Truth seeker

I personally like "Critical Thinker", but "Truth Seeker" is good as well.

They're both accurate.

Correct and agreed.

Not only that, but the terms are actually neutral and haven't been used by TPTB in order to give an automatic negative knee jerk reaction against those that question the b.s. narrative pushed on the public. The term "conspiracy theorist" does just that (i.e. marginalizes those that fight against secrecy and the b.s. propaganda narrative) and causes those that the term is directed toward to look uncritical - something which is often the opposite of what is actually the case.

True, however RT is using the "Truth Seeker" title for one of their short programs.

edit: I like to use the word "savvy". It has a nice ring to it. "What are you? Some kind of Conspiracy Theorist?" Nah, I'm just savvy. Savvy?

RT is using the "Truth Seeker" title for one of of their short programs.

Are they using it in a disparaging light? If not, then cool. If so, then I'd say possibly consider distancing yourself from that word too. This actually yet again gives more reason to use the term "critical thinker". You see, it's a term that has already been adopted by the public consciousness in a good, positive light. At this point there's really no turning around from that, so if those looking to uncover government and PTB secrets get that term - "critical thinker" - to be more greatly associated with their (our) actions, then the public simply can't twist it in a negative manner without also twisting all those other already positively-regarded things that have long been associated with the term.

How about organic intellectuals?

I wouldn't go as far as to say that this comment was worthy of the downvote that someone gave it, but I also wouldn't say that it's better than "critical thinker" as it does not have the association of established positivity and credibility that "critical thinker" has developed over the many years of its use.

Honestly, I don't believe they are. It has a very edited kinda choppy feel to it, but from what I've seen the information is sound. I just know that some Americans shy away from RT based news, because they feel it's control by the Kremlin and their mission is to sweep Russia's dirt under the rug by using America's blanket surveillance/censorship as it's rug. Could be true. I don't have any evidence for that. However, it doesn't make the information presented any less true. I also like "critical thinker" as a more apt title. Not as much stigma, but it's been co-opted by the atheist/secular movement. I notice quite a few theorists are neither atheists nor secular in any sense. Some of them have a lot to bring in terms of information and their differing opinions based on that information, which is great. Yet, it seems to me there are more who would adopt this title ironically, kinda changing it into a pseudo term for people who actually don't think critically, if at all. Like, it could be used in more of a mocking way than a glorifying way if too many of the wrong kind of people attempt to also co-opt it. Either way, I do believe it's up to us as a movement to actively try to improve our image; I'm mostly just thinking out loud on what to expect along the way. Still, I like to use "savvy" :-)

I just know that some Americans shuy away from RT based news, because they feel it's control by the Kremlin and their mission is to sweep Russia's dirt under the rug by using America's blanket surveillance/censorship as it's rug.

Sort of just like America does in its own way. Six in one hand. Half a dozen in the other.

I don't have any evidence for that.

I wouldn't say I do either - and most of what I've seen from them seems decent and sound to me - but I guess I try to give the benefit of the doubt to a lot of things.

However, it doesn't make the information presented any less true.

Seems like we're thinking and saying the same general things.

I also like "critical thinker" as a more apt title. Not as much stigma, but it's been co-opted by the atheist/secular movement.

Really? In what manner? I can't say that I've noticed this too much myself.

Some of them have a lot to bring in terms of information and their differing opinions based on that information, which is great.

I would certainly agree with that, and feel that one can derive valid information from many different sources.

Like, it could be be used in more of a mocking way if too many of the wrong kind of people attempt to also co-opt it.

But you see, that's part of my entire point. Even if they tried to do that, they actually wouldn't be able to because the very term that they would be attempting to use to do so has already long ago been used and co opted by the establishment to describe and associate itself with positive things. Now that it has been so long since this association has been established, it cannot very feasibly be broken or even significantly altered.

Either way , I do believe it's up to us as a movement to actively try to improve our image.

Well, I'd say that this is only partially correct, as tptb exert a tremendous influence on how the rest of the world looks at and considers critical thinkers that question the manipulated, contrived world they create.

