Aspartame.

The Federal Reserve.

The Drug/Prison complex

Permanent Magnet Motors

Nicola Tesla

Chemtrails

Missing gold from fort knox

Those are just the ones off the top of my head..

Here are some conspiracy theories that turned out to be true for certain, though the general populace may not know about them:

1. The Dreyfus Affair: In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer Émile Zola).

2. The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society's secrets to law enforcement officials.

3. MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a "truth serum" to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.

4. Operation Mockingbird: Also in the 1950s to '70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda. The CIA also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated "Animal Farm," by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed the activities in 1975.

5. Watergate: Republican officials spied on the Democratic National Headquarters from the Watergate Hotel in 1972. While conspiracy theories suggested underhanded dealings were taking place, it wasn't until 1974 that White House tape recordings linked President Nixon to the break-in and forced him to resign.

6. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972. During the study the men were given false and sometimes dangerous treatments, and adequate treatment was intentionally withheld so the agency could learn more about the disease. While the study was initially supposed to last just six months, it continued for 40 years. Close to 200 of the men died from syphilis or related complications by the end of the study.

7. Operation Northwoods: In the early 1960s, American military leaders drafted plans to create public support for a war against Cuba, to oust Fidel Castro from power. The plans included committing acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, killing innocent people and U.S. soldiers, blowing up a U.S. ship, assassinating Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees, and hijacking planes. The plans were all approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but were reportedly rejected by the civilian leadership, then kept secret for nearly 40 years.

8. The Iran-Contra Affair: In 1985 and '86, the White House authorized government officials to secretly trade weapons with the Israeli government in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages in Iran. The plot was uncovered by Congress in 1987.

9. 1990 Testimony of Nayirah: A 15-year-old girl named "Nayirah" testified before the U.S. Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators, causing them to die. The testimony helped gain major public support for the 1991 Gulf War, but -- despite protests that the dispute of this story was itself a conspiracy theory -- it was later discovered that the testimony was false. It was actually the creation of public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the purpose of promoting the Gulf War.

etc.

Source

Here is a larger list: http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-conspiracies-from.html

[deleted]

I don't know if this will be good enough, but the very idea of a new world order. The idea of people wanting to rule the world, that's been around practically since the beginning of man. The only part of it that can be considered a conspiracy is whether or not the leaders would be malevolent or benevolent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CV8Xt2VWvc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6dieHDbwTU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5cqh26CC0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxPYa5mVlYU&feature=related

http://www.threeworldwars.com/nwo-timeline1.htm

I apologize for any stupid music or slogans you might encounter with these videos; I chose them for the horses mouth, not for the needless additions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-contra#U.S._knowledge_of_drug_trafficking_and_the_Contras

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal

http://www.cracked.com/article_15974_7-insane-conspiracies-that-actually-happened.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_18955_6-crackpot-conspiracy-theories-that-actually-happened.html

http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

September 11 is the easiest starting point when you're discussing these things with people. Loose Change is the best documentary on the subject that I've seen. A lot of hard facts are presented, along with some historical context, so any person with a critical mind will find something thought-provoking there.
Then there's Iran-Contra. Here you have an event that brought to light an entire illegal network between governments, banks, and terrorists laundering money and smuggling drugs and weapons. Just look into the dozens of false flag attacks undertaken by the CIA in the past 60 years or so. The history of eugenics and America's obsession with it in the early 20th century is ripe with eye-opening nuggets of information.

Have you watched "Screw Loose Change"?

The first thing that comes to mind that really fits your description is the history of eugenics. I think most people think it was somehow developed by the Nazis, or if they know a bit more, that it was based on the ideas of Francis Galton but then his ideas were mixed with Nietzsche and came up with a plan for a master aryan race. But the eugenics movement was very popular in the US and England before spreading to Germany.

Edwin Black wrote the book War Against the Weak that documents the history of it very well. (if that vid is too choppy it is also on c-span)

The eugenics movement didn't cease with the end of the third reich. The British Eugenics Society was founded in 1908. In 1989 it changed it's name to the Galton Institute. The American Eugenics society is a bit younger, having been founded in 1922. It still exists at USC under then name 'The Society for the Study of Social Biology'.

How does this still matter? Well, the long time head of the British Eugenics Society was Julian Huxley. I don't even know what to quote from this article from the Galton Institute. If you read about his two speeches to the British Eugenics Society, you see that in his second speech he lays out a sort of basic framework for the past fifty years. He says people who are unfit live too long and are able to reproduce, which unnaturally alters the gene pool. And that people should be discouraged from having children if they are undesirable. (china's one child policy, the global warmers saying the whole world should adopt that policy, Al Gore saying this sort of thing this week, Bill Gates talking about lowering the population growth with vaccines) Furthermore, Huxley talks about eugenics as man taking control of evolution. Huxley is the ideological precursor to men like Ray Kurzweil and my fave Juan Gonzalez who believes man will evolve into Homo Evolutis, a creature capable of controlling its evolution with technology. He's saying this 45 years after Huxley says the same basic thing, without the benefit of knowing the state of technology.

