A few months ago I came across this "test" (which I found to be laughable win I saw it) to help a person tell a conspiracy theorist or not (view the test here).
I have some things to say about this "test" and some comments about "questions" that were asked (well, they're not really questions) as well as a few questions of my own:
You are capable of critical thinking.
This is a paradox. If a conspiracy theorist was capable of critical thinking, then they wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist because people who are capable of critical thinking would figure out that a conspiracy theory was BS.
You distrust mainstream media.
So do most skeptics, although for entirely different reasons than conspiracy theorists do.
You like nature.
Lots of people do. What does this have to do with being a conspiracy theorist?
You think it’s a good idea to spend the Friday after Thanksgiving with your family rather than camping outside Best Buy to get a cheap plasma television made in China.
That doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist. That makes you someone who is smart enough not to waste their time in the cold waiting for some store to open in the hope of finding bargains.
You think it’s a little strange that WTC building 7 came down at free fall speed on 9/11 yet it was never hit by a plane.
This might make you a conspiracy theorist, as well as someone who has conveniently forgotten that WTC7 was hit by something... a skyscraper.
You think that drones in America might not be for Al Qaeda.
This might also make you a conspiracy theorist... or it might make you someone who knows drones that fly over America are also used for multiple benign purposes.
You would like to be able to get on a plane without having to engage in a mandatory radiation bath and digital strip search.
As do many Americans, especially those who have gone through that process.
You have read a book in the past year.
What does reading a book have to do with being a conspiracy theorist?
You think you have the right to protest.
According to the first Amendment I don't think I have the right, I have the right, period!
You think the War on Terror is a scam.
That depends on what your definition of "scam" is.
You think the War on Drugs is a scam.
Again, that depends on what your definition of "scam" is. Does your definition mean completely bogus and fraudulent, or wasteful and unnecessary?
You think the anger directed at America from the Middle East could possibly be related to our foreign policy rather than hating how amazingly free we are.
This just means you've done more than five minutes worth of research about the Middle East.
You think the Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same on the important issues affecting our country.
This could mean you're a conspiracy theorist... it could also mean that you're a Libertarian, or you're just ticked off at both political parties.
You think believing in The Constitution does not constitute a terrorist act.
Who the Hell believes that believing in the constitution is a terrorist act? The only people who believe that are idiots!
You have heard of the Bill of Rights and can even name what some of them are.
As most Americans have and can...
You question whether the government loves you.
The government is not a living entity. It neither loves nor hates, therefore it is pointless to ask if it loves you or not.
You think the right to bear arms is not for hunting, rather so citizens can fight back should the government become a bunch of tyrannical thugs.
Yeah, this could mean that you're a conspiracy theorist... it could also mean that you just don't like the government, or you're afraid that the United States "could" become a tyrannical dictatorship.
You don’t own a television, and if you do, all you watch is RT, especially the Keiser Report and Capital Account.
(Reading that alone makes me wonder if this is satire) If all you watch on television is RT (Russia Today) then there is no need to finish this test. You are a conspiracy theorist.
You don’t think the NDAA is the name of Kesha’s latest single.
Who's Kesha?
You think rich, powerful and connected people should be subject to the rule of law and go to jail if they commit crimes. Even if they are bankers and work at JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs.
I'm sure that Bernie Madoff would disagree.
You think corporations aren’t people.
As do most other Americans.
You think Warren Buffet is a phony and a crony capitalist.
This could make you a conspiracy theorist. This could also make you a socialist, some one who doesn't like the rich, or someone who doesn't like Warren Buffet.
You don’t care that Warren Buffet likes cherry coke, hamburgers and ice cream. He’s still a bad guy.
What does what he likes to eat has to do with him being a bad person or not?
You know that gold was made illegal by FDR in 1933 and confiscated from the American people. You know that gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until 1975.
So American history experts are now considered to be conspiracy theorists?
You think politicians that push for war should be sent to fight on the front lines. If they are unable, their children should go.
Lots of people think this. It might mean that you're a conspiracy theorist, or it could mean that you're someone that is against war and feels that the ones who start them should be the ones who fight them.
You want your food to be labeled GMO so that you can make your own decisions on what you are consuming.
This could mean you're a conspiracy theorist, or it could meant that you're a health fanatic whom has been lead to believe that GMO foods are bad for you.
You grow your own food.
Lots of people do that. This has nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist.
You buy raw milk.
You could be a conspiracy theorist, or much like with GMO foods, you could also be a health fanatic who believes that raw milk is better for you than pasteurized milk (the exact opposite is true).
You think food and energy should be included in inflation calculations.
I'm sure most economist would agree with this.
You are aware that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.2 billion rounds of ammo in the past year.
A lot of people are aware of this. A lot of people are also aware that this is just another example of bureaucratic waste.
You question whether said ammo purchases are in anticipation of a Normandy beach style landing by Al Qaeda.
I'm sure if you believe that is the official explanation for why so much ammo was bought (instead of the real official explanation in that it was a good deal on the price it was being bought at) then you're probably a conspiracy theorist.
You think allowing a small group of unelected people (The Federal Reserve) to print unlimited amounts of money and distribute it as they please might not be a good idea.
I might be a conspiracy theorist if I thought this way too about the Federal Reserve, and I would think this way if it wasn't for the fact that members of the Federal Reserve board have to be confirmed by the Senate first before they can take office, and the fact that the Federal Reserve is not incharge of printing money (the Department of Treasury does that).
Now the final part of this "test" says this:
If you answered yes to more than five of the above, you might be a conspiracy theorist.
You also may be on the government’s terror watch list. Be very alarmed and report it to the authorities immediately should you discover your neighbors engaged in such uncivilized thought.
I answered yes to 19 of them. I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm almost certain I'm not on any terrorist watch list.
This test is extremely deceptive, and is meant to make the average person believe that they are a conspiracy theorist by throwing in a bunch of mundane questions that almost every American would answer yes to, and enough of them that it would be nearly impossible for anyone not to answer yes to atleast five. Heck, most of these questions have nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist, and should not have been on there.
