Embarrassing Conspiracy Theories: Debunker Bloggers = Dis-information Agent

There are a lot of blogs that are dedicated to conspiracy theories, both promoting and debunking them. Typically, those writing blogs debunking conspiracy theories claim that those promoting conspiracy theories are very misinformed individuals who do not know, or do not bother to learn, or refuse to accept the facts. Those writing blogs promoting conspiracy theories claim that those debunking conspiracy theories are dis-information agents...

Besides the fact that these people have no real proof of the conspiracy theories that they promote (although they believe that they do), they also have no proof that the bloggers that debunk these conspiracy theories are dis-information agents as well. The only thing that they can typically cite as "proof" is the blog postings itself, because in some conspiracy theorists mindsets, there are not many people who do not believe them, and thus, the only people who would "logically" take the time to write a blog that dis-credits their theories must be a paid dis-information agent, instead of a person who dis-likes conspiracy theories, has some time on their hands, and are willing to do some research to debunk this stuff.

This almost sounds like back when I was in grade school, and during gym, would sometimes play games. Many times I would be on the losing team, but I would declare to anyone that would listen to me that we won, because I would assume that the other team was cheating. I had no reason to believe the other team was cheating, other then the fact that the team I was on had lost, because my childish and immature mind would not let me comprehend or accept the fact that I, and the people I was teamed with, sucked.

This is basically the same line of "logic" that conspiracy theorists use when it comes to people who debunk conspiracy theories: The skeptic who is debunking a conspiracy theory, backs up their claims with facts, and logic, and the conspiracy theorist can't beat those facts, or more likely doesn't believe those facts are real in the first place, and assumes they must be a dis-information agent, because, what else can they be.

One of the biggest problems with this line of "logic" is, that it in a way, it assumes that people can't think for themselves, and can not possibly come up with a different conclusion, unless that conclusion was made up. Skeptics know on the other hand that this isn't true at all, and that people are entirely capable of coming up with their own conclusions, otherwise there would not be a need for skeptics and debunkers at all.

Not only do skeptics and debunkers not fear accusations of being a dis-information agent, they laugh at it, and mock it, because not only does such an accusation from a conspiracy theorist make that conspiracy theorist sound like a paranoid nutcase, it also makes them sound like a hypocritical fascist, who only thinks that the only valid opinion there is, are those that they share.