I think /r/conspiracy is getting popular lately,
thanks to recent protests and government
corruption.
Hopefully more of our links will hit the front page.
What people think conspiracies are: "OMG REPTILIANS EVERYWHERE BROUGHT HERE BY ALIEN GHOSTS"
What this subreddit is actually about: "Hey, there's a whole lot of people that want to fuck you over for personal gain without telling the world. Let's talk about it"
Crazy theories about Reptoids and Bob Lazar are why I added r/conspiracy to my front page to begin with. Now I have to deal with real world politics again.
Maybe if I ask my Pleidian starbrothers really nicely, things can go back to how they were.
The world needs to kill their egos so they can see the truth, but almost no one can or will do that willingly. Only when the last Americans are stripped of their dignity and prestige will they understand what has happened to them and by then it will be too late. Godspeed you magnificent bastards.
They won't understand a thing, just look around for excuses. The thought that he/she is the reason for the collapse will never cross a sheeple's small brain.
This is sad but true. They will look for a way to externalize the problem and find a nice scapegoat to blame it on, when in fact most of their fingers will be pointing right back at themselves.
I'm not to happy about the popularity since it's brought right wing and government ops here to blindly vote down legitimate articles and promote stupid ones.
But the Bilderberg group wants rule of the wealthy, for the wealthy and by the wealthy. As the Roman Seneca said over two thousand years ago: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. That the Bilderbergs don't accept religion doesn't make them leftist. Greed is their god.
i'm not going to debate you on the existence of God, or what the definition of God is, but I find equally hard to believe that human life on earth is merely an accident.
yea you are right if you believe in a old dude with a beard. however that is not the case when people refer to "god" they are referring to the "all" or the mind of the universe. to not believe in the mind is the biggest conspiracy
I really don't have a problem with people believing in god. They can believe in whatever they want.
I have more of problem with organized religion and the leaders of that religion organizing society for their own benefit and to the burden of the people.
We haven't broken through 40,000 readers yet. But we're close. I think of this subreddit as my home on the Internet. There's a higher percentage of people who have a clue here than almost anywhere else.
Here you are starting a thread celebrating /r/conspiracy, but you don't even know what the word "conspiracy" means, do you? Please tell me, what do you think "conspiracy" means?
The definition you provided could be an example of a conspiracy, but it is not the definition of "conspiracy".
Conspiracy: two or more people secretly planning something malicious.
A conspiracy does not have to be highly significant, elaborate, or outlandish. Mundane conspiracies are commonplace, everyday events.
Whether people consider a theory about a conspiracy to be true or false does not affect its status as a conspiracy. The following words aggravate me greatly, in part because this type of confusion is so common:
other information shouldn't even be here since it is true
In my mind, this would not be a conspiracy *theory* but a fact that more was happening.
Using words incorrectly does not help. As you note the powers that be are trying to redefine these words to make discussion of such things taboo. I don't think capitulation to this attack on language is the right response.
And just because you believe a theory to be true does not stop it from being a theory. Going by the first definition here (but not the second), a theory is not necessarily something unproven.
"Conspiracy theory" only deals with the second definition, and definitely not the first, which refers to scientific theories. I think it's fair to call conjectural notions about how events may have unfolded through covert, malicious causes "conspiracy theories," and, if they end up being correct, referring to them simply as conspiracies (with truth implied by not calling it a theory). I definitely agree/think that using underhanded rhetorical tactics, logical fallacies (especially equivocation), and redefined words/loaded language seem to be effective methods to suppress dissent and we should remain vigilant.
You make good points, but I do not entirely agree.
...if they end up being correct...
Acceptance or rejection of a theory is a social phenomenon. Often there is disagreement. For example, at the time of the O.J. Simpson trial, most Americans believed he was guilty of murdering his ex-wife. However, the American justice system found him not guilty. That was strong support for those who considered him innocent. So who "ended up being correct"?
In my opinion, the facts show that the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is not correct. Yet in the United States it is generally accepted as true. So did that theory "end up being correct"? No matter how many facts are available, no matter how carefully some people investigate a matter, and no matter what conclusions official investigative bodies reach, there is still the possibility that the correctness of a theory will remain contested.
If some parties assert something is an accepted fact, and other parties insist it's a proven falsehood, then it is accurate to describe it as a contested theory.
