Why are people called conspiracy theorists?

[Gary Cook]

It seems to me to be rude to call people conspiracy theorists as it clearly offends some people. I get that there are too many crazy people scaring people with weird claims but most people just want liberty and government accountability. I would of thought in America that would be respected more than it is. Why not just call it what it is? Theory of a conspiracy? Not digging out this forum. I just see it a lot all over the net. Especially in a dismissive manner.

 

[Mick West]

What do you call people who tend to see powerful conspiracies behind all significant events?

 

[Gary Cook]

What do you call people who tend to see powerful conspiracies behind all significant events?

Thanks for the reply. Sincerely.

A lot of them could of well been conspiracies and even if one was thats one too many.

Even Bush's stated version of 9/11 is a theory of a conspiracy. Why isn't he called a Conspiracy Theorist? Just asking.

There are proven and accepted false flags in history. Like for example in Nazis Germany.

Politicians even planned Operation Northwoods didnt they? Even if they didnt carry it out.

Plus all the freeman stuff of being governed without consent etc.

Surely it is not a crazy wild stretch.

Not digging you out. Some people are crazy and scare people. Dis-ease is likely the biggest cause of illness.

 

[Gary Cook]

I think my point is now, why use it when it doesn't serve much purpose and offends people. It doesn't serve much purpose because even George Bush could be called that.

Trying to be objective. If we are trying to win hearts and minds to the cause of logic then surely offending people with phrases that are not that useful isnt objective.

 

[Mick West]

What would you call them then?

 

[TWCobra]

Undoubtedly there have been government inspired plots, even in recent history. However we have seen the fairly recent rise, internet driven, of the belief that ANY newsworthy event has a sinister/faked motive or explanation. This is usually put forward without reference to Occams razor, and accepted by like-minded fellow travellers also without question.

It seems to be getting worse, but maybe that's my own conspiracy theory. The anger I see being generated in some of these sites is palpable. Sites such as Metabunk are needed as some sort of bulwark against this phenomenon.

 

[Gary Cook]

I like your answers. There is conspiracy theories" against this forum of course. I am sure that is not a secret. I have seen nothing but decent people here.

I don't know, that is a good question Mick, but it offends me a bit and I am not really deep in to like 911 and stuff like that. I just decided ages ago that the government want people to debate over it. Its a diversion tactic in my mind but anyway thats not what I was getting at. I dont know is the answer. I am not an expert but I just find that a little offending myself and I know others would find it very offensive. Some of us uncover actual government conspiracy on a regular basis. Whether institutional or more local such as UK parliament expenses scandals.

I guess as a way to describe people that theorise about a conspiracy that's fair enough as people do but its used way too much as simply a derogative term. In my opinion.

 

[Cairenn]

When folks are presented with the facts, take on chemtrails, and they refuse to accept them and instead think up elaborate explanations for them. Or when they cling to a story that even they can't offer any evidence of (how would the WTC building been rigged for a controlled demo, who did it, when, and how did they survive the fires to go off when they wanted to to). Instead they develop exotic new explosives. Or when they persist in seeing actors instead of victims in crimes, I have no problem with calling them conspiracy theorists. That is a lot nicer name than most folks have for them.

 

[cloudspotter]

It seems to me to be rude to call people conspiracy theorists as it clearly offends some people. I get that there are too many crazy people scaring people with weird claims but most people just want liberty and government accountability. I would of thought in America that would be respected more than it is. Why not just call it what it is? Theory of a conspiracy? Not digging out this forum. I just see it a lot all over the net. Especially in a dismissive manner.

Maybe that's where the problem lies then. If conspiracy theorists only tried to alert people with sensible claims then the term wouldn't be seen as a derogatory one.

 

[Pete Tar]

Yes indeed ^^^

The stigma is due to what's associated with the people who do believe irrationally in conspiracies. If they had a track record of rational and thoughtful considered analysis and behaviour, there wouldn't be the idea that it is derogatory, it would be a compliment.
They've created the negative connotation themselves.

