Conspiracy Theorists Are A Homogenous Group?

Brown Bomber

Discuss:

---

Please don't take liberties and be a prick and use this as a window to insult people.

It seems to me that pseudo-skeptics see "conspiracy theorists" as a single unit, is this the case? Why/why not?

What is a "conspiracy theorist"? Can an accurate defintion even be established? Does the "conspiracy theorist" label apply only to those that self-identify as such or can it be applied by outsiders? And if so, what entitles the outsiders to do so?

Monty Burnz

Broadly speaking, I'd categorise 'Conspiracy Theorists' into two categories. The first category is interested in genuine evidence, reliable sources, plausible theories, things that make sense in the real world.

The second category either isn't interested in genuine evidence or simply can't tell the difference between claims and evidence. The theories don't need to be plausible and tend towards the highly implausible. They can entail any sort of ridiculous leap of logic up to and including the supernatural. They will cite speculative imaginings to support their own speculative imaginings. And so on and so forth.

I'd put myself in the former category. Of course, dividing any mass of people or opinion into just two categories is ridiculously reductive.

Torakx

This could be a long thread heavily moderated hehe.

My take on it, is that conspiracy theorists are homogeneous to some degree.But get labeled with sterotypes propegated by the media "machine" if you will.

There are many varieties spanning from true skeptics to those who may seek conspiracies in everything and this is not set in stone with anyone one person i believe,at any time in their personal growth.

I see it like a scales.One side is CT land the other is mainstream land.
I think the truth in general lies between the two and thats the perfect balance for anyone looking into these types of things.

Pseudo skeptic is an accurate word.As a true skeptic would doubt both the Ct version and official version of anything.

A real skeptic if you think about it would not believe anything for definite to the extreme.I try to be like this as much as i can personally.
There are things i dont believe likely, but i also live by the motto "never say never".

I see this "category" as being the other side of the scales.

Once again i think there needs to be a balance struck to find even ground.
A psuedo skeptic might resist all ideas that dissagree with their current view of their reality,even without sufficient evidance to discount other theories.
But then you have those who have experienced enough of the CT world to find their balance and accept what may be(or is) likely and what is not possible.

So i see two conflicting sides propegated by the extremes and lessening as two conflicting ideas meet closer to the center of said scales in their perceptions of reality.

The common factor on either side of the scale is the human minds ability to hold onto a belief system despite evidence.
And the ego which is used as a defence mechanism to protect those belief systems from being perverted.

What all members on the scales need to aknowledge in themselves is that its ok to be wrong and agreeing with a logical arguement is not a sign of weakness but one of maturity and deserves much respect.

However this is an online forums and with that comes also persons not on those scales.
There are other people seeking self gratification and also general curiosity.

I suppose if i was pushed to try pin what the common factor was amongt "ct'ers" i would have to say a curious and questioning mind.

Other than that its impossible to lump all into the one category really.

I went from an extreme end of the scales (ct side) to moving my way toward the middle as i gained experience with these topics.
I also have observed pseudo-skeptics do the same from the other end of those scales.
Both seem slightly rare, but a joy to see and chat with when it does happen.
Im still working on hitting that sweet spot though

So people where do you fall on the scales?
Dare anyone say they hit the middle?

Brown Bomber

Thanks for the intelligent responses. Will try to add my own thoughts in time.

Cork boy 55

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Broadly speaking, I'd categorise 'Conspiracy Theorists' into two categories. The first category is interested in genuine evidence, reliable sources, plausible theories, things that make sense in the real world.

The second category either isn't interested in genuine evidence or simply can't tell the difference between claims and evidence. The theories don't need to be plausible and tend towards the highly implausible. They can entail any sort of ridiculous leap of logic up to and including the supernatural. They will cite speculative imaginings to support their own speculative imaginings. And so on and so forth.

I'd put myself in the former category. Of course, dividing any mass of people or opinion into just two categories is ridiculously reductive.

