My rules (as in, rules I try and stick to):

Be polite and don't get angry

Don't call anyone any names

Deal only with facts (that you can back up with links)... and questions (questions can be powerful).

Never give your opinion as an argument, because no-one cares what your opinion is. And you should not care what other peoples' opinions are either. The facts alone are important.

Don't waste time with name-callers (once someone calls you names, they have effectively shown you that they are arguing from emotion rather than logic)... just point out their inadequacy and move on.

Do not let them get to you. We would all prefer it if everyone loved us, but if you have controversial views, then you are going to find that some people will not seem to approve at all. Learn to be okay with that.

That was a well-written and informed post. Good thinking!

“The worst thing to call somebody is crazy. It's dismissive. "I don't understand this person. So they're crazy." That's bullshit. These people are not crazy. They strong people. Maybe their environment is a little sick.”

― Dave Chappelle

Some people are crazy though.

This is just like the "First they laugh at you..." quote. The fact that people are laughing at you is not validation that you're correct, because people with stupid ideas get laughed at too.

I just don't care.

I just tell them to look up operation northwoods. It's proof that the government is willing to put their agenda over the lives of citizens

Good call. If you can look at that and go, "well, I'm sure that doesn't happen now," you've got to be crazy. These bastards just got better at hiding it!

But they rejected it! It was just a daft idea pushed by two guys. The government never sanctioned it at any point.

But it was still considered... the same scenario could be put forth to a different group of people and could be decided to be the best thing to do for the country. Look, if Nazism is possible then really anything else is possible as well

No one rejects my views too much. I guess I'm close enough to mainstream that nothing I say is too "out there." I don't think I've ever used the terms New World Order, illuminati, zionist, shill, sheeple, etc.

Closest I get to someone disagreeing is just... someone might say they don't want to believe it. And that's fine. And if they did disagree, that's okay too. Arguing over this sorta stuff is like fighting over religion. You aren't gonna get anywhere.

I think it comes down to how you present it. For me... it's just my opinion, it's what I think, and I don't pretend to have all the answers. I think that's easier for people to take than some of the more aggressive stances I see here. Where opposing views are quickly and aggressively dismissed.

I read stuff, I listen to stuff, and sometimes I'll be wrong on something. It happens. I learn from it.

I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Anyone who reads my posts knows that while I believe in some of the theories here, I also think a large portion of them are from "nuts, crazy, and delusional" people. Well... to be perfectly fair I don't think they are those things, I think they fail to use logic and cannot see the fallacies that they themselves use.

However if I talk to someone I will be perfectly happy to discuss theories I find to be nutter, in a perfect respectful tone, I'll ask questions, and if you evade them, or come up with answers with no proof, or call me names and call me close minded, then I'll call you a fuckin nutter and make sure I can point out to as many people as I can that you have no understanding of the things that come out of your mouth.

However, if you are also respectful and attempt to answer my questions, admit that you do not have EVERY single answer, since none of us do, and provide at least interesting and plausible sources, evidences, etc. I will let you have your opinion and not bash it because while it may still be ridiculous to me, it is still at least somewhat credible.

Point being, if you have done the research that you tells others to do, and they are not simply sheep, then help enlighten them. If they refuse to even look at evidence, then fuck em.

Don't become one of those guys who shouts "9/11 was an inside job!" and when someone asks you then you simply shout "Look it up yourself do some research!" cause whether you do or do not have research or data on the topic, it will always look like you are simply a nut copping out on the topic at hand.

[deleted]

I'm not talking about on the internet, I assumed by the way the topic was posted that it was meant when talking about IRL friends and acquaintances.

Perhaps on the internet you can generalize everyone into some category. (though... I kinda think that's a bad idea, since if you can do that, why can't others just categorize all conspiracy theory as rantings of nutbaggers?)

I also didn't mean to imply "demand evidence" I meant "request evidence".

Why is the fallacy of 'proving someone wrong' so widely accepted sometimes around here? I've seen it lots of times. The burden of proof is never on the person who asks for evidence or asks for some kind of proof. Everyone knows that I think. It's simply not possible to prove something is false if they aren't going to use any evidence for their position. That isn't the kind of position you want to hold I would think? Having a position that refuses logic?

I think whether people like it or not, if you want to be taken seriously you have to back up claims with evidence, or the vast majority of people won't take you seriously, because it looks eeriliy close to a cop out.

