There are people that are paid by governments and corporations to spend time on reddit and their job is to manipulate, obfuscate, distort and confuse so that the average person cannot know the truth.

This is now public knowledge- not even really up for debate, whether it happens or not, the question is what do we do about it.

Step 1: Develop and Maintain Independent Critical Thinking Skills - you are the best judge.

Step 2: Ignore Karma. A post with more up votes is no more or less valid then a post with down votes. Truth is not subject to democracy.

Step 3: Sort posts by New and unhidden comments below minimum threshold.

Step 3 is very important because that is where the battle for visibility is won/lost. I always hit the New tab to see whats coming up.

32 people have already downvoted this thread. That's at least 32 people in /r/conspiracy who think this thread being ridiculed, criticized and flooded with shallow denials is a good thing.

I've only been on reddit a few months but I'm starting to learn not to bother debating with people. There's no point in trying to change what they believe. Changing myself is what's important. To stay informed and disperse relevant information to those like-minded and let them make up their own minds.

Let them all die when the US gets flash burned. We'll be safe with our tin-foil hats on. haha I'm just kiddin'.

But seriously, don't get upset. They haven't won. We still have this space for those of us who use it wisely. To quit, to stop, that's letting them win. Stay vigilant OP!!!

You don't need to debate people. You only need to speak the truth.

There is the truth and there are the psychological delusions that other people would have you believe is the truth.

32 people have already downvoted this thread. That's at least 32 people in /r/conspiracy who think this thread being ridiculed, criticized and flooded with shallow denials is a good thing.

Or that they disagree that it's being ridiculed to any noticeable extent.

Or they use the up/down vote mechanism to judge relevance/irrelevance. I downvoted because this has no information in it and nothing to do with conspiracies.

32 people

reddit implements a vote padding algorithm. There is no way to know how many actual votes have been made by how many users. Actively discussed posts maintain an approximate 66% approval rating with observable consistency - not because of actual voting trends, but because that's how reddit displays the info based on aggregate information, including the amount and frequency of comments.

EDIT: At the time of this edit, this post has 100 upvotes and 48 downvotes: 66% approval. 66%

There is always a point to debate. I see it as fighting a horde with information. I may appear to lose a debate. It may appear I did not get through to a person. They may go off and after sleep, or after seeing other things give germination to an idea I debated with them on. They may start to see things a bit differently. They may still not agree with me, but it is a step in the right direction to get them to think for themselves, and start asking questions rather than adamantly defending whatever they believe is "status quo".

Keep it up!

It's not just outside influences; it's inside, too. Conspiracies are a hotly debated area of discussion. Many are very polarizing and instill passion in the believers.

Just look at any thread with many comments. Look towards the bottom. You'll see some pretty good comments that go against the OP's post, but that still are great for starting a conversation. But they're downvoted and ridiculed. Why?

I find it ironic that many people don't see that they are being fed bullshit stories in order to make them look more stupid. That way, valid questions such as 'why should we believe that the US killed Bin Laden and threw his body in the sea?' are lumped together with ridiculous shit like people wanting to believe that people pretended to get blown up at the Boston marathon.

Here's a conspiracy that no one wants to get their teeth into on this sub: The government is paying people to spread bullshit conspiracy theories that make people here look stupid and make it easier to alienate the mainstream opinion from questions they don't want to have to answer.

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

And they are doing it here. But no one gives a shit. Most people here think they are trying to destroy /r/conspiracy from the outside, but there are people here acting as agents provocateurs and people upvote them and their articles.

/r/conspiracy doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

I'm pretty sure most of the people on this sub are aware and bothered by this fact, hence all the calling-out of shills going on lately.

I do think some of the people on here are into some of the more absurd theories. I know I was at one point. I do think some of it are these government agencies trying to distract from worthwhile topics and make conspiracy theorists seem crazy.

As an aside: the other night I was listening to a Cracked podcast, and the main speaker kept using the term "conspiracy theorist" as another term for crazy, or crackpot. It just shows how much the campaign against asking hard questions has influenced the opinions of people. Though I suppose the actual crazy conspiracy theorists don't help either.

This is likely very true. However, it is our job as thinking people to use our own minds, and a little effort to research on our own. Believing ANYTHING another human tells you without research can be pretty stupid. I mean "Don't touch the stove it is hot", usually ends up with at one point or another the child touching the stove... or at the very least getting their hand close enough to feel the heat. :)

It's called science! There's an XKCD out there about a level that causes the user to get zapped. The "regular" person just says "I'd better not touch that again!" The scientist wonders "I wonder if that happens every time..."

Yep. I am basically saying we should approach most discussions as we approach science. In science you don't close your mind. You come up with things to test, you try them out.

You can do the same things with anything. Say "this is likely what happened here". Then go prove it. If you find that the hypothesis fails in even one point then the statement cannot be true. You must come up with another hypothesis and test.

