13 votes

Why do so many whine about "conspiracy theories"?

Is it a mask for not understanding a particular area? An admission of intellectual laziness? An inability to analyze or reason? Or is it a mere psychological disorder? Does calling a particular alternative narrative, or factual account, a supposedly disparaging name ("conspiracy theory") simply indicate an infantile state of mind?

Or, are some just trolls, wasting everyone's time, and trying to fragment the pro-freedom movement?

Why can't these people just answer a particular argument with their own analysis?

It is baffling. What's everyone's take?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Because it does not match

the orders from headquarters.

Re: Why....

can't these people just answer a particular argument with their own analysis?


Anyone ever notice that sheep will talk conspiracy, BUT ONLY after the media talks about it first. That acts as the "green light" to give creedence or clearance to make conspiracy discussion "allowable."

There really is some form of mind control going on out there. Be it technotronics, psychotronics, SSSS or just plain PCness, it is MIND CONTROL.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

i argue the method, not the

i argue the method, not the cause, and i still expect you to do what you do, ill not ask you stop, but only to hear constructive, always respectfull, critisizm

show me a video of the bomber dropping the bag and that bag obviously exploding, and i wont argue, definitive proof of a suspect

what we have are suspicions of suspects, over pictures that can be made to say a thousand things, we should not subconciensly assume them the perpetrators over suspicions presented by some as proof, i know it can be hard, but we need to stop rushing and practice some patience sometimes, maybe one time we get lucky, and someone will provide a video of the perpetrator dropping a bag and that bag obviously exploding

am i saying to stop, hell no, but i say some you guys need to understand the distinction of early suspicion over definitive proof, im sure well have more analysis in the days to come, more information, a calmer mind to take in, possibly more information then there was before

someone i would pat on the back for, is a boston local taking photos of the incident from MANY different angles, close up, far away, the bomb origins, or the general area of damage so we can try to figure out precisely where the bomb originated so we have a focus point when viewing photos pre detonation, take pictures of all the sorrounding buildings, all objects near by or just a 360, hell, use video if its high quality, MUCH better
Just to be clear i dont expect this from anyone, nor ask, just saying, thats a "conspiracy journalist" i want to see, no bias, just pure unadulterated facts in that way only photos and videos can produce, unalterred,

that kind of journalism is whats needed, and its more then a shame, that this kind of behaviour would probably be pushed as suspicious, or "sir, you have to leave the area, thats illegal.....Huh, no, i dont know the SPECIFIC law"

if you are inocently accused, would you appreciate it, i sure as hell wouldnt,

we are moving away as a society from a persons word meaning a damn thing, and that makes me sad, that we have to now prove our characters, im not gonna encourage that behaviour, without VERY VERY good reason to, in contrast to big government seemingly doing it at the drop of a hat, seemingly to show people we need them

on a side note: suspecting someone on a picture who happens to be looking away from a certain thing, at a certain time, on a particular picture, is not something that should be considred proof on its own, something like that needs video

i mean no offence to questioning minds, but its not us you need to convince, its those that need a shock of definitive proof to kick their butts from the slumber their in

I think that...

I think that everyone has a comfort zone for analysis of any event or concept. When you are forced out of that zone you rebel and run into a wall that is far out side of your comfort zone and that is the so call "conspiracy theory" zone. The more you are able to absorb and analyze with an open mind and without emotional attachment the less you are going to attach the term "conspiracy theory" to an event or concept.


Yes, either answer respectfully or don't

comment at all.

Sure would prevent a lot of hurt feelings.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

but I will add that . . .

I have a hard time being patient with those who laugh at those of *us* who believe there are 'schemes' (a harmless word)--

Take eugenics, for example. I found out personally that eugenics is alive and well--

but when I try to tell people about *our* (family's) nightmarish experience with it . . .

I get the 'deer in the headlights' look--

most of our friends and even some family who have not been affected do NOT want to hear that there is so much evil in the world.

Easier to blame 'foreigners'; there are no malignant schemers (sp?) in the U.S.

But when something happens to *you*--

the paradigm shifts.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I don't know, because I'm not sure I understand your . . .


Are you complaining about those who believe that there are shadows behind organizations/governments/corporations the 'whiners'?

Or are you complaining about those who believe there are no hidden powers of any kind behind governments/organizations/corporations and wno laugh at anyone who believes there are shadows/puppetmasters?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

It's a testament to how

It's a testament to how influential the MSM is. Anything that is not part of the official party line is labeled conspiracy theory that only kooks and wackos would entertain.

