Sure, everyone makes mistakes, politicians lie, etc.

But in my experience, conspiracy theorists are in a class by themselves, in these ways:

1- Every CT I've met has claimed to know the "real truth" about EVERY possible conspiracy. Not credible.

2- Every CT I've met escalates the denial of every fact. They claim something, I give a countering fact, they say my source is "part of the conspiracy". Ad infinitum. BBC, NPR, US govt, UK govt, individual reporters, web sites, whatever. If it disagrees with them, it's not credible, or part of the conspiracy, or both.

3- Every CT I've met ascribes great skill and cunning to orgs that we can SEE screwing up every day. They claim US govt is able to hide aliens and alien tech for 50 years. Heck, US govt wasn't able to keep someone from selling names of our agents in Russia for $1M or so. Our biggest secret, and they couldn't keep it !

4- Every CT I've met thinks the "US govt" or "scientists" or "Big Pharma" or whatever is a monolith. As if there aren't layers of govt, different agencies, different officials all trying to stab each other in the back every day, or competing for positions or jurisdiction or budget money.

You discovered the difference between conspiracy culture and actve skepticism.

Many people who are "awake" are just as "asleep" as those they try to elevate themselves above, they just follow a different narrative.

One (of many) examples is illuminati. Thus is a christians fave as it sets the world up in a glorious good vs evil battle where satan-worshipping corpratacracy is slowly self destructing by bringing about the apocolypse.

To the skeptic this is inane, but the the CTC seeking confirmation bias through their religion, it is the barebones reality of the world, and questioning the iluminati is a hairs breadth from questioning god himself.

Edit: #2 is the worst and aliens are very very very rarely featured here.

You are now grouping all skeptical people in the same group as extreme conspiracy theorists who think they have it figured out. I am skeptical because I don't trust the government based on several lies and cover ups in the past. I never claimed to have it figured out, I just refuse to believe everything I hear until more details come out. Unfortunately half of America can't think for themselves so they continue to be sheepish.

Anytime someone refers to people as "sheep", they instantly lose a lot credibility in my eyes. Stop doing this. It's narcissistic and it's not constructive whatsoever.

[deleted]

sheepish [ˈʃiːpɪʃ] adj 1. abashed or embarrassed, esp through looking foolish or being in the wrong 2. resembling a sheep in timidity or lack of initiative sheepishly adv

Relevant

You are now grouping all skeptical people in the same group as extreme conspiracy theorists who think they have it figured out.

So, everyone in /r/conspiracy then. I've yet to see anyone on here who is a regular poster who isn't a poor skeptic.

Gulf of Tonkin... Never Forget!

This is of major importance! Yet, whenever I bring it up in conversation with anyone they say, "That was then, this is now. Things like that don't happen." Now, I don't buy in to all of the conspiracy theories there are, but one thing is for sure: The government of the United States has used false flag attacks before, of which we have proof, in order to declare war on foreign nations. The motives were not for the benefit of our country or our people. The tides have changed, but history remains the same. That alone is enough to warrant vigilance and critical thinking.

Uh, Gulf of Tonkin wasn't false flag as far as I am aware. It was falsified combatants and combat reports, though.

We're going to invade Chechnya?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Russia is a little busy semi-successfully occupying it at the moment... Chechnya is of course wholly occupied and administered by Russia, and has been since the early 19th century. A false flag operation to sour relations with Chechnya makes no sense, especially as a pretext to invade an already thoroughly invaded country.

Oh, sorry, that's not what I was saying. I didn't mean "They have a reason/s to invade Chechnya", I meant they (USA) do seem to have a reason to false flag this.

NEVER

Never forget? Note that I'm disproving you but the only thing that happened were two engagements, neither having resulted in the deaths of U.S. sailors.

First was confirmed to be North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacking a U.S. destroyer Maddox in open waters, which was repelled by both the destroyer and jets from the U.S.S. Ticonderoga and resulted in the deaths of just North Vietnamese sailors.This attack was confirmed by photos and testimony of those on the Maddox and Ticonderoga and North Vietnam itself.