A lot of the "Conspiracy theories" for say 9/11 are actually not that. Sometimes it is simply someone pointing out places the official story fails the hypothesis. They may not offer an alternative explanation at all. They have however, given evidence of a place the official story fails to explain the results.

I've seen some wild "hypothesis" for conspiracies, but I'd actually say that is not as common as people are lead to believe. I only see the "out there" type conspiracy theories once in awhile. Most of the time they are pretty well grounded.

You did basically get to the point. At its heart I believe most "Conspiracy Theorists" would be actually better called "Truth Nuts".

I consider myself one.

I want to know the truth about anything I can. If I am wrong about something I want to know that too so that I can get closer to the truth.

I do not believe in very many absolutes, so in many cases it is like infinity... it is what I aim for yet realize I likely will never know the "complete" truth about a great many things.

I disagree with your generous characterization of most conspiracy-minded individuals. To me, conspiracy theorists are experts in building a reassuring case for whatever belief they have decided upon, using any anomalies or facts stripped of their context, and resisting any contradictory evidence. In the course of making some good faith reasonable arguments against conspiracy theories, I have almost always been accused of being a shill.

I'm not accusing conspiracy theorists of being intentionally dishonest in their arguments, but that they are just more acutely prone to the cognitive short cuts that are part of human nature -- confirmation bias, egocentric thinking (that random school shooting that has nothing to do with me is actually a plot by an authority figure to limit MY liberty!), apophenia (pattern recognition gone wild).

If you look at the historical batting average for grand conspiracies over the decades, they just tend to collapse under their own weight as they necessarily expand to preposterous magnitudes to account for an increasing preponderance of contradictory evidence.

Real truth seekers are dispassionate users of science and logic. Call them skeptics.

A Conspiracy Theorist can be a Real Truth seeker and user of science and logic. That is fairly common. I have seen every point you made done from the opposite side as well. That is human nature.

I do not agree with people calling someone a shill. I will tell you that you refer to the term "science and logic" yet at the same time you are using absolutes. You use the term Conspiracy Theorists. This is an absolute that includes all people in that group. It is sometimes referred to as a stereotype and is certainly not scientific or logical. You could qualify your statement with something like Most or Some so that it becomes Most Conspiracy Theorists. If you use the word Some I doubt even most conspiracy theorists will disagree with you. However, if you use the term Most then if you are truly scientific and logical the burden of proof to support the use of the word "most" falls upon you. Such a qualification needs to be backed by research and scientific studies to be actual. Without such backing then it is you speaking from a position of authority without any scientific backing. Thus, the only safe word for something like this would be something like Some. For all you need to prove that is to find a single example. That is pretty easy to do.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories that have been proven true. There are also a lot of theories that have not, and some that I consider even way out there. I see society as conditioned to immediately slam the two words "conspiracy" and "theory" together as a bad thing without actually acknowledging they are two different words with two different meanings. 1) Conspiracies happen. They happen frequently and by definition of what they are we hear about things that fit the definition frequently on regular news. We simply don't hear the label that it was a conspiracy. 2) Theory is something that is meant to be challenged. A theory is not a bad thing. It is a possibility that needs to be examined. With science when possible. Some theories may be difficult to prove or disprove using science. In those cases all we can do is collect evidence proving or disproving and consider probabilities. In this case all it takes is one piece of evidence to disprove a theory. That doesn't mean that the theory may not have been partially onto the truth. It is okay to revisit a theory and then test again. That is actually how science itself works.

As I've said before. If you keep it civil, I will always welcome you or anyone else who wants to discuss things. As soon as you mock, belittle, or name call someone then you have already lost any foundation upon which your points can stand upon. Also, there are very few absolutes, so when you use them that also errodes the likelihood that someone will agree with you. People generally don't like to be stereotyped. This includes if someone calls you a shill. I am sure you don't like that. I don't like people calling you that.

I would not mind being called a conspiracy theorist if that term had not been hijacked. If it meant what the two words actually mean then I would not have a problem with that term. I tend to use the term Truth Seeker. I will listen to theories and research. If I find something that can't be true then I discard that. I may or may not enter a debate on it.

I consider skepticism good too. As long as it is not so rigid that it becomes dogmatic. If your skepticism comes in the form that "I am already right, and these guys MUST be wrong" then that is a bad form of skepticism. However, if it comes in the form of "I don't buy that, convince me" that is healthy and good. This applies to Conspiracy Theorists too... for the most part they are simply skeptics of the official story. There are some extremes that are a bit more than that but in my communications and observations they do not seem to be the norm.

This is a followup to my other long post. It is some advice. Take it or leave it.

Avoid mocking, belittling, name calling, and stereotypes (aka absolutes). Those four things if you don't avoid them will not accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. They don't convince anyone of anything. They escalate the situation and turn what could be a good discussion into a hostile one. This is true of ANYONE... so it is not unique to you.

You indicated you have been called a shill. If you repeatedly use absolutes and stereotypes (I don't know if you do) then you are actually attacking the people you are speaking to. It is natural for them to attack back.

