails, anyone? Moon landing?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:42 PM

32. As I take note of your post downthread, I notice that you

don't understand that there is still a working definition, in science, of the theory of gravity.

Save your lecture for someone who doesn't understand the difference between theory and law within the realm of science and how theory continues to exist in the scientific realm even after a "law" has been "proven" because science rarely, if ever, does absolutes.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #10)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:28 PM

22. The only reason it's a known fact NOW is because of the CTs who never accepted the Govt lies.

Now we have hundreds of thousands of troops who were exposed to chemicals in the first Gulf War but the Govt is back to its old tricks, claiming that it is a CT to say that all those sick soldiers herei n the US and in the UK, were exposed to any chemicals.


Some day it will be accepted that it is a fact and then it won't be a CT anymore.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:30 PM

24. Actually, it's a known fact now because someone in the know revealed it.

Before that, it was speculation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:23 PM

68. Hey, I just wanted to get your attention

 

And point out that your comments are 100% content-free. Haikus, chemtrails.... what the fuck are you babbling on about and taking up so much space for?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot (Reply #68)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:35 PM

71. Welcome to DU!



You have my attention. Blabber on, my friend!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #71)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:38 PM

72. I did, and thank you

 

See below. I'm succinct.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot (Reply #72)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:43 PM

75. You sure are!

A word of advice my friend; out of the gate, you'll want to be a bit more subtle. That is, if you want to stay here and participate with the smart kids instead of being MIRTed. Perhaps you're one of those "blaze-of-glory" interlopers and want to leave the biggest stain before your pizza arrives?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 07:57 PM

2. I believe there is a conspiracy by some to cause undue scandals by their lies, does this

Qualify? BTW, conspiracies seem best created by non government people.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 07:58 PM

3. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:02 PM

5. You lost me at the characterization of the 19 hijackers.

I was ready to consider the seriousness of this study right up until that point.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:02 PM

6. Solar flares giving my computer hell today, look at the low IQ's shared by those who

Eat up whatever the likes of FAUX nooze feeds them, believes it whole hawg. Same with radical religious nuts stating the "God said it I believe it that settles it" adage. Both react hostilely to anyone attempting to inform them better.
We've strayed so far from the days Americans listened to Walter Cronkite, believed every word, and most of it was probably fairly accurate.
Critical thinking is not the conventionalist's strong suit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nightscanner59 (Reply #6)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 06:45 AM

116. Careful

There are Sheeple, Conventionalists, Critical Thinkers, and Conspiracy Theorists.

There is a little overlap between groups, but not as much as you think.

If you actually read the study report and not the mangled version posted, you'd see that Conspiracy Theorists are driven fundamentally by a disbelief in conventialism that over-rides critical thinking.

This is shown by how Conspiracists are anomaly-seeking: they look for anomalies in conventional narratives to provide evidence for their conspiracy theories.

That is the opposite of the critical thinking employed by scientists who look for anomalies in their own theories to disprove their own theories.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:07 PM

8. Conspiratorial people running around commenting on internet articles

is not proof that conspiracy theories are mainstream opinion. It's proof that conspiracy theorists like to go online and spew their nonsense,non believers react with more hostility because their tired of trying to argue with crazy. The last paragraph in your OP is exhibit #1.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:30 PM

58. +++++

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:43 PM

61. Absolutely! nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:07 PM

9. That is why I never pay attention to the CT haters.

They blind themselves with the hate, though that does not mean some CTs are not crockshit crazy notions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #9)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 02:00 AM

107. My favorite is the Lizard People....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:12 PM

12. so you don't believe the official 9/11 story about 19 guys hjacking planes ?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:27 PM

20. Absolutely not ... Alice.

But if you want to believe in fairy tales be my guest.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eddie Haskell (Reply #20)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:48 PM

62. I don't believe the "official" 9/11 narrative...

...as per the 9/11 commission.

I believe that 19 assholes from the Middle East hijacked 4 commercial aircraft on 9/11/01.

I believe three of the four aircraft, in near-unison, knocked down WTC 2 and 1 (and 1 fell over and crushed the lower floors of WTC7, causing massive fires that weakened the structure of WTC1, causing it to collapse) and the west front of the Pentagon. The fourth aircraft made a huge crater in southwest PA.

I also believe that the Bush Admin was given a blueprint on how to avoid this scenario on 1/20/01 by the outgoing Clinton Admin, in the form of the Hart Rudman Report, but it was shelved because the incompetent, incoming admin didn't understand National Security in the 21st Century. They were still focused on stopping the Soviet Union from fluoridating our drinking water. Also, they had an ideology (PNAC) that would be well-served by a terrorist attack on US soil (ala Operation Northwoods).

