Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 12 Jul 2013 22:03 #1

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 16704
  • Likes received: 7887
New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
July 12, 2013

Source: Phantom Report

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”

Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled“Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:

“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”

But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.

No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

www.blacklistednews.com/New_studies%3A_%E2%80%98Conspiracy_theorists%E2%80%99_sane%3B_government_dupes_crazy%2C_hostile/27293/0/38/38/Y/M.html
He who is without oil shall throw the first rod.
- Compressions 13.3:1
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Hexhammer

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 12 Jul 2013 22:11 #2

Not the first time a conspiracy outlet has used "establishment propaganda" when it suits them, is this interest in what Universities are saying about CT's extended to critical studies with negative conclusion about the mental state of conspiracy theorists?

Or are they establishment propaganda because they don't confirm your beliefs?

Anyway Right Wing Reactionary as a term encompasses CTer, you won't find a single CTer who isn't a right wing reactionary.
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 12 Jul 2013 22:16 #3

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 16704
  • Likes received: 7887
Makes me smile when all the bikers and outlaws in Australia know the politicians are pretty much full of shit, a bunch of lawyers working for the richest families and most powerful corporations on the planet.

If thats labelled a conspiracy, what i said about Canberra, then so be it.

And I think the amount of people thinking along these lines is growing.
He who is without oil shall throw the first rod.
- Compressions 13.3:1
Last Edit: 12 Jul 2013 23:01 by novum.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 12 Jul 2013 23:31 #4

Yeah it will why do you think that is mate?

If you are on sanctum look in the case files to some of my old topics, you will notice this period in history closely parallels the Great Depression, the Material conditions that gave rise to fascism, during radical social changes conspiracy theories become popular, during economic depression conspiracy theories about Jews become popular..

The Biker gangs are fascists aren''t they?

Do they fight for aboriginal land rights or sell heroin to aboriginals>?
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 12 Jul 2013 23:47 #5

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.
This level of duplicity and reductionism really impedes clear cognitive function, it's an attempted inversion of reality..

In the past every cter I've argued with, specifically those on SZ suffer from confirmation bias, they uncritically adopt anything that confirms their position and this is another example, the article is terrible, little additions like the CIA bit, it's an inversion of the reality, you know who the best selling CT authors are in the US?
THey are religious nuts like Pat Robertson and in the past they were Reactionary Fascists like Edith Roosevelt, search the past Conspiracy theories about the Jews just like we're hearing now from Icke pop up every now and again, the Hoover Institute for War and Peace and various Universities propagated anti-communist and labor breaking CT's in various times during the 19th centry.
REDUCTIONISM:
1.
the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.
2.
the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the like, especially to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it.
The dialectic CT vs anti-CT is worthless, a false dichotomy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I am Uber CT, UltiCTer more CTer than Icke could conceive of, I blend Post modernism, political theory, revolutionary praxis and suspicious paranoia..™
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Last Edit: 12 Jul 2013 23:49 by Ultimate Seeker ™.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 12 Jul 2013 23:49 #6

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 16704
  • Likes received: 7887
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
Yeah it will why do you think that is mate?

Because the corporations and the politicians that work for them are pushing harder than ever to take more and more and leave people with less, :cool:

People fell for the whole 'democracy' deal for a while but it hasnt been very long, its a mere blip on the timeline.. now more and more people see it as a corporate revenue collection mechansim.

You infer that it is because of hard times, and I can see that, yes. But its far more complex than that from where im sitting, more to it than that. Im not going to sit here and tell them what i see. :chuckle: Im just going to sit back and observe initiatives such as "Australia Works" and the "Henry Jackson Initiative" and see how that all works out for them. :thumbup:

Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
The Biker gangs are fascists aren''t they?

Any more than governments?

The biker gangs know that politicians are lawyers who serve corporations and the crown. And themselves of course. Labels dont bother them, they get that a lot. They harm far less people than governments and they know it.

Since weve gone there, I dont see Finks or Hells Angels in Iraq or Libya plundering other peoples oil fields and other resources, and taking taxpayers money to give to Raytheon and Lockheed martin to make that happen.

They also dont stand over citzens and demand thousands of dollars from them for services that cost far less to provide (this is corporate profit) , then threaten them with asset confiscation or jail if they dont comply.
He who is without oil shall throw the first rod.
- Compressions 13.3:1
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 12 Jul 2013 23:55 #7

"Any more than governments?"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hells_Angels_MC_criminal_allegations_and_incidents

bla bla bla you're just standing on a soapbox spewing your bile about how bad the government is, no way I'm going to engage somebody that hard headed.
You infer that it is because of hard times, and I can see that, yes. But its far more complex than that from where im sitting, more to it than that. Im not going to sit here and tell them what i see.
are they reading your messages?
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 00:12 #8

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 16704
  • Likes received: 7887
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
"Any more than governments?"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hells_Angels_MC_criminal_allegations_and_incidents

bla bla bla you're just standing on a soapbox spewing your bile about how bad the government is, no way I'm going to engage somebody that hard headed.

