I dont think banning people will work in /r/conspiracy, it would only keep someone busy banning accounts all day. The real conspiracy theorists here just need to keep posting and upvoting good content. Rule number one dealing w/trolls, is dont deal with them. It's hard to avoid sometimes but the more we avoid/ignore trolls and shit posters the less inclined they'll be to stay.

I basically agree with you, but the upvote/downvote brigades are hard to deal with.

[deleted]

post only on saturdays?

I agree with your original post, I think the downvote brigades can be slowed by removing downvoting on the subreddit, I've seen it done in some boards and it seems to keep the health of the community in check.

Comment trolls should be ignored completely, no replies means no attention, that'll piss them off at first, but after a while they'll give up.

If the behavior continues, then banning and contacting reddit's main administrators for assistance should clear these idiots from ruining the community and website.

I think the downvote brigades can be slowed by removing downvoting on the subreddit, I've seen it done in some boards and it seems to keep the health of the community in check.

This works in smaller communities which don't have a lot of problems in the first place (if they do, they're relatively small problems as compared to larger subreddits).

It would never work here, because the ones doing the downvoting will (if they haven't already) simply choose not to allow custom style sheets in their preferences - re-enabling the downvote.

Comment trolls should be ignored completely, no replies means no attention, that'll piss them off at first, but after a while they'll give up.

This is true for the lone-wolf trolls, but not for the troll-brigade types. For example, the OP referenced this post in his statement about Shit Posting

The second tactic, related to the first, is Shit Posting. "SOURCE?", posted, for instance, by 10 different accounts at the same time and all with the same number of upvotes.

As you'll see, if you follow that link, that was a brigade, not an individual troll. A troll brigade makes themselves and their input highly visible so that it cannot be ignored. A related example of this was the overt and, for a long time unchecked, invasions from r/subredditdrama. After a few crackdowns on their participants, they've simply gone "underground" (read and comment in r/subredditdrama with one username, crash the party at the linked post with another username). In my opinion, this seems to be the new method for all variety of party-crasher trolls, nowadays. They've learned (or are learning) to manage multiple accounts with great efficacy. I'm not saying it's "bad" to have multiple accounts, because there are a great many valid reasons to have more than one. Rather, it's what you're actually DOING with those accounts that matters. And, it the case of this particular discussion, trolling seems to be the "doing" part that is relevant.

If the behavior continues, then banning and contacting reddit's main administrators for assistance should clear these idiots from ruining the community and website.

I've tried contacting the admins about problematic users many times. They seem to have a policy (which they do endeavor to stand fast about) of not intervening in the management of subreddits in any way. Including this particular annoying problem.

Yeah it sucks, Ive dealt with these people a lot more than I ever should have

Well what we are doing now isnt working really - /r/conspiracy wasnt like this a few months ago. I may disagree with what is posted before or it might not interest me, but it was still valid and important information. These days, we would see junk that doesn't add anything to any conspiracy and the same group of people that write the same insulting comments.

Its obvious some people are doing this intentionally, something has to be done about it.

I would love to do something.... This place is an excellent source of material. If you can weed through these douchebags comments. You are right, something needs to be done I just dont know what.

Even negative attention is attention.

Which is what they want.

Commenters with repeated patterns of aggressive hostile disruption should be banned. If someone clearly only posts sarcastic non-contributory putdowns in debates, over and over, they are not benefiting the community. If they only use free speech for destruction and never for construction, they should be handled as society handles aggressive drunks,

And cross-posting links in a sub on a regular basis to solicit downvote swarms targeting another sub, while aggressively banning people from the targeted sub from commenting, needs to be a bannable action. It's clearly a gang / thug practice used to suppress and intimidate.

There are more methods being used by some of the crowd that swarmed over from Digg and is now soildly entrenched. They have been building a collection of subs they now use to draw from to do hits. Their practices need to be banned.

If someone clearly only posts sarcastic non-contributory putdowns in debates, over and over, they are not benefiting the community.

Keyword there: Only.

That at least lets the mods who will be doing the banning off the hook, eh?

Sometimes conversations get heated, everyone is human. Despite the OP's claim, there is always a hivemind process at work, even in this subreddit. And, it manifests in the form of rallying torches and pitchforks.

When one of these groups of thugs decides they want to silence somoene, all they have to do is wait patiently to get inside that person's train of thought and behavior, stir up a heated debate with them, then downvote them to oblivion... then, go to the mods and say "ban this guy" while pointing to that one interaction as "proof" that he is, and always has been, a problem that should have been resolved long ago.

Banning based on human discretion isn't productive, especially when it appears that it'll only be one human's discretion (9000sins being, apparently, the only mod who is active on a daily basis - the others being periodic, at best ... even the newly elected supercede who claimed to have the time to dedicate to this).

tl;dr: In our push to fight the fascism of governmental and financial tyranny, we shouldn't be implementing fascism in our discussion forum.

I think you make a great point here, in that the process of concluding ban-worthiness for someone who (near) exclusively posts "sarcastic, non-contributory putdowns in debates" is not exactly simple, as such comments can be right along-side some well thought-out discussion-based post. So yeah, it's always on a case-by-case basis, and there is definitely not a consensus about banning in these kinds of situations. I tend to agree with you in that a heavy top-down approach may not work in the long run.

I've mentioned this before, and with the mods, but the sidebar needs to be changed. It will be changed in the near future. Generally speaking we hope to do a few things that will enhance the overall focus of this subreddit, and help users add content that will increase quality, holistically. It is my hope that we can do the following on the sidebar that will solve much of our problems:

*create guidelines for posting

*posit a general statement of purpose for this forum

*link to a FAQ for "conventional wisdom" of conspiracy-topics and those controversial topics that can be discussed here.

• a re-address of this complex banning issue, with clear rules as to what would get one banned.

As to my involvement in the forum, I hope to have some more free time once the college fall semester gets some steam behind it. I look forward to excellent, lively dialogue with yourself, and the other fine people of this sub. Cheers!

1) Please edit. (PM on the way.)

2) With reference to this...

• a re-address of this complex banning issue, with clear rules as to what would get one banned.

I'm of the opinion that moderators should serve the subreddit, not rule it.

My apologies for including that info; I certainly understand. I completely agree with you, my friend. I hope that the mods here can help provide insight and guides in the sidebar that will help the sub "rule" itself.

Thank you. I hope so, too.

Commenters with repeated patterns of aggressive hostile disruption should be banned.

You know, I think most of you people in here are silly as hell, but I agree with this and here's why:

I subscribe to /r/communism. /r/communism is primarily a safe, quiet place for communists to gather and discuss communism and surrounding issues. To keep the space safe and quiet, /r/communism has strict rules against anti-communist speech or attempts to spark debate over the validity of communist theory in the subreddit. This has led to some misguided accusations by people who think free speech ought to exist everywhere all the time, even if it allows a vast majority to march in and silence and marginalize a political minority in their own home. /r/conspiracy and its relationship with /r/conspiratard exemplifies precisely why this rule exists. If /r/communism caved to pressure to just allow all the free speech in the world, it would cease to be /r/communism and become /r/libertariancirclejerk.