Lastly, I believe that the 9/11 commission was comprised of members that could be counted on to hide as much as what I've outlined above.

In other words, LIHOP.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eddie Haskell (Reply #20)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:58 PM

85. who do you think were flying the planes?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #85)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:17 AM

95. Perhaps...




If it was good enough for "Airplane!"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:13 PM

13. My theory is:

...that our government has been releasing a lot of information in the last week or two to keep ahead of Snowden and Greenwald. They are attempting to beat them to the punch. They believe it is better to release it with their own spin than to wait for Greenwald or someone else to release it.

Also, I believe that our government has made a deal with the UK in regards to the information. The UK has threatened or may already have destroyed some of the hard drive information, as reported a couple of days ago? If the UK government can control the Guardian, they can work with our intelligence to release the information they want to release before Greenwald has a chance?

They are in damage control mode, in my opinion. There is a lot of information that neither government wants to be released. They are attempting to stop the information at the source. It will be interesting to see what the NYTimes does with their new accessibility?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #13)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:20 PM

54. My theory is:

The DOJ requesting immunity for the bush cabal in regard to
going to war in Iraq is a frantic attempt to save them before
any info might be revealed in the docs Snowden procured
that might be incriminating.

Anymore I think just about anything conjured up could be
true....it's that up is down, in is out...sort of thing. Crazy
times.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:40 PM

30. Well, there's a great divide between people who are asking a lot of questions

and people who say they have all the answers. Whether they're buying some official explanation or a theory from some kid in Mama's basement, I find them equivalent in nuttiness.

Anybody who doesn't acknowledge there are big questions surrounding the Kennedy assassination, the RFK assassination, and 9/11 are deluding themselves.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:46 PM

34. Are "comments at news websites" really a good sample?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #34)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:48 PM

63. Nope. But that won't stop the inertia of this thread.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 08:54 PM

37. Well...all i have to say is..

Neener neener neener.....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:06 PM

43. LOL!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:07 PM

45. + 1000

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:10 PM

48. bleh

You can't be a nihilist because then you reduce yourself to the fraud of sense perception and you have a debilitation where you can't fill in logical discontinuity.

Real scientific discovery is accomplished by the subject creation of the hypothesis and similarly your world view must be formed by that. No person can attain objectivity (the whole truth) so the point of theorizing is fitting the natural constructs that are inherit and going off of that; refining as more is learned. The theory should not just be for the point of knowing the truth but also for acting on it and knowing what construct is responsible.

If history in English was not based on the Hegelian understanding that everything that happens is a mere faddish accident of zeitgeist it would be clear that history is actually reliant on the will of the Many vs. the will of the Few in Machiavellian terms. Or essentially oligarchical constructs that are heterogeneous generally negatively impact the everyday citizen in the cross fire while fighting to be the ruling class.

My understanding is that 9/11 was shepherded by a far right Bonapartist coup faction in the intelligence community that contained foreign moles and not the idiot understanding that somehow George Bush orchestrated the thing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:23 PM

55. When your government constantly lies to you, why should you believe anything it says? (n/t)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #55)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 05:56 AM

114. That's how I feel.

Sometimes they give you a whole lie, sometimes a partial truth, but rarely, if ever, do you get the whole truth. When you're faced with that, all that's left to do is to fill in the blanks. A government that lies is the father of conspiracies.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:24 PM

56. Why didn't you repeat the name of the author of this piece, Kevin Barrett?

Maybe you aren't aware that Barrett's an insane 9/11 Truth conspiracy advocate who promoted the idea that Muslim extremists had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Memo: despite NSA revelations, JFK conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories and moon landing conspiracy theories are all still wacko woo. Sorry, Jackpine.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:35 PM

59. Looks like a case of sample selection bias.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:41 PM

60. So because the trolls win out on online comment threads, they are right?

Well shit, if the Yahoo forums are to be read like that, then I'm a conspiracy theorist for NOT thinking Obama is a Muslim Kenyan. What a load of crap.





Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:49 PM

64. Uh, here's a link to the ACTUAL study

http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full

Please read it. Then, if you have an explanation for why "truther" Kevin Barrett's article so grossly distorts what it actually says, I'd like to hear it.

The study is actually part of a "research topic": The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories.

