10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

Being new to this forum, I see a large amount of time is spent (by myself included) here, denying the claims made by supporters of the many Conspiracy Theories. The US government is behind the 9/11 attacks. The US is run by the Zionists. The Zionists in Israel's true intent is to exterminate all Muslims and to control the world...and on and on.
I have had a few members tell me not to waste my time engaging these Hip-posters since there is no chance that any minds will be changed. They have a long history of supporting these unfounded claims and proof, no matter how verifyable or factual, will always be discounted as part of the Mass Media (controlled by the Jews) plot against the average citizen.
Here is a quick reference guide for those of you who think they may be in an exchange with a conspiracy theorists.

A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

So here are some typical characterists of the Conspiracy theorists and their followers: Remember these as you listen to people around you. You probably will see a few people you know display the same characteristics. Then again you may see yourself in the mirror!

------------ The Conspiracy Theorists---------
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

 

propaganda

truth be told, much of the time, so called theorists aren't trying to prove a "theory", but simply trying to disprove government explanations (which isn't that hard to do).

of course you won't hear that in this article.

unsurprisingly, everyone of these characteristics can almost always be attributed to anybody set with any belief, period.

 

*Insert scary music here*

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuIQJ-l16b4&feature=related

here's the catch though....all of these more or less apply to anybody with a belief.

how does one go about bypassing this dilemma? by having no beliefs...the way it should be.

 

I can see some of these characteristics also apply to YOU!!

 

2 the op... Must you stereotype us? When I accapt a conspiracy theory, or anything for that matter, as truth, it is due to the fact that it resonates with the vibration of truth in my mind. I just attended a vipassana course, where they teach that the best wisdom is that which is derived from ones own experience, not from what you are told. When I hear of a conspiracy and it produces such vibrations within me, I immediately know it to be true. Abuse me as you will, call me a blind follower, a "conspiracy sheep" but when you experience the vibration of truth, you immediately know it to be so, and are willind to defend it at any cost. Also, most of the so-called inconsistencies you speak of, this "scientific" research is more often than not funded by the perpetrators of said conspiracy, or persons sympathetic to them.

 

I am sure Jaycola has never read the works of Carroll Quigley or Zbigniew Brzezinski and others, where they openly admit to their agenda. I don't talk much about theories, but rather what can be proven.

The problem with some of you "debunkers" is that in your minds anything not talked about by the media is automatically a conspiracy theory. Yes, there is a problem with people taking and running with whatever they read on the internet or in some book. However, the same mentality applies to the people who believe in everything they hear on the 6 o'clock news. I would say these people are far more gullible and weak-minded, as they believe in a system that is constantly working to screw them over. When you have an establishment media that is run by the military-industrial complex, you can pretty much assume that their interests do not lie in presenting the people with the truth. They depend on the public being too dumbed-down and preoccupied with entertainment and sports to think critically about much of anything.

 

Also, Jaycola, much of what you claimed above is not what many so-called "conspiracy theorists" believe. I know I don't believe zionists or "Jews" run the world. The average Jews have been used as scapegoats. The powers that be WANT people to blame eveything on the Jews so they can then marginalize anyone who discusses these topics as so-called "anti-semites." Most of the anti-semite and skinhead groups are government fronts that attract a lot of very weak-minded people, who are then used as useful idiots to discredit those who discuss legitimate issues.

It's a common tactic of debunkers to always bring up "the Jews" or anti-semitism, because then they don't have to talk about the issues once they've labeled people as bigots and hatemongers. It's an easy way to silence people while avoiding any debate or discussion of the facts.

 

Thank you for your insights Rat. Its been a while since I've seen you post. Everything alright?

 

That link, made my day!

 

I'm also new to this forum,and hardly on it anymore now.--Whatever one calls them conspiracy theorists etc.--I call some of the people who post in the politics section and other sections related:nuts ,crazies,unhappy people with too much time on their hands.And whats laughable is some of these people 'actually' think they will change others opinions.But whats worst of all they are SO BORING.Its just the same 5 or 6 posting the same junk over and over again.Who's reading it?------Not many.

 

WORD UP HOMIE!!! I fucking LOVE you man. Wish I had found this earlier. I'm printing this out and posting this on my fridge.

 

Is someone who notices a change in the wind a better weatherman than those who don't?

Just because a conspiracy isn't proveable yet, doesn't mean that it won't be.

I stand by everything I write here.

By the time you realize I'm right, you won't have an internet connection to say so.



x

 

lol, Yeal

 

QFT


Also, you can disagree without being disagreeable.