Creationists can't take critisism

I know, many of you who read the title are probably thinking "no sh*t" because anyone you has ever read an article about evolution or the creation of life as told in the Book of Genesis that the comments section of said article will often times degrade into a flame war of Biblical Creationists vs. everyone else with ultimately the creationists trying to drown out or force off anyone who say they are wrong... and brings evidence that shows them they are wrong.

Then there are ofcourse videos on Youtube that either explains how evolution works and why it's true, or why the Biblical story of Creation is false. Such videos will usually invoke the same reactions as I stated above, but it will invoke another type of reaction: trying to get video removed.

Most of the time a creationist will try to get a video removed that criticizes creationism or promotes evolution by false flagging said video, but sometimes they will go one step further and issue a DMCA takedown notice against the video (which is illegal).

There are two Atheist vloggers on Youtube by the names of EssenceOfThought and The Fantastic Skeptic who made videos criticizing the trailer for the movie A Matter of Faith (the movie itself is not out yet), which has been described by critics as a creationist propaganda film (which I agree), and used footage from the trailer in their videos, which is perfectly legal so long as they name the original owner of the footage either in the video itself, or in the description of the video, and link to the creator of the video and the original trailer itself, which both did.

So everything they did was perfectly legal. This did not matter to the creators of the film, who issued DMCA takedown notices against both vloggers videos that criticized the trailer of the film.

Now both vloggers have responded to their respective takedown notices:




And both videos criticizing the trailer has since been mirrored on The Atheist Hub as well as other Youtube channels:




Now I'm not sure what The Fantastic Skeptic is planning to do about this illegal DMCA takedown notice, but I do know that EssenceOfThought has filled a counter claim, which I'm glad he did, but the fact remains is that he shouldn't even have had to have done this in the first place because these takedown notices should never have been issued.

I suppose if the creators of this movie are just like every other hardcore creationist: unable to deal with criticism and counter arguments, and do what they can to get rid of them.

It's been a bad month for Anti-vaccers

The Anti-vaccination movement has had a pretty bad past month, and I would feel sorry for them too if it wasn't for the fact that their propaganda (which is mainly based upon a long since dis-proven and fraudulent study by Mr. Andrew Wakefield that was published in 1998 in The Lancet, and formerly retracted in 2010) has scared parents into not getting their kids vaccinated, which has caused numerous deaths and unnecessary illnesses, as well as permanent injuries.

First is the news reports of multiple outbreaks of measles in several communities in the United States and Canada. Many of the people who have gotten infected are young children who were deliberately not vaccinate, the results of which have been directly attributed to causing these outbreaks.

Suffice to say there has been quiet a bit of backlash against the Anti-vaccination movement, which they rightfully have coming to them. Also, since these outbreaks first started making the news there have also been multiple articles published telling parents why they need to ignore the Anti-vaccination movement and vaccinate their children, which I feel is sort of sad because it shows we as a society have to publish numerous articles about why you need to vaccinate your children and make them immune to diseases that could kill them because some parents have been scared into not doing so.

Then there is ofcourse what happened to the cult... I mean group formerly known as the deceptively named Australian Vaccination Network, which is now known as the still kind of deceptively named Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network.

What happened to the group is that it finally changed it's name after it lost an appeal against the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading, which had ordered the group to change it's name in 2012 due to group's deceptive sounding name. Shortly after the group changed it's named, it also lost it's charity status. Now I admit I'm not sure what that means for such a group under Australian law, but here in the United States that would mean losing what ever tax exemptions that comes from having been recognized as a charity by the government.

Then there's what happened to Jenny McCarthy when she asked on Twitter what one looks for in a potential partner. Now for most talk show hosts/Playboy Playmates/D-list celebrities most people would have given some BS answer. In Jenny's case however most people were very honest. By honest I mean that a lot of people were telling her that they want someone whom vaccinates their children and accepts the science behind why you should (as well as calling her a kid killer).

Finally there's the situation that happened to Chili's Bar & Grill, which was going to give 10% of the money it made from all sales on April 7 to an autism awareness and support "charity". While on the surface this sounds like a great thing for Chili's to do, there was just one little problem with this: The "charity" they were planning to donate to wasn't a autism awareness and support group. It was a Anti-vaccination group called the National Autism Association.

Almost immediately after the announcing that Chili's was going to be donating 10% of it's sales to this group there was a huge public outcry over this, as well as threats of boycotts. Within a few days time the executives at Chili's reversed their decision to donated to the ANN. This decision was praised by people who accept science and have common sense, but was also scorned and ridiculed by stupid people who still think that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism, and that there is some kind of conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies to cover it up. Suffice to say that some of the comments made on Chili's Facebook page is something that psychologists might want to study, but also shows the type of people that supports the Anti-vaccination movement.

So in the end it has been a bad month for the Anti-vaccination movement. They've had so much bad press and so many people are standing up to them, but I for one could not be happier about it!

5 Things I've noticed about... Prisonplanet and Infowars

Prisonplanet and Infowars. Both are Alex Jones's main websites, and both are two of the largest conspiracy theorist websites in the world.

Now there are a lot of things that have been said about these sites, and after taking a look at these two sites I've noticed quite a lot of things about them, which I have narrowed down to five things.

So here are five things I've notice Prisonplanet and Infowars:

5. There are a lot of ads on the sites.

I have no problems with any websites having advertisements on them, and with the size of the websites that Prisonplanet and Infowars are it's necessary for these sites to have advertisements on them inorder to make money to both pay people maintain the sites, as well as to pay other employees... and also to make Alex Jones money.

The sites not only have your ordinary, random ads that try to look like news stories, but also ads by sponsors of the sites with products or services that is geared towards the typical fans of Alex Jones (i.e. conspiracy theorists), or it's just advertisements for books and videos and other products that Alex Jones has created himself... or atleast he claims to have created. And ofcourse there are also ads for Alex Jones's radio show.

There are also articles on those those sites as well, not just ads, but the thing about that is...

4. Alex Jones doesn't write a lot of articles on those sites.

On any given day if you go to Infowars and Prisonplanet you'll find a whole bunch of articles on there, what you hardly ever see however are articles written by Alex Jones. Infact seeing an article on there that was written by Alex Jones is more rare than seeing an article on there that actually tells the truth instead of being a manipulative form of propaganda.

Not only does Alex Jones not write a whole bunch of article on his sites, but neither does his staff. Many of the articles on those sites are actually from other websites, some of which mainly promote conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, and some are from legitimate news sites.

