Usage of the term "Conspiracy Theory"

Actually I think the "culture war" conspiracy theory is very much up for debate. But probably elsewhere. Suffice to say you are a firm believer in that particular theory.

This is why the term "conspiracy theory" has lost all usefulness, Mick. You can't just slap the thing everywhere you disagree with something or want to dismiss someone. Calling the culture wars a conspiracy theory is simply nonsensical. It's like calling a peanut butter and jelly sandwich "racist." (And no, that's not just me going reductio ad absurdum. It really has happened. Google the phrase and see for yourself.)

You yourself said that the term didn't cause a divide, but that the divide was already there. Uh, what divide are you referring to? Sounds like you are pushing forth that "culture war" conspiracy, doesn't it?
 
The point is without the regulations we would still have sweat shops and corporations polluting the environment. You seem to play dumb often when you reply to posts.

I got your point the first time and the second time. What you are failing to get is that it doesn't have anything to do with the point that was made about corporations. It is a non-sequitur. Since you have booted this bit three times now, you don't want to be tossing out comments about others playing dumb. Just sayin'.
 
This is the second time you've deflected my question.

Please go back now and explain how "coincidence" is the opposite of "conspiracy".

It isn't the opposite in general usage. In this particular arena however, the term "coincidence theorist" has been coined to describe those individuals who don't seem to see connections between anything, often aggressively so, at least when it comes to denying virtually every point made on any aspect of any topic that someone they have labeled a conspiracy theorist.
 
Until they jump out of the bushes and eat you. Pattern recognition and agent detection are essential for survival, the human species would never have arisen without them.

Or, as I like to put it, pareidolia was selected for, apareidolia, not so much.
 
You yourself said that the term didn't cause a divide, but that the divide was already there. Uh, what divide are you referring to? Sounds like you are pushing forth that "culture war" conspiracy, doesn't it?

I'm sure it would to a conspiracy theorist. But I'm not. I'm just describing the situation as I see it.

There's a long history, especially in America, of some people ascribing their woes to powerful colluding forces. The "divide" is simply between the unreasonably suspicious, and the reasonably suspicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics

Of course, everyone sees themselves as being reasonable, which is what creates the problems. You think I'm deliberately belittling you and your ilk. I think I'm simply describing how you seem to me.
 
Until they jump out of the bushes and eat you. Pattern recognition and agent detection are essential for survival, the human species would never have arisen without them.

Sure, but the problem is that it is evolutionarily advantageous to be paranoid. It's better to imagine wolves everywhere than to never detect wolves.

The problem is this carries over to situations where there are no wolves. It's understandable why people saw Reds under the Beds, it's natural, but that does not mean it's correct.
 
The BP oil spill was in no way, 'the largest environmental disaster' in the US. It wasn't even the largest oil spill. That was the Lakeview gusher in the 20's or 30's.

The overall environmental impact of the Macondo blowout was fairly small. It surprised me that it did not have more impact. That was what led me to debunking.

The folks responsible for Love canal was not Hooker chemical, it was the school board and the city of Niagara Falls.

This is the wrong place to debunk those. They could easily have a thread of their own.
 
The folks responsible for Love canal was not Hooker chemical, it was the school board and the city of Niagara Falls.

Er, while the city was culpable, Hooker Chemical was found to be negligent in their disposal of the toxic waste. That's a matter of record.

While this might not be the place, my comments were a response to yours. I used the reply function so that would be clear. I could obviously tell that you were responding to mine, but it might not have been clear to anyone else, so you might consider using the reply function in future, for clarity.
 
The BP oil spill was in no way, 'the largest environmental disaster' in the US. It wasn't even the largest oil spill. That was the Lakeview gusher in the 20's or 30's.

"
The Gulf oil spill began April 22, 2010 and leaked an estimated 206 million gallons into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the worst oil spill in U.S. history and the largest accidental oil spill in the world.
Content from External Source
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wi...worst-man-made-environmental-disasters/gulf-0
 
Thankfully, lessons have been learned in respect to deep ploughing. However, is monocultural farming not hard on the environment? With respect to bio-diversity, that's very debatable.



