Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Let's Get To The Bottom Of This Crap About "Conspiracy Theory!"

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 12, 2012, 1:26 a.m. EST by GypsyKing (8708)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A conspiracy is what happens when two or more people get together to achieve a goal. To say that "conspiracy theory" is automatically crazy, is crazy. It is to argue that nobody has ever gotten together collectively to achieve an agenda. Those who cry "conspiracy theory" whenever a subject is touched upon that they don't want to see toughed upon are suspect. This is an effort to put certain subjects "beyond the bounds of thinkable thought."

Please keep this in mind the next time somebody screams - CONSPIRACY THEORY!

282 Comments

282 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 21 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

My friend and I create a plan to break the neighbor’s window (or invade Iraq). That means we “conspired” to break the window. The act of conspiring to commit a crime is a crime on its own.

So me and my friend break the window as a black car drives by (or bring the towers down) and get away semi-clean. We pretend to be witnesses that saw somebody in a black car drive by and throw the rock through the window. The fact that the rock is the same as those only my front yard and the trajectory could have only came from my house is not proof that we did it

Those neighbors that came out and saw us standing there and accuse us without having absolute proof are nothing more than "conspiracy theorist". They should be publicly and systematically dismissed as wackos?

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

If you look at the definition, it does not imply that conspiracy theories are wrong.

Conspiracy Theory

Noun

  1. A theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
  2. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

Nothing in the definition says that it is a theory that is false.

[-] 2 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

Calling somebody who challenges the propagated version of a story a “conspiracy theorist” is a good way to discredit their point of view and discourage others from entertaining it.

There are a few people on this site that don’t want anybody to have the opportunity to hear points of view other than the officially blessed propagated point of view

Here’s another definition Colloquially, a conspiracy theory is any unconventional theory about current or historical events, with the connotation that that theory is unfounded, outlandish, or irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration. In this sense, the term is sometimes used to refer to events with which no association to an actual "conspiracy" in the legal sense (two or more persons plotting and one overt act related to the plot) is claimed. In this sense "conspiracy theory" is often simply an allegation of clandestine action, based on little or no solid evidence. Thus the expression "conspiracy theory" in common speech is often used as a term of derision for an allegation that the speaker considers unproven, unlikely, or false. Conspiracy theories in general allege that some particular event — such as an assassination, a revolution, or even the failure of a product — resulted not solely from the visible action of overt political or market forces, but rather from intentional covert action.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

This is true Joe.

When the cause of something is not known for sure we develop one or more theories which are based on an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.

When someone has a theory that a group conspired to cause something, usually covertly, we call that a conspiracy theory.

Sometimes a person or group wants to believe a theory is valid even though it is contrary to what evidence shows. That person will attempt to discredit any evidence shown to them. They will often use facts but misapply them to the situation.

A good example of this is someone who says that the WTC should not have collapsed because steel melts at 1370 deg C and jet fuel burns at 700 deg C. They leave out the facts that the steel does not have to melt to lose structural integrity and that 30% of the columns were taken out in the impact.

When people believe that many things are the results of conspiracies and even try to tie them together as co conspiracies I generally believe them to be a “conspiracy theorist”.

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

So I have to assume that you think the 1000 or so structural engineers that claim it is physical impossible for a steel structure to come down like the tower and bldg #7 have got together and conspired to make up this story that they all have openly signed on to.

So why do you believe those conspiracy theorist would do that?

Even though there are things that seem odd about 911, I don’t think about it much. The thing that bothers me is when people try to block other people from sharing an alternate point of view. We have free speech in this country; I become suspicious when people blatantly try to suppress it. Who would have an interested in not letting people entertain another version that might have some merit.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

I am not aware of "1000 or so structural engineers that claim it is physical impossible for a steel structure to come down like the tower and bldg #7."

I am an engineer myself and I understand how it could and did come down. I am sitting in a steel mill as I am typing this. There is a metallurgist in the room next to me. Next to that is a lab with ultrasonic testing, tensile strength testing, eddy current, digital x-ray...

Trust me I know a little about steel and structural engineering.

[-] 0 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

Wow this is a dream come true. Explain how all that steel could disintegrate and come in its own footprint like it did. Explain how Bldg #7 could come down without even being hit.

This is great! Bldg #7 is the first and last building to ever come down like that. Thank god we will all learn exactly how that happened and design future Bldgs. that won’t do that. You sir can lay this whole conspiracy thing to rest. I await you reply

BTW what steel mill are you in. I thought they were all gone

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

It is actually pretty complicated and would be difficult to explain in a blog.

There are a few articles out there. Here are a few from the Minerals, Metals, & Materials Society.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html

There are some other articles however you need to be a member of TMS to view them.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 10 years ago

Are you aware that FEMA lied about the core structure? It was not steel columns, it was a rectangular concrete tube.

Steel flexes too much for that footprint and height.

[+] -7 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Calling somebody who challenges the propagated version of a story a “conspiracy theorist” is a good way to discredit their point of view and discourage others from entertaining it.

That is an ad hominem. It doesn't discredit much at all and can easily be countered by turning around like a ninja and suddenly slapping of bunch of solid evidence right in the middle of the forum. Bam!

Of course, that never happens. Conspiracy theorists never have evidence, only ludicrous claims built upon mountains of assumptions.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Reread the definitions. Hint: There are words and expressions like "belief" that indicate these definitions are not about science, but about pseudoscience.

And, you say it yourself.

Calling somebody who challenges the propagated version of a story a “conspiracy theorist” is a good way to discredit their point of view and discourage others from entertaining it.

If the expression "conspiracy theory" did not mean a pseudoscience in common speech, then people would not be offended, discredited, or otherwise tainted when others call their theory a "conspiracy theory". The fact of the matter is this expression refers to a theory that is not based on science, but on pseudoscience. Everybody knows that, including you, and, especially, including the conspiracy theorists on this site who go nuts when anyone calls them a conspiracy theorist.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 12 years ago

Depends, it is up to them to bring in proof at some point. You yourself have provided some evidence to support their claim. One thing common in most cases where Conspiracy theory or theorist are applied is that there is an accepted version of events with proof already established.

In your example it might be that you and your friend were convicted of the crime and your mom proposes the conspiracy that agents in the black car set you up.

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

Oh yeah I know what you mean. That happened to Clinton and OJ

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

do you mean possible impeachment and sperm-on-skirt story?

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

Yeah they both said they were set up.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

very nicely done!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

When the rulers of a society break the trust of the citizens than "conspiracy theories" are inevitable. If the rulers break that trust and then tell us that "conspiracy theories" are insane, then they have not only broken your trust, they're also messing with your mind.

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

That's as true as it gets.

I wonder what the motivation is for some of the people on this site.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

I wouldn't say that, but that is where it usually heads

here's a for instance:

1) It can be logically assumed that the GOP conspires to enrich themselves and their friends

This would be a non-wacko theory, but usually it devolves to this:

2) The GOP leadership are reptilians that conspire with the illuminati to resurrect a gay hitler

This theory would be from the atypical wacko groups, wherein lies the problem with most conspiracy theories

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

I think conspiracy theories can be distinguished by being implausible.

It's entirely plausible that the GOP and their friends are greedy. Therefore, Item 1) is not a conspiracy theory.

A good conspiracy theory mixes some fact with made up stuff.

2) The GOP leadership are reptilians is true, but the rest, not so much. Pretty implausible.

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

So you don't think the GOP leadership is reptilians. You apparently think Ike is a wacko. LOL

You have defined the extremities, but there is a bunch of things in the middle that raise valid questions

The thing I see happening is people trying to lump intelligent rational people that challenge a propagated story using valid points being lumped into the Icke group. The logic is; See they are all the same them “conspiracy theorist” we don’t want you hearing what they have to say. You are not smart enough to believe the right things, so we will make them go away.

I agree there are some paranoid wack jobs out there making false assertions and allegation. They seem to come from the extremities of the left and right. The part that bothers me is when they are repeating what they heard on the corporate media and not ever questioning. The lead up to Iraq – perfect example.

[-] 1 points by Thrive (29) 12 years ago

There should be a new term that relabels conspiracy theorists to conspiracy "observationists". The words conspiracy theorists is of course a term that has been coined and beat the masses over their heads with, by the very people who want to thwart our attention away from the fact that they are indeed conspiring. Mass indoctrination....and they did a damn good job of it too.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

Those neighbors would be witnesses to a crime. Whether they witnessed the actual crime or not, it is information they have that will be useful in determining what happened, if it is ever fully determined.

Now, if another neighbor shows up while the police are at the scene to claim that the rock likely came from a quarry that is partially owned by a holding company that George Soros is possibly invested in and that nobody can prove that the window was not produced at the last Bilderberger meeting at the behest of Van Jones with the financial backing of the Rothchilds, then I think it's fair to say that police should tell the second neighbor to shut the fuck up while they figure out what actually happened.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

you don't live next to glen beck do you?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

I would have to agree.

But if other neighbors were sitting in a garage across street from the crime scene and said we saw the rock hit the window and that there was no black car so they are lying, their story don’t hold up. Should they be welcomed as a witness or be treated as conspiracy theorist

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

With 2 contradictory statements from witnesses, (one saw black car and the other witnessed a complete lack of black car) you've established that one party is guilty of giving false information to police. This could be considered a good lead to figuring out how to proceed and determine the guilty party.

You need to take measured steps in reporting what every witness DID claim to witness.

What you've described seems like a fair metaphor for Republicans and Democrats claiming a conspiracy on the other side(happens all the time). But when I hear all about the Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, etc. conspiracy theorists, that's when my hypothetical batshit crazy neighbor determining alleged links (but without claiming to witness anything) comes into play.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

what happen with combat team who terminate Osama? hm? can we able to ask them any questions? - No. why? because helicopter with crew in it was destroyed. i agree with you. there is no evidence whatsoever. So it is just a theory, because video tapes can not be the evidence.

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

Well they can just look at the body. Oops just remembered it was buried at sea. Didn't want to offend the other terrorist they said.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

that is the point. there is no body. and marines those who filmed those operation for Obama and Hillary no longer alive, do you got that?

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 12 years ago

Not true. Members of Seal Team 6 died in a helo crash, but it didn't wipe out the Osama assault team.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

shhh. now i get it, which direction you driving at. way long before the actual news been released =)

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

I do get that. I think they would fake his death if he was already dead but I can't wrap my head around them killing the marines.

[-] 7 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

It would be fair to suggest that corporate-owned media has created several conspiracy theories about the #ows movement. Primarily that there is no cohesion, no list of demands, no leadership, and no hope of attaining any lasting change by protesting.

Sadly, a majority of the population, now conditioned to believe what they read, see, and hear in the MSM, believe these conspiracies.

This raises the question; is it still a conspiracy theory when it is instigated by either the government themselves (weapons of mass destruction et al), or corporate-controlled mass media?

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

No, it's a conspiracy theory when people point it out.

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Making a suggestion is not making a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are much more than suggestions, they are claims that some truth was uncovered using research. Honest suggestions are hypothesis and don't claim to be the truth at all. They precede investigation. They are a hunch, nothing more than an opinion.

You're confused about the proper meaning of many English words and expressions and this renders many of your posts as being flawed statements that fall far from the mark. I suggest you buy a dictionary, and take a class in English reading comprehension. Your local college should have more information. Go and grab a pamphlet.

[+] -7 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Not necessarily. It depends how these people point it out.

If they use solid research methods to arrive at their claims, then it would be called investigative journalism or historical analysis if the case is old.

If they use pseudoscience and arrive at their claims by using a mountain of assumptions, then it would be called a conspiracy theory.

Google and dictionaries are your friends. Use these tools.