On the flip side, there are many valid arguments against communism and many people who would like a space to level these arguments against communists. In light of this, /r/debateacommunist was created as a place where people from a diverse set of economic persuasions from capitalism, to mutualism, to anarchism to debate with communists. The discourse there is remarkably civil and thoughtful and I think it's one of the better subreddits if you have an open mind for that sort of thing.

Likewise, the people over in /r/conspiratard actually have a lot of valid arguments against some of the topics discussed in this subreddit beyond mere ad hominems, and they ought to have a platform from which to engage this subreddit's posters on those differences.

As such, I think /r/conspiratard ought to do what /r/communism has done: Eliminate free speech in order to preserve /r/conspiracy as a safe place for conspiracy theorists to discuss their ideas, and launch a separate /r/debateconspiracy subreddit for the purposes of debate.

This is an excellent post that uses skepticism without being a jerk. Also I like the idea of r/debateaconspiracytheorist as a place for us and tard to duke it out without shitting up this sub.

I would love to argue truther crap and whatnot all day, but I generally don't feel entirely comfortable posting these arguments in the conspiracy subreddit because it feels rude and I worry about the karmic implications of doing so.

I totally agree, same goes for forum sliders...

How will you identify forum sliders who use sock puppet software?

[deleted]

S H I L L C E P T I O N

..sorry, I'll see myself out.

Learned people don't answer "what if" questions. You will always get yourself boxed in and made to look the fool.

How to fix the problem the nice way is to downvote what you don't like and upvote the posts you think are right. However, the bots can be trained to overcome anything. I think banning will have to be done.

How about instead of engaging the offender, just post a "?" in the comments. It won't take any time, or thought, and it will flag the post/comment as inappropriate for this sub. Disinfo agents and bots can't respond to an abstract. They need solid words to twist. Fools don't like to be confronted/outed for being foolish, they will learn or go away.

The good news is that the overlords of the disinfo crowd see r/conspiracy as a threat to their agenda.

Use the ? for a while. The crashers and shitters will say don't do it. So just do it.

just post a "?" in the comments.

cheney_healthcare uses this in r/shill, IINM.

[deleted]

Well, I'm not sure how effective it is (the sub or the "?"). I've seen him use "?" in places where the community strongly disagreed with the fact that he even questioned it.

Basically it amounts to: "I don't think this belongs here. What do you think?" i.e., the fact that you post a question mark is an overt expression of your opinion, even if you don't state it outright. So, why not state it outright?

If I were to take it to the next level, it'd readily become obvious that it's also a way of conspiring... in r/conspiracy. Shouldn't we find ways of working through this without going down that road?

dieselphiend suggested having everyone make their votes public, but I think a better solution is to maintain a presence of mind about who is here, what they say, how they behave, what their motives appear to be, etc.

This is part of what helps hold a community together. Knowing who the regulars are (whether they be regular positive contributors or regular negative contributors, what topics they are interested in, and so on and so forth).

They are fighting with misdirection and I prefer to fight back with misdirection.

Telling them what you know is the same as telling them what you don't know or misunderstand. They need that feedback. Don't give it to them.

They are fighting with misdirection and I prefer to fight back with misdirection.

I try to avoid misdirecting. I prefer to redirect to something relevant. Different strokes for different follks, I guess?

[deleted]

In 1968 I joined the army. I took their 'infantry officers' test like everyone else and turned in the highest score they had seen in twenty years. My score has gone unmatched and unbeaten.

A penis measuring contest? That's your response?

I don't think you would make a good officer.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?... besides being a not-so-cleverly veiled ad hominem?

And yet, you still encouraged someone to downvote me for participating in a discussion and to upvote you for being a belligerent badass.

It's almost like you're challenging me to a fight... over this? So, we're going to fight each other over the trolls? Not. very. productive.

?

?

I have been here many years, and in the past six months this post accurately describes what is happening. I have also come to the conclusion we need:

1) More rules (start with the basics)

• Anyone berating another individual, GONE

• Anyone slinging mud at the community as a whole, GONE

• Etc

2) Ban anyone violating the rules

An online community cannot exist without rules & enforcements. Every single forum on the internet bans users, and we've opened the flood gates for a shit-storm of uselessness.

[deleted]

I think it's worth a try. The reality is that they will just keep making new accounts as soon as one has been banned. After a while though the trolls will become more recognizable because their accounts will never be more than a few days old. I also think ignoring any blatant forum crashing until they have been removed is the best tactic. We just can't let them get too much of a rise out of us because that's all they want.

Prior to joseph177's comment, the top voted comment was:

I don't think banning people will work.

So, my question is: Do you plan to take this route because you liked it, despite the fact that other, previous commentors/readers had already expressed an implied opposition to it? I don't think that's a very diplomatic approach to implementing rules that can result in a ban.

I used to think that, if people had unlimited reign to do / say whatever they wanted, it would naturally tip towards good. I no longer believe this.

One simple analogy I have, is on MineCraft years ago when it was just multi-player build servers. I loved the idea of multi-player construction, so I would watch servers (without rules) have a dozen people work together to build something, then witness just 1 individual wreck the entire world. Yes, it's mostly kids - but it struck me then, that people need rules otherwise chaos rules.

Anyone claiming censorship doesn't understand how an army of sock puppets are already censoring us. The most insightful comments are buried, turning the comment section into drivel.

We were lucky for a long time, only active truth seekers came here and discussion was the best (in my opinion) here. People were always treated with respect and those that didn't were driven down fast. It has reversed since then.

Anyone claiming censorship doesn't understand how an army of sock puppets are already censoring us.

I wouldn't say "Anyone", but I do agree with the OP's presentation of it that trolls cry censorship in retaliation to having their trollery silenced.

There are no absolutes here. Don't jump from the frying pan into the fire. Banning people for being outspoken would be a Bad Thing^TM , IMO. (EDIT: Outspoken, argumentative, passionate, etc.)

"You guys are nuts" isn't being outspoken, argumentative, passionate or anything useful. Top posts are cluttered with comments that have no use.

As I said, I don't disagree that the trolls (like the comment you mentioned) appeal to "censorship" to defend their activities.

Those types of comments, however, are the easiest ones to downvote and ignore.

And, as I said in another comment, I don't think banning is the appropriate approach.

In your initial comment, you suggested adding more rules, listing two as a starting point, with an implication that it could be expanded. This is the path to fascism.

The OP suggested mass bans. You agreed (to a significant extent, although possibly not completely). And, now you're restricting it to just specific examples. This is "give me an inch, and eventually I'll get the mile initially requested".

Banning isn't the solution. They'll make new accounts and be more subtle about their infiltration the next time through. It's a patch that makes them more effective the next time around.

The solution begins (and could possibly be completed) with: community awareness. Get to know the folks who participate. Accept the fact that there are differences of opinion and ideology and, thus, there will always be conflict

• the anti-Zionists, the racists, and the pro-Zionists all get muddled together because of the freely distributed use of "anti-Semitism" as an allegation

However, there's also:

• the pro-Nuclear lobby vs. the anti-Nuclear lobby who muck about with those trying to discover truths.

