“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

― Aristotle, Metaphysics

"Go away shill"

• r/Conspiracy
  

"Who you working for, huh?"

Also double quotes

"I don't know how to italicize"

-Guys who fucks squids

[removed]

Guy who fucks squids and humans

My apologies!

someone mentioned the other day that if people checked their facts, there wouldn't be any conspiracy theories. I find it to be the opposite: people are checking their facts and finding inconsistencies and peculiarities with stories, which is the exact reason that these theories begin in the first place. Nice post.

yes but people who are wrong have no problem with being wrong again.

idiot!

conspiracy theorist!

you don't know what you're talking about!

but the news said!

that's why i always try to provide overwhelming amounts of evidence to people who wish to argue against me, but not eject from the conversation. finding people who you can argue with all day but respect their efforts regardless is a very positive thing.

we are all after the same prize, truth. those who have it, much like money, do not wish to share.

No, in many cases people created the conspiracy theories well before there were many facts, and any inconsistencies, to be found. As soon as there's another big shooting or whatever, within minutes someone is yelling "false flag !" or creating a theory. No wait for facts, for investigation, etc.

Agreed 100%. I struggle with this the most out of anything else related to /conspiracy. Why do so many see the act of asking for answers in an effort to seek full understanding as a bad thing? The very act of putting someone down for seeking greater understanding instantly discredits that individual. It's a two-way street, every story has two sides - if you reach agreement, great! If not, so be it - walk away knowing you did your best to understand the "other side" and realize it takes all kinds to make this world to go round.

But you do agree that sometimes people take it too far right? For sure there is at least ONE big conspiracy theory that is just by coincidence.

I want to discuss moon babies who fuck street musicians. I want to discuss it from both angles because I obviously don't have a preconceived notion of whether moon babies do in fact fuck street musicians.

I want to discuss it on /r/conspiracy because it is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Now I know a lot of y'all will look at my evidence and not be convinced there are in fact moon babies in the picture. Here's the thing:

You won't get a good reaction from this subreddit on this topic unfortunately. Some people seem to be convinced that it only exists "to discredit this sub". That is clearly silly since this sub is a tiny part of the internet and the idea has exploded in many places.

Of course there is disinfo out there. Massive amounts of it and varying levels of it. The way to avoid being smeared by association is to point out that there is no association. I don't consent to allow anyone to speak for me. Whenever anyone makes a statement like "conspiracy theorists say" I point out that they are setting up for a strawman argument. Discussion on topics can't be allowed to be shut down by the threat of association smearing since that makes the threat itself an effective disinfo tool.

That twisted logic can be applied to any disinformation campaign. Specifically in this context, the flat earth modelol.

I think the problem is that most people on r/conspiracy are all too willing to accept a thought as lng as its the opposite of the main stream. Is it not just as foolish to blindly accept that chemteails are real than to accept that they are fake?

I disagree that it is blind acceptance that causes belief in conspiracies. I don't believe that most here are "willing" to accept a thought that opposes the mainstream, but rather our history, observations, and experiences show that most of the truth lies outside of the mainstream which gives us these thoughts.

"I believe everything that sounds cool enough"

http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/conspiracies.jpg

Actually, almost everything is a conspiracy. Education, healthcare, banking, journalism, technology, the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, our art, music and movies: all are contaminated and perverted by the fascist overlords who want to destroy us and have this planet for themselves.

• Education makes us ignorant.
• Healthcare makes us sick.
• Banking makes us poor.
• Journalism hides the truth and promotes lies.
• Technology isolates us and spies on us.
• Fracking and fluoride contaminate our water.
• GMOs, pesticides and other crap contaminate our food.
• Art, music and movies (often) degrade us rather than uplift us.

And on and on.

Came here to say this. It's alarming how many things actually are conspiracies. People who rule, do so via deception. Pure and simple.

I cannot fathom why you are being downvoted.

They Live, We Sleep

Me thinks your definition of conspiracy is a little too broad. Now stupidity, the world is full of that.

For example we used to think DDT was harmless to humans and wildlife. We later found out that wasn't the case. It wasn't a conspiracy, just stupidity.

But we sure as fuck used DDT quite a bit before we learned that it wasn't that great. Here for instance was a regular occurrence in the 1950's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIxMvUZVRDE

Same thing with Asbestos, etc.

It becomes a conspiracy when a group of people use propaganda, lies, and money to keep insisting that something is safe when others prove that it isn't, which is the case with DDTs.

The world is full of stupidity, I'll agree with you there but it is this stupidity that lets the people who know full well what they are doing get away with it. They can then claim any adverse effects were "unforeseeable" and that it was the result of negligence or an accident or something entirely unrelated and most people will believe it, because they are stupid. Then if a few people are still baying for blood they usually go after the readily presented scapegoat while the real perpetrators remains in the shadows.

I only type this as you mentioned Asbestos, people knew Asbestos could be bad for you as far back as the Roman Empire, in the 1920's as a young girl my Grandmother was warned by her father not to touch the "fire cloth" as it could make her very sick. He was an engineer and worked with raw Asbestos, he would wear a mask and gloves(made partly of asbestos) whenever he was using it, and wouldn't let anyone into his workshop while doing so.