Even if people don't watch much MSM their friends and neighbors do and they fear being labeled a kook or a nut and don't want to be associated with those kooks you know the ones the MSM said were kooks for entertaining such ideas. Logic and reason mean nothing it's all emotional attachment to being so called normal...

Even the ones here are influenced this way though they will never admit it. It's just like in grade and high school and not being in the so called cool click everyone wants to be in the cool click so try and conform to the supposed criteria for being cool...

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Biggest conspiracy theorists

Biggest conspiracy theorists of all time...

9-11 and Warren Commissions. If you like make believe fairy tale stories, they are the masters.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Just thought I'd bump this post:

"I`m 70+ years old and your government has lied to me over and"

Submitted by HYDROMAN on Thu, 09/20/2012 - 17:56. Permalink

"over again. Even got me to go to SE Asia to fight a war over a lie.
Never trust your faith to a KNOWN lier."

I agree, Sir! *Salute*

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Heres one to have fun with :)



"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

tasmlab's picture

"conspiracy theory" sounds like a pejorative/ad hominem to me

"Conspiracy theory" sounds like a pejorative/ad hominem to me. Why can't all angles be examined, provided that people use facts, reason, rational analysis etc.?

The term 'conspiracy theory' seems like just a way to try to turn off or dismiss a line of exploration/analysis without considering it.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Let me spell it out.

It's not the idea of a government conspiracy itself that we criticize; obviously, they can and do happen.

What we criticize are those theories that are not only absurd, but also have no evidence to back them up.

In addition, we criticize the methods used to arrive at said theories; that is, finding "connections" that have no support aside from mere speculation.

If you want to be taken seriously, take the time to actually form a coherent theory rather than wildly speculating.

"If you want to be taken

"If you want to be taken seriously, take the time to actually form a coherent theory rather than wildly speculating."...

You should give that advice to the 9-11 Commission and Warren Commission.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

I apply that principle equally.

I agree, there are quite a few holes, but nothing I've seen indicates that the government or Mossad were in on it. What everything does point to is either incompetence or intentionally allowing it to happen, but not actively performing the attacks.

Any time there is a

Any time there is a 'terrorist' attack...the first suspect should be the government...


If someone is a known liar...with a history of telling lies...why is your first instinct to believe they are telling the truth? My first instinct is to believe they are telling another lie...until it is PROVEN beyond any doubt they are telling the truth.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

ach who knows? I pay no attention, until a tick bugs me


Seems like Jack Hunter thought police/minder/Baghdad Bob-effect is in full force, lately, here: http://www.dailypaul.com/242232/oh-jack-hunter-say-it-aint-s...

Or, Glenn Beckies needed some loving. who knows.

It's like, it's only "cognitive dissonance" if it's someone's else's educated and informed geopolitical analysis, not theirs.

Plus, I've seen lots of "Johnny-come-Latelys' to the R3VOLution and the Freedom Movement, as well as some anti-NWO, who've been lied to so constantly, they have knee jerk "Everything is a conspiracy! Everyone is an actor!" or blanket, "no, you're just an Alex Jones fanboy!" simpleton 'analysis.'

It's like if you gotta explain to people what "discernment" or "a-priori" is, I don't see how anyone can have an actual conversation, when one side PRESUMES their assumption is better than someone else's without realizing they're broadstoking the same: it's like Cargo Cultists deluding everyone else is one. And, usually their sentences equally start and end with "I believe ____." Yet, when challenged, you're the only presumptuous one, not them.

But then again, ALL humans, as a subjective species, any assertion that anyone of our personal views, however deeply informed, are "objective," is dishonest, present author included; I guess it's kinda like limit: it's as close to, but never.

Let's face it: we only get to experience one life with limited first hand experiences. Rest are from reading, watching, or 2nd or 3rd hand anecdotes from whomever or whatever you deem to be a 'trusted' or 'credible' source.

I'd posit strongly that how one discerns the world, depends on how many encounters you've had with different, depth, and diverse range of experiences, people, and professions. Along with the anecdotal, 2nd and 3rd hand accounts conversed and/or gained from what or whom one deems to have earned a place in their world to be 'credible' based on their own set and range of experiences and discernment skills honed so far, up to that point, along wiht various range of self-reflections and catharsis gained, harnessed, and exercising along the way.

