Why does everyone believe in conspiracy theories nowadays?

Weak minded people are very very easily convinced of almost anything, the Internet just makes it easier to get the conspiracies to a larger audience. Religion is an example I use often, just look at people like Kenneth Copeland, as batshit crazy as they come but people have made him a megamillionaire because they believe the shit he spews out of his mouth!!

 

Batshit crazy like a fox. That guy is a world class grifter. Maybe he'll be President some day

 

He is that, and I would not doubt for one minute he could easily become the President if that orange turd could...

 

It's not just me. I'm just reporting what the literature says. But I seem to have touched a nerve. BTW it's not logical to conclude from your pie chart that I'm claiming that 15% of Americans are suffering from Schyzotypal Personality Disorder. The research simply establishes a strong relationship between belief in conspiracy theories and the Schyzotypal pattern.

Personalizing, are we? I've been discussing general sociological and psychological correlates of conspiracy theory, not you. To assume that they apply to your particular case would be to commit the ecological fallacy. I've never done that. Btw, when and by whom did you have this "offical" schizotypal level measured?

 

3. social (e.g., the desire for group belonging, to maintain a positive image of self or group, or to have status within the group as being “special”.

Clinical psychololgist Dr. Carla Manly notes that people have a tribal mentality to be part of a group.,People tend to identify with ideas held by those they see as similar to themselves. The Psychology Behind Conspiracy Theories Research suggests that conspiracy theories enhances the the self and the in-group to which (s)he belongs by attributing wrongdoing to others. Thus, they may help to Self and in-group are perceived as being good and justified, but as victimizeded by powerful and unscrupulous conspirators. Thus, conspiracy theories would be particularly appealing to people who find their own positive self-image or that of their self or in-group to be threatened (Cichocka, Marchlewska, & Golec de Zavala, 2016). 'They will not control us': Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies - PubMed
Theories on Conspiracy Theories | Albizu Info Central

Research suggests that social ostracism (Graeupner & Coman, 2017), objectively low social status (Crocker, Luhtanen, Broadnax, & Blaine, 1999), and those on the losing side of political battles Uscinski & Parent, 2014} are prone to accept conspiracy theories. endorse conspiracy theories. People on the losing (vs. winning) side of political processes also appear more likely to believe conspiracy theories (Uscinski & Parent, 2014), as are those who are predjudiced against powerful groups (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014) and perceived enemies (Kofta & Sedek, 2005

Other research has found a strong link between belief in conspiracy theories to a need to feel special. Studies find the need to feel unique is linked to belief in conspiracy theories.
This need is satisfied by knowing things that others are not supposed to know. “Narcissism—a conviction about one's superiority and entitlement to special treatment—is a robust predictor of belief in conspiracy theories.” Why do narcissists find conspiracy theories so appealing? - ScienceDirect

So those are the main psychological theories. I'll lead it for your judgment to decide if any of the pertain to the case at hand.

The Psychology Behind Conspiracy Theories

Why some people are more likely to believe wild conspiracy theories than others

 

Now that I've finished dealing with the sociology and psychology of conspiracy theories, I can address some of the nonsense you've been prattling about in your posts. A Holocaust denier, eh. And you think Faurisson had it nailed? Most informed, sane observers other than neo-Nazis disagree, and have a very different take on Faurisson and his trials than you do.Gas Chambers for Robert Faurisson | CODOH
Robert Faurisson was a professional liar and a falsifier of history.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/robert-faurisson-holocaust-denial
Robert Faurisson: The liar and his legacy
‘One Less Holocaust Denier on This Earth:’ Robert Faurisson, Notorious French Nazi Apologist, Dead at 89 - Algemeiner.com
You must get your information from some strange sources. Show us. And where is that judicial opinion determining that the Holocaust was impossible? Sources please! You seem to be suggesting that a French judge settled the matter definitively. How does that work? We have some peculiar judges in this country, too, but what exactly did he say? And why should we care? Parlez vous francais? Comprenez-vous la loi française et le système juridique francais? Je hâte de voir ces documents. The reason I bring this up is that Faurisson was tried. convicted, fined and barred from holding public office for his violation of the Fabius-Gassot law against Holocaust denial. It would be très étrange if the judge found the holocaust had never happened. Or are you talking about another trial?

Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, (2002)Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? do an excellent job of refuting the standard arguments of Holocaust deniers, one by one. "Holocaust denial," they say, "is not just a Jewish issue. It is an attack on all history and the way we transmit the past to the future."
Why "Revisionism" Isn't
Combating Holocaust Denial: Origins of Holocaust Denial
Holocaust Deniers and Public Misinformation
The World Is Full of Holocaust Deniers
Holocaust Denial and Distortion
And you're ethnically Jewish, too, aren't you? Anything to be different, or to feel "special". Studies find the need to feel unique is linked to belief in conspiracy theories
Holocaust Denial | The Psychology of Extraordinary Beliefs
So if the holocaust reallydid exist and everything you thought you knew about Hitler is wrong. Now what? lol

 

...