Being a conspiracy theorist has nothing to do with growing your own food or having no trust in the government. It has everything to do with whether or not you believe in conspiracy theories.
Showing posts with label Distrust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Distrust. Show all posts
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Friday, October 4, 2013
Be skeptical of what you see on the Internet
Recently on my Facebook page a couple of people posted a very disturbing photo showing a heavily tattooed white male in what appears to be in his 20's apparently forcing a cute little puppy to drink a bottle of vodka. I was even asked by one of the people whom posted the image on their page to post the photo on this blog in hopes of actually finding the person and getting the person arrested, because allegedly that person had not been arrested yet.
I decided not to post the photo for two main reasons:
First, I considered the photo to be just to disturbing and graphic and might not just turn people away, but could result in people sending complaints to Blogger.com over the contents of the post, which could result in this blog having restrictions placed against it, or have the post pulled and removed.
And second, I don't know story behind that photo.
For one thing the person might have been making a very distasteful joke and only made it look like he was pouring vodka down the puppy's throat when in reality the bottle was already empty or sealed (it didn't look like there was any liquid in the bottle, or at least that any liquid was leaving the bottle), or, he could have been taking the bottle away from the puppy after it got a hold of it (and if you've ever puppy, you know they will get a hold of anything they can).
As it turns out, that's exactly what happened [read here]. The person in the photo wasn't trying to hurt the puppy, he was trying to prevent the puppy from accidentally hurting itself.
It literally took me two minutes to find out the truth behind that photo. All I did was take the photo, and dragged and dropped it into Google Image search, and as fast as my internet connection could take me, I found multiple pages that clearly show that the person was not abusing the puppy, which is why the guy was never arrested, because he never committed a crime.
This is a lesson for everyone when they see something like that photo on the internet and they're asked to repost it: do your research first on the subject at hand before you go and repost such a thing. It may not be what it seems, and all you may be doing is bringing unnecessary harm and grief to a person who doesn't not deserve it. Or the person or people may have already been caught and tried and convicted, and thus it would be pointless to repost such a photo.
Besides all of that, if the person is innocent (as this person is) you could be opening yourself up to a potential lawsuit from that person.
The lessons here are always be skeptical when you see something on the internet that outrages you, and do your research first before you repost something. It may not be what it seems.
I decided not to post the photo for two main reasons:
First, I considered the photo to be just to disturbing and graphic and might not just turn people away, but could result in people sending complaints to Blogger.com over the contents of the post, which could result in this blog having restrictions placed against it, or have the post pulled and removed.
And second, I don't know story behind that photo.
For one thing the person might have been making a very distasteful joke and only made it look like he was pouring vodka down the puppy's throat when in reality the bottle was already empty or sealed (it didn't look like there was any liquid in the bottle, or at least that any liquid was leaving the bottle), or, he could have been taking the bottle away from the puppy after it got a hold of it (and if you've ever puppy, you know they will get a hold of anything they can).
As it turns out, that's exactly what happened [read here]. The person in the photo wasn't trying to hurt the puppy, he was trying to prevent the puppy from accidentally hurting itself.
It literally took me two minutes to find out the truth behind that photo. All I did was take the photo, and dragged and dropped it into Google Image search, and as fast as my internet connection could take me, I found multiple pages that clearly show that the person was not abusing the puppy, which is why the guy was never arrested, because he never committed a crime.
This is a lesson for everyone when they see something like that photo on the internet and they're asked to repost it: do your research first on the subject at hand before you go and repost such a thing. It may not be what it seems, and all you may be doing is bringing unnecessary harm and grief to a person who doesn't not deserve it. Or the person or people may have already been caught and tried and convicted, and thus it would be pointless to repost such a photo.
Besides all of that, if the person is innocent (as this person is) you could be opening yourself up to a potential lawsuit from that person.
The lessons here are always be skeptical when you see something on the internet that outrages you, and do your research first before you repost something. It may not be what it seems.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Why do people lie about their belief in a Conspiracy Theory? Part 1: Fear
Why do some people continue to express belief in a conspiracy theory when they actually no longer believe in that conspiracy theory?
Yes, as hard as it might sound to some people, their are people out there that do in fact lie about their beliefs in a conspiracy theory, and there are actually several different reason why someone does this, but one of the main reasons why someone does this is fear.
In fact not only is fear a major reason why someone would claim to believe in a conspiracy theory that they no longer believe in, there are actually several different reasons (or excuses) for that fear.
What if?
Probably one of the most common reasons why a person says they believe in a conspiracy theory, even when they do not actually believe in it is the question of "what if?" as in "what if I'm wrong?"
The fear of being wrong about something is often times one of the biggest reasons why someone claims to believe in something when in their minds they actually don't (or at least question themselves) because they think it might save them in some ways if they turn out to be wrong and it actually is true...
They don't want to look stupid.
For some people whom believe in a conspiracy theory, but have since stopped believing but continue to claim to believe in a conspiracy theory, they may be continuing to claim they believe in a conspiracy theory due to the fact that they, in a way, would be admitting that they were being stupid, and maybe in their egotistical minds, would look stupid in the process.
Because of this fear, combined with their own ego, it can cause a person to continue saying that they believe in a long after they actually stopped believing in a conspiracy theory, and can cause them to continue to try to prove a conspiracy theory that they no longer believe in is real to other people.
They can also be very sensitive as well and blow up when someone questions their claims, or intelligence, or sanity.
They're afraid losing relationships.
Some people might claim to believe in a conspiracy theory not because genuinely believe in it, but because someone they are close to, or a group of people they are close to, believes in that conspiracy theory.
This relationship could be with a family member they are close to, or their entire family, and they're afraid that if they speak out and say that they do not believe in the conspiracy theory that the family member (or members) believes in, or do not even express any of the same beliefs in said conspiracy theory, they may lose what relationship they have with that family member, or their family.
