[deleted]

I also consider historical revisionism a positive term. Revising history is what actual historians do.

uh...

The winning team usually writes the history books in a favorable light.

[deleted]

Unfortunately the conservative has become the nut job wing of conspiracy.

Well, there are still quite a few nuts around here. They are usually the ones you see screaming the loudest.

Calling anyone a nut just serves no positive purpose. Some people are more influenced by what they want to be true, and some others require too little evidence to believe something. They aren't crazy or stupid, they are just people. Both show the same signs of religious people, yet atheists are seen by the world as moralless satan worshipping heathens simply for thinking critically about religion. We ("Conspiracy theorists") are called nuts and cooks and loonies for thinking critically about the rest of the world. Some of us get confused by what we want to believe (I have a friend who is a devout christian but into conspiracies and molds the 2 together, believing that Israel is the holy land and the victim in the middle east, along with other things, because if he didn't that would mess up his understanding of his religion), and others who believe everything they hear but just get their info from indie news (or they lose their ability to think critically after one too many conspiracies coming true or something).

Thinking you're better than anyone else has never positively benefitted humanity, and I don't foresee it starting any time soon. Instead of believing some one else is crazy or stupid, why not ask them why they believe what they believe. You'd be surprised how much understanding both parties can receive from a mutually respectable dialogue.

Very well said. And I would agree with you mostly, but come on: you would have to agree that some of the things posted in here are just a tad over the border into crazytown.

What is your definition of crazy and what evidence do you have to support that any of the things you have deemed crazy are in fact not based in evidence? And even If something here, or anywhere else, is not based in evidence, why does that make it crazy? And, why can't that same logic be applied to the billions of religious people around the world? If you're going to call someone crazy for believing in one "conspiracy theory" which stretches the evidence to come to a conclusion, shouldn't the people who run their lives on a multi-thousand year old book and believing something with almost zero credible evidence (and in many cases despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) be institutionalized? Or do you think that it's okay to govern your life based on faith but for someone who governs their life fairly rationally but believes something that is not accepted by most, then they are crazy? If so, why? Please note, that I am going off your logic here. I don't believe that religious people are "crazy", at least not abnormally; I think every last human on the earth is "crazy" to some extent. My issue arises in that you put others into the category of "crazy" but not yourself, and that you may call less-crazy things crazy but believe more-crazy things to be okay.

"Conspiracy Theorist" is a label close minded people give to critical thinkers who research anything that opposes mainstream belief systems.

EDIT: 2 words

Try asking why no one has sampled "chemtrails" and see the reaction you get. Their critical thinking goes out the window when they are challenged.

Are you inferring that all conspiracy theorists are gullible people who only believe in fear based belief systems or that no critical thinkers are conspiracy theorists? Both maybe? Neither?

How many conspiracy theorists do their own experiments to support their beliefs? Not many in my experience.

How many get highly upset when presented with facts which do not support their beliefs? Quite a few.

I tend to agree with that.

However, if the the term conspiracy theorist is synonymous to critical thinking is synonymous to free thinking is synonymous to considering each piece of evidence with a degree of skepticism and integrity, then the types of people you are describing do not fit into my definition of a conspiracy theorist... then again, it is just a label. How you define the term "conspiracy theorist" is directly proportionate to how you acknowledge it.

fuckin definitions though man... such a limiting factor in our understanding of each other.. differences in definitions.

it is a term coined by your enemy, intentionally

It's a great label!

It also implies a responsibility of thinking logically while still retaining an open mind.

[deleted]

Well when the rational thinking individuals get grouped with the same folks that think the moon is hollow and planes crashing into the twin towers was a gigantic hologram projected to convince people of what they were seeing, yeah, I can see how someone might be upset by the notion.

Dont think of it as derrogatory; wear it like a badge of honor.

Then why do so many conspiracy theorists react so negatively to information that they don't agree with no matter how factual said information is?

People are different. I generally find politicians and political systems distasteful, but occasionally you find quality people therein, etc.

With the complete absence of honest journalism a rational person is forced to read between the lines and question all reports critically. Or a person can just go along or go with the flow and hope the hungry wolves respect the compliance of the lambs. Certainly, the term conspiracy theorist has taken on a life of it's own and is a blunt tool of social and intellectual assassination.

The guy in 9/11 in Plane Sight talks about this term. It is used over and over again to assert that the conspiracy remains theory rather than factual. The label you deserve then depends I the information you present. If you are careful to include only verifiable info then the term theorist is less appropriate. But basically, just explain that it may be a theory but so is evolution. There is proof. It is just an uphill battle against dumbed down rhetoric for the masses. Ones that piss me off in particular are liberal / conservative labels. One holds onto these labels and thus is grouped into some stereotypes that curb rational discourse.

But basically, just explain that it may be a theory but so is evolution.

I need to point out something here.

The "theorist" part of "conspiracy theorist" is meant in the colloquial or every day sense of the word, not the scientific one. You aren't scientists.

Implying that the evidential backing for a 9/11 "inside job" is on an equal footing with the Theory of Evolution is just wholly inaccurate by any sense of proportional viewpoint. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

I guess I should specify that I'm assuming that even though evolution is factual it is still called a theory.

When the info is there to prove something beyond hypothesis then it is fact. Thus, if we ever speculate about 9/11 we are theorizing. The problem is that to mix fact with hypothesis is still somewhat theorizing, albeit a more likely true than not.

If you don't like that label because of the presumptions that go along with it then call yourself a historian and add some historical context.

I've never thought of myself as anything but someone who is more aware than others. Whether my awareness comes from being more intelligent than many, and thus better able to decipher information, or from having a greater amount of wisdom from being well-read and prone to thought (or both) is something I couldn't say for sure.

The ones who most often dismiss all contrary historical suggestions are the ones who have always been content to let others decide their beliefs for them. These days these "others" are members of the mainstream media.

I would much rather be labelled as a conspiracy theorist and shunned by idiots than become an idiot myself by turning off my brain. Let them hurl insults, we are still their betters.

Open-minded but skeptical truth-seeker?

I would define my self in such a term rather than conspiracy theorist because of it's negative associations.

"the human mind is like a computer no matter how efficient it may be its reliability is only as great as the information fed into it

if it is possible to control the input to the human mind it’s entirely possible to program what it will think

and yes it’s even possible to program people to laugh at the mere mention of the word conspiracy "

Yes. I definitely do. Slowly people are waking up, not fast enough though.

I just love when people cringe when I tell them what I am referred to. But just keep calm and make sure people understand that: "It isn't theory if it's FACT"

:)

I prefer "Forensic Historian" ; )

We all heard or were subjected to labels when we were young(er). Egghead, Brainiac, so on and so forth. It's simply a remnant of the "tribe" mentality. "You don't smell/act/do like the rest of the tribe". Fuck'em.
"Theorist" gets my vote, for me. I encourage you to find a label you can live with.

[deleted]

I'm sorry, let me be more clear.

People will label you. A proper defense is a creative label of your own choosing.

What's stopping you from completely not allowing anyone else's "label" of you to have a negative impact? As to say So What?

I suggest you are what you acknowledge.

And I agree, you are what you acknowledge.

Fortunately, with age sometimes comes wisdom. The end result of some of that wisdom would be to disconnect other people's labels with your own insight of yourself. And then pick and choose how you "allow" others to label you, in your estimation. And for your own peace of mind.

I can appreciate that sentiment. Peace and love brother.

Definitely. Conspiracy hypothesizer is much more accurate.

Own it. That way you wont be affected by it.

As a person who randomed on by this subreddit, I'll leave my opinion in a good-natured fashion. I use the name "Conspiracy Theorist" because that's what many whom I've talked to about 'marginal ideas' (for lack of a more PC term) have been just that: theorists.

Many of the ideas you all espouse don't have wide-spread acceptance not (only) because the media doesn't portray it but because these are ideas that are connected by such disparate, unconnected, assumed, and made through Post Hoc arguments. You can call all the 'evidence' dug up here or there in support of your ideas but the essence of logical reasoning is not that you draw conclusions from evidence but that evidence reveals the truth of the matter.