[+] -6 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

With apologies to Glenn Beck, an OWS conspiracy theory would be "George Soros and the 1960's activists working through the Obama administration are trying to trigger their socialist revolution by exploiting the 2008 shock and the tools of the Arab Spring." There was probably a reference to the Nazi's I missed, there always is, but I couldn't figure out how to get it in there ;o)

[Removed]

[+] -7 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

The idea of a leaderless protest which makes no demands was advanced by OWS itself. The ideas of OWS not having cohesion and of having no hope of attaining any lasting change are most likely the results of propaganda efforts by those who want to tarnish the protest's reputation.

[+] -9 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

The idea of a leaderless protest which makes no demands was advanced by OWS itself. The ideas of OWS not having cohesion and of having no hope of attaining any lasting change are most likely the results of propaganda efforts by those who want to tarnish the protest's reputation.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 12 years ago

Conspiracy is what most of us fear has happened. Theory is the hope it hasn't.

[-] 6 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

it is a conspiracy to point out that it was 16 saudi arabians that flew planes into bldgs, and presidents waged illegal wars for nearly a decade now in countries that didnt have anything to do with those saudi arabians. Preemptive strike? what the hell is that, lets preempt china if that is sound logic. remember our president can only send troups for 60 days without congress declaring war. Funny I dont remember us declaring war on anyone. BRAINWASHING at its finest.

heres another point they wanted to give banks billions of dollars, to prevent a colllapse, yet the banks all they did is foreclose on the unfortunate people in our society. how is this not a conspiracy, to say the least? I cant beleive this happened, i believe that you people inherited the idiot gene, i wash my hands of these actions. We are not united in the united states, and I am not an american, though in God I trust, not my countrymen!

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

I think there were only 12 Saudis and some Yemen’s or whatever. After reading your post, I had to sit here and grin to myself a few moments. Hopefully you have spoken for the silent majority. I know everybody in my circle of friends (not the FOXites) sound just like you. Good post maybe there are some questioning and logic people left in the USA

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

i watching movie Ed Wood 1994. right on 9:35 min what we see? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJiJjFcGVdw the story opens on this mysterious explosions. Nobody know what causing them, but it upsetting all the buffalo. And then next clip the final. go to 9.35 min. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=170mAHJj2L4

Why is this so mysterious? because those particular planes had navigation system which can be programmed in good time. never ever in world history buildings were destroyed if it stroke by plane

[-] 6 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Article 5 convention NOW!

Misrepresenting or attempting to diminish conspiracy facts regarding treason against the USA, is working to conceal treason.

Attemping to diminish the force and effect of the US Constitution as law, when Americans are working to unify in using it to defend the constitution from domestic enemies is "giving comfort and aid to the enemy".

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

Are you trying to describe some of the poster/imposters on this site?

You did it, rather by accident or not.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Yes . . . and . . . yes, here's one now.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-want-to-occupy-the-military/#comment-586304

I made a page about this act that just replied in that thread. I've see this act before.

http://algoxy.com/ows/owsforuminfiltrators.html

When it does not identify me on the site it copies and pastes my text into; to attempt to diminish the value of strategy of defense for the constitution through Article 5 by preparation; to remove medias stranglehold on the truth by revising the first amendment, so that democracy, needing truth to make good decisions can form accurate opinion; when Article 5 is the ultimate potential for democracy in the U.S.A; then he shows he is afraid to popularize my identity while bashing the tool for defense of the Constitution.

That is so because I am outspoken with very serious needs for immediate and thorough defense of our Constitution. I assert a specific infiltration into the U.S.A government that has been going on since the civil war. If this infiltrator was working to protect that, why would it help me? Consistent with my assertion, It doesn't.

If he was just a troll and not an infiltrator of our social activist groups the infiltrator would be working to smear me like I am it. The infiltrator cannot without helping me.

Article 5 convention NOW!

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

When you question the motives of some of these people, they only come up with bullshit answers that nobody would believe.

When you look at the 24/7 presence of these people you have to wonder. What is in it for them? What would they call a win? Are they just bored and lonely. Is this their life now? Are they patriotic and protecting America from whatever? What is it? What is the answer?

It’s as if you asked them what the Republicans job plan is.
They got nothing!

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Correct, their position is only for non functional, useless information or against useful information and action.

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 12 years ago

Well stated!

[-] 5 points by Budcm (208) 12 years ago

Brainwashed!

Did you ever have the feeling that you were being brainwashed? You know what I mean; led to believe that something is true that probably isn't.

All my life I have believed, and was raised to believe, that hard work and lots of it was a key to success. Following that path would give one's life the only real meaning. The hard worker was the person to admire in my day. I wonder when all changed?

The other day I was watching television. Almost every one of the programs on the air did not have the hard worker as the hero. No, it was the guy that was working for the government that was portrayed as the hero. I thought it was just coincidence but the more I searched the more programs I found were exactly the same; the guy who was taking the government paycheck was portrayed as the superhero. Nowhere did I find the hourly wage earner, the fisherman, the woods worker, the automobile mechanic or any other of the private-sector workers being anything but the bad guys.

I began to feel as if something was very wrong. Having been one of these "bad guys" all my life; having worked 10 to 12 hours a day seven days a week to make sure my business succeeded, I knew that something was amiss. Oh, I was entertained by the actors. That's as it should be. That's their job after all. And I must say I enjoy some of the programs. But I could not help but feel that it was a long way from reality and that a good portion of population would come away feeling that, somehow, it really was reality and the "bad guys" really were the guys that worked in the private sector. That's what I mean by brainwashing.

Is all of it done on purpose? Is there a vast conspiracy out there dedicated to denigrating anything that is not under government control? It quite seems like it. I read in one of Pres. Obama's books that he once worked for a few weeks in the private sector. I shudder as I remember his comment. "I felt like I was in the enemy's camp," he stated. Never having worked in the private sector for any time does not qualify him to be president of the country, in my mind, anyway.

People! The private sector is the only sector that contributes to the wealth of the country. With the exception of a few government agencies that are necessary to control the greed that naturally arises in any population, all the rest of the so-called workers are little more than bloodsuckers on an otherwise thriving economy.

The wealth of the nation, and of the world for that matter, comes from one of two sources: the land or the sea; from the use of the natural resources that God has provided. The workers providing these natural resources, from the farmer, the miner and the fishermen, are the real heroes and not some government regulator.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

Really? the gov't worker is the hero in the shows you watch?

The only shows that is true in is law and order and csi, but that's because they are COPS, and cops arn't employed by corps.

And police being good guys isn't something new, so that isn't a conspiracy, and police shows have been on since TV began

But if you weren't talking any cop shows, then what kind of crappy cable service do you have? Or are you just full of shit?

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Conspiracy theory, is what happens with a lack of empirical evidence.

At least that's the way we use the term today.

Collusion is perhaps, a better term for what we are seeing all around us.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

This gets right to the point, thanks.

My argument here has exactly to do with this question of lack of empirical evidence. Who then, are we to believe when we are told that there is a lack of empirical evidence? In the final analysis there is no one but the individual themself. There is simply no substitute for critical thinking skills. Logic and critical thinking should be at the core of every school curiculum, but I know of no public school that teaches this most basic knowledge.

Only the individual can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to substanciate a conspiracy theory, and the only way the individual can do this is through self-education. Where are the reliable, objective sources? The media, the government, the corporations? Where? Who can be relied upon to tell you what is and what is not true? Nowhere but inside your own head. That is why education is absolutely essential to functioning democracy, only through education can we come to know that the "Bigfoot controversy" is irrelevant but there may be serious discrepancies in the record of certain historical events, with profound implications. There is no one to rely on for "objective, empirical evidence" except on our own ability to dig it up for ourselves. The truth is out there, in a library. We have found our savior and he/she is us.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

It is quite possible to engineer a lack of empirical evidence. The only defense against all these complexities is education, which might explain the imaginary lack of money for public education, or is that a conspiracy theory?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Life is a conspiracy theory. We know how we die, but we have little idea, how or why we live.

As for the schools????

I know for a FACT, that Bigfoot took the money. He used mind numbing chem trails to get in there and take it in plain sight.

He loaded the money on his reverse black hole powered UFO and is now basking in luxury on our planets twin, on the other side of the sun.

Or maybe it's just collusion, among those who would profit from the destruction of public education.

Finding the empirical evidence, is the hard part, either way.

My opinion, leans towards the latter.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Exactly! In the end the only way to distinguish between ludicrous and paranoid ranting and logical cause and effect is through education. There is no simple way out. The idea of "conspiracy theory" in the light of that fact is rendered meaningless. Only the informed individual can make the distinction, and the accusation of conspiracy theory cannot preclude us from the burden of passing our own judgement based upon the merits of the individual case.

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

Here's a conspiracy theory for you;

Thread shows 37 Comments (38 counting this one) but I can only count fifteen showing, including those voted down.

Is this software issue, or active moderation of the selective kind??

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

I was wondering that myself, does that make me a "conspiray theorist?

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

Figured it out. The voted down posts have replies that don't show up once the post gets voted down.

So >>>> debunked. LOLZ

[+] -8 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

It's just because some "conspiracy theorists" on this site are angry at me because I used to shut them down by publishing images in their postings, and now I use bots to heavily down vote them. They are retaliating by manually down voting me. That's cool. It's kind of funny.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

I remember your endless image hits. Not phukking phunny at all.

You chose to take on a roll-play that was of your own instigation.

Understand now that others here remember your actions for what they were.

[-] -3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

That's fine. Those who understand the importance of logic and scientific thought are on my side. Those who prefer using assumptions and building their claims with conspiracy theories will obviously be angry and use whatever means they have at their disposal to retaliate. This is absolutely normal. Every action has a reaction.

I truly believe that we need to promote logical thought if we want to improve our societies. Pseudosciences like conspiracy theories constitute a very big problem in modern times. The advent of the Internet makes it easy for anyone to publish ridiculous claims which were arrived at with dubious "research" methods. There's a lot of correlation without causation. Serious writers, editors, and researchers are being pushed aside because their work takes time. Conspiracy theorists can quickly build their stories because they don't do tedious research and they offer the public something that is entertaining. Serious research is often quite dry and boring. It's much more fun when aliens or deep and dark plots are involved.

OWS uses direct action to occupy public spaces by force because it believes in what it promotes. Of course, the police react and kick them out. That's the price to pay for activism. Not everyone is happy.

My thrashing the conspiracy theorists on this site using whatever method at my disposal is also a form civil disobedience as I sometimes break the forum rules. I am aware of the risk that I could be banned. I do what I do because I believe it is extremely important for the betterment of manmind (the logical thinking of humans as a whole).

Conspiracy theorists do the very same thing. They post their articles on this site which is against the forum rule #2. They use civil disobedience to pass off their wild stories. A lot of them are paid to simply disrupt this forum and distract its users from serious discussions. There's a site which is openly against us and has published a list of techniques to disrupt this forum. Publishing useless and wild claims is one of those techniques.

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

If you start claiming reasons as to why this happened as being facts without providing evidence and relying only on assumptions, yes, that would make you a conspiracy theorist. If you investigate properly by asking the moderators to check what happened, then that would be called a proper and serious investigation.

Simply wondering what happened is neither. That's just wondering and is healthy. We all wonder at times. I wonder why conspiracy theorists don't take their medication. Most are schizophrenics that should seek the help of a professional doctor. There's no reason for them to live like that. With proper care, they can lead happy lives without their brains being invaded by unhealthy paranoid thoughts.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I'm beginning to wonder if you're really a 'bot'. You know, a ghost in the machine, or some kind of program that developed artificial intelligence, came to life in cyberspace, and started occupying this forum. I have an over-active imagination. LOL.

edit: or maybe I'm just paranoid....