The relationship lose might not come from a family member either. It could be a fear of a lose of friends.
Lets say a person has a friend, or a group of friends, who believe in a conspiracy theory. Or, maybe they even joined an organization that promotes a certain conspiracy theory, and they made friends with some of the people in that organization. Some people might continue to claim they believe in that conspiracy theory long after they stopped believing in it simply because they don't want to lose their friends.
They're afraid of being harassed and retaliated against.
While some people's fear based reasons for continuing to believe in a conspiracy theory they no longer believe in (or never really did) might be a selfishly based fear, some people's fear might be a legitimate fear, such as the fear of being harassed and/or retaliated against.
This fear is a very legitimate in fact, not only because conspiracy theorists have been known to harass skeptics and debunkers who express doubt in a conspiracy theory, or actually prove a conspiracy theory to be false, but also because it has happened before to other former conspiracy theorists too.
This fear of harassment might not even come from people in a conspiracy theorist organization. It may come from the whole community, especially if the whole, or at least many in the community actually believes in a certain conspiracy theory and you do not. Expressing disbelief in a conspiracy theory in such a community could result in some people trying to run that person out of town.
Because of this fear of harassment and other, perhaps more violent forms of retaliation, this may keep a person claiming to believe in a conspiracy theory long after they no longer do.
They're afraid of being abused.
While most people believe in a conspiracy theory because they want to, some people only say they believe in a conspiracy theory out of the very real and legitimate fear of being assaulted by someone close to them that does.
This fear can be very real and could be the result of a spouse, or a boyfriend, or a girlfriend, or even a parent whom is either intimidating, authoritarian, and/or abusive. Combine this with a belief in conspiracy theories that person might have, and it might make a person whom is on the receiving end of the abuse feel like they have no choice but to say that they believe in a conspiracy theory simply to stay safe.
Sometimes they claim to believe in a conspiracy theory not out of the fear of possibly being abused, but because they have been told by the abusive party that they will be beaten if they defy them, or actually have been beaten for defying them.
Fear of financial lose.
The final fear based reason why some people claim to believe in a conspiracy theory even when they no longer do (or never did) is because they have a real financial incentive to claim to believe in a conspiracy.
First, the person could own a business that has clientele that not only believe in conspiracy theories, but believe in it them so much so that they might not do business with someone whom doesn't agree with them (this could be based off of their own fear that a person could be a shill if they don't agree with them).
Because the owner might not want to lose that person's business, they might claim they also believe in that conspiracy theory, why in reality they really don't.
Now the other type of fear of financial lose might not come from the fear of the lose of clientele, but the fear of losing your job, either by getting fired by a manager or owner who believes in a conspiracy theory and doesn't want anyone working for them that doesn't, or a co-worker whom believes in a conspiracy theory, and retaliates and does anything they can to get a person fired because they don't believe in the conspiracy theory that they believe in.
Yes, as hard as it might sound to some people, their are people out there that do in fact lie about their beliefs in a conspiracy theory, and there are actually several different reason why someone does this, but one of the main reasons why someone does this is fear.
In fact not only is fear a major reason why someone would claim to believe in a conspiracy theory that they no longer believe in, there are actually several different reasons (or excuses) for that fear.
What if?
Probably one of the most common reasons why a person says they believe in a conspiracy theory, even when they do not actually believe in it is the question of "what if?" as in "what if I'm wrong?"
The fear of being wrong about something is often times one of the biggest reasons why someone claims to believe in something when in their minds they actually don't (or at least question themselves) because they think it might save them in some ways if they turn out to be wrong and it actually is true...
They don't want to look stupid.
For some people whom believe in a conspiracy theory, but have since stopped believing but continue to claim to believe in a conspiracy theory, they may be continuing to claim they believe in a conspiracy theory due to the fact that they, in a way, would be admitting that they were being stupid, and maybe in their egotistical minds, would look stupid in the process.
Because of this fear, combined with their own ego, it can cause a person to continue saying that they believe in a long after they actually stopped believing in a conspiracy theory, and can cause them to continue to try to prove a conspiracy theory that they no longer believe in is real to other people.
They can also be very sensitive as well and blow up when someone questions their claims, or intelligence, or sanity.
They're afraid losing relationships.
Some people might claim to believe in a conspiracy theory not because genuinely believe in it, but because someone they are close to, or a group of people they are close to, believes in that conspiracy theory.
This relationship could be with a family member they are close to, or their entire family, and they're afraid that if they speak out and say that they do not believe in the conspiracy theory that the family member (or members) believes in, or do not even express any of the same beliefs in said conspiracy theory, they may lose what relationship they have with that family member, or their family.
The relationship lose might not come from a family member either. It could be a fear of a lose of friends.
Lets say a person has a friend, or a group of friends, who believe in a conspiracy theory. Or, maybe they even joined an organization that promotes a certain conspiracy theory, and they made friends with some of the people in that organization. Some people might continue to claim they believe in that conspiracy theory long after they stopped believing in it simply because they don't want to lose their friends.
They're afraid of being harassed and retaliated against.
While some people's fear based reasons for continuing to believe in a conspiracy theory they no longer believe in (or never really did) might be a selfishly based fear, some people's fear might be a legitimate fear, such as the fear of being harassed and/or retaliated against.
This fear is a very legitimate in fact, not only because conspiracy theorists have been known to harass skeptics and debunkers who express doubt in a conspiracy theory, or actually prove a conspiracy theory to be false, but also because it has happened before to other former conspiracy theorists too.
This fear of harassment might not even come from people in a conspiracy theorist organization. It may come from the whole community, especially if the whole, or at least many in the community actually believes in a certain conspiracy theory and you do not. Expressing disbelief in a conspiracy theory in such a community could result in some people trying to run that person out of town.
Because of this fear of harassment and other, perhaps more violent forms of retaliation, this may keep a person claiming to believe in a conspiracy theory long after they no longer do.
They're afraid of being abused.