 

[qed]

However we have seen the fairly recent rise, internet driven, of the belief that ANY newsworthy event has a sinister/faked motive or explanation.

Agreed.

But I also think the massively over-the-top response to 9-11 (with invasions in support of general US policy but in the name of...), has contributed to the rise in conspiracy theories. People do not understand why the US is behaving in this way, and see conspiracies as the answer.

 

[mrfintoil]

What do you call people who tend to see powerful conspiracies behind all significant events?

If you refer to individuals who see conspiracies everywhere due to paranoia - I usually call them conspiranoids which is a contracted fusion of "conspiracy" and "paranoid" with the -oid suffix at the end indicating similarly minded people. Because frankly, a conspiracy theorist might not be deluded by paranoia if the theory can be supported by correct hardcore evidence, but the common usage of the word "conspiracy theorist" refers today more to paranoid deluded individuals, which sort of skews the original meaning of the word in my opinion.

If we stick to the original definition I do not see why "conspiracy theorist" would be demeaning to anyone, especially if there really is a conspiracy going on that can be supported by correct hardcore evidence. But it seems like it's mostly conspiranoids who take offence by this word, even though what most of them do is actually theorizing (speculating) in conspiracies.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

I like your answers. There is conspiracy theories" against this forum of course. I am sure that is not a secret. I have seen nothing but decent people here.

I don't know, that is a good question Mick, but it offends me a bit and I am not really deep in to like 911 and stuff like that. I just decided ages ago that the government want people to debate over it. Its a diversion tactic in my mind but anyway thats not what I was getting at. I dont know is the answer. I am not an expert but I just find that a little offending myself and I know others would find it very offensive. Some of us uncover actual government conspiracy on a regular basis. Whether institutional or more local such as UK parliament expenses scandals.

I guess as a way to describe people that theorise about a conspiracy that's fair enough as people do but its used way too much as simply a derogative term. In my opinion.

Someone who acually has a theory regarding a happening that they may be conspiritorial is the implication of the term "conspiracy theorist". However the description has been hijacked by those who see absolutely every major event as a hoax or fake or a "false flag" (another misused term). It is they who have made the expression disreputable. It has become derogatory simply because of the dubious motives of those who used it to describe themselves in the first instance. Perhaps your question should be directed at them.

 

[JRBids]

I like your answers. There is conspiracy theories" against this forum of course. I am sure that is not a secret. I have seen nothing but decent people here.

I don't know, that is a good question Mick, but it offends me a bit and I am not really deep in to like 911 and stuff like that. I just decided ages ago that the government want people to debate over it. Its a diversion tactic in my mind but anyway thats not what I was getting at. I dont know is the answer. I am not an expert but I just find that a little offending myself and I know others would find it very offensive. Some of us uncover actual government conspiracy on a regular basis. Whether institutional or more local such as UK parliament expenses scandals.

I guess as a way to describe people that theorise about a conspiracy that's fair enough as people do but its used way too much as simply a derogative term. In my opinion.

Are you saying you have a theory that the government is behind conspiracy theories?

What would you call someone who thinks no children were killed at Sandy Hook, that all the participants were actors?

What would you call someone who believes that nano bots are being sprayed by airplanes to infect us, waiting to be activated by HAARP to mind control us? What would you call the same people who believe passenger planes should be shot out of the air?

Maybe you should be approaching the leaders of the conspiracy theory movements and taking it up with them, as they are responsible for the derogatory connection.

 

[Gary Cook]

I am not trying to be nasty. Just making an observation with this comment and the original thread but there was a real mix of intentions with the replys here. Some were a lot more genuine than others.

I would prefer to be called a "conspiranoid" than a than conspiracy theorist, if I had to choose one to be called.

At least with conspiranoids it's pointing out what is wrong and how I could improve. It's a constructive criticism. Conspiracy theorist is just condescending in my opinion.