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Lol! Damn, sometimes I wish I was a bot. It might be easier to live this life without having to feel emotions. Although, It would be rather drab as well.

What's your formation? I'm a classical musician and a computer programmer. I work part time, so I have a lot of time to read.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

My formation? I'm a blue collar worker and comic book aficionado, or geek, depending on how you look at it. Currently unemployed with to much time to read.

[-] -3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

What's your favorite comic? My mother tongue is French, so like many francophones, I'm a huge fan of Tintin. It's old school, but I consider it a pillar of comic art. I also like Bilal quite a bit.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I grew up on Marvel Comics, especially Spider-Man. I love the art and old superhero stories from the late 60's and 70's. It's become a mess now, but back in the day, for a kid, those old stories were the fantasy bomb and really captured my imagination. Also, love Snoopy & peanuts.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I used to love the old 1967 SpiderMan TV series. Do you know it? It was produced with a very low budget so many images and backgrounds were reused in various episodes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(1967_TV_series)

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Certainly. I don't remember it well though, I was born in 1970, and only saw reruns. I do remember it was quite cheesy on production value, but I love cheese.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

It was cheesy, but it was quite artistic. I love the music and the art in that particular series.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Somebody, somewhere, is determining which posts will, and which posts won't, appear on this disgussion thread; and that in itself is evidence for the soundness of my essential argument.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

That's a very strange way to decide if an argument is sound or not.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

You seem capable of thinking only in a strictly litteral mode. I doubt that gains you many friends.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

What's the point of replying if you can formulate a counter-argument and must resort to using an uncreative ad hominem?

[-] 3 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 12 years ago

Conspiracy Theory

noun

  1. A theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

  2. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

What's your source for this? I'm interested.

[-] 0 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

The CIA does this stuff all the time. They've been at it for decades. This is all well documented. And if you think they and other spook agencies - foreign, domestic and private - don't do it here you are incredibly naive.

[+] -6 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

If they have do you really think it would be well documented where you or I could find it?

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

More than you might expect. For example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/us/kermit-roosevelt-leader-of-cia-coup-in-iran-dies-at-84.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Kermit Roosevelt, who was a member of the famous American political family but who made his contributions to the nation in the shadowy world of spy craft, died Thursday at a retirement community in Cockeysville, Md., near Baltimore. He was 84.

Mr. Roosevelt's best-known exploit was as director of the 1953 coup that overthrew the leader of Iran, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, a nationalist who concerned Washington because he was supported by the Iranian Communists at the height of the cold war.

Earlier this year, the Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of the coup surfaced, providing a detailed account of the overthrow, which brought Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to power.

Mr. Roosevelt, the chief of the C.I.A.'s Near East and Africa division, spent much of his time in Tehran, trying to get the shah, depicted in the history as a vacillating coward, to summon the courage to dismiss Mr. Mossadegh.

''On Aug. 3rd,'' the secret history says, ''Roosevelt had a long and inconclusive session with the shah,'' who ''stated that he was not an adventurer, and hence, could not take the chances of one.''

[+] -6 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

Several conspiracies have been very publicly exposed: Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran/Contra, Whitewater, WMD in Iraq, etc. Conspiracies do happen, and their exposure is usually predicated on someone have a theory they existed before pursuing them further. This does not mean all conspiracy theories are valid (most aren't). See my comment below at http://occupywallst.org/forum/lets-get-to-the-bottom-of-this-crap-about-conspiri/#comment-585233.

[-] 3 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

Certainly conspiracies happen, but the term conspiracy theory has a meaning of its own separate from the meaning of the two individual words.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Finally! Someone who understands that conspiracy theory is an expression, sort of like mother tongue.

[+] -5 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

Yep. If you read the comment I linked to, you know I agree.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

The most obvious conspiracy theory of 2012, is that the US Congress can find their way clear to allowing the President to do his job, meaning agreeing on forward motions, and freeing up funds for things OTHER THAN the war effort.

Let's see how that pans out, for starters.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Man you really are a conspiracy theorist! Are you implying that people in congress would get together to forward and agenda? Man that's paranoid! You must need to take your medication! Is everybody down under crazy enough to think that politicians might conspire to influence legislation?

[+] -7 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

He said the most obvious conspiracy theory of 2012. 2012 is 13 days old. I'm surprised a proper investigation was possible in this very short time frame. It's pretty obvious that quick research of this type is not done very seriously.

[+] -6 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

LOL ! The logical counter statement to yours would be, "The President can find his way clear to allowing Congress to do their job, meaning agreeing on forward motions, and freeing up funds for things OTHER THAN the war effort."

To ascribe responsibility for gridlock to either side of the isle or to one party in the discussions is simply absurd. All sides are guilty of extreme partisanship that underlies gridlock.

Some of the gridlock is politically motivated on both sides, and that really sucks. What remains, however, is driven by a fundamental debate over the role of government, the deficit, the relative priority of different programs, the impact of taxes and regulations on the economy, etc. The conflict over these issues extends outside of Washington DC; it is a national debate.

In days gone by, the American public didn't pay much attention to what was happening in Congress. Today, many more people pay attention thanks to the activist media (Rachael Maddow vs Sean Hannity), but few are very well informed regarding the details behind the issues. We have thus become vocal and polarized yet remain uninformed, and our leadership in Washington reflects our state.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that our government might well work better if we could eliminate the 24 hour news cycle and get rid of the talking-heads who pander to the very worst in us on both sides of the isle simply to improve their ratings.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

It's an effort to put certain subjects "beyond the bounds of believable thought", simply because conspiracy theories are seldom substantiated by believable evidence, i.e., Bigfoot. Where are the bodies?

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

To call something a "conspiracy theory" is neither to prove, nor disprove the question at issue, but simply to cast doubt upon it without producing evidence.

[-] 4 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

It's always up to the person proposing the conspiracy theory to offer the proof, not for others to disprove it.

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 12 years ago

You have it backwards. It is the responsibility of the one offering up the theory to provide the proof. Those that hold to another explanation of events have already given their reasons. It's not enough to say the government, CIA, or whoever could have done X, then expect them to prove they didn't.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Exactly. Conspiracy theorists need to go back to school and learn what is the burden of proof. They'll likely learn this during a science class so hopefully they can also learn what the scientific method is. If all that doesn't work, they should subdue their paranoid fantasies with some meds.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Conversely, to offer up a theory, without producing substantial evidence to support it, lays the groundwork for labeling it a 'conspiracy theory'. Where are those bodies?

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

True. I am not speaking out in support of every idiotic belief system that comes down the pike. But to suppose rational people are incapable of detecting a conspiracy is equaly rediculous - it is to imply that there never was such as thing as conspiracy, when where politics are concerned there is really little other than conspiracy, in it's broadest definition.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Therein lies the juxtaposition of belief and suspicion. It's one thing to offer up something as a belief, without substantial supporting evidence, and quite another to offer it up as a suspicion, knowing you don't have substantial supporting evidence. It is that fine distinction that separates the crazies from the rest of us.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Yes, I agree. Clearly some suspicions are pretty ludicrous at face valie, and would need overwealming supporting factual evidence to be believed. People who advance those idea's without evidence are deluded if they think they can make people believers.

There are other kinds of conspiracy however - the resounding silence in the media regarding Susan Lindauer for example. Is it crazy to think that this silence may point to an element of collusion between the press and the government agencies subordinated to the will of the 1%?

That is the tricky thing about "conspiracy theory". It encompasses such a broad range of posibilities that to speak of it at all is really almost to say nothing without examining the merits of the individual case at hand, and to label it automatically crazy is in some general way to attack the whole notion and process of critical thinking.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

It's not crazy to be suspicious of what goes on in circles you can't see, it's human nature to do so. It's crazy to start believing something without mainstream acceptance. If you raised attention to this issue and it doesn't raise suspicion among a lot of other people, you would have to conclude to yourself (if you're sane) that you we're barking at the moon and letting your paranoia run rampant.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

"It's crazy to start believing something without mainstream acceptance." That is the most bat-shit insane thing I have yet to read on this forum!

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four." ~ Orwell, 1984

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Yep, that was one of my more bat-shit moments. It doesn't make a lick of sense now that I read it again.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Yes, the consent of the majority does define madness and Galleleo was in fact forced to sign a statement that he was insane. You must remember that for a long time the majority was convinced that eating spam was a good idea, when it wasn't any longer a war ration. The majority like Agregis Filbin and The Maury Show, therefore that's sanity.

I'm not sure mainsream acceptance is the best way to define what's sane. It may in fact be one way of defining insanity, but I didn't say that! Here's Emily Dickenson on the subject:

"Much madness is devinest sense, To a discerning eye, Much sense the starkest madness- Tis the majority in this as all prevails Assent and you are sane- Demure - you're straightway dangerous And handled with a chain.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

You could've just said I stepped in it.

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

The acceptance of the majority has nothing to do with it. This is a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

The acceptance of the majority has nothing to do with it. This is a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I probably didn't explain it well, but I hope you still got the gist of where I was trying to go with my explanation.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Yes, I do understand what you mean and I agree with you.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

Most people will disagree with you on this, I hope you know.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I'm beginning to get this sneaking suspicion I may have been wrong on this one.

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Lol! Nice use of irony.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Susan Lindauer's claims are considered a conspiracy theory because they are. She offers no evidence whatsoever, only her story. If she claimed it was only a suspicion or an opinion it would be a whole different affair, but she claims it is the truth brought about by inside information and years of thorough research. She's using the gullibility of people to sell her new book. It's a popular and easy formula: Claim you have uncovered evidence for a huge government conspiracy and write a book about it. MatLock it. It's the new book selling technique that's sweeping the nation.

As you most likely know, this women was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. Twice. Like most conspiracy theorists, she has a medical condition that hinders her thinking process making it so that much of what comes out of her brain is illogical and useless ramblings. Hopefully, she is seeing a doctor and being cared for. Mental illnesses are serious and can render a person's life a true living hell. Luckily, modern science has developed medication and ailments that make it possible for many of these people to lead normal and happy lives if they are treated appropriately.

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

GypsyKing misunderstands that "conspiracy theory" is an English expression with a particular meaning. I wish he/she simply opened a dictionary and read what it means. Instead, it's like he/she is using a "conspiracy theory" to define the term"conspiracy theory". It's sort of funny.

It's impossible to discuss anything in a serious manner when people aren't even aware of the definition of some basic English words and expressions.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Well, we can't all be geniuses. I have abused the meaning of a few words and phrases myself. But my spelling is impeccable.

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

No need to be a genius, just open the dictionary or read this comment I made. It's only about the will to get properly informed.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/lets-get-to-the-bottom-of-this-crap-about-conspiri/#comment-584863

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry Noun: A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

You're right. That was easy.

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Yes, that's the Oxford definition. I used it in my detailed explanation above. Wikipedia has in depth information including the history of the term and its use in various fields of study.

A conspiracy that has already been proven to be real with proper evidence is not called a "conspiracy theory". It's called investigative journalism or historical analysis. The term "conspiracy theory" is reserved for cases which are built upon assumptions; cases that use pseudo-science to arrive at their explanation, rather than proper science.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

you are full of shit - so - as i understand it the governments theory of how things went down on 9/11 is not conspiracy theory but mike ruppert's theory is! do you want to stand on that nonsense - can you defend your theory. no you cannot since you would have to show that the gov'ts theory has been proven to be real with proper evidence and you cannot do that (would you rather try with jfk? proper evidence my ass!). if you want to say that by definition "conspiracy theory" is reserved for wacky, out there theories then fine but that is your definition not common usage (except maybe in high ruling class circles where they want to denigrate those who dig at official stories - like the jfk killing). then you will have to prove that your nonsense obsession with "conspiracy theory" is reserved for nut jobs and it is not! get off that horse socrates reborn - gypsyking is right!

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

You're confused.

The only point I made in the comment above is that "conspiracy theory" is a well defined English expression. It has a clear meaning that everyone should understand, or else it's impossible to use it in discussions and have it mean something we all agree upon.

I did not discuss the government's explanation of 9/11 in any way, nor did I discuss Mike Ruppert's theory in any way.

You're either replying to the wrong comment, putting words into my mouth, or using a red herring logical fallacy in an attempt to steer the debate into a new territory in order to avoid having to provide counter-arguments to my argument as to what the expression "conspiracy theory" means.

GypsyKing is wrong because he doesn't understand that "conspiracy theory" is a well defined English expression with a very specific meaning.


if you want to say that by definition "conspiracy theory" is reserved for wacky, out there theories then fine but that is your definition not common usage

Open a dictionary. The term "conspiracy theory" is reserved for pseudoscientific theories based on mountains of assumptions that try to explain unresolved issues by using theories based around complex plots by secret and powerful behind the scene organizations. They are created by people who want to sell books by profiting from the fact that many people are uneducated and very gullible and that some people suffer from deep paranoid delusions caused by mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.

9/11 Trutherism, Area 51 and alien rectal probings, Illuminati, New World Order, etc... are all conspiracy theories as per the common definition I have published in my comments.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

having said all of that i do believe that most of this 9/11 conspiracy theory is a distraction. i happen to believe that the towers did not come down because planes hit them. that is not to say that planes did not hit them but that was not the cause of their collapse. so now we are left with two possibilities - the bush admin was involved in the plot or they were not but used them to invade iraq and implement the "project for a new american century" game plan. for any serious person hoping to change the direction of the country there is no difference and thus all the time and energy spent on investigation is wasted.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

not confused in the least - i have been around the block with you on this subject too many times. you are the self appointed "conspiracy theory" police! if you decide that the theory is incorrect then it is by definition incorrect - no evidence necessary. you believe the governments theory but not rupperts - ok that is fine but then you decide that anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist and by definition deluded. so now - tell me - which theory do you believe in the jfk killing -the governments or outsiders and WHY? as to 9/11 - which conspiracy theory do you believe - the governments or that of david griffen. and present some evidence for your belief - you are out of your depth here! this is from wiki - NOTE THE USE OF THE WORDS SOMETIMES AND USUALLY - A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public. --Originally a neutral term, during the political upheaval[not in citation given] of the 1960s it also acquired a somewhat derogatory sense, implying paranoia.[4] The term is sometimes used to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational. A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that Nixon and his aides were behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[5] [6]

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Everyone should try to inform and educate themselves as much as possible. Agreed.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

don't agree with him he is an ass - here is what i wrote to the gypsy - you are right - he is a fool - this is what he wrote - If you investigate properly by asking the moderators to check what happened, then that would be called a proper and serious investigation. - many of those theories he complains about have been properly investigated - this is what i wrote to him - you are full of shit - so - as i understand it the governments theory of how things went down on 9/11 is not conspiracy theory but mike ruppert's theory is! do you want to stand on that nonsense - can you defend your theory. no you cannot since you would have to show that the gov'ts theory has been proven to be real with proper evidence and you cannot do that (would you rather try with jfk? proper evidence my ass!). if you want to say that by definition "conspiracy theory" is reserved for wacky, out there theories then fine but that is your definition not common usage (except maybe in high ruling class circles where they want to denigrate those who dig at official stories - like the jfk killing). then you will have to prove that your nonsense obsession with "conspiracy theory" is reserved for nut jobs and it is not! get off that horse socrates reborn - gypsyking is right!

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Are you saying don't agree with him because he is an ass? or don't agree with him because he is wrong?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

because he is wrong - i tried to make it clear why i think he is wrong but maybe i did not do a very good job of it - he responded to me and i defended my argument. let me know where i am off base. if you are an ass but have good info and good arguments i can deal with you. if you are an ass and just try to bully people then you need to be slapped

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

First, I'll answer objectively, then subjectively, and then I'll summarize .

Objectively, there can only be one truth to an event. Therefore, one or the other of the narratives surrounding the events of 9/11 must be a fiction. The "Official Story" or the "Other Story" presented by a fractional group of detractors. Using Occam's razor (meaning the simplest explanation is usually the right one), the simplest explanation is that the "Official Story" - the one believed by the masses - is correct, and the "Other Story" - believed by a marginal group of detractors - is wrong. In that sense, the 'ass' is correct.

Subjectively, about five or six years ago, I had an encounter with some animals engaging in the most odd behavior I'd ever seen - in my entire life. I googled it, researched it, and came up empty. Apparently, it was a very rare occurrence. Using Occam's razor, the simplest explanation describing my encounter is that it was highly unusual and highly suspect to belief based on its incredible nature. If I were to tell anyone about it, I would have to pretext my story with the phrase....."You're going to think I'm crazy, but.....". In that sense, the 'ass' is wrong. He can't disprove what I know to be truth, but the 'ass' has every right to call me crazy and disbelieve my incredible story.

Summary, it's a numbers game. The 9/11 truthers simply don't have the numbers on their side to start telling their story as truth, at least not without pretexting it first with the phrase....."You're going to think I'm crazy, but.....".

For you to tell the 'ass' not to call you crazy, would be akin to telling me not to call Donald Trump crazy, and that isn't going to happen any time soon.

[+] -15 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Conspiracy theory is an English expression. As such, it cannot be understood by simply juxtaposing the definition of conspiracy with the definition of theory. Used together, both words create a new meaning. This is how most expressions work.

Your definition is flawed because you adopt a literal reading of this word combination; as if you defined "mother tongue" as literally meaning the tongue of one's mother.

I'm surprised you don't know this expression?! It's considered general knowledge, often penned by scholars, journalists, novelists, etc...


A quick search in the Oxford dictionary would have rendered your posting useless:

(noun) a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

Notice the words belief and unexplained. This is a pseudo-science based on assumptions.


For a richer definition, we can look in Wikipedia:

The term "conspiracy theory" is used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies.[1] The term is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at "stealing" power, money, or freedom, from "the people".[citation needed] Conspiracy theories are based on the notion that complex plots are put into motion by powerful hidden forces.[2] Less illustrious uses refer to folklore and urban legend and a variety of explanatory narratives which are constructed with methodological flaws or biases.[3] Originally a neutral term, during the political upheaval[not in citation given] of the 1960s it also acquired a somewhat derogatory sense, implying paranoia.[4] The term is sometimes used to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational. A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that Nixon and his aides were behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[5] [6]

Carefully take notice of the sentence I have rendered in bold. It is the key to comprehending your error.

For those who are interested in learning more, I suggest reading the whole Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory This is a very good explanation of the expression, of its historical context, of its use in various fields, and also provides sources for those who want to dive even deeper.


Believe me, there's a big difference between serious investigators using science and the little MatLocks we see on this forum trying to explain the government's darkest secrets by using mountains of assumptions collected on various conspiracy theory websites and saved to their moms' hard drives.

Oh! The MatLockian dream of unlocking the most secret of governmental secrets! So powerful is this dream that most lose their mind before even reaching their mom's fridge for another Coca-Cola! "John! It's time for another psychiatric assessment! Bring the pills the doctor gave you last time."

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

Russ Baker argues that Watergate was specifically orchestrated to destroy Nixon. Where was Heinz?

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I have no idea what this has to do with my comment. I don't talk about Russ Baker, Watergater, nor Heinz. I'm talking about the proper definition of the English expression "conspiracy theory".

Note: If you want to change the goal posts and talk about something else, state so in a clear manner so that people realize that you are purposefully changing the subject and not trying to use a red herring logical fallacy to avoid the arguments being discussed. Thank you.

[-] -1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

"I don't talk about Russ Baker, Watergater, nor Heinz."

From your post: "A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that Nixon and his aides were behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis."

"Even paranoids have enemies" ~ Heinz

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Sorry, that was from the Wikipedia link I included. It's an example they use to differentiate between a conspiracy theory and historical analysis.

I'm not going to pronounce myself on Heinz since I don't know much about this particular case. I suggest you research the matter in a serious manner if it interests you. Perhaps another poster can discuss this incident with you. This is beyond my qualifications.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

It would take an army of investigators to catalog every nefarious act perpetrated by Heinz and those directly associated with him. But that really isn't my primary reason for asking the perennial question: Where was Heinz?

It's more like an I-Ching divination exercise. Just ask that question, and everything else will fall into place.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

This is beyond the scope of this discussion which is on the definition of conspiracy theory. You should create a posting about it. Who knows, maybe a user on this forum could help you search for answers.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

In science a theory is a well developed model with some significant degree of experimental validation. The term "conspiracy theory" is simply vulgar usage without a good definition. As I said, it is a pejorative used to manipulate opinion and avoid addressing substantive refutations of the promulgated explanation of events.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Thank you for succenctly summing up the thesis of this post. The term "conspiracy theory" is Orwellian in it's heavy handed enuendo, and lack of clear and definable meaning. It is a classic case of using vague and misleading language to prevent some ideas from being considered 'thinkable thought."

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

The term "conspiracy theory" is simply vulgar usage without a good definition

This expression is well defined. Open a dictionary. I showed you the Oxford definition and the one on Wikipedia. It's an expression with a clear meaning. If you think I'm wrong, then show us a dictionary with a contrary meaning to the one I have explained. Personally, I have never seen another definition that the one I have presented. I haven't read all the dictionaries in the world, so I could be wrong. If I am, show us something, anything, to back your claim that I'm wrong. Simply saying that I am wrong is not enough.

This debate is only around the meaning of the expression "conspiracy theory". Whether that term is used in pejorative fashion to denigrate the work of what you call "serious researchers" is a whole different debate.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

The first definition begs the question of what is mean by "theory". The second is similarly nebulous.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Can you provide us with a dictionary that has another definition of the term "conspiracy theory"?

If you are not satisfied with the common definition of this term which is found in all the dictionaries I have looked at, you should write to the people who create dictionaries and ask them to change it.

The only thing that matters to me is that the people on this forum understand the meanings of the words and expressions that are being used to share ideas. If people here can't even agree on basic dictionary definitions, then it becomes really hard to discuss anything. At this time, the only official meaning for the term "conspiracy theory" is found in dictionaries and is the one I have explained many times in this posting. If you can show another official meaning in a dictionary I don't know, or convince Oxford and their friends to add whatever meaning you think "conspiracy theory" should have, then I will revise what this expression means. Until then, I am using the common definition found in dictionaries.

[-] -2 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Is this right? Nixon was involved in a conspiracy (working with others covertly to commit and illegal act). It was a conspiracy theory to anyone outside the conspiracy until it was proven with evidence. Then it was no longer a conspiracy theory, it was a criminal conspiracy that was proven by the Washington Post.

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

It wasn't a conspiracy theory before being proven if the ones who suspected this at first didn't make claims that weren't supported by evidence, but instead started a serious research to provide serious claims accompanied by evidence.

Being suspect of foul play or posing opinions is not a conspiracy theory as long as you are honest that you are only providing unproven hypothesis. It becomes a conspiracy theory when you start saying that your claims are backed by serious research when they really are only backed by assumptions and correlations without causes, i.e. the pseudoscience known as conspiracy theory.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

If the MSM says it's a conspiracy theory, then it's a conspiracy theory. That's about the gist of it.

The evidence that the WTC was taken down by controlled demolition is overwhelming beyond words. And that doesn't even scratch the surface. Nonetheless, the MSM will immediately dismiss this as "conspiracy theory". Anybody who refuses to toe the line gets blackballed.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

9-11 Truthers have not provided any evidence for their claims, only mountains of assumptions. They don't use the scientific method and have been debunked time and time again during the last 10 years. They have produced one or two articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the rest of their claims stems from non serious research and is self-published on their own blogs served from their own servers.

