Those are individuals not conspiracy as a whole

It's frequent enough that I can assume a large portion of /r/conspiracy does it.

What makes me sick is idiots who talk about the subscribers here as if we all think and act the same. I can't tell you how much I resent that. It makes me think the people who post that crap idea are following some shrink format intended to discredit the subscribers.

Take your confused notions and leave if that is what is best for you.

idiots

Judging from these comments, everyone here does act the same. "OH YOU DON'T LIKE THAT WE ACCEPT WORDS BLINDLY? YOU'RE AN IDIOT."

Funny. I don't recall pleasing you being one of the objectives of the sub.

You and the plethora of trolls roaming around here in recent times have clearly created an image of this place in your mind. The simple solution: move along to the next sub.

I never said it was the job of this sub to please me. I'm just surprised that conspiracy theory community is so willing to accept unverified information. Also, I'm not a troll. It's just an observation.

The amount of negative meta posts in recent days do indeed collectively amount to trolling.

If you actually do care about the issues you say you do, the fix is to engage the individuals in direct debate and let the facts stand on their own merit rather than stepping onto a soapbox and making blanket accusations.

I'm not sure you understand what trolling is, for one. And second, just because your subreddit has a bunch of imbeciles in it doesn't mean it should go unnoticed.

I do agree with your second paragraph, however. This was probably a waste of time. I don't see posts like this, though, mostly because I don't browse through /r/new. My apologies if this is one of many meta posts like it.

I'm not sure you understand what trolling is, for one

Troll - person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community

This definition matches my usage perfectly.

I do agree with your second paragraph, however. This was probably a waste of time. I don't see posts like this, though, mostly because I don't browse through /r/new. My apologies if this is one of many meta posts like it.

I can understand this. A good number of us in this sub primarily use the new tab to try to view this sub with out the score clouding our judgment of it. And these posts (as your finding out) get downvoted quickly. I'd recommend using the new tab not only here, but also on any other sub that may have some political content.

No it does not, because my meta post pertains directly to the quality of the subreddit at large.

I'll give the new tab a go, though. Thank you.

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1s99ee/til_that_there_is_a_society_in_india_where_men/cdvc6cv?context=3

Take your own advice, budday.

If you took the time to actually read through that thread, instead of going through my comment history and finding something to latch onto, you'd see that I actually realized I was wrong, and I changed my opinion. However, you did not.

Also, nice ad hominem, budday.

Well then that's also relevant. Maybe you can learn better and change your opinion here too when you're better informed, because as it stands you're just making huge generalizations. ...

Like you did previously. In that thread... hence the relevancy.

So, no ad hominem.. budday.

Hmm.. Maybe you're right. I don't see too many posts in this subreddit besides what pops up on /r/front, though, so that may contribute to my skewed view of this subreddit. However, most of these people that give out unverified, opinionated information and get upvoted aren't challenged at all. I don't understand it.

I mean yeah I'll definitely agree there. But it's weird.. I find that the posts that make the most sense to me, usually being the most deranged if true posts, are the ones that get challenged most. And challenged VEHEMENTLY.

Where as the stupid posts don't really get challeneged. At least in my experience.

I don't know. This subreddit is just.. Just seems really sensationalized and whatnot, as of late, and the idiots are reigning. Even in a place where supposedly the truth about a lot of things lies.

I've seen the whole "prove who you say you are" thing crop up a lot lately (although admittedly I haven't been a redditor or subscribed to /r/conspiracy for all that long). I've asked the question multiple times, just what exactly constitutes "proof," and I've never gotten a satisfactory response.

For example, i'm a Submarine Warfare Officer in the Navy. I can guarantee that a submarine didn't shoot down TWA Flight 800 like I've heard some people suggest. I'm certified as a Nuclear Engineer Officer by the Naval Reactors, so I know that while Fukushima is a problem, it's not killing us all as I type this like some would lead you to believe. I know someone who lost a foot at the Boston bombing, so I'm pretty sure that wasn't fake.

But I'm pretty sure that whatever proof is requested that I'm (1) who I say I am and (2) not a shill is not going to intersect with my comfort level for privacy. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But I've never gotten a straight answer.

The name calling and accusations on both sides of the aisle need to stop for there to be any meaningful discussion.

just what exactly constitutes "proof,"

Therein lies your problem. Most here can only provide "evidence" for their theories or to challenge official/mainstream theories. Sometimes "evidence" is more compelling than others. There is the occasional "here's proof of x" posts but just as frequently as not they are posted by people trolling this sub.

There is nothing you can do to verify who you are, so using your personal background information as proof that what you say is true has no meaning whatsoever.

Then what's the purpose of even questioning someone's credentials?

The purpose of questioning someone's credentials is to expose them for spreading potentially false information.

Then why would anyone bother answering any of your questions? I guess it does allow you to not believe a single person.

It's not that I don't want to believe people, it's just that when you pass something off as truth, you should probably back it up with statistics or a verifiable source, not just your word that you are who you say you are and that your knowledge on the subject is irrefutable.

Probably because a lot of us know each other in real life, some of us have for many years. When one of us says, "I'm a such and such..." we can usually look at the user name, recognize that's one of our friends in real life, and know for a fact they are who they claim they is because we've seen it ourselves.

We are all individuals. We are all individuals. ;)

Right.

Don't you remember that excellent Life of Brian scene?

This sub has an issue with groupthink.

Ironic, huh?

Eh, groupthink just kinda happens. It's hard to fight human nature. But I've noticed the situation as well. You could try a different sub, preferably smaller, and see if you like that more. Other than that you could try using RES to label users varying degrees of critical thinking or whatever and just avoid the threads that have too many with a low critical thinking "score".

Of course, then comes the problem of "even a broken clock is right twice a day"