BP were responsible, through corporate negligience for the biggest environmental disaster in American history, so holding them up as a shining example of how corporations are better than public entities seems odd. BP are just one corporation in a long list that includes the following disasters: the Summitville mine, Dunsmuir, the Phillips Disaster, Martin County coal slurry spill, Basin F, the Berkeley Pit, the Cuyahoga River pollution, Picher Oklahoma, Exxon Valdez, WR Grace in Montana, Hooker Chemical, Hinckley and the Love Canal. If I recall correctly, Union Carbide owned the Bhopal site and those who suffered there had to fight tooth and nail to get any kind of compensation.
You need to make some distinction between events that were the fault of corporate negligence vs human error and if you are going to hold the private corporations at fault over state corporation you need to consider whether the corporation were operating within the laws of the time. The Exxon Valdez and the Phillips disaster were human error and as Cairenn pointed out Niagra built a school at the site despite being warned by Hooker Chemical.
 
The arcana of oil spills is getting a bit off topic. The topic is the term "Conspiracy Theory".

New topics in new threads please.
 
Ok - Even though I can show The Lakeview Gusher Spilled more than Deepwater Horizon.:D
Having done a bit of research, I accept that the Lakeview Gusher spilled more oil than DH. Not certain it had as significant an impact on so large an area as DH, considering the latter happened in the Gulf.

But, as Mick has asked nicely, I'll let it lie.
 
I got your point the first time and the second time. What you are failing to get is that it doesn't have anything to do with the point that was made about corporations. It is a non-sequitur. Since you have booted this bit three times now, you don't want to be tossing out comments about others playing dumb. Just sayin'.
Since you understood it the first two time, why did you boot it twice?
 
My post said this: "Those regulations were put into effect to temper corporations who fought them every step of the way."

Nothing in that is a lament regarding restrictions. You are just wrong here. When in a hole, stop digging.

So what did the tempering involve?
 
I'm sure it would to a conspiracy theorist. But I'm not. I'm just describing the situation as I see it.

Everyone is just describing the situation as they see it, Mick. But you miss the point. The fact that you see the culture wars as being a conspiracy theory illustrates how skewed your seeing is towards the divide that is perpetuated by the term. Unless, or course you see the Catholic Church as conspiracy theorists.

There's a long history, especially in America, of some people ascribing their woes to powerful colluding forces.

Surely there is a long history of powerful colluding forces, so those affected by such are bound to make a note of it. And, hey, isn't that exactly how America came into being? Those paranoid conspiracy theorists, the Founding Fathers, got all up in arms about the colluding government seeking to unduly tax them and restrict their rights?

In response, they conspired to revolt and the rest is history. Had they failed, they would have been executed as traitors, and understandably so.

And happily for some, but not so happily for others, these reprobates, as well as those who revere them, are being stripped of that "patriot" bosh and being described as the DOD sees it, as the extremist bastards they are:
In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.
Content from External Source
The "divide" is simply between the unreasonably suspicious, and the reasonably suspicious.

The problem with the term is that it comes with a built in derogation implying that the one tarred thus is unreasonable as a default and thus safely dismissed and marginalized. Everyone knows there are conspiracies, as the verse goes, but conspiracy theorists see them where they aren't while reasonable folks know better.

Of course, everyone sees themselves as being reasonable, which is what creates the problems. You think I'm deliberately belittling you and your ilk. I think I'm simply describing how you seem to me.

Me and my ilk? Heh. Well, we conspiracy theorists do know where we sit on this bus, regardless of how seemly or unseemly that may be to the rest of the clan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thoughts on the term "Conspiracy Theory".

There will always be like-minded people working toward certain goals, whether they be good or bad or neutral.
If those goals are not toward the good of all, but toward the benefit of only a selfish few, people will notice a trend.
When people begin to speak out about that trend, it is eventually given an identifiable name.

The phrase "Survival of the fittest" -- implies that certain people should not or will not or cannot survive because in the eyes of a select few, they are not "fit" to survive.

The "fittest" these days seems to have become equated to be those who have the most money and power.

Because people see a trend toward a goal or goals that only benefit the "fittest few" -- doesn't make them "paranoid".

The term "conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term -- that groups people who speak out about situations that seem suspect -- as being "kooks".

Was there a "conspiracy" to weaken the Native Americans -- in order to take their land?
There was. But most people wouldn't have uttered the words.
They would have just gone along with the developments and the rumors and the means, and not said a word.

The original land dwellers were referred to as "savages" and fear of them was promoted, so that people would feel justified in eliminating them.
The hides of their most precious resource were bountied, so people would kill buffalo in mass numbers for their hides.
This weakened the Native Americans substantially, so they were easier to overcome.
A lot of people took part in this "conspiracy" -- without even recognizing what they were doing.
They didn't have the means of communication back then -- to make each other aware of the plan.