The fact that they come in huge numbers to this forum in an attempt to convince strangers to go check their theories is a testament to their desperation. If they had anything of worth, they wouldn't have to break the rules of this forum to try to convince complete strangers to read their websites. And, if they claim that the government is using propaganda and force to shut them out of the scholarly discourse, then we have to wonder why the government doesn't simply shut down their websites.

9-11 Truthers are nothing but lame conspiracy theorists who waste everyone's time with their basement pseudoscientific junk research.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

"9-11 Truthers have not provided any evidence for their claims, only mountains of assumptions." Wrong. There is plenty of evidence which has been produced and presented. It is the 9/11 Commission Report that lacks of substantiating evidence. It's a work of fiction. I assume you have read it?

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

This is beyond the scope of this post by GypsyKing which as to do with the definition of what is and what isn't a "conspiracy theory".

If you think 9-11 Truthers have provided evidence for their claims and that they are not peddling ridiculous conspiracy theories, but instead involved in serious scientific research, then I suggest you start a new post on the matter and provide us with that evidence. Talking about this in this posting is off-topic.

[-] -2 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

I think people that talk about conspiracy theories do it because they think there is some evidence/research to support a different conclusion. I think there's confusion or differing opinion about what is evidence v assumptions and correlations. Maybe thats why there is so much controversy about this??

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

There is no controversy. It's only the conspiracy theorist who are attempting to create one in an effort to protect their wild claims from being debunked. Scholars, writers, educators, and people of the general public how have opened a dictionary know what the expression conspiracy theory means. It's very clear.

[+] -4 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

I agree. But amongst the conspiracy theoriests - they seem to want to manufacture stories that are implausible, for a variety of reasons depending on the topic, that they think there is evidence for. Rather than believing the more plausible explanation. So I think it comes down to constantly pointing out the implausibility and the reasons for it. Or not, because its a waste of time. : )

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Conspiracy theories are created by people who want to make a lot of money by selling books and hosting seminars. Basic ones can be found in tabloids like the National Enquire and more complex ones can be found in the books of authors such as David Icke.

The people who create conspiracy theories are smart. They twist and turn logical fallacies in ways that trick inexperienced readers into thinking they are reading something scientific. Most of their claims are built with correlations without causations. They sprinkle a few proven claims here and there to mix things up.

Some people who read conspiracy theories are looking for cheap entertainment. These people don't believe, they read them for the laughs. Sometimes they like to invest more time so they debunk some of the claims being made.

People who read and believe conspiracy theories are people who haven't learned about the scientific method and healthy skepticism. These people don't care for evidence as much as they care for some kind of narrative that blames the government and makes it look like the citizens of the nation have been tricked with some dark and secret plot. Even if the conspiracy theory is debunked in great depth, they still hold on to it as if it were the tightest science available. That's why Truthers are still around after 11 years even if they have absolutely nothing to show for their "serious work".

[-] 0 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

Consulting Wikipedia on "Conspiracy Theories" is like asking Rush Limbaugh for an unbiased opinion. I was told not to post a link to a paper which was the topic of the article I was editing. The rationale was that my source was biased.

[+] -7 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago
  1. I consulted the Oxford dictionary as well as Wikipedia.
    1. The definition that Wikipedia provides in this case is similar to all other dictionaries I have consulted.
    2. I have no problem using Wikipedia because it provides links to sources which are considered serious. I use Wikipedia as a starting point to help me gather some sources I can further explore at the library. When used correctly, it's a wonderful tool for research.

Do you have an example of a dictionary that gives another definition for "conspiracy theory" that contradicts the ones from Wikipedia and/or Oxford? If so, that would be a strong argument against my case.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

It's not the definition I have a problem with. It's the rest of the discussion, as well as Wikipedia's general practice regarding such matters. There is much that is omitted and censored on Wikipedia.

This is an exercise in incoherent blather augmented by blatant fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

In that case, why don't you provide counter examples and explanations of the expression "conspiracy theory" instead of simply saying mine are flawed without saying why?

Perhaps you have a link to a site that better explains what a conspiracy theory is and isn't. If so, please provide it. That would be very welcomed and would give all the readers the chance to learn something new if the link you give us is worthy.

You provide us with a new link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories and claim many of the arguments raised are flawed by logical fallacies, however you give no example of these fallacies. How does this help? And, even if there are many flaws, it still doesn't mean there are flaws in the Wikipedia article I provided. What you are doing is a logical fallacy: appeal to authority. I don't care what Wikipedia's authority status is, I only care about the arguments I read on its pages. If they are backed by evidence an good sources, that's all that matters. You can't just dismiss Wikipedia all together by simply saying some of the material on that site has logical fallacies. At the very least, give us examples of these fallacies. At the very least...

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

"Conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term intended to discredit a proposed alternative explanation of events not endorsed by the PTB.

The reason I am critical of Wikipedia in this context is due to my own experience with having my edits deleted or mutilated. People need to understand that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially when it comes to topics which fall under the rubric of "conspiracy theories".

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Wikipedia links to many sources which can be read at the library.

Provide some evidence for your claims. Show us where and why it is not reliable. Simply saying it isn't doesn't go very far.

Also, can you provide an alternative source which is more reliable and which gives an alternate definition of "conspiracy theory" that contradicts the one in the Oxford dictionary and on Wikipedia?

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

"Where are those bodies?"

"The buildings collapsed to dust."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcXP2jbxzJI

"FDNY Searching Buckets of Dust for Human Remains"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5IBbBeInuA

[+] -5 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

If you're not trying to prove or disprove it, then what it the sense of discussing it? If you don't have or don't intend to produce any evidence then you're casting doubt for no reason at all. Except to be chatty? We can all run around casting doubt about everything and anything. But we don't, because it doesn't make sense to do that.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

I know it doesn't make sense, but to say that people don't do it is to ignore half of what is posted here. Half of what's posted here is with the intention to discredit by casting doubt, rather then presenting supportive evidence to refute a point.

[+] -5 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

I see what you're saying. We agree it makes no sense. I know it happens here. I don't think we should enable people in posting conspiracy theories, which I have seen here people trying to defend them. Since techinically its against the rules, plus, it makes no sense. My suggestion, which I have told some posters who post "conspiracy theories", is that there are other websites for those types of discussions.

In case you're interested. : )

http://www.waronyou.com/forums/

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/index.php

I wouldn't say half of whats posted here are conspiracy theories. There are lots of competing views and opinions on a variety of topics which are valid discussions, not necessarily conspiracy theories.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

You appear to miss what I am trying to express intentionally. What I am saying, is that under the current gagged and intimidated state of the media, if the Gulf of Tonkin incident which was fabricated by the US in order to start the Vietnam War, were to happen today, it would also be considered a "conspiracy theory, because there would be no one to sunstanciate it. Just because something is, or is said to be, unsubstanciated, does not mean it is therfore beyond rational thought, and that anyone who thinks it must be thereofore insane.

This "conspiracy theories" like everything else in debate need to weighed on their merits and not just automatically dismissed as being insane. It is this attempt to define what is, and what is not thinkable that is dangerous. It suddjests that anyone who suspects the powers that be are automatically "conspiracy theorists and must be banned. That in essence threatens the whole pont of this forum and of this movement.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

you are right - he is a fool - this is what he wrote - If you investigate properly by asking the moderators to check what happened, then that would be called a proper and serious investigation. - many of those theories he complains about have been properly investigated - this is what i wrote to him - you are full of shit - so - as i understand it the governments theory of how things went down on 9/11 is not conspiracy theory but mike ruppert's theory is! do you want to stand on that nonsense - can you defend your theory. no you cannot since you would have to show that the gov'ts theory has been proven to be real with proper evidence and you cannot do that (would you rather try with jfk? proper evidence my ass!). if you want to say that by definition "conspiracy theory" is reserved for wacky, out there theories then fine but that is your definition not common usage (except maybe in high ruling class circles where they want to denigrate those who dig at official stories - like the jfk killing). then you will have to prove that your nonsense obsession with "conspiracy theory" is reserved for nut jobs and it is not! get off that horse socrates reborn - gypsyking is right!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Thanks, but please don't reffer to this (whatever it is called, this Thrasymaque) as Soctates. Socraties was Great and misunderstood. Our friend Thrasy. is perhaps not even human.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

he refers to himself as socrates reborn - what an ass

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Have you read Socrates?

Our friend Thrasy. is perhaps not even human.

ad hominem: logical fallacy - Attacking the proposer instead of his arguments in a sad and desperate attempt to poison the well.

[Deleted]

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I don't understand the purpose of your reply.

If you have no interest in this posting, you can simply move on without replying to comments. I happen to deeply care about the problem that is conspiracy theorists and their flawed thinking. I believe they are one of the biggest problems in the world today and need to be dealt with.

As long as people publish articles that have to do with conspiracy theories, I'll be talking about this problem with utmost profusion.

Activists who deeply care about something are usually pretty relentless. I'm like that with conspiracy theories. It won't change. Just avoid articles that deal with this issue and read the articles that deal with problems you care about. User postings have titles for this very reason. Problem solved!

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Using gratuitous insults won't magically transform your false claims into correct ones.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

If I'm missing your point, it's certainly not intentional. I'm not really familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I guess I would be interested to know how it was discovered. There must have been some evidence to lead someone to it. Like a whistleblower to a journalist. Investigative journalists live for that stuff, like Watergate.

You seem to be suggesting the our media is too intimidated to do their job today. We don't have freedom of the press anymore? Good journalist who live for this stuff? I find that very had to believe. Even if, there are academics, or even WikiLeaks, who would love to get a hold of credible information that would lead to a uncovering some hidden conspiracy.

I think it comes down to how to know if evidence is credible until it is investigated. But I would say that tossing around theories on this forum is not an appropriate way to investigate. Most things are investigated and uncovered by academics or journalists. I have a very difficult time believing that anything is going to be uncovered on this forum.

So I have to say, that since its against forum rules, we shouldn't enable the conspiracy theorists here. Of course any evidence should be weighed on its merits. If anyone has any credible evidence, about 9/11 for instance, they should take it to a journalist, or WikiLeaks. Who will determine if the evidence is credible enough to pursue. Instead of talking about it here. How would this threaten the forum?

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

You're confused with definitions.

For example, if 9-11 Truthers presented their claims as being hypothesis in an ongoing investigation, then we would talk about an improper or proper investigation. The problem is they present their claims as being the "truth" that their investigations have uncovered. Because their method of investigation is flawed and based on correlation without a cause, we call their theory a "conspiracy theory". If their research was proper and scientific, it would be called "investigative journalism".

One way for 9-11 Truthers to avoid being called conspiracy theorists would be for them to state that their claims are still in the stage of hypothesis and that their research is still ongoing. Essentially, they would have to admit that their claims are not the "truth", but, rather, nothing more than hunches that have yet to be supported by enough evidence to claim that they are "truth". They would have to admit that their research is ongoing, and in no way finalized.

It suddjests that anyone who suspects the powers that be are automatically "conspiracy theorists and must be banned. That in essence threatens the whole pont of this forum and of this movement.

No it doesn't. People who suspect are not conspiracy theorists. Suspecting is the natural step before investigating. Conspiracy theorists are those that have investigated a certain thing using dubious research methods and have come to finalized results that are essentially false claims stemming from pseudoscientific research.

If you're just suspecting then your using words like "maybe" and "perhaps" to make your claims, i.e - Maybe the US government is performing autopsies on aliens in Area 51. I don't know for sure, but I suspect this. - Claims based on suspecting are just opinions.