The problem is people were told it was safe is so that they would still buy products containing it. It was a cheap and readily available fireproofing and insulation, used in everything from household appliances to cars, gas mask filters to cigarette filters. Primarily because of the huge investments made by people in London, England into the town of Asbestos in Quebec, Canada, and then into the spin off UK and Scotland Asbestos Industries after seeing how quickly the Canadian venture had gained investment.

It was one of the first "wonder materials", something that defied the expected norm of being a fibrous flexible cloth yet could not be burnt and the prospect of having stock in this new product that would be used in almost everything was too good to pass up for many people. So just like we have seen many times since, the fact some thing was making people ill was not a great concern for the people making money off it.

I know a whole bunch about Asbestos, partly thanks to great grand father leaving all his tools and equipment ... and Asbestos behind, partly thanks to the library of books I had to read before working for a week removing the stuff from a building. I will leave you with a quote by Dr. Kenneth Smith that I first saw in the book "Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects" by Barry Castleman but is handily available to copy paste from the Asbestos Wiki entry with adequate preamble.

In 1952, Dr. Kenneth Smith, Johns-Manville medical director, recommended (unsuccessfully) that warning labels be attached to products containing asbestos. Later, Smith testified: "It was a business decision as far as I could understand ... the corporation is in business to provide jobs for people and make money for stockholders and they had to take into consideration the effects of everything they did and if the application of a caution label identifying a product as hazardous would cut into sales, there would be serious financial implications."

Consider that the definition of conspiracy is a plan to do something harmful or unlawful.

Taking my assumption that laws are harmful (after all, look at all the harm laws do) then the definition of conspiracy is a plan to do something lawful or unlawful.

Yup. Hippy math checks out. Every plan is a conspiracy. Nothing is harmless.

For real though, every act of creation is an act of destruction.

If Education is an ignorant conspiracy, than the people running that are literally gods. There is way too much information now out there, it's not all just made up out of the blue. The thing with knowledge is the more you know you more you know you DON'T know.

GMOs, pesticides and other crap contaminate our food.

You mean drastically increase crop yields, reduce pesticide use? Yeah they sure are contaminating our food.

I got into an argument about the recent shootings in Virginia with somebody (but multiple people engaged me on the subject). The shooting was caught on camera (2 views), one woman was left alive and is currently recovering in a hospital after surgery, and that woman's husband has come out and said that we shouldn't blame the gun for this event.. we need to blame the shooter (he is a pro-2nd amendment guy and is afraid politicians will turn this event into an excuse to try to pass laws). For the most part the story has left the news, no presidential candidates are making this a focal point of their campaigns, and the President hasn't come out and given a speech about it to try to gin up support for sweeping gun control. Basically all of the evidence points to this being a real crazy guy shooting a couple of people and nothing more is going to come of this. However, when I point this out people fall over themselves to try to maintain their conspiracy theory that this was all a hoax. It doesn't matter how many people need to be involved for this to be true, it doesn't matter that the media and politicians aren't turning this into a month-long circus of nonstop gun talk, it doesn't matter that Vicki Gardner's husband (a man who would have to be in on it if it was a hoax) is publicly saying he doesn't want any gun laws passed because of this tragedy... people made up their minds before the evidence came out and they want to stick to it no matter what that requires. This is what people are talking about when they say "not everything is a conspiracy." It is great to question everything but don't just jump to a conclusion and then work backwards from that point to try to make everything fit your end. That isn't looking for the truth. That is doing mental gymnastics to make everything fit your preconceptions.

My observations, in my social media circles (non conspiratorial), are that after every one of these incidents I see appeals for gun control.

I read comments like, "How many people have to die?" "Can we please talk about gun control?"

The real target is the people not the politicians. I think it is working. The politician will respond when the people demand change.

After Sandy Hook polls showed 92% of the American public wanted a federal universal background check bill passed. Congress blocked it. You're never gonna get polls showing a public more united for any federal gun control law to be passed than that. If gun control is the goal they had their perfect chance then and they blocked the bill.. Why? Because the NRA pays them to block these bills. It doesn't matter what the public wants. If someone is behind the scenes pulling the strings they would have gotten that universal background check law passed after Sandy Hook (if gun control is really what they want... I don't think that is what they want).

You may be right. So, what do you think they want?

Money. That's what it all boils down to. Solving problems doesn't make money. Having problems and promising to be the guy who is going to solve them does make money. When you have 11,000 gun homicides a year you are going to have a lot of people saying "we need new gun laws" and a lot of people saying "that's a slippery slope.. we need to protect our gun rights." Because of this you'll get Democratic candidates who can say "donate to my campaign and once I win office I'm going to finally get a bill thru to end these senseless killings." On the other end you'll have Republican candidates saying "donate to my campaign because when I'm in office I will make sure no gun laws get passed because you have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms." On top of that you have the NRA telling everyone "join us now in the fight to stop Obama from taking your guns" and people donate to them after every mass shooting event. Then the NRA takes a portion of that money and donates it to candidates (from both parties... over 50% of Congress) in exchange for them blocking gun regulation bills. It's all a business. If Sandy Hook was a hoax perpetrated by the government to pass gun control laws you would see a united front... Democrats and Republicans would have come together and said "look, enough is enough.. we are going to do something and the American people have spoken and we are passing this universal background check law." It would have been the easiest thing for them to do. They didn't do that because once they start actually passing laws that is one less thing they can use to raise funds.

