I dont believe in attacking people for having a different impression that you perceive to be outside of the norm. I witnessed this on another forum, a skeptics forum and just seems odd that this would be considered perfectly fine on a web forum since how can we have a discussion otherwise? It was just too forceful and really on a forum whose very existence relies on the existence of conspiracies.
Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
I dont believe in attacking people for having a different impression that you perceive to be outside of the norm. I witnessed this on another forum, a skeptics forum and just seems odd that this would be considered perfectly fine on a web forum since how can we have a discussion otherwise? It was just too forceful and really on a forum whose very existence relies on the existence of conspiracies.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm not sure what you mean. You're not buying that 'refuting someones ideas by presenting facts' is not the same as 'forcing something on someone'?
I think you have a different idea of force than most. One cannot make anyone change their mind.
What one can do is overwhelm them with inarguable facts and logic and require that they defend their assertions in light of those facts. If they can't then they're just interfering.
Well you sure took it personally. Like I was attacking you.
Most of those 'we' people in civilization like to do their searching using facts. Please don't suggest that humans - as a rule - are natural conspiracy-lovers.
Your perception is only out-of tune by one ocean and 1/7th of the circumference of the planet.
A wise man once said ''...you are much less informed than you think..."
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It can't be worse than this forum.
Well, a skeptics forum is one of those places where - kind of like any organization dedicated to righting wrongs - they would prefer to put themselves out of a job if they could.
I do agree that far too many fora tolerate abominable behavior toward other members. I may be OK describing a hypothetical group of anonymous folk as 'talking out of their butts', but I would never find that acceptable said directly to someone. (Unless they really were. There are some people really just interested in trolling.)
Last edited:
My conspiracy theories are way out there, but well thought out. Many things i believe i can never talk about, they are too powerful. Just answer a question: if i don't believe in certain things you do then why am i harassed? (When i say you i mean mainstream). When all you are doing is mimicking, not thinking on your own. Well, i have to say - too many things just dont make sense. When i say the conspiracy community would not accept me because i really dont jibe with the top conspiracies.
As an example: I say why couldn't LHO have been the sole perpetrator? But, i will say this: the general public is not 100% privy to all of the facts, so they are coming from a position of ignirance. I dont know why this occurs. Well, i think it is laziness, let them think what they want, good for books, movies etc.
But, i grew up differently than most and was exposed to certain things early on that the majority would not be, not by choice, just one of those things.
As an example: I say why couldn't LHO have been the sole perpetrator? But, i will say this: the general public is not 100% privy to all of the facts, so they are coming from a position of ignirance. I dont know why this occurs. Well, i think it is laziness, let them think what they want, good for books, movies etc.
But, i grew up differently than most and was exposed to certain things early on that the majority would not be, not by choice, just one of those things.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Because you say things like this:
A classic CT conceit.
I too grew up differently. I grew up raised by wolves, and was exposed to disease and parasites from an early age. Do you think that makes me more knowledgeable about economics and orbital mechanics?
The point is, you say you're "different" as if it benefits you. In fact, it means you're more isolated and insulated from a larger body of knowledge and it hurts your ability to weigh and assess the plausibility of circumstances.
This is why, as each of us (including you) moves through life, we seek to learn more, not less - and as we do so, we get more wise, not less.
Last edited:
Dave, ask yourself this: why does the calendar start from zero and go to 2016?
Is it because it really was ZERO?
Do you honestly believe there were "American Indians" with elaborate feathered head dresses (central casting) who would dance around a fire goin "hi yo-yo-yo - hi-yo-yo-yo"? I dont know, things just dont add up, if you catch my drift.
Is it because it really was ZERO?
Do you honestly believe there were "American Indians" with elaborate feathered head dresses (central casting) who would dance around a fire goin "hi yo-yo-yo - hi-yo-yo-yo"? I dont know, things just dont add up, if you catch my drift.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Are these deep thoughts to you? Are these related? Is there a point?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Look, I'm not big on ad hominems; I much prefer to attack a poster's arguments than the poster themselves.
But here is a case where poster is pretty much demanding that the attention remain on him.
The condescension is, in itself a veiled ad hominem: "I'm the only one who's thinking here ... you're not thinking."
The coy hints of assertions accomplish the same thing: "Ask yourself this .. (fact-free insinuation). ... catch my drift?"
There's no substance here, and the poster knows it. So he plays these shy school girl games.
I avoid discussion about people, and instead discuss ideas. State your case, or take it back to the playground.
And yes - to stay on-topic - this is a textbook CT anti-discussion tactic.