9-11 Truthers don't use "maybe" or "perhaps", they use "truth" which is not about suspecting.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

I believe you are a one man conspiracy - if you are in fact a living person and not just some artificial negativity program - some creepy experiment in AI. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist, and therefore crazy? I doubt it, because the majority on this site would probably agree.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I believe you are a one man conspiracy - if you are in fact a living person and not just some artificial negativity program - some creepy experiment in AI. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist, and therefore crazy? I doubt it, because the majority on this site would probably agree.

red herring: logical fallacy - A sudden and gratuitous change of subject to avoid counter arguing the proposed arguments.

if you are in fact a living person and not just some artificial negativity program - some creepy experiment in AI

ad hominem: logical fallacy - Attacking the proposer instead of his arguments in a sad and desperate attempt to poison the well.

I doubt it, because the majority on this site would probably agree.

argumentum ad populum: logical fallacy - Also known as an appeal to popularity, this fallacy attempts to fool the reader into thinking that a statement is correct because many people agree that it is. The truth is, the correctness of a statement does not in any way depend on a popular vote.


Note: Logical fallacies are often used as a last resort when a debater cannot provide proper counter arguments. They indicate the beginning of the end for the one using them as they only further weaken his position by clearly revealing his inability to fight back in proper fashion.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

When someone uses the term "conspiracy theory" it means that what he is talking about has already been debunked and deemed as being a false claim. Something still undergoing a serious investigation is not called a "conspiracy theory". The only problem here is that you misunderstand what the term "conspiracy theory" means. Take a moment to educate yourself on the matter.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/lets-get-to-the-bottom-of-this-crap-about-conspiri/#comment-584863

[+] -6 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

The problem is you don't understand the English expression "conspiracy theory". I wish you took a few minutes and opened a dictionary. It's a common expression. How can we discuss anything seriously if people don't even take the time to learn about the definition of certain English words and expressions?

I'm sorry, but your posting is a waste of time. Use a dictionary when in doubt.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

try this -i think this is a better back and forth on the subject than the greek has to offer - 12-13-6

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

In essence, he agreed with the greek about not spending energy and effort on 9/11 which takes eyes off the ongoing crimes of state. Of course, he is much less an 'ass' about it.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

he needs to come down off that high horse of his - get a pony!

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I've already accused him of being to hard headed. Unfortunately, it didn't penetrate his hard head.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

nice

[+] -6 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Darn good point! Maybe he ate them. : )

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I hear they are not bad with some A-1 sauce.

[-] -2 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Bigfoot shops for A-1 sauce! Too funny! lol.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Stop laughing. Conspiracy theories are a serious matter. ;-)

[-] -3 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

You're right! Let me switch over to my alter ego Thrasymaque. Because he's alot more serious about this kind of thing than I am. Because according to that nutter turak, Thras and I are the same person! lol.

I just finished a close encounter with the turak kind : )

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

My time is to important to waste with close encounters of the turak kind. My time would be better spent sculpting mountains out of my mash potatoes.

[-] -3 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

You're too funny! lol. I know its crazy to talk to him, but I think he's really funny. He makes me laugh. He's sad but funny at the same time. It's probably cruel of me to converse with him. I'm not mean to him or anything. I just respond because I can't help but want to see what he's going to say next! I'm gonna go make some mashed potatoes now. : )

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I don't find myself wondering what he will say next, the probabilities are very high it will just be another curse word. Can we make Mash Potatoes a curse? You know, if smash your finger.....Mash potatoes, that hurt!

[+] -7 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Believable evidence is a pleonasm. Unbelievable evidence wouldn't really be evidence unless you are using unbelievable in its non-literary meaning to add effect, i.e. astounding.

I'm now imagining investigators going over a crime scene and dividing the evidence into two categories: believable, and unbelievable.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Darn those neoplasms. Trip me up every time.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

Wowser.

I haven't seen so many comments voted into oblivion on the one thread before, GypsyKing.

You/we must have hit a few raw nerves.

Perhaps it's time for the rest of us to make up multiple use accounts and vote things up again?

Oh, but that's right. I have a life outside of this forum. Can't spare all that time.

Oh well, best get used to clicking on that little + sign to read things.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Yeah, stuff gets voted down here before I even have a chance to respond. This thread has been demolished. Damn, I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist!

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

This is my reasonable take on most conspiracy theories

http://occupywallst.org/forum/history-of-conspiracy-theories-they-usually-are-th/

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

This threat has had so many comments voted down by a handful of individuals that it is no longer possible to follow. Why are a few individuals, in essence, given the right to censor a thread in this way?

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

it's because some assclown bot is going though threads and down voting them by 5 at a shot, it's been happening all day.

So much for repellicans believing in freedom of speech, go figure

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Damn Right! They believe speech should be paid for, and they should have all the money.

[-] 2 points by michaelfonseca (3) 12 years ago

I Agree.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

I repeat, Some conspiracies are real of course, but most conspiracy theorists like Ron Paul, Alex Jones and David Icke are con artists looking to make a quick and easy buck.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Ah, I agree with that. My arguement essentially is that the words "conspiracy theory," encompass such a broad range of things, from "Bigfoot" (which for all I know was just a Native American word for while man, because of our boots, and now they are laughing hysterically at us) to the assasination of JFK. Any mental schema that can encompass such vastly differing subjects seems useless to me. Then why do we call things "conspiracy theory?" I think merely to cast doubt upon, or predjudice an argument before hearing it. Certainly their are demogogues who will use crazy arguments to create converts, and thus votes. There will always be these people in a democracy. Unfortunately there is simply no shortcut for becoming sufficiently knowledgeable to know the difference. I think we would be better off to throw away those words entirely, and to simply judge arguments on their merits.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

I understand your point completely, propaganda is a very powerful tool. It can even change the way we interpret words or phrases.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

It can actually change the way we think; whether we are capable of clear reasoning, or whether we are not.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

The last ten years is proof of that.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Right on the money.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

try this - i think this is a better back and forth on the subject than the greek has to offer - 12-13-6

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 10 years ago

Infiltrators started this one http://occupywallst.org/forum/conspiracy-theories-push-right-wing-political-agen/

Great thread here! Thanks for starting it.

The mind set you describe is the effect of cognitive distortion and the other conspiracy thread is created and maintained by infiltrators trying to exercise the concept and associate it with conservative, right wing republican agenda.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

This is interesting also, from what we now know about tr@shy's various sockpuppets,and theri names, to see how desperately he wanted to control this dialogue.

It speaks all to clearly at an effort of mind control.

[-] -2 points by AlwaysWillBeAlwaysRight (-72) 10 years ago

There we go again with more conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo! No evidence is required, just make up stuff and call it real.

The reason I posted on this thread is to educate people on the dangers of faulty logic which is what conspiracy theorists spread throughout society, and to instead, support investigative journalism and historical analysis, both serious research methods which have the power to uncover real conspiracies.

What you are doing is a simple a logical fallacy - appeal to motive. You have many socks, therefor your motive is evil. Typical of a conspiracy theory nutcase.

Evidence is important. You should require it. One day you'll be accused in the court of law and, if America becomes obsessed with conspiracy theories like it seems it will, no evidence will be required to hang you. Just assumptions and logical fallacies.


If you wish to revive this debate, why don't you use real arguments. It might make you look more serious, instead of a logical fallacy throwing conspiracy theorist.


As a challenge, why don't you name us one conspiracy theory that was found to be true. Just one.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

Just reposting this, because we've gone over it before.

[-] 0 points by AlwaysWillBeAlwaysRight (-72) 10 years ago

You made this post because you don't understand the English expression, "conspiracy theory". Conspiracies do exist, but conspiracy theories do not explain them. They are based on flawed research and logical fallacies. Investigative journalism can recognize real conspiracies because it's based on serious well done research.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 12 years ago

"A conspiracy is what happens when two or more people get together to achieve a goal."

I believe a conspiracy goes deeper than that.

[-] 4 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

It usually implies something illegal, but all you need for a conspiracy, in terms of numbers, is two people.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

If two people can conspire that is a conspiracy.

[-] 0 points by fairforall (279) 12 years ago

conspiring is different than getting together to achieve a goal.

[+] -8 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Indeed, but the point is that conspiracy and conspiracy theory are two different things. Conspiracy theory is an expression. You can't understand it by simply juxtaposing the definition of conspiracy with the definition of theory. Like most expressions, the combination of these words creates a new meaning, i.e. mother tongue does not literally mean the tongue of a mother. You can use a dictionary or Wikipedia if you want to learn what the expression "conspiracy theory" means.

Or, just read this comment: http://occupywallst.org/forum/lets-get-to-the-bottom-of-this-crap-about-conspiri/#comment-584863

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

It is interesting - clearly conspiracy exists in America - in fact, it is wide spread, and permeates our social fabric.

Think about that - is this not true?

It is true - and were it not true, then you could not score pot in every city in America. But you can, you can get pot on practically any street corner. This is a fact of American life, and indisputable evidence of

. . . conspiracy . . .

With the end of the Cold War and the Collapse of the Berlin Wall, conspiracy became a growth industry - we call this industry Corporate Espionage.

In part, many of the little righties who are so so wrong with their prognostications of the demise of this movement are in fact small outgrowths,

pustulent tumors

of that cancer in our midst that is Conspiracy . . .

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

It's not conspiracy they are talking about it's conspiracy theory, different term.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I do understand that, yes.

When people engage in conspiracy, they often lie about what they are doing. Even kids will do that - either as part of the conspiracy to stay out late with friends their parents do not approve of, or to cover it up after the fact.

This same process takes place with most if not all, conspiracy.

When conspiracy becomes such an integral part of the social fabric as it has today, people naturally begin an effort to sort through all of the various lies they encounter on a day to day basis.

For some, this process takes on more meaning, and may go directly to their need for survival, than for others.

And I would point out that even someone as eminent as Oliver Stone was labeled a Conspiracy Theorist by the Boston Globe for his movie JFK.

Conspiracy exists. As long as it does, there will be those who Theorize about it.

As long as Conspiracy exists as such an integral part of the social fabric -

  • there will be those who will use terms like Conspiracy Theory in an effort to control the public mind through adverse labels, and perceptions of madness
[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

You're using a lot of words but saying very little. Conspiracy and people that have a theory about conspiracies and different from the term conspiracy theory. Yes conspiracy theory is used to connote something approaching madness at times or at least a lack of rationality. Often because the believer tries to incorrectly push the burden of proof on to others.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

You're using a lot of words but saying very little

Maybe I simply refuse to be herded by labels . . .

hahaha

yeas . . . I did . . . I did . . .

. . . you little conspirator . . .

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

That is correct.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Sadly you keep making the same mistake. A conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. The former is a word, the latter is an expression. Both have clear definitions which are very different and can be learned simply by opening an Oxford dictionary.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago
  • conspicuous

  • conspiracy

  • conspire

  • constable

While I have no doubt the constable may indeed theorize about those conspicuously conspiring for the purpose of conspiracy, I see nothing in this dictionary that suggests the constable's theorizing to be the least bit counterproductive, much less harmful to his good name or character . . .

In fact, I think the only place to find theory would be under Th . . . no C.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Conspiracy theory is an English expression like hot dog or mother tongue. As such, it cannot be properly understood by simply juxtaposing the definition of the word conspiracy with the word theory.

I suggest you open your dictionary and look for "conspiracy theory".


On a funny note, one of my English students made a similar mistake once. He separately looked up hot and dog instead of looking up "hot dog". Like you, his understanding was wrong. The whole class had a good laugh.