Huxley in '62:

If, as I firmly believe, man’s role is to do the best he can to manage the evolutionary process on this planet and to guide its future course in a desirable direction, fuller realisation of genetic possibilities becomes a major motivation for man’s efforts, and eugenics is revealed as one of the basic human sciences.

I doubt the word 'Eugenics' would be used at TED, but if it walks like duck and quacks like a duck...

And just for good measure, if you've not seen it, Julian Huxley's brother Aldous talks about the future he sees as most likely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGaYXahbcL4

TL;DR - I know that was a lot. I don't think any words were unnecessary. Check out Edwin Black's speech about his book 'War Against the Weak'. As for one you can open people's eyes with, something like 'The Light Bulb Conspiracy' and talking about planned obsolescence would be useful. It isn't quite as scary as eugenics. If you want to go really mainstream, the podcast of This American Life called 'The Fix Is In' about a price fixing conspiracy at one of the big food companies is documented with audio tapes of the actual conspiracy going on. Found here. I can't say that isn't well known, there was a movie version made of the story with Matt Damon.

Anyone who responds to this by mentioning any conspiracy "theory" which is actually a true conspiracy will have their account placed on the new moderator-only blacklist (yes, that was discussed in r/modnews earlier, and they seemed to agree to implement it).

reddit is now an open, outright, unabashed tool of Big Brother.

Can you post a link to this, or does the thread no longer exist?

http://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/i6fov/moderators_lets_talk_about_abusive_users/

EDIT: Yes, they did discuss how such a system (white/black-listing) could be abused... which led directly to discussion of more totalitarian control by the mods/admins.

Since this is in r/modnews, I do not know if it's public info or not. I do not know if I'm betraying some "secret trust" by posting the link, but I don't care. Now that they DELETED IamJulianAssange's account (a reddit gold account), they've proven they have no shame and can't be trusted. So, ... they can't be respected, either.

Did not know that they deleted his account, that's absolute bullshit. Maybe this thread should disappear as well.

Since this is in r/modnews, I do not know if it's public info or not. I do not know if I'm betraying some "secret trust" by posting the link,

r/modnews is accessible by anyone. It isn't secret.

Thanks for that info. I wasn't sure. I made my subreddit to avoid certain trollish behavior here in r/conspiracy, but no one uses it... hell, I don't think anyone even remembers it exists by now.

You may need to advertise it a little more. It may also suffer from a lack of quality content. I've also been creating a conspiracy-themed reddit that deters trollish behavior, but haven't really advertised it at all yet. I'm curious about what methods you've implemented in yours to try to stop them.

I lost interest. I really should just delete it. It was a sort of knee-jerk creation anyway. And I certainly don't want to be a moderator (huge target on my forehead).

What do you suppose a target on your forehead means? That you will be on the list of people they snatch up in the middle of the night when the police state rolls around? Or that you will simply be the target of group-stalking or distributed harassment?

Now, I'm beginning to think that you are being deliberately trollish (i.e., "I'm to dense to understand this. Are you a wacko, or do you have legitimate concerns?").

No, I don't mean to imply that I'm dense or that you're a wacko. I'm just curious about what you think will happen to you for being a moderator of a conspiracy theory reddit. I know a lot of people are scared of being on a "list" of dissidents or whatever, and I think that fear is encouraged by TBTB because it stifles activism and discussion. So since you mentioned having a target on your forehead, I was just wondering if you had any hypotheses about what might happen to you if you were labeled as a threat in some way.

I'm definitely not trying to troll you. I don't know how I can prove that. I guess you could compare my comments to stereotypical troll behavior and mark of the commonalities. I try to keep good faith, in general, even if I suspect the person I'm conversing with is a troll or a disinformation agent of some sort. Anyway, I hope you sleep well.

Are you referring to this post? http://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/i6fov/moderators_lets_talk_about_abusive_users/

I don't really understand the connection between what was discussed in there and the idea of a big brother conspiracy theory blacklist. Maybe you can elaborate and help me understand a bit better?

Maybe I can give you a laundry list of reasons to call me crazy, but I won't. I'm just noticing the glaring, in-your-face connections that I'm able to see. Sorry if you can't see them for yourself.

There's no need to be defensive. I won't call you crazy. I just think that if you're going to say things that might scare paranoid people there ought to be a substantive argument or evidence for it. Too often people who study conspiracy theories are kept quiet because they're afraid of retaliation from an invisible big brother that isn't as powerful or doesn't care as much as they think it is/does. I don't want people to be afraid to talk.