• the pro-pharmaceutical lobby vs. the anti-pharmaceutical lobby, etc.

• and so on and so forth...

And they're all very subtle about their infiltration. They participate sufficiently to build nominal credibility as a participant here, so that they're well-positioned to wage war when their respective topics of shillery arise.

Starting down the path of limited censorship because of random trolls (or even troll brigades) is a sure way to continue the path to fascism and outright censorship of dissent.

Trolls exist. Shills exist. NLPs exist.

Learn to think for yourself. <-- if everyone did this, the subreddit would improve.

Look at the this thread and check out how many idiot comments there are (which are up-voted too).

I would announce a new cracking whip that is coming down, useless trolling comments will result in a ban. Warn at first, then make some swift sweeping action. Yeah they will start up new accounts, but those are easy to recognize and squash again.

Banning isn't censorship, it's quality control. I'm all for self responsibility and have been vigorously voting in an attempt to maintain acceptable quality, but we are clearly outnumbered exponentially.

I linked to that in another comment already, I'm fully aware of it.

I would announce a new cracking whip that is coming down, useless trolling comments will result in a ban. Warn at first, then make some swift sweeping action.

tl;dr implement fascism quickly. The trolls won't know what hit them (but neither will the community).

Banning isn't censorship, it's quality control.

Banning is censorship in the name of quality control.

FTFY.

And, it's a very slippery slope. I advise against it.

We've already lost a bunch of top posters, we are going to lose more. Once that happens, the critical mass will be met where this place is the joke of reddit (arguable already is) and the job will be complete. Feel free to sit back and watch. Banning has nothing to do with censorship, the banned can always come back with a new account and message.

We've already lost a bunch of top posters,

I agree. I can name 3 or 4 of them (but won't, because that's a sidetracking of the discussion).

Feel free to sit back and watch.

I said "Think for yourself." I didn't say "sit back and watch". It appears that your method of argumentation is becoming somewhat personalized.

the banned can always come back with a new account and message.

or with a new method and the same message. I've already said this, multiple times.

Banning has nothing to do with censorship,

This is the error in your argument. Trollery is free speech. From a totally neutral perspective, protesters could be viewed as trolling those they're protesting against with their placards and signs each containing a troll remark. The US government has recently implemented "free speech zones" and "prohibition against protest speech when the Secret Service is present".

Each tiny step of censorship is (at the risk of repeating myself AGAIN) a move down the path to fascism.

I said "Think for yourself."

What part of this contains action?

Yes, trolling is a form of free speech, like putting a t-shirt on that says "Fuck All Police" - you are trolling cops.

Each tiny step of censorship is (at the risk of repeating myself AGAIN) a move down the path to fascism.

We are at the complete opposite of the spectrum - chaos. I'm looking to move to middle ground.

What part of this contains action?

The part where you vote on posts/comments based on whether or not they contribute to the exploration/discussion (as opposed to voting for/against an ideology).

We are at the complete opposite of the spectrum - chaos.

Not true. A year ago, this subreddit was completely unmoderated. Now, there are 9 rules in the sidebar, each of which is a potentially ban-able offense (for repeat offenses, I assume), and you're promoting more rules as ban-able offenses... specifically for things which you acknowledge are forms of free speech.

It appears (to me, at least) that you're basically saying "I don't like seeing this type of free speech. Prevent me from having to see it with the force of moderator authority." <-- fascism.

I don't like seeing this type of free speech

I don't like forum crashing, if it keeps up I'll find a new home (or make one myself).

Edit: I get where you are coming from, and I respect your opinion. I see the value in a 'live and let live' attitude (change my perception vs changing things externally).

change my perception vs changing things externally

Equanimity.

Don't let your passion be your undoing. Let go of your emotional influences and you become the change you desire.

I do understand how the sock puppets are censoring us. They have been doing it for hundreds of years. The current attacks help it all make sense but also shows how effective this place is.

Pushing 80k subscribers today, I joined when there were like 30 or 50k I cant remember.

Anyone who comes here by definition has some understanding of sock puppets. That is the nature of visiting conspiracy or alternative truth venues. They come here because they are not sure they are being told the truth.

Let go of the fear that they are effective at all. Sure they are hindering exposure to the main page, but that is not going to work for very long. When good truth gets posted here it get substantially more up votes than the few down votes the haters can muster.

I get attacked on nearly all my posts. They do not respond to me any more, they just down vote. When they respond I keep the conversation going until they are done with me. I do not back down, or worry that they are hurting my truthful statements.

I too like this suggestion, and agree with the sentiment that something fishy is up and something should be done. I think a separate topic discussing these and other potential rules would be a good idea.

Yes!

[deleted]

What about racism? I think that should be bannable.

Who will watch the watchman (singular) while illuminatedwax is absent? They ask for a mile when an inch is all they need to get started. Don't go down this road.

[deleted]

Trust no one.

There are now, and have been for quite some time, people in this subreddit who are experts in the area of Neural Linguistic Programming (NLP). I have, personally, interacted with one such individual (whom I won't name, because they're a member of this subreddit) who has a Masters Degree in that specific field (it's not me, my degree is in Philosophy, for what it's worth).

This is relevant because NLP experts can convince a person that they are acting of their own volition, from thoughts of their own creation, and from their own motivation to do so. Moderators would likely be targets for such activities.

Think for yourself and, I reiterate, trust no one.

philosophy degree

I have an MA in sociology, we should get drinks sometime. In the nw usa by any chance? :)

Nope. Sorry. It would be interesting talk, I'm sure. I minored in sociology.

I think paying attention in negative spirit gives the opponent more power than its worth. You embolden and empower the ignorant by giving their posts credit when deleting or even responding.

Leave it up do not ban, reply only by stating the negative tone of their post is destructive and not worth their time. Demoralize them by not allowing their work to get a reaction.

Don't feed the trolls is the best policy. Banning people would restrict the information flow. You can learn from the negative hate filled name callers and willfully ignorant posters. You can learn what you are up against and to restrict it would be hindering the overall health of the individuals. People need to see as much information as possible to make up their minds.

One by one we come to the realization of the scope and magnitude of the deceit we have lived most of our lives in. It is unbelievable, it is scary, it is the truth and we all get their based on our own personal level of investigation, open mindedness and personal ability to reason what makes sense with all the info.

I am opposed to all forms of censorship, cliques and shutting out people who do not yet agree. Behaving like this is the same problem we are fighting. We should use opposite strategy of acceptance, honesty, inclusion, and willingness to allow dissent from people who are trying to fight the truth.

allow dissent

Dissent is encouraged. Being a dick and using sockpuppets to dominate the discussion is not dissent.

I agree in principle, but people have to figure out who the sockpuppets are on their own. It is not hard, you just have to spend a small amount of time looking.

It took me less than a year to realize. Thanks to the mass of information in places like this.

It is not hard, you just have to spend a small amount of time looking.

According to the HB Gary emails from Anonymous, software exists that allows one person to control up to 500 unique accounts.

I don't think we can spot them all, and even if we can, they will just reregister.

What we need to do is start banning obvious trolls, and whatever else the community decides.