Second was "Tonkin Ghosts" incident, false radar images that the Maddox and Turner Joy both fired on guided by radar under heavy weather as they believed were more NVA boats attacking and believe they've sunk. This was obviously false but still exploited enough by the Johnson Administration in order to send us into the Vietnam war.

Or MKultra, or mustard gas testing, or WMDs in Iraq, or nuclear radiation test, etc. etc. etc.

At the beginning of this year, I left my career as a Journalist at a medium market television station. The complete disregard of the truth the last couple of years displayed by my co-workers and managers left me with a feeling of disgust that never seems to wash away. The easiest way to put this into perspective: Every station in the country will tell you they are number 1 in the ratings. How on earth do you trust these people when they cant even be honest about their own ratings?

Because everyone knows the difference between slogans/advertising and news stories ? Everyone knows they're lying or cherry-picking when they say they're number one.

Thank you for making my point. They lie and cherry pick. Why on earth would be believe that people who would do that would suddenly change their scruples 10 minutes later and call it a news story? Make no mistake, they lie and cherry pick there too.

You make a good point but your example was lacking. Ratings and actual news have very different amounts of gravity.

But you trust unkown liars, like its any better? Believing all the crap you read on the internet is not one more bit intelligent than believing the media. You say all others are sheeple and need to be more critical.. Look at yourselves!

Do you trust known conspiracy theorists?

we just don't trust known liars

Except for the large contingent of conspiracy theorists who trust Alex Jones

Exactly! Well said.

Thank you.

The problem is I don't know any one person or organisation who has not been known to lie. Ergo, I trust no one, and I can never stand behind any theory I or anyone else constructs. So whats the point?

Truth is a lie, reality is dynamic.

Apply that logic to your own life and you would start to doubt everything and never find a workable "truth" to base your life on. For example: Vitamin C is good for you, but how do you know? Do you first want to run a randomized trial study to find out? Want to do that with everything?

The notion that there is no "truth" is impractical, we have to depend on information from other humans in order to survive. But we can independently evaluate what other people tell us and form our own opinion.

Apply that logic to your own life and you would start to doubt everything and never find a workable "truth" to base your life on.

Bingo, I do not wish to to base my life on any "workable "truth"", because that is dogmatism.

As for the rest of your comment, I some what agree that we depend on information from other humans in order to survive. I may have been being a little to metaphysical

a wise man once said

"Never learned the truth but I learned to see whatever works for you can learn to work for me."

What then are your assumptions about life based on? (I like getting metaphysical...)

The history of the CIA and FBI and other U.S. intel has them lying ten thousand times more than the average human being. These guys represent the far, far right wing in the U.S.- fascists. They took power in the assassination of Kennedy in '63, and it matters little who's in the Oval Office- the "militaryindustrial complex" interests are running the show. We should stop believing every word these "authorities" say because they're psychopaths and liars at the highest level. The honest people who are in there don't get very far; see for instance Colleen Rowley, who was pulled off investigating Bin Laden pre-9/11. We should believe an average Joe on the street much more than we should believe what U.S. intel/police says; that's just common sense based in history. At the absolute least, we shouldn't treat it as the automatic truth, like almost everyone does. Just because the media says that this is what the cops/FBI says *does not mean it is the truth." Think for ourselves.

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

the kind of thinking that lends a person to "aw shit I guess this is how it's always been run" thinking.

Maybe it is true that this kind of thinking can lead to complacency, however that conclusion is as little contains as little Truth as any other Truth. Always is a long time.

Did we discover that 2 + 2 = 4 or is basic Truth unearthed rather than synthesised? How dynamic is that specific truth?

There is no Truth in mathematical truths. Only truths which conform to the axioms of the specific branch being practised. We did not discover 2 + 2 = 4. nor is it a basic Truth. It is the logical conclusion that can be made after accepting the defintions of '1' and 'addition'. These definitions of '1' and addition are useful, along with many other definitions, for describing this macroscopic amalgamation of energies that we can interact with (what we call the universe), and constructing models that behave in accordance with this universe.

However this is getting all a little too philosophical (which i realise is my bad). Back to the social sciences, my point was that everybody lies constantly, We consciously lie to each other, We subconsciously lie to each other, We subconsciously lie to ourselfs. The reasons behind any event can never be fully known since even the people behind those events probably don't even know the True reasons.