Now people recognize when many things are taking place that all seem to work toward an obvious outcome -- that doesn't benefit the majority.

"Survival of the fittest" seems to be the goal, when only a certain privileged few are strengthened, while the rest of the people are simultaneously weakened -- as a result.

For people to have their suspicions is only logical.
To discredit such suspicions by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" -- is an obvious tactic.

People are suspicious -- because the "balance of power" is so far off kilter -- nothing seems to work to benefit the masses any longer.

The oil companies raise their prices in anticipation of the economy improving. What sort of an excuse is that?
In other words, if the oil companies anticipate that people will have more money -- they will move to take that extra money away from them.

"After Brent fell below $90/bbl in late June and WTI dropped below $80/bbl, prices rebounded in July on expectations that policymakers in the United States, Europe, and China would take action to stimulate economic growth, which could increase oil demand."

http://ogpn.baumpub.com/news/3010/oil-prices-remain-at-historically-high-levels

Whatever form it takes, there IS a conspiracy to weaken the "have-nots", in order to strengthen the "haves".
It should be called "Survival of the Greediest."

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is a derogatory term that works to discredit the voices of those who cry "Suspect!"
We would be fools if we were not suspicious.
 
It's like calling a peanut butter and jelly sandwich "racist." (And no, that's not just me going reductio ad absurdum. It really has happened. Google the phrase and see for yourself.
Googled it. It's already been debunked as an example of shoddy reporting.

How fair is it for pundits to take a news story that includes the word racism in the first paragraph and boil that down into a headline about a racist sandwich?

The Education Action Group says it’s fair game, given the story and the fact that an educator singled out the sandwich in a lesson about cultural competency. But come on. Read the original story. Gutierrez is quoted as suggesting to staff: "Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?" That’s not an indictment of the sandwich.

Portland Public Schools did not spend half a million dollars to label the sandwich "racist." The principal never called the sandwich racist. The Portland Tribune never said the principal called the sandwich racist. And yes, we don’t usually weigh in on lunch, but who could resist? The statement is inaccurate and silly.

We rate the statement Pants on Fire.
Content from External Source
http://www.politifact.com/oregon/st...nd-schools-spending-half-million-dollars-dec/
 
Last edited:
That the rich act to get richer is hardly a conspiracy theory. That the governments of the world conspire to spread chemtrails, for whatever purpose, is a conspiracy theory. Being so, how would you choose to describe it if not as a 'conspiracy theory'? What words would you use?
 
"The debate concerning jet trails."
That the rich act to get richer is hardly a conspiracy theory. That the governments of the world conspire to spread chemtrails, for whatever purpose, is a conspiracy theory. Being so, how would you choose to describe it if not as a 'conspiracy theory'? What words would you use?

"The debate concerning jet trails".
"The suspicion of jet trails being chem trails."
"The concern about persistent and expanding jet trails".
"Jet trail observations and conversations."
"The curious nature of jet trails and the ongoing debate".
"Jet trail conversations."

etc.
 
"The debate concerning jet trails."


"The debate concerning jet trails".
"The suspicion of jet trails being chem trails."
"The concern about persistent and expanding jet trails".
"Jet trail observations and conversations."
"The curious nature of jet trails and the ongoing debate".
"Jet trail conversations."

etc.

It was the people who theorized that these contrails were being used to spray people who referred to them as chemtrails, and they still do.
 
And you see this making what difference as far as putting the toothpaste back in the tube?
Not even sure what that means. You made the challenge and and I found out the statement is a falsehood. You must have thought it was valid or you wouldn't have brought it up as part of your argument. Don't make statements like that if you don't want to be called on them.
 
I suspect you're treading a very thin line with the persistent niggah usage, strikethrough or not, as regards Mick's politeness policy.

As for "the tightly held, yet poorly reasoned accepted truths here", can you give a couple of examples?
 
Not even sure what that means. You made the challenge and and I found out the statement is a falsehood. You must have thought it was valid or you wouldn't have brought it up as part of your argument. Don't make statements like that if you don't want to be called on them.

Start here: "Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day." Proceed to this: "Velderman said he doesn’t know if the principal actually called the sandwiches racist."

Explain how this has been debunked and on what grounds you claim it a falsehood. Then explain how I have been called on anything, when my original point in bringing up the item was to show how meaningless the term has become in analogy with the way conspiracy theorist has become meaningless beyond as a way to smear and marginalize.
 