Even though the phrase does describe the person in a sense, like I said, even George Bush has a theory of a conspiracy.

Heck the police have them everyday chasing petty crime most of the time. Rarely do they investigate real institutionalised criminality.

I like this forum a lot and I learned about chemtrails so I am not so worried about them now which I am grateful for but I have to think about my position towards the forum. Personally, I would rather debunk the things that institutions come out with that are clearly based on dodgy evidence and I am not sure if I would be allowed to? The scope for institutions harming humans is generally far higher than some isolated nerd in his parents basement.

I just dont want anybody to think I am trying to be awkward or undermining the good work here.

In relation to the reply above about chemtrail and people ignoring the evidence, nobody can sit in every plane and monitor what they are doing so insidious behaviour of similar nature is still technically possible. If somewhat far-fetched sounding.

​

 

[JRBids]

See, I would think "conspiranoid" would be more derogatory than "conspiracy theorist". Consider maybe you are making amountain out of a molehill.

While no one can sit in every plane and monitory everything "they" are doing, that is not a good reason to believe in chemtrails. That is paranoid. I can't watch my husband every minute of the day either, but I don't think there is a huge possibility he is an alien.

 

[Gary Cook]

See, I would think "conspiranoid" would be more derogatory than "conspiracy theorist". Consider maybe you are making amountain out of a molehill.

While no one can sit in every plane and monitory everything "they" are doing, that is not a good reason to believe in chemtrails. That is paranoid. I can't watch my husband every minute of the day either, but I don't think there is a huge possibility he is an alien.

Why would you bothered if he were and maybe he really is. We dont have a symbiotic relationship with this planet but thats another story isn't it.

Yuu are entitled to your opinion but i'm entitled to mention that "conspiracy theory" offends people. It is an objective observation.

 

[cloudspotter]

I am not trying to be nasty. Just making an observation with this comment and the original thread but there was a real mix of intentions with the replys here. Some were a lot more genuine than others.

I would prefer to be called a "conspiranoid" than a than conspiracy theorist, if I had to choose one to be called.

At least with conspiranoids it's pointing out what is wrong and how I could improve. It's a constructive criticism. Conspiracy theorist is just condescending in my opinion.

Even though the phrase does describe the person in a sense, like I said, even George Bush has a theory of a conspiracy.

Heck the police have them everyday chasing petty crime most of the time. Rarely do they investigate real institutionalised criminality.

People are only conspiracy theorists as long as the conspiracy is only a theory

I like this forum a lot and I learned about chemtrails so I am not so worried about them now which I am grateful for but I have to think about my position towards the forum. Personally, I would rather debunk the things that institutions come out with that are clearly based on dodgy evidence and I am not sure if I would be allowed to? The scope for institutions harming humans is generally far higher than some isolated nerd in his parents basement.

Go for it. In my opinion that should most definitely be done, bunk is bunk regardless of the source.

 

[Gary Cook]

See, I would think "conspiranoid" would be more derogatory than "conspiracy theorist". Consider maybe you are making amountain out of a molehill.

While no one can sit in every plane and monitory everything "they" are doing, that is not a good reason to believe in chemtrails. That is paranoid. I can't watch my husband every minute of the day either, but I don't think there is a huge possibility he is an alien.

Why would that be paranoid? They are over our heads all the time practically now.

What is wrong with precautions for our protection?

Are the powers at be in this world infallibly moral humans??

Just answering rebuttals.

 

[Gary Cook]

People are only conspiracy theorists as long as the conspiracy is only a theory

That is true. But Then we are getting in to the realms of what is really debunked and what isnt. Most debunking is done by people who were not at the scene or with secondary evidence. I don't believe or disbelieve anything unless I see it with my own eyes and even then I cant trust them 100%.

For example I am putting together a file that debunks the claim that we are ruled by consent even though it is said that we are supposed to be. I think I can prove it conclusively but then if somebody presents a new bit of evidence contrary then it isnt debunked any more.

Surely we can only really debunk stated facts. Debunking whether something happened or not as an entire event is a lot different if we wasnt there to be a witness to it.

For example I have an issue with the office fire theory in building 7 on 9/11. It doesnt state how they are started from what I saw so that could mean anything or anybody could of started them. Plus I dont think office fires would be hot enough.

That's not my point though. I dont mean to digress. There are also things on this forum that are debunked like a lot of the details in 9/11 theories of conspiracies and chemtrails. I just dont believe all the points are debunked as there are new ones all the time.

Not that I am rambling. Just trying my best to demonstrate why I feel some people have a legitimate reason to be offended by the "conspiracy theory" phrase.

A lot of theories are bias. I am sure some of mine are. For example when I read the NIST reports I read them with the view to try and look for evidence of a cover up. I did try and be fair and objective though.

I don't think that makes me paranoid but I also think its just as acceptable that some people looked through the NIST reports for ways to debunk theories of government conspiracy.

I guess in the wash it will all come out eventually.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

I would prefer to be called a "conspiranoid" than a than conspiracy theorist, if I had to choose one to be called.

If "conspiranoid" became a "respected" term, do you not think that that would be then used by the same individuals/groups and would then itself become a derogatory expression? I don't see why you are concerned about this. Every time a conspiranoid (see what I did there ) calls me a "sheep" I consider it a compliment!

It's the way of things now. For example, some people regard England's flag of St. George in a poor light because it has been hijacked by various right wing groups. There's little one can do about it.

Your views on the conspiracies you alluded to earlier....

Some of us uncover actual government conspiracy on a regular basis.

....would be interesting.

 

[Gary Cook]

If "conspiranoid" became a "respected" term, do you not think that that would be then used by the same individuals/groups and would then itself become a derogatory expression? I don't see why you are concerned about this. Every time a conspiranoid (see what I did there ) calls me a "sheep" I consider it a compliment!

It's the way of things now. For example, some people regard England's flag of St. George in a poor light because it has been hijacked by various right wing groups. There's little one can do about it.

Your views on the conspiracies you alluded to earlier.... ....would be interesting.

Government itself would be my main one, personally.

Well, forced government anyway.

 

[JRBids]

Why would that be paranoid? They are over our heads all the time practically now.

What is wrong with precautions for our protection?

Are the powers at be in this world infallibly moral humans??

Just answering rebuttals.

"They" are overour heads all the time? WHAT is over our heads all the time? "Chemtrails"? Chemtrails are a hoax. There is no "poison/nanobot/population control/whatever" being sprayed over your head.

Take whatever precautions you think you need to.

No they are not infallible and some may be immoral.

No, you're a conspiritard. I'll probably get banned for saying that, I'm sure it's "offensive" to someone.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

Government itself would be my main one, personally.

Well, forced government anyway.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Some of us uncover actual government conspiracy on a regular basis.

Your use of the word "us" suggests to me that you have been involved in uncovering "actual government conspiracy on a regular basis". Please can you give a specific example of a conspiracy that you took part in revealing, and what part you played?

 

[Josh Heuer]

"They" are called "conspiracy theorists" for the same reason "debunkers" are called "shills."
It's verbal diarrhea. It's just a way the mind tries to recognize patterns and categorize people into different groups.
That's why when "debunkers" come across a "conspiracy theorist", even with just one sentence, such as 'hey guys I think 9/11 was an inside job', the tendency is to put them in that one boat with all conspiracy theorists, no matter how wild the claim or how wild the claims they've heard.
It's pathetic on both ends.

 

[Brainiachick]

I like your answers. There is conspiracy theories" against this forum of course. I am sure that is not a secret. I have seen nothing but decent people here.

I don't know, that is a good question Mick, but it offends me a bit and I am not really deep in to like 911 and stuff like that. I just decided ages ago that the government want people to debate over it. Its a diversion tactic in my mind but anyway thats not what I was getting at. I dont know is the answer. I am not an expert but I just find that a little offending myself and I know others would find it very offensive. Some of us uncover actual government conspiracy on a regular basis. Whether institutional or more local such as UK parliament expenses scandals.