It is a great shame that so many people waste time and fall into the second group when there is so much real scandals,corruption and conspiracy in the world to be unmasked.
People need to think global and act local as well.
Try to unearth the corruption in your town and in your backyard.

How many threads are about conspiracy in Ireland on here?
Ideally Serious first category conspiracy theorist need a new name.

Father Damo

I think everyone must surely believe in at least one or two CT. Its when a few hours after an incident people start posting youtube links of overweight yanks losing the run of themselves with wild claims of what tenet of the government is responsible without a shred of evidence that things get out of hand. I believe in one or two (the Norway massacre for example, there is more than meets the eye to that one) but on the whole I read this forum for a laugh more than anything, and I honestly dont think the regular posters truly believe the theories they bring up here.

Its a bit like middle aged people who still go to mass even though they have reached a stage where they no longer know or care about what they are meant to believe in, it is more done because it has always been done. Like religion, many CT fans seem to follow one theory which completely contradicts a seperate CT on the same incident/ subject that they also believe in. Likewise, nobody here really believes Obama is the antichrist, or is staging mass shootings, or is drowning witnesses. Espousing this stuff is more of a hobby than a genuine belief IMO, as anybody who really did believe that the world governments were this prepared to silence opposition would be too afraid to broadcast it in public.

Most lads I have known who believe in illuminati, chem trail mind control, tracking implants and all that shabang have taken a fairly serious amount of chemicals in their time and all. Not sure if it correlates or anything :pac:

JustinDee

Its just a subjective hobby to a large part of them, moving from one issue to another, otherwise a lucrative means of income.
People pick and choose their 'cause-du-jour' as they see fit and when it suits them, especially anonymous folk on the internet.

--Kaiser--

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Broadly speaking, I'd categorise 'Conspiracy Theorists' into two categories. The first category is interested in genuine evidence, reliable sources, plausible theories, things that make sense in the real world.

The second category either isn't interested in genuine evidence or simply can't tell the difference between claims and evidence. The theories don't need to be plausible and tend towards the highly implausible. They can entail any sort of ridiculous leap of logic up to and including the supernatural. They will cite speculative imaginings to support their own speculative imaginings. And so on and so forth.

I'd put myself in the former category. Of course, dividing any mass of people or opinion into just two categories is ridiculously reductive.

Regarding the second category, I posted this

It seems to me that a lot of these theories are reminiscent of Schizophreniform persecutary delusions, backed up by disorded thinking. Having some (albeit limited) experience of people with such disorders I can see similarities with some of the ideas that arise with such conditions and with some of the more far fetched conspiracy theories.

some time ago on this forum after reading some worrying posts. One in particular in a thread on 'Lizard' people. One of the CTers posted a comment like the below:
"The women living next door to me is a lizard person. She doesn't know that I know, but I KNOW"

It is a comment typical for someone with paranoid schizophrenia to make. It really worried me. Untreated mental disorders can be a dangerous thing. You hear too many stories in the news about a schizophrenic stabbing someone because they thought they were the devil*

*(Obviously, I'm speaking of a small proportion of posts on this forum)

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

*(Obviously, I'm speaking of a small proportion of posts on this forum)

...

a lot of these theories

What changed your mind?

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

...


What changed your mind?

You seem to be implying a contradiction, of which there is not

rameire

I miss mysterious.
S/he was a fun person.

Torakx

That was Kingmobs alter ego

omen80

Conspiracy theorists always strike me as people who are just not content with the rational explanation of an event. It's not interesting enough so they like to believe that there must be a conspiracy instead. Obviously there are conspiracies out there and we're not always given the truth.
But for a lot of the more famous conspiracies to work (such as 9/11, fake moon landing, the moon being a hologram etc etc) it would involve tens of thousands of people to be in on it. This is usually where these conspiracies fail.
Sometimes things just are what they seem. There are a lot of imaginative and paranoid people out there.

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You seem to be implying a contradiction, of which there is not

Do explain.

Brown Bomber

omen80 wrote: »

Conspiracy theorists always strike me as people who are just not content with the rational explanation of an event. .