Maybe I'm dense and blind and it isn't in my face, I just don't get how blacklists for trolls means that conspiracy theorists will be put on the blacklist.

I just don't get how blacklists for trolls means that conspiracy theorists will be put on the blacklist.

Let's start with this question: Who gets to define "troll"?

Then proceed to this question: Isn't it enough that they can already track IP addresses (ala the IamJulianAssange ban - they not only deleted his account, but they banned - for a short time - his originating IP address)? Why must they implement a built-in system for sharing this one-sided information amongst themselves? It is, afterall, one-sided (mods and admins vs. everyone else).

I'm not going to say you're dense or blind. I am going to suggest that, if you don't have at least a healthy dose of skepticism, you are already prey... or worse, pawns for their bidding.

Allow me to point to my personal favorite conspiracy "theory"... the central banks. One only needs to heed Thomas Jefferson's quote in order to understand this notion.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

That was 200 years ago (and it wasn't heeded ... the First Bank of the US came and went, along with the Second Bank of the US.. and now the current incarnation of that evil, The Federal Reserve) and look at how things are today (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae [and don't forget Sallie Mae]). This nation has become a debt-slavery plantation.

So, going back to this simple little website known as reddit... if you allow them (the mods/admins) to determine who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys", and to share that list amongst themselves, you've already lost... all of the freedom this site once offered in the form of anonymity.

Thankfully, for me, I've already come to accept my eventual pending mortality. My days are numbered. But, that doesn't mean I want to hasten that inevitable end by allowing an "anonymous" (that's now a huge ... I mean HUGE joke) website to propagate rumors and/or characterizations (one-sided) about me amongst their "ruling class". Seriously... who is doing background checks on the moderators to make sure they're not sociopaths? The answer, of course, is: NO ONE. But still, they're willing to share contempt for users amongst themselves in the form of "list making".

It's that whole "give them an inch, and they'll be sure to take a mile".

My "healthy dose of paranoia" may be slightly more than yours, though.

http://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/i6fov/moderators_lets_talk_about_abusive_users/c21bvww

The list would be per-person and selected by the user doing the blocking.

This sounds like just an individual ignore list for private messages, similar to what Reddit Enhancement Suite does for comments.

It does not sound like admins and mods making blacklists and whitelists and sharing them. It's just users blocking people who are being abusive to them like in the case of the r/suicidewatch trolls.

It does not sound like admins and mods making blacklists and whitelists and sharing them.

Uh... I don't know what universe you come from, but admins and mods ARE users... See point #2 in your own post.

They're talking about making and sharing lists... even YOU grasped that much.

EDIT: I think we've come to the point where our levels of skepticism and paranoia will never meet. It's quite obvious that you are unwilling to hold any suspicion against this "harmless, innocent, wholesome" proposal that is being discussed. Whereas, on the other hand, it makes my skin crawl.

even YOU grasped that much.

Is that supposed to be some sort of insult? :/

Uh... I don't know what universe you come from,

Dude, seriously. ಠ_ಠ
I'm trying to figure this out. Let's be civil, alright? I'm concerned about censorship just as much as you are - we're on the same team, okay?

admins and mods ARE users... See point #2 in your own post.

I don't know which point you're referring to. Could you quote it?

See my edit. We're having a clash of willingness to be suspicious. That's all. And it's now becoming unproductive.

Peace

I'm definitely suspicious of it. It is why I responded to the blacklist submission after you mentioned it. If I wasn't suspicious at all, I would have left it alone, and I would have ignored you. I simply like to have all of the facts before I jump to conclusions.

Your abandonment of the discussion seems premature to me, and is disconcerting. I am not a troll, I'm not trying to waste your time. You claimed to be concerned about this, but you don't want to discuss it and help me to understand so I can educate others? It's rather confusing. In any case, I'll continue to be proactive and engage the admin on the subject to learn more and see if the suspicions you've expressed have validity. I worry that you've committed a slippery slope fallacy in your analogy with the central banks... but I'm at least investing the time and effort to examine the matter.

Your abandonment of the discussion seems premature to me, and is disconcerting.

My abandonment is because we keep coming back to the same loggerhead. I say it sounds suspicious, followed by you saying it seems mostly harmless and you see no suspicious connection. After about 3 of these exchanges I remember why I took a one month break from reddit. It's just annoying when someone doesn't want to just let go of a deadend conversation where no agreement is being reached.

As for my analogy, it was summarized in the second to last sentence's "inch/mile" reference. THAT is the slippery slope. And, at the risk of seeming conflagratory, it seems that is a slope you're willing to go sliding on.