I guess as a way to describe people that theorise about a conspiracy that's fair enough as people do but its used way too much as simply a derogative term. In my opinion.

Gary,

This is my humble opinion without meaning to be cheeky - if they theorise about conspiracies - then the name tag 'Conspirary Theorist' would seem very befitting. Why must it be seen as being offensive rather than being a fitting title? I think they should take pride in it, seriously. Someone who teaches is called a teacher. Someone who dances is called a dancer. Someone who judges is called a Judge. Someone who theorises is a Theorist - I see no problem there. If those theories are about a particular topic of interest such as conspiracies, then conspiracy in the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is only an adjective to clarify the kind of theories this person is specialised in.

That is how I see it and I, of course, welcome your input.

 

[George B]

Gary,

This is my humble opinion without meaning to be cheeky - if they theorise about conspiracies - then the name tag 'Conspirary Theorist' would seem very befitting. Why must it be seen as being offensive rather than being a fitting title? I think they should take pride in it, seriously. Someone who teaches is called a teacher. Someone who dances is called a dancer. Someone who judges is called a Judge. Someone who theorises is a Theorist - I see no problem there. If those theories are about a particular topic of interest such as conspiracies, then conspiracy in the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is only an adjective to clarify the kind of theories this person is specialised in.

That is how I see it and I, of course, welcome your input.

Seems 'conspiracy theorists' has become a flag word which tends to discredit someone's credibility . . . summoning visions of tin foil hats and the like . . . just like UFO . . . which was simply a word for not knowing the identity of a flying object has become a term primarily negative . . . we almost automatically laugh or roll our eyes when someone uses the word . . .

 

[cloudspotter]

For example I am putting together a file that debunks the claim that we are ruled by consent even though it is said that we are supposed to be. I think I can prove it conclusively but then if somebody presents a new bit of evidence contrary then it isnt debunked any more.

It isn't debunked any more if someone adds some bunk but then that bunk can be debunked if it is actually bunk

 

[Melbury's Brick]

"They" are called "conspiracy theorists" for the same reason "debunkers" are called "shills."
It's verbal diarrhea. It's just a way the mind tries to recognize patterns and categorize people into different groups.
That's why when "debunkers" come across a "conspiracy theorist", even with just one sentence, such as 'hey guys I think 9/11 was an inside job', the tendency is to put them in that one boat with all conspiracy theorists, no matter how wild the claim or how wild the claims they've heard.
It's pathetic on both ends.

I appreciate that you're trying give a balanced view, Josh. However, calling someone a "shill", which I understand to be an individual paid by the government to oppose and deride the views of others, is, certainly in my case, inaccurate. Calling some one a conspiracy theorist if they say something like 'hey guys I think 9/11 was an inside job' would seem to be correct, and not in the slightest bit insulting.
To quote Mick West in an earlier post....... "What would you call them then?"

 

[Gary Cook]

"They" are overour heads all the time? WHAT is over our heads all the time? "Chemtrails"? Chemtrails are a hoax. There is no "poison/nanobot/population control/whatever" being sprayed over your head.

Take whatever precautions you think you need to.

No they are not infallible and some may be immoral.

No, you're a conspiritard. I'll probably get banned for saying that, I'm sure it's "offensive" to someone.

Well you did make an ad hominem comment. So, I don't even need to debunk anything you say. Making those kind of comments you are just detrimentally effecting people opinion of your debating skills in general. Not that I am perfect but I don't think i would do that.

 

[Gary Cook]

Gary,

This is my humble opinion without meaning to be cheeky - if they theorise about conspiracies - then the name tag 'Conspirary Theorist' would seem very befitting. Why must it be seen as being offensive rather than being a fitting title? I think they should take pride in it, seriously. Someone who teaches is called a teacher. Someone who dances is called a dancer. Someone who judges is called a Judge. Someone who theorises is a Theorist - I see no problem there. If those theories are about a particular topic of interest such as conspiracies, then conspiracy in the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is only an adjective to clarify the kind of theories this person is specialised in.