I'm mostly just thinking out loud on what to expect along the way.

And I'm just riffing right along with you :-)

It's just been my experience as an Agnostic Atheist turned Agnostic Deist, that when it comes to fact based logic, reason, and critical thinking; it's been associated with Atheism/Secularism. Some refer to themselves as "Critical Thinkers", while others may adopt "Freethinker". I've personally noticed it more in live action verbal discussions with people of faith than I have on discussion boards. As far as not being able to skew the public perception of "Critical Thinkers", you have a more optimistic view than I. Only time will tell though. All in all I would say we both have our noses in the same book, if not also on the same page.

It's just been my experience as an Agnostic Atheist turned Agnostic Deist, that when it comes to fact based logic, reason, and critical thinking; it's been associated with Atheism/Secularism.

That's fair. It's been my experience that reason, logic, and critical thinking have been just as prevalent a tenet in fact-based theistic circles if you look in the right places, however.

Some refer to themselves as "Critical Thinkers", while others may adopt "Freethinker".

Yes. Certainly. The "free thinker" term, I believe, can carry along with it a connotation of 60s and 70s era activity, however. There is the risk that one might take that term and hear Cheech and\or Chong in their head. “I'm like, a free thinker, man. People just don't understand". It becomes a quite a bit easier to marginalize those who espouse such a term under those circumstances.

I'm not certain that the same kind of possible ridicule can be as easily rendered upon the "critical thinker" term since, as mentioned earlier, it has already been tied and associated with figures that most definitely are respected in society.

I've personally noticed it more in live action verbal discussions with people of faith than I have on discussion boards

If you are referring to hearing the term "free thinker" on faith-based boards, then that would make sense, and this would tie quite into what I mentioned above with regard to it being a bit easier to marginalize those who attempt to use such a moniker.

As far as not being able to skew the public perception of "Critical Thinkers", you have a more optimistic view than I

Perhaps, but I am basing my assessment not upon any sort of value judgment - personal or otherwise. I'm basing it on the simple logic that the term "critical thinker" has indeed been pretty much entirely adopted by our culture to describe good, smart, intelligent, sound, grounded people. I can't think of one example of an article written with serious intent and in an non-sarcastic tone when the term "critical thinker" was used in a disparaging manner. The same cannot be said for any of the other terms we have been considering. They either already have been used here and there in a disparaging manner, or it seems that they more easily could be used as such.

All in all I would say we both have our noses in the same book, if not also on the same page.

I was about to second a very similar sentiment as well. Ultimately, we're both pretty much saying or intending very similar things.

:)

Trouble is the powers that be have already, very cleverly, stigmatized truth seekers. Nobody wants to be a "truther" do they?

It's okay. "Social science philosopher" doesn't sound so 3rd grade.

Even if, as a group, conspiracy theorists were successful in renaming themselves, the new name would be just as quickly stigmatized as well.

I think we have better chance of success by continuing to educate people as to what a conspiracy theory really is. Let's un-stigmatize the term.

Sometimes I tell people," you give me too much credit , I have no theory , I am just a person asking questions and earmarking patterns" long winded I know

i like it

corruption investigators

Most click on a link and think they're investigating.

People.

Edit : http://911inacademia.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/laurie-manwell-feb-2010-american-behavioral-scientist-paper.pdf taken from http://abs.sagepub.com/content/53/6.toc

thanks for the links, very interesting reads

People.

Inquisitive.

Curious.

i'm a fan of para-politics, or para-political research, or deep politics. these at least are somewhat more likely to fetch curiosity about what that means, rather than triggering behavioral programming with "conspiracy theory".

Peter Dale Scott employs the term "parapolitics," in a completely different manner, as a manifestation of "Deep Politics":

"...the investigation of parapolitics, which I defined (with the CIA in mind) as a 'system or practice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished.'...I still see value in this definition and mode of analysis. But parapolitics as thus defined is itself too narrowly conscious and intentional... it describes at best only an intervening layer of the irrationality under our political culture's rational surface. Thus I now refer to parapolitics as only one manifestation of deep politics, all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged."