If your goal is to have a good discussion and perhaps actually convince people of your points then by avoiding those things you may have a chance. If you don't avoid them then it is very unlikely you will succeed.

I realize I am making some generalizations about the logical lapses that fuel belief in conspiracies, but that doesn't mean using the term "conspiracy theorist" is necessarily pejorative. It's not how I meant to use it.

I still think you are giving too much credit to the arguments that tend to favor conspiracies. They are often shallow anomaly hunts. Complex events are anomalous by definition. In this way, the Apollo moon landing conspiracy and Sandy Hook conspiracy are very similar. People make a list of things they find perplexing from their own ignorance (in the case of matters of complex physics) or from lack of complete information, and make the leap of concluding that the events were "obviously" faked. Never mind that the alternative proposed narrative is vastly more preposterous than the little potshots taken against the official stories.

We can generalize somewhat about grand conspiracies, because they have very similar anatomy over the decades. Little conspiracies like Watergate are one thing. But grand conspiracies that posit hundreds of conspirators maintaining perfect silence tend to wither and die over time.

I haven't issued any comment on any specific theory. You are stating I am giving too much credit to something when I haven't even indicated any particular conspiracy.

Can you not see how such responses would illicit hostility towards you?

You are referring to things I have not done. Conspiracies DO exist. They are a historical fact. I have not mentioned a single conspiracy. You therefore cannot point out the "credit" I am giving to anything.

I am not trying to make you look like a fool. I am trying to help you avoid the landmines which may be getting people to not have a good dialog with you. That is all. I don't believe you deserve to be called a shill.

I was taught by the people that taught me logic and critical thinking that generalizations are bad. In terms of logic they are. If you want to argue that you are approaching something from a logical point then avoiding generalizations is pretty critical. However, we are all human and I too am guilty of generalizing from time to time. I just try really hard not to. If someone calls me out on it I tell them they are right, and apologize if need be, or move on with the discussion if it was not a case where an apology was necessary.

I could be talking about the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. I could be talking about the conspiracy between the Pope and the King of France to arrest all Knights Templar on Friday the 13th. Both of these are bonified historical conspiracies that are known to have taken place and are factual. I could be talking about the American Revolution which the revolution itself was a kind of form or sub-set of conspiracy. The colonists conspired to overthrow the rule of England in the colonies and gain their freedom.

So when you are saying I am giving too much credit, you must realize I did not give credit to anything. The above three examples are the only conspiracy examples I have now mentioned.

If you close your mind to the possibility of conspiracies existing then you must be selectively viewing history through an interesting filter. They have happened in all of human history. If you think they will suddenly cease to happen because it is now the present and not the past then I will sincerely question your understanding of either of the words logic or science. However, I do NOT think you are like this. I simply think you are being overly defensive against me and may have missed the point I was trying to make to you.

I was trying to illustrate specific ways of communication that escalate situations and don't convince people of anything. We ALL do them. Some more than others. That doesn't mean we can't try to improve ourselves and reign them in. It obviously is not going to happen like magic and be instantaneous. It is an ongoing process.

If you avoid absolutes (aka generalities/stereotypes), name calling, mocking, and belittling then you have a chance of convincing people of your points. If you resort to those things then you have very little chance. If you insist on using them then I can see some people being frustrated and calling you a shill. I believe they are wrong to do so. I can however see why they may be inclined to do so. We are all individuals. We all have our flaws and different tolerance levels for frustration.

Some days my frustration gets the better of me much quicker than others.

I am not frustrated at all with you. I see you trying to have a sincere discussion. I consider that a welcome thing here. I'd like you to have more good discussions.

I said something in another post elsewhere about this subreddit. There are only really two types of people that are bad for this subreddit and should not be here.

1) Those who believe all conspiracy theories are TRUE.

2) Those who believe all conspiracy theories are FALSE.

They are mutually exclusive and neither offer an opportunity for learning or healthy dialog. The only person who cannot learn is someone who is certain they already know the answer and will entertain no other thought.

I realize that you didn't bring up a conspiracy specifically, but the top discussed conspiracies on this subreddit are 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, HAARP, and and false flag attacks in general, which is applied to nearly every current conflict, from the current situation in Ukraine to Syria to the Malaysian airliner. These are the basis for my discussion of the logic of conspiracy theories with you, in direct response to your statement that you prefer to refer to believers of conspiracy theories as "truth seekers." If we turn our lens on the conspiracies making headlines on this subreddit, then I think can make a pretty good case to contradict that by bringing up the usual litany of arguments. If we broaden our definition to historical conspiracies like Watergate and Iran Contra, then it's a different discussion.

All this subreddit is is r/conspiracy

What some people do in this does not change that. Many people simply lurk here and read.

I believe the people posting 9/11 information is generally more believeable from a structural engineering, physics, and science position than the official "theory". That doesn't mean I believe all of the 9/11 theories. I've seen some pretty wild ones...