I will, however, before logging out for the night (my true reason for abandoning this discussion - which I most likely will not want to resume in the morning... you know... no reason to start my day with a heated debate over such a meaningless and trivial site as reddit), remind you that...

reddit DELETED IamJulianAssange's reddit gold account and briefly banned his originating IP address... because he had ... what? contributed content? increased the subscription to r/conspiracy by 7k users? ... something doesn't add up there. they beg for that stuff... and then punish the people (aggressively and abusively) for actually following through on it?

When things get like this, being "calm, rational, and reasonable" isn't what gets the right results. That kind of response is what allows them to just get away with it. Sort of the way the banks continue to just get away with their international legalized ponzi scheme. So, ...

Go ahead and give them this inch... and this time next year, you'll see that they've taken a mile... and I will be the one saying "I told you so." ... and you'll be the one saying... what?

I didn't think it was a heated debate. Sorry if I seem obstinate. I'm just trying to be cautious and not lose my head. I can understand your not wanting to invest the time to discuss it if it's stressful and appears unproductive. I just thought we hadn't progressed very far before you got upset.

I didn't know that IamJulianAssange caused r/conspiracy to go up 7k users. I haven't been keeping tabs on those sorts of things. I'd be interested in seeing where the proof is that he alone was responsible for it. I saw that he was banned, but definitely don't know why. It's very strange. :/

I disagree about not being calm, rational, and reasonable. I think that passion is very important, but not unchecked emotionality, not terror or senseless fear. If you want to lead an effective battle, you have better have the right information so that you are aiming in the most appropriate spot, otherwise you're going to waste energy, or worse, look like a fool. Conspiracy theorists suffer from an image problem, and unchecked sensationalism without careful consideration of the facts of the situation only contribute to that problem.

I engaged the admin further on the matter of the blacklists. These lists are for PMs, not comments or submissions. Blacklists would not be shared. so-called "graylists" may be importable. A graylist is like a whitelist, except instead of excluding contact entirely with someone not on the list, it just notifies you that they aren't on your list before allowing you to see the message they send you.

I wish I understood the model you envision for how exactly it would be used to censor conspiracy theorists. But again, I understand now your not wanting to discuss the matter if I seem intractable to you.

The reason I jumped up out of a near-sleep state in order to respond to you is that this comment is sticking in my craw...

I don't know which point you're referring to. Could you quote it?

It's point #2 of your own comment... yet you don't know which point I'm talking about?

As for this latest comment (above),

If you want to lead an effective battle, you have better have the right information so that you are aiming in the most appropriate spot, otherwise you're going to waste energy, or worse, look like a fool.

Who the hell said I was leading a battle? And ... why have you already reached to labeling me a fool?

I now think you are a shill. Someone whose job it is to regulate conversation tone... to make sure no uprisings... no group passions... ever get started.

Good night. And... goodbye. I'll be taking another month off now, thanks to you.

I'm sorry you've chosen to perceive me in that way. Paranoia is useful to a certain extent, but there is a point at which is becomes dysfunctional. I haven't been trying to scare you away or regulate you. I hope you enjoy your reddit break. :)

I'm sorry [...]

I don't believe you because I sense no contrition on your part, and here's why...

You immediately follow this statement with...

Paranoia is useful to a certain extent, but there is a point at which is becomes dysfunctional.

... basically an assertion that "if you don't hold this rational conversation with me, the world will see you as a lunatic".

And, further,...

I haven't been trying to [...] regulate you.

This is an outright lie in complete contradiction to every comment you've made in this entire thread, including the sentence immediately preceding it.

You are putting on airs of being reasonable and rational while simultaneously confronting me with implications of irrationality and dysfunctionality (look back through your messages - every one of them contains at least one such implication <-- this makes you a very crafty troll).

And that long (two full messages, wow!) laundry list of conspiracies didn't fool me into thinking you belong here. That was, clearly, an attempt to impress upon passing readers that you are a member of the in group.

I have news for you... if you're not one of the active posters (texmex, IamJulianAssange, et al) and you post a list like that, you stand out like a sore thumb. Especially since you attached absolutely zero passion to any item on your list. You are NOT a member of this group. The in group has an axe to grind. You do not. Your MO is (to date, in this conversation) trivialization and characterization ("it's not THAT bad" - "are you sure you're not crazy?")

You are infiltrating. For what specific, long-term purpose, I cannot even begin to imagine (although from my knowledge of past infiltrators, I'm guessing it's "to be on hand when the shit hits the fan" -- meaning there's probably something big on the horizon).

You are not sorry I've chosen to perceive you as I have. If you're sorry at all, it's because you failed to pull off your charade.

If this level of paranoia is dysfunctional, then I say... in r/conspiracy the only healthy way to keep from losing everything is to BE dysfunctional.

NOTE: Trust no one. Not me, not IamJulianAssange, and especially not Mumberthrax.

EDIT: p.s. If, on the outside chance that you are not the troll you are appearing to be (to me, anyway) and my passion has motivated you to deal with the admins' potential road to doom (my characterization of their "list making" ideas in r/modnews) in a way which actually prevents them from gathering their pitchforks and torches to lynch people they don't like, then... I've done my job. And, I suggest that, instead of any further implications that I'm teetering on the side of dysfunctionality, perhaps you should be offering me gratitude for raising this very (IMO) valid concern. Such a change in tone of your messages would go a long way to making you appear less hostile to an already disenfranchised (by TPTB) readership.

Paranoia is useful to a certain extent, but there is a point at which is becomes dysfunctional.

... basically an assertion that "if you don't hold this rational conversation with me, the world will see you as a lunatic".

No, I don't see you as a lunatic for being excessively paranoid. I just mean what I stated, that there is a point at which it does more harm than good. If you allow this kind of paranoia about infiltrators, shills, and disinformation agents to reach an inquisition-level extreme, it stifles meaningful discussion. You make appeals to base emotionality that simply aren't as empowering as a rational analysis of the substantive facts of the matter.

What are the benefits of labeling me, someone who has been respectfully attempting to engage you in a civil discussion on a conspiracy theory, a shill? If I disagree with your assessment, does that mean I am trying to stop you from expressing it?

I know that some trolls or shills likely do the things you accuse me of, posing as members of the in-group, becoming respected figures, who try to manipulate the group in some way toward an agenda of destabilizing or disempowering the group on the whole. These kinds of tactics are very difficult to quantify; how do you ensure that the person you think is a shill or a troll is not actually just someone who disagrees with you, or someone who is a little overly zealous? It's a conundrum.

And of course, if the person you accuse is simply overly zealous, or disagrees with you and is not intentionally trying to destabilize the group, and you begin an inquisition against them, it is emotionally jarring, and almost anything they say can be, under scrutiny, be interpreted as an undesirable act. If that person is constantly being monitored by the group, their level of stress and discomfort may reach such levels that they decide that it is not worth being a part of the group.

Incidentally, this very tactic itself is a fine tool for an individual who would attempt to destabilize a group. So the accuser may then in turn be the accused! And it devolves into paranoia all around with very little productive work being done.

That is why I say it can be dysfunctional; when it gets in the way of a meaningful discussion or analysis of a topic. It is nothing against you personally, simply an assessment of the merit of certain choices.

Yes, I understand that this sort of thing is just what a shill would say if he were trying to deflect an accusation. "Label the accuser as paranoid or delusional!" And so we go around and around, and there is no clear stopping point. It ends when one party gets tired and leaves, but any onlookers have now likely either 1) got the paranoia bug, or 2) have come to see the paranoia as excessive and think that conspiracy theorists on the whole are paranoid and ridiculous. So it discredits us all.

I don't know what the solution is. The best guess I have is that you participate in a conversation as long as it is helping to move the discussion forward, as long as meaningful content is being elicited and analyzed. The meta stuff, beyond assessments of blatantly disruptive behavior, itself becomes a disruption and noise itself.

I felt a need to respond to your accusations because I think that some people might believe the things you say without considering the implications of or the evidence for them.

So I guess at this time I'll anticipate some possible responses:

• I'm saying all of these things to sound reasonable so that I lull people into a false sense of security, they trust me because I'm not passionate or emotional, and so I'm trying to pacify conspiracy theorists.
• I'm trying to place blame on you, make others think that you are the shill, trying to sow more paranoia and destabilize the group -and I'm the one to blame because I'm obviously the shill.
• if I say that I would have no reason to continue the charade for so long on a thread that nobody else is even visiting, it's because I'm playing a mind-game, really being dedicated to my character as a concern-troll.
• I'm making this into a more complicated thing than it needs to be, trying to obfuscate the truth, therefore I'm a shill
• some of the things I say are true and useful, and that's what makes me such an insidious troll/shill, because the best lies are packaged with pieces of truth.
• I'm stating your probable responses because I'm trying to look good, like I'm not a shill, therefore I AM a shill.
• This mind-game stuff is way too complicated for you and you don't like being stressed out, so you are going to discontinue the conversation, with your last word being "you're the shill" or something to that effect.
• that last comment (or some other comment) was a personal attack, so I must be a shill.
• You'll say something like "I guess you've figured it all out them, no point in me responding!" in a sarcastic tone, suggesting I'm being egocentric or expressing some similarly undesirable trait
• etc. etc. etc.

Some of these contain logical fallacies. Others are unfalsifiable. As far as I am aware, none of them actually prove anything.

I guess now I'll address some of the other accusations you've laid out against me.

I haven't been trying to [...] regulate you.