Expressions cannot usually be understood literally. They often use metaphors or other literary tools related to poetry. It's important to realize this if we want to learn the proper meanings of various English expressions. There are also expression dictionaries. I suggest you purchase one.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Simply because an expression, for whatever reason, is enshrined in the vocabulary begs the question of whether it makes any sense. We are not arguing about whether the expression exists. When you come to think about it, that would be pretty stupid. We are arguing about whether the expression has any value other than obfuscation..

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Actually, if you read Zendog's comment I am replying to, and many other comments on this page, you'll realize that a lot of people don't know about this expression and think that it can be defined by looking up the definitions for "conspiracy" and "theory" separately.

This expression has value just like any other expression. It serves to identify a theory that is based on pseudoscience and the idea that evil dark forces are conspiring with secret plots to take control of unsuspecting citizens. Likewise, the word stupid serves to identify someone that is stupid.

What you should be arguing is the use of "conspiracy theory" in certain contexts. For example, if I call Truthers "conspiracy theorists", they get very angry and start arguing that their theory is based on science, not pseudoscience. Of course, they don't even understand what science means.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I suggest you open your dictionary

  • conspicuous

  • conspiracy

  • constable

  • conspire

Yup and nope, not there.

I do not dispute that it is an expression in common use. Nor do I dispute that it's connotation is intended to curb people's behavior.

However, as I think I pointed out to someone else, it was used to characterize one Oliver Stone, in writing about his movie JFK - and here we have labels used as a form of

  • character assassination

The fact is conspiracy does exist, and the more it exists the greater the tendency to theorize about its existence, those involved and to what purpose.

Denial of the kind displayed by some, and their willingness to accept linguistic curbs such as this, is what I am sure Darwin would term an

  • evolutionary dead end

every bit as bizarre as the wildest of any 911 truther . . .

you can stop breathing anytime.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Use a reliable dictionary like the Oxford and you'll find it.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago
  • The American Heritage
    • dic.tion.ar.y

Is utterly reliable. You are simply engaged in a bit of ad hominem with the implication otherwise simply because you cannot accept the reality . . .

  • conspiracy exists

  • people will theorize

  • it aint pretty

  • too fuckin bad

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I'm not using an ad hominem. Actually, it's you that is using a logical fallacy.

I'm simply saying you should look in more than one dictionary. You seem to be saying that any word or expression that doesn't exist in The American Heritage is not part of the English language. That's a logical fallacy. The Webster dictionary contains many more words and expressions than The American Heritage dictionary. In addition, the expression "conspiracy theory" is used by many scholars, novelist, journalists, etc... and the meaning of the expression is clear and without controversy in the academic world. You can't just ignore this expression because it doesn't feature in your dictionary. You need to be a little bit more active and search in more dictionaries.

I'm curious, which version of The American Heritage dictionary do you have? The fifth edition from 2011, or a prior version?

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

Conspiracy exists - it is a simple fact of American life, as is demonstrated quite starkly with the availability of a wide variety of illegal recreational substances all across America.

It does not matter what edition of the American Heritage I am using, it will not change the fact that language itself is elastic

And this elasticity has been harnessed in this instance to curb a natural human tendency, and do so by painting all those who do so theorize as mad, when in fact the source of the problem is cultural, rather than some organic defect found in the individual.

piss off

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I just checked and the English expression "conspiracy theory" does exist in the latest edition (no.5 from 2011) of The American Heritage. I'm not sure in what edition it was added. You might want to buy a new dictionary if you have the old 1969 edition.

Language is elastic, but that doesn't mean you can take a well defined and common expression like "conspiracy theory" and use it in any which way you like. Well, of course you can, but that will only confuse your readers.

Remember, hot dog does not literally mean a dog that is hot.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

remember - labels can be very useful tools in curbing human behavior and shaping perception thus distorting the social fabric with false perceptions and complete denial of reality.

conspiracy exists

It is wide spread - the availability of illegal recreational substances makes that abundantly clear.

get over it

or not

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

The point is not whether or not conspiracies exist. I'm sure they do. The point is simply that there is an English expression which is "conspiracy theory" and that it has a well defined meaning. You can pretend that this expression doesn't exist, but it won't make it go away. Every day novelists, scholars, journalists, forum posters, etc... are using it.

This expression exists. Get over it, or not. And, for heaven's sake, by a new dictionary.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

try this -i think this is a better back and forth on the subject than the greek has to offer - 12-13-6

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I like Chomsky's analysis. The 9/11 truthers have been used. It's quite obvious - had Bush known - or had his handlers known - that this event was going to happen, he would not have appeared to have been flying around the country aboard Air Force One like a chicken with his head cut off. He would have been seen to be taking charge.

[+] -12 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

It is true - and were it not true, then you could not score pot in every city in America. But you can, you can get pot on practically any street corner. This is a fact of American life...

The ability to find pot with relative ease is in no way particular to the United-States of America. This is the case in most countries of the world.

Additionally, the fact that drugs usually remain readily available even when their possession and/or consumption is made illegal in law is easily explained by corruption. There's really no need to sink into the dubious, unhealthy, and dark realm of conspiracy theory. The drug trade is a business with a huge revenue. When a product generates huge amounts of dollars, it's pretty easy to find people who are willing to break the law in order to move it or allow it to be moved by turning a blind eye.

Furthermore, pot can be home grown, so it's pretty easy to understand why it's so common. I'm not sure about America, but in Canada the drug trade is commanded by organized crime which often has connections with corrupt officials and policemen.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

Down-voting sucks! I don't necessarily agree with the opinions expressed in the post to which I reply, but voting it down to the point where it is hidden just makes it harder to have an honest discussion.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Tell that to the one who down voted posts in the thread. If you don't know who it is, ask the moderators to check for you.

Alternatively, you can disable Javascript in your browser. This will stop comments from being collapsed.

[-] -3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

but in Canada the drug trade is commanded by organized crime which often has connections with corrupt officials and policemen.

this is the essence of conspiracy . . . I see it will take time for this simple fact to percolate its way through your gray matter.

Conspiracy exists. Get used to it.

[+] -8 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

This has nothing to do with conspiracy, and all to do with organized crime and corruption. It's not the same thing.

[+] -8 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

do I really have to look up the definition of conspiracy for ya?

I thought you were older than that . . .

[+] -8 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

red herring + ad hominem

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

lies and distortion

look it up

or keep your cognitive dissonance to yourself

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

Sounds like a conspiracy theory

[-] 0 points by PUBLICITY (-10) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Does it sound like you have something interesting to promote. That's great! Just know we will be in touch and please do the same. Wanted to say hi and we look forward to hearing more about your projects.


GotPublicity? http://www.GotPublicity.com

"Getting Publicity Starts Here"

PO Box 80338 #66058, Chicago, IL 60680-3338, USA

[-] 0 points by PUBLICITY (-10) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Hello, On behalf of Publicity For Business, I would like to welcome you to the website and to our community. As a business owner, I understand that the challenges being placed upon us in our fast paced world are getting increasingly more difficult to keep up with. There never seems to enough time to squeeze it all in, yet we must - someway, somehow. We have people counting on us, which means we also need a place to go for support and encouragement. An Empowerment Network.

Our goal with this website is to provide you, and our community of motivated, success driven business professionals, not only trainings and instruction, but resources to make a better and more fulfilling life. A life with peace, balance and also genuine financial security as you pursue a highly successful business career.

Joanna Rosapo VP, Community Relations http://www.PublicityForBusiness.com

Getting Great Publicity Has Never Been So Easy

[-] 0 points by infonomics (393) 12 years ago

From Wikipedia:

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public .

The salient understanding of this definition is that you cannot have a conspiracy if a significant number of people know of it.

I present my theory about conspiracy theory. The greater the significance of the conspiracy, the greater the number of participants to effect it, which, in turn, increases the probability of intentional or unintentional exposure. So, any conspiracy theory of significance is likely to breach the definition above, which is to refute the notion of conspiracy theory. My theory does not address time until exposure.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

Some conspiracies are real of course, but most conspiracy theorists like Ron Paul, Alex Jones and David Icke are con artists looking to make a quick and easy buck.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Conspiracies that have been proven real are not called "conspiracy theories".

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

Proven by who???

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

By whoever uses the scientific method and serious research to prove their claims with evidence. Good journalists and good historians do it all the time. Their work is respectively called investigative journalism and historical analysis.

[+] -6 points by JPB950 (2254) 12 years ago

I think you've missed something about the development of terms in the english language. "Conspiracy theory" is an expression, not to be taken literally with the meaning of each separate word. Just as defining the words "dog"and "hot" doesn't really help with the meaning of "hot dog". Conspiracy theory has come to mean the use of an alleged unconventional, convoluted, secret plot to explain an event.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

You remind me of Humpty Dumpty, who said something like, words mean whatever I say they mean, that's why I pay them extra! Word's either have a meaning or they don't. If the meaning of a word is subject to change according to the convienance of the user, or of those who would control their meaning, than words have no meaning.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 12 years ago

Sorry it's just a fact of the language, there are expressions that have a meaning of their own, separate from what the individual words of that expression mean. Conspiracy theory has become an idiomatic expression, like "the buck stops here", "heard it on the grapevine", or "kick the can down the road".

Conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist are, for better or worse, linked to convoluted, covert plots that offer little proof. So to employ one more idiomatic expression, lighten up.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Well, if this was just all about "Bigfoot" I would lighten up. And, when you come to it, I never did take Humpty Dumpty that seroiusly.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 12 years ago

There you go, much more relaxing to just take it all in stride. No one is changing anyone else on here we're all just offering opinions and our own view of the truth as we see it.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Sigh... You are the one trying to apply your own meaning to the already well defined English expression "conspiracy theory" and you don't realize it even after many users have posted dictionary definitions of the term!

[+] -8 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Conspiracy theory is an English expression. As such, it cannot be understood by simply juxtaposing the definition of conspiracy with the definition of theory. Used together, both words create a new meaning. This is how most expressions work.

Your definition is flawed because you adopt a literal reading of this word combination; as if you defined "mother tongue" as literally meaning the tongue of one's mother.

I'm surprised you don't know this expression?! It's considered general knowledge, often penned by scholars, journalists, novelists, etc...


A quick search in the Oxford dictionary would have rendered your posting useless:

(noun) a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

Notice the words belief and unexplained. This is a pseudo-science based on assumptions.


For a richer definition, we can look in Wikipedia:

The term "conspiracy theory" is used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies.[1] The term is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at "stealing" power, money, or freedom, from "the people".[citation needed] Conspiracy theories are based on the notion that complex plots are put into motion by powerful hidden forces.[2] Less illustrious uses refer to folklore and urban legend and a variety of explanatory narratives which are constructed with methodological flaws or biases.[3] Originally a neutral term, during the political upheaval[not in citation given] of the 1960s it also acquired a somewhat derogatory sense, implying paranoia.[4] The term is sometimes used to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational. A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that Nixon and his aides were behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[5] [6]

Carefully take notice of the sentence I have rendered in bold. It is the key to comprehending your error.

For those who are interested in learning more, I suggest reading the whole Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory This is a very good explanation of the expression, of its historical context, of its use in various fields, and also provides sources for those who want to dive even deeper.


Believe me, there's a big difference between serious investigators using science and the little MatLocks we see on this forum trying to explain the government's darkest secrets by using mountains of assumptions collected on various conspiracy theory websites and saved to their moms' hard drives.

Oh! The MatLockian dream of unlocking the most secret of governmental secrets! So powerful is this dream that most lose their mind before even reaching their mom's fridge for another Coca-Cola! "John! It's time for another psychiatric assessment! Bring the pills the doctor gave you last time."