The term is used to describe either covert political activity that is hidden from the public or a complete (de facto) political system, typically comprising elements of the military and intelligence apparatus, hidden from the public; political actions of subterfuge, secrecy, and deceit; and is increasingly used in discussions on democracy to describe coalitions of institutions and corporations who operate above or outside of the elected government.

I also like the term parapolitical researcher. I've heard it multiple tom times and it is more credible than conspiracy theorist

it certainly opens conversation, rather than having it halted by anti-intellectual programming associated with that blasted phrase. it also more directly suggests an effect produced by conspiracy, that is the creation of mechanisms that are "activities auxiliary to or derivative of that denoted by the base word", in this case, politics. conspiracy produces anti-democratic measures that are protected by legal mechanisms such as national security, or through manipulated democratic or transparency requirements, such as with lobbying or legislation factories, like ALEC.

showing how these are para-political in nature is a goal, and by describing one's research as para political research, you better get to the heart of the matter, and offer a conversant an opportunity to approach resulting claims with a fresh outlook, not one that has been programmed into them by the tavistock social vehicles of group shaming, ridicule, and marginalization.

And not a view that has been taught to you by controlled conspiracy theorists. ;)

wish i had more upvotes.

I think i like that term the best

Realists.

I don't care for labels, nor do I had adhere to them. If I had to choose a descriptor for one investigating such topics, it would be conspiracy researcher.

Realist?

When the mafia was a big deal, what did people call themselves? Just normal average people who are aware that other people can and will commit crimes and cover them up. Don't label yourself.

What do we call people who talk about MKULTRA, Edgewood, etc? History buffs. Regular people.

I like to think of my self as a superhero.

Critical thinkers.

Foo Fighters

Wait... that's taken

Bullshit filters.

You can either eat the bullshit all day long.

Or simply take a second look and realize what the fuck is wrong the picture.

"People with questions"

I think just calling yourself a skeptic about controversial events in history is an apt description. Beliveing in the majic bullet theory or the accepted view of 9/11 is outlandish.

"intelligent people seeking insight and understanding in fields of study that effect the lives of everyone in our society instead of spending our time playing video games, drinking beer, watching tv, and thinking of ourselves as being so very intelligent because we have a BA in accounting that we paid $60,000 for and, uh, we watch the fucking daily show and get our view of the world from comedians who are direct blood relatives of managers at the new york stock exchange and think those dumb conspiracy theorists sure are nuts."

hey I think I just described most everyone in the conspiratard subreddit with the second part - you can always tell the difference between the conspiracy theorist and the conspiratard - one is actually seeking information honestly and the other is trying to look good to themselves on the internet because they are pathetic retards maintaining their lives through their egos and spending every waking moment on the search for narcissistic source material ..while simultaneously pretending that the conspiracy theorists are 'the real' narcissists.

Those guys are FUCKING RETARDS.

Skeptics

I like that one too, especially since now it has been taken over by the people parroting the status quo. The word was never intended to function that way.

Social science philosophers

'Investigative Journalists'

Qualified skeptics

A conspiracy theorists by any other name is just as crazy.

A sad, lonely little comment from a sad, lonely little person.

it certainly opens conversation, rather than having it halted by anti-intellectual programming associated with that blasted phrase. it also more directly suggests an effect produced by conspiracy, that is the creation of mechanisms that are "activities auxiliary to or derivative of that denoted by the base word", in this case, politics. conspiracy produces anti-democratic measures that are protected by legal mechanisms such as national security, or through manipulated democratic or transparency requirements, such as with lobbying or legislation factories, like ALEC.

showing how these are para-political in nature is a goal, and by describing one's research as para political research, you better get to the heart of the matter, and offer a conversant an opportunity to approach resulting claims with a fresh outlook, not one that has been programmed into them by the tavistock social vehicles of group shaming, ridicule, and marginalization.

I think i like that term the best