While most people believe in a conspiracy theory because they want to, some people only say they believe in a conspiracy theory out of the very real and legitimate fear of being assaulted by someone close to them that does.
This fear can be very real and could be the result of a spouse, or a boyfriend, or a girlfriend, or even a parent whom is either intimidating, authoritarian, and/or abusive. Combine this with a belief in conspiracy theories that person might have, and it might make a person whom is on the receiving end of the abuse feel like they have no choice but to say that they believe in a conspiracy theory simply to stay safe.
Sometimes they claim to believe in a conspiracy theory not out of the fear of possibly being abused, but because they have been told by the abusive party that they will be beaten if they defy them, or actually have been beaten for defying them.
Fear of financial lose.
The final fear based reason why some people claim to believe in a conspiracy theory even when they no longer do (or never did) is because they have a real financial incentive to claim to believe in a conspiracy.
First, the person could own a business that has clientele that not only believe in conspiracy theories, but believe in it them so much so that they might not do business with someone whom doesn't agree with them (this could be based off of their own fear that a person could be a shill if they don't agree with them).
Because the owner might not want to lose that person's business, they might claim they also believe in that conspiracy theory, why in reality they really don't.
Now the other type of fear of financial lose might not come from the fear of the lose of clientele, but the fear of losing your job, either by getting fired by a manager or owner who believes in a conspiracy theory and doesn't want anyone working for them that doesn't, or a co-worker whom believes in a conspiracy theory, and retaliates and does anything they can to get a person fired because they don't believe in the conspiracy theory that they believe in.
Friday, July 19, 2013
'Conspiracy theorists' sane: government dupes crazy, hostile: A flawed article about conspiracy theorists and skeptics
A few days ago I came across an article that had been published on PressTV (which is owned by the government of Iran) that was titled "New studies: 'Conspiracy theorists' sane; government dupes crazy, hostile".
The title alone made it quite clear that the article was one sided, and that it is also quite clear what the writer of the article thinks about skeptics and debunkers... and anyone else who believes the reality that the U.S. government did not stage the worst terrorist attack in history.
Let me share with you the first couple of paragraphs of this article:
I can tell just by reading this that what this article is claiming is very flawed.
For one thing it's assuming that the majority of people making comments on an internet news article reflects the views of the majority of the people. Even on non-conspiracy theory subjects where the majority of people posting comments may seem like the overall majority, in reality they are just being the more vocal of the two groups.
The seconded problem is this "coded comments" thing. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that the people who did this study read comments individually and were able to establish their content and context? Because of the way it was worded it doesn't sound like it to me. It makes it sound like the people who did the study actually let a computer search for certain words and phrases that are commonly used among conspiracy theorists and skeptics, which is a highly flawed way to research something like this because computers can't understand context like humans can.
This of course isn't the only thing this article claims. It also claims that those that believe what they are calling the "mainstream views" are also display more anger and hostility towards those who don't:
I admit, sometimes skeptics and debunkers do get angry at conspiracy theorists, but actual hostility is actually pretty rare (although it this can be questionable as what some people consider to be hostility might not be considered hostility to others), and usually comes in the form of insults to the conspiracy theorist's intelligence or sanity (both of which after time becomes questionable) and rarely includes the form of threats (unless you include threats of getting banned and having your comments removed). Conspiracy theorists on the other hand engage in hostility towards others all the time, including fellow conspiracy theorists.
This paragraph is also making the assumption that just because the majority of people who comment on internet articles about the 9/11 attacks reflects the majority of the population itself. It does not. In fact the majority of the American people have never believed that the government committed the 9/11 attacks.
The next two paragraphs makes it appear that skeptics are the real conspiracy theorists:
This is of course another common claim and belief among conspiracy theorists in that the skeptics of the 9/11 conspiracy theories haven't done their research and just assume that the official account is correct, when in reality skeptics have done their research and have determined that the official account is for the most part correct, and that it is the claims that the conspiracy theorists make that are flawed and incorrect.
This article also makes it appear that skeptics feel like they are "rivals" to conspiracy theorists. This is completely untrue. Skeptics don't consider themselves to be rivals to conspiracy theorists because skeptics don't consider a conspiracy theorists conspiracy theory to be rival to the truth.
As it turns out this whole article is hugely cherry picked from the original article published by Micheal J. Woods and Karen M. Douglas (read here) and comes to an entirely different conclusion than what the original article did.
This article for PressTV, which was written by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 Truther and conspiracy theorist himself, is hugely deceptive, and is nothing more than an attempt to make people who are not apart of the 9/11 Truth movement look like a bunch deluded people who live in a fantasy world, when in reality the opposite is true.
In conclusion, the article is nothing more than propaganda and dis-information.
The title alone made it quite clear that the article was one sided, and that it is also quite clear what the writer of the article thinks about skeptics and debunkers... and anyone else who believes the reality that the U.S. government did not stage the worst terrorist attack in history.
Let me share with you the first couple of paragraphs of this article:
- The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
I can tell just by reading this that what this article is claiming is very flawed.
For one thing it's assuming that the majority of people making comments on an internet news article reflects the views of the majority of the people. Even on non-conspiracy theory subjects where the majority of people posting comments may seem like the overall majority, in reality they are just being the more vocal of the two groups.
The seconded problem is this "coded comments" thing. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that the people who did this study read comments individually and were able to establish their content and context? Because of the way it was worded it doesn't sound like it to me. It makes it sound like the people who did the study actually let a computer search for certain words and phrases that are commonly used among conspiracy theorists and skeptics, which is a highly flawed way to research something like this because computers can't understand context like humans can.
This of course isn't the only thing this article claims. It also claims that those that believe what they are calling the "mainstream views" are also display more anger and hostility towards those who don't:
- Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
I admit, sometimes skeptics and debunkers do get angry at conspiracy theorists, but actual hostility is actually pretty rare (although it this can be questionable as what some people consider to be hostility might not be considered hostility to others), and usually comes in the form of insults to the conspiracy theorist's intelligence or sanity (both of which after time becomes questionable) and rarely includes the form of threats (unless you include threats of getting banned and having your comments removed). Conspiracy theorists on the other hand engage in hostility towards others all the time, including fellow conspiracy theorists.