Here's the introduction to the articles:

Despite an unparalleled proliferation of information (or perhaps because of it), many people continue to believe in myths or false narratives that exaggerate, idealize, or misconstrue reality. Indeed, recent surveys have suggested that many people in different parts of the world subscribe to ‘conspiracy theories’, while denying ‘official’ or mainstream accounts of many important phenomena. This is increasingly recognized as an important concern for civic society because of the potential of conspiracy theories to sow discord, violence, and public mistrust, while diverting attention from political issues of real significance and undermining democratic discourse.

In an increasingly globalised world, and against the background of turmoil caused by financial crises, war, and international terrorism, the need to understand the nature and roots of conspiracy theories has become increasingly urgent. Yet, contemporary scholarly research on conspiracy theories remains piecemeal. Influenced by Richard Hoftstadter's discussion of the ‘paranoid style’ in American politics, many commentators continue to view conspiracy theories as the products of individual or collective psychopathology. However, it is unlikely that such a view can provide a comprehensive understanding of conspiracy theories, particularly in view of the fact that such theories are so widespread globally.

The goal of this special issue is to bring together original research on the psychology of conspiracy theories, with a view to providing a comprehensive understanding of the place and role of conspiracy theories in modern societies. Our aim with this volume is invite original research that seeks to understand the ways in which conspiracy theories emerge and are transmitted from cultural, social, and idiographic perspectives. In addition, we seek to facilitate discussions of the ways in which scholars and policy-makers can begin to formulate interventions that counter the deleterious effects of conspiracy theories on civic society. We are convinced that such a volume is both timely and will be of interest to a wide range of scholars, as well as the wider community.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #64)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:00 AM

86. thanks for the link... last paragraph cited in the OP reeked of woo...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #64)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:14 AM

92. Thanks for the REAL stuff, not the OP nonsense. Here's more from it:

(emphasis added)

Perhaps most importantly, however, the finding that conspiracists spend more time arguing against official explanations than for alternative explanations supports the idea that the conspiracy worldview is based more on disbelief than on positive belief. The coherence of the conspiracist belief system is driven by higher-order considerations such as a disbelief in official narratives, rather than positive beliefs in particular alternative narratives.


The observed tendency of conspiracy theory advocates to argue against conventional narratives rather than in favor of particular alternatives closely resembles this description of anomaly hunting, and also parallels Keeley's (1999) observation that conspiracy theories rely heavily on “errant data” rather than on crafting coherent alternative explanations (p. 117). We argue that in fact, anomaly hunting, or a fixation on errant data, is a manifestation of the way conspiracism is structured as a worldview. In general, conspiracy belief is not based around specific theories of how events transpire, though these may exist as well. Instead, conspiracism is rooted in several higher-order beliefs such as an abiding mistrust of authority, the conviction that nothing is quite as it seems, and the belief that most of what we are told is a lie. Apparent anomalies in official accounts seem to support this, even if they do not point to a specific, well-defined alternative. For many conspiracists, there are two worlds: one real and (mostly) unseen, the other a sinister illusion meant to cover up the truth; and evidence against the latter is evidence for the former.


Basically, conspiracy theorists are anti-scientific.

A scientist looks for data that disproves his theory.

A conspiracy theorist looks for data (anomalies) that accord with his theory. This is the same way that creationists and climate deniers operate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #64)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:49 AM

104. Clearly you are a cog in the wheel of... Teh Conspiracy!!1

I am DYING!!! This thread is the best laugh I've had all day!!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:50 PM

65. That's not a scientific survey

You can't get a scientific sample of public opinion from internet comments. Science is not a strength of the pro-conspiracy crowd.

The anti CT crowd is very diverse. Some are brainless, passive, authoritarian followers. Scientifically minded folks are also predominately anti CT, for obvious reasons.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #65)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:46 AM

103. I don't know that I agree with your comment about scientifically minded folks.

Do you have a link to statistics on that or is that your own assessment? What are your "obvious reasons"? That comment leads me to believe you have a bias that CTs are a bit crazy, is that fair to say?

I tend to believe it would be the opposite or too close to call.