I will accept whatever happens. The schills were a part of the crystallization process that shows how true the community is. When you get attacked it shows you are threat to the status quo. That is proof enough that the truth is under attack by the liars.

I know it feels overwhelming and seems like something that should be done. My work experience in media left me some wisdom on this type of human behavior. Perhaps my unique experience is what allows me to see through the attacks and realize they are not at all valid discourse.

Banning will signal the account holders to create new accounts while allowing posts to aggregate under each username will allow people to look at the post history and make up their minds.

This is just my unique opinion and may be only appropriate for people like me to find truth. I do not think I am that unique, so I assume this is the best way to allow people to find the reality in life.

Something needs to be done, trial it for a week.

Include the no downvoting allowed.

Your the mod take some action.

I think we should look at truereddit's example.

Shitposts aren't tolerated. Please explain your downvotes. Please explain your upvotes. Comments that promote intellectual conversation should be rewarded while name calling or dismissive comments should be downvoted.

It isn't difficult to have a conversation with someone you disagree with, without calling them a nutcase or anti Semitic.

I don't think we should ban every time someone slips up, but if an account is obviously here to cause shit then YES WE SHOULD BAN.

Crossposting to another subreddit to prop up your opinion shouldn't be tolerated. Crossposting without intent to flood conspiracy with like minded individuals should be okay.

Jokes should be okay as long as they aren't mocking users. Example : Todd Akin reveals himself as a reptilian overlord when he slips up and tells the world about his wife's magic self aborting vagina.

Bad jokes would be as example : tttttottttt has been dipping into grandpa Hitler's schnapps again.

Is there a way through reddithax to require a response before an upvote or downvote can be cast? That would almost be ideal.

And for the record: I am totally cool with jokes and "extreme" points of view as long as they are expressed with some level of positive intent. For instance, I would be very sad if Bumblingmumbling was banned, even though I pretty well disagree with everything (s)he says.

I don't know about reddithax but how it works in truereddit is tue users you see actively explaining every vote they make tend to be held in higher esteem by the community at large. And it tends to generate more conversation instead of an army of voters who quickly skim every comment and vote without anyone knowing why.

Obviously votes are still thrown around there without an explanation, but it makes it pretty obvious when something is being gamed intensely.

This has the possibility for abuse, but I sort of agree.

I can never tell anymore if the "It was the Jews" posts are from people in this forum or agitators.

I'd much prefer an environment in which casual conversation is possible.

It might be my imagination, but this place does seem a bit more shrill of late.

The folks claiming 'its the jews fault' are shills. I see them all over other conspiracy blogs. They even link each other for crying out loud

Well you might want to ask 9000SINS as to why he happily bans members from the /r/conspiratard site (Even those who hardly ever post on /r/conspiracy) and yet happily allows obviously anti-semetic people to continue posting with impunity.

[deleted]

What does 'ploy 4 goy' mean?

[deleted]

to get any discussion or even any mention of anything to do with Jews that is in any way negative banned forever and completely.

Huge push for this stuff in recent weeks all over the globe, it seems. Germany has had laws about it for quite some time, Canada recently passed a law about it (Canada being where that Bishop lives, btw). California recently passed a law about it. The DNC recently included specific reference to it under the oversight of a Jewish Chairwoman.

They want us to pretend it's not happening though.

From looking at your comment history, cant tell if youre a ss nazi

This is a subreddit about conspiracies, not a sub about religious tolerance and/or race relations.

And the simple fact is there is a conspiracy that revolves around the Jewish community which makes it a valid topic of conversation.

Why would a mod of conspiracy ban people from conspiratard??? OMG THATS OUTRAGEOUS! /s. Are you kidding me? Are you seriously fighting for your rights to troll people you don't agree with? Conspiratard was born specifically to to rain negativity down upon the conspiracy theorists.

Lastly I would like to thank you for proving there are people who want to silence any discussion about Zionist and Zionism.

I agree that many are shills, but I don't know how many.

Very few of the woo-woo / conspiracy people I've met in real life have ever been anti-semitic. I'm trying to think of an example and I'm having a hard time remembering one. I'm sure I must've met one somewhere, but I can't remember. The most vocal are certainly on the internet and since I can't verify that they exist outside of the internet I don't really know that they exist anywhere outside of . . . the internet.

I can't really take them seriously beyond pointing out their faulty logic. If you think about it, blaming the wrong group is really uncool for a lot of reasons. 1.) You're demonizing a group that is not participating and 2.) you're letting the real perps get off scot-free!

I'd like to think you're right that they're all shills.

It's be easier for me to deal with psychologically.

Some are misled reddit users but from my personal experience from various conspiracy forums, common themes arise like the 'zionist conspiracy' that seems to be pushed to readers. youre spot on with your comments, btw.

[deleted]

1.) I've been on this for years, bro. This is a life path for me.

2.) Memorizing data is not the same as understanding data. Ya dig?

http://youtu.be/-fHmWcRZ72A

There are a reason you don't meet people who have any issues with Jews IRL...they are forced to hide behind a username or will face reprisals!

Hell, as a Jew (by birth...not in practice) even I have to hide to call out "my own people" or I'd probably be killed. Maybe not killed, but you get what I mean.

The Jew is the 1000lb gorilla in the room...nobody's gonna say a word in public. Until the world (including yours truly) gets some balls and steps up to these people nothing will change in this world.

And when, not if but WHEN, this finally does change I really don't want to be associated with the Jews that are bringing the world to its knees. We are not, by any means, all like this!

1.) "The Jews" are not bringing the world down to its knees.

2.) You can't be 'born a Jew.' Judaism is a religion / beliefset. It is not a genetic code. If you have a last name like "Schultz" or "Bergmanstein" or whatever all that means is that you're Ashkenazi. Not Jewish. In order to be Jewish you have to believe in God, go to temple and readthe Tanakh. If you don't do all of the previous three things then you're not Jewish. You're simply Ashkenazi - which is genetic.

3.) Yes, they should be ashamed of being bigots. If they shouted anti-semitic stuff in my coffee shop I'd tell them to settle fuck down or leave. I often forget that there are those in this species that have not left the stone age. I'm reminded frequently with bullshit like "Jew World Order."

4.) Please don't take any of this personally. This is not directed at you. I just find this situation to be a little upsetting. When I say I have a lot of Ashkenazi friends what I mean is - I have a lot of Ashkenazi friends. Where I live this is simply the case. I find it difficult to witness at times because I see the latent paranoia of being "a known Jew." 90% of the time it's no big deal, but there's still a lot of under-the-radar bigotry and any focus on this - especially in the 'truth community' - is a godamn shame. If anything we have an obligation to get well past such petty things as racism. Especially when you consider that not all Jews are in on it. There are no code books, secret meeting hallls, special mind melds or whatever and I really bothers me that this forum has any people who entertain such ideas. I really do wish that one of the rules of this forum was 'no anti-semites.' It's okay to hate on Zionists because they operate with force, violence and manipulation toward a political agenda that dehumanizes others. But some poor old woman with the last name of Witzman is not the fucking enemy. She's just some old woman and should be left alone.