Who made you the arbitrator of what is rational or not? Is that the decides a "conspiracy theorist"? What you decide is irrational`? What if you are the irrational one?

omen80

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What if you are the irrational one?

I don't believe that 9/11 was carried out by the US government. I don't believe that there are lizard people among us. I don't believe that the moon is a hologram or that we are about to be hit by planet X anytime soon.
Do I sound like the irrational one compared to someone who does believe in the above?

Torakx

omen80 wrote: »

I don't believe that 9/11 was carried out by the US government. I don't believe that there are lizard people among us. I don't believe that the moon is a hologram or that we are about to be hit by planet X anytime soon.
Do I sound like the irrational one compared to someone who does believe in the above?

No no, irrational would be lumping all the above into one label and applying it to everyone who subscribes to one....or is that ignorant?

How do you know there arent lizard people.Might not be here, but could be somewhere,in some paradigm/universe/dimension :P

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do explain.

Conspiracy theories themselves are a small subset of the posts on the forum. Most of the posts are discussing conspiracy theories, and the more 'out there' CTs I was referring are a subset of all CTs

In mathematical notation
[ 'Out there' CTs ] C [ Conspiracy Theories ] C [ Forum posts ]

omen80

Torakx wrote: »

No no, irrational would be lumping all the above into one label and applying it to everyone who subscribes to one....or is that ignorant?

I'm talking about extreme conspiracy theories here. Read my first post.

Torakx wrote: »

How do you know there arent lizard people.

I don't know, but I'm using reason and logic to dictate there aren't. I have never seen one. There is no scientific evidence at all to suggest that they do exist.
How do I know god doesn't exist? I don't, but again it's more logical to assume that he doesn't. Proving that something doesn't exist beyond doubt is next to impossible. Can I prove that rabbits don't turn into five-legged cats when we're all asleep? No I can't, but it's pretty damn reasonable to assume that they don't!

Torakx wrote: »

Might not be here, but could be somewhere,in some paradigm/universe/dimension :P

The conspiracy is that they are here among us, try to keep up.

Torakx

omen80 wrote: »

I'm talking about extreme conspiracy theories here. Read my first post.


I don't know, but I'm using reason and logic to dictate there aren't. I have never seen one. There is no scientific evidence at all to suggest that they do exist.

Thats the point im making regarding your perceptions.
You are lumping a load of Ct's into an extreme category by using some really extreme examples after a not so extreme one.you try to negate any weight carried by the more realistic Ct aka 9/11.

How can you seriously associate a 9/11 conspiracy as being on the same level as lizards disguised as humans?

Was there a Lizard investigation commitee by the US gov recently too?

I keep up fine, more like you dont read between the lines and i am well ahead of you ^^

omen80

Torakx wrote: »

Thats the point im making regarding your perceptions.
You are lumping a load of Ct's into an extreme category by using some really extreme examples after a not so extreme one.you try to negate any weight carried by the more realistic Ct aka 9/11.

9/11 is an extreme case in my opinion. That's why I used it in my examples.

Torakx wrote: »

How can you seriously associate a 9/11 conspiracy as being on the same level as lizards disguised as humans?

Because it would take tens of thousands of people to be in on it - the people involved with the airlines, the passengers, the pilots, their families and friends. People who were supposed to have died on the planes would still be alive today. Not to mention the fact that it is highly unlikely the US government would risk killing 6,000 of their own people and being found out. Scientists have also demonstrated how a building would collapse if a plane struck it and then overheated. They have also shown how a 747 would leave a gap in the pentagon that is smaller than the total wing span of the plane.
Maybe you should stop watching Michael Moore documentaries and start watching some documentaries on the Discovery channel.

If you had to bet everything you own on whether the US government carried out the attacks or whether terrorists carried them out, which would you pick?

Torakx wrote: »

Was there a Lizard investigation commitee by the US gov recently too?

Not that I'm aware of? Since George Bush is apparently a lizard I don't see why they would want to expose him?