That guy over there can fly! Wait how do you know that? None of your business... = instantly lacks credibility

True. 99% of the time, people who constantly shrilly demands 'proof?" but offer no proof of their own usually have a history of trolling. And a visible attitude problem.

With regard to 9/11, I just say I'm a conspiracy theorist as much as you might be a coincidence theorist. Security was breached at airports around the country, warnings were ignored, able danger, after two "hits" in NY, still no air defense could be mounted, the only steel-frame buildings to have ever collapsed by fire all collapsed on the same day in the same incident and one hadn't even been hit by a plane. The administration in charge refused to testify under oath if at all, and the same jet fuel that incinerated buildings to dust left a terrorist's passport in the rubble. Yeah, that checks out.

Basically I grew thick skin and really don't care what others think. Only what my family thinks of me and that's all that should matter is your family.

IMO

I avoid talking about politics / conspiracy / religion.

I do this for the same reasons I avoid talking negatively about people or things - especially the totally subjective things like music, art and film. That reason is, negativity only attracts negativity. Most people don't like people that hold ideologies that conflict with their own - cognitive dissonance is strong.

When people ask me about these things, I try to phrase my opinions loosely without declarations and I always include 'In my opinion'.

I have read PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA,Plato's Republic, Korzybski, Orwell, Huxley and so on. I have seen the matrix. I understand everybody is conditioned and their opinions and beliefs are based on their experiences - had I experienced what they had I would most likely hold the same beliefs as them.

I don't hold firm beliefs in very much, I try to keep an open mind - and I know I only do this because of the culture I have absorbed that 99% have not.

I only discuss politics, US hegemony / US = terrorists, war, mind control, CIA, soldiers are not heroes, patriotism is ignorance to history / international politics, conspiracy and all that good shit - with people who have similar views (hard to find). Or on the internet anonymously (soon to come to an end).

I have not registered to vote in close to a decade, and I probably never will.

People are likely to reject any opinion that does not fit into their model of reality / not congruent with their views.

My question to you is: Why do you care if they reject your views, when you most likely reject theirs? Recognize that it is almost impossible to change a persons opinion, you may provide demonstration (proof) but those people will simply find other demonstrations that support their beliefs.

It may be a shit load of fun to discuss this stuff with like-minded people or philosophical thinkers, but these people can be hard to find, does discussing it with everybody improve your life in any way?

When I started avoiding this shit, I fucked more girls, made more friends, general opinion of me skyrocketed, involved in almost no arguments, suddenly became a high value employee. Shit, just about every aspect of my life improved.

I implore you to try this for a few months. Only point out the positive things, never the negative. And leave the conspiracy to the internet or for people you know have similar views.

Well I mean depending on what you believe and how you go about portraying that.

Also if you are some loner type who can't do 2 rows of conversation and you just start babbling about conspiracies of course no one would take you as normal and would think you are retarded.

You go to have a belief about yourself, confidence that sort of can be passed on to others. Or you got to have some authority on the matter.

But you can explain best what you can prove and not go on some belief. For example its very easy to prove that Al-Qaeda is run by the CIA, that they operate them now in Syria, how the conflicts in the middle east were planned years in advance and show the 4 star general wesley clark video, show CFR reports of how great Al-Qaeda is in Syria, show videos that have Al-Qaeda and rebels in Syria killing Christians, forcing men to suicide bomb, etc...

You can prove 9/11 is an inside job, you have all the documents, science, witnesses, experts, former top government officials, whistle-blowers, etc...

Yeah, I agree about the having confidence in yourself part; good answer!

That reminds me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKyIw9fs8T4

Using a great friend of mine's quote.

""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."

Well personally I just don't believe in bullshit. Saves alot of trouble.

Slightly unrelated but also slightly related, but I think it would help against shilling a shitload around here if they just downright took the up-vote/down-vote system out of this subreddit.

I have found some absolutely insanely great links and information that were downvoted to oblivion by goons from /politics or some other bullshit.

Where someone specializes in mocking while saying nothing of merit, it's easy to show he's contributing nothing. And many times it's the mocker who's the crazy irrational or biased one. When these guys use demonizing words, their intent is to deflect off course. So you return things on course and ignore their propagandizing. Of course, if you point out that someone is a shill their next step will be to demonize you as delusional. it's their game. so even if someone's an obvious shill troll, it's productive to merely point they're actually saying nothing in their attack on you, just trying to deflect offtopic.

