1. Fallingdown

    Fallingdown New Member

    I'm still learning how to post here. I hope this does not violate procedure .

    I like most of you have found it infuriating the many tangents a discussion can take with the conspiracy theorist. It is so irritating that I have found a new tactic. I will give you a current example.

    The belief among CT'ers that the CIA is behind Isis.

    You can argue till you are blue in the face and they will throw up the picture of John McCain meeting with the free Syrian army . Then claim that proves the US funds ISIS. No amount of reason or factual information will dissuade then or their groupies.

    After the attacks in Paris I no longer dispute that point with them even though I disagree .

    I have taken the tactic of turning the tables on them. I now accuse them of pointing fingers to advance their agenda at the sake of innocent lifes. I tell them that I don't care who is behind the organization. That this evil must be met without blame .


    It sets them back because they are no longer able to debate who is at fault. It puts them in a position to debate right or wrong which they shy from .


    Mick I have read the posting guidelines I understand I might not have met them with this post . If you feel this need to deleted feel free to.

    If not I have a suggestion for the site even though I know I'm new . I think it would be beneficial for us to have a form to discuss tactics on . The key to any debate or propaganda war is tactics and we should stay up on them .


    P.S

    I also apologize for my dyslexia as present in the my grammar . I will grant you I am not a critical thinker. I tend to think more laterally but I do not find fault in it .
     
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's fine, it falls within the "meta" exemption - talking about debunking.

    So then what do they do? What has been your experience? Are these false-flaggers? Won't they just continue to think it was a false flag? I don't think anyone would really disagree that it's an evil act either way, or regardless of who is behind it.
     
  3. Fallingdown

    Fallingdown New Member

    Honestly I have found it disarms them .

    I will concede to a point without actually agreeing with it . For me it forces them to get back on point instead of laying blame .
     
  4. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i dont want to muck up your thread, but are you talkign about "arguing a conspiracy from within the conspiracy"?

    like instead of arguing with a christian about whether jesus is real..scratch that... if jesus is God, you 'concede that point' and you can pick apart the specifics of/within the christian story. ??
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Fallingdown

    Fallingdown New Member

    Yes that's the whole point of these tactics . Don't argue with a conspiracy theorist because it is never ending .

    Grant them their small point without admission then get onto the actual facts that are being addressed. If you let them they will boggle your mind and obfuscate your opinion.

    I'm sure everyone here at one point or another has spent hours discussing one small issue in a large discussion. I have quit dissecting opinions and made them move on to the larger issue .


    Nine times out of 10 when you give them their small point with a on point response they give up.

    Before you knock it give it a try in your next circular debate with a conspiracy theorist. Lol
     
  6. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Well, I look forward to seeing you test your theory! Will be following you!
     
  7. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    I think a multi-level approach is best here.

    I agree with Falling Down (one of my favourate films by the way) that many of the hardcore false flaggers and hoaxers are out of reach and direct challenging of them on issues such as ISIS and the CIA are one and the same, or Bush was behind 9-11 can be futile. And a more indirect approach looking at the finer details of an issue, or questioning the CT's motives are of use, you will not see an immediate result, but you can plant a seed of doubt that could lead to them questioning their own motives. I had a friend whose then boyfriend dragged her into the 9-11 rabbit hole a while back, but a couple of her mates took just that approach and she climbed out of it after a year or so.

    However the direct argument against these wild CT claims still needs to be put. Not everyone who is interested in the conspirasphere is that far down the rabbit hole, and many are standing on the edge looking going 'oh that looks interesting, i wonder if its true?' These people are the ones who need to be confronted by a direct logical argument on places like Metabunk as it just might sway them from joining the hardcore hoaxers and false flaggers in the first place. And in doing so we are leaving at least some small rock of real truth in a sea of CT craziness, and resource other rationalists and debunkers may find of use.

    I think we have a good team here, lots of reasoned people with differing approaches, differing fields of interest and expertise, who can tackle many issues on many tacks and levels.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Fallingdown

    Fallingdown New Member


    I have been using these tactics for awhile.

    Because of those tactics I have been named persona non-Grada at most CT sites. In my opinion that tells me I'm doing something right . Lol
     
    • Like Like x 4
  9. Critical Thinker

    Critical Thinker Senior Member

    Welcome to the forum Fallingdown. You will find that trying to have a rational discussion with someone deep in the rabbit hole is very frustrating and rarely do they display the 'open mindedness' that they implore others to have. In conspiracy circles their tactic is to call any naysayer a 'shill' or disinformation agent or a sheeple, and in many Internet forums they will delete your posts and ban you as such, without even bothering to consider what you are saying.

    From my point of view, those people are a lost cause (though there have been exceptions). An analogy I would use is a firefighting strategy called a firebreak, where you contain the fire to stop it from spreading.

    As I see it, many people in the CT community endeavor to spread the bunk, whether on; Facebook, in comments sections of News websites, and various other outreach efforts. Rather than attempting to get through to someone intent on spreading bunk, it might be better to refute the bunk where they try to spread it in a public forum where people may be seeing it for the first time. With the upcoming Climate Change conference in Paris, there have been a good number of articles discussing the pros and cons of Geoengineering, and the comments sections of those articles have become fertile ground for the CTers to post links to YouTube videos and to Conspiracy websites claiming that Geoengineering is already taking place (Chemtrails).

    We can provide counterargument to their claims, citing and linking to reputable sources that back up the Science, more importantly we can do that publicly in the same places that they seek to spread the bunk. As many new members here note, Metabunk has a politeness policy and also asks that members cite the sources they use in their discussion (so that they can be fully vetted) and this same tact should be our approach elsewhere as well. By contrasting the ad hominem attacks and name calling used by CTers to a civil and rational analysis of the claims that they make in a public forum, we can reach people before they get swept up by the hysteria and echo chamber that is the Conspiracy Marketing Community.
     
    • Like Like x 2