Torakx wrote: »

I keep up fine, more like you dont read between the lines and i am well ahead of you ^^

It's hard to read between the lines when your punctuation is appalling.

Brown Bomber

omen80 wrote: »

I don't believe that 9/11 was carried out by the US government. I don't believe that there are lizard people among us. I don't believe that the moon is a hologram or that we are about to be hit by planet X anytime soon.
Do I sound like the irrational one compared to someone who does believe in the above?

Obviously everything should be judged on it's own merits.

To me you do sound irrational as you went off a rant when I asked you a simple question that you still haven't answered, namely:

Who made you the arbitrator of what is rational or not?

Brown Bomber

omen80 wrote: »

9/11 is an extreme case in my opinion. That's why I used it in my examples.

Because it would take tens of thousands of people to be in on it -

Not neccessarily. It could be that Bin Laden was actively still working with the CIA unbeknownst to the rank-and-file of Al Qaeda and he sends them off on their suicide mission at the request of the US government.

omen80 wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that it is highly unlikely the US government would risk killing 6,000 of their own people and being found out.

That's just speculation. But let's not get bogged down on 9/11, but needless to say that putting 911 --an actual event -- in a category with Lizard people is gross exaggeration; regardless of how emotionally attached you are to the official conspiracy theory.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not neccessarily. It could be that Bin Laden was actively still working with the CIA unbeknownst to the rank-and-file of Al Qaeda and he sends them off on their suicide mission at the request of the US government.

But every single person on the US side would have to be trusted to remain silent in perpetuity - how small a group would it be reasonable to assume would have to know? Just Bush and Bin Laden? Bush, Bin Laden, and the cabinet? The top layer of the CIA? 50 people? 500 people? And their husbands/wives? And their children?

I think that unless you get down to - say - half a dozen people in all, there's no prospect whatsoever that you could reliably expect the truth to never get out.

omen80

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who made you the arbitrator of what is rational or not?

I believe in logic and the most likely cause/outcome. That's pretty much what rationality is. So the answer to your question is lexicographers.

omen80

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's just speculation.

Which is pretty much the foundation for most conspiracy theories.

Brown Bomber

omen80 wrote: »

I believe in logic and the most likely cause/outcome.

Great. So does everyone else, but what makes your conclusions superior to anyone else's?

Which is pretty much the foundation for most conspiracy theories.

Are you familiar with most (to all) conspiracy theories? If not, your statement is not very rational is it?

omen80

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Great. So does everyone else, but what makes your conclusions superior to anyone else's?

Eh, no they don't!
And I never said that my conclusions were superior.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you familiar with most (to all) conspiracy theories? If not, your statement is not very rational is it?

I'm starting to think that you don't understand the meaning of rational?

3ndahalfof6

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Discuss:

---

Please don't take liberties and be a prick and use this as a window to insult people.

It seems to me that pseudo-skeptics see "conspiracy theorists" as a single unit, is this the case? Why/why not?

What is a "conspiracy theorist"? Can an accurate defintion even be established? Does the "conspiracy theorist" label apply only to those that self-identify as such or can it be applied by outsiders? And if so, what entitles the outsiders to do so?

While I love reading this forum, you have left me very little room to participate, does this make me a prick, I am not sure, waiting for conformation.

Joshua J

Forget Lizards, with all these pseudo skeptics capable of such pure logic, there's evidence to suggest we've been invaded by vulcans.

Monty Burnz

Joshua J wrote: »

Forget Lizards, with all these pseudo skeptics capable of such pure logic, there's evidence to suggest we've been invaded by vulcans.

Logic is bad?

endacl

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Joshua J wrote: »

Forget Lizards, with all these pseudo skeptics capable of such pure logic, there's evidence to suggest we've been invaded by vulcans.

Logic is bad?

Depends on the company...

Brown Bomber

omen80 wrote: »

Eh, no they don't!

Could you then name some people who "don't believe in logic"?

omen80 wrote: »

And I never said that my conclusions were superior.