Even when someone there does write an original article, they always seem to do this one thing...

3. They cherry pick stuff.

Most of the articles on these two sites that are written by actual staff members of Alex Jones's tend to be just cherry picked from other legitimate news articles, with parts of the legitimate news articles being taken apart and having pieces of it taken out of context, and then the writers ad in their own comments to make it sound like the original article agrees with their point of view, even if it doesn't. Or they trash the original article completely and make it sound far worse than what it actually is, especially if the article says something negative about conspiracy theories or conspiracy theorists.

Even the articles that are completely and totally original still read like they're cherry picked. This is probably because they are written in such a way that it's obviously intended to manipulate it's readers into believing in the two sites' obscure world views. Now this isn't to much of a surprise, and that's mostly because...

2. They're stereotypical conspiracy theorist websites.

Whenever I'm asked about a conspiracy theorist website the first thing that comes to mind are these two websites, because not only are they two of the largest conspiracy theorist websites out there, they are also two of the oldest.

Besides just the other stuff that I mention above (cherry picked and manipulative articles) both sites also do a lot of other things you would find on other stereotypical conspiracy theorist websites, such as posting Youtube videos that are often manipulative and irrelevant (although they usually make these videos themselves), and has a comments section which tends to be a gathering place for other conspiracy theorists with even wilder conspiracy theories, and can be pretty hostile towards people who don't share their views.

Even the lay out of the sites themselves seems just like what you would find on a well made conspiracy theorist website.

1. They're shrines to Alex Jones.

Ever page that I go to on either one of these websites has either a picture of Alex Jones on them, or atleast has his name somewhere on the page. Even though these are his websites, this just seems a bit egotistical to me.

Some people might argue that those websites are about promoting the "truth", which couldn't be further from the truth. The only thing these websites do is promote whatever Alex Jones wants to promote and wants you to believe, and ultimately promotes Alex Jones himself.

These websites are not alternative news sites like they try to make themselves out to be. They're just shrines to feed Alex Jones's ego and wallet.

67 claims about Coconut Oil: Which ones are true, and which ones are BS?

Recently I came across this picture that were making all of these claims about coconut oil (67 claims to be exact).

Now normal when I see something like this and it has the word "Proven" in the title, I automatically assume that most or all of it is just a bunch of BS.

But I decided to give these claims the benefit of the doubt and examine all of them to see if there is any truth behind them.

1. To cook with instead of vegetable or seed oils.

This one is true. You can cook with it, but it's advised by many health organizations not to, or not to use to much due to it's high amount of saturated fat.

2. In your coffee/tea instead of creamer.

Sure. Infact non-dairy creamers are often made out of coconut oil.

3. To wash your face with instead of soap.

Yes, this is true. Also most hard soaps are made with coconut oils.

4. To brush your teeth with.

You could. There's nothing dangerous about coconut oil (except maybe increasing your chance of having a heart attack if you eat to much of it) but I would stick with good old fashion (and proven) toothpaste.

My advice is that you should ask your dentist first before using coconut oil toothpaste and see what they have to say.

5. For oil pulling.

Yes, you can use coconut oil for this, although oil pulling itself hardly does anything and only really decreases the amount of tooth decaying bacteria in your mouth. Mouthwash is far more effective to use, and takes less time. Vodka also works to, and unlike mouthwash, you can actually swallow it!

6. As a body moisturizer.

Yes, this is true.

7. As a sun-screen.

Lets go back to #1 on the list, shall we. It's used as a cooking oil. What do you think it's going to do to you?

For those who answered incorrectly, it's going to cook you!

8. As a hair conditioner.

It does reduce protein loss in hair, so yes you could use it as a hair conditioner.

9. As a supplement.

For what? That's kind of vague. Plus considering how high coconut oil is in saturated fat, I wouldn't use it as a food supplement.

10. As a massage oil.

You can use it for that.

11. To reduce scars.

It helps with dry skin, and it might help acne scars, but scars from a cut it's not going to help.

12. To treat for lice.

Yes, you can, but you have to use a lot of it to work, and you have to leave on for 12 to 18 hours, and it probably won't kill the eggs.

13. To soften cracked heels.

Yes, you can use it for this.

14. As a hair serum.

Yes, this is another thing you can use it for.

15. As a buttery spread.

Sure you can... if you don't mind increasing your risk of having a heart attack in a few years.

16. To treat fungal infections.

No, you use use anti-fungal medication to treat fungal infections. Coconut oil might help with the dry skin, but that's it.

17. As a glaze for cold desserts.

Yes you can, but again most health experts would not recommend it.

18. To season cast iron pans.

Yes, but it's better to use healthier types of oils.

19. To improve Parkinson's disease.

There are a lot of claims going around the internet about coconut oil and Parkinson's disease, and there really hasn't been a lot of research into this, but so far it's believed that the "successes" you hear about is really just a bunch of anecdotal evidence, and there is not enough information to confirm if coconut oil can help with Parkinson's. Regardless of this more research is said to be needed.

20. To condition wood cutting boards.

You could, but considering how slick the stuff is, I wouldn't.

21. To bake in place of butter.

You could, but it's actually probably better to use butter.

22. As an ingredient for making coconut butter.

Yes, because coconut butter IS coconut oil!

23. As eye make-up remover.

Since coconut oil is used in soaps, it could probably be used as an eye make-up remover. It probably depends on what type of make-up you use with how effective it will be.

24. As a natural remedy for diaper rash.

Probably not, since diaper rash is a result of moisture, and coconut oil is used to treat dry skin.

25. To add to your protein shake.

See #1.

26. To relieve itching from bug bites.

If the bug bite causes dryness of the skin it might help, but other than that it will just be a placebo.

27. To help lower blood pressure.

NO!!! It will do the opposite.

28. To lessen the damaging effects of dementia.

Much like with Parkinson's disease there are claim that coconut oil helps with dementia, but that those claims appear to be anecdotal evidence rather than real evidence, but research into these claims are still needed.

29. To heal wounds.

Nope.

30. To reduce puffiness around the eyes.

Probably not. The best way to reduce puffiness is a change in diet.

31. As a lip balm.

You can if you want to...

32. To enhance nutrient absorption.

No, it does not do this.

33. To improve osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is a bone disease, and coconut oil does nothing for your bones. Infact considering how much saturated fat is in coconut oil it's probably better not to consume the stuff if you have osteoporosis.

