Comment: Semantics

(See in situ)


The video talks about suspending judgment when presented with new information. My problem with conspiracy theorists has been that generally speaking, they leave no room for a suspension of judgment, but insist on making a judgment based on incomplete information. Information that casts doubt on the official story is seen as proof that it was an inside job rather than simply evidence that the official story isn't wholly correct (no history ever is, conspiracy or no). Misreporting of events by journalists is pretty much always assumed to be part of a cover up instead of human error (if there's really no way to tell, why do you assume one over the other instead of suspending judgment?). So I think the 'slander' of 'conspiracy theorist' is often justly given to those who insist that the conspiracy theory in question is true beyond any reasonable doubt. A real skeptic acknowledges that the official history is suspect, but doesn't see adequate evidence to draw a firm conclusion on what actually did happen and the statist sees no reason to question the authorized historical narrative.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" -Thomas Jefferson