No. You did imply it however:

There are a lot of imaginative and paranoid people out there.

Paranoid i.e. irrational.

omen80 wrote: »

I'm starting to think that you don't understand the meaning of rational?

On the contrary it appears you don't seem to understand. You made a claim which you can't possibly support.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Logic is bad?

Logic isn't bad but it's been co-opted by some people who think they are Carl Sagan after reading Dawkins or Descartes etc. They are normally identifiable by talking about spaghetti monsters and unicorns and so on.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Logic isn't bad but it's been co-opted by some people who think they are Carl Sagan after reading Dawkins or Descartes etc. They are normally identifiable by talking about spaghetti monsters and unicorns and so on.

Indeed, but some people here don't have a clear understanding of logical principles and need to be reminded from time to time. Recently somebody here claimed that your name gets 'split in half' when your birth notification is registered, with one copy going to the government and the other to you. They offered no proof for the assertion at all, but challenged me to disprove it.

That doesn't make sense, but they didn't seem to understand why.

You also get arguments like 'the NWO causes the wars to cash in on weapons'. When you point out that the NWO presumably makes money from all the other products that people can't now buy because they are being taxed to pay for these rather unproductive weapons (and armies to wield them), the conversation gets rather strange - 'you've got to look at the big picture' was one rather memorable response.

omen80

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you then name some people who "don't believe in logic"?

I said "I believe in logic and the most likely cause/outcome". You said "Great. So does everyone else". I am saying that they don't. For instance, it is more likely that lizard people don't exist than them walking among us. There are people out there who believe George Bush is a lizard. I would therefore say that these people are not logical.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. You did imply it however:

Yawn.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Paranoid i.e. irrational.

Yes paranoid people have irrational thoughts.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On the contrary it appears you don't seem to understand. You made a claim which you can't possibly support.

That's a bit rich coming from a conspiracy theorist! I think you win the most hypocritical statement of the year award.

Jonny7

Why aren't those who believe there were no planes on 911 at the throats of those who believe the planes were CIA controlled..

Brown Bomber

omen80 wrote: »

I said "I believe in logic and the most likely cause/outcome". You said "Great. So does everyone else". I am saying that they don't. For instance, it is more likely that lizard people don't exist than them walking among us. There are people out there who believe George Bush is a lizard. I would therefore say that these people are not logical.

Not logical is not the same as not believing in logic.

omen80 wrote: »

Yes paranoid people have irrational thoughts.

...and your (non-paranoid) conclusions are therefore superior...

omen80 wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from a conspiracy theorist!

Okay, good, now we can get somewhere. What is a "conspiracy theorist"? How am I one? How do I stop being one? And what gives you the right to decide?

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, good, now we can get somewhere. What is a "conspiracy theorist"? How am I one? How do I stop being one? And what gives you the right to decide?

I don't see you as a typical conspiracy theorist, you just use this forum to air your beliefs and views of the world.

omen80

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not logical is not the same as not believing in logic.

Do I have to re-quote myself again? Read the whole sentence I wrote, not just the logic part. I was saying that there are obviously people who don't believe in using logic or reason to come to a conclusion. I never suggested that they don't literally believe logic exists.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

...and your (non-paranoid) conclusions are therefore superior...

Really? Ah, thanks.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, good, now we can get somewhere.

Sounds like you finally got the response you wanted? So you can have your silly argument? I'm pretty sure that's the only reason you started this thread.....to have a shouting match? Your original post was a bit on the aggressive side so it's quite clear what your intentions are. You don't want to know what qualifies as a conspiracy theorist, you just want to vent your views.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is a "conspiracy theorist"?

I answered this in my original post.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How am I one?

I'm assuming you are one, since you seem to have such a mental block about what qualifies as the rational explanation for the cause of an event. I'm not say you believe that the moon is a hologram or anything, but your mind seems to be more geared to that of a conspiracy theorist. Do you think you are one?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How do I stop being one?

How does someone stop believing in god?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And what gives you the right to decide?