I didnt use the word 'bad' .

Whats that link supposed to show, some bikers shooting a few people or something? Was it bikers taking part in WW1 , 2, the middle east conflicts etc etc or was it governments. :larf:

Was it Hells Angels who invaded Afghanistan?

Oh and btw did the petrol prices go up or down for western citizens since iraq and libya were 'liberated' for example.


Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
are they reading your messages?

Not necessarily but sometimes I like to keep my thoughts (and others thoughts) to myself. :larf:

Ive been known to piss some important people off in the past though, and they have let me know, and yes they were reading. I dont need to prove anything here, including my sanity :larf: ... it wont change what is happenning. :cool2:
He who is without oil shall throw the first rod.
- Compressions 13.3:1
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 00:23 #9

Reductio ad absurdem.
Was it Hells Angels who invaded Afghanistan?
Was it bikers taking part in WW1 , 2, the middle east conflicts etc etc or was it governments.
Oh and btw did the petrol prices go up or down for western citizens since iraq and libya were 'liberated' for example.
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 00:25 #10

So already we've encountered 2 logical fallacies from the CT position and countless logical errors and sheer absurdist anti intellectual opinion.

The link on Wiki shows how great your friends the Hell's arseholes are.

I'll leave it there for now, hopefully John Drake will catch this topic when he next visits the board. :up:
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Last Edit: 13 Jul 2013 00:29 by Ultimate Seeker ™.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 00:38 #11

fuckit one more as I just seen this:

This is I believe Iranian National television narrative of current affairs, you'll notice islamic extremist narrative closely paralleling western conspiracist narrative of current events, you may be interested to also look into the history of the kind of Western governments that backed Pan Arab Nationalism as many CTers seem to unconsciously be aligned towards Arab dictatorships that favour that approach to regional affairs and inevitable sectarian war that implies..
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Last Edit: 13 Jul 2013 00:39 by Ultimate Seeker ™.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 00:39 #12

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 16704
  • Likes received: 7887
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
Reductio ad absurdem.

People notice who is reducing the size of their wallets man. :thumbup:

And it aint bikers. :larf:
He who is without oil shall throw the first rod.
- Compressions 13.3:1
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 00:51 #13

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 16704
  • Likes received: 7887
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
The link on Wiki shows how great your friends the Hell's arseholes are.

Yeah the link shows what everyone already knows, that bikers fight, a few people get shot now and again.... and governments and corporations fight for power also. The spill over and knock on effects are much much much smaller though when bikers and underworld have wars. :larf:

Not my friends either, you said that not me. :thumbup:
He who is without oil shall throw the first rod.
- Compressions 13.3:1
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 00:56 #14

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 16704
  • Likes received: 7887
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
So already we've encountered 2 logical fallacies from the CT position and countless logical errors and sheer absurdist anti intellectual opinion.

If growing numbers of people are thinking that politicians are full of shit, and that is deemed anti-intellectual... and they are labelled conspiracy theorists, then thats the crowns problem not mine. :thumbup:

Perhaps they can keep cutting interest rates as a reaction to an ever increasing number of employers and entrepanuers thinking along these lines, after the fact, like they have been for a year and a half. :killinme:

Again, their problem, not mine. :coffee:
He who is without oil shall throw the first rod.
- Compressions 13.3:1
Last Edit: 13 Jul 2013 01:28 by novum.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 23:35 #15

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
novum wrote:
If growing numbers of people are thinking that politicians are full of shit, and that is deemed anti-intellectual... and they are labelled conspiracy theorists, then thats the crowns problem not mine. :thumbup:

I don't think that is about conspiracy theories though. I know a bunch of community activists, anarchists and Marxists who despise the govt and actively campaign to that end who couldn't give a flying fuck about conspiracy theories, including 911 theories, JFK theories or whatever else. Conspiracy theorists have had a tendency to portray themselves as 'the resistance', ignoring the blatant fact that there are many politically motivated people who simply do not care about their standard preoccupations.

The article unfortunately falls into some usual habits of conspiracy theorists. For example, it seems to believe a study (Wood & Douglas) about what people say regarding a subject is somehow bolstering the credibility of what they say. That is deeply logically flawed.

Like take this
Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Yeah. And. So. What.
That says nothing whatsoever about the validity of the claims.
It also ignores possible reasons. Like I've seen countless occasions when a 'conspiracy swarm' has descended on relevant topics. Because truthers tend to be highly motivated to post voluminously on various sites and there has always seemed to have been a lower number of committed debunkers. Most people out there simply aren't arsed. or do not post in internet comments sections.
To suggest such a narrow focus represents public opinion is idiotic.

