I am Proud of Being a Conspiracy Theorist

Pride has always been traditionally considered a sin.

You shouldn't have pride in anything. It will only cloud your judgement and, when something true really comes along, your ego and "pride" will let that truth slide in favour of what you would prefer to believe; the easy no-think solution.

This sounds like the absolute pits of denial; a kind of, "I give up with all the opposition against my views, I'm just going to be proud and that's that - the work is done".

More often than not, by a long margin, conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong. If you have then decided to hedge your bets in favour of something shown to be more wrong than not, then by definition you will be more wrong than not going forward.

I would request that you reconsider what you invest pride in, because this ain't one of them.

That works both ways, though.

For instance: there are things conspiracy theorists believe to be true along with everyone else, and only in the future does everyone learn that they were wrong.

So we cannot be openminded to the point where we consider most viewpoints reasonable.

And as I say, we also need to look at the odds. Given that the vast majority of conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong or littered with falsehoods, our logic should align with this fact and not in the belief that most things could be a conspiracy.

Most things actually have a very boring explanation!

I remember engaging with conspiracy theorists in the past. It was a cringeworthy experience, to say the least.

I don't engage in the specific debates anymore. If someone wants to believe a conspiracy theory, more power to them as far as I'm concerned. Like religious beliefs, I just don't want them to try and impose their version of reality on me. All's good and equal that way.

One thing I did notice with conspiracy theorists is how facts don't really matter. The energy and excitement of the belief matters far more. To take one example of an engagement I had with someone who believed that the moon landings never took place. Fair play to him, he knew the subject inside out. I didn't, as I couldn't care less about reading that much into the subject. But I knew the moon landings happened. When he mentioned this and that and the other, I didn't have an answer. So I went away and briefly identified the actual explanation of the questions he raised. I came back to him and explained these explanations.

He nodded his head, unsure what to say.

But then he said the absolute classic, "...but what about [insert new claim]?".

Undeterred, I went back and found the explanation for that question, too.

And you can predict what happened next.

He replied, "...well, okay, but that still doesn't explain [insert new claim]?".

At this stage, it becomes abundantly clear that facts really don't matter. It's about the belief, and the desire to believe it to be true and the willingness to suspend belief in everything else just to make that belief hold true. He never once accepted any of the explanations. He was more concerned about catching me out on my apparent lack of knowledge on the subject.

From previous experiences I noticed the same trend.

When a conspiracy theorist says something like, "...but what about X?", what they really want is for you to say "I don't know". Because when you admit to not knowing something, they can say, "Exactly..." - which gives them some heightened sense of validation of their own belief system, when it does no such thing. Most people want their beliefs challenged to be false, whereas conspiracy theorists really want their beliefs to be true.

But even if I don't know the answer to their question, it doesn't validate their conclusion. That would involve committing a logical fallacy.

But yes, that has been my experience.

Facts are only an occasional convenience, wrapped within a narrative of what someone wants to believe rather than what's most likely the case.

To be "proud" of that, to act as if this is something that should be respected, is to make a pitiful mistake.

If conspiracy theories were largely true, they'd become "mainstream accepted fact" by definition.

But if that were to happen, someone else would come along and question those new "mainstream accepted facts".

See the irony of your position?

There comes a point when people have to accept the world is pretty dull and boring, and only a tiny minority of conspiracy theories - in the very end - turn out to be wholly true.

I'll take the shrill alarm please. Tell us your secrets. How did you manage to get a hold of such information

Well I for one am convinced by this flawless logic