how do you deal with people who believe in batshit insane conspiracy theories?

  On 12/6/2009 at 1:59 AM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 12/6/2009 at 1:44 AM, Awepittance said:

i find it strangely divisive to throw around the term 'conspiracy theorist' as a disparaging remark. It's become almost a new way to refer to someone as crazy.

if you want to debate someone based on facts do it, but stop using the blanket ad hominem of 'you're just a conspiracy theorist' at least have a genuine debate about whatever subject is at hand.

but they really are fucking cunts. well, i guess it depends on the particular theory at hand. but from my experience (which without meaning to sound like a cunt is more than most, since i've actively hunted these folks out in the past), someone who believes in one is going to believe in most of them.

 

the Apollo moon landing hoaxers are no better than creationists in my mind too, since i'm using Apollo data in my fucking master's project and their beliefs are nothing more than denial. it would make as much sense to claim that the whole concept of chemical reactions is a conspiracy.

i will agree that there are people out there who seem believe each and every popular 'conspiracy theory' like chem trails, autism is caused by vaccine. these people annoy me too.

It's just irritating to me that for example if you question things like the Gulf of Tonkin 10 years ago you would have been called a 'conspiracy theorist' by a great number of people. Now that the documents have been declassified showing that a torpedo was not actually fired on the 2nd day, will the same people stop referring to doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin incident as 'conspiracy theories' ? probably not

Everybody is conformable in what they already believe.

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:22 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

arguments are useless. how often do people go "yeah, you're right. thanks"?

i do, and i have done many times. any honest cunt will

watmm is for losers huh.

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:26 AM, Pennywise said:

watmm is for losers huh.

Loving your joyrex.com post count.

can y'all explain to me what chem trails are?

they have been denied by the government to even exist.. and we know they exist.. theyre in the sky every week.

what is your explanation?

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:31 AM, abusivegeorge said:

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:26 AM, Pennywise said:

watmm is for losers huh.

 

Loving your joyrex.com post count.

2000th post now and every post has been crap and no one knows who I am on here or gives a fuck...but I just dont care.

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:33 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

can y'all explain to me what chem trails are?

 

they have been denied by the government to even exist.. and we know they exist.. theyre in the sky every week.

what is your explanation?

you talking about the our minds being controlled by chemtrails thing?

stfu

  On 12/6/2009 at 1:44 AM, Awepittance said:

i find it strangely divisive to throw around the term 'conspiracy theorist' as a disparaging remark. It's become almost a new way to refer to someone as crazy.

if you want to debate someone based on facts do it, but stop using the blanket ad hominem of 'you're just a conspiracy theorist' at least have a genuine debate about whatever subject is at hand.

I do consider the term as having a disparaging dimension to it, however i wasn't calling anyone conspiracy theorists, but, shall we say, overly biased towards the plea of conspiracy theorists. I consider the amount of shit chax is getting to be lolworthy: yes he may have had a bit to drink beforahand, however his problem is very real to him (and i, personally, relate*), and a forum that enables the likes of troon or weed should not be so randomly judgemental. The ad hominem bullshit started way before i "threw terms around", the age ("you're too old\young to understand")argument is the saddest fucking cop-out\cheap shot anybody can use in debate.

I have no opinion on most of the issues mentioned above, i'm in Eastern Europe, lived here my own life, we have our own problems, and my perception of 9\11 is informed by a merger of South Park and David Cross rhetoric. I don't believe it is a stance worth defending. What prompted me to post in the first place was the ludicrous amount of backlash to denial of counter-culture. Yes, one should keep an open mind and give everything the benefit of the doubt, but to decry one's aversion to the inverse of his views whilst simultaneously berating his views as resulting from ignorance is, at best, hypocrisy. This sort of paranoid de facto "the whole entire goverment is the devil mang, totally harshing mah mellow" stance was already getting old in the 80s. Maybe the goverment is simply stupid and innefectual, or simply intrinsically facetious. One should consider conspiracies but not zealously (i may be exaggerating) defend conspiracy theorists.

* My own experience(s) with conspiracy noobs, which admittedly informs my own personal bias in favor of chax's standpoint:

Goth fella, double highschool dropout, high as shit off cheap weed:

"When i listen to Tool, i feel they are speaking to me. I feel like he (Maynard James Keenan) knows so much. I think he's a freemason. I almost became a freemason once. (ten minutes of cheap weed stupor) There's an apocalypse coming, and all of the goverments are in on it. FACT! HOW IS BABBY FORMED!?!?!"