. . . I haven't had my morning coffee.

I take objection with number two to an extent, you're right that there is no such thing as a genetic Jew (unless you believe the "Khazar" urban legends:P) but Judaism and Jewish Culture are two different paths, Jewish scholars have always seen their kind as a cultural group first and a religous/philosophical group second. Not that this means much, as you say, since ethnicities are either self-adopted or projected upon a population ("a social construction").

I like your point #4, Zionism is a nationalist movement, that in simplified terms ,states that Jews, who have long been subjected to the nationalist whims of others deserve their own homeland and Zionism neither speaks nor intends to speak for the entirety of Judaism as a religon or Jewish Culture(in fact get 4 Rabbis in the room to discuss the nauances of Zionist philosophy and you're bound to get a 4-way fistfight.)

The fastest way to derail a conversation is when a commentator conflates anti-zionist or anti-nationalist rhetoric with cultural bigotry, the conversation instantly turns into a debate about semantics. Same goes with anti-Israeli comments.

However, Anti-Zionist commentary often is intentionally alluding to anti-semetic (using the common meaning of this word, not the etymological geneology that pendantic commentors like to bring up) rhetoric such as conflating Jewish stereotypes to zionist(as you mentioned with "-stein phobia"), when the line between Jews and Zionist are blurred or when anti-zionist rhetoric is used in defense of another Ethnic-Nationalist movement (looking at you islamist and whites-righters!)

I'll respond by paragraph. (I'm sorry that I never figured out how to use the 'quotation' tags.)

1.) I understand what you mean: you're referring more to culture.

Culture is also not genetic. It's a mental object and not a physical object.

Even if we go into epigenetics I would still argue that an infant has no decision-making regarding what's being imposed on it. That is to say, the infant does not find itself agreeing with other humans simply due to proximity. Infants are incapable of understanding anythig more complex than a burp - which is also probably a stretch.

I'm not saying that to make fun of your position or you. I'm only saying that this is where I'm coming from. I rejected my own culture (true story). It was not ingrained into my genetic code.

2.) That's what it is according to wikipedia and every person I've talked to who has studied it.

I'm now of the opinion that the most cynical Zionists (psychopathic politicians / businessmen who donn a kippah without really giving a shit or believing in anything) hide behind Judaism [which they do not believe]. That is to say, they do whatever they wish and then when called to task they simply say, "you're an anti-semite." This is only possible with the physical / visual cues of the kippah and a kind of general race / look / people.

I wish to stress - I think this is all bollucks, but people buy it. They buy it because it kinda sorta makes sense if you only glaze over it and don't examine it.

The overlaps confuse the issue and if you run into a demogogue you may as well just go home.

The topic can be a bit confabulating. Even when discussing amongst friends who agree with each other.

3.) Yeah. I try not to open the can of worms. Clearly, in this thread and a couple others, that can was opened, poured out and we're still poking at the contents.

What a way to test the old patience, huh?

4.) I completely agree. Which is why I find the topic so upsetting.

I stick to this: if you blame the wrong group the real perps get away. By blaming the Jews we're vilifying the wrong group and allowing the real bad guys free reign - literally.

It's strange; the whole topic becomes so clear when you do a lot of research and simply apply good old fashioned Greek Logic. It's also strange that when you learn enough you even get to find your old mis-steps and foibles amusing and cute. For a couple days I had a hard time refuting the anti-semite stuff. No kidding. (This was back in my Jordan Maxwell days) That's when I went back to all of my philosophy and logic training. Suddenly the whole thing was crystal clear. I realized that I was being had. Hence my [relatively] new opinion that the Zionist movement uses anti-semitism as a shield.

Which is horrible.

Think about this: all of the Zionist Jews who are supporting these bastards are playing into a dastardly plot. They're unwittingly participating in very bad policies. They're also serving as a kind of 'meat shield' for anyone who questions the Zionist agenda. In a way, if you stop and think about it, it's quite clever and if this level of thought were used for good you could get some cool shit done. It's too bad this level of planning is being used for bad.

Well, I'm off to have some more coffee and lighten the mental load.

I need some nice non-threatening fart-jokes.

P.S. Speaking of logic, you might find this amusing:

1A.) Not all Jews are Ashkenazi (Sephardic)

1B.) Not all Ashkenazi are Jews (athesits)

2A.) Not all Ashkenazi are Zionist (most of my Ashkenazi friends)

2B.) Not all Zionists are Ashkenzi (a large portion of D.C. comes to mind)

3A.) Not all Zionists are Jews (London / Vatican)

3B.) Not all Jews are Zionists (Neturei Karta, anyone?)

Oh, thought you might be interested in this:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664

1.)

A.) Claims made by newspapers are spurious in my mind. That rag has an agenda behind it and sowing the seeds of racism is not good in my mind. They're throwing gasoline on the fire. If you want to belive them that's fine. I don't.

B.) They're confusing Judaism with genetic codes.

You cannot be born with a beliefset. Judaism is a beliefset. It's a mental object. Not a physical object.

2.)

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

Yeah. Being 'Ashkenazi' is a thing. I do agree with that.

You are obviously ill informed.

Judaism is a matrilinear culture. My mom is a Jew, hence I am also. Whether I observe it or not Israeli "right of return" laws specify that I am indeed Jewish. Sorry.

I should have bee more clear...Zionists are bringing this country to its knees, not Jews. Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews.

Uh yeah. I said this back when you were giving up mod. Dude, we need to bring the hammer down on shit talking. Then if the person wants back in they can ask to be heard. I'll volunteer again to start to help deal with this.

I always browse 'new' in r/conspiracy, so I get to see all posts.
And I pay no attention to karma in this subreddit due to obvious manipulation.

reddit as a whole has had a massive influx of new users, and is becoming less and less appealing as more and more people join.
But, as it's influence grows, desire to direct that influence grows with it.

In other words, reddit is too popular now.

^ This guy gets it.

I always browse 'new' in r/conspiracy, so I get to see all posts. And I pay no attention to karma in this subreddit due to obvious manipulation.

In your preferences, set your voting thresholds to "blank", to see all of the posts and comments.

as it's influence grows, desire to direct that influence grows with it.

and the methods and tactics evolve with that growth, as well. (How many times has the US government lied about what it is and/or isn't doing to the US citizenry?)

In other words, reddit is too popular now.

It's rapidly becoming the new myspace/facebook/etc.

So, ... what's the solution? Is it possible to create a new model? A new paradigm for information sharing, which cannot be subverted?

What if r/bdsmcommunity had a dedicated group of outsiders who followed popular posts and replied, collectively, "you are all sick and delusional", and then circle-jerk upvoted each other?

The difference being that /r/bdsmcommunity and /r/Lego do not make up outrageous theories without proof, accuse others of things like mass murder and genocide or call for revolution.

Don't tell me you don't believe in the megablockanati that want to subvert and destroy our Lego sets?

do not make up outrageous theories without proof

This accuses the entire community of this. Sorry, Gulf of Tonkin, Ollie North, Iran-Contra etc etc etc all get discussed here and they are all very real verifiable things. You are debasing the community based on your preconceived notion of us.

accuse others of things like mass murder and genocide

I don't understand what the issue with this is. I am pretty sure anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Requests for evidence should be pretty standard. The issue, again, that you are avoiding, is decorum and tone.

call for revolution

Why does this matter? First, in the USA, we have the freedom of speech, and specifically the REQUEST to revolt in the presence of totalitarianism.

If this subreddit was an organizational tool only for violent overthrow of the government, you would have a sliver of a point.

As it stands, you don't have anything to say.

I can sum up your whole post in one sentence.

YOU GUIZE ARE CRAZY SO IT IS OK TO SILENCE YOU

Please re-read my entire post and try to understand why this sort of reply should be avoided, and why posts like this should be removed.

call for revolution

Why does this matter? First, in the USA, we have the freedom of speech, and specifically the REQUEST to revolt in the presence of totalitarianism.

Libertarians and conspiracy theorists are the two groups that often discuss 'revolution" in their respected subs.

It's not a coincidence that the EPS/conspiratard people go after only these 2 groups.

I never said literally every submission and poster in this subreddit is incorrect, and I made no attempt at all to silence anyone.

But it think it is perfectly legitimate to point to trends in the community as a whole. All I'm saying is, when at times half your front page is filled with thinly-veiled antisemitism, when grand conspiracies are discussed and taken to be true without any evidence whatsoever, and when a significant number of people believe in aliens, free energy, "alternative" medicine, the occult and other such nonsense, don't be surprised when people call you out and ridicule you.

You act all high and mighty defending your freedom of speech to accuse others of crimes against humanity based on a gut feeling, but somehow reasonable people calling you crazy (in your words, I might add) is a grave offense which you can't bear and need to be protected from.

And honestly, often there simply is no real discussion to be had. You can blather all you want about how you are valiant awakened truth-seekers, seeing through the lies of "TPTB", but most of you don't give a shit about evidence and truth. For a conspiracy to believed, it's sufficient when it sounds like something a cartoonishly evil secret organization would do, when someone remotely related to it is Jewish, or if some barely tangible connection can be made to some other organization or event.

your front page

Are you a member of this community or not?

If yes, you should change your language to include yourself.

If no, see your way out.

I don't submit anything, and I don't usually vote on submissions here, so I have no influence on this subreddit's frontpage.

And I really hope you see the irony in you being the only one here trying to silence anyone. Good thing you add so much to the discussion.

stop silencing dissenting opinions

This is about decorum, not censorship.

[deleted]

Asking for proof can be done without being an asshole.

Not sure how you missed that. I mention multiple times (did you read?) that this is about tone and approach, not requests for more information.

Asking for proof can be done without being an asshole.

I agree, for the most part. However,...

I mention multiple times (did you read?) that this is about tone and approach

I think your parenthetical destroyed that argument.

Be the change you want to see.

Be the change you want to see.

This is a really good point.

I suppose I am, obviously, frustrated that so many posters have attacked us/this discussion using exactly the tactics I predicted. It is like they are not even trying...

I have diligently remained on my one point of focus. Banning (large masses of banning, as proposed by you and others) is not the solution. This will result in them improving their game. Why encourage them to improve their game? Why not expose it... via community awareness... instead? This is, and always has been, my point. Nothing more, nothing less.

expose it... via community awareness

I don't know if you fully understand how, well, impotent this would be. In my opinion and experience, anything posted to expose it is buried in minutes, and the shit posts get upvoted immediately.

We cannot fight astroturf bots with simple information. They upvote shite.

We need to remove the shite.

I guess I am not opposed to banning users because it works in other subs. r/science for instance, has a zero-tolerance policy for trolling and shit posting.

While I completely see your point of view, I don't know what else would "work" against this.

While I completely see your point of view, I don't know what else would "work" against this.

I, however, do know what will work against it, but... much like you said...

anything posted to expose it is buried in minutes,

This happened.... in a far bigger way than I've ever seen in my entire time on reddit. Why? Because my proposal went after all of them at once, so all of them buried my proposal at once.

Now, I won't even discuss it unless and until the community specifically requests it.

Related.

I like the cut of your jib.

Can you imagine if that website could be focused and semi-automated to patrol r/conspiracy? Just something to think about.

alien in a jacket

This is a really wonderful tool you have here. Thanks.

[deleted]

you are simply a little bitch

Reported for abusive language.

[deleted]

I am not worried about heated argument or solitary trolls.

The issue remains co-ordinated discussion manipulation.

[deleted]

Really?

BING?

REALLY!?

I really hate how sensitive r/conspiracy is. You guys act open minded but if someone asks for evidence or questions anything (oh my god) they're a shill for the reptilian Illuminati shill vampires Jews If you dont agree with me YOU'RE DISINFO AGENT SHILL FORUM CRASHER!!!

1. Debases entire community.

2. Completely misses the point about manners.

3. Draws spurious connections to easily dismissable pop conspiracy concepts.

4. Attempts to change the subject from decorum to silencing dissenting thought.

5. Dismisses and distances self from entire subreddit - "you guys" rather than "we".

I do come here to read all the wacky things you guys write. But i never take them seriously like you guys do or get butthurt that some one doesnt agree with me that reptilians live in the hollow earth with space nazis. "Debases entire community."

As i said....you guys take yourselves wayyy to seriously.

never take them seriously

Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin, and the connections the CIA had to drugs are discussed here, and all are real, verifiable things. Hell, sometimes we talk about how GM bought up amd shut down the rail cars nationwide.

Maybe you should take some of it seriously? I understand coming here for entertainment value - but in that case your input is unnecessary.

This is r/conspiracy. I come here to talk about conspiracies. Crashers and Shit Posters come here to deny conspiracies exist. This is not the subreddit for that, and these posters should be removed. Telling the total population of this reddit "no yr wrong" is not dissenting opinion, it is oppositional defiance schoolboy bullshit. (I am not even mad).

So, are all conspiracies true? Or just some of them? Is the purpose of the subreddit not to determine which are real?

There is a difference between heated discussion and forum crashing.

This has nothing to do with truth or proof, it has to do with attitude.

Stop changing the subject.

Last I checked you are framing the subject out of it's true context.

People that disagree with you aren't saying conspiracies don't exist. They are saying your conspiracy doesn't exist. It's quite the difference really. Is there some reason you can't notice that difference?

9/11 really has nothing to do with James Holmes, so I'm not sure where you get the ridiculous notion that every conspiracy is true and worthy of equivalent discussion.

People that disagree with you

This has nothing to do with disagreement. For instance, you have posted a pretty well thought out statement of disagreement. I value and welcome your input. You are welcome to deny any thing you wish.

The issue (that I think you have missed) is with decorum and tone. For instance, I would argue that when you say

9/11 really has nothing to do with James Holmes, so I'm not sure where you get the ridiculous notion that every conspiracy is true and worthy of equivalent discussion.

you are intentionally conflating two different and distinct "conspiracies" and seemingly accusing me of believing they are related.

ridiculous notion that every conspiracy is true and worthy of equivalent discussion

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. This is a perfect example of the forum crashing I am describing. Rather than actually speak to me, you are building a strawman that is easy for you to burn.

