What is the point of debunking a conspiracy theory when the believer of such conspiracy will not change his mind on the subject? This was a harsh realization for me, and made me wonder what the heck am I doing on such a website like this.
Anyone have any ideas?
And finally, to paraphrase Mick's mantra... it's not about winning arguments or changing minds, it's about stripping the bunk. I suspect when all the bunk is stripped away from a conspiracy theory, the truth becomes self evident.
Sometimes it actually works . I dont belive in Chemtrails any more only a covert geoengineering Scheme . Or global diming ? Sandy Hook photo was quickly debunked and even I went on YT to debunk it .What is the point of debunking a conspiracy theory when the believer of such conspiracy will not change his mind on the subject? This was a harsh realization for me, and made me wonder what the heck am I doing on such a website like this.
Anyone have any ideas?
About 4 or 5 years ago I believed that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Not everyone stays the same and some people really do change.
It often takes a lot of time though. I've found quite a few people who are interested in debunking were believers of one sort or another at some point. But then also a lot of the former believers simply slip away, into normal life.
Many people will also just move up the ladder of conspiracies from "made it happen" to "let it happen", or "well, maybe that didn't happen, but what about ...."
Was there a tipping point for you Dan, or a gradual shift in thinking?
Since then, I've combed the internet discovering both more about the conspiracy and more about arguments I can deploy against the conspiracy. This place is like a godsend because it's all laid out so cleanly. I rarely see my friend, but if I do I'll give it another go. I'll never convince her husband, but it would be nice to have my friend back.
Sometimes it actually works . I dont belive in Chemtrails any more only a covert geoengineering Scheme . Or global diming ? Sandy Hook photo was quickly debunked and even I went on YT to debunk it .
A guy who uses metabunk just recently helped me with chemtrails; revealing that actually a lot of contrail behavior can seem similar to chem trails - I'm still highly convinced they occur regularly for testing purposes, but now i wont be assuming every spreading contrail is a chemtrail and leading me down the awkward path of trying to work out how it could be conceivable on such a large scale.
With conspiracy you can't see the wood for the tree's, debunking helps with that no end....they're still conspiracies i'm convinced of which you all feel has been successfully debunked, 9/11 no explosions being one of the main ones. But then that could well be my very own 'cognitive dissonance' lol.
Have you really lost your friend, though? Why...?Since then, I've combed the internet discovering both more about the conspiracy and more about arguments I can deploy against the conspiracy. This place is like a godsend because it's all laid out so cleanly. I rarely see my friend, but if I do I'll give it another go. I'll never convince her husband, but it would be nice to have my friend back.
Interesting observations. . . I find several (some) well educated, highly successful, professional people harbor serious conspiracy theories. . . since it is too embarrassing for them to openly discuss them and takes too much time to research them to find out if they are bunk. . . they just let it smolder under cover until triggered at the most unusual times. . . .as you said after too much alcohol, etc. . . .Have you really lost your friend, though? Why...?
Something I find somewhat disconcerting, and is a major reason why I'm not more publicly outspoken about my own 'conspiracy theories', is the ostracizing that goes on in this society when someone expresses their less popular ideas. I've seen many comments on this site about how 'all conspiracy theorists are paranoid loners/dope-smoking hippie-hermits', it's a common theme that comes up again and again, but are you so sure these people are isolating themselves? In many cases they may very well be, but in many others you've got people who are flatly rejected from participation in 'normal' social circles simply for believing in or being passionate about something the others view as being taboo.
I was at a party the other night chatting up some of my sisters friends, and among all the usual chatter ('look at this new camera I got, look at this new phone I got, did you see that video where...') someone mentioned the name 'Ted.' "OHhHhh, yeah, Teddy..!" recalled one, "Man, he was a funny guy. It's too bad." "What happened?" another asked, given the implication that Teddy was no more. "Oh, he got all crazy into those conspiracy theories, like 9/11 and stuff, and it's all he ever talks about. I just can't stand being around him now, you know?" There was a general nod of agreement and murmur of consensus, "I hate that crap." The guy fiddling with his camera would add. I had to sit on my hands and bite my tongue hard at this point. Rather than speak my mind in the defense of 'Ted' and risk sharing his fate, I just let the single topic of any interest or bearing drift on by, and continued yammering about all the usual crap.
I've found myself 'at odds' with my generation this way for years, ever since I was in middle-school. The older I got, the more apparent it became that meaningful conversation, the sort to which I was used, was of absolutely minimal social value. Talking about significant issues made people bored, made people anxious, made people feel 'awkward', a word with far too much power these days. It seems consistently that if I'm talking to someone my age who isn't a very close friend already, It's exceedingly important that nothing of remote significance be discussed. Any conversation that strays from the vapid or lurid toward importance or meaning is typically forcefully redirected unless there's a lot of booze involved. People don't like to talk about things in person anymore. If you've got an opinion, save it for Facebook, save it for Twitter, save it for the 'bloggosphere'.