 

My Gentle, Intelligent Brother Is Now A Conspiracy Theorist And His Beliefs Are Shocking

 

Not so....
the states retain their Sovereignty which means they have to adopt federal law before it becomes binding. If it were a 'federation' you would be correct and nullification would not exist. Lots of misinfo out there now days. Same thing with the Jury as I said earlier. Otherwise we the people is in reality we the government. Just one of those little things those in power like to pretend doesnt exist and expect you to do the same.

United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the state's own constitution).

Nullification (U.S. Constitution) - Wikipedia
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Nullification_(U.S._Con..

 

Oh?
Feel free to present hard evidence or feel free to concede.
Oh and btw a holocaust did occur, so I am not denying the holocaust.
Still we need to see all that hard evidence you have to prove up the 'holocaust' claim, especially since faurison took to court and the judge opined it was not remotely possible. I tend to believe courts before internet posters. FYI opinion pieces as it appears you posted are NOT evidence, sorry.
Evidence?

 

yes weak minded indeed!

 

If you aren't denying the Holocaust, what are you doing? "Evidence? Ordinarily the person making an assertion has the burden of proof. You were asked to produce evidence that such a court opinion exists. You have produced no evidence, hard of soft--except your claim that an anonymous French judge in an unnamed court somehow dismissed the Holocaust. Until you do better than that, we can suspect that you or someone else made this opinion up. The only court case I know Faurisson to have been involved in was the one in which he was convicted, sentenced and fined for Holocaust denial. Seems unlikely the judge in that case denied the Holocaust.

What is the name of your alleged case? When was it decided? What was the name of this judge who supposedly issued such an opinion? What is the citation? And if there were such a decision, what would it prove? There were no "courts" here; at most, there was one, and you have yet to produced evidence of that. Why would you think the opinion of one judge would settle a matter which has been abundantly refuted by so many historians in so many countries? If there were such an opinion, it would only show that the judge was a quack. We have those on the bench in this country, too.

For evidence (not just opinion), see Sherman and Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened? They discuss the evidence in great detail, including survivor testimonies, Jewish Sondercommando diaries, confessions of guards and commandants, written documents (e.g.,orders for Zyklon B), Zyklon B traces on the walls, ground photographs, including burning bodies, aerial photos of prisoners being moved toward the gas chambers, etc. I think they make a convincing case. So far, what you present is an unnamed judicial opinion by an anonymous French judge in a case that may never have happened or that you may have misinterpreted, and in any event would not be definitive of anything. You Youtube on Noam Chomsky simply presents his opinion, which like so many of his other views, is questionable. Of course there really are conspiracies, some of the most successful being the conspiracies to spread the conspiracies theories you've swallowed. It's a matter of credibility and evidence. Chomsky penned a widely criticized defense of Faurisson's free speech, which he said was not intended to endorse the Frenchman's views on the Holocaust. I'd say the views presented in your YouTube video are as feeble as he seems to have become. (He was barely audible). I personally believe that Holocaust denial should not be criminalized, as it was in France.

I don't expect ever to convince you of your delusions, because your confiration bias and other ego defenses would never allow it. Thus far, you seem to be substituting emojis for evidence.

 

I know for a fact I will never convince you to give up your delusion but if you want to argue the point I think you would agree we should at least start from the beginning yes?

I dont know what you are talking about? I didnt put up any emojis as evidence. Making stuff up?

Did you listen to Chompsky or do you feel he is not qualified to talk on the subject of conspiracy theories? I liked the way the interviewer winced when he said of course there are conspiracies/theories all the time. smirk....

Faurison, hmm... court of appeals april 1983.

So shall we start from the beginning?

 

huh? what video? I didnt post any video talking about faurison, the only video I posted was chompski endorsing the validity of conspiracy theories where he listed several that were valid. No idea what you are talking about.

It seems the thrust of you 2 guys posts is that all conspiracy therories are the concoctions of nut cases, only to have someone with the prestige of chomsky validate they in fact are not.

maybe thats why so many people believe them now days.....

 

I didn't say you posted a video talking about Faurisson. You should read more carefully. That may explained how you get yourself so confused. I commented on the YouTube video you (or someone impersonating you) posted supra. I also mentioned that Noam Chomsky became internationally notorious for defending Faurisson (NOT HIS HOLOCAUST DENIAL) when the latter came under attack. https://ww Faurisson affair - Wikipedia

Lots of prestigious people have questionable ideas. Chomsky has had more than his share. He almost lost his reputation over the Faurisson issue, and is naturally defensive on the subject of conspiracies. But the video you presented does not defend your pet conspiracies. It only points out that conspiracies shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, which is true. The conspiracies to instigate Holocaust denial, QAnon, Pizzagate, and the anti-Covid stuff are examples of the ones that should be dismissed. It's a matter of evidence, reason and good judgment, which you seem to lack.

BTW, what was that alleged French court case again? Not the one in which he was tried, convicted and fined for spreading Holocaust denial conspiracy theories?

 

All law is just a "theory", that is a non starter.

So then we must conclude the constitution is unconstitutional