CTs are not pulled out of thin air. Many of them have a lot of research and facts and dot connecting behind them. No reason scientific minds would not be interested in them imho.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:14 PM

66. Any time someone is willing to say that something is indisputably true,

I have to question their intellect. Unless they are talking about something that they personally did, I cannot take the person seriously. I might not be one of the "saner conspiracy theorists", but I am not ready to say that anything is "indisputably true". I may be skeptical, but I don't know for sure.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Curmudgeoness (Reply #66)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:16 AM

94. Dunning-Kruger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

(snip)

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:34 PM

70. There are conspiracies

 

A group of businessman plotting a hostile takeover of a company is one random example of a conspiracy. Some conspiracies might be legal (like the one I just cited), and some are most definitely illegal... like Obama, the NSA and James Clapper all lying their asses off to try to convince us that they haven't handed the keys to our personal information over to a bunch of clowns like Booz Allen (who let a low-level contractor take what they perceive to be a tremendous amount of sensitive information and run off with it). Private corporations like Booz Allen are incompetent and not to be trusted with the private information of anyone, ESPECIALLY where National Security is concerned. Obama and Clapper have both committed egregious violations against the Constitution that Obama has sworn to uphold, lied about it and now Obama is hiring a new Propaganda Overlord to try to shove it down the American peoples' throat as something palatable. It's never going to be palatable.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:40 PM

73. Why would people who believe 9/11 was an outside job spend time talking about it on forums?

I've probably posted 3 or 4 times about it, because it's not a particularly interesting discussion to me.

I think there's some inherent selection bias in looking at forum posts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:42 PM

74. When the explanations for public tragedies

are insulting to intelligent folks, it is understandable that they do their best to research it themselves. It is part of the healing process to seek explanations and hope for justice.

Weather balloons, the magic bullet theory, what you saw was not controlled demolition, the hole in the Pentagon was made by an airplane, we are going to war not with the country that hosted the terrorists that flew the planes on 911, but another one planned ahead of time--and--even after being told the war on Iraq was based on lies, no one goes to jail--and the discussion is still taboo.

People asking the wrong questions are ridiculed, intelligent analysis is framed together with the craziest speculation, marginalized out of the mainstream, online they can be found alongside stories about Loch Ness and abomidable snowman.

If people cannot be character assassinated, then they are harassed, or worse. Bad stuff happens to people who venture too far off the acceptable dialogue--and the parameters have progressively gotten narrower.

We have prided ourselves with our freedom of speech, but this is EXACTLY what is at stake here. If we are not allowed to talk openly about torture or drone killing, or who the fuck is really responsible for 911--and why hasn't there been a trial--then it is democracy and freedom that is the fairy tale, not the the other way around. See?

Lies can only create more lies, and more coverups. How much money is spent, how many people's job descriptions are to create narratives in an attempt to whitewash decades of crimes? Now we jail anyone having the gall to break open this gigantic boil, in an attempt to prevent a mountain of pus from oozing out.

It is sociopathic, and as long as we lie to ourselves, we are part of the problem.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:44 PM

76. people who can think outside the box propaganda writes

those who follow propaganda may as well be brain dead or just willfull tool-fools to an End Game they gambled upon.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:52 PM

78. I saw it on the Internet

so it must be troo.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #78)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 02:54 AM

111. LOL - my last landlady said almost the same thing once during an argument.

 

.
.
.

. . "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true!!" . .

I was speechless - thought she was smarter than that.

Apparently not, and she's got lots of company.

Just throw it right out there -

the sheeples will follow.

CC

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:14 PM

79. Reality is about to materialize

Watching 911, living through the television presentation and now understanding all three mainstream media networks did with intention work in concert to convince America twenty men hijacked and crashed into the twin towers. Actually the greatest deception by the one-percenters ever conceived. The Bush administration just held the door open and let those hijackers crash. Good reason for a war…

My view was totally convinced after reading the book by Gerald Posner called “Secrets of the Kingdom”. Posner talks about how the Arabs, the Bin Laden family has been business partners with Bush for decades before 911. All suppressed by the media to this day. The Arabs having investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in real-estate in Florida really floored me. Nothing in the media about that Jeb connection even today.

It’s all about profiteering by the military industrial complex, even better now we know more secret stuff by NAS metadata likely rings loud and clear something was going to happen. Maybe that’s what Snowden really knows. That kind of information in the hands of the Russians is very powerful political negotiation material.

A lot of people making a lot of money to be silent so as not to tell the real story of 911, plus the balance of power has changed. Booze Allen and Hamilton could very well have metadata that shows profiteering or treason. All Absolutely good reason to sound off about impeachment as a diversion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:30 PM

80. Where is the line?

The line between "a bunch of powerful people working together to make money, or stifle competition, or influence the government" and "a conspiracy"??

As my old sociology professor said, "Just because you're paranoid, does not mean they aren't out to get you."