I took issue with your response until I reread it a couple hours later. I think I probably agree with most of it. I think a key component of conspiracy theories which later turn out to be true (or generally accepted) is the uncovering of new, damning evidence.
My main concern is using consistent definitions. A lot of people seem to think that a conspiracy is something unproven, not generally accepted, etc., and, when it is proven or generally accepted, it ceases to be a conspiracy and becomes a fact. I may have missed it at first, but this seems to be exactly what you were getting at in your FTFY to TornACL2.
"Conspiracy theory" only deals with the second definition, and definitely not the first, which refers to scientific theories.
I still stand by this statement. It does seem that acceptance/rejection of a hypothesis-theory is a social phenomenon as you say; I just want to make sure there is no equivocation of scientific-theories (aka scientific law, like law of gravity) and hypothesis-theories (like conspiracy theories).
I just want to make sure there is no equivocation of scientific-theories (aka scientific law, like law of gravity) and hypothesis-theories (like conspiracy theories).
Yeah, you're right about this. I acted too quickly earlier when I referred to that first definition in this context.
I'd like to start with the Greco-Latin. Conspiration, perspiration, respiration, transpiration - "spirare" is about breath. 'Conspirare' is simply breathing together. So, the biosphere is a big conspiracy.
The classical definition, as Treebright points out below, is any gathering of 2 or more in secret, and typically, against the common interest. (h/t Mark Twain)
The modern patio-psyop redefinition is, a myth crazy people believe in, because they suffer from crippled epistemology. (w/f Cass Sunstein)
In my view, it's an alternative explanation for a tragedy or loss which has been officially denied.
"and the people who knocked these buildings down ... will hear from ALL of us soon."
~ The former president through a bullhorn, on the pile, in words truer now than when he spoke them. I mention this because perhaps many of us are here because some official truths simply do not compute.
So downvote the lunacy. God knows most of us agree that there's too much disinfo and stupid baiting FUD in this sub - help us keep the place relevant and clean; downvote.
because every politician isn't vetted by AIPAC before they even get a nomination and America's foreign policy isn't completely centered around Israel's interest to our detriment? oh wait...
Except, you know, the Jews already have largely taken over Western Christian nations, and are running them ... or at the very least, are the leading players at the top of the food chain.
Jews control the media in America, own the politicians through AIPAC and numerous other organizations, and have enormous influence over the judicial system and the universities.
Jewish power seems to be concentrated on information systems and authority systems -- on propaganda and control. This is surely not an accident, or a coincidence.
Jews have deliberately targeted media, government, the courts, the schools, to gain control of the minds of Christians (and other groups) for their own purposes. By controling the politicians and the judicial system, they have been enabled to write the laws in such a way that they are benefited and advantaged.
The protests are, in part, against a criminal conspiracy between government, banks, Wall Street, etc. Note quite 'occult' in the sense you probably mean but a conspiracy nonetheless.
I'll speak really s-l-o-w-l-y for you. The reason the protests against Wall Street and other financial institutions are in r/conspiracy is because those people are protesting a conspiracy. You wrote you couldn't understand why such posts were here. ("i love me some conspiracy. but how is it that people protesting around the country is a conspiracy?") Well, that's why they are here.
exactly. perhaps, though, it's to steal a few ideas from open-minded thinkers. in his defense, his subreddit of preference has quite the bit catching up to do.
R/conspiracy deals with conspiracies, as it should. Some are a little further out there than others. But that's half the fun. We can not only condemn Dick Cheney for masterminding the invasion of Iraq, but also for being a shape-changing lizard. What's not to like?
Plus, we've got 40,000 readers, you group has got 400. Ptf-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-h!
The protests are, in part, against a criminal conspiracy between government, banks, Wall Street, etc. Note quite 'occult' in the sense you probably mean but a conspiracy nonetheless.
But the Bilderberg group wants rule of the wealthy, for the wealthy and by the wealthy. As the Roman Seneca said over two thousand years ago: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. That the Bilderbergs don't accept religion doesn't make them leftist. Greed is their god.
64 comments
33 bluesunshine 2011-10-07
What people think conspiracies are: "OMG REPTILIANS EVERYWHERE BROUGHT HERE BY ALIEN GHOSTS"
What this subreddit is actually about: "Hey, there's a whole lot of people that want to fuck you over for personal gain without telling the world. Let's talk about it"
8 okayimfamous 2011-10-07
YOU BEST START BELIEVIN IN CONSPIRACIES....