This is an outright lie in complete contradiction to every comment you've made in this entire thread, including the sentence immediately preceding it.

You are putting on airs of being reasonable and rational while simultaneously confronting me with implications of irrationality and dysfunctionality (look back through your messages - every one of them contains at least one such implication <-- this makes you a very crafty troll).

I want to note that the outrage you're expressing appeals to base emotionality, and not to reason. This is not an attempt to regulate you, it's an attempt to help you improve the quality of your arguments.

It is not a lie. I have not been trolling in pointing out possible irrationality. While a troll might do such things, they do not conclusively prove that I am one. I have been trying to make sure that we understand that the behaviors you've been exhibiting are disruptive to meaningful conversation. I've tried to do it respectfully without placing value judgments on you as a person, simply on the behaviors. This is not attempted regulation, because I have no way of controlling how you behave - that's your own responsibility and freedom. However, in a public forum such as this, where an objective audience may make an evaluation of someone's character, those who are informed of the mistakes in their actions and who continue to perform them are often judged negatively. I supposed this is an indirect form of attempted regulation. The question really becomes whether the criteria I value are objectively valuable. Similarly, we could say that you have been attempting to regulate my behavior by claiming that by attempting to regulate you, I have been behaving improperly, or that by disagreeing with you or suggesting rational discussion rather than appealing to emotionality and paranoia, I have been behaving improperly or am a "shill". If this is not an attempt at behavior regulation in the same vein you have accused me, I do not know what is.

I think, therefore, this argument is meaningless. All attempts at argument are, in some way, under this model, attempts at regulating behavior.

• "You're twisting my words around with convoluted logic!"

No, I'm trying to clarify in the best and most straightforward analysis as I can muster at this time. If you would like to clarify the meaning of the idea you were trying to express, the regulating behavior, then please do so.

And that long (two full messages, wow!) laundry list of conspiracies didn't fool me into thinking you belong here. That was, clearly, an attempt to impress upon passing readers that you are a member of the in group.

I have news for you... if you're not one of the active posters (texmex, IamJulianAssange, et al) and you post a list like that, you stand out like a sore thumb. Especially since you attached absolutely zero passion to any item on your list. You are NOT a member of this group. The in group has an axe to grind. You do not.

The list of conspiracy theories was not an attempt at fooling anyone. I was genuinely trying to put together a list so they could be sorted out into which ones have supporting evidence behind them. Then I realized they probably didn't belong here, and should be done as a separate project with the evidence associated to them before they were submitted to the OP. It was not an attempt to suggest I am part of any group. It was an attempt to help the OP. I don't care about being part of a gruop. I don't have a need for approval or a following. I hope to be judged by my actions, not by my status or popularity. Just because I am an infrequent poster on r/conspiracy does not mean that I am a shill. To suggest that only the celebrities or regulars have anything of value to contribute seems elitist and moves to keep newcomers out.

I don't understand what you mean about zero passion and grinding axes being significant. The list was not passionate because it was about information, not emotions. How do you put passion into a list of conspiracy theories? How do you grind an axe with a list like that? Why would passion or grinding an axe mean I am "in"? I don't understand, maybe you can elaborate?

I want to point out that suggesting I'm not in the group is kind of an us vs. everyone else sort of framework, don't you think? It seems a little narrow. Black and white, you know? "You are with us, or you're with the shills."

Your MO is (to date, in this conversation) trivialization and characterization ("it's not THAT bad" - "are you sure you're not crazy?")

It's not trivialization as a tactic, it is attempting objective assessment of the facts of the matter. I discussed the blacklist with the admin, and concluded that as long as it is implemented as they state it will be (and the code is publicly accessible), the matter really is relatively trivial. I never once accused you of being or implied that you are crazy. I did suggest that you were being overly defensive, and reading aggression into my statements when there was none. I don't think that is an accusation of insanity, just hypersensitivity, perhaps.

You are infiltrating. For what specific, long-term purpose, I cannot even begin to imagine (although from my knowledge of past infiltrators, I'm guessing it's "to be on hand when the shit hits the fan" -- meaning there's probably something big on the horizon).

There are several assumptions here that have no evidential basis.

You have no provided significant evidence that I am "infiltrating". You have made allegations and specious inferences, but nothing that is anywhere near as convincing as suggesting I am a regular user who is interested in conspiracy theories and interesting discussions.
If I were an infiltrator, why would it be assumed that it was in preparation for some big event? Could it not be simply to sow seeds of paranoia amongst the group? To try to be contrary and disrupt conversations under the guide of concern? You mention your experience with other infiltrators who were there to be on hand for when shit hits the fan - would you care to share those stories or links to evidence that that was their motive?

You are not sorry I've chosen to perceive you as I have. If you're sorry at all, it's because you failed to pull off your charade.