Better to stick with damage control and prepare yourself for all possible outcomes

That was beautifully said. And now I think.

Other answers too long:

Math is tautological, not truth.

1+1=2 is tautologous. You either misuderstand the word or misunderstand observational mathematics and abstract mathematics.

To play devils advocate, cognito ergo sum suffers from either being a non sequiter or tautologous itself.

Not that i think i don't exist, nor think i require proof that i do to function normally.

Thanks for reminding me?

[deleted]

Nobody "engineered" that, it's just how the mind works. If I swear up and down that I never ate food from a Wendy's dumpster, you're going to associate me with eating food from a Wendy's dumpster and be more suspicious of me eating food from a Wendy's dumpster than you would be of the average person.

"Cui bono" should be on the lips of every law abiding patriot in ANY tragedy.. it's OUR tragedy.. not government's. They are an existence allowed BY and FOR the people. Instead, those that ask [including award winning experts in a multitude of fields, depending on which theory is being referenced] are shunned and shouted down, and targeted in absurdly ridiculous character assassination attempts. LOGIC.. cares for no man.. only truth. If you've brought feelings to a thinking man's game.. you're already done.

[deleted]

Could cui bono be occam's razor

That is not an absolute or law.

No, cui bono is better when dealing with people's actions I think. Occam's razor isn't a good predictor for this stuff because people often don't do the logical thing. "She ate because she was hungry" is Occam's reason why but the real reason could just as easily be "she ate because she was tired/stressed/bored/lonely/thirsty..."

Fucking exactly. But all these pseudo intellectuals and "I'm so savvy and cultured. Herr derr Occam's Razor! Occam's Razor!! See?! I'm smart!"

They talk like fags and their shit's all retarded!

...I heard this dude don't even have his tattoo. For real, judge should be like "GUILTY!"

Then why does our government's agenda(s) always get advanced whenever there is a national tragedy.

Our government does not have an agenda. Our government is not a monolithic institution that can be said to have a specific agenda. Our government is riddled with competing power groups each vying to advance its own agenda. All of these groups are constantly trying to advance their agendas. Constantly. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail.

You might as well ask "Why does our government's agenda always get advanced whenever there is a sunrise?" The rising of the sun isn't a plot by the government.

Each administration and beyond has their own long term plans. Youd be naive not to think so.

Non-sequitor much? An administration is not the government, and the government is not an administration.

Whatever you're smoking. I want some. Because you are not talking sense at all.

Are you mentally retarded? I really don't know how to put it more plainly and simply: An administration is not the government, and the government is not an administration.

The Bush administration was not the entire US government, and the entire US government was not the Bush administration.

The Obama administration is not the entire US government, and the entire US government is not the Obama administration.

How is this difficult to comprehend?

Because it's completely false?

The Obama administration is in charge of the implementation of all federal laws.

Things change administration to administration.

Because it's completely false?

You are clearly an idiot.

The government of the United States of America consists of multiple tiers (federal, state, county, city) and multiple branches (executive, legislative, and judicial).

To claim that the government is the same thing as the federal executive branch is to display a fundamental ignorance of even the most basic understanding of civics.

You are retarded, sir.

Sources? Or are you just going to result to name calling? Because I've seen federal policies implemented in my states. Many times.

There also exists something called an executive order. There's this thing called the drug war. There's an embargo on Cuba that needs to end.

The government consists of the bodies of organization that create, fund, and implement laws for the purpose of societal stability.

Sources?

What the fuck do you mean sources? You need a source for what? To prove that there are multiple tiers of government? That there are multiple branches of government?

Do you need a source for the claim that the sun rises in the east? That this conversation is happening on the internet? That the world exists?

What the fuck do you mean "sources?"

What the fuck do you mean, "What the fuck do you mean "sources?""cite your fucking claims.

The executive branch of government clearly makes policy decisions that affect our daily lives.

I am not citing sources for things every person learns in the fucking 4th grade, you imbecile.