YOU'RE IN ONE
2 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
3 GordieLaChance 2011-10-07
You're very sssssssmarrt. Don't Sssssstop not believin'.
1 Brady_T 2011-10-07
hold on to that feehl-i-hiiin
-5 MistaTwizzle 2011-10-07
Unfortunately the people ranting about comets and shapeshifting lizard people are in the majority as far as I can tell.
7 TheTilde 2011-10-07
And fortunately their posts can be buried if the majority here wants it.
2 JumboColoringBook 2011-10-07
Crazy theories about Reptoids and Bob Lazar are why I added r/conspiracy to my front page to begin with. Now I have to deal with real world politics again.
Maybe if I ask my Pleidian starbrothers really nicely, things can go back to how they were.
16 9000sins 2011-10-07
The world needs to kill their egos so they can see the truth, but almost no one can or will do that willingly. Only when the last Americans are stripped of their dignity and prestige will they understand what has happened to them and by then it will be too late. Godspeed you magnificent bastards.
7 me_and_1 2011-10-07
They won't understand a thing, just look around for excuses. The thought that he/she is the reason for the collapse will never cross a sheeple's small brain.
3 9000sins 2011-10-07
This is sad but true. They will look for a way to externalize the problem and find a nice scapegoat to blame it on, when in fact most of their fingers will be pointing right back at themselves.
2 ronintetsuro 2011-10-07
This is how the ego sustains itself. There are no external enemies. Especially if you're American.
2 bgy90210 2011-10-07
truth
1 ronintetsuro 2011-10-07
-- HST (paraphrased)
14 alllie 2011-10-07
I'm not to happy about the popularity since it's brought right wing and government ops here to blindly vote down legitimate articles and promote stupid ones.
0 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
5 alllie 2011-10-07
But the Bilderberg group wants rule of the wealthy, for the wealthy and by the wealthy. As the Roman Seneca said over two thousand years ago: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. That the Bilderbergs don't accept religion doesn't make them leftist. Greed is their god.
3 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
4 pwncore 2011-10-07
A man who does not know his enemy will lose in every battle.
2 bgy90210 2011-10-07
in greed, they worship their own fleshly appetites. they are their own gods.
0 [deleted] 2011-10-07
Do you mean god?
If you believe in god, you have fallen for one of the biggest conspiracies of all time.
1 bgy90210 2011-10-07
i'm not going to debate you on the existence of God, or what the definition of God is, but I find equally hard to believe that human life on earth is merely an accident.
1 ikilledyourcat 2011-10-07
yea you are right if you believe in a old dude with a beard. however that is not the case when people refer to "god" they are referring to the "all" or the mind of the universe. to not believe in the mind is the biggest conspiracy
1 [deleted] 2011-10-07
I should have been more clear.
I really don't have a problem with people believing in god. They can believe in whatever they want.
I have more of problem with organized religion and the leaders of that religion organizing society for their own benefit and to the burden of the people.
1 ikilledyourcat 2011-10-07
ok well then here i FTFY - if you believe in organized religions versions of god you have fallen for the biggest conspiracies of all time
6 tttt0tttt 2011-10-07
We haven't broken through 40,000 readers yet. But we're close. I think of this subreddit as my home on the Internet. There's a higher percentage of people who have a clue here than almost anywhere else.
3 ronintetsuro 2011-10-07
More importantly, there are more people willing to speculate and share what they know.
0 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
0 treebright 2011-10-07
Here you are starting a thread celebrating /r/conspiracy, but you don't even know what the word "conspiracy" means, do you? Please tell me, what do you think "conspiracy" means?
3 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
2 treebright 2011-10-07
It's in any dictionary. Here's one.
The definition you provided could be an example of a conspiracy, but it is not the definition of "conspiracy".
Conspiracy: two or more people secretly planning something malicious.
A conspiracy does not have to be highly significant, elaborate, or outlandish. Mundane conspiracies are commonplace, everyday events.
Whether people consider a theory about a conspiracy to be true or false does not affect its status as a conspiracy. The following words aggravate me greatly, in part because this type of confusion is so common:
2 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
1 treebright 2011-10-07
Using words incorrectly does not help. As you note the powers that be are trying to redefine these words to make discussion of such things taboo. I don't think capitulation to this attack on language is the right response.