That is how I see it and I, of course, welcome your input.

I cant argue with that and I agree from that point of view but a lot of people are very offended by it because of the connotations and I think that is fair. You don't know how many times I have been told, "F*ck of you stupid conspiracy theorist". As like being a conspiracy theorist is some kind of bad thing. How can simply trying to expose crime be a bad thing. But that's not how too many people mean or use that term. Even on this thread by what I am reading.

 

[Gary Cook]

I don't know what you mean by that.

Your use of the word "us" suggests to me that you have been involved in uncovering "actual government conspiracy on a regular basis". Please can you give a specific example of a conspiracy that you took part in revealing, and what part you played?

Well one I am revealing one right nowt now with my peers, so to speak, it's that government is claming that they have the right to rule over us and make up laws to govern our behavour but cant put up anything other than opinion to back up their claim. They say that there has to be consent to be governed but at the same time they say that the consent basically comes from the sum of the people not just individuals. In other words, from the ballot box. But that is very dubious as for example in the UK the government in power didn't get the majority of the people in the country's vote but just the majority of those that choose to vote. That's surely like me being a gangster and getting all my footsoldiers to vote if I will stay as the godfather. For me there is not difference. I and many other people dont want to live in a world where 51% of the other people get to make the laws for the rest. What happens if they are all sadists or something? And to be honest I dont think I would be crazy for saying there is way too much sadism in the general public. I wouldn't call them names they considered derogatory though.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

For example I am putting together a file that debunks the claim that we are ruled by consent even though it is said that we are supposed to be. I think I can prove it conclusively but then if somebody presents a new bit of evidence contrary then it isnt debunked any more.

You are only governed by consent if you voted for the leaders currently in power. If you did not vote for them you are only being governed by consent from the point of view that you agree with the democratic process...you are consenting, but those currently in power are not your choice. If you live in a place where the government is unelected you are not ruled by consent.

Surely we can only really debunk stated facts. Debunking whether something happened or not as an entire event is a lot different if we wasnt there to be a witness to it.

In that case the vast majority of us cannot believe any of the major/significant/catastrophic events that ever happened. I wasn't there to witness the signing of the Treaty Of Versailles, so I guess the First World War must be continuing. But hang on what proof do I have that WW1 ever took place?!! .

 

[Gary Cook]

I appreciate that you're trying give a balanced view, Josh. However, calling someone a "shill", which I understand to be an individual paid by the government to oppose and deride the views of others, is, certainly in my case, inaccurate. Calling some one a conspiracy theorist if they say something like 'hey guys I think 9/11 was an inside job' would seem to be correct, and not in the slightest bit insulting.
To quote Mick West in an earlier post....... "What would you call them then?"

If they think it is insulting then it is insulting. It is not for other people to make that decision for them. Especially with everything around it I think that is fair. Not arguing. You have the right to your opinion of course. I just think it doesnt really work. Especially how its being used. Even on this forum some people use it a very condescending dismissive manner. Its like they will debate until they are proven wrong or you refuse to accept there word as gospel and then all of a sudden they can get dismissed as just another conspiracy theorist. That's not Mick fault though. The only times I have read him using it he didnt seem to mean it anything other than its literal meaning which is fine. I guess my point is more about how it is used then. which of course we cant really stop.

Can we all try and use it in a sensitive manner if we are going to? You wouldn't like to be simply dismissed out of frustration.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

Well one I am revealing one right nowt now with my peers, so to speak, it's that government is claming that they have the right to rule over us and make up laws to govern our behavour but cant put up anything other than opinion to back up their claim. They say that there has to be consent to be governed but at the same time they say that the consent basically comes from the sum of the people not just individuals.