I'm not deciding, it's my opinion. It's not like I'm signing off on some document that says you as a conspiracy theorist. It's a bit of a childish question to be honest.

Brown Bomber

omen80 wrote: »

Do I have to re-quote myself again? Read the whole sentence I wrote, not just the logic part. I was saying that there are obviously people who don't believe in using logic or reason to come to a conclusion. I never suggested that they don't literally believe logic exists.

Okay, who are these people you speak of?

omen80 wrote: »

Sounds like you finally got the response you wanted? So you can have your silly argument? I'm pretty sure that's the only reason you started this thread.....to have a shouting match? Your original post was a bit on the aggressive side so it's quite clear what your intentions are. You don't want to know what qualifies as a conspiracy theorist, you just want to vent your views.

Evidently you have trouble seperating your own interpretations and opinions from fact. FWIW you are wrong, I am trying to establish an appropriate and workable defintion of conspiracy theories and and conspiracy theorists.

omen80 wrote: »

I answered this in my original post.

Well it's not very clear. Could you concisely define a conspiracy theorist?

omen80 wrote: »

I'm assuming you are one, since you seem to have such a mental block about what qualifies as the rational explanation for the cause of an event.

Right, so a conspiracy theorist has some kind of mental deficiency?

omen80 wrote: »

I'm not say you believe that the moon is a hologram or anything, but your mind seems to be more geared to that of a conspiracy theorist. Do you think you are one?

Possibly. It depends on the definition which remains fuzzy at best just now.

omen80 wrote: »

How does someone stop believing in god?

I was hoping for an intelligent answer. For example: alternative medicine stops becoming "alternative" and is simple medicine if it's treatments are scientifically proven.

Likewise, if someone was to say "the moon is a hologram" based on X and it later transpires that the moon is a hologram" based on X. Are they no longer conspiracy theorists?

omen80 wrote: »

I'm not deciding, it's my opinion. It's not like I'm signing off on some document that says you as a conspiracy theorist. It's a bit of a childish question to be honest.

Okay, but that's kind of my point. There are no fundamental core beliefs that makes someone a conspiracy theorist, so how do we establish if someone is or isn't? And who gets to decide?

omen80

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, who are these people you speak of?

For example, those who believe that lizard people exist. I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over here.....

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well it's not very clear. Could you concisely define a conspiracy theorist?

I already gave you my opinion. If you want an actual definition then there are plenty of sites where you can look it up.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, so a conspiracy theorist has some kind of mental deficiency?

No, and I never said any such thing.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was hoping for an intelligent answer. For example: alternative medicine stops becoming "alternative" and is simple medicine if it's treatments are scientifically proven.

You asked me how do you stop being a conspiracy theorist. Your example answer doesn't even address your own question.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Likewise, if someone was to say "the moon is a hologram" based on X and it later transpires that the moon is a hologram" based on X. Are they no longer conspiracy theorists?

If they no longer believe that there is a conspiracy then no, they would not be conspiracy theorists. Pretty self-explanatory I would say.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, but that's kind of my point. There are no fundamental core beliefs that makes someone a conspiracy theorist, so how do we establish if someone is or isn't? And who gets to decide?

We've been through this. I've given you my thoughts on it already.

moneymad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is a "conspiracy theorist"? Can an accurate definition even be established? Does the "conspiracy theorist" label apply only to those that self-identify as such or can it be applied by outsiders? And if so, what entitles the outsiders to do so?

Someone who has an automatic contrarian response to events and then actively seeks out to fill in the blanks for their confirmation bias.It gives them some sort of comfort. If their confirmation bias became the majority view then they would probably change it again to a minority one.

Jonny7

moneymad wrote: »

Someone who has an automatic contrarian response to events and then actively seeks out to fill in the blanks for their confirmation bias.It gives them some sort of comfort. If their confirmation bias became the majority view then they would probably change it again to a minority one.

That automatic response is often eerily in step with their own world view or narrative.. then they work backwards to prove it. Alex Jones is a prime example.