I mean, depends on the thing we're talking about. Claims require evidence to be believable. The label "conspiracy theory" doesn't provide license to be taken seriously without evidence.

Maybe you shouldn't be telling your friends that their spouses are cheating on them without an actual reason to believe so?

That's the most logical route.

In your hypothetical you're telling a friend that you believe their spouse is cheating... based on what exactly?

I'm not understanding the importance of the distinction of FOAF there, what does it matter?

I don't think he did. It sounds like you're a huge asshole who likes trying to break up relationships by sowing the seeds of suspicion using the power of suggestion.

The friend has no reason to believe it unless they've observed the actual act. They might suspect it with reasonable evidence.

This is a perfect metaphor for conspiracies.

The problem is most walk in on their wives with someone balls deep and say "no, she said its nothing, they were just looking for socks."

Unless amounts of used panties found and "It's not evidence because it wasn't on CNN." - type arguments.

This is a fairly pointless back and forth on a vague hypothetical. You'd have to have a reason to not only be suspicious, but to believe your suspicions are grounded in reality. If you do so based on evidence, you're going to have a better time conveying these beliefs.

If you're going on a hunch or a bias against someone and little else, you're going to have a bad time.

It's not a hypothetical, it's a metaphor. Come back when you've reassessed it.

Metaphors and the hypothetical aren't mutually exclusive at all.

I never said they were mutually exclusive. The intent of the original author however is. The intent was to use the hypothetical as a metaphor. It may seem like semantics, but its like taking a good grape and squishing it, not even bothering to make wine from the remains.

You have picked apart the original meaning and developed your own which suits yourself but refrained from trying to see the author's point of view.

Asking questions isn't projection, I'm trying to ascertain his meaning. Not apply my own.

I think a lot depends on how people present their theories. When people claim that there is "hard evidence" of Pizzagate, and make posts with the word "CONFIRMED" in all caps, then yes, they will be challenged to present evidence.

It's one thing to say "I believe ." It's quite another to say " is confirmed." The former doesn't require hard proof, the latter does.

Yeah, "CONFIRMED" is ridiculous. Reverse clickbait.

The biggest problem with clickbait and "reverse" is that people need to know, but they don't. Firstly, they cannot know unless they were there, secondly they can only believe or deduce. Deduction isn't bad but simply not knowing (and refusing to believe the "official" or marketed narrative) is good enough.

Many feel the need to know. You don't need to know. You can go through life not knowing anything. It will make you a better person than those with false beliefs.

You are beautiful, my friend

Many feel the need to know. You don't need to know. You can go through life not knowing anything. It will make you a better person than those with false beliefs. Translating this to social space is difficult, especially with so many paid political agendas pushing "facts" which are simply beliefs or narratives masqueraded as such.

Yes. Well said.

I have seen these types claim the evidence does not prove anything. And demand more evidence. Evidence is subject to interpretation. I think the idea is just to deny much in the same way a person caught cheating denies even though they are caught red handed. The idea is to create plausible deniability not to prove or disprove anything. They work on an emotional level.

I think OP's statement, "I'm not saying we should lower our standards for evidence in any way" covers that.

I'd say intention plays a huge part here. There's an enormous difference between people who are genuinely interested in creating open dialogue on this sub (which can include calling people out), and those who come here just to disrupt and block that - and the OP described them perfectly :)

I think OP's statement, "I'm not saying we should lower our standards for evidence in any way" covers that.

Fair enough, but then what is OP's argument?

There's an enormous difference between people who are genuinely interested in creating open dialogue on this sub (which can include calling people out), and those who come here just to disrupt and block that

It doesn't really matter. You could believe someone you fundamentally disagree with to be a shill and that won't even matter. That's why evidence is valuable.

I disagree. Dialogue (including critical dialogue) and derailing are two totally different methods of discourse.

Someone's argument will stand or fall on its merits, their own bias doesn't even need to be in play to debate.

Totally reasonable, and I can see where you're coming from, but it's not how I see things.

Merits are subject to bias, as well. So really were back to square one: biased discussion.

Thus why we present evidence. Enough evidence can reliably prove an event or claim despite bias.

I actually really enjoyed reading this interaction. Thanks to both of you.