Remember how all it takes is one point to disprove a theory? There are many points where the official "theory" is impossible. That doesn't mean I am proposing an alternate theory. I am simply pointing out that there are aspects of the official "theory" (story if you prefer - but it still is still a theory cobbled together by our official agencies to explain the occurrence) that are impossible. There are also places where they completely ignored critical data, which is also not scientific.

Anything that people propose about 9/11 can ONLY be a theory. The only way for it not to be a theory is for all the people to come forth that participated and say "I did this, then this, and this is why". Since they are dead then all we can do is speculate and make a theory about what they did, and what happened. In addition, if the official story is to be believed then the terrorists did CONSPIRE to attack us, hijack planes, etc. Therefore the official story is ALSO a Conspiracy Theory. The fact it comes from an official source does not change that. Yet the official theory has some big problems. That is enough for me to know I should ask questions. It doesn't mean I should believe a theory that aliens came down and mind controlled people to cause it. It simply means there is reason for doubt of the official story, and I should ask questions... that's it... done... nothing more is required. As people offer alternative theories they too should be attacked. However, they should not be attacked simply because they did not come from an official source. The ONLY truly official source in this case requires a bunch of dead people to come back to life and tell you what they witnessed.

EDIT: I'm about to leave and in a hurry. ATTACKED was a bad choice of words. Substitute "analyzed from a scientific perspective without prejudgement".

You'll also see some pretty good comments that support the OP's post downvoted to oblivion and the comments with no substance at the top.

I agree with this too. People downvote stuff they disagree with. If the discussion is civil and the person put some effort into discussing then I don't see why people would downvote even if they disagree. If on the otherhand someone is crass, and resorts to belittling, and or name calling. I will downvote those.

The best conversations you can possibly have are with people who disagree with you. As long as both sides can remain civil it can be some of the best information and fact sharing sessions possible. If you on the otherhand only upvote people who say what you already believe then you basically are doing a circle jerk, and you MAY learn new information, but I assure you it will likely be a much slower process. I think they refer to it as "Preaching to the Choir". :)

Amen!

The shills are strong in this sub. JTRIG in action

One thing we need to be careful of is calling everyone a shill. It is much like calling people a troll.

Some people will resort to those labels if someone disagrees with them. If that person is being civil in their debate then we should welcome them and engage in debate. If they are using name calling, or belittling then they may be shills, and/or trolls. The best thing to do in that case is to ignore them and downvote them.

It is just very careful we do not too quickly and unjustly use the SHILL label just because, someone disagrees. If they are civil and disagree then that can end up being some of the best debating opportunities possible. Preaching to the choir is nowhere as important as sharing ideas in both directions with someone of a differing perspective. As long as it remains civil.

You can't point them out exactly but you can just tell that things are amiss. I assume all the r/whiterights posts are set up. Other than that, it's hard to tell.

Caught someone doing that the other day. They deleted the OP shortly after.

http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1zwnfu/conspiracy_theorists_never_talk_about_the_real/

After that Bip0larbear shit we aren't that dumb now

Next on r/conspiracy: child porn allegations

Probably right. The "literally nazis" schlock has worn thin.

The sad thing is they're going to impose their will eventually no matter what :(

I'm saying fuck it and moving my family to Sweden when things get too bad here, what about you?

Live in Alaska. Private well, food walks through my yard every day, berries grow wild. Also lots of oil and gold. If the rest of the country falls apart, I think we'll be okay.

At least until the Russians invade:(

Don't worry, I don't think that will be for a little while. Alaska seems like an awesome place to live post-collapse!

Great place for a zombie apocalypse too IMO. Frozen zombies < pickaxe.

I haven't paid attention to r/whiterights posts.

I am a bigot towards only one thing. Bigots. :) I really dislike bigots.

I don't care what your religion, political party, gender, race, hair style, sexual preference (even if you have sex with chickens and want to marry them), is. These things are not an issue to me until you try to force them onto me, or make laws that effect me. I believe in liberty, and your skin color has no effect on me, your sexual preference has no effect on me unless I am a peeping Tom... in which case I am violating your rights. Religion... go for it. Just don't force it on me and do not create laws that give preferential treatment to your religion or anyone else. If you want freedom... have at it. If you want to take away freedoms by passing laws based upon your own personal beliefs... it won't ever end well.

:)

I was reading about the "Trader Joes" that got discouraged by coming into a place in Oregon a couple of months ago. This came from a Black organization that clearly said black. It started making me think that if you took the word Black out of that title and substituted it with the word Caucasian there would be an uproar.

I personally believe if we are to end racism, we must stop giving it power. To end racism we need equality. To have equality we cannot give special benefits to any race. It will not happen over night, but just the idea that there are <insert ethnicity> groups, and <insert ethnicity> college funds, etc. does not remove racism. It promotes it.

I'd love to see the death of bigotry.... it's the ever distant goal.