That doesn't really fall into the category of a being conspiracy theory. What you are saying is that democracy is not flawless (it would be better if everyone voted). I doubt many would disagree with that. Far, far, greater brains than mine have searched for a better system. What do you have in mind as an alternative?

 

[Gary Cook]

Dude, "they" actually say we are ruled by consent. Theresa May who is the Home Secretary actually said it on TV. That is what prompted so many people to look in to it further and do things like filing Freedom Of Information requests to try and clarify what she meant because if she was taken literally it would mean we didn't have to pay income tax, etc etc.

The responses we was getting back in writing were saying she was referring to old Policing policy which is apparently commonly misinterpreted but she just happens to mean it the pro-government way and not the literal way.

If I dont want to be governed I shouldnt have to accept it. Am I not allowed to be free? What am I going to do? Go and murder a load of people. It doesn't make sense but anyway. Just responding to what you asked.

As for your slightly ad hominem but understandable final last paragraph. yes but what where those events? If they were not what they were recorded to be then those events as they were defined didnt happen.

For example, "The Terrorist attacks on 9/11" That is rough what Wiki calls "9/11". It doesn't even mention any alternative theories really but many intelligent and learned people are still debating it. there wasn't even a proper Police investigation for the alleged crimes of the Bush family etc.

Why not just call it "The 9/11 massacre", or something like that? Can you understand why people with an alternative theory would be upset and frustrated and very concerned by things like that? After all most "conspiracy theorists are not trying to define what happened that day but merely saying the mainstream story is suspcious and there seem to be reasnable cause to make arrests and do a better investigation. Or at least for EVERYBODY to stop making unfounded claims. Although, yeah. some people in that movement are not of sound mind and just want to alarm people etc. But again that's no reason to be so quick to call people "Conspiracy Theorist".

 

[Gary Cook]

That doesn't really fall into the category of a being conspiracy theory. What you are saying is that democracy is not flawless (it would be better if everyone voted). I doubt many would disagree with that. Far, far, greater brains than mine have searched for a better system. What do you have in mind as an alternative?

You are redefining my intended meaning for me, or trying to. With all due respect.

I am saying it is a conspiracy. One of the worst ever committed. If not the worst. Since so many of their statute laws have potential violence as a punishment.

 

[Gary Cook]

I was asked for my proposed solution.

Great question. Now this is a debate worth being part of.

My solution is to have ideally a global universal law constitution.

And a protection-only government budget.

At least until government is dissolved completely.

Surely know one would really consent to be governed.

 

[Gary Cook]

"They" are overour heads all the time? WHAT is over our heads all the time? "Chemtrails"? Chemtrails are a hoax. There is no "poison/nanobot/population control/whatever" being sprayed over your head.

Take whatever precautions you think you need to.

No they are not infallible and some may be immoral.

No, you're a conspiritard. I'll probably get banned for saying that, I'm sure it's "offensive" to someone.

I forgot to mention. I was talking about planes being over our heads but in your presumption you presumed wrong.

Planes are over our heads all the time and I reserve the right to want to be protected from potential crimes using planes to disperse chemicals or do any other dangerous thing..

Government or otherwise.

 

[Josh Heuer]

I appreciate that you're trying give a balanced view, Josh. However, calling someone a "shill", which I understand to be an individual paid by the government to oppose and deride the views of others, is, certainly in my case, inaccurate. Calling some one a conspiracy theorist if they say something like 'hey guys I think 9/11 was an inside job' would seem to be correct, and not in the slightest bit insulting.
To quote Mick West in an earlier post....... "What would you call them then?"

That's where the problem arises. Why do we need to call them anything? Shouldn't we be worried about the facts?
If someone says 'hey guys I think 9/11 is an inside job' the proper response has nothing to do with calling them anything. It has to do with asking them what facts lead them to that conclusion.
Right?


And by the way, shills don't necessarily have to be paid to do what they do, or be involved with government.

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).[citation needed]