Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
john2443 said:
Someone on Facebook said:
Long list of probably fake stats,
Summary - electric vehicles use more resources than ICE because of the materials that have to be mined and electricity they use that's generated from coal, not to mention the kittens that are killed by wind turbines.
Summary - electric vehicles use more resources than ICE because of the materials that have to be mined and electricity they use that's generated from coal, not to mention the kittens that are killed by wind turbines.
Someone replying on Facebook said:
It's not about being green it's about controlling us.
coldel said:
They
Its such a powerful word in the world of a CT. When you read the evidence presented, instead of citing an individual, or a definable group, its simply taken back to 'They'
It allows spurious accusations to be made, based on nothing more than internet chatter, and quote it as fact. As that cannot be fact checked.
But who are They?
WEF I hear people shout. The Government, follows another. Is it an individual in the WEF, or is it a group, who is it? What happens when people get other jobs, do they continue looking to control people or do they just give it up? What happens when Labour unseats the Tories later this year, does Starmer have a weekend away with Rishi where they have a hand over of the 'controlling them' documentation?
It's natural, humans are tribal. There's a ubiquitous 'us and them' scenario that plays out across all aspects of society. There appears to be a deep seated psychological need to be in a team or group who share a certain type of thinking or behaviour. A conspiracy theorist who believes the moon is made of cheese and it's being covered up by NASA/government for example will naturally use 'they' to refer to this perceived homogeneous blob that they see as oppressing the truth, rather than certain individuals.Its such a powerful word in the world of a CT. When you read the evidence presented, instead of citing an individual, or a definable group, its simply taken back to 'They'
It allows spurious accusations to be made, based on nothing more than internet chatter, and quote it as fact. As that cannot be fact checked.
But who are They?
WEF I hear people shout. The Government, follows another. Is it an individual in the WEF, or is it a group, who is it? What happens when people get other jobs, do they continue looking to control people or do they just give it up? What happens when Labour unseats the Tories later this year, does Starmer have a weekend away with Rishi where they have a hand over of the 'controlling them' documentation?
Ironically you can see exactly the same behaviour and traits on this thread. The CT moniker is a catch all ('you'll never believe what those silly CT's have come out with now!' type posts etc) and 'they' is used a lot when discussing conspiracy theorists as if there is a complete uniformity of opinion across the board of anybody who has ever held an alternative view.
GMT13 said:
It's natural, humans are tribal. There's a ubiquitous 'us and them' scenario that plays out across all aspects of society. There appears to be a deep seated psychological need to be in a team or group who share a certain type of thinking or behaviour. A conspiracy theorist who believes the moon is made of cheese and it's being covered up by NASA/government for example will naturally use 'they' to refer to this perceived homogeneous blob that they see as oppressing the truth, rather than certain individuals.
Ironically you can see exactly the same behaviour and traits on this thread. The CT moniker is a catch all ('you'll never believe what those silly CT's have come out with now!' type posts etc) and 'they' is used a lot when discussing conspiracy theorists as if there is a complete uniformity of opinion across the board of anybody who has ever held an alternative view.
The context is different though - a CT can attribute the 'truth' they are attempting to push on to everyone to 'Them' but they are completely undefinable (simply saying WEF is not defining it) so their truth as it were relies on faith and belief the big holes in their truth are as they assume they are. Ironically you can see exactly the same behaviour and traits on this thread. The CT moniker is a catch all ('you'll never believe what those silly CT's have come out with now!' type posts etc) and 'they' is used a lot when discussing conspiracy theorists as if there is a complete uniformity of opinion across the board of anybody who has ever held an alternative view.
On here today, we have seen posts of actual individuals who are CTs pushing their own truths, these people are not really They, you can see their names.
But yes grouping is a fundamental part of how we allow ourselves to deal with the complexities of the world, however when it comes to a CT providing a fact or truth, that cannot have some sort of ambiguous They associated with it as part of the motive.
A harmless one, but you have to ask the question - Why??
https://www.nme.com/news/music/avril-lavigne-addre...
https://www.nme.com/news/music/avril-lavigne-addre...
coldel said:
An extract from Britannica on what makes a CT
American historian Richard Hofstadter explored the emergence of conspiracy theorizing by proposing a consensus view of democracy. Competing groups would represent the interests of individuals, but they would do so within a political system that everyone agreed would frame the bounds of conflict. For Hofstadter, those who felt unable to channel their political interests into representative groups would become alienated from this system. These individuals would not accept the statements of opposition parties as representing a fair disagreement; rather, differences in views would be regarded with deep suspicion. Such alienated people would develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, thus making them vulnerable to charismatic rather than practical and rational leadership. This would undermine democracy and lead to totalitarian rule.
There are some great peer reviewed studies on the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead simply reject everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view and will hunt out information that supports their view despite swathes of evidence against it.