I comment/argue here because I like to argue, not because I'm a paid shill. I have years of posting history on Reddit that pretty clearly show I'm not a shill. Yet of course, everyone you disagree with has to be a shill, right?

But do you agree that shilling is a real problem? Obviously not everyone who disagrees with me is a shill, but they're a real pain in the ass, sucks spending all day arguing with people whose job depends on not being convinced.

Deny, Disrupt, Deceive, and Degrade. That's what the slides said, right?. If you take a community of 1000 people and inject just 50 devoted agents provocateur you can manipulate everything. Every story you like, bumped up. Every opinion you don't like downvoted and degraded.

There's so much overt and covert hostility to this subreddit that I dont feel comfortable shooting the shit here anymore. It's all compromised and filled with people who hate me and hate the way I think. I'm happy to have an argument with someone reasonable, but this community is being strangled to death. In 6 months it'll probably look like the Natuonal Enquirer, just shills upvoting stories to make conspiracy theorists look stupid, the userbase having been forced to find another place to talk.

But do you agree that shilling is a real problem?

I'm sure there are paid shills, I somewhat doubt that they spend time in /r/conspiracy arguing about whether or not vaccines cause autism. I would imagine real shills would be posting in /r/politics, /r/worldnews, and big subs like that, not arguing with the conspiracy theories, but rather pushing news/stories/an agenda that they want people to see.

I would venture to say that, at a minimum, 95%+ of people who disagree with a given post in /r/conspiracy are not shills... if not 100%. It's far more likely that they are one of the following: people like me who like to argue and have some interest in conspiracies, skeptics who are bored and want to argue the other side, people with nothing better to do than pick a fight, trolls.

Why pay for shills if the job they would supposedly be doing here is done for free?

Even if its zero paid shills at all, even if it's just misguided "skeptics" who haven't realized there are bigger problems in the world than a small community of people who like to question everything they're told, even then people like me are being forced off reddit and that's what i think they want, not an argument, but an end to the argument.

There's bigger ideological fish to fry. There's an entire, highly active, private subreddit community devoted to attacking /r/conspiracy using techniques so similar to JTRIG they could have used the slides as a playbook.. Have you directed your skepticism there? Are you skeptical of mods like /r/BipolarBear with their conflicts of interests and scores of subreddits? Are you skeptical of why the admins haven't done anything about it? Or is your skepticism solely reserved for people society has already deemed crazy?

Oh, I've had my fights with /r/conspiratard too, trust me. I was banned there for quite some time.

I hate those guys, ha

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying I can feel some pretty fishy things going on, like the vote brigading of accounts with r/whiterights passing history and subsequent accounts calling them out on it in the comments repeatedly. Not 100% sure since there's no way to be, but sometimes you can just tell when things feel off.

Read /u/afidak 's comment below, he makes a great point.

In a post earlier I read on here...someone posted up an article on police detaining people for recording. Someone said that we need to stop getting in their way. . .A reply of "did we read the same article?" Was then subjugated to people saying everyone in this sub is crazy..or they joined for entertainment.

Honestly if they aren't going to actually provide insight to the subject and all they do is be little everyone in here then they should be banned.

I don't care if they are banned. I am too liberty loving for that. I think they have the right to do what they want. Our job is to keep an open mind and debate with people that will be civil. We can learn together that way. If they are not civil, no need to ban them... just ignore them and give them no power. Downvote them without saying a word if they are resorting to belittlement, or name calling.

I've been noticing something in this sub lately. Every time someone comments something that completely goes against what an honest person in this sub would believe, I down vote it...but it always automatically goes back up by 1 vote.

So for example: I believe an honest person on here would say "The NSA is bad and I don't agree with it."

Then somewhere in the comments someone would say "why does it even matter? It's not like they would spy on you." And I will downvote, which would then have it at 0, but then refresh the page and it would be back at 1 or even 2 points. But it's only with the comments that say something an honest visitor of this sub would never agree with. And it's not like I wait a minute and then refresh the page, it's always right after and only with those specific types of comments...

Reddit is programmed to automatically vote up/down on all posts. It's called vote "fuzzing" and is meant to deter bot voting, so a bot cannot determine if its vote counted. That's why when you look at your profile, you'll notice old comments of yours seem to be randomly going up and down by one vote.

It's also why big stories that are seemingly benign having thousands of downvotes.

My biggest beef lately is parent comments in the top five that read along the lines of "you guys will believe anything lol". That language (you guys) leads me to believe that those commenters are not subscribers of this subreddit and are here just to start flame wars. That particular type of comment which offers no debunking of the post, or even debate of any particulars, should be removed. Even if upvoted, we can't guarantee those people are subscribers of this sub. Downvotes should be reserved for garbage content and trolling, not a disagreeing opinion, "stupid" questions, or even personal theories that you think need proof of validity.

TL;DR: If you disagree with content, either debate it or move along. Report the stuff that is useless/trolling.

