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?