Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theorists

Personally, I hate them.  Although I admit to finding aspects of conspiracy theories and their proponants fascinating.

I'm actually pretty confused. Not only is the OP of this thread unintelligible, but are there people here who are actually stating that speculation about the JFK assassination is unfounded? Are you fucking kidding? What on earth would make you think you have the full story on that event? Seriously, on what information do you base your opinion?

Although I find this incredible, I can kind of ignore it for the most part - maybe because I don't come across it too much except in the odd kooky internet thread. But jokes about 9/11 and about the people who are pointing out stupidly, gobsmackingly obvious, glaring problems with the official story I find deeply offensive, as I would jokes about any other state crime which involved the murders of thousands (and counting) people. That's not a laughing matter, and that people dismiss questions about it as "conspiracy theory" and make sneering comments about common-sense, stupidly obvious objections to the official narrative is, to me, the profoundest ignorance and no longer deserves consideration or courtesy. In fact, deserves the same measure of derision and disrespect as those who do it feel so entitled to mete out.

That those who make make such comments are morons is not really the point anymore. The problem is that they are continually given platforms such as this one to spew their bile and their idiotic, uninformed and wilfully, defiantly ignorant bleatings (as in, "I'm stupid and I know it, so suck on it.") It's this proud and stubborn stupidity, like many aspects of America itself that, frankly, acts like a disease to open and common sense discourse. Why don't we all just go back to the Dark Ages, where we can give power to those who claim to have a similar monopoly on knowledge? Would you like that? Does that make sense to you? Do you give any thought at all to the garbage you spew before you spew it? It doesn't look like you do.

This de facto declaration of open season on so-called conspiracy theories, and naive, uncritical -- indeed silly -- acceptance of silly official accounts is not only irrational but beneath the level of the kind of engaged critical thinking that so many of you make claim to. In fact, it demonstrates pretty much the exact opposite -- or at the very least that there are specific subjects upon which many of you are unable to exercise any rational thought or self-control.

Nah...

Just revived it to make a point about flypaper.

But I will say something jas.

Personally, it's not the denial or acceptance or censoring of these theories I have a problem with; it is usually the attitudes of those who promote them.

Can anyone say with a straight face that they don't get enough exposure?

I fully accept that there might - might -  be some things we don't know about 9-11. The Kennedy assassination? Also quite possible.Thing is, I am able to accept that and go on about the rest of my business. Or deal with other things right down to why animal control doesn't come and deal with my neightbour's damned cat without imagining that it all part of the conspiracy.

The problem I have is with some people who are obsessed with turning every conversation to that, and simply will not stop. I have only ever had to unfriend one person on FB, and it was someone who did that to me repeatedly. I told him to stop. He didn't. I told him to stop or I would unfriend him. He didn't. What choice did I have?

Well apparently none, since in unfriending him I obviously proved I was part of the conspiracy and don't really think for myself.

A defender of the official 9/11 silly stories is asking me to consider his opinion. Because he says he's thought about it. He knows all about the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" and he's come to some kind of conclusion on them.

Yeah... no. I agree with closing this thread. Too stupid to engage.

Jas: You say I ask you to "consider" my point of view, which I do not, so kindly stop putting words in other people's mouths. Respond to what I actually say or say nothing if you can't think of an answer. I am not here to educate you: it is not my job to force the blinkers off those who have backed their own minds into a corner. But if you're going to complain about other people treating your opinions unfairly, I have every right to point out to everyone that you are wrong to complain, and if you don't like people contradicting you, well, that's just too bad, isn't it?

rabble wont let me say  the world chemtrail that is not a consperiacy its a fact.

there is lots of science on it and i have offered lots of links, but because trolls attacked me, my tread got stopped

building seven is proof enough for me. pulled not hit by any plane.

follow the power. after 911 law and order won

Noooooooooo Sineed! Noooooooo......

I just saw (and bought) those for the first time a few weeks ago! They were lovely and refreshing. I don't know what government is behind them though...

While we're giggling about stuff we are too stupid to have a clue about, anybody got any Fukushima jokes?

Tee hee!

I just want to encourage people communicating in forums such as this to recognize dynamics of mediated public discourse that act to marginalize many specific discussions. Discussions that, once thus marginalized, have their marginalization justified by their marginalization. "We don't discuss conspiracy theories because they're conspiracy theories." "Look, no one else of any credibility is discussing them either." And little to no examination occurs as to who is doing the defining and why. So it's a very convenient, and self-perpetuating way for either specific interests, or simply groupthink, to control what gets talked about.

A thread closed today that I was expecting would be closed, if nothing else than for length. Several of my posts were removed, however, making the recent conversation in there somewhat unintelligible. The posts contained links to pictures that some posters here found offensive.

The pictures that were referenced are real images. Real images of an event that, if we accept the reality of the images, contradict the accepted and mass-mediated narrative of that event. Even just looking at them for a few moments, an intelligent person would notice elements about these real pictures that do not jibe with the official narrative of that event. An event which figures prominently in our current political and somewhat fictionalized 'war on terror' landscape.

I am guessing, but don't care enough to ask, that the justification in part for the removal of those posts was that some of the images portrayed some gory or disturbing scenes. While I support the mods in their accepted and justified gatekeeping function here on Babble, I do think there were some other motivations for removing them as well.

As occurs on any forum, I think some posters here don't want to raise certain discussions for fear of being censured. And this silence gives a false impression of consensus on certain undiscussed issues. And this false impression of consensus is used to further the marginalization of these topics.