Lightweight fella, triple college dropout, hammered on multiple libations (feebly translating drunken slur over into english):

"Da swine flu was engineered by da gobment to make munys off da medisin!"

"Why do say so?"

"Look, man, (sarcastically) i didn't go to university, i haven't read anything, i'm a moron, you can consider me a moron, but i just wake up in da mroing and feel the whole pain of the world on mah shoulders and i feel in my heart the evil being done!"

So... yeah.

Also, awepittance, my post was in no way directed at you. Sorry if you misconstrued it to be so.

And, finally, i have no personal problems with a good conspiracy caper story (even if entirely fictional) - having just finished assassin's creed 2 i can attest my complete awe of the writing behind it, found it quite well put together and compelling - but i wouldn't go as far as consider to consider it a basis for rampant juvenile disestablishmentarianism.

this is basically the tl;dr version of my former post.

no i did not say what i believed them to be i asked what you believed them to be.

I have a opinions

you have opinions

mine are mine

yours are yours

whats that you say?

well that could be true

heres what i think

don't believe it

then fuck you.

you need to mind your manners son

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:37 AM, Lube Saibot said:

 

I do consider the term as having a disparaging dimension to it, however i wasn't calling anyone conspiracy theorists, but, shall we say, overly biased towards the plea of conspiracy theorists. I consider the amount of shit chax is getting to be lolworthy: yes he may have had a bit to drink beforahand, however his problem is very real to him (and i, personally, relate*), and a forum that enables the likes of troon or weed should not be so randomly judgemental. The ad hominem bullshit started way before i "threw terms around", the age ("you're too old\young to understand")argument is the saddest fucking cop-out\cheap shot anybody can use in debate.

i see what you're saying, and i somewhat empathize with Chax's position. i don't think age has anything to do with it personally.

sometimes when posting and debating on this forum i forget that most people here just lurk and don't voice their opinion. When you get a lot of posters displaying the 'bias' that you speak of you are only getting like a 5% representation of the entire forum. I've found from being here a while that most people here are definitely open to discussing these subjects intelligently, but not biased in any way towards conspiracy theories.

  On 12/6/2009 at 1:59 AM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 12/6/2009 at 1:44 AM, Awepittance said:

i find it strangely divisive to throw around the term 'conspiracy theorist' as a disparaging remark. It's become almost a new way to refer to someone as crazy.

if you want to debate someone based on facts do it, but stop using the blanket ad hominem of 'you're just a conspiracy theorist' at least have a genuine debate about whatever subject is at hand.

but they really are fucking cunts. well, i guess it depends on the particular theory at hand. but from my experience (which without meaning to sound like a cunt is more than most, since i've actively hunted these folks out in the past), someone who believes in one is going to believe in most of them.

 

the Apollo moon landing hoaxers are no better than creationists in my mind too, since i'm using Apollo data in my fucking master's project and their beliefs are nothing more than denial. it would make as much sense to claim that the whole concept of chemical reactions is a conspiracy.

I agree with you that there is a certain "type" who believes virtually every conspiracy they hear but to just generalise that everyone who has ever believed a conspiracy believes in all conspiracies is idiotic(sorry). For example, i believe JFK probably wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, yet i believe we went to the moon. Have i just blown your mind? I know plenty of people who suspect some things could be a conspiracy and are sure that other things aren't. Maybe i just hang around exclusively with incredibly exceptional individuals, or maybe your just completely wrong in your generalisation?

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:36 AM, Pennywise said:

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:31 AM, abusivegeorge said:

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:26 AM, Pennywise said:

watmm is for losers huh.

 

Loving your joyrex.com post count.

2000th post now and every post has been crap and no one knows who I am on here or gives a fuck...but I just dont care.

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:45 AM, Pennywise said:

I have a opinions

you have opinions

mine are mine

yours are yours

whats that you say?

well that could be true

heres what i think

don't believe it

then fuck you.

LOL I actually really love you now.

Alternatively you can calmly give them a fistfull of dollars nod, and swagger away drink in hand.