This paragraph is also making the assumption that just because the majority of people who comment on internet articles about the 9/11 attacks reflects the majority of the population itself. It does not. In fact the majority of the American people have never believed that the government committed the 9/11 attacks.
The next two paragraphs makes it appear that skeptics are the real conspiracy theorists:
- Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
This is of course another common claim and belief among conspiracy theorists in that the skeptics of the 9/11 conspiracy theories haven't done their research and just assume that the official account is correct, when in reality skeptics have done their research and have determined that the official account is for the most part correct, and that it is the claims that the conspiracy theorists make that are flawed and incorrect.
This article also makes it appear that skeptics feel like they are "rivals" to conspiracy theorists. This is completely untrue. Skeptics don't consider themselves to be rivals to conspiracy theorists because skeptics don't consider a conspiracy theorists conspiracy theory to be rival to the truth.
As it turns out this whole article is hugely cherry picked from the original article published by Micheal J. Woods and Karen M. Douglas (read here) and comes to an entirely different conclusion than what the original article did.
This article for PressTV, which was written by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 Truther and conspiracy theorist himself, is hugely deceptive, and is nothing more than an attempt to make people who are not apart of the 9/11 Truth movement look like a bunch deluded people who live in a fantasy world, when in reality the opposite is true.
In conclusion, the article is nothing more than propaganda and dis-information.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
How to tell a Conspiracy Theorist from a Conspiracy Believer
In a previous post I discussed how some conspiracy theorists aren't really conspiracy theorists, and that those people should instead be called "conspiracy believers".
While I did point out some basic differences between the two, I didn't really go into to much detail into what those differences really are.
Here I have put together a list of things that conspiracy theorists tend to do that sets them apart from conspiracy believers:
Terminology
Conspiracy theorists has certain words that they tend to use and is quite common for them to use in a conversation (or argument). Some of the more common words used are shill, sheeple, blue pill, red pill, and dis-info agent.
There are of course more then just that, but if you hang around enough conspiracy theorist websites (or get into an argument with a conspiracy theorist on Youtube) you'll learn more of them.
Creating conspiracy theories
One of the primary things that set conspiracy theorists apart from conspiracy believers is that conspiracy theorists actually create conspiracy theories.
Many of these conspiracy theories tend to be either expanding on a already established conspiracy theory, or a conspiracy thats directed at them. Of course, sometimes conspiracy theorists create entirely new conspiracy theories as well.
Emotional Reactions
While conspiracy believers might not become to emotional when discussing a conspiracy theory that they believe in, many conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to become emotional when they discuss a conspiracy theory they believe. The levels of emotional reactions varies depending on how important the conspiracy theory is to that person, how much they believe the alledged conspiracy affects them, and if the person they are discussing the conspiracy theory with believes them or not.
The use of logical fallacies
While conspiracy believers try to avoid using logical fallacies, conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to use them all the time, and appear to not even know that they are doing so.
While logical fallacies of all types tend to be used, two of the most common types used are association fallacy and emotional appeal.
Rejection of contradicting and disproving evidence
Conspiracy believers, while they many or may not stop believing in a conspiracy theory once they have been given evidence that can prove the conspiracy theory that they believe in is not true (or at least having a high probability of not being true) conspiracy theorist on the other hand tends to reject any evidence that contradicts and/or disproves what they believe, unless there is something in that evidence that they feel actually proves the conspiracy theory they believe in.
Confirmation bias
While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists tend to have confirmation bias, conspiracy theorists tends to see any small piece of evidence as being absolute confirmation that the conspiracy theory they believe in is true, no matter small it is, no matter if it is taken out of context or not, and no matter if it is even real or not. Conspiracy believers at least will see evidence as just that, evidence, and is more willing to disregard such evidence if it can be proven to them that it isn't true, or taken out of context.
Inappropriate behavior
Conspiracy believers tend to be civil, and tries not to engage in behaviors that would be considered inappropriate because they tend not to get frustrated with people who don't believe them. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand tends to get frustrated pretty easily, and because of this they get angry easily and start behaving in ways that many people would consider to be inappropriate. Examples of this would be insults, threats, spamming internet threads, vileness, manipulation, personal attacks, stalking, harassment, creating inappropriate conspiracy theories, defending another person's inappropriate behavior, and engaging in behavior that most people would consider to be disturbing.
Seeing people who disagree with them as their enemy
When a conspiracy believer talks to some one who doesn't believe in the conspiracy theory that they believe in they will only think of that person as someone who simply disagrees with them. A conspiracy theorist on the other hand sees a person who disagrees with them as being their enemy that is working for whatever group that they believe is committing the conspiracy that they believe in, or at the very least someone who is less intelligent then they are, and therefore (in their minds) more prone to believing whatever they are told by said group.
Belief that what they are doing is the right thing
While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists believe that believing in certain conspiracy theories is okay, conspiracy theorists tend to take it a step further by spreading these conspiracy theories and "correcting" those who disagree with them. They do this because they strongly believe to be real the conspiracy theories that they believe in, and because of that they tend to think that anything they do to promote these conspiracy theories is okay and the right thing to do.
While I did point out some basic differences between the two, I didn't really go into to much detail into what those differences really are.
Here I have put together a list of things that conspiracy theorists tend to do that sets them apart from conspiracy believers:
Terminology
Conspiracy theorists has certain words that they tend to use and is quite common for them to use in a conversation (or argument). Some of the more common words used are shill, sheeple, blue pill, red pill, and dis-info agent.
There are of course more then just that, but if you hang around enough conspiracy theorist websites (or get into an argument with a conspiracy theorist on Youtube) you'll learn more of them.
Creating conspiracy theories
One of the primary things that set conspiracy theorists apart from conspiracy believers is that conspiracy theorists actually create conspiracy theories.