Are you seriously denying that the government consist of more than the federal executive branch? You cite your fucking sources, you subliterate troglodyte. You're the fucking asshat who is apparently arguing that the City of Seattle, represented by the Mayor and City Council, do not exist. You're the braindead vegetable that apparently thinks the the State of Washington, the Governor of Washington, the Washington State Legislature, and the Supreme Court of Washington don't exist. Which is a pretty fucking amazing claim, considering that I've actually met the governor, the mayor, several councilmen, and numerous state legislators.

You also apparently live in some fucked up alternate reality where the Department of Motor Vehicles doesn't exist, where the Post Office doesn't exist, where all state and city level agencies don't exist, and on and on.

You are so fucking stupid that I honestly cannot believe this conversation is actually happening. You must be trolling me. No one as stupid as you apparently are could operate a computer. So you must be trolling.

The executive branch of government clearly makes policy decisions that affect our daily lives.

What's this? Oh, so now you suddenly acknowledge that the executive branch is part of the government, and not the government itself?

And yet I suppose you still want a fucking source? HOW ABOUT YOUR OWN FUCKING COMMENTS, YOU WATERHEADED ABORTION.

I think you might have brain damage, friend.

You think the whole, entire government from top to bottom is identical to the current administration, and you think I'm the one who is brain damaged?

You are stupid beyond all words.

No... I never said that. Just saying that the federal government has its own agendas to fulfill.

No... I never said that.

No, but you did demand a source from me when I pointed out that the government is not the same thing as the current administration.

Which is still the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen on reddit.

They don't. Remember how the gun control bill got killed in the senate?

If it didn't then then it will now.

I would argue against Occam's Razor in cases of government action. The government has the means and the motivation, and indeed, the history to move in convoluted ways.

I think you're missing the key component here. That is evidence. I have never seen a credible 'conspiracy theory' and you will never see a single social science say anything without evidence. You can tell the difference, if you really tried. One such difference is the publisher, if it's not attached to a college press or noteworthy press, chances are it's bullshit. If they have no primary sources (either they said it, wrote it, or you have picture evidence) chances are it's bullshit. There also needs to be a way for you to find said evidence. Too many people read popular history or mainstream crap as it where and think it is the truth. For instance do you really think Bill O'Riley wrote an accurate protrayal of history in his books? Know the difference. Conspiracy nuts are exactly that nuts. They have no validity or credibility.

Not even close to credible.

I have read historians with a heavier criticism of foreign policy, and I have also read news more critical than POS there.

Except I have access to millions upon millions of dollars of scholarship and all the reviews I read on it says it's pretty much bull shit. I also checked him sources, and I don't find it plausible that he would have had access to many of those sources at the time he wrote book, much less when it was published.

Here is a case of a 'credible' historian entertaining his hobby or fascination. Nothing more nothing less. The biggest criticism is that he is known for stating things that are either half true or completely exaggerated.

Not to mention the manner at which it was published tends to confirm my better judgment and pass.

Amazon reviews are great for fiction books, horrible for academic books. All you would have to do is hope onto JSTOR and search for book reviews on anyone of his books. Amazon reviews are like Wikipedia. I will explain this once, I am a history major political science minor in college right now, so yes I do have access to a lot of sources.

This ranging from the 60's all the way through the 80's different reviewers from different decades all generally say the same thing. Simplistic analysis, convoluted, and unnecessary. Often they only cite bits and pieces of the book as having any worth to further academic study.

I could sit here an explain how the American's have built up new Jim Crow laws, I could even explain the Nazi movement and who voted for who, I can explain most of the history to US foreign policy, to include US aid and development and so on. The difference here is, I evaluate a source before using it or even reading it. Just because it's in a book and just because a person has a degree behind them does not mean the book is any good. Much less trust the strength of the book to some online rating. To reuse the Wiki reference it's like writing a paper or argument based off a Wikipedia positing.

My look into reviews on the book and the sources and the fact it was published privately suggests its probably not credible.