And just because you believe a theory to be true does not stop it from being a theory. Going by the first definition here (but not the second), a theory is not necessarily something unproven.
1 Dragontripper 2011-10-07
"Conspiracy theory" only deals with the second definition, and definitely not the first, which refers to scientific theories. I think it's fair to call conjectural notions about how events may have unfolded through covert, malicious causes "conspiracy theories," and, if they end up being correct, referring to them simply as conspiracies (with truth implied by not calling it a theory). I definitely agree/think that using underhanded rhetorical tactics, logical fallacies (especially equivocation), and redefined words/loaded language seem to be effective methods to suppress dissent and we should remain vigilant.
2 treebright 2011-10-07
You make good points, but I do not entirely agree.
Acceptance or rejection of a theory is a social phenomenon. Often there is disagreement. For example, at the time of the O.J. Simpson trial, most Americans believed he was guilty of murdering his ex-wife. However, the American justice system found him not guilty. That was strong support for those who considered him innocent. So who "ended up being correct"?
In my opinion, the facts show that the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is not correct. Yet in the United States it is generally accepted as true. So did that theory "end up being correct"? No matter how many facts are available, no matter how carefully some people investigate a matter, and no matter what conclusions official investigative bodies reach, there is still the possibility that the correctness of a theory will remain contested.
If some parties assert something is an accepted fact, and other parties insist it's a proven falsehood, then it is accurate to describe it as a contested theory.
2 Dragontripper 2011-10-07
I took issue with your response until I reread it a couple hours later. I think I probably agree with most of it. I think a key component of conspiracy theories which later turn out to be true (or generally accepted) is the uncovering of new, damning evidence.
My main concern is using consistent definitions. A lot of people seem to think that a conspiracy is something unproven, not generally accepted, etc., and, when it is proven or generally accepted, it ceases to be a conspiracy and becomes a fact. I may have missed it at first, but this seems to be exactly what you were getting at in your FTFY to TornACL2.
I still stand by this statement. It does seem that acceptance/rejection of a hypothesis-theory is a social phenomenon as you say; I just want to make sure there is no equivocation of scientific-theories (aka scientific law, like law of gravity) and hypothesis-theories (like conspiracy theories).
2 treebright 2011-10-07
Yeah, you're right about this. I acted too quickly earlier when I referred to that first definition in this context.
2 AutoexecDotNet 2011-10-07
I'd like to start with the Greco-Latin. Conspiration, perspiration, respiration, transpiration - "spirare" is about breath. 'Conspirare' is simply breathing together. So, the biosphere is a big conspiracy.
The classical definition, as Treebright points out below, is any gathering of 2 or more in secret, and typically, against the common interest. (h/t Mark Twain)
The modern patio-psyop redefinition is, a myth crazy people believe in, because they suffer from crippled epistemology. (w/f Cass Sunstein)
In my view, it's an alternative explanation for a tragedy or loss which has been officially denied.
~ The former president through a bullhorn, on the pile, in words truer now than when he spoke them. I mention this because perhaps many of us are here because some official truths simply do not compute.
4 FemaCampDirector 2011-10-07
Watching. Waiting.
1 douchebag_investor 2011-10-07
I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.
2 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
9 BitchesLoveBreeches 2011-10-07
Sheeple!
... Sorry couldn't resist.
-5 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
3 ronintetsuro 2011-10-07
Swaying to the rhythm of the new world order.
2 venuism 2011-10-07
Every now and then something pops up that makes me think, for the most part though a lot of you are just moonbats.
3 ronintetsuro 2011-10-07
So downvote the lunacy. God knows most of us agree that there's too much disinfo and stupid baiting FUD in this sub - help us keep the place relevant and clean; downvote.
2 bgy90210 2011-10-07
how convenient
2 pixelplayer 2011-10-07
its also getting a lot of trolls
1 mason55 2011-10-07
It will only hit the front page for people who are subscribed and people reading /r/all.
0 eric22vhs 2011-10-07
Yeah, it's nice to see more real issues being discussed here, and less "The Jews are taking over the world!" crap.
0 bgy90210 2011-10-07
because every politician isn't vetted by AIPAC before they even get a nomination and America's foreign policy isn't completely centered around Israel's interest to our detriment? oh wait...