I would just like to add what i think is an often overlooked, but very important thing to remember: If a conspiracy theory is actually true, there is an automatic handicap of evidence. It is being hidden and suppressed. That means making sure evidence is not a concern for the conspirators. So there needs to be a platform which accepts this and functions accordingly, whilst still maintaining the integrity of the scientific method and basic (and advanced) investigative skills. For both sides of the argument. It has seemed to have disappeared.

I'm always skeptical of conspiracy theories, but I have learned that there is a reason to consider them. Some of them turn out to be correct, when before it's globally accepted as fact, it seemed there was never enough evidence for it to be true to most people.

Consider, investigate, never trust.

Thanks.

It's one thing when someone on here finds something and asks what it could mean, or if it fits some sort of pattern, claim or event.

Mostly I get skeptical when people scream SMOKING GUN/100% CONFIRMED/et al.

The best way to support any given conspiracy is through logic, reasoning and analogy. Why?

Any time you try and say a conspiracy theory is true because of whatever evidence, the skeptics always reject the validity of the evidence. Why? Mostly because of cognitive dissonance.

It would take a lot of mental effort to change up their worldview to accommodate the new evidence/information. So they react emotionally and reject the information in an irrational way.

It's a lot better to ask questions and get a skeptic to defend their position. You only have to ask 2 or 3 questions until you reach the point where a false perception starts to look absurd.

e.g. Federal Reserve was set up by a few rich people to keep everyone in debt slavery. Here's the evidence. To which a skeptic will say "No that's crazy, no way that's how things work because it would never be tolerated!"

Alternative tactic... ask the skeptic if they know how the Fed Reserve system works. Usually they say no. Then you ask them if they knew how fractional reserve banking works, what are the implications of debt based money etc.

This way works better because now you've got someone asking questions and thinking for themselves. You've got them involved in a learning process instead of provoking a defensive reaction.

The best way to support any given conspiracy is through logic, reasoning and analogy. Why?

Empiricism, evidence, and healthy skepticism help us figure out if something is true. If you should be skeptical of the mainstream, why not be skeptical of alternative theories as well? It's not like infowars, naturalnews, or some Sandy Hook blog don't have financial motivations to make you click their site.

Any time you try and say a conspiracy theory is true because of whatever evidence, the skeptics always reject the validity of the evidence. Why? Mostly because of cognitive dissonance.

Or, maybe the "evidence" in these cases doesn't withstand basic scrutiny. You'd have to be more specific.

It's a lot better to ask questions and get a skeptic to defend their position. You only have to ask 2 or 3 questions until you reach the point where a false perception starts to look absurd.

A skeptic's position is "claims require evidence" which is healthy for investigation. Are you anti-investigation and anti-research?

e.g. Federal Reserve was set up by a few rich people to keep everyone in debt slavery. Here's the evidence.

You didn't provide evidence. I don't even disagree, but you didn't.

To which a skeptic will say "No that's crazy, no way that's how things work because it would never be tolerated!"

I didn't say that.

Alternative tactic... ask the skeptic if they know how the Fed Reserve system works. Usually they say no. Then you ask them if they knew how fractional reserve banking works, what are the implications of debt based money etc.

This way works better because now you've got someone asking questions and thinking for themselves. You've got them involved in a learning process instead of provoking a defensive reaction.

I mean, a skeptic starts by asking questions. It has nothing to do with defensiveness.

Considering you have "tactics" to "deal with" skepticism, it sounds like you're the defensive one.

It didn't seem to me like OB1 was attacking you in the slightest, but rather was making some valid points based on experience. Obviously, evidence is ultimately the only thing that matters - but some people really, really will deny solid evidence that is presented to them by a "regular" person (cousin, coworker, random Internet stranger, etc) but they will find it much more difficult to deny evidence that they collect on their own. That doesn't mean *don't provide anybody with evidence ever

Or, maybe the "evidence" in these cases doesn't withstand basic scrutiny. You'd have to be more specific

No, what I'm getting at is a well understood phenomenon. Once you choose to believe something, it becomes established in a very interesting way.

People will actually react to an ideological challenge the same way (at a neurological level) they react to a physical threat. Namely, they get fearful/hostile/emotional.