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

Okay, if using Wikipedia is accepted here, then you'd know about Operation Northwoods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Quote; "Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[2] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

    "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States 

in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy." End Quote

So, would the perceived threat from Cuba, resulting from these proposed actions, be a conspiracy theory? Or a subversive act of terrorism?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

try this - i think this is a better back and forth on the subject than the greek has to offer - 12-13-6

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

As I posted in my above comment:

A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that Nixon and his aides were behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[5] [6]


The word conspiracy, and the expression or term conspiracy theory do not mean the same thing. Furthermore, the example you posted is not a conspiracy. It is an effort in propaganda.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

Or simply Treason, which sounds a helluvalot worse than Watergate.

Agreed?

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

The example you posted is an act of treason, but remember it was only a proposal. It certainly is not a conspiracy theory since it's supported by evidence.

[-] 0 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 12 years ago

You're being an asshole. That's just a statement of the degree that it has been accepted, not how much it is true.

Please consider that carefully, the point is to prevent further damage. If you wait until 1 or 2 people do all the work to find out the truth for you before you act, its probably already well too late -- you probably just lost millions of dollars or millions of people.

Don't be an asshole.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

try this - i think this is a better back and forth on the subject than the greek has to offer - 12-13-6

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

he is an asshole - can't change that

[-] -3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

What's the point of calling me an asshole? Do you believe it helps you further your point, or do you resort to name calling simply because you aren't old enough to engage in proper conversations with other adults?

That's just a statement of the degree that it has been accepted, not how much it is true.

An English expression is made "true" by the degree of its acceptance. Language is a construct used by societies to share ideas and information. The expression "conspiracy theory" has a well defined meaning which I explained above by providing a dictionary definition. The fact that this expression is defined in the dictionary is a testament to its non ambiguous and thus clear meaning. There is no confusion for those who are educated and know who to use a dictionary.


Please consider that carefully, the point is to prevent further damage. If you wait until 1 or 2 people do all the work to find out the truth for you before you act, its probably already well too late -- you probably just lost millions of dollars or millions of people.

Engaging in "truth" finding by using conspiracy theory type pseudo-sciences does not help, it only confuses matters more. If you're not going to use a proper epistemology to do your research, it's best to go play with your Wii instead.

[-] 0 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 12 years ago

Your notion that an "english expression is made true by the degree of its acceptance" is not necessarily true, it is even very dangerous. If I'm being tortured in a closed cell (perhaps because of "indefinite detainment for suspected terrorism", say), my cry for help is REAL and TRUE even if the rumors that propagate later doubt it.

If no one were to believe it, what happens to me?

As for "calling you an asshole", that just a way for my pain to express itself amongst those who have let the problems of atheism and industrialism get to such extremes against the human heart.

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I don't see the point of your comparison. What does a well defined English expression have to do with someone using propaganda to hide the fact that he's torturing someone?

As for "calling you an asshole", that just a way for my pain to express itself amongst those who have let the problems of atheism and industrialism get to such extremes against the human heart.

That's a ridiculous and childish reason for calling people you don't know assholes.

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 12 years ago

The difference, sir, is that there is a power and force before the Word.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I'm still not really sure what you mean.

[+] -14 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

The fact is that there are conspiracies, and there are often theories that postulate their existence. I think the issue is the implausibility of some of these theories that earns them the negative connotation implicit to the term "Conspiracy Theory."

Secrecy is central to most "Conspiracy Theories," but it is very difficult to conceal a conspiracy in our modern society given all of its communication outlets. Consider, for example, the Pentagon Papers, Abu Ghraib abuse, Bradley Manning, Wiki-Leaks, and the trouble Presidents Nixon (Watergate), Reagan (Iran/Contra), Clinton (sex), and Bush (Iraq WMD) had keeping their secrets.

Grand conspiracies seldom stay secret for long, and the grander they are, the less probable they are to remain secret. The 9/11 conspiracies, for example, require that literally hundreds if not thousands of people remain silent regarding what would be the greatest crime in American history. Nevermind all the engineering details offered by people with little understanding of physics or engineering that have been thoroughly debunked, the very scope and magnitude of the alleged conspiracy demands it would become public, yet it has not.

When people combine man's inherent desire for explanation of disparate events (connect-the-dots) with lack of understanding (The gods of Olympus controlling events rather than the laws of physics), and fear of forces more powerful than themselves (gods, governments, banks, etc), they often abandon reason and endorse theories they find more appealing. These theories are often self-sustaining (the actors are implicit because the events require their presence), and the motivation of the players is often ascribed to other conspiracies ad infinitum (9/11 was part of a conspiracy to control world oil supplies which is part of a conspiracy by the ruling elite to subjugate all men for some reason). The self-justifying nature of the conspiracy theorist is often revealed by their insistence that all who disagree are part of the conspiracy.

It has been proven time and time again that many conspiracy theorists suffer from mental disorders. Mental health, however, is not a back-and-white state but a continuum. We are all vulnerable to the appeal of conspiracy theories to some extent because they appeal to our nature (explain things we don't understand, feed our fear of power, make us part of an exclusive club with sole access to the truth, etc).

The only way for us to resist the temptation of elaborate conspiracy theories is to apply reason.

  • Are the facts describing the events "explained" by the theory controversial or are they clear ?
  • Are the motivations vague and/or explained in terms of other conspiracies or are they simple ?
  • Are excessive conspirators required or is the number sufficiently small to sustain secrecy ?
  • Are there alternate less elaborate explanations for the events of equal validity ?

An understanding of self-organizing systems is key to developing less elaborate alternatives to many conspiracy theories. Consider for example, how hundreds of skaters on an ice ring manage to avoid running into one another. Their behavior is not the result of a law or apriori agreement, it results from their mutual self-interest. In a similar fashion, a number of people can appear to be operating together simply because they are all seeking profit. In a more general sense, any time we impose constraints on an energetic system, patterns and order tend to emerge.

Conspiracies do exist, but conspiracy theories are very appealing to man's nature and must be tempered by reason. What we call 'Conspiracy Theories' with capital letters are typically self sustaining explanations of events driven by innate fear and ignorance that do not withstand scrutiny.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

What happens when people don't remain silent, but are then just branded as being "insane?" They confirmed the "conspiracy theoy" ergo they are insane. That was just what I was told about Susan Lindauer. How many whistle blowers are branded as insane when they confirm an unacceptable historical narrative?

Apparently they didn't consider her insane when they put her in a high ranking government post, but when she comes out against the enforced historical narrative suddenly she is insane.

You see, we are in genuinely Orwellian territory here.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

did i send this already? if so sorry - i think this is a better back and forth on the subject than the greek has to offer - 12-13-6

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

[+] -6 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

I'm still working on getting this straight in my head - the difference between conspiracy and conspiracy theory. The way I'm thinking of it is "conspiracy" is a real act, done secretly, between 2 or more people to do something illegal. If someone suspects that there is a conspiracy, without good supporting evidence to back it up, it's a "conspiracy theory". Thras calls it using assumptions and correlations. I'm thinking that the confusion lies in what some people think is evidence but is really assumptions and correlations. This could be subjective. I'm not sure. Which people then feel like - how do we know if its good evidence without researching it (not that I think this is the place to do it.)

I agree, alot of conspiracy theories are completely implausible. And even the ones that aren't- investigative journalists live for that stuff! Surely they would be working on it. Like the question of Pres. Obama's birth certificate. I find so unbelievably ridiculous. If there was really any truth to the claims that he was born outside the US, surely an investigative journalist would have uncovered it. And just in case all of the investigative journalists on the planet are liberal democrats and conspiring to make sure Pres. Obama got elected, surely Pres.Clinton and Hillary Clinton, with all of their powerful connections, would have been able to uncover such evidence during the Democratic primaries. And even if they were unable to find such evidence, surely Sen. McCain would have been able to uncover that evidence in order to use it to win the general election. Jeesh! I can't believe people in this country are still talking about this, and that other people take it seriously!

I agree too that part of it is that people inherently like to figure stuff out. It's fun. I guess some people find conspiracy theories fun, like talking about 9/11 and the melting point of steel, or something like that! Some people find that interesting and think there is some evidence there to support a different conclusion.

I think you're right too, that these theories are self-sustaining. Kind of like falling back on "faith" in religion. It's difficult to argue against faith, because there is no proof to counter it. You can't prove a negative. Except to say there is no evidence for it, which leads to, you just haven't found the evidence so therefore it might exist.

I love your example of the ice rink. That makes alot of sense. Unless it's hockey, and then they run into eachother on purpose! My 9 year old has been playing hockey since 3. So I know a bit about ice rinks. It's my second home!

In the end, I think conspiracy theorists are people that like to talk about their questions because they think there is evidence. We can't really say it won't withstand scrutiny until the issue is researched and either withstands the scrutiny or not. And even when there is good evidence like 9/11, some people don't want to accept it, and for some reason think it makes sense to explain it otherwise, however implausible, the grand plan to control the world oil supply or bring about a New World Order. Even though entirely implausible that Pres. Obama was born in a different country. How can anyone believe this? I'm going to have to agree with your statement about mental illness. Which is what Thras has been saying all along. Not all of them are mentally ill. But probably a good portion of them.

I'm going to back up a little - We can't really say it won't withstand scrutiny until the issue is researched and either withstands the scrutiny or not. Until the issue is researched. Does it deserve further research? I would apply your test!

Bullet point 1 - clear or controversial, could be very subjective Bullet point 2 - again, this sounds very subjective. Bullet point 3 - I like this one, goes to implausibility Bullet point 4 - like

How about a test to cover something like the birth certificate conspiracy theorists. It would only take a small amount of people to hide it if he was born outside the US, I think? What I think blows this theory out of the water is that there were so many people that had a very high motiviation for uncovering evidence and it didn't happen. I'm not sure how to say it best to include it as a test. I guess it just falls under implausible. So we have to keep pointing out implausibility and explaining the implausibility for the various theories.

Maybe it just all comes down to implausibility, and evidence v assumptions and correlations. It took me a while to get there! I had to talk it through with myself and then reread your post. It's kind of confusing only because I have never thought about these things before! I was not really aware of this subject until recent. I never even knew there were 9/11 conspiracy theories. I guess I live a pretty sheltered life.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I never even knew there were 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I wish I could go back to that time! Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

You're right! lol. My safe little conspiracy theory-free sheltered life has been ruined forever.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

i think this is a better back and forth on the subject than the greek has to offer - 12-13-6

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

[+] -14 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

That was a remarkable explanation and a truly inspiring and educational read. I'm glad someone on this forum tackled this issue with more eloquence that I ever could.

Unfortunately, conspiracy theories persist with such vehemence because they are quick to fabricate, but time consuming to debunk. Whether we like it or not, serious research demands a lot of patience and a lot of effort. Some scholars put aside their work and invest months of their precious time to debunk conspiracy theorists such as 9-11 Truthers only to realize that these nut jobs add more assumptions and claims faster than they can be debunked. That's why conspiracy theories keep getting more and more complicated. Instead of defending their claims that have been debunked, they throw in a red herring by making more claims.

David Icke is known as the master of conspiracy theories. He has created a grand narrative that combines almost all the modern conspiracy theories; a sort of mega conspiracy theory. Fortunately, when a conspiracy theory grows this big it basically debunks itself because it crumbles under the weight of its own ridiculousness.

From what Iv'e read on this forum, conspiracy theorists are usually not very good writers and lack basic knowledge concerning the scientific method and the burden of proof. I have yet to read the comments of a conspiracy theorist that I would consider an intelligent person. Most seem to be high school students who are still struggling with their reading comprehension and writing skills. Most of them turn to gratuitous and uncreative insults in an desperate attempt to cover up their intellectual deficiencies.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

what a sad waste of time - and all your fault - i tried before but will do it one more time here in intelligent back and forth on the subject - just so you know i do not believe the official version abut agree 100% with my boy noam on the rest! -12-13-6

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all ­ rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.