34. To relieve sun-burn.

No, it won't help. The best thing to do is to either take lots of cold showers, or use lotions with aloe vera, or wait it out.

35. To improve your memory.

If it does, or you think it does, then it's probably the result of whats called the "placebo effect" and has nothing to do with the coconut oil.

36. To make lotion bars.

Yes. Infact most lotion bars are made out of a certain amount of coconut oil.

37.  To make soap.

Most hard soaps are already made out of coconut oil. It's a key ingredient in the manufacturing of hard soaps.

38. To make laundry detergent.

You could probably try it. The worst thing that could happen is that your clothes don't come out clean.

39. To get hemorrhoid relief.

I'll forgo the gross details about what hemorrhoids are and just tell you that it won't.

40. As a hair gel.

You could use it for that. I'm not sure how good it would work, but you could use it.

41. To remove stretch marks.

All studies into this have found no evidence that any oils or creams can reduce or remove stretch marks.

42. As a shaving cream.

You could, but I would go with good old fashion shaving cream.

43. To make a nourishing hair mask.

Yes, you can use it for that.

44. To make a after-shave cream.

Yeah, it can be used for that

45. To make a nourishing lotion for your skin.

Yes, again you can use it for that.

46. To make a salt scrub.

I don't see why you can't.

47. In a cough syrup.

No, coconut oil does not help coughs.

48. In a sore throat cure.

It can't cure sore throats either. It's better to just eat ice cream, and probably healthier too.

49. In a homemade natural deodorant.

You could try it if you want, but it's probably not going to work since coconut oil doesn't actually absorb sweat. Infact it might actually make it worst, or at the very least leave you smelling like stink and coconuts.

50. To promoth hair regrowth.

I'm assuming the person who wrote this actually meant to say "promote", and no it doesn't, otherwise it would be the main ingredient in Rogaine.

51. To make your own cuticle oil.

You could try it. Even if it doesn't do any good the only harm you did was waste your money.

52. To stop nose bleeds.

No, tissues or bags of ice do that.

53. To prevent nose bleeds.

No, no picking your nose all the time and not getting your nose broken does that.

54. To fuel your workouts.

Considering it's full of saturated fat it will probably do the opposite, and maybe give you a heart attack while you're working out.

55. To build more muscles.

Protein and exercise does that, not something with lots of saturated fat.

56. As a testosterone booster.

No, and any type of natural product that claims to do this is BS.

57. As first aid.

For what? Dry skin. That's pretty much all it's good for for the human body.

58. To kill off candida yeast growth.

No, a yeast growth is a fungal infection and you need anti-fungal medicine to treat that.

59. To help cure Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO).

No, you need antibiotics to treat that.

60. To decrease an insulin spike.

Probably better not to. The best thing to do is to drink juice and eat dried fruits.

61. To stimulate your thyroid.

No, it doesn't.

62. To remove chewing gum from hair.

Pretty much the only way to remove chewing gum from hair is to cut it out, but go ahead and try it if you want to.

63. To burn fat around your stomach.

Considering coconut oil is mostly saturated fat, it's probably going to add to the fat around your stomach.

64. To clean and restore leather.

Leather oil would work better, but you could always try it.

65. To season stoneware.

You can, but it's not recommended, see #1 for the reason why.

66. To make good healthy mayo.

There's lots of ways to make good healthy mayo. Using coconut oil is not one of them.

67. In a natural vapor rub.

You could try it, but at best it would probably just be placebo effect.

***

In the end I have to conclude that is just classic food woo and alternative medicine BS. While some of what is claimed will work and is actually good for you, the rest is just stuff that either won't work but is harmless, or is actually bad for your health, and in a few claims can give false hope in improving your health, especially with certain serious medical conditions.

When you see stuff like this on the internet it's best just to ignore it.

Anti-Vaccination Critics shutdown: How Facebook should prevent and punish Anti-Vaccination supporters (or anyone) who wrongfully get their critics banned from Facebook?

Over the past couple of weeks it's been revealed that Anti-Vaccination groups and their supporters on Facebook have been launching false flag attacks (and I don't mean types that Alex Jones thinks happens every time a shooting or a bombing or a natural disaster occurs in this country) against groups that are pro-vaccination and/or critical of anti-vaccination groups and their supporters and propaganda. These false flaggings have unfortunately resulted in the temporary (yet still wrongful) banning of multiple people and groups from Facebook who are critics of the Anti-Vaccination movement. This needs to stop. Infact not only does this need to stop, but the people who are making these false flag reports need to be punished.

While many of you have some ideas on what should be done inorder to curb false flag reporting (which I would love to hear from you in the comments section) I have a few suggestions of my own:

The first thing that needs to happen is that Facebook needs to make it easier to challenge a complaint and a ban. While you can do this even now, it's not an easy process. Plus a person should be given a chance to defend themselves before a ban is about to occur. No more automatic bans unless a certain amount of time has gone by after a complaint was sent (I say a minimum of six hours).

Now the second thing that should happen to help curb false flagging abuse on Facebook is that those that do abuse the reporting system need to have their ability to report posts and groups and individuals that they don't believe should be on Facebook more difficult. Granted I'm not saying they should be left unable to report someone or some group that really does contain offensive or illegal content (unless they continue to abuse the system even after restrictions have been placed on them, then their ability to report groups and people should be taken away, and they should be banned temporarily) but the process should be made more difficult for those that abuse the system, and probably should include a screen shot of any content that is being reported upon, as well as include more details about why something is being reported.

Going along side with the second suggestion that I believe Facebook needs to do inorder to curb false flagging abuse, after a person has already had restrictions put against for false flag abuse, if they do report someone or some group for their content and Facebook determines that it doesn't violate their policies, the person or group should be informed that someone sent a complaint against them that was struct down, and the person or group should be told whom that person is, and given the option of whether or not they want to block that individual.

Now these couple of suggestions might help against individuals who abuse the reporting system, but what about groups that do the same thing and organize their followers to report individuals and groups inorder to silence them (this can apply to any group, not just the anti-vaccination groups)?

First, for groups that do frequently abuse the reporting system, first give them a warning, then a ban if they continue, then a longer ban with a warning that if they continue to abuse the reporting system that their page will be removed and deleted, and if they continue to abuse the system, then Facebook should remove and delete that group.

The second thing that should be done to these groups that abuse the reporting system is that they should have the ability to control what is and isn't posted on their page and who can and cannot post on their page restricted as well.