Just because you say it in an authoritative voice does not make it true. I am sorry you have chosen to perceive me as a shill when I am not one. I wish that this had been a productive conversation about the blacklists, or about the OP's topic. I have not attempted to pull of any charade, and I have not seen evidence that I have, or that I have failed in any such endeavor.

If this level of paranoia is dysfunctional, then I say... in r/conspiracy the only healthy way to keep from losing everything is to BE dysfunctional.

To keep from losing everything? You mean like going crazy? Or forgetting some aspect of a web of conspiracies? I think that it's quite possible to maintain integrity or sanity or awareness of things without being hyper-paranoid. You can be skeptical of someone's motives without allowing it to disrupt the free flow of rational and productive dialogue.

NOTE: Trust no one. Not me, not IamJulianAssange, and especially not Mumberthrax.

I agree with the general sentiment expressed here, but not perhaps the literal meaning. Trust is not a binary state, to me. I trust a person so long as they are consistent, to be consistent with that state. I trust an information source to the degree that what they have said in the past confirms my own understanding and experience of reality. I think allocations of trust should be distributed without prejudice or base emotional responses (though instincts and intuition are definitely valued). To suggest that I "especially" should not be trusted seems premature given a lack of reasonable evidence or cause for distrust toward me.

EDIT: p.s. If, on the outside chance that you are not the troll you are appearing to be (to me, anyway) and my passion has motivated you to deal with the admins' potential road to doom (my characterization of their "list making" ideas in r/modnews) in a way which actually prevents them from gathering their pitchforks and torches to lynch people they don't like, then... I've done my job.

I am not a troll. You did motivate me to examine the blacklisting issue. I did determine that they were not gathering pitchforks. Good job.

And, I suggest that, instead of any further implications that I'm teetering on the side of dysfunctionality, perhaps you should be offering me gratitude for raising this very (IMO) valid concern.

Your patronizing tone is not appreciated or called for. I do appreciate you bringing the matter of the blacklist to my attention.

Such a change in tone of your messages would go a long way to making you appear less hostile to an already disenfranchised (by TPTB) readership.

I have not been hostile. Why would expressing gratitude affect the merit or value of any of my other comments?

Well said... especially the part about this being a dead thread in which we are the only two participants.

Another excellent point (actually several related ones) pertained to the notion of excessive paranoia. This, however, reminded me of the recent post (currently near the top) about r/worldnews and r/conspiracy having merged into a commonality.

If it hasn't already become clear (ala my "trust no one" statement). My initial comment was that, and that alone - the "listmaking" proposal cannot be trusted. Yes, I did read much of your interaction with spladug in that thread. And yes, it did seem (until you addressed it specifically) that they intended to implement a very dangerous course of action (where spladug responded to you about #2 & #3 with "exactly" - i.e., listmaking and potential to share those lists). After you addressed that, it appeared that spladug saw the danger... the danger that my initial comment in THIS thread was pointing toward.

So, by way of debate and argumentation, it appears that our combined efforts MAY have prevented something bad from happening. Meanwhile, we still have to wait and see what reddit eventually implements.

And, finally...

The orderlies have instructed me that I need to stop participating in this discussion thread because it is having adverse repercussions on the other patients. Until next time, then?

Yeah I guess after your month-long break. Take care, friend.

I'm sorry you've chosen to perceive me in that way. Paranoia is useful to a certain extent, but there is a point at which is becomes dysfunctional. I haven't been trying to scare you away or regulate you. I hope you enjoy your reddit break. :)

America doesn't have conspiracies, they have conspiracy theories only.

Thanks for that info. I wasn't sure. I made my subreddit to avoid certain trollish behavior here in r/conspiracy, but no one uses it... hell, I don't think anyone even remembers it exists by now.

The reason I jumped up out of a near-sleep state in order to respond to you is that this comment is sticking in my craw...

I don't know which point you're referring to. Could you quote it?

It's point #2 of your own comment... yet you don't know which point I'm talking about?

As for this latest comment (above),

If you want to lead an effective battle, you have better have the right information so that you are aiming in the most appropriate spot, otherwise you're going to waste energy, or worse, look like a fool.

Who the hell said I was leading a battle? And ... why have you already reached to labeling me a fool?

I now think you are a shill. Someone whose job it is to regulate conversation tone... to make sure no uprisings... no group passions... ever get started.

Good night. And... goodbye. I'll be taking another month off now, thanks to you.

And that long (two full messages, wow!) laundry list of conspiracies didn't fool me into thinking you belong here. That was, clearly, an attempt to impress upon passing readers that you are a member of the in group.

I have news for you... if you're not one of the active posters (texmex, IamJulianAssange, et al) and you post a list like that, you stand out like a sore thumb. Especially since you attached absolutely zero passion to any item on your list. You are NOT a member of this group. The in group has an axe to grind. You do not.