Foreign Aid as Foreign Policy by Jeffrey F. Taffet, Aiding Violence by Peter Urvin, George Bush's Foreign Aid: Transformation or Chaos? by Carol Lancaster. These are some books I can think of off hand, and they were required reading, I am in no way suggesting they are 100% correct in their argument. In fact, in some instances I disagree with Jeffery Sachs, especially 'shock therapy' Sachs. The MCC Sachs is still up for review. There's also two types of aid at least in my book, that is Government Aid and NGO aid. Government aid typically mirrors our foreign policy which has ADHD. If you want to read a guilt trip book read The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer. Some of these might even be considered 'popular' history, there is much literature on the history of development.

The place someone teaches or taught has almost zero effect on how I weigh a source. I base it solely on the work before me, sometimes you get someone who has a reputation and often times fall into a rut where their reputation can carry shitty scholarship.

The problem with that logic is that even a liar does not lie 100% of the time.

Also, sometimes the truth is right in line with what we already want to happen or what is already convenient.

Second, what many people call a lie I would often state is just a different view on the same issue. A lot of these are complex issues and there is a wide margin of acceptable and reasonable opinion.

Also, it seems many conspiracy fans will not accept credible sources. I have a personal friend who was witness to the flight 77 flying over and crashing into the pentagon. Him and several hundred are on record as witnesses. He has received nothing but hate and venom from others.

But you assume everyone is lying to you. Yes, that is crazy.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Amen!!

So, you don't trust anyone?

Weapons Of Mass Destruction... Never Forget!

You're confusing the words "theorize" and "hypothesize". By definition, Conspiracy "Theorists" are really Conspiracy Hypothesists (sp?).

You are right in a scientific sense of the word theorize and hypothesize. However, even scientists know that the term theorize is used in place of hypothesize in general non-science related talk... that's kind of why some of them are pissed when people refer to evolution, as "just a theory."

But then it's an equal travesty to have people call hem selves "Conspiracy Theorists". By definition, they aren't dealing with theories.

conspiracana does not concern itself with what ifs

I call BS

Known liars? You don't know the agents involved in the investigation. For all anyone knows they are very intelligent and pinpointed the suspects in a very timely manner. Saying the FBI and any other agency are known liars is like choosing not to shop at trader joes because this one time a bag boy lied to me about the quality of their apples.

Based on that description you sound like more of a skeptic. Not everyone or everything is out to get you, that's the difference

just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

But somebody is definitely out there to get you.

[deleted]

It must be puts on sunglasses a conspiracy. lol

I don't trust anybody. Period.

Fuckin FBI

Everyone should read the book "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" by Jacques Ellul, there's a pdf out there somewhere, it will make everything nice and clear for you. Anyone who doubts we are being manipulated NEEDS to read that book. You can open any page and find relevant information to what is happening around you at all times.

Oh I was just kind of opening the door for people, that is one of the most concise reads though in regards to how propaganda works and how to spot it.

[deleted]

then look in the mirror! just because you are lied to has nothing to do with whether of not there is a conspiracy..

[deleted]

You have trouble understanding language as conventionalized form of conversation and exchange of ideas. Here are some starting points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_%28social_sciences%29

[deleted]

You are jumping conclusions here. I do not care what you think and my intention is not to indoctrinate anyone or to win you over. Who told you otherwise? It is in your own interest to become a well informed adult and to use and understand at least one language properly. I tried to help you out, but you are not interested in reading the links I gave you.

Edit: OP was simply pointing out the similarities between scientific methods and so called conspiracy theories. Only the latter has negative connotations because it is politicaly charged. Here is a quote from the scientist page of wikipedia.

"Scientists are the people who ask a question about a phenomenon and proceed to systematically go about answering the question themselves. They are by nature curious, creative and well organized. They need to have the ability to observe something and see in it some of the properties other people overlook."

You really have absolutely no idea how science works, do you?

So in other words.. you're crazy. Got it, thanks.

You're also crazy

I am very interested in your psychological or psychiatric background and the reasoning behing your speculativ generalisation.

Five years of modern dance, six years of tap.

Yes, we are the smartest people on the whole reddit. I can't believe there are retards who trust the official story that is full of lies. They need to wake up and stop drinking the koolaid.

I'm very glad there's still a bastion of truth and trustworthy news that is /r/conspiracy.

Oh I was just kind of opening the door for people, that is one of the most concise reads though in regards to how propaganda works and how to spot it.