Stereotypes Conspiracy Theorists have against Skeptics

There are a lot of stereotypes that conspiracy theorists believe about skeptics, and for the most part they're just not true. Most of the time these beliefs are either the result of manipulation, or just misunderstandings.

Here are some of the most common claims that conspiracy theorists have against skeptic, and why these claims are not true:

All skeptics work for the government.

One of the most common claims by conspiracy theorists about skeptics is that skeptics work for, or at least are being paid by the government, or to a lesser extent, private companies, to run debunking websites (they're usually referred to by conspiracy theorists as "dis-information agents"). Usually these accusations are followed up with a joke by a skeptic, usually something like, "I'm still waiting for my check."

The reality is that most skeptics don't work for the government, and most likely never would. Those that do work for the government are not being paid by the government to run these skeptic websites, and they are doing what they do on their own free will.

Skeptics believe whatever the government or media says.

No they don't. In fact skeptics are highly critical of both the government and the media.

Skeptics know that the government lies to the public all the time to try to make itself not look as bad, and that the media tends to report things way to early, or sensationalizes stuff, so bad information gets to the public, rather then correct information.

Skeptics don't believe in conspiracies.

Skeptics actually do believe in conspiracies. The difference is between skeptics and conspiracy theorists is that the conspiracies that skeptics believe in either have been proven to be true, or has enough evidence (real evidence, not made up evidence) to prove the conspiracy to be true, or at least likely to be true.

All skeptics are alike.

One of the biggest misconceptions about skeptics in general is that we are all alike, and that we have similar beliefs and education, and that we all see things exactly the same, but in reality this is not true at all.

We all debunk things differently, and we sometimes come to different conclusions on things, and there are fights within the skeptics community.

All skeptics are Atheists.

While a large amount of skeptics are Atheists, not all of them are. In fact I'm not an Atheist. I'm actually a Christian, and I do believe in God.

Some Atheists may use their beliefs as an excuse for being a skeptic, but there's no religious test for being a skeptic, and anyone can be a skeptic regardless of there religious beliefs (or lack there of).

All skeptics have the same political beliefs.

No two skeptics are alike, and no two skeptics have the same political beliefs. There are skeptics that are conservatives  There are skeptics that are liberals. There are skeptics that are libertarians. There are skeptics that are socialists. There are skeptics that are moderates.

There is just as much of a wide range of political diversity among skeptics as there are among none skeptics.

All skeptics have the same educational levels and work in the science or educational field.

It is widely believed that most, if not all skeptics have a college degree.

While many probably do, not all of us do, and not all of us are scientists or teachers. Some of us are blue collared workers who only have some college education. Some of us might not even have that.

Skeptics believe that conspiracy theorists should be locked up.

The only time skeptics tend to believe that conspiracy theorist should be locked up is when it's suspected that the person might become a danger to themselves or to others, or when they are engaging in criminal activity (such as harassment or stalking).

Other times we consider conspiracy theorists to just be annoying, but that's about it.

Skeptics refuse to examine evidence other then official evidence.

Actually skeptics do examine evidence other then what's official, we just dismiss the alternative evidence when it's been proven to either be not true, or not possible.

Why I'm remaining silent on who I'm voting for

The next presidential election is less than a month, and I'm pretty sure many of you have already decided on who you are going to vote for, myself included.

Now some of my friends are voting Barack Obama, and some of my friends are voting for Mitt Romney. I even have one friend who is voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

As for the person that I am voting, I have decided to keep that to myself.

I have learned over the years that telling people who you are going to vote for can usually cause only one of two things: it will either make that person happy, or it will make that person very angry at you (especially if the person you vote for wins, and the person they vote for loses).

While some people might be okay with whomever I choose to vote for, even if the candidate isn't the person that they are voting for, there are some people out there who are just way to sensitive about politics, and have a great amount of difficulty handling the fact that someone isn't voting for the person that they are voting for, even at times taking it personally. Sometimes they make comments in an attempt to get that person to go over to their side, but usually ends up becoming nothing more then long and obnoxious rants that are full of propaganda and even conspiracy theories. Most of the time no one really reads these rants. Sometimes these rants end up become nothing more then flame wars filled with fear mongering, personal attacks, insults, and sometimes even threats.

I do not wish to get into any of that with anybody, be it a friend, or just a random person on the internet.

In all honesty I don't really care who you are voting for in this election, just as long as you are voting for the person that you feel is best.

I do care about the reason why you are voting for the person you are voting for, especially if those reasons are based upon conspiracy theories about the person you are not voting for, which I consider to be a very poor reason to vote for someone. In my opinion that is a very ignorant way to vote, but even then I will be silent, because I know it will probably not do any good, even if I feel you should have better reasons for voting for someone.

I also do not wish to influence someone's vote as well.

I feel that a person should vote for a candidate that they feel is the best person for the job after reviewing the issues, where the candidates stand on those issues, and whether or not you agree or disagree with them on their stances.

I do not however believe that a person should vote for someone simply based on who else is voting for them.

My blog might not be the most popular blog in the world, but people do read what I post here, and I don't want people to vote for someone simply because I plan on voting for that person. I want people to vote after making an informed choice.

People need to vote for who they want in office, and not because someone else told them who to vote for in this, or any other election.