Even then, if you yourself lack insight, you'll miss all the possible lessons to be gained from those encounters.

But the first sign of ignorance, is the blanket-broadstroke 'You people do ___, You people believe ____, You people shouldn't do, or believe ____ if you want to be _____' - as if those projectison shouldn't already be automatically self-evident, as to the simplistic childish nature of the person asserting such.

Perusing comments and responses, there are literally only about four truly annoying a-holes here bugging almost everyone, for the sheer sake of annoying them.

But regardless, don't know; with or without them, the general tone post RP2012 has been definitely a bit more negative, and there are definitely way too many useless bickering here. Granted, I don't count myself out from engaging in defense against the oft cluelessly self-indignant, but I personally only bother, if the attack is personal or a childish name calling is initiated against me. Plus, most who do unfortunately delude it wise to tread those waters, are those who've never read my usually long-winded verbiage enough, to not realize they'll never win, or that I'll simply drown them out via verbal attrition. LOL. But that said, I've had fluctuating schedules that makes long winded ones more rare these days.

So, like all trolls, I'd say why feed them, unless for some petty personal bemusement sakes? It's like some weird childhood insecurity that they project and 'she doth protests too much.'

I never thought I see this place become taken over by a few truly annoying thought-police douchebags, but suppose it's just part and parcel of growing pains.

Still it's sad to bump into the occasional recovering neoCon, or a present Glenn Beckies, whom oddly enough, ride the occasional drive-by r3VOL fence divide, and still lecture others with the ever so collectivist statist commie-delusion of 'you're making Ron Paul and us look bad!'

Don't think they actually realize that by their logic, Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul has been making GOP, America, and Conservatives, and even Libertarians "look bad" for over 50yrs with his firm principled consistency and talking so frequently about that go-to conspiracy theorist assertions that the Federal Reserve is not Federal, nor has reserves, and are truly at the root of all evil, as it is the Ruling Class' mechanism of evil.

But, sadly that 'conspiracy theorist making all of us look bad'-lesson is lost on them.

Which begs the question, then whyTF JOIN and 'waste time' at the eponymous forum bearing the good name of the said septuagenarian 'conspiracy theorist'??

truly, cognitive dissonance wonders never cease.

c'est la vie.

PS For the Open Minded, and some quasi-closed ones but on the fence, your trip down the Red Pill Rabbit Hole starts with Operation Gladio, the modern primer for factual historical reality of government-sponsored False Flag operations:



Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I reject conspiracy narratives that don't make any sense

It is one thing to be skeptical of the government and the media and to ask questions, but it is quite another to twist any information to fit a conspiracy theory narrative. There are other people who will outright lie and manipulate Youtube videos and pictures to push a conspiracy theory. This is unacceptable.

Before people start concocting paranoid theories, I wish they would step back and ask WHY? Why would the government or other conspiracy group do this? What would they gain from it?

I'm getting sick of people using the argument "well the Federal Reserve is a conspiracy." No, it's not, at least not in the way many of these conspiracy theories are formatted, like the Sandy Hook incident. It makes perfect sense for people to abuse the monetary system for their own gain. Central banking has been a massive debate for hundreds of years. It makes no sense for the government to kill a bunch of children or pretend to kill a bunch of children. What would they gain and why would they take the risk? The concept of false equivalency is often abused and used dishonestly, but comparing the Fed to Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing is the ultimate false equivalency.

Other people bring up the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but that is another false equivalency because it makes perfect sense for the government to lie in order to get involved in Vietnam. The anti-communist foreign policy has long been established, and lying to initiate war with another government is a common phenomenon. That is no where near the same thing as the government killing innocent civilians sloppily to push something like gun control.

Using the blanket term NEW WORLD ORDER is not a legitimate argument. This is an unprovable, anti-intellectual argument used so that any stupid idea can be presented without being wrong. Accusing skeptics of the NWO claims as being government shills goes hand in hand with this. Just because I don't automatically assume that the government was involved in claims about a secret, evil conspiracy does not make me a government shill (or a big Pharma shill or anything else).

"I'm getting sick of people

"I'm getting sick of people using the argument "well the Federal Reserve is a conspiracy." No, it's not"...

You should read 'The Creature from Jekyll Island'

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

but how they operate is

Their day to day operations and private meetings on policy are a conspiracy.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

That's really just begging my question.

Why not simply present a rational argument against whatever "theory" you don't like? Why characterize it and lapse into name-calling? Not saying you do this, I wouldn't know, but my question remains.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Now you are trying to bait me.