Excellent post OP. It is much easier to ridicule than to discuss. It is easy to keep a close mind, it is more challenging to open your mind and carefully consider everything you encounter. Some people seem to fear opening their mind. It is almost like they equate having an open mind as believing everything they are told. Sadly, it does not mean that and by being so rigid in their thought processes they are limiting themselves. They may think some of us need straightjackets yet, they already have their own minds inside of a straightjacket.

It is also the mark of an educated mind to consider possibilities no one else considers. If Newton hadn't have done that, where would we be?

I don't know if you guys noticed. I lot of the good content gets voted down so that it's never seen. For instance, there was an interview about the Ukraine situation with Paul Craig Roberts. It for all pratical purposes disappeared.

Anything I've posted by Paul Craig Roberts has gotten buried.

Stop letting outside influences ruin this sub.

There is no stopping the shills at this point, we fought and lost, most of the main users of this sub have been wrongly shadow banned by the admins. /u/BipolarBear0 is a perfect example of how the admins of the site have already been infiltrated by outside forces him not being banned makes it obvious. This website has been going down hill for a few months and now it's on the verge because of people and forces outside of the normal reddit users, one look at the front page on any given day would confirm that. Shills and Corporations control this website now, it's time for us to find a new safe haven because this website will be dead as far as it being an non controlled source of information and free discussion.

[deleted]

Your account is not fixed.

I get called out a lot here for asking for sources. Most of the time it's just me wanting to know more about the topic. However if you state something as fact and can't provide anything to back it up I'm going to call you out on it. Why? Because by just accepting everything on here a as fact doesn't do anybody any good. Honestly your just being a shill for a conspiracy theory if you attack me for it as well.

I actually see the opposite. I call out people for sources when the say things like "OP is bullshit"... Okay, why?

Fukushima is a prime example. Most sources from the "we're all gonna die camp" are flawed, but at least I can see OPs train of thought. With the "everything is fine" camp, it seems like I mostly see the same tired copy pasta from other places on reddit.

But i do agree. If you make a claim post a source. Otherwise put IMO at the end.

Personally, I disagree with the OP and think he/she has it backwards - on this sub, skepticism and calls for better information is derided when it should be lauded while tin-foil hat circle-jerking is regarded as real conversation when it accomplishes nothing.

Leaps of faith only occur in the absence of sufficient evidence, opinions are only interesting when they're backed up by information, and readers of this sub should be comfortable with the fact that outside influences are a fabric of modern society and we should evaluate all new information within the context of the source accordingly.

"The trouble with keeping an open mind, of course, is that people will come along and insist on trying to put things in it." - Sir Terry Pratchett, author

I think it is a bit odd the mantra here is to be skeptical (except for the stuff we post).

Where do you see that?

What you and the OP are describing is really two sides of the same coin. If you are too rigid to considering possibilities, or if you are so open you are never a skeptic, those can both be equally bad things.

As far as open minded... and your Terry Pratchet quote. Yes, that is true they will try to put things in it. It is your job to reason through those things. It is perhaps more dangerous to allow another human or authority to TELL YOU a thing... accept that as gospel... and then never question it.

It is dangerous in either direction...

This reddit is for Conspiracies. It is going to immediately be controversial topics. Without people that disagree with the conspiracy we cannot really get anywhere and it would be a circle jerk.

So really we need people that are skeptics, and open minded.

We need people that can have civil discussions without belittling, or name calling.

Any reddit/sub-reddit is going to naturally have some element of circle jerking around whatever theme it is. That is unavoidable.

That is like having 10 9/11 truthers have a party... where they have no skeptics...

It ends up being "Did you hear about x?" "Yeah, I did"

and "Isn't it crazy that people believe Y still?" "I know... it amazes me"

That party is not really interesting until you introduce a skeptic. If the skeptic is friendly, and civil... some important things come from it.

1) Weaknesses to the Conspiracy "theory" may arise and can be researched, and may be the nail in the coffin for the "theory"

2) The skeptic may no longer be a skeptic in regards to the theory if you are convincing enough. This will generally require evidence, good debate, and civility.

3) Each side may not be swayed, but will have more information to ponder.

One thing for certain is it would be a far more interesting party.

[deleted]

The instructions to "ignore the trolls" is useless. The new posts start off well, then as they begin taking off, they get brigaded by trolls, the relevant comments buried and top comments are ridicule, denial, attacking the source and ignoring the actual evidence. Look at the recent Ukraine email leak posts. This happens everytime a new story breaks, and it's always the same users which I have tagged.

"Talk about it's real not how it's fake guys! GUYS!"

Yeah and whats most troubling is the mods dont let us fight back the chills. Very very troubling. Its obvious sometimes people are chills but its against the rules to name them or attack them personaly.

I find this very sad, I almost lost faith in this sub lately because its crawling with chillroaches.

a little ignorance goes a long way

No, what's wrong with the sub is quite the opposite of what you are implying.