A blog with an interesting theory about 911. She says a magnetic bomb was used to destroy the towers.
http://wtcdust.blogspot.com/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:44 PM

81. Delusional Paranoia is NOT "the mainstream"

OK.

Let’s start with this: it’s an opinion piece written by a known conspiracy theorist(1), defending conspiracy theorists and attacking people who don’t believe in his conspiracy theories as “government dupes”, not a well-researched scientific review of the literature or an original peer-reviewed study. As such, analysis of the veracity of the claims is richly deserved.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.


The above is faulty logic, which is not at all surprising coming from a conspiracy theorist. It doesn’t prove CT is the conventional wisdom, or that anti-CT is a “small, beleaguered minority”. It simply proves that conspiracists post on message boards more than conventionalists. Any other claim is jumping to conclusions, which conspiracty theorists are obviously prone to do(2). It doesn’t take into account WHO posts on message boards, who isn’t motivated to post on message boards, paid trolls (THAT’s not a conspiracy theory, PLEASE don’t make me make this any longer by adding THAT discussion), and it doesn’t prove a THING about the general population. IOW, “anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority” is a prima facie lie. In short, by the second paragraph the author, a known conspiracy theorist, is openly lying to the reader.

Now seems like as good a time as any to make note of the fact that the author of the OP doesn’t link to a single “study”, much less provide a recognizable reference such as (Social Psychological and Personality Science, November 2012, vol. 3, no. 6, 767-773). Why doesn’t the author of the OP, a known conspiracy theorist, do more to encourage me, the reader, to check out the articles he references? Of course, that’s not “proof” of anything, and I’m no conspiracy theorist, but it raises the question without my participation. I’m only pointing it out.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility.


This statement, based on a lie (“anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority”), is a conspiracy theory. ‘Nuff said.

There’s a lot in this OP by a known conspiracy theorist to debunk (or “make fun of”, if you’ll allow me to be “angry and hostile”) and I’m not willing to put THAT much effort into it, but this one may have stood out to others and not just me:

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA.


In his two volume work The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper used the term “conspiracy theory” to criticize the ideologies driving historicism.” This was published in 1945.

The Central Intelligence Agency was created by Congress with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947.”

So I’m to believe a proven liar’s interpretation of a secondary reference, that he doesn’t properly reference, that the CIA came up with “conspiracy theory”? I think the burden of proof is still on him.

I could go on, but I won’t. In short, when the OP author, a known conspiracy theorist(1), exhibited hostility toward and attacked people who believe their government (in my experience, “more often than not” fits better than “always”) and blatantly lied, he lost me.

(1) Background:

Kevin James Barrett (born February 1959) is an American former university lecturer and Muslim convert.

Barrett first drew attention to his views by publishing guest op-eds in the Madison Capital Times, in which he alleged that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks: “As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I’ll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape.”


(2) The Abstract of another publication by the cited authors, Wood and Douglas: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories
]
Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: A self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated in endorsement. In Study 1 (n = 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n = 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general.


tl:dr? I’m not surprised that the OP author, a known conspiracy theorist and liar with an agenda, is taking the position that conspiracy theorists are the main stream, while people who believe what is at least 90% of the truth are hateful, stupid, losers who will believe anything.

I anxiously await your reply.

Pee Ess: this is not to say that anyone should believe any government, anywhere, all the time. Or even some random person you meet on the street. Governments have told demonstrable lies on multiple occasions. But there’s a HUGE difference between making a decision based on the best facts available to you, and being delusional and paranoid.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Timbuk3 (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:49 PM

82. Edited ONLY for clarity

Not a word was changed, just added some block-quoting.

Look, if you want to take it on faith, more power to you. We have freedom of religion in this country. But arguing that people who believe in facts are crazy is, well, crazy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:52 PM

83. Well if you buy into that one...

My guess is you need to step back from the edge.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #83)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:46 AM

102. This OP illustrates the new DU better than any other. And with 80 recs to boot.



Edit: And oh my God!! Check the reccers! Not a surprise in the bunch!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #102)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:10 AM

112. Good catch

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:02 AM

88. Logical error, it seems. More numerous comments not equal to saner.

It seems they say that because conspiracist comments are more numerous, that makes them saner.

That does not logically follow.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:05 AM

89. Conspiracy theories as pure dogma

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:05 AM

90. Yes, there are a few conspiracies. No, most conspiracy theories are junk.

Most conspiracy theories fail because of too many moving parts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:12 AM

91. No Surprise To Me

It's easy to label people conspiracy nuts over and over, as if we are crazy and there are no conspiracies, everything is on the up and up and our government never lies to us.