Once this reaction is set off, you're no longer dealing with a rational person. So all the empiricism, evidence, and healthy skepticism in the world isn't going to change their mind.

The point I was trying to make (not contradicting you btw) is that you need to use a strategy that bypasses this reaction. If you know how people think and react under different circumstances, you have a better ability to communicate effectively with them.

tldr; How the message is delivered is just as important as what's in the message itself.

Isn't this what you said?

I mean, a skeptic starts by asking questions.

So if you're going to turn someone else into a skeptic, don't you have to get them to start asking questions too?

People will actually react to an ideological challenge the same way (at a neurological level) they react to a physical threat. Namely, they get fearful/hostile/emotional.

I do believe this, I've seen it over and over again. BUT...

Once this reaction is set off, you're no longer dealing with a rational person. So all the empiricism, evidence, and healthy skepticism in the world isn't going to change their mind.

BUT, a rational person CAN put their emotions aside and listen to a reasonable argument with which they fundamentally disagree. I mean, it does happen.

I do agree with you on a whole, though. It's not really my fault if people react so emotionally that they're incapable of listening to someone. That's just a point where it's more about their inability to reason than my inability to reason. I'll at least listen to and consider a flat-earther if they actually debate in some good faith.

Haven't seen that one yet, but I would try!

It's professional sales 101.

exactly, it ends up looking like ancient aliens in here with its it possible if, and wouldnt that mean this could happen, so its plausible that. Bitch that's three suppositions.

They get paid but have no imagination

Who is paying them and where can we sign up?

Talk to David Brock.

The Dutroux Affair

https://isgp-studies.com/belgian-x-dossiers-of-the-dutroux-affair

Warning: Highly disturbing content

You make it seem like it's a problem with outsiders trying to derail this subreddit, but I'll contend that the issue consists largely of a contingent of this place's regular users.

And, for what it's worth, when someone says "can't we just talk about aliens instead?" and I respond with a question regarding its relation to "conspiracy", I am in no way in the wrong.

People naver like to say, "ok, you're right." You have to chip away and plant seeds, and other metaphors like that.

People with that kind of mentality are toxic. I have family members who will either not talk to you for a duration or hide in their room, if they're proven wrong.

LOL well said! ;)

Cool strawman. Did you build it yourself?

Exhibit A

You didn't even understand what I wrote, did you?

I don't even understand why you are even in this sub.

https://www.reddit.com/user/fuckthisfuckingworld

Oh wait, I think I do.

Tell me please.

You're a smart boy. You don't need anyone to tell you.

When I suspect it I just don't respond. It's the easiest and safest.

When you are at the zoo, don't feed the animals.

This is the zoo.

This isn't just any zoo, it's a petting zoo with tons of dangerous animals on the loose. Reach for what appears to be truth and you will surely have your hand bitten off by misinformation.

True facts. Suspend disbelief, consider everything, but rarely commit.

Stay skeptical my friend.

I was red pilled rather recently compared to most here. About two years ago I started questioning and around august I really started researching many different things. Sometimes I correct shills because I used to get influenced by them. Many people lurk here who are not really sure about things and are trying to make sense of some of the doubts they had. Shills create doubt, gaslight, and spread false information. Sometimes I make sure to correct them with facts and links just in case their is a lurker who is looking for the truth and is not woke enough to even know shills exist.

I definitely see your point. But my experience has been to engage with them all is to lose. Literally their job is to get you to talk to them, distract yourself from more productive investigation, and to use your comments as a platform for muddying the waters. It almost never ends with a net benefit to truth.

I also see your point too, but how do we spread information sometimes we have to counter the information too no? I can't even believe we are talking about people hired to manipulate conversations to push an agenda while pretending to be regular internet users. I was a sheep just two years ago I had no idea the level of manipulation that goes on. I always knew something was wrong I just could not make sense of anything with the information I had. Yes there are shills! Omg. When do the conspiracies end? So what do you suggest just ignore?

Here is where the most valuable thing I have learned since the election comes into play, I got to know the community. I kinda discarded the impersonality of reddit. So, thats the trick here to me, being able to identify when I am talking to a user with maybe bad information, or a negative influence.