Many of these conspiracy theories tend to be either expanding on a already established conspiracy theory, or a conspiracy thats directed at them. Of course, sometimes conspiracy theorists create entirely new conspiracy theories as well.
Emotional Reactions
While conspiracy believers might not become to emotional when discussing a conspiracy theory that they believe in, many conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to become emotional when they discuss a conspiracy theory they believe. The levels of emotional reactions varies depending on how important the conspiracy theory is to that person, how much they believe the alledged conspiracy affects them, and if the person they are discussing the conspiracy theory with believes them or not.
The use of logical fallacies
While conspiracy believers try to avoid using logical fallacies, conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to use them all the time, and appear to not even know that they are doing so.
While logical fallacies of all types tend to be used, two of the most common types used are association fallacy and emotional appeal.
Rejection of contradicting and disproving evidence
Conspiracy believers, while they many or may not stop believing in a conspiracy theory once they have been given evidence that can prove the conspiracy theory that they believe in is not true (or at least having a high probability of not being true) conspiracy theorist on the other hand tends to reject any evidence that contradicts and/or disproves what they believe, unless there is something in that evidence that they feel actually proves the conspiracy theory they believe in.
Confirmation bias
While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists tend to have confirmation bias, conspiracy theorists tends to see any small piece of evidence as being absolute confirmation that the conspiracy theory they believe in is true, no matter small it is, no matter if it is taken out of context or not, and no matter if it is even real or not. Conspiracy believers at least will see evidence as just that, evidence, and is more willing to disregard such evidence if it can be proven to them that it isn't true, or taken out of context.
Inappropriate behavior
Conspiracy believers tend to be civil, and tries not to engage in behaviors that would be considered inappropriate because they tend not to get frustrated with people who don't believe them. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand tends to get frustrated pretty easily, and because of this they get angry easily and start behaving in ways that many people would consider to be inappropriate. Examples of this would be insults, threats, spamming internet threads, vileness, manipulation, personal attacks, stalking, harassment, creating inappropriate conspiracy theories, defending another person's inappropriate behavior, and engaging in behavior that most people would consider to be disturbing.
Seeing people who disagree with them as their enemy
When a conspiracy believer talks to some one who doesn't believe in the conspiracy theory that they believe in they will only think of that person as someone who simply disagrees with them. A conspiracy theorist on the other hand sees a person who disagrees with them as being their enemy that is working for whatever group that they believe is committing the conspiracy that they believe in, or at the very least someone who is less intelligent then they are, and therefore (in their minds) more prone to believing whatever they are told by said group.
Belief that what they are doing is the right thing
While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists believe that believing in certain conspiracy theories is okay, conspiracy theorists tend to take it a step further by spreading these conspiracy theories and "correcting" those who disagree with them. They do this because they strongly believe to be real the conspiracy theories that they believe in, and because of that they tend to think that anything they do to promote these conspiracy theories is okay and the right thing to do.
Friday, October 5, 2012
8 Questions for people in the 9/11 Truth Movement
As everyone knows, the 9/11 Truth movement is a loose group of people who believe that the United States government committed the 9/11 attacks.
Now despite the fact that they have never been able to prove that the government committed the 9/11 attacks, they still hold steadfast to the belief that the government did.
It seems to me that most people in that movement have never really sat down and asked themselves some serious, logical questions about the attacks.
Here are eight questions that I feel that people in the 9/11 Truth movement should ask themselves, as well as should be asked by others:
1. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why would they hit more then one building?
Hitting one building with a plane would have been more then enough for the government to justifiably giving it an excuse to go to war. More then one would be overkill.
2. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why did it attack the Pentagon for?
The Pentagon is the United States top military headquarters. Hitting it with a plane could have killed our top military leaders and seriously harmed our ability to fight. The government attacking the Pentagon makes no sense both logically and militarily.
3. Assuming that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, then why would they be brought down in the first place?
There would be no reason for the government to bring down the towers. Not only would flying a couple of planes into the towers would have been more then enough to justify going to war, but bringing down the towers would be another example of overkill. Also, it would have been cheaper to repair the towers then it has been to clean up the rubble and build new buildings at the site.
4. Why would WTC 7 have been intentionally brought down?
Wouldn't intentionally bringing down WTC 7 have been a pointless action? There would have been no reason for the government to ever bring that building down and create a bigger mess. Not to mention many in the 9/11 Truth movement see that building's collapse as a "smoking gun" for a controlled demolition. If the government did do this, shouldn't they have had the foresight to see that it might look suspicious to some people?
5. Assuming that drones were used, then how come the forth plane crashed in a field instead of hitting another building?
If the government had complete control of all the aircraft, then why didn't they crash the last one into a building? Why would they just waste it and crash it into a field for no reason what so ever?
6. If the attacks were allowed to happen so we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and gain control of those two countries natural resources, then why haven't prices on things like oil gone down?
One of the biggest claims from the 9/11 Truth movement is that the attacks were staged so that we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq, and gain control of those countries oil fields, along with other natural resources. The problem with this is that the cost of oil based products (gasoline, diesel, home heating oil) has kept going up instead of going down since the invasions of those two countries. So if we invaded those countries for their oil, then how come our oil prices have been steadily rising? And how come very little oil has ever actually come out of those two countries since we invaded them?
7. Why haven't we seen a serious decrease in our civil liberties?
While it's claimed that our civil liberties have decreased since the 9/11 attacks, in fact they really haven't in most cases. Most people haven't even been impacted at all by the Patriot Act. You can still create blogs that speak out against the government. You can still claim the government committed the 9/11 attacks. You can still belong to anti-government organizations. So why haven't people like this ever been thrown in jail? Wouldn't they be the government's biggest enemies?
8. How come the 9/11 Truth movement has never presented any evidence that has not been dis-proven?
One of the main problems with the 9/11 Truth movement is that it constantly presents old evidence that has been discredit and dis-proven, and rarely, if ever, presents any new evidence. So why hasn't the 9/11 Truth movement ever revealed any real evidence of what they consider to be the real culprits behind the 9/11 attacks and would prove what they were claiming is at least possibly true?