Another tactic they use is to demand 'facts' and then deny what you give is a fact, and then deflect with another branching question. I've had trolls do that 6 or 7 times in a row, after which I declare them trolling and obvious to everyone. Do not let them own the path.

You mean people like ourselves, but some years ago?

I just view them as brainwashed, uneducated and perhaps stupid. But I don't say that to them and I don't treat them badly.

Question their "beliefs" or ideas. If you're right and they are wrong, you should be able to question them into realizing their error.

People tend to be willful ignorant about things that bother them.For a brief time I tried to argue and explain to them the truth of the reality they live in. Unfortunately none of them want to listen. I no longer argue or even try to explain to them. The rulers of this country have already won. People as a collective have made their choice. And they will have to live with the consequences of that choice.

In my opinion, it isn't worth your time arguing with anyone on the Internet, ever, so I wouldn't bother.

I wouldn't post too many things on Facebook either, since most of your friends will block you. Maybe the occasional picture that draws attention to the political hypocrisy of the left/right paradigm or the folly of printing infinite money, but anything more is likely to do more harm than good. (Nevermind that facebook is really a giant intelligence collection apparatus...)

I usually don't talk to people unless they already know me. If they don't know me, I am just a random person saying random things, and they simply dismiss what I say without further consideration. This is further reason not to post much on facebook, since most facebook friends don't know me well.

If someone knows me, they know that I'm intelligent and level-headed, not prone to believing things without proof, and they'll have a harder time dismissing what I say based on my character. They may still dismiss what I say, but this more about their intellectual dishonesty than any failing on my part. They'll pack away the inconsistency of a sane person saying "insane" things in the same place that they put all the other unpleasant inconsistencies which challenge their simple-minded understanding of the way the world works. As 33-degree Mason, Winston Churchill said, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

Each of us has a different level of proof that we need, before we are going to believe something. You need to do enough research to satisfy your own thirst for proof. And with some things, it may be impossible to reach that level of proof, so you'll have to keep an open mind until more evidence comes around. There are people who are never going to believe, even if they saw it with their own two eyes. If you're doing research to convince them, you're wasting your time.

And don't take it personally when people don't believe you, or call you names, or ridicule you based on what you say. You've done your homework and you know what you know; you can justify what you believe and stand your ground even if you're in the minority. Being right has nothing to do with gaining majority acceptance. People live their lives in a fairy world, and they don't like that viewpoint to be challenged, and that's understandable. The best you can hope for is to plant a seed; over time the person might come around, or they might not. You're not responsible for what they ultimately decide to believe.

Tragedy and Hope by Carol Quigley. Boom

You pity them and see them as being chained in a cave that you have escaped from. Some cannot be helped they are too deep into sports and fashion or even mainstream politics to be shown the deception behind it all. They are not even to the point of denial yet, they just cannot fathom that someone would manipulate them for control purposes.

I tell them I am merely an alternative analyst. No shit, thanks to "Conspiracy Theory", more and more of my opinions are reconsidered around my friends and family as a fact. There have been great days around the work place where most people agree with what I am saying. Most of the time they say, "you are off the deep end". Many days they say, "Hey Ventian, you got a good point". feelsgoodman

[deleted]

Really? Everyone I know thinks I'm a loon for even questioning Sandy Hook. I've been called 'completely disrespectful' for even suggesting it's a scam.

[deleted]

While this is interesting and all, it really isn't ground breaking enough to make a die hard anti-conspiracy person believe. Once this video was posted it was argued down so hard even in this subreddit. Presenting more factual evidence like links to project northwood documents is better than presenting a speculative piece of footage that although weird can be argued.

[deleted]

Hey man, I agree that it is really fucking weird and you are damn right to say that man should be a ball of fury and tears. I was just pointing out that others argued it when it got posted. You could be right though that they were inside sources or something, i dunno. I try to be easy about what I post around my friends because last time i posted something that simply had unanswered questions about the Aurora shooting, I got called insensitive and all that BS. But yeah, you definitely have a point about the two different mentalities. I think I was more focused on knowing how my friends would react if I posted this...which really sucks.

I wish my friends were that open minded, but they're just not willing to believe that the government, and the people who are supposed to keep them safe, could actually be corrupt and greedy men, driven by money, and willing to orchestrate attacks like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, let alone mass shootings like Aurora and Sandy Hook.

That reminds me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKyIw9fs8T4