A fistful of dollars is when you tightly grab a freshly done fart and keep as much of the stink in your fist as pos, only gto release it all full blast in the face of the conspiracy theorist

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:49 AM, Rambo said:

  On 12/6/2009 at 1:59 AM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 12/6/2009 at 1:44 AM, Awepittance said:

i find it strangely divisive to throw around the term 'conspiracy theorist' as a disparaging remark. It's become almost a new way to refer to someone as crazy.

if you want to debate someone based on facts do it, but stop using the blanket ad hominem of 'you're just a conspiracy theorist' at least have a genuine debate about whatever subject is at hand.

but they really are fucking cunts. well, i guess it depends on the particular theory at hand. but from my experience (which without meaning to sound like a cunt is more than most, since i've actively hunted these folks out in the past), someone who believes in one is going to believe in most of them.

 

the Apollo moon landing hoaxers are no better than creationists in my mind too, since i'm using Apollo data in my fucking master's project and their beliefs are nothing more than denial. it would make as much sense to claim that the whole concept of chemical reactions is a conspiracy.

 

I agree with you that there is a certain "type" who believes virtually every conspiracy they hear but to just generalise that everyone who has ever believed a conspiracy believes in all conspiracies is idiotic(sorry). For example, i believe JFK probably wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, yet i believe we went to the moon. Have i just blown your mind? I know plenty of people who suspect some things could be a conspiracy and are sure that other things aren't. Maybe i just hang around exclusively with incredibly exceptional individuals, or maybe your just completely wrong in your generalisation?

my mind is blown

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:49 AM, Rambo said:

I agree with you that there is a certain "type" who believes virtually every conspiracy they hear but to just generalise that everyone who has ever believed a conspiracy believes in all conspiracies is idiotic(sorry). For example, i believe JFK probably wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, yet i believe we went to the moon. Have i just blown your mind? I know plenty of people who suspect some things could be a conspiracy and are sure that other things aren't. Maybe i just hang around exclusively with incredibly exceptional individuals, or maybe your just completely wrong in your generalisation?

lol alright calm down

i stand by my shit though

and rightly so

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:48 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:37 AM, Lube Saibot said:

 

I do consider the term as having a disparaging dimension to it, however i wasn't calling anyone conspiracy theorists, but, shall we say, overly biased towards the plea of conspiracy theorists. I consider the amount of shit chax is getting to be lolworthy: yes he may have had a bit to drink beforahand, however his problem is very real to him (and i, personally, relate*), and a forum that enables the likes of troon or weed should not be so randomly judgemental. The ad hominem bullshit started way before i "threw terms around", the age ("you're too old\young to understand")argument is the saddest fucking cop-out\cheap shot anybody can use in debate.

 

i see what you're saying, and i somewhat empathize with Chax's position. i don't think age has anything to do with it personally.

sometimes when posting and debating on this forum i forget that most people here just lurk and don't voice their opinion. When you get a lot of posters displaying the 'bias' that you speak of you are only getting like a 5% representation of the entire forum. I've found from being here a while that most people here are definitely open to discussing these subjects intelligently, but not biased in any way towards conspiracy theories.

It's why i used "qualified majority" instead of "simple majority". I do believe most of the posters on this topic are veteran enough to represent the lurker demographic.

...

What the fuck am i saying?

...

WATMM PARLIAMENT!

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:50 AM, AJW said:

A fistful of dollars is when you tightly grab a freshly done fart and keep as much of the stink in your fist as pos, only gto release it all full blast in the face of the conspiracy theorist

Lol!

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:54 AM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:49 AM, Rambo said:

I agree with you that there is a certain "type" who believes virtually every conspiracy they hear but to just generalise that everyone who has ever believed a conspiracy believes in all conspiracies is idiotic(sorry). For example, i believe JFK probably wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, yet i believe we went to the moon. Have i just blown your mind? I know plenty of people who suspect some things could be a conspiracy and are sure that other things aren't. Maybe i just hang around exclusively with incredibly exceptional individuals, or maybe your just completely wrong in your generalisation?

lol alright calm down

 

i stand by my shit though

oh it's not alright ezkerraldean. It's not alright at all.

How do you deal with people, Period

ok ok, but if we could go back in a time machine and read some of the threads about 9/11 for example it would appear the bias is in the other direction. maybe over time things have changed? who really gives a shit

lol

  On 12/6/2009 at 2:56 AM, marf said:

How do you deal with people, Period

I don't.