The list of conspiracy theories was not an attempt at fooling anyone. I was genuinely trying to put together a list so they could be sorted out into which ones have supporting evidence behind them. Then I realized they probably didn't belong here, and should be done as a separate project with the evidence associated to them before they were submitted to the OP. It was not an attempt to suggest I am part of any group. It was an attempt to help the OP. I don't care about being part of a gruop. I don't have a need for approval or a following. I hope to be judged by my actions, not by my status or popularity. Just because I am an infrequent poster on r/conspiracy does not mean that I am a shill. To suggest that only the celebrities or regulars have anything of value to contribute seems elitist and moves to keep newcomers out.

I don't understand what you mean about zero passion and grinding axes being significant. The list was not passionate because it was about information, not emotions. How do you put passion into a list of conspiracy theories? How do you grind an axe with a list like that? Why would passion or grinding an axe mean I am "in"? I don't understand, maybe you can elaborate?

I want to point out that suggesting I'm not in the group is kind of an us vs. everyone else sort of framework, don't you think? It seems a little narrow. Black and white, you know? "You are with us, or you're with the shills."

Your MO is (to date, in this conversation) trivialization and characterization ("it's not THAT bad" - "are you sure you're not crazy?")

It's not trivialization as a tactic, it is attempting objective assessment of the facts of the matter. I discussed the blacklist with the admin, and concluded that as long as it is implemented as they state it will be (and the code is publicly accessible), the matter really is relatively trivial. I never once accused you of being or implied that you are crazy. I did suggest that you were being overly defensive, and reading aggression into my statements when there was none. I don't think that is an accusation of insanity, just hypersensitivity, perhaps.

You are infiltrating. For what specific, long-term purpose, I cannot even begin to imagine (although from my knowledge of past infiltrators, I'm guessing it's "to be on hand when the shit hits the fan" -- meaning there's probably something big on the horizon).

There are several assumptions here that have no evidential basis.

You have no provided significant evidence that I am "infiltrating". You have made allegations and specious inferences, but nothing that is anywhere near as convincing as suggesting I am a regular user who is interested in conspiracy theories and interesting discussions.
If I were an infiltrator, why would it be assumed that it was in preparation for some big event? Could it not be simply to sow seeds of paranoia amongst the group? To try to be contrary and disrupt conversations under the guide of concern? You mention your experience with other infiltrators who were there to be on hand for when shit hits the fan - would you care to share those stories or links to evidence that that was their motive?

You are not sorry I've chosen to perceive you as I have. If you're sorry at all, it's because you failed to pull off your charade.

Just because you say it in an authoritative voice does not make it true. I am sorry you have chosen to perceive me as a shill when I am not one. I wish that this had been a productive conversation about the blacklists, or about the OP's topic. I have not attempted to pull of any charade, and I have not seen evidence that I have, or that I have failed in any such endeavor.

If this level of paranoia is dysfunctional, then I say... in r/conspiracy the only healthy way to keep from losing everything is to BE dysfunctional.

To keep from losing everything? You mean like going crazy? Or forgetting some aspect of a web of conspiracies? I think that it's quite possible to maintain integrity or sanity or awareness of things without being hyper-paranoid. You can be skeptical of someone's motives without allowing it to disrupt the free flow of rational and productive dialogue.

NOTE: Trust no one. Not me, not IamJulianAssange, and especially not Mumberthrax.

I agree with the general sentiment expressed here, but not perhaps the literal meaning. Trust is not a binary state, to me. I trust a person so long as they are consistent, to be consistent with that state. I trust an information source to the degree that what they have said in the past confirms my own understanding and experience of reality. I think allocations of trust should be distributed without prejudice or base emotional responses (though instincts and intuition are definitely valued). To suggest that I "especially" should not be trusted seems premature given a lack of reasonable evidence or cause for distrust toward me.

EDIT: p.s. If, on the outside chance that you are not the troll you are appearing to be (to me, anyway) and my passion has motivated you to deal with the admins' potential road to doom (my characterization of their "list making" ideas in r/modnews) in a way which actually prevents them from gathering their pitchforks and torches to lynch people they don't like, then... I've done my job.

I am not a troll. You did motivate me to examine the blacklisting issue. I did determine that they were not gathering pitchforks. Good job.

And, I suggest that, instead of any further implications that I'm teetering on the side of dysfunctionality, perhaps you should be offering me gratitude for raising this very (IMO) valid concern.

Your patronizing tone is not appreciated or called for. I do appreciate you bringing the matter of the blacklist to my attention.

Such a change in tone of your messages would go a long way to making you appear less hostile to an already disenfranchised (by TPTB) readership.

I have not been hostile. Why would expressing gratitude affect the merit or value of any of my other comments?