Here's how things have been going recently:

• Outlandish, absolutely retarded conspiracy theory is posted, 0 evidence but upvoted to the top.
• People in comments, mind you not just /r/conspiratard members or trolls, seriously doubt the post/theory has any credibility. Post reasons why it is unlikely, proven false, or ask for more evidence proving the conspiracy to be reasonable.
• 50 people come in trying to one-up the rest of /r/conspiracy in who can be the most "true" conspiracy theorist, downvote reasonable questions/concerns and call those people "shills", "idiots", etc.

I mean, there are people saying that because you can't prove that the "leaked" false-flag emails from Ukraine are bogus, they have to be true. That's not how the burden of proof works. At the very least, people doubting the authenticity of the emails are reasonable.

I mean, there are people saying that because you can't prove that the "leaked" false-flag emails from Ukraine are bogus, they have to be true. That's not how the burden of proof works. At the very least, people doubting the authenticity of the emails are reasonable.

You mean stuff like this?

http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/20afmk/alert_anonymous_hacks_email_of_us_attach%C3%A9_proof/cg1u6hk

yes, exactly. I took one of the "leaked" emails, changed the body of the text and timestamp, uploaded it and he still didn't get that they could be faked.

Yes, it appears likely that some real emails were acquired, but that doesn't mean that the message body of the email wasn't tampered with.

Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. You don't think a pilot could be incompetent and crash a plane with no conspiracy involved? Or some pissed off kid from another country that grew up hearing about how evil the US is would stupidly decide to kill a bunch of Americans? Seriously, every big news story has to be shoehorned into a conspiracy on the sub. It's like nothing ever just happens, it has to be some nefarious plot by bankers.

You are correct that not everything is a conspiracy. The problem, however, is that many things are. The bankers, neo-cons, and internationalists ARE trying to fashion a new world order with them at the top and everyone else as pawns at the bottom. In this country, as in others, there are nefarious deeds organized and executed at the highest echelons of society. It is far better to question EVERYTHING and get to the bottom of EVERYTHING. If it turns out there is no organized plot, what has been lost? Nothing.

I agree but on the other hand not everything is as it seems.

We are not assuming everything we post here is true. A lot of what is posted here is to ellicit debate and research. If you don't think conspiracies that were considered theories have since been proven true then you need to go research your history. There are only two WRONG ways to approach this subreddit.

1) Assume nothing here is true.

2) Assume nothing here is false.

[deleted]

Many theories are also attacked from a purely emotional rigid standing as well. It happens on both sides of most debates. The key is to avoid name calling, belittling, and keep it civil.

I don't know many adults that have been swayed by name calling. It usually results in their hackles going up and them ceasing to listen to the person with any rationallity from that point.

EDIT: Your comments of mocking, and derided. Those are no ways to convince anyone of anything. It should not occur. I am of the personal opinion that only idiots MOCK other people. I won't call them an idiot though. I consider them not worth responding to. I love debating with civil people that disagree with me. I've actually changed my mind on some points and told them thank you. It is rare to encounter such people though. It is so much easier to call people names and mock. MOCKing presumes superiority. People never respond well to that.

Many theories are also attacked from a purely emotional rigid standing as well. It happens on both sides of most debates.

That is true, but let's be honest, which side is attacked more, from purely emotional and often irrational standpoints, in this sub?

This sub is labeled r/conspiracy... If I go into r/Republican and start preaching Democratic view points I'm going to get flamed more.

I like to see no mocking personally. However, you should certainly not be surprised to see more of it against the skeptics here when it is labeled r/conspiracy.

So instead of joining in the mocking... (the old... two wrongs don't make a right) just try to keep in your mind that there are still stupid people in all movements who believe mocking, and name calling are effective tools. We can't eliminate them from any group. They are in every subreddit.

So it can be difficult to bite your tongue. (I have tha problem too)

If it helps just keep in mind that while we may or may not be in the majority there are people here that will be civil with you and will appreciate discussing things with you as long as you are also civil. There will also be asses that mock, and belittle. This happens everywhere... if you act civil... I guarantee you that you will not have to defend yourself against those mocking, and belittling you.

People like me will do that for you. I am very much a conspiracy/truth seeker. I believe some official stories, but I find so many of them as "false and engineered" these days that I pretty much hear about something from "official" channels and have to spend hours researching what I can find on it before, either deciding it was legit, or seeing it as yet another way to manipulate the masses.

I welcome civil debate because I see my concept of "truth" ever moving and shifting as more information is made available to me.

So if you disagree with a lot of things here... that is great... keep it civil and we can learn a lot TOGETHER. :) If people that are part of my "choir" (e.g. preaching to the choir) treat you with disrespect and mock, or name call you... I will downvote them and I will defend you. If you drop to their level I usually don't say anything and just downvote both of you. :)

This sub is labeled r/conspiracy... If I go into r/Republican and start preaching Democratic view points I'm going to get flamed more.