But here is a case where poster is pretty much demanding that the attention remain on him.
The condescension is, in itself a veiled ad hominem: "I'm the only one who's thinking here ... you're not thinking."
The coy hints of assertions accomplish the same thing: "Ask yourself this .. (fact-free insinuation). ... catch my drift?"
There's no substance here, and the poster knows it. So he plays these shy school girl games.
I avoid discussion about people, and instead discuss ideas. State your case, or take it back to the playground.
And yes - to stay on-topic - this is a textbook CT anti-discussion tactic.
Here's an article about conspiracy theorists.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/weapon...ory-disinformation-agents-and-the-cia/5524552
http://www.globalresearch.ca/weapon...ory-disinformation-agents-and-the-cia/5524552
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I am going to make a series of statements and would be interested in your response to each.
1. In order to think outside of the box it is necessary to have a well defined notion of the character of the box. If one possesses this then thinking outside the box is welcome.
2. Unfortunately many individuals equate thinking outside the box with random thinking, false logic and contrariness for the sake of it. This thinking is not welcome.
3. Amongst thinking persons marching in lock-step only occurs where facts are very soundly established. Where facts are not well established there is often strong disagreement on details between individuals and groups who are otherwise in broad agreement.
4.What is wrong is if the conspiracy theorists are claiming to think outside the box, but are merely thinking outside of their brains.
5. What is also wrong are those instances where CTs criticise lock-step marching rather than providing contrary evidence to counter the consensus claims.
6. I would estimate that 80% of the instances I have witnessed of anger, arise because the CTs present no compelling reason to reject the status quo.
7. I don't accept any opinion, popular or not. I see no reason to do so. I fight a losing battle not to feel contemptuous of those who do.
8. I think people should form their own opinions.
9. From what I have seen the majority of CTs fall into one of three categories:
- Individuals who have a psychological need to believe in conspiracies
- Individuals who have a need to disagree with the consensus views
- Individuals who want to be part of a group that makes them feel important
Well said in every respect.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Self-styled "skeptics" are often nothing of the sort. They have their own faith-based worldviews that they grasp onto with white-knuckled passion and all of their energies are devoted to attacking anyone who deviates from those orthodoxies.
I don't think that these alternative fora here on Sciforums were created in order to have friendly and thoughtful conversations about ufos, ghosts, monsters, alternative science or conspiracy theories. They aren't meant as comfortable places for people who believe in or champion such things. They were created as places of banishment for people who were perceived (often rightly) as disrupting the conventional science fora up above. They are an out-of-sight/out-of-mind place for heretics to be flamed/burned-at-the-stake. In other words, this 'conspiracy theories' forum doesn't exist to discuss conspiracy theories with an open mind, so much as it exists to rip conspiracy theorists to pieces and feed them to the dogs.
Last edited:
When we have such inane "conspiracy theories" re the Moon Landings and 9/11, burning at the stake is far too good for them.
I'd say it's more an opportunity for conspiracy theorists to present their theories to science-oriented people. Most will fail, and deserve to be fed to the dogs. Some may succeed, in which case their theories may progress from conspiracy theories to valid ones. But that decision will rest upon the validity of their theories, not on the sympathy you can garner for the people who fail.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I rather agree. This does describe itself as a science forum after all. It is only to be expected that proponents of fringe ideas will get a challenging time in such a place. I would presume that those that bring such ideas here are ready to meet the challenge.
I've seen the moon hoax theory and the 9/11 inside job theory debated here. I think the debaters who supported the official story failed; they just wouldn't recognize the fact that they'd failed.
The proof that the moon missions were faked is crushing and the proof that the US government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks is crushing.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201736&page=39&p=8589785&viewfull=1#post8589785
Two excellent examples of people who failed - and were fed to the dogs. Indeed, the moon landing hoaxers are especially vulnerable on a science site, since most don't know a thing about the science of space travel - and it shows.
So why do they post here? One fairly good reason might be that they want to learn more about space travel, and discover the errors in the latest "FIVE REASONS WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON" Facebook post. Unfortunately, that's not usually the case; more often they simply want to "impress" others with their "out of the box" thinking and prove that they are not "sheeple." These people are generally shown the errors of their ways and then ignored. On occasion they are attacked because they continue posting the same incorrect theories and claims, and on a science board, that tends to get people riled up.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Even if that is true, that simply demonstrates that those arguing the truth of the moon landing were incompetent at the job.
Of course, an alternative explanation is that the moon hoax believers are even dumber than we thought they were.