What about the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead accept everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view. American historian Richard Hofstadter explored the emergence of conspiracy theorizing by proposing a consensus view of democracy. Competing groups would represent the interests of individuals, but they would do so within a political system that everyone agreed would frame the bounds of conflict. For Hofstadter, those who felt unable to channel their political interests into representative groups would become alienated from this system. These individuals would not accept the statements of opposition parties as representing a fair disagreement; rather, differences in views would be regarded with deep suspicion. Such alienated people would develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, thus making them vulnerable to charismatic rather than practical and rational leadership. This would undermine democracy and lead to totalitarian rule.
There are some great peer reviewed studies on the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead simply reject everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view and will hunt out information that supports their view despite swathes of evidence against it.
And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
PurplePenguin said:
What about the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead accept everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view.
And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
They are the CT's. Its a totally accurate definition.And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
Pincher said:
I’ll repost this - was by someone on here recently (sorry, can’t remember who it was but it struck a chord so much that I actually made a note of it on my phone)
Amusingly....this is actually true for both sides Someone said:
It’s weird that there are some who are doggedly insistent that people are being manipulated and lied to but will utterly reject any possibility that they are actually the ones being manipulated, lied to and grifted.
Dagnir said:
Pincher said:
I’ll repost this - was by someone on here recently (sorry, can’t remember who it was but it struck a chord so much that I actually made a note of it on my phone)
Amusingly....this is actually true for both sides Someone said:
It’s weird that there are some who are doggedly insistent that people are being manipulated and lied to but will utterly reject any possibility that they are actually the ones being manipulated, lied to and grifted.
There aren't always two sides to every debate, just as there aren't usually valid alternatives to facts.
It was funny when Groucho Marx said it but that's as far as it goes.
GeneralBanter said:
PurplePenguin said:
What about the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead accept everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view.
And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
They are the CT's. Its a totally accurate definition.And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
PurplePenguin said:
What about the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead accept everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view.
And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
This group is tiny almost non existent, a CT, a true CT will try and convince their peers that the world is binary ... that its them and every one else who blindly believes the government blanket. I have never met a single person, who blindly believes the government completely on everything. They might believe some and not other parts of the comms, but not blindly all.And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
This really isn't a thing. Yet is recycled over and over.
It is a big thing that a CT needs to create in their small groups, that its them and this single other group.
coldel said:
They
Its such a powerful word in the world of a CT. When you read the evidence presented, instead of citing an individual, or a definable group, its simply taken back to 'They'
It allows spurious accusations to be made, based on nothing more than internet chatter, and quote it as fact. As that cannot be fact checked.
But who are They?
WEF I hear people shout. The Government, follows another. Is it an individual in the WEF, or is it a group, who is it? What happens when people get other jobs, do they continue looking to control people or do they just give it up? What happens when Labour unseats the Tories later this year, does Starmer have a weekend away with Rishi where they have a hand over of the 'controlling them' documentation?
It’s a sad fact that in many conspiracy theories “they” boils down to “the Jews”. Its such a powerful word in the world of a CT. When you read the evidence presented, instead of citing an individual, or a definable group, its simply taken back to 'They'
It allows spurious accusations to be made, based on nothing more than internet chatter, and quote it as fact. As that cannot be fact checked.
But who are They?
WEF I hear people shout. The Government, follows another. Is it an individual in the WEF, or is it a group, who is it? What happens when people get other jobs, do they continue looking to control people or do they just give it up? What happens when Labour unseats the Tories later this year, does Starmer have a weekend away with Rishi where they have a hand over of the 'controlling them' documentation?
As for the Government they are barely competent at running the country or keeping any secrets, the idea that they are capable of running a multi decade secret plot involving hundreds if not thousands of people is just laughable.
740EVTORQUES said:
Dagnir said:
Pincher said:
I’ll repost this - was by someone on here recently (sorry, can’t remember who it was but it struck a chord so much that I actually made a note of it on my phone)
Amusingly....this is actually true for both sides Someone said:
It’s weird that there are some who are doggedly insistent that people are being manipulated and lied to but will utterly reject any possibility that they are actually the ones being manipulated, lied to and grifted.
There aren't always two sides to every debate, just as there aren't usually valid alternatives to facts.
It was funny when Groucho Marx said it but that's as far as it goes.
It was more to point out that we're all being lied to and manipulated.
PurplePenguin said:
GeneralBanter said:
PurplePenguin said:
What about the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead accept everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view.
And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
They are the CT's. Its a totally accurate definition.And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
You’ve explained your world view as being anti authority and anti government so by logical extension you’re also anti science, anti fact and anti reality - which I would regard as flawed thinking so well done for admitting.
Edited by GeneralBanter on Thursday 16th May 16:32
Al Gorithum said:
You do realise that 'Satan' is an anagram of 'Santa'?Just putting that out there...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff