218 replies to this topic

[lliqerty]

Being called a "truther" is unpleasant because it is intended to hurt the addressee.

This thread is to discuss such terminology.

Also the term "conspiracy theorist" is intended to hurt and to distract from the message by direction the focu on the messenger.
Those who call people conspiracy theorist, or CT for short, deserve to be called "transparency theorist" or TT.

How do you feel about these words being launched at you?

[The New Richard Nixon]

So why are you hiding?

[lliqerty]

The New Richard Nixon, on 07 July 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

So why are you hiding?

Not hiding. I'm right here.

[Habitat]

Has anyone written a book about the psychological basis of conspiracy mania ? Seems overdue if no-one has, sure it depends on paranoia, but there has to be more to it than that, it does seem to tap into a rich vein of alienation in society, the "them and us" phenomenon. Probably the more stratified the society, the more evident it will be.

[lliqerty]

Habitat, on 07 July 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Has anyone written a book about the psychological basis of conspiracy mania ? Seems overdue if no-one has, sure it depends on paranoia, but there has to be more to it than that, it does seem to tap into a rich vein of alienation in society, the "them and us" phenomenon. Probably the more stratified the society, the more evident it will be.

Not sure, but is there one about transparancy theorists? Because they seem to believe the CIA, FBI, Skull & Bones (Bush & Kerry), Black Ops, Military Bidget, Federal Reserve spending are all completely transparant and therefore do not merit something as complicated as opening one's eyes.



Transparancy theorists are an interesting psychological phenomenon.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Not sure, but is there one about transparancy theorists? Because they seem to believe the CIA, FBI, Skull & Bones (Bush & Kerry), Black Ops, Military Bidget, Federal Reserve spending are all completely transparant and therefore do not merit something as complicated as opening one's eyes.


Transparancy theorists are an interesting psychological phenomenon.

And that seems to be an interesting psychological phenomenon, the way that opacity theorists* lump absolutely everything asscociated with the Government in any way together as one great glutinous mass, and seem to consider it all as equally Evil. And always seem to have an inexhaustible supply of Utube videos that prove their argument irrefutably.

* like it?

[lliqerty]

747400, on 07 July 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

And that seems to be an interesting psychological phenomenon, the way that opacity theorists* lump absolutely everything asscociated with the Government in any way together as one great glutinous mass, and seem to consider it all as equally Evil. And always seem to have an inexhaustible supply of Utube videos that prove their argument irrefutably.

* like it?

.... while others dissociated facts to such an extent that everything appears benign. Like, he just took a gun, that does not mean he killed anybody.
He pointed it at the person. No proof the he actually shot.
He pulled the trigger. But maybe there was no bullet.
He gun is still hot. It can have been fired earlier.
The guy is dead. Maybe he died from something else.
He died of a gun shot. Maybe somebody else shot it.
There was nobody else. Maybe he shot himself.
From 20 feet distance. Maybe he sat up a machine to do that.
He cannot removed the machine after he is dead. We do not have video who removed it.

[Babe Ruth]

Habitat, on 07 July 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Has anyone written a book about the psychological basis of conspiracy mania ? Seems overdue if no-one has, sure it depends on paranoia, but there has to be more to it than that, it does seem to tap into a rich vein of alienation in society, the "them and us" phenomenon. Probably the more stratified the society, the more evident it will be.

I have tried several  times to define terms.  Some are interested in definitions, others not so much.

To conspire is common and natural behavior amongst humans.  It is simply planning to act in concert to achieve a certain goal.  An illegal act is implied, and even specifically defined in some cases.

To understand this is not difficult.  In the case of 911, it was clearly a conspiracy, but the only real question is just who the conspirators were.

Contrary to your claim, paranoia is not part of the analysis of any number of acts/conspiracies.  You make it sound like paranoia is required to read a murder novel.

[lliqerty]

Habitat, on 07 July 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Has anyone written a book about the psychological basis of conspiracy mania ? Seems overdue if no-one has, sure it depends on paranoia, but there has to be more to it than that, it does seem to tap into a rich vein of alienation in society, the "them and us" phenomenon. Probably the more stratified the society, the more evident it will be.

That pretty much corresponds to how I used to see Timothy McVeigh. However, you are overlooking, and I was overlooking, the fact that we do not know him personally.

Consider this. He may have been an average guy, who was framed by the FBI or another agency. Just like Oswald was. The truth is, we do not know. We have to make conjecture based on information that is provided to us.

Trust me, in other countries they see action of American public figures and our government very differently because they are being fed different information, whichever is correct. When you see or touch something you know it is true. When you hear it on the news a hundred times in many different ways you believe it is true.

Edited by lliqerty, 07 July 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Habitat]

Babe Ruth, on 07 July 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

I have tried several  times to define terms.  Some are interested in definitions, others not so much.

To conspire is common and natural behavior amongst humans.  It is simply planning to act in concert to achieve a certain goal.  An illegal act is implied, and even specifically defined in some cases.

To understand this is not difficult.  In the case of 911, it was clearly a conspiracy, but the only real question is just who the conspirators were.

Contrary to your claim, paranoia is not part of the analysis of any number of acts/conspiracies.  You make it sound like paranoia is required to read a murder novel.

The paranoia comes in those who see dark dealings behind just about everything that transpires, to be a fan of grand conspiracy theories you first need a very deep distrust of people in general. How else could these deeds be perpetrated, if there was not so many "evil doers" at large ? I suspect the average conspiracy believer is a socially isolated individual with a strong misanthropic streak. The people that peddle these stories for financial gain are something else again.

[Babe Ruth]

I disagree Habitat.

For about 4 years I actually believed (with reservations & questions) the Official Conspiracy Theory.

But the more I studied, the more I realized that the evidence actually contradicted the OCT.

I was not paranoid when I believed the OCT, and I am not paraoid now.  To comprehend how the government behaves does not require paranoia.  It requires simply experience and an open mind.  Skepticism is healthy, and it is not tantamount to paranoia.

[Liquid Gardens]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Being called a "truther" is unpleasant because it is intended to hurt the addressee.

This thread is to discuss such terminology.

Also the term "conspiracy theorist" is intended to hurt and to distract from the message by direction the focu on the messenger.
Those who call people conspiracy theorist, or CT for short, deserve to be called "transparency theorist" or TT.

How do you feel about these words being launched at you?

I guess I disagree with you about the intent of these terms at least how I use them and I don't think there's anything bad inherent in them.  Personally I don't mind words like this being thrown at me as long as they are accurate.  I don't think 'truther' is unpleasant; the only reason it's unpleasant is because of the way people use it; I think if we were to start using some term of your choice that you prefer, it wouldn't take long for someone to use it insultingly and in the same way 'truther' and 'CT' are used now.  We do need a word like this in order to discuss these topics and contrast it with the 'official story', which as noted is also a conspiracy.  I've said it before but I do agree it is not necessarily valid to treat all CTs as if they are equal, or to take the more ridiculous CTs and attribute them to all truthers.  I have seen an issue where 'CT' is used both for the 'theory' and 'theorists', which can be confusing.  And is 'truther' actually a subset of CTs who believe only certain things?  I'm not sure, I just use 'CT' for all theories that differ from the 'official one'.

Regardless, what do you propose as alternatives?  We need a word to describe the theories that differ from the OCT, and  a word for the people that believe them. (and a word for the 'official story' if you don't like 'OCT')

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 07 July 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

I was not paranoid when I believed the OCT, and I am not paraoid now.  To comprehend how the government behaves does not require paranoia.  It requires simply experience and an open mind.  Skepticism is healthy, and it is not tantamount to paranoia.

I agree with you for once, BR; skepticism is very healthy, but it has to be applied to your own beliefs first.  I can't honestly say that I've seen you being very skeptical of what you believe though unfortunately, you seem to reach a point with the back and forth debate where you just stop and seemingly ignore points being made to you in rebuttal, and there are few things less skeptical than refusing to provide convincing explanations for the other evidence that conflicts with your position.  The validity of your positions rely on, depend on, and are only justified by your ability to satisfactorily address all the evidence.  You maintain the exact opposite opinion concerning this component of skepticism:  that evidence that was explained by the OCT that now demands an explanation if your theory is correct, for example that UA93 didn't crash in Shanksville, does not need to be addressed.  "Maybe the passengers are in the Witness Protection Program, I don't know, it's not really important" is not what I call being skeptical of your position.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

[Babe Ruth]

And I agree with your points too LG.  I do not object to being called a truther, and can poke fun at myself by changing the word to 'troofer' just for grins.  There must be something to lighten up a pretty depressing subject.

As for my own skepticism, I practice it.  What you might not quite realize is that for about 4 years (with questions & reservations), I essentially defended the OCT.  On various fora in the cyber world, including NYT fora when they had them, I defended the official story.

But as time went on, and perhaps because I was put on beta-blockers for blood pressure, I eventually came to realize that defending the OCT was actually pretty tough, because all the evidence worked against the OCT, and parts of the story were quite preposterous.

I understand full well that there are all sorts of crazy claims and theories out there, and I am skeptical of any and all.  That is why I confine myself to the simple position that the OCT is a damn lie.  I do not offer any other theory without a plain statement that it is speculation.

That is, I don't know exactly what happened, but it's pretty damn obvious what DID NOT HAPPEN.

[rashore]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Being called a "truther" is unpleasant because it is intended to hurt the addressee.

This thread is to discuss such terminology.

Also the term "conspiracy theorist" is intended to hurt and to distract from the message by direction the focu on the messenger.
Those who call people conspiracy theorist, or CT for short, deserve to be called "transparency theorist" or TT.

How do you feel about these words being launched at you?

I dunno.. some people call themselves truthers, and I'm pretty sure they don't mean it to hurt themselves. I've even known a couple CTs that call themselves that too, but it's rather rare.
But I get what you are saying I think. You feel that more often than not those terms are used to be unpleasant. And yeah, some people do use them that way. But not everyone does.

I'm not really a truther, so I guess I would be a TT... And I really wouldn't give a fig if anyone called me that. I've been called several political names too in derisive tone, and meh, whatever.