Secondarily, whether or not a conspiracy is worthy of discussion is not up to me, or to you. It is up to those who wish to discuss it. Oddly enough, if people are discussing something I have no interest or understanding of, I don't post.

You are arguing that if you personally don't like an idea, no one should be able to discuss it.

You are arguing that if you personally don't like an idea, no one should be able to discuss it.

This could not be further from the truth. I'm arguing that if I don't like an idea, there is nothing wrong with expressing the notion. I've been called a shill for saying "that doesn't make sense". If saying "that doesn't make sense' is off-limits in a conspiracy forum then something is wrong.

I'm arguing that if I don't like an idea, there is nothing wrong with expressing the notion.

I have never stated otherwise.

This is about forum crashing, not disagreement.

This is about forum crashing, not disagreement.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but a lot of people have trouble telling the difference.

What if r/science had a dedicated group of outsiders who followed popular posts and replied, collectively, "the scientific method is a myth and you are all crazy" and circle-jerk upvoted each other?

That group made their own sub and called it r/conspiracy.

LOL.

I don't get why this is funny. It is an outright lie.

Fuck you, honestly.

Show me any evidence that members of this reddit troll r/science.

Also, r/science has a strict no trolls rule, so it wouldn't even fly.

But note: you have debased this entire subreddit as "anti-science", just as I suggested you would.

Try harder.

It was more of a comment on how many in this sub reject things like facts and evidence when it goes against what they know to be true.

you have debased this entire subreddit as "anti-science

Actually I didn't. I implied that a subset of posters doesn't give a damn about evidence / the scientific method / proof. How else do you explain them getting so pissed when they are given evidence they are wrong?

I implied that a subset of posters doesn't give a damn about evidence / the scientific method / proof.

Actually, you stated outright that this subreddit was founded by that subset.

[deleted]

No but plenty in r/conspiracy launch downvote attacks against posts in r/conspiracy because they dare to post verifiable evidence instead of baseless speculation.

In a world full of lies, speculation is an asset.

Science is not valid in a world of corruption. "double blind, peer reviewed" is basically just as full of lies as religions. Corporatocracy and Government do not allow science to occur.

See Tesla, See Cannabis, See the Federal Reserve and the nonsense economists of the modern day. Yes they tell very elaborate well backed up lies and do not allow truth to be studied.

Well done. You've created a reality where absolutely everything (and I mean everything) is now both true and false - simultaneously - and there are no longer any means of verifying what is and what isn't.

If that's the world you wanted, you can have it...

lol, I used to think that. The truth is that we all live in the world where both sides of the conversation are full of lies and the truth is shunned and called names.

When you come to terms with that you will see the actual truth that liars will not give you evidence they are lying.

The idea that nothing is true or false is classic philosophy, and could be applied metaphorically to quantum physics.

My point is that such a worldview is not unhealthy or uncommon.

[deleted]

Simply put a great many people in this sub downvote anyone who disagrees with them no matter how correct they are. It is really sad in a way.

[deleted]

r/conspiracy frontpage?

[deleted]

www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy

Ok I went to your link and saw no evidence of coordinated trolling of r/science. Can you cite more specific examples?

Is there an anti-vaccine link on there yet?

I am still waiting for your proof.

About what? That r/conspiracy doesn't like science?

No, that r/conspiracy trolls r/science.

Its very existence is a troll.

A lack of scientific understanding by one or several members of this sub is not a co-ordinated troll attack against r/science.

Again, please provide examples of evidence of co-ordinated trolling.

You are leveling allegations with zero evidence.

This reminds me of a comment of my own. Well said, roboticpressure. Now will anyone do anything?

While I appreciate the points you raised in that comment, I see a flaw in this one.

If you own a McDonald's and every day some dude buys food at the Burger King next door, only to bring it into your dining room to eat it, is it censorship to tell him to knock it off?

If he does this because he eats with the same group of friends who like Mickey-D's food, but he does not, then yes. I'd say that would be analogous to censorship (you can't eat with your friends if you don't eat the same food they're eating).

The analogy being: What if this guy primarily comments in r/conspiracy with reasoned (but opposing) input in friendly discussions with friends he has here?

This reminds me of the loss of MRuppert's posting of his own material (from endthelie.com) because he was repeatedly accused of blogspamming this subreddit. Shame.

You say you see a flaw, but you had to create it yourself for it to be there:

If he does this because he eats with the same group of friends who like Mickey-D's food, but he does not, then yes. I'd say that would be analogous to censorship (you can't eat with your friends if you don't eat the same food they're eating).

I said some dude, not some dude in a group of his friends. I have watched you try to counter every argument for banning here. I have been on the internet long enough to remember when there were no trolls. There were flames and flame-bait, but nothing at all like what we see here. Now, we have reached the lowest common denominator with the internet. This means moderation is not only a good idea, it's imperative. It is not at all difficult to pick out those that have no purpose but to disrupt. I have moderated BBSes, forums, chatrooms, email lists, YOU NAME IT. Those that disrupt as a rule should be banned. No argument will convince me otherwise. Let them go make new accounts and ban those too. It keeps them busy while the conversations actually get to move forward, not STOP like it is now.

Then again, I know what's actually going on here. It's beyond obvious now. Edward Bernays is creaming in his dead jeans right now.

I have watched you try to counter every argument for banning here.

I do not deny that. I am opposed to increasing the number of rules which can result in a ban, especially when the newly suggested rules pertain to types of expression. I strongly believe that community awareness is the better solution.

You said "some dude" without clarification. I clarified where it was a potential flaw (potential).

Those that disrupt as a rule should be banned. No argument will convince me otherwise.

I disagree.

I have moderated BBSes, forums, chatrooms, email lists, YOU NAME IT.

I have, as well. And I agree that the most extreme offenders should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (I've never argued against that). But this discussion is about implementing policies to ban large numbers of people. Different ball of wax.

You said "some dude" without clarification. I clarified where it was a potential flaw (potential).

You are being intellectually dishonest. You created a hole in one bit of a much larger point. To what purpose? Cui bono? You are focusing on a detail that is irrelevant as an argument. This is not at all worth my time. Good day.

Edit: Stupid Q.

To what purpose?

I explained this in my previous comment. Banning isn't the solution. Community awareness is.

Good day, to you, as well.

I just realized that by doing a mass banning of assholes we'll inadvertantly get their interest. They only find this amusing so long as we pay attention to them. If we simply ignore them they have no power and no reason to stay. If we start banning them they'll find this to be an amusing game in which the point is to generate as many accounts as needed so as to continually disrupt this sub.

I'm not saying banning is good or bad.

I'm only saying that this is something that could pop up.

no power

I respectfully disagree on this point. They have and use coordinated vote attacks and bury topics and destroy discussion. I consider this power, and power that is actively harming us.

I understand your point and even agree with it.

My only point is that they will only do this as long as it amuses them.