0 tttt0tttt 2011-10-07
Except, you know, the Jews already have largely taken over Western Christian nations, and are running them ... or at the very least, are the leading players at the top of the food chain.
Jews control the media in America, own the politicians through AIPAC and numerous other organizations, and have enormous influence over the judicial system and the universities.
Jewish power seems to be concentrated on information systems and authority systems -- on propaganda and control. This is surely not an accident, or a coincidence.
Jews have deliberately targeted media, government, the courts, the schools, to gain control of the minds of Christians (and other groups) for their own purposes. By controling the politicians and the judicial system, they have been enabled to write the laws in such a way that they are benefited and advantaged.
0 Zigguraticus 2011-10-07
Soooo much superiority complex in one thread.
-4 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
11 9000sins 2011-10-07
The media blackout is the conspiracy. COINTELPRO. I'm sure most Americans consider this a conspiracy too even though it's been acknowledged.
-1 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
2 9000sins 2011-10-07
Why does that matter? Why do you want to know? As far as I'm concerned they are patriots. Do we need to know more about them than that?
8 Tfish 2011-10-07
I think it's just the fact that media sources were blacking out a lot of coverage of the protests, and they're still giving false reports about it.
I personally don't know, but it does seem like the most popular articles lately have been related to the protests.
7 LarrySandersShow 2011-10-07
The protests are, in part, against a criminal conspiracy between government, banks, Wall Street, etc. Note quite 'occult' in the sense you probably mean but a conspiracy nonetheless.
4 tttt0tttt 2011-10-07
People are protesting the conspiracy. It's not that complicated, dude.
-1 [deleted] 2011-10-07
[deleted]
2 tttt0tttt 2011-10-07
I'll speak really s-l-o-w-l-y for you. The reason the protests against Wall Street and other financial institutions are in r/conspiracy is because those people are protesting a conspiracy. You wrote you couldn't understand why such posts were here. ("i love me some conspiracy. but how is it that people protesting around the country is a conspiracy?") Well, that's why they are here.
2 [deleted] 2011-10-07
Relevant.
1 adrixshadow 2011-10-07
There is always an occult influence,coincidence after all is just wishful thinking.
1 ikilledyourcat 2011-10-07
they are protesting the biggest conspiracy the banks!!!!
-4 modestokun 2011-10-07
/r/sunlight is getting popular lately because they actually deal in corruption. /r/conspiracy deals in irrational bullshit.
4 alllie 2011-10-07
If you think that why do you even subscribe to this subreddit? To dish legitimate submissions?
2 bgy90210 2011-10-07
exactly. perhaps, though, it's to steal a few ideas from open-minded thinkers. in his defense, his subreddit of preference has quite the bit catching up to do.
2 Haven 2011-10-07
Thanks for the suggestion!
2 tttt0tttt 2011-10-07
R/conspiracy deals with conspiracies, as it should. Some are a little further out there than others. But that's half the fun. We can not only condemn Dick Cheney for masterminding the invasion of Iraq, but also for being a shape-changing lizard. What's not to like?
Plus, we've got 40,000 readers, you group has got 400. Ptf-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-h!
2 sun_dagger 2011-10-07
Thank you, sir, for that subreddit.
-6 manicleek 2011-10-07
It won't happen.
99% of the stuff in r/conspiracy is horseshit. The other 1% is the protests that are actually happening.
-15 Akasa 2011-10-07
Hopefully not, there's not a sane person who subscribes to this subreddit. You're all nutters.
Came from /r/all.
13 bakedCake 2011-10-07
Clearly you're a rational, informed, and well adjusted mature adult. If only we could all be more like you!
-12 Akasa 2011-10-07
Fuck off mouthbreather.
7 LarrySandersShow 2011-10-07
The protests are, in part, against a criminal conspiracy between government, banks, Wall Street, etc. Note quite 'occult' in the sense you probably mean but a conspiracy nonetheless.
13 bakedCake 2011-10-07
Clearly you're a rational, informed, and well adjusted mature adult. If only we could all be more like you!
5 alllie 2011-10-07
But the Bilderberg group wants rule of the wealthy, for the wealthy and by the wealthy. As the Roman Seneca said over two thousand years ago: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. That the Bilderbergs don't accept religion doesn't make them leftist. Greed is their god.
0 [deleted] 2011-10-07
Do you mean god?
If you believe in god, you have fallen for one of the biggest conspiracies of all time.