If you go to /r/Republican and respectfully disagree with someone, I guarantee you that you will not be called a paid Democratic party shill, that is the difference. Yeah, you may get a heated debate, but you won't be called a shill.

Not to mention that many here, myself included, are interested in some conspiracies, so to make the comparison that those that disagree with some conspiracies are equivalent to the Dem vs. Rep comparison is wrong. It'd be more like someone in /r/Republican, who is conservative/Republican themselves, disagreeing with one Republican talking point. That person wouldn't be ridiculed/flamed, and wouldn't be called a shill.

So if you disagree with a lot of things here... that is great... keep it civil and we can learn a lot TOGETHER. :) If people that are part of my "choir" (e.g. preaching to the choir) treat you with disrespect and mock, or name call you... I will downvote them and I will defend you. If you drop to their level I usually don't say anything and just downvote both of you. :)

I'm all down with that, but some people from both sides of the spectrum are not, then the hostile environment created by both of them spreads and eventually it seems like everyone here is an asshole.

Yep... "seems" can get us every time. I know what you mean because, I had to stop reading r/politics for similar reasons. I gave you r/Republican as an example, as I did frequent that for awhile. I don't see much of that in r/Libertarian where I tend to spend most of my time.

Mainly I wanted to stress that yes there are going to be "assholes" on both sides of the fence. If it helps keep in mind that there are people like me here too. ;) If they are assholes, that is their loss. Ignore them and move on. Yes, I know it is often easier said than done. I sometimes respond to people when it would have been better if I did not.

Freedom of speech was not needed to protect popular speech. It was needed to protect unpopular speech. I encourage you to practice that right courageously. There are those of us here that will appreciate it.

Even though I believe a lot of conspiracies, I do not believe a lot of them too. If your comments are civil you may help me on some of those and maybe I'll do the same for you.

Even if we never talk again... just keep in your mind "not everyone here is an asshole". :) Anyone that resorts to name calling has already failed in the debate in my opinion. So if they call you a shill and you were civil and rational then they have already lost.

The same is true for others...

Why do I come to this subreddit? A lot of possibilities break here before other places. It is like a HINT at things I may want to research. Also let's face it I like mysteries, and to some extent have always enjoyed a great conspiracy story. I am a big fan of stories of the Knights Templar, and such from the Medieval ages...

I see a lot of piss poor attitudes here and in other subreddits. I actually found r/politics to be far worse than here(so much so that I never did really get any good info to research from). I just read with my own little filter. If someone starts name calling in the OP post... I downvote and ignore their article. Mocking, Name Calling, etc are a mental loss... a bullying tactic... they are really stupid if they think calling you names will make their point suddenly be true in your mind. I envision them as a bully looking around for the smiles of encouragement from their herd for the name they called you. It doesn't work on me. I am an individual.

Yep. I am basically saying we should approach most discussions as we approach science. In science you don't close your mind. You come up with things to test, you try them out.

You can do the same things with anything. Say "this is likely what happened here". Then go prove it. If you find that the hypothesis fails in even one point then the statement cannot be true. You must come up with another hypothesis and test.

A lot of the "Conspiracy theories" for say 9/11 are actually not that. Sometimes it is simply someone pointing out places the official story fails the hypothesis. They may not offer an alternative explanation at all. They have however, given evidence of a place the official story fails to explain the results.

I've seen some wild "hypothesis" for conspiracies, but I'd actually say that is not as common as people are lead to believe. I only see the "out there" type conspiracy theories once in awhile. Most of the time they are pretty well grounded.

You did basically get to the point. At its heart I believe most "Conspiracy Theorists" would be actually better called "Truth Nuts".

I consider myself one.

I want to know the truth about anything I can. If I am wrong about something I want to know that too so that I can get closer to the truth.

I do not believe in very many absolutes, so in many cases it is like infinity... it is what I aim for yet realize I likely will never know the "complete" truth about a great many things.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying I can feel some pretty fishy things going on, like the vote brigading of accounts with r/whiterights passing history and subsequent accounts calling them out on it in the comments repeatedly. Not 100% sure since there's no way to be, but sometimes you can just tell when things feel off.

Read /u/afidak 's comment below, he makes a great point.

But do you agree that shilling is a real problem? Obviously not everyone who disagrees with me is a shill, but they're a real pain in the ass, sucks spending all day arguing with people whose job depends on not being convinced.

Deny, Disrupt, Deceive, and Degrade. That's what the slides said, right?. If you take a community of 1000 people and inject just 50 devoted agents provocateur you can manipulate everything. Every story you like, bumped up. Every opinion you don't like downvoted and degraded.

There's so much overt and covert hostility to this subreddit that I dont feel comfortable shooting the shit here anymore. It's all compromised and filled with people who hate me and hate the way I think. I'm happy to have an argument with someone reasonable, but this community is being strangled to death. In 6 months it'll probably look like the Natuonal Enquirer, just shills upvoting stories to make conspiracy theorists look stupid, the userbase having been forced to find another place to talk.