You asked a general answer about "why do people whine about conspiracy theories," and I gave you a general answer about my criticism behind the thought process of conspiracy theory accusations. I named one conspiracy theory that I think is ridiculous- accusing the government of killing the children in Sandy Hook (or pretending to). I don't feel like getting into the details about them, but you won't find me manipulating Youtube videos to show Family Guy predicted the Boston bombing.

The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist.

Lol, I'm trying to "bait you.?"

Sorry, I have no interest in "you" other than your response as part of the discussion. Sounds like you have a conspiracy theory of your own.

Anyway, the issue is why people don't simply respond in a direct way rather than engage in generalized whining, which is self-defeating and doesn't really express any rational point-by-point refutation of whatever it is one objects to. If you don't feel like responding, that's okay, but then maybe this discussion isn't for you.

Have a nice day.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

My conspiracy theory on conspiracy theories

First and foremost, the complete lack of transparency regarding anything surrounding our government lends to constant scrutiny. Common logic dictates that those with things to hide seek the shadows, hence the intelligence apparatus. Cloaked in darkness they maneuver to and fro causing mayhem without oversight but by a very few. I believe these organizations to be nothing more than a militant arm of multinational organizations, created for the sole purpose of advancing corporate interests abroad in places that don't play ball. Their primary directive here is to control perception, and they do it well. Through consolidation of media corporations they essentially control the narrative fed to the majority of the citizens. Choose an issue to promote the agenda, create an reason for the people to demand it, and then shove it down their throats 24/7, Skinner's behavior modification on a massive scale.
This assumes:
1.Human beings have no will. They simply reply to external stimuli.
2.Human beings are essentially responders to external stimuli. They are regulated by external influences that satisfy basic needs.
3.For students to behave appropriately, they must receive guidance from their teachers.Students cannot learn to be responsibly self-governing.They must be managed by someone who can arrange reinforcers appropriately.
4.If the behavior of humans is not managed, we can expect an increase of discipline problems, crime, poverty, war, and other social ills.
According to this theory people are not that difficult to train, and they have been in training a long time.
The chosen bell to make the dogs salivate is FEAR. Nothing clouds reason like it. The spirit of many in this nation has been reduced to that of a beaten wife. One that defends her cowardly and abusive spouse with all her heart.
I also believe the apparatus to be sophisticated enough to obscure things that they do not control just to get the more disobedient students to run around chasing their tails in search of a plot that does not exist.
Just my thoughts, Peace to all.

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.
John Locke

Cognitive Dissonance

The human brain has a tendency to discount new ideas that conflict with existing opinions.

This is why Republicans tend to watch Fox and Democrats tend to watch CNN. Each network propaganda machine skews news in a way that conforms to right/left per-conceived ideas of what is "true."

When someone is given information that directly conflicts with what that person believes to be true, the person can either examine it (if they are intellectually curious and honest) or dismiss it out of hand (if they are intellectually incurious or dishonest).

Some people will be so offended by the new information that they will become angry and will lash out.

Of course, there are the trolls, too, who are just out and out dishonest.

I remember the first time I heard someone claim that 9/11 was an inside job. It was actually a guy from Germany, of all things, and he showed me how to fold the US$20 bill so that you can see the twin towers on fire. I had to admit it was interesting, but I essentially dismissed his claims. Dismissed, yes, but his words had an impact on me. A couple of years later while surfing the 'net, I found someone else make a similar claim. That's when I started looking into it for real, and one I ACTUALLY EXAMINED EVIDENCE FROM BOTH SIDES, I concluded that the official story is a lie.

So, the key is that a person has to be willing to examine evidence from BOTH sides of an argument, just like if they were on a jury.

Most people take the shortcut and just dismiss. But the real question is whether or not that person is really intellectually curious and honest. If they are, they might eventually come around. If they are not, then they are not worth wasting time with because they are anti-intellectual and that is a person you do not want to associate with.

What about

And what about ...

just another msm programmed response

Just like how liberals hear tea party or right wing. People have been indoctrinated into believing that if they hear "conspiracy theory" it is automatically assumed to be false, un-true, a lie, an impossibility or can never happen. Even though it is a legal term. Conspiracy to commit ____.

One man's conspiracy theory is another's investigative journalism ;)

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

because so much has been happening lately.

We have gun control, cispa, Boston, and west Texas and It's a big info overload.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.