However, polls (a better source of widespread opinion) have actually shown reasonably high levels of belief in conspiracy theories. Conspiracists never seem to ask themselves why that doesn't seem to make a difference to anything, why the govt doesn't seem to really care and why it follows that they their theories are therefore more likely to be true.
IMO all it really means is people with a healthy distrust of govt waste their time on endless (mostly 100% armchair) theories that have gone nowhere and will continue to go nowhere about an event that ceases in its direct relevance with every passing year while labouring under the illusion this will somehow precipitate social change.

When it says
The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

It glosses over a serious problem in 911 (and other) theories Wood and Douglas observe (they couldn't miss it. This has been apparent for years)
Most notably, and in accordance with the idea that opposition to officialdom is a major component of the conspiracist belief system, conspiracy advocates showed a tendency to spend much more time arguing against the official explanation of 9/11 than advocating an alternative. Conspiracy opponents showed the opposite pattern, advocating their own explanation more than they argued against the opposing one. This pattern of results supports the idea that conspiracy theories have their basis more in opposition to officialdom than in beliefs in specific alternative theories (Dean, 2002; Wood et al., 2012). For the adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement examined here, the search for truth consists mostly of finding ways in which the official story cannot be true. There is much less of a focus on defending coherent explanations that can better account for the available evidence. However, conspiracists were more likely to provide direct explanations for the events of 9/11 than their conventionalist counterparts were—for instance, it was more common to see a comment saying “9/11 was an inside job” or “WTC7 was demolished” than “9/11 was done by terrorists” or “WTC7 collapsed because of fires and structural damage.” This seems like a paradoxical pattern, but conspiracist comments often simply stated that 9/11 was an inside job as a sort of slogan without much to support it. Many other comments took the form “the official story is impossible, therefore 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy.” For instance, one representative comment from a CNN article read, “Inside Job 9/11! If it was a real terrorist attack U.S. military would have blew up the planes while in the air before they could hit any population area!” Furthermore, many of the news articles on which the comments appeared featured the official explanation of 9/11 in some detail, meaning that it may have been less necessary for conventionalists to summarize the conventional account themselves.
www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full

The article rather mendaciously transforms a deep flaw in conspiracist thinking into somehow being a positive. After in excess of a decade, 911 theorists have NOTHING to present as a plausible alternative scenario. A standard deep problem in conspiracist thinking remains if I can think of enough supposed holes in the official story, then what I think. must be true by default.

The rational way to explain events is to present the explanation that best fits all available information, and tghat information must itself be subjected to to a process of rational examination, not trying to find 'facts' that fit one's belief system.

The article also shows a pretty typical conspiracist tactic of shoving together irrelevant factoids and pretending they mean shit.
a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true.

Why does this present any sort of critique to the standard account?
- It seems it has never been properly substantiated Bin Laden was on dialysis and even if he was so what? He did not 'direct' 911 like he was in a Dr Strangelove type war room controlling events, the hijackers were just told the gig was on and off they went. Bin Ladin could have died the moment the operation was launched and it would have made no difference Nor was Bin Ladin in a cave at that point, like that also has any relevance.
It is also very much a part of the standard account that the hijackers were poor pilots. They didn't need to be great pilots. They just had to reach their targets and crash into them.

The standard account is not indisputably true. It's just that nobody has yet come up with a better one. Or even a vaguely plausible one that fits all the available information and doesn't rely on huge leaps of imagination.
No War But The Class War
Last Edit: 13 Jul 2013 23:36 by Chuck Random.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: novum, cantata, Ultimate Seeker ™

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 23:45 #16

Wow epic post, one error I noticed:
However, polls (a better source of widespread opinion) have actually shown reasonably high levels of belief in conspiracy theories. Conspiracists never seem to ask themselves why that doesn't seem to make a difference to anything, why the govt doesn't seem to really care and why it follows that they * their theories are therefore more likely to be true.

I think *believe though i'm not sure.

Great post, really thorough critique of what really is a rather poor article.
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 23:48 #17

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
Anyway Right Wing Reactionary as a term encompasses CTer, you won't find a single CTer who isn't a right wing reactionary.

I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement that can't stand up. Though I guess it depends on your definition of right wing reactiony. Like WUB on SZ is a fairly standard CTer, but seems quite left wing. But you might see him as a reactionary, I dunno.
I think leftists can be blinded by CTs in their own opposition stance. I think Thiery Meyssen (sp?) is perhaps one of those guys.

But I think it's fair to say that right wing reactionary thought is at the core of a lot of it.