Anti-vaccination groups (along with chemtrail, anti-GMO, fundamentalist groups, and generally any group that promotes conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and bigotry) are notorious for blocking people and deleting any posts that they make that either counter-argues something that was posted in the group, or criticizes the group. One of the things that Facebook can do as a way to punish a group that abuses the reporting system is to alert the person whom has had a post deleted, or has been blocked, and give that person a chance to dispute the deletion or blocking. If they chose to try to prove that the deletion or blocking was unwarranted and didn't violate any of Facebook's rules, then Facebook will restore the post or unblock the person from the group, and also leave the group unable to delete anything else from that person, or block that person.

Now, do I believe that Facebook would do any of the things that I have suggested here? No, but I think that we all can agree that Facebook does need to do something inorder to curb false flag abuse.

Is that a FEMA... truck?

Reposted from my other blog site Is that a FEMA Camp?

Recently on a Facebook skeptics group that I belong to someone posted a very "curious" looking photo, along with the commentary by the person whom posted photo the somewhere else on Facebook:

Now the first thing that came to my mind when I saw that photo was, "Wow... that trailer needs a good wash."

All joking aside ofcourse what really came to my mind was that the words on the truck looked like it was put on there via digital photo manipulation (i.e. photoshopped) and even if it wasn't, then so what?

Now my first argument for why it is photoshopped is because of another photo that looks almost exactly like the first one provided to me via Illuminutti.com:

Now clearly the second picture is photoshopped, and to be all honest it's not even that good of a photoshop job either.

Ofcourse just because the second photo has clearly been digitally manipulated, I have to admit that it does not mean that the first photo has been digitally manipulated as well. If you look closely at the bottom words "FEMA DISASTER RELIEF" that while the font style used for the letters are similar to the ones on the top, they are infact different.

If the first photo was photoshopped, the second photoshopped photo was probably done by someone else whom used the closest font style that they could find to the original words... unless the person whom created the original photo forgot the original font style that they used.

Now another reason why I think the photo has been digitally manipulated is because of the trailer itself.

Besides just being in need of a good wash, it is clearly a used trailer due to the fact that there is a company logo right next to "FEMA DISASTER RELIEF", as well as a logo on the truck that is pulling the trailer.

So if this photo was real, what it would tell me isn't that FEMA is planning on "something" evil, it's that they're moving a trailer from one location to another to another, probably for some bureaucratic reasons, or it's being driven around just to make sure that everything is okay with it and the truck that's pulling it (and before you point out that the person claims that it's coming from a FBI building in Virginia I should like to point out that I don't take such claims seriously unless I have more proof that it really did come from a FBI building in Virginia).

Also, if the photo is real then it tells me is that FEMA is pretty underfunded if the only big rigs they can afford to buy are used and can't be washed every so often due to funding...

Now this brings me to another reason why I'm pretty sure the photo was photoshopped, that being that the government does not buy used stuff (with the exception of law enforcement buying used vehicles for undercover purposes). Even if the government did infact buy used vehicles, they would have atleast have given it a new paint job, and have put FEMA's actual logo on it rather than in big red words "FEMA DISASTER RELIEF".

Also, there is one more thing about the photo that has lead me to believe that it is fake, and that being the comment of the person themselves.

The comment made on the photo says that it's heading north after "leaving" the FBI building in Virginia. My question which one?

The obvious answer would ofcourse be Quantico, which is the location of both the FBI Academy and the FBI Laboratory. But thing about all of this (besides the fact that the person making the comment might have been mislead about where the truck is coming from and going to, or is just outright lying) is why would the FBI employ FEMA to do something that it itself could do? More importantly if the FBI was trying to do something secretive then why wouldn't it use either a blank vehicle, or a vehicle that has a name on it other than the name of another government agency on it in such clear, bold letters?

All the evidence put together has lead me to concluded that the photo is fake, and that either it was created for the purpose of fooling conspiracy theorists and having a good laugh at their gullibility, or by a conspiracy theorist whom wished to make his or her claims about police state conspiracy theories seem more legit.

5 Things I've noticed about... Social Media

Social media is probably one of the greatest inventions of the computer age.

It allows people from all over the world to interact with other people that under normal circumstances they would never have had a chance to interact with, and it has become an outlet for many to express either their thoughts or emotions.

Now there are a lot of things that I have noticed about social media (trust me, it's a lot) but I have narrowed to five different things.

So here are five things I've noticed about social media:

5. It's basically blogging.

Probably one of the biggest things that I really have noticed about social media that a lot of people probably overlook (mostly because they don't have a real blog site) is that everything that I can do on social media I can basically do on here. From posting photos and videos, to writing up long, drawn out rants that I hope people would read first in it's entirety before commenting on it, I can just as easily do here as I can on Facebook (only I can be a little more creative here with my posts).

I guess you could say that blogs (especially those that you can comment on and interact with the author) are the first types of social media. Infact some websites that are considered by many to be social media websites are actually blogs. Probably one of the best examples of this is Twitter which many people regard as one of the largest social media websites in the world. Infact it's actually a mirco-blog website in which many people express their thoughts on... 140 characters at a time.

4. They always change stuff.

Probably one of the biggest complaints about social media websites is that every once in a while they will change something about it that some people will complain about, regardless if the change is a good or a bad thing.

Many times these changes are minor, and are often times not that noticeable, and is really nothing to get in an uproar about, but sometimes the changes are major (like a complete redesign of the whole layout of the site's pages) and is something that no one has any say in whether or not they want to keep the old style that they have gotten use to and have modified to their liking.

3. They have a weird way of enforcing they TOS agreements.

Whats easier to get removed from a social media website? A picture that a model has uploaded of themselves in a skimpy bikini that doesn't actually violate the site's TOS agreement, and might be being used for legitimate business purposes, or a rant about Jews that clearly violates that website's rules about hate speech?

If you answered the picture of a model in the skimpy bikini, then you answered correctly.

The fact is that social media websites are probably far more likely to remove content from a user, or punish that user in some other way, for content that would only be offensive only to the most uptight or jealous of individuals and doesn't actually violate the TOS agreement, and doesn't hurt anyone, rather than remove content from someone whom post harmful and/or bigoted content that really does violate the TOS agreement of the website, and could incite a person to commit violence or do something else that is harmful.

Because of social media websites seeming unwillingness to remove content that really is or could be considered harmful or bigoted, and because it's just so easy to create a new account incase a person is kicked off of a social media website...