Now despite the fact that they have never been able to prove that the government committed the 9/11 attacks, they still hold steadfast to the belief that the government did.
It seems to me that most people in that movement have never really sat down and asked themselves some serious, logical questions about the attacks.
Here are eight questions that I feel that people in the 9/11 Truth movement should ask themselves, as well as should be asked by others:
1. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why would they hit more then one building?
Hitting one building with a plane would have been more then enough for the government to justifiably giving it an excuse to go to war. More then one would be overkill.
2. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why did it attack the Pentagon for?
The Pentagon is the United States top military headquarters. Hitting it with a plane could have killed our top military leaders and seriously harmed our ability to fight. The government attacking the Pentagon makes no sense both logically and militarily.
3. Assuming that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, then why would they be brought down in the first place?
There would be no reason for the government to bring down the towers. Not only would flying a couple of planes into the towers would have been more then enough to justify going to war, but bringing down the towers would be another example of overkill. Also, it would have been cheaper to repair the towers then it has been to clean up the rubble and build new buildings at the site.
4. Why would WTC 7 have been intentionally brought down?
Wouldn't intentionally bringing down WTC 7 have been a pointless action? There would have been no reason for the government to ever bring that building down and create a bigger mess. Not to mention many in the 9/11 Truth movement see that building's collapse as a "smoking gun" for a controlled demolition. If the government did do this, shouldn't they have had the foresight to see that it might look suspicious to some people?
5. Assuming that drones were used, then how come the forth plane crashed in a field instead of hitting another building?
If the government had complete control of all the aircraft, then why didn't they crash the last one into a building? Why would they just waste it and crash it into a field for no reason what so ever?
6. If the attacks were allowed to happen so we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and gain control of those two countries natural resources, then why haven't prices on things like oil gone down?
One of the biggest claims from the 9/11 Truth movement is that the attacks were staged so that we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq, and gain control of those countries oil fields, along with other natural resources. The problem with this is that the cost of oil based products (gasoline, diesel, home heating oil) has kept going up instead of going down since the invasions of those two countries. So if we invaded those countries for their oil, then how come our oil prices have been steadily rising? And how come very little oil has ever actually come out of those two countries since we invaded them?
7. Why haven't we seen a serious decrease in our civil liberties?
While it's claimed that our civil liberties have decreased since the 9/11 attacks, in fact they really haven't in most cases. Most people haven't even been impacted at all by the Patriot Act. You can still create blogs that speak out against the government. You can still claim the government committed the 9/11 attacks. You can still belong to anti-government organizations. So why haven't people like this ever been thrown in jail? Wouldn't they be the government's biggest enemies?
8. How come the 9/11 Truth movement has never presented any evidence that has not been dis-proven?
One of the main problems with the 9/11 Truth movement is that it constantly presents old evidence that has been discredit and dis-proven, and rarely, if ever, presents any new evidence. So why hasn't the 9/11 Truth movement ever revealed any real evidence of what they consider to be the real culprits behind the 9/11 attacks and would prove what they were claiming is at least possibly true?
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Conspiracy Theories & The Paranormal: Why the belief and promotion of both can be dangerous
Recently while I was on a skeptics message board I met a young man who was having trouble getting over the belief in the Illuminati and spirit communication via the Oujia board. While I believe his belief in the Illuminati has been has been destroyed, it appears he just can't get over his fear of the Oujia board due to all of the stories about dark spirit and demon communications via the Oujia board on the internet. These stories are at the very least nothing but then misinterpretations and mass hysteria, and at the very worst, outright lies, but this young man just can not seem to get over the fact that people do lie about this stuff, or that people don't understand that people do stuff subconsciously with the Oujia board, and because of this, these stories are terrifying him, even though he does know they aren't real, he just can not seem to get that concept completely into his mind.
Another young man that I've been in communications with via Twitter also was having anxiety because Illuminati conspiracy theories, and FEMA camp conspiracy theories, and that he was having trouble getting over those beliefs as well, and that these conspiracy theories terrified him so badly that he had seriously considered committing suicide due to his fear that he and his family would be thrown into a FEMA camp or killed. His autism probably didn't help with his anxiety over these conspiracy theories either. So this young man, instead of drowning in his fears, decided to start his own debunking blog called Autistic Skeptic as a way to help him as a way to get over his anxiety, and fears, and beliefs in these conspiracy theories.
On another blog I sometimes visit there were posts in the comments section of one blog article that were made by a young man who claimed to have post traumatic stress disorder due to the "conspiracy" involving the 9/11 attacks. This person had more then just PTSD, and appeared to be very mentally disturbed, and was posting threatening pictures on his Facebook page that he saw as "art".
These three young men's stories are just a few examples of what may be thousands, if not millions of people who have believed in conspiracy theories and the paranormal, or still do seriously believe in conspiracy theories and the paranormal, or are having trouble getting over the fact that these conspiracy theories and stories about the paranormal just aren't real, and are entirely made up as a way to promote some sort of political or religious agenda, or that these people who post this stuff on the internet are just misinterpreting things that happen to them, or what they saw, or that they're making this stuff up to get attention. This has become even easier now because of the internet, because you don't have to look a person right in the face and lie.
Because some people have trouble determining what is real and what is not real over the internet, and that some people may have mental issues, or because of how they were raised and what beliefs they were taught, these conspiracy theories and stories of the paranormal can terrify them to the point where it affects their lives. Even if they know it's not real, if they have any bits of belief in them of these fringe subjects, and they are very gullible and easily scared, it can very badly affect their out look on the world, and their health. It can even lead some people to commit suicide, or worse, murder.