Have you read Eric Hofstadter's 1964 essay "The paranoid style in American politics"? I think you'd enjoy it. Here's the wiki entry to give you an idea.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics
No War But The Class War
Last Edit: 13 Jul 2013 23:55 by Chuck Random.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Ultimate Seeker ™

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 13 Jul 2013 23:51 #18

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
Wow epic post, one error I noticed:
However, polls (a better source of widespread opinion) have actually shown reasonably high levels of belief in conspiracy theories. Conspiracists never seem to ask themselves why that doesn't seem to make a difference to anything, why the govt doesn't seem to really care and why it follows that they * their theories are therefore more likely to be true.

I think *believe though i'm not sure.

Great post, really thorough critique of what really is a rather poor article.

Oh sorry. that "they" is there for no reason. :emb:
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 14 Jul 2013 00:03 #19

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Oh, forgot to mention, Wood and Douglas seem to miss a trick here -
A fairly recent development in the field has been an acknowledgement that in addition to trait-like variables and transient psychological states, ideologies and broad belief systems play a substantial role in conspiracy theory belief. For example, in an examination of conspiracy theories regarding an alleged cover-up of the divinity of Mary Magdalene and the bloodline of Christ, Newheiser et al. (2011) demonstrated that the plausibility of these theories hinged largely on broader beliefs about the world. People with traditional Christian beliefs were likely to reject such theories out of hand, while those with a more New Age approach were much more receptive. In a similar vein, Lewandowsky et al. (2013b) demonstrated that rejection of climate science (though not explicitly conspiracist) is determined in part by ideological concerns, with libertarian free-market ideology, apparently predisposing people to believe that anthropogenic global warming is an unscientific hoax. It is clear, then, that individual conspiracy theories or related counter-normative explanations can seem more or less likely depending on how they comport with other beliefs held by the audience.

This may well be true, but why do people who do not share these ideologies still believe these theories? You get plenty of non-Christians believing 'the elite' are Luciferians, and plenty of people who criticise capitalist free market ideology supporting capitalist free market ideology driven climate change denial.

They acknowledge it's not a given, but I think that the question of why people support theories arising from antithetical ideologies is more interesting than observing the kind of trend you'd expect anyway.
No War But The Class War
Last Edit: 14 Jul 2013 00:05 by Chuck Random.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: cantata

Those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events 14 Jul 2013 00:24 #20

Chuck Random wrote:
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
Anyway Right Wing Reactionary as a term encompasses CTer, you won't find a single CTer who isn't a right wing reactionary.

I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement that can't stand up. Though I guess it depends on your definition of right wing reactiony. Like WUB on SZ is a fairly standard CTer, but seems quite left wing. But you might see him as a reactionary, I dunno.
I think leftists can be blinded by CTs in their own opposition stance. I think Thiery Meyssen (sp?) is perhaps one of those guys.

But I think it's fair to say that right wing reactionary thought is at the core of a lot of it.

Have you read Eric Hofstadter's 1964 essay "The paranoid style in American politics"? I think you'd enjoy it. Here's the wiki entry to give you an idea.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics
Thanks I'll definitely give that a read, WUB copy pasted an article by a friend of his a few months ago I read before being banned, some excerpts;
However, a child born in the modern, ‘progressive’ world is overwhelmingly more likely to: have an unstable childhood, live in a single-parent family, develop emotional problems, underachieve at school, abuse drugs and alcohol, self-harm, become eating disordered, contract STDs, have an abortion or use prostitutes, fall into crime or poverty, never marry or get divorced, become a single-parent, experience clinical depression, and end up living alone, than they are to live a happy and fulfilled life.

So, in the end, there is no ‘mental illness’ – for women, men, or children. There is just a sick society of twisted, tortured individuals who are suffering terribly and perilously. This is a fairly bleak diagnosis of our society, but that is not the same as a bleak diagnosis of the people in it. The society is sick, terminally so, and needs complete and fundamental reconstruction if it is ever to recover – and the more people that begin to understand this, and understand the true causes of their unhappiness, the more scope and likelihood there is for this change. What exact shape that change needs to take is not entirely clear, but as one thinker put it:
By returning to traditional values, we escape prostituting ourselves to money, career and television. We give up the globalist lifestyle and determine our own destiny. We refuse to give up our freedom. You can sense it lingering in the air: the slow but growing resistance against our modern way of life and its tedious, stupid and corrupt side-effects.

I can't find the original article at present and don't remember the original post, he said it was by a female friend of his, I think I C&P'd this bit into a notepad file previously was because to me it summarized quite concisely the basic ideology of CTers in general...ask a CTer about the UN ;)

Great quote selection Chuck, is post #19 from the Original research the article in the OP was about?
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Last Edit: 14 Jul 2013 00:26 by Ultimate Seeker ™.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 270 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 100 - Raised
( £ 80 GBP )
donation thermometer
29%
Updated
31st May 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.