And I test a lot. I'll almost always give someone a fair shake if I haven't seen them before. If they come back with what I identify as shill nonsense, I tag em and bag em.

odd that's what i see 'red pillers' doing. Rather than advancing anything they point at something else.

There is really only one Conspiracy. Its description has different variations depending upon how metaphorical or allegorical you want to get, but it is, at its core, the Same Story.

The evidence for it is scattered, distorted, hidden, often poisoned by absurdities intentionally injected into the discourse. But if you study all the separate small-c conspiracies, sifting the wheat from the chaff, discerning what is probably True from what is probably False, you'll start to see how they all support the main Conspiracy.

And then just about everything else that seems inexplicable about our world will suddenly start to make sense.

Occam's Razor says that the simplest theory that fits the data is likely to be the correct one. When you finally come to understand The Way Things Work, you'll see why the Capital-C Conspiracy must be true.

And then it won't matter whether other people believe you or not.

Do you mean the hiding of God, perhaps?

Depends what you mean by "hiding". But there are ways of understanding the Conspiracy that could be characterized somewhat in those terms. But the important part of the equation is why.

What I meant was the disinformation and denial campaign that has been going on, trying (successfully sadly in many cases) to convince us He is not real.

Why that is happening is because God has allowed another dominion over this world for a time.

Lol He is not real, and if he is he doesn't deserve worship. He's a murderer who committed the first act of genocide. How His goal for humanity is for us to die and be his personal servants who sing his praises for eternity

I, personally, would not put it in those exact terms, but I think it is a tolerable description of my understanding, if viewed from a slightly different perspective.

God has allowed another dominion over this world for a time.

This is central to the issue, especially the nature of "another dominion", as well as an understanding of its interests and its methods. Keep in mind, though, that the concept of "time" may not be a faithful representation of the organizing principle that matters for this issue. Or, put in other terms, there may be no "final battle of good and evil" in the "last days", the final battle may be eternal, outside-of-time, and within the heart of each individual. In fact, time itself may be either one of the traps set by "another dominion", or at the very least is one of the theaters of conflict that must be transcended (or at least understood for its true illusory nature).

God conspired against himself by creating beings that thirst for others fear and suffering. They are incentivized to conceal the nature of God from God's incarnations. They are who teach us that believing God is in all things, even ourselves, is blasphemy. It is ironic how people seek salvation in a slave seeking overlord who only feigns love for them. It's a game of forgetting we are God. It's hard for Abrahamic religious people to accept.

I really don't understand how they think it's a normal mentality to come to a conspiracy community and then be all "HAH! You have no evidence!"

Uhhh...this place is built on mountains of highly tenuous evidence? What were you expecting.

The pizzagate post is so shilled over it's nuts. Clearly struck a nerve.

The project veritas post is overrun as well. The talking points are so obvious, do they think we don't see it for what it is?

Uhhh...this place is built on mountains of highly tenuous evidence?

Ahem...

"NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence." NIST on WTC7

"Out of 329 core column sections in the fire and impact zones, NIST obtained portions of four." NIST on the Twin Towers

Yet people still come asking for our evidence after they accepted the official story without any.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck more often than not ... its a duck.

Most conspiracy theories have a lot of dots that seem to connect very suspiciously lowering the odds consistently of any coincidence.

When you are redpilled and you start to go down the rabbit hole I will admit you do start to believe that the most random of dots start to look connected like a conspiracy and you do have to check yourself from time to time to make sure you are being objective with the evidence shown to you.

When you start to learn about the darkness you begin to only see the darkness and it can be difficult to snap out of.

That would all be very pretty if you didn't make voting choices based on these theories.

Show me nondisputable proof of a round earth.

Show me nondisputable proof of a flat earth.

Haha should be easy for you bitch. You fumbfuck.

I started asking them what conspiracies they believe in. Why the fuck would you be on a conspiracy forum if you don't believe in conspiracies: not JFK, not anything? That's like me going to the NFL subreddit and telling them football is dumb and they're wrong about all their opinions.

People just like stiring up shit. They like getting under others skin and being difficult in general. It's just some people's nature to be like and it's something to do with seeking attention.