It's too bad.
Have you really lost your friend, though? Why...?
Something I find somewhat disconcerting, and is a major reason why I'm not more publicly outspoken about my own 'conspiracy theories', is the ostracizing that goes on in this society when someone expresses their less popular ideas. I've seen many comments on this site about how 'all conspiracy theorists are paranoid loners/dope-smoking hippie-hermits', it's a common theme that comes up again and again, but are you so sure these people are isolating themselves? In many cases they may very well be, but in many others you've got people who are flatly rejected from participation in 'normal' social circles simply for believing in or being passionate about something the others view as being taboo.
I wonder if some of the evils of the world you've pointed out in your post aren't just the same impulse to get something for nothing these guys display, but culturally rationalised and institutionalised. The more I see of the debunking of these things through Metabunk and elsewhere, the more information I seem to find about these questions.
Plenty of people believe in various conspiracy theories to various degrees, and can still have a reasonable conversation. But I'm sure you've also seen a lot of conspiracy theorist who act irrationally and angrily.
I think your feeling of being "at odds" is much more your problem than theirs. If you want to communicate with people, then you are an intelligent person and you should be able to find a way of communicating with them. The onus is always very strongly on the person trying to communicate.
So one hand he'll say he believes Paxman (a hard nosed BBC mediaman) is briefed to ask only particular tough questions while avoiding others, but try to have a discussion that in my belief all UK and US democracy is pretty much a sham and that all the parties collude with one another to achieve particular agendas for business interests and that's another anger trigger point; i know believing journalists are manipulated and all parties being the same are two separate things but to me on a similar scale of manipulation and indeed one must happen for the other to happen, both based on similar rubbishy evidence.
Eh, I'm pretty sure I've seen 'all' used in several of the statements here in the past to that effect.I think you've got a misconception there, specifically using the word "all", when if anyone here had actually said such a thing, then really the only sensible word would be "some".
I understand this very well. A good friend of mine who I don't see often enough these days given he's something of a family man now is a devout, exceedingly vocal Christian, to the point that for a long time he engaged in street-preaching, one of those guys you see on the corner holding big old signs warning everybody of the fires of hell. He's even gone to Gay-Pride parades while fulfilling these self-assigned duties, something which has gotten him assaulted/in trouble with the Toronto Police. He and I disagree adamantly on a whole host of issues, but the great thing is, -we actually discuss them-. I think that's largely why we became friends... we both had strong opinions and were both willing to discuss them in a way that's very uncommon these days.Lots of people get on very well with conflicting religious and political beliefs. Lot's of people have specific knowledge or opinions they don't feel the need to preach at every opportunity.
Really? If all he ever talked about was smart phones and their applications, or Hockey and its intricacies, or YouTube vs. Liveleak vs. Vimeo, and all the neat stuff available for viewing there, you think Teddy would be having this same problem? Because I know people who are absolutely obsessed with their smart-phones (there's a study out there suggesting a majority of people using them have the same emotional attachment to their smart-phones as they do a lover they're afraid of losing), I know people who talk next to nothing but hockey, and I know a guy who's entire social imperative is the sharing of the best random videos the internet has to offer.... none of them are particularly unpopular.The problem is not that he has an interest in conspiracy theories, the problem is that he's crazy into them, and that's all he ever talks about. If he got crazy into World of Warcraft, or Fly Fishing, and THAT was all he'd ever talk about, then there would be a problem too.
Those are relatively obscure subjects, though. 9/11 was an event of which more or less the entire planet is intrinsically aware/has been effected on some level by.And people often don't like to talk about those issues simply because they don't understand them. If I were to start trying to urgently explain the importance of object polymorphism and encapsulation, or the realative merits of EASTL vs. STL, then I'd probably get people awkwardly moving away too.
It's not even that much of a problem, really. Any sense of personal isolation I have from my peers I hide relatively well, and I'm generally of a pleasant, amiable sort in social situations, albeit sometimes on the quieter side. I'm no social butterfly, but I don't flounder at parties and get-togethers either, and believe at least I'm generally well liked in the circles of people I know, though close friends are far-between these days, if not few. I'm not complaining about my own social status or situation here. I'm simply stating the facts of my generation, and how we communicate, as I've encountered them personally. I consider myself a rather keen observer of people, and I don't think I'm far off the mark in what I've said.I think your feeling of being "at odds" is much more your problem than theirs. If you want to communicate with people, then you are an intelligent person and you should be able to find a way of communicating with them. The onus is always very strongly on the person trying to communicate.