No, I'm not a troll, just a guy with an outside perspective letting you know what we think.

It's set you in a terminology that will get you negative associations everywhere because of medias projections. I prefer Researcher.

"Conspiracy theories" are not so "feeble" when governments around the world, and throughout history, have, provably, conducted false-flag operations towards achieving certain political and social objectives. What is "feeble" are the "minds" of those with such blind loyalty and faith in a government to not even question "official" stories, nor critically think for themselves, deferring their "judgement" to whatever propaganda the mass media is purveying.

Yes it should be changed to freetheorist

[deleted]

Amen.

Gore Vidal considered himself a 'conspiracy analyst'

I always liked that term. But no i don't hate the term conpriacy theorist. I dislike the stigma attached to it, but I very much enjoy watching as people squirm trying to come up with a definition for the phrase that doesn't make them sound like ignorant buffoons.

'Conspiracy analyst' I think this is the best alternative yet. 'Freethinker' or 'Free-theorist' seem a bit too broad and hippie flavored to be relevant. Although, i would predict any new phrase coined would just be pigeonholed in the same manner.

The problem with the term 'Conspiracy Theory' is that it is grossly misunderstood by too many people. As the guy at the beginning of 9/11 in Plane Sight points out with his little word association exercise, 'conspiracy' is automatically assumed with 'theory' attached to it, as if the two words are synonymous.

Conspiracy theorists, freethinkers, and truth seekers alike.., I'm afraid the 'nutty' stigma will remain as long as selectively ignorant people are the majority. Unless you enjoy wasting time and frustrating yourself, the only thing you can do is shrug them off and wait for them to come around on their own. That's not to say one shouldn't attempt to plant some seeds...

It sounds like you're more upset about the connotations of the term rather than the term itself which is, strictly and technically speaking, accurate.

It's an IQ test and most people fail.

In this day and age, the truth is called conspiracy because it is put out of the mass public's scope, and replaced with an artificial false "truth."

So everyone who is finding out what's really going on is labeled as a conspiracy theorist, rather than a news reporter or a journalist, those titles are saved for puppets of disinformation.

Agreed. The truth will set you free.

It's a term that's been maneuvered into a tool for demonization. If you get pinned with it, identify the attacker as an enemy of free speech or an authoritarian fascist and see how he likes that. Nazis don't like inquiry, do they? It gets in the way of their agendas.

the real conspiracy theories are the ones we're fed by the media when they cover subjective material. i think of people that ask questions, look at history, and come to logical conclusions as bullshit rejecters or probable truth analyzers. when someone says that to you, ask them what it means. 99% of them can't define that term and feel special because of the taboo meaning behind it. The use of that term as a basis for attack is the height of stupidity and exposes sensationalists.

The term is perfect, descriptive and should remain. You are "expressing a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain" ... "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."

It is basically a term used to marginalize anybody that doesn't believe everything the news tells them.

[deleted]

If you don't believe what they say on the news, that is already theorizing that there exists a conspiracy to lie.

Gee, I wonder why conspiracy theory advocates are considered "nuts", "loonies" and "complete nutters"?

I mean, who in their right mind would dismiss the obvious truth of lizard people/aliens/9-11 Truth/FEMA Death Camps/chemtrails/Face on Mars/Philadelphia Experiment/etc etc etc?

[deleted]

You're quite welcome!

And remember; keep an eye out for the Knights Templar/Freemasons/Jews or whoever it is that you're worried about at this particular moment...

You are a conspiracy theorist. Plain and fucking simple. Give me any real proof of any bullshit on this subreddit and I will personally give you all a more respectable name.

Edit - I do, however, have an open mind. I also know what the governments are capable of, but everything Iv seen so far just points to you all being fucking bat-shit crazy.

Prove me wrong.

The winning team usually writes the history books in a favorable light.

You're quite welcome!

And remember; keep an eye out for the Knights Templar/Freemasons/Jews or whoever it is that you're worried about at this particular moment...