The JFK hit turned me, once I read the "Warren Report" and saw the film. Then it came to light we gave syphilis and other diseases to minorities and we lied about that for a time.

I think the biggest 9/11 conspiracy is the official narrative that so many buy no questions asked. There are more holes in that narrative than Swiss cheese.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:27 AM

96. Conspiracy theory is merely a symptom of a root cause that has originated the conspiracy theory.

 

Lack of trust is the great incubator of such theories. To fully understand them is to understand why there is a lack of trust to create them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:44 AM

97. Conspiracy Theories shake up the status quo. The authoritarians among us hate CT.

One even suggested that it should be mandatory that all CT posters be immediately banned from DU.

Conspiracies exist in all walks of life but mostly in politics. Karl Rove makes a living conspiring. Millions of dollars support think tanks that do nothing but conspire.

But the authoritarians among us hate CT because it dares to shake them from their comfortable denial bubbles. In the last week their has been quite a rash of alerts of threads using CT as the justification. Of course these authoritarians never alert on CT that supports their world view only CT that questions their world view.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #97)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 06:49 AM

117. Nah. You have it backwards. Authoritarians & PTB LOVE conspiracy theorists spinning their wheels.

The Powers That Be (PTB) and those in Authority love to have otherwise bright and intelligent people go running down rat holes chasing after outlandish conspiracy theories. Those people are thus diverted from the real action.

"Do not mind the man behind the curtain!" Look here! This is shiny! See, it has lots of moving parts!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:29 AM

100. You have to be crazy to believe that office fires brought down Bldg. 7.

Seriously.

I was just hearing on a show on kpfk about how there's a lot (a couple thousand?) of architects/engineers who all think that is impossible.

But anyway, yes, of course CTs aren't crazy and many turn out to be true and accurate. Anyone who dismisses all CTs as crazy is toeing the line for TPTB.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:37 AM

101. Check out the links section on that site

A veritable "who's who" of bullshit pushers.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:53 AM

106. 19 "terrorist" who plotted for YEARS

Had to fly out of other airports rather than JFK because they couldn't bring box cutters on board. Other airports that flew over military bases to boot. If these "terrorist" pretended to be pilots, wouldn't they have been able to bring box cutters with no problem? They were after all "pilots". Hell, I could defend the "terrorist" who have been accused of plotting 9/11 and win. What plane has no seats? How can such a fragile "plane" penetrate concrete and steel with NO resistance? Why did they fly out of Boston instead of NY. Why did Bush say he saw the first plane live on TV when NO ONE was filming the towers from ANY news source before the attack. But the believers seem to think these lies are true.

They call us "truthers" nuts. I think they are the ones who are nuts. They don't understand that there should have been some resistance with the "planes" and the towers collapsing, but they would rather believe the story they were told. They can't handle that our own government did this to us so they can do what they do to us today. Arrest you with no cause, and throw the National Security shit at you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 02:25 AM

109. Apologists/sock puppets like to yell "Conspiracy!" whenever you get too close to the Truth.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:29 AM

113. It's difficult not to believe in conspiracies these days... nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 06:44 AM

115. It's pretty obvious.

When we aren't even allowed to discuss the inconsistencies in the official 911 story it raises alarm bells. Why the effort to silence those that would question?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 07:13 AM

118. This is based on responses to news articles?

That is pretty unscientific.

I would suggest that the numbers of people who are not proponents of conspiracy theories are a whole lot higher; they simply were not as inspired to make comments on the news stories.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 08:02 AM

119. And, as is so clearly demonstrated by the OP...

much conspiracism has it's roots in anti-Semitism. The author of the article, Kevin Barrett, runs a tidy little blog called Muslims for 9/11 Truth, where he describes how the Jews are behind just about everything that happens in the world - 9/11, the London bombing, Boston bombing etc.

And the article was originally published at presstv, the propaganda arm of the Iranian government. I refer you back to this DU thread for their awesome reporting:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022023210

The DU TOS recognizes this fact too.

In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.


It is supremely ironic that in a thread you're posting to defend CTers, and explain how sane they are, you use Kevin fucking Barrett and press fucking tv as your sources.

Anti Semitic pieces of shit, both of them.

And 95 posters adding their rec to these anti-Semitic pieces of shit. Nice going DUers.

Sid

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #119)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 09:06 AM

120. OP not interested in discussion. Seems to have posted when she/he wasn't available to respond. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink