Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you gullible fucker
'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
- Status
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Anyone whose knee-jerk assumption is conspiracy, or to trust what the mainstream says, is silly.
There is too much black/white presented on both sides of this arguement.
The classic one from the anti-conspiracists is their cod-psychological analysis that conspiracies give explanations to stuff that is hard to accept.
There is just as much psychological motive for rejecting all CTs out of hand and there's a sort of smug aloofness among some anti-CTers that reminds me of the fundementalist atheism of the 4th former.
CTs should be judged on a case by case basis, difficult and confusing work.
Yes the internet has brought a lot of this on: that doesnt make it good, bad, true or false. The auto-conspiracist narrative is daft, about as daft as the mainstream bilge we've been fed for generations.
There is too much black/white presented on both sides of this arguement.
The classic one from the anti-conspiracists is their cod-psychological analysis that conspiracies give explanations to stuff that is hard to accept.
There is just as much psychological motive for rejecting all CTs out of hand and there's a sort of smug aloofness among some anti-CTers that reminds me of the fundementalist atheism of the 4th former.
CTs should be judged on a case by case basis, difficult and confusing work.
Yes the internet has brought a lot of this on: that doesnt make it good, bad, true or false. The auto-conspiracist narrative is daft, about as daft as the mainstream bilge we've been fed for generations.
Yes indeed. In fact the conspiracy denialists and the fundamentalist atheists tend to be the very same individuals.
Their attitudes are best explained by psychologists rather than philosophers or political scientists.
editor
hiraethified
And who here isn't doing just that, please?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I haven't looked in on this thread forever but are we still really on this? "Anyone who disagrees with me must be a reflexive conspiracy-denier"? "You're only saying this because you believe what the government says"?
I'd hoped for a bit better from urban to be honest. Not, of course, stuff that wasn't bullshit, but ideally stuff that wasn't the same old bullshit.
I'd hoped for a bit better from urban to be honest. Not, of course, stuff that wasn't bullshit, but ideally stuff that wasn't the same old bullshit.
Nobody comes out and says "there are never any conspiracies."
But there are plenty of people who, in practice, will deny the existence of just about any conspiracy--to the extent that it soon becomes clear that they are predisposed to irrational skepticism on the subject.
I've already given the examples of recent arguments I've had here with people who deny that the Mafia killed JFK, and that the CIA sold cocaine to fund the Contras.
It might be an exaggeration to call these conspiracies established facts, but most historians would agree that they're true. I've not only seen them denied here, I've seen them derided as loony-tunes, nutbobbins etc. To me, that's pathological denialism.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
"plenty of people"
"some people say..."
"some people say..."
OK, let's not make any grandiose claims here. Can we agree that a respectable body of informed opinion holds that the Mafia killed JFK, and that the CIA sold cocaine to fund the Contras?
Yes?
Now, it's one thing to argue against those positions. But I've seen people on here laugh at them, call them absurd, assert that anyone who believes in them is insane etc.
Such people, in my view, are pathological conspiracy denialists. They are psychologically incapable of believing in conspiracies. They are just as crazy as those who think 9/11 was instigated by Martians.
Paul Marsh
NeitherWashingtonNorMecca
I'm not so sure about conspiraloons being in the ascendency.
Yes they do suddenly have a cash budget for advertising - witness the full page Reinvestigate 911 advert in the Independent two saturdays back, or the advertising for the forthcoming Bristol jamboree in Private Eye and elsewhere.
However it is worth noting that Reinvestigate 911's Parliament meeting on 2 November only had 1 MP and 1 Peer turn up:
http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2009/11/sympathy-for-the-devil.html
I'm guessing the MP was Michael Meacher. Any ideas who the peer would have been?
Also the replacement organisation for the UK and Ireland 9/11 Truth movement - Make Wars History- has had a very slow start, whilst conspiraloon offshoots such as the July 7 Truth Campaign remain small and isloated (Although I note worrying signs of support in parts of the Muslim community)
All in all, we have no reason to drop our guard, but I certainly don't see any signs the buggers are in the ascendency.
Yes they do suddenly have a cash budget for advertising - witness the full page Reinvestigate 911 advert in the Independent two saturdays back, or the advertising for the forthcoming Bristol jamboree in Private Eye and elsewhere.
However it is worth noting that Reinvestigate 911's Parliament meeting on 2 November only had 1 MP and 1 Peer turn up:
http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2009/11/sympathy-for-the-devil.html
I'm guessing the MP was Michael Meacher. Any ideas who the peer would have been?
Also the replacement organisation for the UK and Ireland 9/11 Truth movement - Make Wars History- has had a very slow start, whilst conspiraloon offshoots such as the July 7 Truth Campaign remain small and isloated (Although I note worrying signs of support in parts of the Muslim community)
All in all, we have no reason to drop our guard, but I certainly don't see any signs the buggers are in the ascendency.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
And you know, you can extend that diagnosis to everyone who disagrees with you for more than a few posts, as well as not having to bother with anyone in question. Which is very convenient. I'd send them to the gulags tbh.
editor
hiraethified
Could you name some of the 'plentiful' people here who are purportedly suffering from this curious "irrational skepticism" and are, "pathological conspiracy denialists" and support that claim with some documented examples?
Whether one person disagrees with your particular opinion about JFK's death or not is frankly irrelevant to your broader (and wilder) claims.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
toblerone3
Grrrrr
Somebody who is actually addressing the original subject of the thread.
I agree with you Paul Marsh underneath all the froth and gossip, conspiracy theories in general are making little headway.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I'd like to point out that not getting the reference to "some people say..." is a bit of an issue too.
That organization you link to above--"9/11 Cultwatch"--is an excellent example of pathological conspiracy denialism.
They mention the advert that Reinvestigate 9/11 put in the Independent, before scoffing:
"Not surprising the Independent ran it - They printed this article (riddled with inaccuracies) by Robert Fisk over two years ago http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-truth-about-911-462904.html"
Now, once you begin to suggest that someone like Robert Fisk is a loonytubes nuttbobbin for saying "Even I Question The Truth About 9/11," it seems to me that you are on very shaky ground indeed. It is at this stage that the conspiracy denialists and the conspiracy theorists begin to look like two sides of the same dialectical coin.
I don't think I'm making any broader or wilder claims. I'm certainly not claiming that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists.
I'm saying that there are conspiracy denialists who are deluded and driven by a psychological predisposition, just as there are conspiracy theorists in the same category.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
What a totally ridiculous claim to make, how does that 'organisation' become 'an excellent example of pathological conspiracy denialism', because one poster has left a comment which refers to an article by Robert Fisk, when the very next post points out 'The advert slipped Fisk's name in, even though his endorsement for the 'truth' movement is hardly deafening'?
That's like suggesting urban75 is a conspiraloon site, because a couple of idiots post ballshit here.
That's not the only reason. The whole site is obsessive, hysterical, swivel-eyed. A perfect mirror in fact of the pro-conspiracy sites it claims to be opposing.
Are you familiar with dialectical logic at all? The way a thesis calls an antithesis into being, the way ostensible opposites interpenetrate and determine each other? This is dialectics in practice.
The skeptics do themselves no favours by always using such aggressive language and coming across like frothing psychopaths. I suspect many of them were the type of kids who were bullied pretty badly at school, and need an easy target to unleash all that pent up anger on. 
editor
hiraethified
So you keep insisting, yet you singularly fail to name any of the 'plentiful' 'conspiracy denialists' here or provide any actual evidence.
All you've done is name two posters who just happen to disagree with your personal opinion on an individual topic.
editor
hiraethified
As ad hominems go, that's second to none. Great job.The skeptics do themselves no favours by always using such aggressive language and coming across like frothing psychopaths. I suspect many of them were the type of kids who were bullied pretty badly at school, and need an easy target to unleash all that pent up anger on.
This site is a good example of what I'm talking about:
http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2009/11/for-vaccination-obsessives.html
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
I see your point there, but up until now you have defined 'conspiracy denialists' as people that deny any possible conspiracy, and there's no evidence to suggest this site does that, so how does it become an example of 'pathological conspiracy denialism.'
Or have you changed your definition now?
Also, there's nothing I can see there suggesting that Robert Fisk is a loonytubes nuttbobbin as you claimed.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Other sites aren't relevant.
BTW I know that you're avoiding my comments, and I know why. I'm not interested enough to chase it for the moment, mind, but might at any opportunity. Just so you know.
Badger Kitten
oof
How about rather than attacking people who don't believe the conspiracy theories, you actually try to defend them, Phil (and others)? Sell them, explain them, prove them.
Oh, you can't.
Oh, you can't.
I've just read back over your last few posts, and I honestly can't see what you're referring to here.
Which ones?
I certainly don't believe in all conspiracy theories. I believe in some of them.
I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I do believe that Robert Maxwell was murdered by the Mossad, for example.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I suppose that means "I have nothing more to say here."
Along with 'several aides and researchers'. Good to know that discussion of 9/11 is freer in the House of Commons than it is on urban75, at least.
Paul Marsh
NeitherWashingtonNorMecca
Phil - you are an idiot.
The 9/11 Cultwatch blog criticises the Reinvestigate 9/11 advert.
A visitor to the blog, who is not a member of the 9/1 Cultwatch team, then adds the comment about Robert Fisk.
http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cul...d-smell-the-coffee-and-reinvestigate-911.html
If you cannot tell the difference between a blogs editorial content and the views of its visitors, what hope is there for the rest of your argument?
- Status
Similar threads