Really? If all he ever talked about was smart phones and their applications, or Hockey and its intricacies, or YouTube vs. Liveleak vs. Vimeo, and all the neat stuff available for viewing there, you think Teddy would be having this same problem? Because I know people who are absolutely obsessed with their smart-phones (there's a study out there suggesting a majority of people using them have the same emotional attachment to their smart-phones as they do a lover they're afraid of losing), I know people who talk next to nothing but hockey, and I know a guy who's entire social imperative is the sharing of the best random videos the internet has to offer.... none of them are particularly unpopular.
Its not about the adamance, its about the content. There's nothing socially unacceptable about getting loud/angry/adamant about something frivolous.
I think most people would agree that politicians frequently do things that benefit themselves or their business friends or donors.
But that's very different from all the parties colluding with each other, and very different from government control of the media.
Consider for a while the possibility of there being one overarching evil conspiracy calling the shots, that there might just be tens of thousand of conspiracies of various sizes, mostly trivial little things, like directing where a government grant goes, or a favorable change in regulations. We know that kind of thing goes on. So what if that's basically it? Tens of thousands of rich individuals all working in their own self-interests. But not in concert, not working FOR anyone, and not part of some uber-conspiracy. Does that make sense?
I truly don't think there's one 'uber conspiracy', more relatively hard to pinpoint alliances of corporations/countries/wealthy individuals all with as you say a umbrella of many thousands of conspiracies being trivial to the big - I actually don't think it'd be too difficult, at-least in the UK where the majority of our prime ministers have come from ONE school, usually with the backing of wealthy donors and a wealthy family to go on to rise in politics; i think that it actually could require even less people involved than a relatively successful large conspiracy like LIBOR rate fixing was, or UK's 'hackgate' with the leveson inquiry, involving at-least 100 individuals high and low on the pleb-scale.
I truly don't think there's one 'uber conspiracy', more relatively hard to pinpoint alliances of corporations/countries/wealthy individuals all with as you say a umbrella of many thousands of conspiracies being trivial to the big - I actually don't think it'd be too difficult, at-least in the UK where the majority of our prime ministers have come from ONE school, usually with the backing of wealthy donors and a wealthy family to go on to rise in politics; i think that it actually could require even less people involved than a relatively successful large conspiracy like LIBOR rate fixing was, or UK's 'hackgate' with the leveson inquiry, involving at-least 100 individuals high and low on the pleb-scale.
19 out of 75 is not a majority, it's just a lot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8622933.stm
There are a LOT of wealthy people in the world. They don't all act together. They don't even all act in each other's interests. Because of this I really don't think you can say that anyone or any group really "controls" anything. There's lots of people trying to apply influence. But that does not make anything like the conspiracies that some people suggest.
only 19? thanks! then you of course have the oxford/cambridge thing, that number'll jump again. But, i get what you're saying, i don't really believe in complete control....well in some areas i do, but the majority is just undue and large influence which is manipulative to the point is may aswell be control. but, to the original writers question - this very conversation proves why it's worth de-bunking! i had my mind set that the majority did in fact come from eton, it actually throws a spanner in some of my lines of thought.
Eton is a school, so it's before Oxbridge (university)
Actually there's been 55 different prime ministers, in 75 elections. 41 of them did go to Oxbridge (Oxford or Cambridge), so that's probably what your thinking was.
It most likely was! I'm quite aware Eton is a school, i meant by doubling effect that double the number that went to Eton went to oxbridge, and seems i was nearly bang on. But there ya go, doesn't prove much bar the obvious issues of representation, but such a corrupt circumstance that the majority of prime ministers come from such a narrow field of selection...you at least have a large opportunity that something even more untoward than the unjustness of such a small sample becoming leaders could go on.
I'm quite sure most of it is "to get something for nothing" but it doesn't take much to realize that the likes of USA/UK banking system, the fed, bank of england, etc are all "getting something for nothing" through a very complex system they all individually conspire and collude with to achieve that aim; when that system is founded on us being stupid enough to actually keep going along with it for no other reason than we'd starve if we didn't (individually) then you have a conspiracy that we've all agreed too on a near planetary scale now. Such a complex and diverse system which has ripping us off at the heart of it breeds many, many more 'conspiracies' like LIBOR rate fixing which defied the usual 'this conspiracy is to big for it to be real' rule, it involved relatively low level bankers, to the bank of england AND government (that's the proven part) let alone the speculative amount of people who must've of gotten wind of it previously and either been scared/bought off, e.g. corporations it would of effected, journalists etc.