Do you believe Sandy Hook was a hoax?

No. It was definitely used by the left to try to force gun control laws to be passed but it definitely wasn't a hoax with actors... people really did die.

So, you believe that all of these events are real, but are being used by the left to enact gun control, which is being thwarted by the right and the NRA? Is that correct?

No... I don't think the left actually cares about enacting gun control.. I think they know they can fundraise by saying they will try to pass gun control laws but they know that they won't pass any federal laws because some of the same politicians saying they will pass laws are also accepting money from the NRA to not pass laws. It's all a show and they are only interested in collecting money.

Ok, I understand your POV. I disagree, but I get it.

I think if there was some conspiracy to disarm America where the government was hoaxing events to get public support they would be able to pass a law no problem.. especially after Sandy Hook when they had 92% of America begging for a Federal Universal background check law. The fact that Republicans and Democrats were divided on the issue and blocked the bill demonstrates that there isn't some secret effort to take our guns.

Ok, I agree that there is more to this than just gun control, and money may play a role. But, I also believe many of these events are false flags and some are completely or partially staged.

I could see people saying that there is more than meets the eye but staging an event with actors would be a million times more difficult than just actually shooting a place up. If everyone here agrees that the government had at least some hand in killing 3000 Americans on 9-11 why do people need to think they are using actors and faking murders during these shootings? Why would they leave so many loose ends... somebody would come forward and talk. It's much easier to just send a guy with a gun into a place and shoot it up and then blame it on somebody else.. or just wait for a genuine event to occur and jump all over it and turn it into a political football.

I agree with you. As I said in another post it would be easier to hire a hit man. So, if these events really are staged that would have to be a less obvious (occult) reason.

nail on the head.

Bingo.

The legislation required mental health-related background checks - I think that's the real reason it failed. Probably a huge violation of HIPAA and also probably the backend details required cross-checking specific medications, which would affect vets being overmedicated with antipsychotics for PTSD which would have brought on a shitshow of epic proportions.

I seriously believe the first hoax-pushers are pharma PR to take the heat off, the rest are gullible optimists.

This is where the insurance companies come in with all of their customer data and mandated reporting. It wouldn't be too hard to find individuals with an ICD for mental health problems. We (I worked in an informatics dept for an insurer) already tracked patients at risk to be diagnosed with CHF and COPD with algorithms and staff nurses reviewing their charts. We would then contact the doctors who contact the patients for a health screening. There are personal health laws in place but did anybody read the Obamacare bill? Or are we still waiting to see what's in it after we passed it. !Edited IDC to ICD.

Interesting, thanks for sharing! Obamacare is a privacy nightmare. I don't think anyone really read it and pretty sure implementors didn't read it fully (or other privacy refs). Isn't it something like we have the IRS, HHS, TransUnion (or Equifax, I can never remember which one's got the contract), insurers, states, and who knows who else exchanging data back and forth...you'd hope it's all encrypted and who's sucking what from where and how are the end points secure? The OPM situation for sure didn't add to my confidence level there, either...

Right but if the government had some nefarious plan to take our guns that wouldn't matter... they would pass the bill.

Yeah, I don't think they're taking guns anytime soon, I think it's all a dog and pony show while they figure out how to stop all the medmurders without fucking their stock portfolios or lessening the campaign contributions they get...I HOPE so, anyway.

Just a correction: Within a few hours after the shooting, Hillary Clinton was already giving a speech about these shootings constantly happening because of lax gun laws. I don't know if she continued with this subject and if she didn't it's for the best but it's true that she did jump on it initially.

She jumped on it when it was brought up but all reporters asked all the candidates about their thoughts on gun laws immediately after the shooting. None of them ran with it as if it was some orchestrated event, though. The media is still more concerned with talking about Trump being rude and loud than they are with trying to push a gun control agenda. If this was a hoax for the sake of gun control I would think this wouldn't be dropped so quickly. What's the point in risking hoaxing something like this if they aren't going to run with it? I don't think Sandy Hook was a hoax either but at least with that shooting you could see that all politicians/media personalities were using it for their gun control agendas for months which made it easier for people to say "hey, maybe this whole thing was a ruse from the start." That isn't happening with this shooting.

I think there would be far less of this thinking if the video/stills taken didn't have so many straight-up inconsistencies.

I've yet to see an automatic not eject cartridges, and I watched a video of a guy shooting a Glock 9mm at about 10 different framerates.

Basic logic tells you that nearly ANY framerate over 4fps is going to capture cartridge ejection with an automatic pistol.

However, when I point this out people fall over themselves to try to maintain their conspiracy theory that this was all a hoax. It doesn't matter how many people need to be involved for this to be true

Well first of all, if it is a conspiracy, you only need about 4 main people involved for it to be true. Cameraman, shooter, interviewer, and interviewee. So that's not a problem. Followup with a bought of coroner (just like JFK) and a fake ambulance crew, and it's rather simple. The whole "too many people need to be involved for this conspiracy to work" meme falls flat in the face of 9/11. This is peanuts in comparison.

More importantly though, how do you explain a semi automatic not ejecting shell casings? You can clearly see no case is ejected in the first shot fired, and if it were a real glock it would either A) eject casings or B) jam after not ejecting the first case. And you can't claim that the camera doesn't show it, because it's recording at least 30 fps, casings do not move faster than the camera can capture them (regardless of ammo used) and most importantly, you can clearly see the first shot not eject anything.

Decent article on the subject:

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/was-a-non-gun-used-in-the-wdbj-shooting-hoax/#more-35363

Ok so the interviewee who was injured and had surgery and is recovering in a hospital... The hospital that released that statement must be in on it to release the statement... her husband must be in on it because he is allegedly at the hospital with her... the doctors and nurses who are working with her must be in on it... her medical Insurance company must be in on it..etc... How are all of these people not required? How can a hospital be releasing statements about her procedures and her recovery unless they are in on the hoax? How can doctors and nurses be interviewed talking about what they are doing with her unless they are in on it? Either they are a part of the hoax or there is no hoax and she was really shot... why would they leave her alive in the first place? And why would her husband be saying he doesn't want anyone to turn this shooting into a political debate over guns if the whole purpose of hoaxing this was to get support for gun control (because he is a 2nd amendment advocate). it doesn't make sense.

Ok so the interviewee who was injured and had surgery and is recovering in a hospital... The hospital that released that statement must be in on it to release the statement... her husband must be in on it because he is allegedly at the hospital with her... the doctors and nurses who are working with her must be in on it... her medical Insurance company must be in on it..etc... How are all of these people not required? How can a hospital be releasing statements about her procedures and her recovery unless they are in on the hoax? How can doctors and nurses be interviewed talking about what they are doing with her unless they are in on it?

Yes, none of this is a problem. Again, compared to 9/11 this is PEANUTS in comparison.

You think that these kind of events happen without months to years worth of planning? Think again.

why would they leave her alive in the first place?

A more believable story most likely, two dead one injured. The injured lady can tell her story gives more credit to it.

And why would her husband be saying he doesn't want anyone to turn this shooting into a political debate over guns (because he is a 2nd amendment advocate). it doesn't make sense.

Actually that part makes PERFECT sense. Again, a more believable story, if the husband came out against guns there would be even more backlash and critical analysis of the event, even among non "conspiracy" types of people.

A more believable story? So you are saying that they planned this so well that they aren't even going to pass any laws from it? It's such a perfect hoax that the news already gave up on the story and congress isn't even budging an inch because of it.. Also.. wouldn't the government really just shoot a couple of people if they wanted to have an event for gun control? they'd kill 3000 people on 9-11 but they don't have the stomach to kill 2 people in Virginia? It makes 0 sense. Nobody is even talking about guns anymore because of this... the story dropped off the map.. What a waste of a perfectly good "hoax." And this happened not long ago.. anybody who doesn't believe it and really wants to uncover the truth can drive over to Roanoke and do some investigating on their own... Everybody who says this is a hoax acts like throwing a few pictures around and watching youtube videos is as much that can be done.. why not go there and talk to some people?

The point is the government wouldn't leave this shit to chance.. they would just shoot people if that's what they wanted to do.. they wouldn't rely on some hospital orderlies who make 10 dollars an hour to keep a secret this big.

A more believable story? So you are saying that they planned this so well that they aren't even going to pass any laws from it?

Who said it had to be about laws? Keeping people in a perpetual state of fear, and keeping the public divided about guns is more than enough for such an operation.

Also.. wouldn't the government really just shoot a couple of people if they wanted to have an event for gun control? they'd kill 3000 people on 9-11 but they don't have the stomach to kill 2 people in Virginia? It makes 0 sense.

Again, it makes perfect sense. 9/11 had so much investigation from family members of people actually killed. With crisis actors and the whole "everyones in on it" strategy, you don't have that problem. It's easier to kill real people, but harder to get away with it.

Nobody is even talking about guns anymore because of this... the story dropped off the map.. What a waste of a perfectly good "hoax."

Not really, plenty of articles and people on facebook are still discussing this. It doesn't have to be about legislation, it's about population influence.

The point is the government wouldn't leave this shit to chance.. they would just shoot people if that's what they wanted to do

Leave it to chance? Shooting people leaves a lot to chance, like friends and relatives investigating. Plenty of false flags use crisis actors, it's not like this is a new concept.

they wouldn't rely on some hospital orderlies who make 10 dollars an hour to keep a secret this big.

And they're not relying on random hospital orderlies. You act as if people that have unlimited funds to pull off shit like this are penny pinching in the payment department.

And you act like this is definitely a hoax even though there is literally 0 evidence that it is. If we start from the default assumption that this is a hoax and then deflect every bit of evidence that it isn't as "they are just making it look real by doing that" then you can literally convince yourself that absolutely anything that ever happens is a hoax.

So you are saying that they paid off the entire hospital? We are a country that has 11,000 gun homicides a year. That's just over 30 a day... They wouldn't need to hoax a shooting.. they could simply pick a real shooting any day of the week and decide "let's make a big deal about this to scare everybody and divide the country on gun laws." That would cost them 0 dollars and it would be 0 risk. This wasn't even a major event.. it was 2 people murdered... that's not worth the effort.

Also really shooting people doesn't leave as much to chance as fake killing people, then having the people you fake killed hide out for the rest of their lives hoping that they never tell anybody that they were a part of a hoax. If you really kill people and their family investigates, guess what, you control the media so you just don't broadcast their findings or you smear them so they look crazy. If you fake kill a reporter and then a year later she decides to pop up and say "hey look at me I'm still alive and this was all a hoax all along" the jig is up. There is no benefit at all to keeping these people alive and hidden. Even if you were planning on using actors you would then have to kill them just to be sure they never talk which defeats the point of using actors in the first place.

And let's not forget.. you can go to Roanoke and poke around a bit on your own.. go to the hospital that Vicki Gardner is at and see if she is really there. Talk to some of the people close to the event.. talk to the news station.. there is plenty of investigating that can be done.. how come nobody is willing to do this?

Agreed. It's the moronically facile's way of dismissing and curbing discussion and further investigation. See also: "Correlation is not causation."

I think people forget that our nation is steeped in conspiracy. Our CIA is the biggest manufacturer of conspiracies in the world. Our world history is also full of thousands of conspiracies. Everything isn't a conspiracy, but there are a lot to choose from.

Closest thing to a fact on this thread.

The problem is that if everything is a conspiracy nothing is a conspiracy. What drives me nuts is 10 minutes after a major event happens, before anyone knows anything, we will have 3 new posts about how this latest event is a conspiracy. It makes this sub look bad in my opinion. I believe in responding not reacting to a situation. This requires more research but has the benefit of holding more weight with your audience

I agree with all of your sentiments completely. I've been subscribed here for as long as I have been on Reddit and after the VA shooting I have come to the realization that there is a group of people here who literally think everything bad that happens is part of some conspiracy. No guys... there are some fucked up lone wolves out there doing what they want to do... not everyone and everything is linked together by some plot. The world is chaos, moderately controlled chaos. Expect surprises.

This sub is in line with my nature of not being a follower. It's like back in school when every month there was a new trend that almost everyone followed and I was always left questioning why everyone did. It was also always strange how quickly everyone adopted the trend, as if they all went to same meeting that I wasn't invited to. For example, those black plastic hipster glasses that everyone and their grandmother started wearing a year or two back. It's just disconcerting when there are no contrarians to offer an outlet for those who don't follow the trend.

I like that everything that the media tells us is immediately doubted and people here try to figure out an angle for whichever news story. Sometimes it can get quite ridiculous but I like that everything gets dissected. We just have be wary of falling into the same trap of being followers but just at the opposite end of the spectrum, i.e. the contrarian end. We have to question ourselves and others but just be polite about it. It's really the aggressiveness when posting a contrasting opinion that riles everyone up, I think.

What drives me nuts is 10 minutes after a major event happens, before anyone knows anything, we will have 3 new posts about how this latest event is a conspiracy.

Why does that drive you nuts? When you spend enough time in /r/conspiracy you know that half the "events" that are broadcast nationwide are false flags. 9/11, 7/7 bombings/sandy hook/aurora/boston marathon etc.

When people know that the news is bullshit, and that "they" have motivation to put up false flags for numerous reasons, of course people are going to critically analyze the videos as soon as they are posted.

And what do you mean "before anyone knows anything". You can analyze the videos yourself within minutes of them being posted...

Please reread my comment. I never said you shouldn't analyze videos or review information as it comes out, but I've seen so many junky posts with half-baked ideas and very shoddy evidence about events that happened within the last 24 hours. I am saying people need to learn to gather their thoughts, and wait until all the cards are laid out on the table. Then you can post good material that is a higher quality.

A blanket statement like that is also an obvious logical fallacy.

Not everything is a logical fallacy.

That's plausible deniability!

notallfallacies

It's like showing up at /r/cats and saying, "Not Everything is a Cat."

I went to /r/games yesterday and all they talked about was video games. I mean that's it, just video games. You couldn't make one submission without someone coming in and making some game reference. I don't get it, that sub is like obsessed with video games or something.

Xbox vs PS4, PC vs console, the same stupid topics over and over, like seriously that entire sub is just focused on like one topic. It's almost like they think everything is a video game or something.

They're obsessed with that stuff over there!

The reason you have seen that comment a lot is because people have nothing better to do with their time.

/R/conspiracy has been brigagded by morons.

also true

But someone or other in here has alleged that just about everything is a conspiracy. You name it, there's a conspiracy theory about it. Often the theories are created within hours or days after an event, far too quickly to have most facts. People immediately yell "false flag !" or "psy-op !" or "disinfo !" or whatever.

Usually conspiracy theories surface after witnessing an event that has holes in it. The event may only make sense with the conspiracy and it's an attempt to make sense of the nonsensical. Until there is more transparency, honesty, peace, and love in this world, a lot of people are probably going to think that way, but even then it might take a bit longer for those that lied to get their credibility back.

And there are many people who aren't like you. You are one who just listens to the "experts" or who others tell you to listen to, but don't apply your own thinking. You will just parrot what they say without looking at the content of what you are repeating. I don't think you should be so judgmental about people who actually do their own thinking.

Usually conspiracy theories surface after witnessing an event that has holes in it

No, this is belied by how QUICKLY conspiracy theories arise after the event. There is no wait to see what facts come out, what the investigation shows. It's just an immediate attempt to fit the event into some pre-existing narrative: govt is evil, or whatever.

don't apply your own thinking

I have applied my own thinking to 9/11 for several years now, looked at the arguments made by the CT's, asked them for evidence. And let me tell you, they are total failures. Not a single solid piece of evidence after 14 years.

people who actually do their own thinking

CT's generally aren't thinking honestly; they have their conclusion ready, and try to invent or deny facts to fit that.

Have you ever heard of the saying follow the money?

We are good at recognizing patterns and making connections, that is if you open your eyes and heart to all information. Few may be coincidences, but often times, they are not.

And for GMOs, you definitely do not do your own thinking. I just spoke from my own experiences with you. As for 9/11, I haven't been in the debate, so I can't say anything about you on that.

Cui Bono? Who benefits?

Follow the evidence.

Well, all too often lately the event happens without any facts becoming publicly available.

And plenty of people yell bloody murder and point fingers anyway. Remember that girl, Nayirah I think was her name. Yeh. The gulf war happened because vested interests had a young woman lie to Congress' face.

With the NDAA in 2013 repealing the Smith-mundt act and legalizing state propaganda, I've stopped believing all the news.

No, the basic facts usually come out pretty quickly, often within an hour. Names of victims, name of perpetrator, even video. Look at the Virginia shooting, for example.

But just as quickly, we have people yelling "false flag !".

No need to "believe all the news". Just listen to it and apply critical thinking, and don't jump to a conclusion. But so many people are "religious" about conspiracy theories: they are convinced they know the truth, they don't have to listen to anyone or any facts that disagree with them, they're going to twist everything to fit their worldview. Every event is going to be used to fit into their desired conclusion, usually something like "govt is evil" and/or "corps are evil" etc.

Type of firearm. Autopsies of the victims. Pictures of the victims. Don't be fucking shy about it, most of us can stomach it and those that can't don't have to look.

Every event is going to be used to fit into their desired conclusion, usually something like "govt is evil" and/or "corps are evil" etc. And you lost me. Or you nailed me. Not sure which.

Production for the sake of production is bad. Involuntary hierarchies are bad. All our problems are social problems created when the system of value is based on unlimited growth and all life is reduced to commodities to be consumed.

That shit is mad evil brotha... Or sista... Or whatever...

And that shit is embodied by states and corporations. So yeh.

Govt is evil and corps are evil.

Then again, call a spade a spade. A gvt is just a really big corp.

Maybe we just need more coops.

Just listen to it and apply critical thinking, and don't jump to a conclusion.

It's difficult when one didn't experience the event in question first hand. And what makes it more difficult is the fact that the source of the disseminated information has been proven to be untrustworthy in the past. For example, if you have a friend who has lied about something big, like a girl who lies about being raped to get a guy in trouble with the law, it's extremely hard to trust anything they say.

I always fantasize that if I were to witness a newsworthy event that could be claimed to be a false flag on the internet, I could at least come on this sub and tell everyone everything I witnessed. It's strange that witness testimony seems rare for all these happenings. I'll always have my camera at the ready just in case.

I'd say the mainstream media doesn't "lie" most of the time. They make plenty of mistakes, that's for sure. But I'd trust them FAR more than some random guy in /r/conspiracy claiming something, or some ex-CIA or ex-military guy with an axe to grind and no solid evidence.

Isn't it true of EVERY newsworthy event that it "could be claimed to be a false flag on the internet" ?

There were thousands, maybe tens of thousands of witnesses to 9/11, but that didn't stop lots of people from yelling "false flag !".

False flag (or black flag) describes covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.

Thousands of witnesses can exist within a false flag.

I was responding to /u/fastcage's "It's strange that witness testimony seems rare for all these happenings". Perhaps you are disagreeing with him/her.

There were thousands, maybe tens of thousands of witnesses to 9/11, but that didn't stop lots of people from yelling "false flag !".

Still, it doesn't make sense to say this. People are not arguing that because there were little or no witnesses during 9/11, then it must be a false flag.

Read /u/fastcage's comment. He says something similar to that, not quite the same, and not specifically about 9/11. He seems to be saying that lack of witnesses is the hallmark of a false-flag, and that things he considers to be false-flags all have few witnesses ?

To /u/kebutankie and billdietrich1, when I wrote that I actually had the Sandy Hook shooting in mind. I always felt that many of the conspiracy theories that were created from that event could have easily been refuted (or confirmed) by someone chiming in "I was there. I saw it happen!" or "I knew the family of one of the victims". I don't mean witness testimony in news interviews. I actually mean people coming online and telling us what they saw and heard. I guess that's less credible but like I said I found it strange that I read none of that.

For example, if I were witness to the Sandy Hook shooting and I spoke to the news, it would be very funny if someone claimed I was a crisis actor. I know a few people who are into conspiracy theories and they probably would've stumbled on a video making that claim about me. They could tell me about it and I could come here and tell you all first hand what happened and prove I'm not a crisis actor. You know with the way the internet works, these kinds of claims will eventually come to the knowledge of the targets of said claims.

Another Sandy Hook theory is the claim that people were walking around in circles around a building to make it look like there were hundreds of people rushing in and out. Someone who was actually in the crowd could easily refute this but I don't think I heard anything about it. Basically I found Sandy Hook to be a very quiet shooting and I don't know why that is.

9/11 is not really a good example here because the many eye witnesses actually did claim something was fishy: hearing internal explosions while the buildings were coming down. Obviously millions of people saw what happened but I'm speaking of these more quiet media events where there should be more people speaking online about what they saw. Remember the Boston Baltimore riots, there were plenty of people livestreaming, recording and speaking online about it.

Edit: ah, a good example of what I mean is, during the Baltimore riots, there were a few popular videos which featured this woman. She could be seen following the crowd of rioters. I think it was claimed that she was drunk and unruly but she actually came online and refuted this. She showed proof it was her with pics of what she was wearing.

Edit2: her reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/comments/345iie/ Her proof is downright excellent and I'm sure it shut everyone up about her. So I'm just wondering why we can't see more like that for other events. I'm telling you guys right now, if I were in the midst of anything crazy that makes national news, I'm coming here and telling you all.

if I were in the midst of anything crazy that makes national news, I'm coming here and telling you all

Depends on how you were involved. If you were a teacher in a school and saw your kids slaughtered in front of you, maybe you wouldn't feel like talking about it to the media and reddit. Especially after you just spent a couple of days explaining it all to police and parents and your own grief counsellors.

On 9/11 and people hearing explosions: what is unusual about lots of big bangs while a 110-story building collapses ? And I thought CT's were claiming thermite, which is not an explosive.

In any big event, you're going to have unanswered questions, conflicting eyewitness testimony, witnesses who are reluctant to talk in public (especially when that could mean being deluged by media over and over again).

Then 9/11 probably wasn't the best example, since that argument was never a focus for that theory specifically.

I kind of agree with you though, because I don't really know of events that have few witnesses other than the WDBJ shooting. Maybe you should ask that instead.

He could have meant that there is not much media evidence by normal people/witnesses. That's just my guess, and he does specifically state 'witness testimony' and not 'witnesses', which might make his case a bit different than what you present to be his case.

The problem is that often people aren't actually investigating things at all. They aren't asking questions and instead they just assume something is a conspiracy without evidence. Many conspiracy theorists become stuck in a false worldview where everything around them is seen as evidence of some malicious conspiracy. The phrase may not mean a whole lot, but I think some people need to be reminded of the fact that not everything is a conspiracy.

Yes, questioning things is good, but when some people claim the moon is made out of cheese I think they should go bring me some of that damn cheese or stfu.

Not everything is a conspiracy theory, but a lot of things in this world sure as fuck are.

And secondly, many things we discuss here are not theories. They are proven facts. That would make them conspiracy facts. JFK and 9/11 are great examples. Anyone who still buys the official story is uninformed, and just because they are naive, doesn't make all of us theorists.

I'm not directly speaking to OP, just people who come in here and shout this sentiment in general. A few years ago, I thought everyone who bought into stuff like this sub were nuts. Then I spent countless hours learning from something other than the God box, and now realize that a lot of that shit is real and spot on.

You're right but people will still try and argue with you. The best you can do is know that this sub is infiltrated already with people who knowingly spread disinfo. Take everything with a grain of salt.

Even better still, after it's presented well beyond the reasonable doubt of the average person, the "not everything is a conspiracy" guy will revert to a child's logic.

How...Why?

As if these questions have any bearing at all on the fact that it can be demonstrated that a conspiracy has taken place.

You can tell which stories have some likelihood of having a conspiracy component when the MSM picks up a relatively minor event and dwells on it for days.

These will nearly always fit a known preexisting agenda.

Such 'exaggerated' stories are numerous although they may just be being hyped because they do fit someone's agenda.

For this reason it will appear that critical thinkers are suggesting that nearly all major stories are actually conspiracies.

Some are just coincidentally supportive of a narrative. Some are contrived events that we refer to as conspiracies.

It's more usual that events that do not fit some preexisting agenda are most often just ignored .

We know what to look for and it's there in abundance.

I've seen the comment, "not everything is a conspiracy" mentioned a bunch of times. There's something inherently flawed with that statement.

/r/conspiracy is the single most gamed sub on reddit.

You have discovered the shills kryptonite, critical thinking.

That's just a conspiracy.

Try talking to people about conspiracies and you'll quickly realize they have certain opinions about "conspiracy theorists". Namely, that conspiracy theorists believe any and all conspiracies despite evidence to the contrary. Now, assuming these average people might actually come to this subreddit to see what the tinfoil hat conspiratards are talking about, it might make them think twice about painting us all with the same brush when they see rational discussion of conspiracies and a general consensus that the more outrageous conspiracies are actually not true (ie, chemtrails, moonlanding). Surely this is a place to discuss and gather information regarding conspiracies - including ones chemtrails and moonlanding - but I like the fact that this statement is front and center because some people think if you believe any conspiracy theory you believe them all.

Well, see for example https://pay.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3jcvx0/not_everything_is_a_conspiracy/cuo67md in this thread.

Sure, there are some relatively rational CT's. But there are PLENTY who fall exactly into the "believe any and all conspiracies despite evidence to the contrary". And every CT I've met in person (only 4 or 5 total) has been in that mold. Claim to know the "real truth" about any event or conspiracy you name.

That's why I think the statement, "not everything is a conspiracy" is warranted.

"Not everything is air."

This sub is obsessed with anything regarding Jews or Israel.

Just look up the top posts of all time.

I hate the label of conspiracy. I wish there was a better sub with a better name.

The problem is the behavior, not the label.

These conspiracy theories do real harm. We should oppose harmful falsehoods.

If the lesson we learn from 9/11 is "govt is evil" or "the Jews did it", when the real lesson (I think) is "we should stop supporting dictators and invading countries", we risk more 9/11's. And people in the Mideast don't learn the lesson "we should stop the extremists among us".

If the lesson we learn from big events (9/11, Boston Bombing, HIV/AIDS, Ebola) is "don't trust anything the govt or scientists say", that helps lead to "deny climate change, refuse vaccines, deny evolution". In places such as Africa, it costs many lives every year.

Conspiracy theories generally are a form of religion: belief without evidence, even belief despite the evidence. This harms our country and our society.

And the logic of conspiracy theorists often is EXACTLY that of the religious: "I have no evidence for my claim, but if I can cast doubt on science/govt's evidence, that means my claim must be correct, right ?". No.

Yes, there have been real conspiracies. Yes, there is plenty of malice and incompetence by govts or govt agencies. But these conspiracy theories are a different thing: start with desired conclusion, and invent/deny facts to justify it.

http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/ReasonReligion.html#conspiracytheories

The biggest problem is no one can draw a clear line separating a conspiracy from corruption or organized crime, as they are one and the same. The only thing that makes these things a conspiracy is that the criminals aren't Italian mobsters.

but you can't blame people for questioning and investigating.

If the basic premise that they are beginning with is ridiculous, debunked, and flawed I most certainly can.

That would be fine and dandy if shitty posts didn't push good ones down /new and out of sight.

You haven't posted anything to this sub in 7 months.

Be the change you want. This armchair qb stuff is disingenuous.

Besides, you comment every day in this sub but complain about the content? You're a joke.

Reddit is my news source, so news I read has already been posted here.

Besides, I wouldn't want to become a hypocrite :P

A disingenuous comment from a disingenuous armchair qb.

You comment every day in this sub but complain about the content.

You've made over 250 comments in the /r/conspiracy sub just this week on just this account. You don't comment in any other sub either...

Try the truth sometime. It's less off putting to casual observers of your schtick.

armchair qb.

QB? But aren't we all armchair masters?

I don't quite see what was disingenuous though, Reddit really is my primary source of news.

You've made over 250 comments in the /r/conspiracy[1] sub just this week on just this account. You don't comment in any other sub either...

I do, just less frequently.

You also attack everyone who calls out NASAs bluff. You truly are a joke.

I attack their arguments, not the person...

Or both. But not just the person alone.

Some people are really dumb.

I attack their arguments, not the person...

...

Some people are really dumb.

...

I wouldn't want to become a hypocrite :P

I thought someone would get tripped up there. So i'm not completely disappointed, just a little.

Ok so, there's this thing called humor, and sometimes it's lost when you write things.

This is one of those times.

Ok, I agree that there is more to this than just gun control, and money may play a role. But, I also believe many of these events are false flags and some are completely or partially staged.

Then 9/11 probably wasn't the best example, since that argument was never a focus for that theory specifically.

I kind of agree with you though, because I don't really know of events that have few witnesses other than the WDBJ shooting. Maybe you should ask that instead.

He could have meant that there is not much media evidence by normal people/witnesses. That's just my guess, and he does specifically state 'witness testimony' and not 'witnesses', which might make his case a bit different than what you present to be his case.

To /u/kebutankie and billdietrich1, when I wrote that I actually had the Sandy Hook shooting in mind. I always felt that many of the conspiracy theories that were created from that event could have easily been refuted (or confirmed) by someone chiming in "I was there. I saw it happen!" or "I knew the family of one of the victims". I don't mean witness testimony in news interviews. I actually mean people coming online and telling us what they saw and heard. I guess that's less credible but like I said I found it strange that I read none of that.

For example, if I were witness to the Sandy Hook shooting and I spoke to the news, it would be very funny if someone claimed I was a crisis actor. I know a few people who are into conspiracy theories and they probably would've stumbled on a video making that claim about me. They could tell me about it and I could come here and tell you all first hand what happened and prove I'm not a crisis actor. You know with the way the internet works, these kinds of claims will eventually come to the knowledge of the targets of said claims.

Another Sandy Hook theory is the claim that people were walking around in circles around a building to make it look like there were hundreds of people rushing in and out. Someone who was actually in the crowd could easily refute this but I don't think I heard anything about it. Basically I found Sandy Hook to be a very quiet shooting and I don't know why that is.

9/11 is not really a good example here because the many eye witnesses actually did claim something was fishy: hearing internal explosions while the buildings were coming down. Obviously millions of people saw what happened but I'm speaking of these more quiet media events where there should be more people speaking online about what they saw. Remember the Boston Baltimore riots, there were plenty of people livestreaming, recording and speaking online about it.

Edit: ah, a good example of what I mean is, during the Baltimore riots, there were a few popular videos which featured this woman. She could be seen following the crowd of rioters. I think it was claimed that she was drunk and unruly but she actually came online and refuted this. She showed proof it was her with pics of what she was wearing.

Edit2: her reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/comments/345iie/ Her proof is downright excellent and I'm sure it shut everyone up about her. So I'm just wondering why we can't see more like that for other events. I'm telling you guys right now, if I were in the midst of anything crazy that makes national news, I'm coming here and telling you all.