For those who do seriously believe in conspiracy theories and the paranormal, not only can these affect both their physical and mental health, it can also affect how they interact with the people around them as well. Constantly talking about and insisting that such things are real can lead to some people who don't believe in such fringe things to end up cutting communications with that person because they can't deal with that person's paranoia. Beliefs in fringe things can also lead to believers cutting off communications with friends and family members because they can't deal with people trying to convince them that what they believe isn't real, or they might even begin to believe that those people are working for some forces that are trying to destroy them. To people that they don't know, sometimes they will act extremely nasty towards them, sometimes to the point where the other person feels threaten and they end up calling the police.
This is what makes conspiracy theories and stories of the paranormal so harmful, and why I debunk this stuff. It's not because they're real, because most often times they are not, but because the shear thought of their existence can terrify some people to the point where it drives them crazy and they may end up harming themselves, or others.
To read more about the Autistic Skeptic's story please go to his page about his personal experiences with conspiracy theories, and read about his struggles over his beliefs in conspiracy theories, the anxiety brought on by those beliefs, and his struggle to rid himself of those beliefs and the fear that comes with them.
Another young man that I've been in communications with via Twitter also was having anxiety because Illuminati conspiracy theories, and FEMA camp conspiracy theories, and that he was having trouble getting over those beliefs as well, and that these conspiracy theories terrified him so badly that he had seriously considered committing suicide due to his fear that he and his family would be thrown into a FEMA camp or killed. His autism probably didn't help with his anxiety over these conspiracy theories either. So this young man, instead of drowning in his fears, decided to start his own debunking blog called Autistic Skeptic as a way to help him as a way to get over his anxiety, and fears, and beliefs in these conspiracy theories.
On another blog I sometimes visit there were posts in the comments section of one blog article that were made by a young man who claimed to have post traumatic stress disorder due to the "conspiracy" involving the 9/11 attacks. This person had more then just PTSD, and appeared to be very mentally disturbed, and was posting threatening pictures on his Facebook page that he saw as "art".
These three young men's stories are just a few examples of what may be thousands, if not millions of people who have believed in conspiracy theories and the paranormal, or still do seriously believe in conspiracy theories and the paranormal, or are having trouble getting over the fact that these conspiracy theories and stories about the paranormal just aren't real, and are entirely made up as a way to promote some sort of political or religious agenda, or that these people who post this stuff on the internet are just misinterpreting things that happen to them, or what they saw, or that they're making this stuff up to get attention. This has become even easier now because of the internet, because you don't have to look a person right in the face and lie.
Because some people have trouble determining what is real and what is not real over the internet, and that some people may have mental issues, or because of how they were raised and what beliefs they were taught, these conspiracy theories and stories of the paranormal can terrify them to the point where it affects their lives. Even if they know it's not real, if they have any bits of belief in them of these fringe subjects, and they are very gullible and easily scared, it can very badly affect their out look on the world, and their health. It can even lead some people to commit suicide, or worse, murder.
For those who do seriously believe in conspiracy theories and the paranormal, not only can these affect both their physical and mental health, it can also affect how they interact with the people around them as well. Constantly talking about and insisting that such things are real can lead to some people who don't believe in such fringe things to end up cutting communications with that person because they can't deal with that person's paranoia. Beliefs in fringe things can also lead to believers cutting off communications with friends and family members because they can't deal with people trying to convince them that what they believe isn't real, or they might even begin to believe that those people are working for some forces that are trying to destroy them. To people that they don't know, sometimes they will act extremely nasty towards them, sometimes to the point where the other person feels threaten and they end up calling the police.
This is what makes conspiracy theories and stories of the paranormal so harmful, and why I debunk this stuff. It's not because they're real, because most often times they are not, but because the shear thought of their existence can terrify some people to the point where it drives them crazy and they may end up harming themselves, or others.
To read more about the Autistic Skeptic's story please go to his page about his personal experiences with conspiracy theories, and read about his struggles over his beliefs in conspiracy theories, the anxiety brought on by those beliefs, and his struggle to rid himself of those beliefs and the fear that comes with them.
Friday, July 13, 2012
5 Reasons why People keep Believing in Debunked Conspiracy Theories
I've wondered why do people still believe in certain conspiracy theories, even after they have been totally debunked, or proven to be logically improbable.
From my observations of conspiracy theorists, I believe that there are five main reasons why some people still believe in conspiracy theories, even after they have been debunked.
Here are those five reasons:
5. Misinformation
Some people keep believing in conspiracy theories simply because they haven't seen the correct information on certain incidents, or groups, and they might not bother to actually do any research on such things either, or, they have relied on and believed the misinformation for so long, they end up rejecting any factual information, because they believe that it is in fact, not factual.
4. Bigotry
Some people continue to believe in debunked conspiracy theories simply because they are bigots, and any conspiracies that involves people of certain races, or religions, or ethnic groups that they don't like, in their minds, must be true, because their bigoted minds won't allow them to think rationally about people who are different from them.
3. Distrust
Many people continue to believe in conspiracy theories simply because of distrust in either the government, or corporations, or certain political parties, or secret groups, or whatever, and they just can't get past their distrust to see the truth.
Most of these people tend to have grown up in environments where they are taught to distrust in people or groups with power. Other times this distrust comes from personal, negative experiences, with either the government, or a large business, or certain groups.
2. Stubbornness
There are some people out there who actually don't believe in conspiracy theories, but continue to proclaim belief in conspiracy theories, simply because they're to stubborn to admit they were wrong.
Sometimes this stubbornness is not simply because of ego, but because of the fear of losing friends that they have made within conspiracy theorist community, or losing contact with family members who might also believe strongly in conspiracy theories, or just the fear of being said "I told you so" by skeptics and debunkers.
1. Mental Illness
Sadly, some people just can't believe that a conspiracy theory isn't real, even if the conspiracy theory itself sounds so crazy, that most other conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe it, simply because their mind doesn't work right.
Because mental illness can prevent a person from thinking rationally, and or critically, and makes them either uncontrollably paranoid, or delusional, it might be impossible to change their belief in a conspiracy theory, unless of course they are given mental health treatments, and even that might not be enough to stop their belief in conspiracies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)