2. It has become a haven for whack jobs.

Social media is a great place to interact with like minded people who share the same or similar interests as you do. If I want to join a group for Walking Dead fans that's no problem because there are several of them on Facebook. Or if I want to join a group for skeptics, no problem there either. If I want to join a group that promotes conspiracy theories, or alternative medicine, that unfortunately is also no problem because there are a lot of groups like that on Facebook alone.

The fact is that social media has attracted a lot of people who believe in either really strange and/or possibly harmful stuff (i.e. conspiracy theorists, pushers of alternative medicine, bigots) mainly because it's both far easier and cheaper (most often times free) to set up a page on a social media website than it is to completely create your own website. You also have a better chance of reaching more people as well.

Now of all of the different types whack jobs on social media, there is one type of whack job that truly loves it, because...

1. It's become a paradise for stalkers.

Back in the pre-social media days if you wanted to stalk someone you really had to put some effort into it. Now many stalkers don't have to do much of anything inorder to stalk someone. All they have to do is check their victim's social media page and know where they're going or where they are at and really don't have to do much if any investigating inorder to do their stalking. Heck some stalkers don't even do that and stalk people exclusively online.

Social media is such a time saver for stalkers that if they are psychologically capable of it they can actually have a social life while screwing with someone else's life...

All joking aside, stalking is a big problem on social media, and while it is partially because some people put out more information about themselves then what they really should be putting on the internet, the main reason why stalking is such a big problem on social media is because people who stalk via social media do it because it is easy, and because they believe they can get away with it, which is not always the case. Infact some people might stalk a person over the internet and not even realize it. Also many people might get stalked on social media and not even know it.

5 Things I've noticed about... Conspiracy Theorists on Youtube

If you're someone that makes a hobby of investigating conspiracy theories, you will eventually be lead to one place: Youtube.

Youtube seems to the gathering center conspiracy theorists on the internet due to the huge amount a conspiracy theory videos on that website (and I mean huge).

Now there are a lot of things that I have noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube that I could talk about, but I have narrowed it down to five different things.

So here are five things that I've noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube:

5. They can come up with some pretty bizarre conspiracy theories.

If you want to find a really bizarre conspiracy theory, then there is no better place to look than Youtube, because the conspiracy theorists on that website can come up with some very bizarre conspiracy theories. In fact some of the weirdest conspiracy theories that I have ever heard of are from videos on Youtube.

These conspiracy theories on Youtube can get so strange, and combined with a person's own behavior either in a video, or in the comments section, that it makes one wonder if that person is either a poe, or a fraud that is looking for attention (or to scam people), or severely mentally ill. In fact some conspiracy theorist on Youtube have been proven to be either mentally ill or frauds.

Some of these videos are so bizarre that I've had to stop watching them at times because I felt that it was driving me crazy (mostly rage) and making me want to destroy my computer in frustration over not only how some one could come up with some thing that crazy and stupid, but also in frustration over why Youtube would allow such a video to stay on the website.

If such videos make me nearly go crazy then I can't imagine what they do to people who take these videos seriously.

4. Their videos can be extremely long.

Sometimes a conspiracy theorist's video on Youtube can be short, sometimes they can be half an hour long, and sometimes they can go on for hours and hours.

Some of the longest videos that I have ever seen on Youtube have been from conspiracy theorists, and I'm not talking about an hour or two long. Some of these videos can be three to four to six hours long. In fact I think the longest one I have ever seen (I didn't actually watch it, I just noted the time) was forty hours long!

The only way someone could watch such videos is if they were unemployed and/or had no life what so ever. They would have to spend all of their time infront of a computer watching these poorly made and researched Youtube videos which would become essentially their only source of information about the world...

Besides just making abnormally long videos, conspiracy theorists on Youtube also tend to do this:

3. They create videos of an event quickly after an event happens.

Thanks mostly due to cheap (many times free), widely available, and easy to use video capturing and editing software, conspiracy theorist can now create videos at astonishingly amazing speeds after some event happens, sometimes even within hours of an event happening.

Usually these videos are pretty short, as well as poorly made and edited, but give them a few days and they will create a far longer conspiracy theory video about that event... that will still be poorly made and edited.

In fact this seems to be a pattern with many conspiracy theorists videos on Youtube, because...

2. They're videos tend to be poorly made and edited.

Some of conspiracy theorist's videos on Youtube are just unwatchable, and it's not just because of the length, or subject matter, or lack of any evidence presented within them when a conspiracy theorist tries to make their case about a conspiracy theory that they claim is real, but because they are just horrible videos to begin with.

Many of the videos are made are just very poorly done, and the editing and placement of segments and commentary within them is just horrible at times and appears to be just thrown together. The commentary alone in these videos are often not well thought out, and many times is just incoherent and often times makes many contradictions, and for the most part makes no sense what so ever.

Kind of sounds like a conspiracy theorist is general rather than just the ones on Youtube.

1. They don't like "non-believers".

Most conspiracy theorists in general do not like people who don't believe them and doubt the conspiracy theories that they are promoting are real, but on Youtube they take it to a different level entirely.

Many of them are just rude and very hostile towards anyone questions them. They down vote comments they don't like and mark them as spam in hopes of hiding the comments that have offended them. They false flag videos they don't like (mostly debunking videos) and outright threaten people who post debunking videos or comments expressing doubt in a conspiracy theory.

That's just the ones who mainly post comments.

The ones who post videos on the other hand might do all of that as well, plus they might just delete your comments from their own pages, and block you.

Kind of shows how open minded they are, doesn't it.

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.

What is a Sheeple? The Conspiracy Theorist definition, and the reality based definition.

Recently on Facebook came across a picture on my feed that, considering the group it was posted in (it was a comedy page) I thought was very... unusual, to say the least.

This is the picture that was posted in said group:

I found this picture a tad bit disturbing, not only because it was posted in a group meant for comedy, but because it clearly showed what at least some conspiracy theorists thinks about people who disagree with them or out right do not believe (and most of the time, for good reason).

In fact this description would be far more accurate if the word "Sheeple" was replaced with "Conspiracy Theorist", as many skeptics would agree that this would more accurately describe many conspiracy theorists (or at least the far more psychotic ones).

Now, a far more accurate definition for the word "Sheeple" would probably be this:

Sheeple - A derogatory word that combines the words "sheep" and "people", and is typically used by conspiracy theorists to try to describe a person whom does not believe in their conspiracy theories (see Skeptic).

Typically the word "Sheeple" is used in arguments over the internet as a blatant insult directed at a skeptic, and is also used as an attempt to intimidate a skeptic into backing down or backing away from an argument concerning a conspiracy theory, and/or even bully them into agreeing with the conspiracy theorist.

This is not to be confused with the word "Shill" which is typically directed towards people who not only do not believe in a conspiracy theory that a conspiracy theorist is presenting, but also presents evidence and/or logical reasoning to show why they don't believe in a conspiracy theory.

Both "Shill" and "Sheeple" are also used by conspiracy theorists as an attempt to end an argument over the internet while trying to save face when it becomes obvious to them that they can not win and are just making themselves appear as someone of either low intelligence and/or questionable sanity.

That would be a far more accurate description for the word "Sheeple". Basically speaking, it is just a typical insult that conspiracy theorists use to try to scare away a skeptic.

The best thing to do if someone calls you a sheeple is to ask them why they think you are a sheeple, and then explain to them why you are not one (this also works if they call you a shill). If this does not work either ignore the accusations, ignore the person completely, or (if you feel like just making them mad) tell them that they are actually conceding defeat in that they actually have nothing left to counter argue, and that they are actually trying to end the argument while at the same time attempting to make it appear as if they have actually won the argument.

Regardless of how you decide to actually handle someone who calls you a a sheeple or a shill, you just have to remember that this is typical conspiracy theorist speak, and that they're only saying it because they're mad that you don't believe them.

5 Things I've noticed about... Conspiracy Theorists on the Internet

Ever encounter a conspiracy theorist on the internet? Most of us have, especially if you're a skeptic like myself who has their own blog about debunking. At that point they tend to come to you.

While there are a lot of things about conspiracy theorist on the internet that I've noticed they tend to do, I've narrowed it down to five main things.

So here are five things I've noticed about conspiracy theorist on the internet:

5. They love using quotes.

Be it in their signature line on an internet forum, or in their timeline on their Facebook page, conspiracy theorists love posting quotes on the internet. Usually these quotes are allegedly from some musician, or politician, or philosopher, or just some famous person whom they think would share their beliefs. Sometimes these quotes are accompanied with a picture of the person who allegedly said it.

The problem with this is that (and this is true anytime someone quotes someone) is that the quotes can be taken out of context, the quote can be mis-quoted, or it could be something that person never said at all.

There is of course one truth about these quotes: they do absolutely nothing to back up what ever conspiracy theory they are claiming to believe in.

4. They love collages.

Go to any conspiracy theorist group on Facebook or conspiracy theorist forum and you'll usually find some collages of photo-shopped pictures along with conspiracy theory claims within the collage.

These collages are often times confusing at the least, and more times than not, disturbing looking.

Many conspiracy theorists might think these collages helps get whatever point they have across, but the reality is that they are really a turn off for normal minded people and makes them all look like a bunch of wackos.

3. They don't have a sense of humor.

Conspiracy theorists (at least on the internet) take things way to seriously, and when someone makes a joke or a sarcastic remake, they tend to go ballistic, either because they don't think you should be joking about the subject at hand, or they think you're being serious.

They also can't tell when someone (or some website) is being sarcastic either. An example of this would be Skeptic Project. On the front page of the website it says "Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source." To most people they are clearly being sarcastic. But apparently some people in the Infowars forums thought they were actually admitting to being a COINTELPRO website.

2. They are extremely rude.

Ever try having a conversation over the internet with a conspiracy theorist about some conspiracy they believe, and you tell them that you don't believe in it, or that it isn't true, then you have most likely been on the receiving end of one of the most logical faulty and volatile rants that you will probably ever encounter.

While this behavior is nothing unexpected (be it unwelcomed) from a conspiracy theorist on the interenet, what is unexpected is that some of them make threats (which can get them in trouble), try to take down other peoples' internet pages if they don't like what is on there, troll internet pages and spam them with their conspiracy theories, and harass people who disagree with them.

1. They think everyone whom disagrees with them is a disinformation agent.

Anyone who has a blog dedicated to skepticism and debunking, or gets into an argument with a conspiracy theorist on the internet in which you present evidence debunking whatever claims they are making, will eventually get called a disinformation agent (or a sheeple at the very least).

Because conspiracy theorists so badly believe that what they believe is real, they actually can not believe that someone would honestly not believe them, so anyone who says otherwise must be a disinformation agent, thus they can disregard whatever information is posted that contradicts what they believe to be true.

Of course being called a disinformation agent really means nothing to skeptics. Some of us even consider it a kind of badge of honor.

5 Things I've noticed about... People in the 9/11 Truth Movement

There are a lot things that I have noticed not just about the 9/11 the Truth movement, but the people in the movement itself.

So here a five things I've noticed about people in the 9/11 Truth movement:

5. They're not who you think they are.

Back a few years ago I use to think that 9/11 Truthers came in three different flavors: Those on the extreme left who were suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, those on the extreme right who greatly distrust the government, and paranoid kooks who may be mentally ill and willing to believe in just about any crazy theory, but over the years I've found people who do not fall into any of those categories, and are actually perfectly normally people.

Heck, a few months ago a friend of mine posted something on their Facebook page in which they implied that the towers were brought down by explosives, and I was very shocked that they believed that. In fact I had actually thought that person's page had been hacked, but it turns out it wasn't, and because of that it's made me rethink that maybe not all 9/11 Truthers are a bunch of cranks, just misinformed. Some of them might even be to afraid to express their beliefs for fear of being labelled a crazy person.

4. They keep using the same, dis-proven theories.

Go to any site that promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories, or talk to anyone who believes in some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and you will get a variety of theories (technically speaking they're actually hypothesis) that despite their beliefs, and despite how much they seriously believe them to be true, they have been dis-proven and debunked, yet they still keep promoting them.

Apparently they must live belief that if you say something that isn't true enough times it will become true.

3. There is a lot of infighting.

While most people who promote certain types of conspiracy theories are normally united if they promote different theories about certain events, the same cannot be said about people who promote 9/11 conspiracy theories. This may be due to shear fact that unlike many conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories varies greatly. Because of this members from one group promoting one theory might fight with members from another group promoting a different theory, with the two groups eventually accusing each other of being dis-info agents.

In the skeptic community this is generally referred to as "nutter fights"?

2. They always claim to have "undeniable evidence."

If you do a search on any major website using the words "9/11 Truth" you are going come across some pages that claims to have "undeniable evidence" or "undeniable proof" or something of the like that the 9/11 attacks were a false flag attack.