I feel as though I must discuss my opinion on the matter: I think these are unpaid trolls. I used to do this in YouTube years ago. Anyone remember RKOwens4 or EdgemanLL2? Back when RKOwens4 still allowed discussion on his YouTube channel (he has stopped - I assume because he's had so many non-supportive comments) I'd have page long arguments with him and his supporters. This would be in multiple videos. I'd have four arguments going at a time. I'd come home with excitement about well-thought-out rebuttals. (I now find this to be an embarrassing admission) I was unpaid. I did this because it felt important at the time. This is the normal feeling of righteous indignation that one experiences during the first rush of knowledge at discovering that 9/11 is a lie.

Coming back to our own forum I'm of the opinion that the trolls are very likely in a similar psychological state as I was back at that time. I found myself less and less interested once I realized that I wasn't going to change minds. If I'm correct that these trolls in this forum are unpaid douche-bags then the only thing keeping them here is the amusement factor.

I could be wrong.

If I'm wrong then the banning doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

So I have no real vote to cast or flag to wave.

I wish to stress - I feel you, bro. This sub has been strange lately.

sorted by: old

There is no way this sub will survive the onslaught unless we lock it down with trusted, approved submitters that are willing to work their asses off. Almost a collection of community voted gatherers sent out to bring back trustworthy news.

Isn't the whole point to discuss theories? Rather than have a circle jerk with people who believe exactly the same thing as you?

Someone arguing with a September 11th Truther re. thermite explosives is not comparable to someone going on r/bdsm and saying you are all sick perverts and should die.

Isn't this whole subreddit about challenging conventional beliefs and having a free and honest debate.

This is not about discussion or disagreement, it is about decorum and tone.

I would agree. I do not believe the way to convince someone you are right is best done by insulting them and I try not too and there is a lot of vitriol thrown about on this subreddit and its arch nemesis r/conspiratard that I do not agree with. I just do not want to shut down what could be seen as a passionate exchanges of views

On a lighter note, I loved your three amigos reference!

Resistance is futile. You cannot stop an idea whose time has come.

"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you Then they fight you. Then you win"

The whole conspiracy, truth seeking community is like a Truth Workers Union.

Just keep telling the truth and shake off the willful ignorance of the few who attack. People generally do not listen to people who are assholes, people who continue to be assholes almost certainly will lose their audience in due time. People will get sick of their venom and start defending us. It just takes time for the whole process to play out.

Doesn't seem like it's that big a problem, really. The odd post is targeted by a swarm of trolls, but doesn't seem to affect most polls. Ignore the peanut gallery. I post in subreddits where I'd be considered, by most, the one who should be banned so I appreciate moderators being light-handed.

[deleted]

The motivation to ignore, with me, comes not from politeness but contempt: someone who isn't willing to be reasonable is acting like a child and don't deserve my time (unless I'm in the mood for laying the boots to them verbally, in which case I'm getting enjoyment in exchange for the time spent).

[deleted]

I really don't understand the perspective of the younger generations, I'm 62. Your theory sounds confused and lofty.

I've been using internet style communication since the late 80s and my troll handling has evolved thus. It's not lofty, just practical. I'm not a pacifist like most in younger generations: I believe in the necessity of violence and aggression in the world given where humanity is at. I simply veer, online, towards what is effective for my time and my communication impact. Sometime's it's fun and possible useful to spar with trolls. Sometimes it's a waste of time. I know the difference now, whereas in the past I didn't.

I concede that I will not change their minds, and they won't change mine either.

Yup. Most of the time you don't change people's minds, but sometimes you learn something when debating.

I'm not interested in educating the riff raff. I just want to help run them out of this sub, without spending much time on them.

I guess I don't see them causing a big problem. It's like hearing a dog barking outside. Mildly distracting occasionally. I'm pretty confident in my views so when someone challenges them it's not that traumatic.

Using the ? in comments is to answer without giving an answer. It is an answer where they can't win and I can't lose. I concede that I will not change their minds, and they won't change mine either.

You're incredibly confused. Discussions are not about 'winning' or 'losing' they're about exchanging beliefs/ideas.

That said its telling that in absence of a credible, compelling argument, you put a '?' and think you've somehow 'won'.

I wish someone would make a r/meta-conspiracy. That way those that want to can talk about r/conspiracy without actually clogging up r/conspiracy.

al-sigh...

This is a problem that cannot be remedied by running away from it.

I'm not saying run away from it. Take it somewhere else so it isn't clogging this subreddit.

I guess I misunderstood who you were talking about. But, then again, doesn't that already exist?

Well, not really. Nothing gets done there but make fun of posts here.

I'm not saying what I said in my above post to offend anyone. I just think it would be nice if the meta-gaming took place somewhere else.

You are a crazy faggot. Lol. This subreddit is full of dumb people. Haha.

/sorry couldnt resist!

I'm confused. You didn't use Bob Dole speak. WTF?

Did you even read his post? I just copy/pasted from it.

Shit man, you all need to get a sense of humor.

I didn't downvote you, for what it's worth. I caught the sarcasm. Not sure why you're targeting me for your incredulity.

No but plenty in r/conspiracy launch downvote attacks against posts in r/conspiracy because they dare to post verifiable evidence instead of baseless speculation.

I think the downvote brigades can be slowed by removing downvoting on the subreddit, I've seen it done in some boards and it seems to keep the health of the community in check.

This works in smaller communities which don't have a lot of problems in the first place (if they do, they're relatively small problems as compared to larger subreddits).

It would never work here, because the ones doing the downvoting will (if they haven't already) simply choose not to allow custom style sheets in their preferences - re-enabling the downvote.

Comment trolls should be ignored completely, no replies means no attention, that'll piss them off at first, but after a while they'll give up.

This is true for the lone-wolf trolls, but not for the troll-brigade types. For example, the OP referenced this post in his statement about Shit Posting

The second tactic, related to the first, is Shit Posting. "SOURCE?", posted, for instance, by 10 different accounts at the same time and all with the same number of upvotes.

As you'll see, if you follow that link, that was a brigade, not an individual troll. A troll brigade makes themselves and their input highly visible so that it cannot be ignored. A related example of this was the overt and, for a long time unchecked, invasions from r/subredditdrama. After a few crackdowns on their participants, they've simply gone "underground" (read and comment in r/subredditdrama with one username, crash the party at the linked post with another username). In my opinion, this seems to be the new method for all variety of party-crasher trolls, nowadays. They've learned (or are learning) to manage multiple accounts with great efficacy. I'm not saying it's "bad" to have multiple accounts, because there are a great many valid reasons to have more than one. Rather, it's what you're actually DOING with those accounts that matters. And, it the case of this particular discussion, trolling seems to be the "doing" part that is relevant.

If the behavior continues, then banning and contacting reddit's main administrators for assistance should clear these idiots from ruining the community and website.

I've tried contacting the admins about problematic users many times. They seem to have a policy (which they do endeavor to stand fast about) of not intervening in the management of subreddits in any way. Including this particular annoying problem.

lol, I used to think that. The truth is that we all live in the world where both sides of the conversation are full of lies and the truth is shunned and called names.

When you come to terms with that you will see the actual truth that liars will not give you evidence they are lying.

The idea that nothing is true or false is classic philosophy, and could be applied metaphorically to quantum physics.

My point is that such a worldview is not unhealthy or uncommon.