I think weve all known someone like that. That person that argue just to argue. Doesn't matter the subject or facts, they just want to be the opposing voice.

I've decided to spread information if someone wants to know about it.

People won't believe or will believe whatever they want and it's super infuriating to me to try and have a "debate" or "conversation" with people that aren't open minded enough to realize that, "just because the news (or whatever) said this, doesn't mean it's true."

It makes me want to slap them sometimes. The only way I can explain this annoyance is - It's about on par with arguing with a flat earther (Sorry if you're a flat earth person) that just says NO to the basic scientific information that is supplied.

So I stopped.

Normally I only talk about this stuff with people that have the same view points as me, or people that want to know what my viewpoints are or why my views are what they are. There is no sense in trying to educate one that doesn't want to be educated.

Everyone is entitled to think or believe whatever they want, I just don't understand why people care that other people don't have the same beliefs as them. This is making me want to go on a tangent about religion so I'm going to stop myself.

MSM=Mainstream Media.

Ah ok thanks. I had it engraved in my mind it was for a company. Didn't even think of that. Thanks!

I think that's part of the debate culture on reddit. It takes very little effort to request a source and be smug about what you're given. This allows to discredit the conversation without putting in the time to search for real arguments. I usually reply with: "Google it yourself you dumb fuck!"

These people have no ability to think for themselves. They lack any kind of critical thinking skills.

They have many beliefs about how the world works, while deluding themselves into thinking they have no beliefs. Something like anomalous cognition is an "extraordinary claim" that requires "extraordinary evidence". Then when you link to papers on the subject there are never enough or not in the "credible" peer reviewed journal of their choice. They may attempt to discredit the works based only on who did the studies.

What is "extraordinary evidence" anyway? That's simply a phrase to be conveniently used by closed minded believers when they are confronted with ideas that contradict their beliefs. Whenever they encounter something they deem is an "extraordinary claim" they can deny any evidence they are presented because it's not "extraordinary" enough.

The fact is, the difference between a "standard claim" and an "extraordinary claim" is subjective. It depends on the beliefs of the individual. To these people, something like the existence of black holes is a "standard claim", but anomalous cognition is "extraordinary". However, the opposite could be argued since black holes have never been seen or measured and many people have experienced some form of anomalous cognition. Why isn't the existence of black holes an extraordinary claim?

In the end "extraordinary claim" is nothing more than a buzzword for pseudo intellectuals to arbitrarily deny anything that doesn't fit their worldview.

I like discussing things with evidence.

It's the only way to convince someone of your argument.

irrefutable

I need 100% concrete, verifiable, smoking gun proof for your theory, otherwise it's fake news and it nullifies your entire argument. Also, Putin hacked the election so that his best friend Trump could be president because stuff and things.

"My issue however is that we are usually talking about conspiracy theories here. Theories! "

LOL.

Your post, and especially the part I quoted above, is semantical bullshit.

Just because we lump it all together as "conspiracies" or "conspiracy theories" and discuss it in a sub set up for conspiracy theories does not mean that we are not talking about facts or a true factual conspiracy.

You will find that the more credible conspiracy "theories" do provide the best evidence of higher standards.

That's where critical thinking comes in. Use it.

I have been bombarded with multiple comments like this over the last week. The thing is they weren't even critically thinking about their points, just demanding proof when it was even a theory where proof was being supressed. It honestly didn't make any sense.

"Question my totally unfounded speculations where zero evidence has been provided beyond someone ranting on youtube and I, a random redditor, will never EVER concede, and point out that the lack of evidence is only more proof that my allegations are true, and that you must be a shill or brigader and your need to question me is somehow proof that I'm "over the target" because I'm taking flak."

What percentage of "conspiracies" are eventually proven to be true?

Yes, good question.

Not worth the effort. Do your own research; you are responsible for the integrity of your conclusions.

Well, this place is full of nutbags, so there is that.

I never said they were mutually exclusive. The intent of the original author however is. The intent was to use the hypothetical as a metaphor. It may seem like semantics, but its like taking a good grape and squishing it, not even bothering to make wine from the remains.

You have picked apart the original meaning and developed your own which suits yourself but refrained from trying to see the author's point of view.

Talk to David Brock.