These claims in the end tend to prove absolutely nothing, but people in the movement still make them.

1. They don't want to do any real research into their own claims.

Probably the only reason why currently the amount of people that believe that the 9/11 attacks were committed by the government is above 10% is because the people who believe in it after all these years isn't because of some mental disorder, it's because they haven't done any real research for themselves, and have only relied on web sites and videos that promote the theories that they believe in.

In fact on the occasions when a a person who is a 9/11 Truther does real research on their own, and not simply rely on what some other 9/11 Truther says, they tend to leave the movement.

Conspiracy Theorists: No longer harmless

Up until a couple of weeks ago I use to believe that most conspiracy theorists were just a bit nutty, and perhaps hostile online towards skeptics and people who debunked conspiracy theories, but were relatively harmless, except for those who are violently mentally disturbed (example: Jared Lee Loughner), and that at the most were more likely to alienate themselves from friends and family then anything else, and thus do more harm to themselves then to others.

I no longer believe this.

The reason I no longer believe this is because of the massive amount of illegal harassment being done by conspiracy theorists towards the parents of the children who died in the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, and towards the heros who's efforts helped saved the lives of many more children.

While the claims made by conspiracy theorists that the attack was staged, or didn't even occur in the first place, wasn't something that fellow skeptics and debunkers like myself were not expecting (in fact, due to the predictability of conspiracy theorists we would have been more surprised if these claims were not made at all) what did surprise us was the sheer amount of slander and harassment (bordering on outright stalking) that has begun to occur.

Because of the actions of some conspiracy theorists in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre I feel that I have been forced to re-examine my view of conspiracy theorists and their behavior, and that view is even more negative then it once was.

It appears that over the last few years as more and more conspiracy theories get debunked, the hostility of conspiracy theorists who continue to hold on to the beliefs continues to rise.

Online threats and even emails towards those who disagree with conspiracy theorists (and don't even try to debunk their claims, just say they don't agree with them and/or don't believe them) have become common place.

Some blogs and vlogs that are dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories are sometimes attacked, and even forced to be taken down by what can only be presumed to be the actions of conspiracy theorists.

Many conspiracy theorists have been purchasing large amounts of weapons for what they very seriously believe will be the coming of the New World Order, in which they will (in their minds) have to fight and defeat.

Now, they are harassing and possibly stalking people who have gone through an extreme trauma, and they do not care that they are causing even more grief and trauma because they don't believe anything happened.

As much as I hate to suggest it, I am seriously starting to believe that we should start sending at the very least the most hostile conspiracy theorists to mental health hospitals, as many of them are appearing to have serious mental health issues that is causing them act out in such and extremely hostile manner towards total strangers, and might cause to to eventually engage in violence.

Many Common Traits I've noticed with FEMA Camp claims

Re-blogged from Is that a FEMA Camp?

There are a lot of claims on websites that promote the FEMA Camp conspiracy theories and the locations of the alleged interment/concentration/prison camps. From my research into these locations, many of these websites have very common trends to them and the locations that are posted.

Here are some things that I have found to be quite common with these location claims, and the websites that promote them:

The claims about these alleged FEMA camp locations tend to be all alike, word by word.

Many of these websites "expose" these "locations" appear to do a lot of copying and pasting of these claims from other websites. Many times these claims are exactly the same, including misspellings, and lack of any real research.

Many websites list completely bogus locations.

While many websites misidentify what a location is, or what's at a location, some of the locations that are claimed never had what was claimed to be there to being with. A good example of this would be the claim that there is a renovated Japanese interment camp in Josephine County, Oregon. There was never a Japanese interment camp in Josephine County, Oregon, and thus the claim is bogus.

Many websites that list locations sometimes have little to no information on those locations.

I've seen a lot of location claims that have very little, to next to none, to no information about the location what so ever. Even the most detailed of claims often are only have about two to three of sentences worth, and provide no in depth details, or creditable evidence to back up the claim that the location is in fact an interment/concentration/prison camp.

Any true facts given about a location still fails to prove anything.

Yes, sometimes these websites will actually list facts about a location. The problem is that these facts are often muddled with unproven allegations. Even when they aren't, they still do not prove that the location is a FEMA camp.

Area 51 is not listed as a FEMA camp location.

This one surprised me. Despite all of the conspiracy theories that have been made about this place, being a FEMA camp location is apparently not one of them...

There are often more claims of total locations then there are locations listed.

Many web sites claim there are 600 to over 800 known locations for these alleged prison camps, yet these websites never include that many locations in their locations list. Of course many websites will contain a kind of "disclaimer" about those missing locations by putting up something like this near or at the bottom of their list:

• There are many other locations not listed above that are worthy of consideration as a possible detention camp site, but due to space limitations and the time needed to verify, could not be included here. Virtually all military reservations, posts, bases, stations, & depots can be considered highly suspect (because it is "federal" land). Also fitting this category are "Regional Airports" and "International Airports" which also fall under federal jurisdiction and have limited-access areas. Mental hospitals, closed hospitals & nursing homes, closed military bases, wildlife refuges, state prisons, toxic waste dumps, hotels and other areas all have varying degrees of potential for being a detention camp area. The likelihood of a site being suspect increases with transportation access to the site, including airports/airstrips, railheads, navigable waterways & ports, interstate and US highways. Some facilities are "disguised" as industrial or commercial properties, camouflaged or even wholly contained inside large buildings (Indianapolis) or factories. Many inner-city buildings left vacant during the de-industrialization of America have been quietly acquired and held, sometimes retrofitted for their new uses.

Basically they are saying that everywhere you go, there is a FEMA camp.

Many of the location claims have been around for years.

During my research I've noticed that many of these location claims have been around for a very long time, in some cases well over a decade now, and yet the claims are nearly the same, with no new information.

Rex 84 and several Executive Orders are often listed to try to help prove the existence of these FEMA camps.

Yes, our government has done some pretty messed up things in the past, and Rex 84 is one of them, but from what I understand of Rex 84 it was a thought experiment that was created in 1984 (back when the Cold War was still hot) about what would need to be done if in the unlikely event of large scale civil unrest, and that no actual military training was done. Go here to learn more.

As for the Executive Orders, these websites tend to only give the author's summarized version of the Executive Order, which is often times only a sentence about one part that is often taken out of context of something that can be several pages long. What they usually do not give is a link to the actual Executive Order itself. They also don't tell you if the Executive Order has been revoked or not either, which many of them listed happen to be.

No location claims are ever taken down when proven to be false or out right bogus.

While you might see a new "location" being posted, you'll most likely never see one taken down after they have been proven to be completely false and/or bogus.

Why I refuse to Debate Bigots

I'm sure we have all encountered a bigot on the internet, be it a someone who who hates black people, or Hispanic people, or Jewish people, or Muslims, or homosexuals, or just anyone who is different from them.

Recently on the Thrive Debunked blog I encountered a person who not only greatly believed in the pseudoscience of numerology (to the point where he thought that Thrive's release date of 11/11/2011 meant that the movie's creator, Foster Gamble, created the movie as part of some type of Illuminati/occult dis-information campaign), but also thought that a "Jewish-Zionist" (his words) conspiracy was responsible for the 9/11 attacks...

At that point in time I decided that I would no longer have any discussions or debates with this person.

The main reason I decided not to continue any further discussions with this person is because I know it would be pointless, because bigots and people who believe in bigoted based conspiracy theories tend to be the least reasonable people there are.

Not only do bigots like this person tend to be less intelligent than non-bigots, they also tend to be extremely stubborn, and are usually unwilling to give any ground what so ever, or even acknowledge any sort of logical or fact based argument what so ever.

Now usually it would be pointless to debate even a non-bigoted conspiracy theorist as they tend to have clouded judgement, and usually they have an unwillingness to accept reality, but at least they are not so unreasonable that they believe that certain groups of people are either beneath them, or out right evil because of a that group's religious beliefs, their race, their ethnic background, or their sexuality.

Bigoted conspiracy theorists tend to be the more hostile then your average conspiracy theorist as well. They usually descend into posting vile comments on the internet much quicker then a no-bigoted conspiracy theorist usually would, and they even sometimes post comments that would be considered threatening, or are in fact directly threatening someone, or post other types of comments that would draw the attention of law enforcement.

Bigoted conspiracy theorists will tend to sometimes believe in the more bizarre conspiracy theories that are out there, and simply put the more bizarre a conspiracy theory a person believes in, the less rational and reasonable a person tends to be, and they are usually much more paranoid then most people as well.

In addition to all of this, they also tend to post and publish information that they know is completely false in order to try to make it appear that their beliefs are justified, or at least reasonable.

Bigots usually tend to feel that any arguments made against their conspiracy theories is nothing more then dis-information, and thus "proof" that the conspiracy theories that they believe in are factual. This is the main reason why I do not debate bigots, because I do not want to fuel their belief that the conspiracy theories that they believe in are real, and that the only real way to fight them is to refuse to debate them at all. This is my way of telling a bigoted conspiracy theorist that their beliefs are so false that it will not even warrant my attention, and that hopefully isolating them and not giving them any attention will make them rethink their beliefs.

6 Ways to tell if a Conspiracy Theorist posting on the Internet is Mentally Disturbed

If anyone has ever encountered a conspiracy theorist on the internet, then you know that some of them can be quite intense people, even to the point where you might believe that they are mentally disturbed.

So here now is a list of six ways to tell if a conspiracy theorist that you see posting on the internet might be mentally disturbed:

(Author's note: it should be noted that there is a difference between being mentally ill and mentally disturbed. Mental illness is actually far more common then most people might think. In fact, one-in-four people in the United States has some type of mental illness. You might even know someone who has a mental illness and not even know it. What mental illness is, is something that happens to a person's mind or brain to cause them to act and think irrationally, and they can usually recognize the negative impact it is having on them and their life. As for someone who is mentally disturbed, they also might think and act irrationally, but their irrationality would be in a much more volatile and disturbing manner, and they might be so far gone that they do not realize this.

Also, just because person's posts might indicate that they are mentally disturbed, it doesn't mean that they are in fact mentally disturbed, they could just be a troll, but even a troll can still be mentally disturbed.)

6. Incoherence

Basically speaking, whatever messages they post either barely make any sense, or makes no sense what so ever. This can be a gradual thing, where if you're having an argument with the conspiracy theorist, over time they can begin making less and less sense as they grow more frustrated and angry because you're not agreeing with them, or they're just incoherent out right.

5. Volatile & Vileness

Some conspiracy theorists, especially those who might be mentally disturbed, can become extremely angry in a second, especially when confronted with evidence that the conspiracy theories that they believe in are in fact false. It's quite common for people who are like this to post messages that are best described as either being threatening, insulting, and at the very least, disturbing. Sometimes they'll even make threats against public officials and institutions, or just the people they're arguing with.

4. Paranoia

If a conspiracy theorist argues how everything the media says is a lie, how the government constantly spreads dis-information, and how debunkers are government dis-information agents, and how banks and corporations are controlling the world, then they are probably paranoid. While this might actually be quite common for a conspiracy theorist, some will go on about how you need to prepare, such as by buying all the guns and ammo you can, to building a bunker and living in isolation. They might also not buy certain things, or from certain business, or put their money in a bank account, because they don't trust them.

Some conspiracy theorists who are extremely paranoid will even believe in very bizarre conspiracy theories, or won't even trust their own family. The most paranoid conspiracy theorists most likely wouldn't even use the internet in the first place, because they fear that the government will use it to track them down and harm them.

3. Obsession

For some conspiracy theorists, conspiracy theories can take over their lives. They become obsessed not only with conspiracy theories, but proving that they are real. Some will even abandon their families, or more likely, their families will abandon them, because of their obsession.

It's pretty easy to spot a conspiracy theorist on the internet that is obsessed with conspiracy theories, because they won't stop posting about a conspiracy theory until they are convinced that you are convinced that the conspiracy theory that they are talking about is real, or that they have convinced themselves that they have "debunked" a debunking of a conspiracy theory, or they're kicked off of a website, and even then, because of their obsessive needs, they'll constantly try to find a way to get back in.

2. Unable to see the harm in their actions

A conspiracy theorist who is mentally disturbed might not be able to see or figure out that their own actions are harmful, even if what they are posting might be considered illegal. They tend to not to be able to figure out why everyone is making such a big deal over the way they're acting. Some will even admit that their own friends and family have distanced themselves from them, or that they have distanced themselves from their friends and family because they will not accept what he or she believes in.

1. Admits having a Mental Illness

Some conspiracy theorists will admit that they actually are mental ill, but usually the mental illness that they admit to having is usually anxiety based, which can come about after watching and/or experiencing a traumatic event, such as an act of terrorism, or a mass shooting.