Hopefully we are moving beyond the era where the term "conspiracy theory" can be used uncritically and without raising some suspicion about the motives of those who use it. While I understand why the left has been historically concerned about its credibility, at some point, as I've encouraged before, it does need to engage some common sense. In many things, but also in deciding which topics are worthy of discussion. And perhaps also in realizing how some discussions might save a whole lot of other discussions that occur endlessly and ultimately get us nowhere further.

That's interesting, Alan. While I would question that a lab-created virus targeted gays specifically from some homophobic shadow government agenda, the notion that some viruses have military origins is neither new nor all that controversial. But without getting into an actual argument about the HIV virus, I would use it as an example of how such a conversation would transpire here on Babble and other similar forums.

A condensed version:

JP: Look here, some documents showing that military labs were developing a retrovirus in the late '70s as a potential biowarfare agent.

Babble: * tumbleweeds *

Debunker 1: These conspiracy theories really burn my toast. How despicable to insult the memory of those we've lost to AIDS!

JP: It's not a conspiracy theory. These are actual declassified documents.

Babble: * tumbleweeds *

Debunker 2: That blogger is an anti-vaxxer.

Random Babbler: I lost my best buddy to AIDS. I would appreciate if the conspiracy theorists would show some sensitivity on this topic.

Mod steps in: While there may be some credibility to the notion that viruses have been studied in biowarfare programs, I would ask all here to show some sensitivity on this topic. JP, this is a warning.

Debunker 1: Here's an article by the WHO debunking the AIDS in a petri dish claim.

JP: That doesn't debunk anything. It says there are competing theories about the origins of HIV.

Debunker 1: Here's Dr. A debunking this tripe.

Debunker 2: He also has a good one on how conspiracy theorists might actually have this newly discovered mental illness.

JP: Didn't Dr. A also write some articles in the '70s "debunking" the links between smoking and cancer? Yes, here's one.

Debunker 1: * tumbleweeds *

Debunker 2: That blogger JP linked to also believes in shape-shifting reptilians. Haw haw.

Random Babbler 2: I guess shape-shifting reptilians started AIDS.

Debunker 2: Haw haw.

Debunker 1: Haw haw.

JP: Where do you see that on his site, Debunker 2?

Random Babbler 3: I find this conversation utterly upsetting. Why is this on Babble?

Mod steps in: I can see this will be going nowhere. JP, please don't start another thread on this topic. Closing.

alan smithee wrote:

I'd include the recent 'terror attacks' in Ottawa and St-Jean.

Yes.

Yeah. But what does the Titanic have to do with any branch of the government?

Mr Magoo wrote: The "R" in "RMS Titanic" stands for "Royal". Same "R" and same "Royal" as in RAF, Royal Navy, and incidentally "Royal family".

Well, the R may have stood for Royal, - but the MS stood for Mail Service. So its not at all like the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy - which are effectively owned if indirectly controlled by the Head of State.

While there were a few gov't owned mailships, most of them (including the Titantic which was of course owned by White Line, and the Lusitania which was owned by Cunard) were privately owned ships providing mail services to the Royal Mail. And had "RMS" appended to their commercial names for status - a bit like Robertson's marmalade has the little royal insignia on it, indicating that this is what Liz spreads on crackers and feeds the corgis every morning. 

Sorry for the interruption. Back to the tales of dark consipiracy....  

Quote:

While there were a few gov't owned mailships, most of them (including the Titantic which was of course owned by White Line, and the Lusitania which was owned by Cunard) were privately owned ships providing mail services to the Royal Mail.

So Britain needed the largest ship in the world at the time TO SEND POSTCARDS??

Quote:

Not to mention that Navy ships have always been His/Her Majesty's Ship- HMS, not RMS.

Of course they were not going to advertise that it was really a warship.  That's the whole point.  Don't worry Germany, the world's largest WARSHIP is really just a floating mail truck, and anyway, it's harmlessly at the bottom of the sea now.

What do you suppose was underneath those Potemkin smokestacks?  MORE MAIL??  LOL!

I notice that if you Google "Titanic" you get NONE of this.  Just enless references to Hollywood's obedient attempt to sanitize the whole story in 1997.  Don't worry, everyone, it was really all about a handsome fellow and his young lady friend -- until the world's largest "mail ship" hit some ice that was harder than steel and then it sank, just like the government said. 

Let's not be ridiculous.

alan smithee wrote:

Let's not be ridiculous.

Why stop now?

alan smithee wrote:

There's a difference between a credible theory and a ridiculous urban legend.

One could not credibly use this thread - any of it - to argue that statement.

That's pretty black and white.  Not drinking my kool-aid?  You MUST therefore believe EVERYTHING the government tells you. 

I mean, look at it this way - You and jas are demanding that we believe everything YOU tell us...  And if we regard it as unfounded and improbable, we're just gullible.  Excuse me? 

I'll take the reptilians over you lot, any day.  They're at least amusing and we don't have to go to the lengths of denying other peoples' tragedies to make ourselves feel all smart and in the know.

I bet you believe the Warren Commission too.

Want evidence?

Hit a piece of ice with something made of steel, like a hammer.

Which breaks?  The steel, or the ice??

BTW, Babblers - Mr Magoo is just having us on with all the Titanic talk. "Surely ice doesn't break steel!". 

Even back in the day of the post sinking inquiry, the engineers who designed and built the ship acknowledged that the structural vulnerability of the Titanic was related to teh risk of the steel buckling under pressure sufficient to pop the rivets. This diagnosis was confirmed 80 years later when the wreck was discovered and examined.

That said, I was four-square behind the reptilian shape shifter thesis until I saw that both Kris Kristofferson and Box Car Willle were included in their numbers. That was just a shape shifter too far for me.