Start here: "Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day." Proceed to this: "Velderman said he doesn’t know if the principal actually called the sandwiches racist."

Explain how this has been debunked and on what grounds you claim it a falsehood. Then explain how I have been called on anything, when my original point in bringing up the item was to show how meaningless the term has become in analogy with the way conspiracy theorist has become meaningless beyond as a way to smear and marginalize.

Ben Velderman, a communications specialist who wrote the story. Velderman said he doesn’t know if the principal actually called the sandwiches racist -- which the headline claims.
Content from External Source
Original author admits he doesn't know the statement is a fact.
"So if a peanut butter sandwich is the ‘subtle language of racism,’ I don’t think it’s a stretch that she thinks a peanut butter sandwich is racist," he said.
Content from External Source
Original author admits he paraphrased and put his own spin on the comments. It's a stretch to say she thinks a peanut butter sandwich is racist when that is not what she said.

It only hasn't been debunked if exclude Ben Velderman's comments and all the information showing that the principal did not actually say that peanut butter sandwiches are racist.
 
I suspect you're treading a very thin line with the persistent niggah usage, strikethrough or not, as regards Mick's politeness policy.

Oh, I"m sure I am. I'm also sure nobody could coherently explain what is impolite about it or even see the irony involved were they to seek to do so, given the point I am making by using it in the first place. This is supposed to be the reason and logic and evidence wing of the world, but it's as emotive and driven by pc silliness as anywhere else.

As for "the tightly held, yet poorly reasoned accepted truths here", can you give a couple of examples?

See my posts re the artificial dichotomy re AJ/msm and the blind insistence that AJ doesn't practice journalism and everything he does is fake.

See my posts re the fear-mongering of the warmist agenda. Sorry if the term offends, I'm just describing it as I see it, not insulting you or your ilk. (This is called ironic juxtaposition. It's used to make a point in a clear manner, yet such devices are frowned upon here as not being clear language.)

See the notion that some independent investigation "exonerating" the folks involved in climategate has somehow restored the credibility of those involved in the eyes of the world outside the tent. Compare it to, say, the 9/11 report and the credibility restoration that achieved.

See the notion that somehow exclusively focusing on particular trees and "debunking" them somehow debunks the forest in which they are set.
 
... I'm really just a niggah conspiracy theorist that doesn't know his place and forced to play by rules others flaunt freely and threatened with being lynched banned if I don't toe an arbitrary line that is only visible once it is crossed.
Seriously you've lost it completely, equating your poor persecuted self with racial persecution and physical violence against blacks. You demonstrate the complete lack of perspective and hyperbole of the conspiracy theorist.
 
This doesn't follow. Those regulations were put into effect to temper corporations who fought them every step of the way.

Sure it does. Indeed the Corps fought against regulations yet in the end acquiesced and now operate under the guidelines put forth by society. Their management and operations now reflect the society in which they operate. .


You are mistaking consuming with consumerism. They are not the same thing.

BS- thats semantics. People like shiny things. Always have.

No. A thousand times no. I am a huge fan of personal responsibility and I have fought this consumerism virus all my life on a personal level. But as sickened as I am by the bloated carcasses of the fat and unhappy souls slouching towards idiocracy, I understand the the poor fucks were gamed, manipulated, and literally trained to be such mindless consumerbots.

Wow...that is some serious elitist BS. You got it all figured out but anyone who buys a shiny bauble is a fat, unhappy poor fuck.

classic.
 
Ben Velderman, a communications specialist who wrote the story. Velderman said he doesn’t know if the principal actually called the sandwiches racist -- which the headline claims.
Content from External Source
Original author admits he doesn't know the statement is a fact.

That isn't the original story or the original author. That's from Breitbart. The original is from the Portland Trib and is no longer linked.

"So if a peanut butter sandwich is the ‘subtle language of racism,’ I don’t think it’s a stretch that she thinks a peanut butter sandwich is racist," he said.
Content from External Source
Original author admits he paraphrased and put his own spin on the comments. It's a stretch to say she thinks a peanut butter sandwich is racist when that is not what she said.

This is the beginning of the original story as was quoted in your link and it is what the rest of the articles are referring to:
Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.

Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year.

"What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?" says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood.

"Another way would be to say: ‘Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?’ Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita."
Content from External Source
The implication is that the pbj could be an example of "the subtle language of racism" since it was specifically used as a possible example.

It only hasn't been debunked if exclude Ben Velderman's comments and all the information showing that the principal did not actually say that peanut butter sandwiches are racist.

In your rush to play "gotcha" and call me on a minor point while skipping over the main point, you have booted this badly. Nothing has been debunked. And you are still missing the forest for the trees. It's only the inane pc police culture that has taken the notion of racism and twisted it so far out of shape that something as stoopid as this could even hope to become a viral piece of fluff.
 
That isn't the original story or the original author. That's from Breitbart. The original is from the Portland Trib and is no longer linked.



This is the beginning of the original story as was quoted in your link and it is what the rest of the articles are referring to:
Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.

Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year.

"What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?" says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood.

"Another way would be to say: ‘Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?’ Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita."
Content from External Source
The implication is that the pbj could be an example of "the subtle language of racism" since it was specifically used as a possible example.



In your rush to play "gotcha" and call me on a minor point while skipping over the main point, you have booted this badly. Nothing has been debunked. And you are still missing the forest for the trees. It's only the inane pc police culture that has taken the notion of racism and twisted it so far out of shape that something as stoopid as this could even hope to become a viral piece of fluff.
The Brietbart Author is the one that wrote the article saying the principal called peanut butter sandwiches racist and he admits that it was not in the Portland Tribune Article. The phrase was not in the original article and trying to twist the phrase "Subtle language of Racism" and the use of peanut butter sandwiches as something that is familiar to one culture but meaningless to people from a culture that has never had access to peanut butter sandwiches into "peanut butter sandwiches are racist" is extremely disingenuous. You have very selectively read read the article and latched on to what little is there rather than admit the phrase "peanut butter sandwiches are racist" is not in the Portland Tribune article and was the creation of a third party. While I'll admit there are other ways it could have been phrased that doesn't change the fact that the principal did not say peanut butter sandwiches are racist. It's not a rush to play gotcha. You issued the challenge. Maybe you should have checked all the details first.

Here is the link to the Portland Tribune Article:http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/114604-schools-beat-the-drum-for-equity
 
Last edited:
Seriously you've lost it completely, equating your poor persecuted self with racial persecution and physical violence against blacks. You demonstrate the complete lack of perspective and hyperbole of the conspiracy theorist.

Given that this was in reply to Mick's comment, regarding "you and your ilk", is the usage not perhaps in some way valid. Mick clearly "othered" Joe.

I find this "othering" particularly revealing, given that some conspiracy theories indeed turn out to be true.
 
The term 'conspiracy theorist' describes someone who habitually subscribes to conspiracy theories.

A 'conspiracy theory' is a theory which explains things with no confirmable evidence, just connecting different points to build a picture that is ideologically driven to confirm the idea of dark forces massed against innocent civilians. It is mutually exclusive to a rational evaluation of confirmable evidence.

If a conspiracy theory turns out to be true it becomes the 'official' story, the standard understanding of things. This does not change the fact the original conspiracy theory was *not* based on evidence but only on biased selection of facts - if it were, it would have been part of the general facts under investigation.

The terms clearly define the thing itself, and the person prone to that behaviour.

If that habitual suspicion and distrust were backed up with verifiable facts, then they would be an investigative journalist.
They often think they are, but they are not.

Irrational behaviour is marginalised, that's not a plot against you or a surprise.
(and people were banned because they demonstrated that irrational behaviour in impolite provocation, not because they were conspiracy theorists. The fact that the two things often coincide may just be a coincidence.)
 
Given that this was in reply to Mick's comment, regarding "you and your ilk", is the usage not perhaps in some way valid. Mick clearly "othered" Joe.

I find this "othering" particularly revealing, given that some conspiracy theories indeed turn out to be true.
It's a long way from from "you and your ilk" to relying on racial epithets to make a point. Why not throw in a few holocaust comments while he's at it.
 
If a conspiracy theory turns out to be true it becomes the 'official' story, the standard understanding of things. This does not change the fact the original conspiracy theory was *not* based on evidence but only on biased selection of facts - if it were, it would have been part of the general facts under investigation.

There is also prediction based on past experience.

What do I learn from the Iran coup turning out to be a UK/US conspiracy? When analysing the coups in Indonesia say?
 
Wow...that is some serious elitist BS. You got it all figured out but anyone who buys a shiny bauble is a fat, unhappy poor fuck.

classic.

Reminds me of someone I knew from work who referred to anyone higher up in the company as "the suits" with a sneer. Till he was promoted to "a suit", then he dropped the sneering.
 
Back
Top