Why are people called conspiracy theorists?

JRBids

Senior Member.
Isn't it against the Logan Act? (Buildyburgers).

Anyway as I live in the UK I apparently in a democracy and I dont want my elected officials going to this. Plus why would they even be invited? Just because they work in government? Most of them do not even hold relevant qualifications. They have little knowledge of the fields they essentially rule over. The only value they would have there is as authoritarians.

Like I said I was happy with the answer I got to the original thread question. What I am still a little upset about is how people use it as a derogotry term. Some things that seem debunked are not. Just because some of the facts are doesnt disprove the entire claim. Just some of the finer details. For example The Sandy Hook school may of been a real school after all but it does still seem strange that Adam Lanza killed, what like, 26 smaller targets often with several shots in like 10 minutes? No crime scene pictures of much CCTV. And then we are expected to believe the entire story just because some of the conspiracy theories details have been "debunked"?

A forum like this is needed and a good thing but claiming deeper Police investigations are not needed just because some conspiracy theory elements are wrong doesn't seem right.

Saying something "Seems strange" is one of the "tells" of a conspiracy theorist. As in "seems strange" no cameras captured the plane hitting the pentagon. Therefore must be a missile. Cameras did capture planes hitting the WTC, but it "seems strange" they did all that damage. Therefore we have the "dustification," "hologram," and "controlled demolition" "theories". Where do you stop? Seems strange my car had a flat tire this morning, it must be those gang stalkers "they" have on my tail? That can be the extreme, I've seen it.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
What I am still a little upset about is how people use it as a derogotry term.

If this sort of thing upsets you, how do you stand being on the internet at all? The term certainly wasn't invented at Metabunk, nor do we control its use. What, exactly, is your point of dwelling on this here? Seems to me you are just doing this to waste people's time.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
At the moment that the individual is drinking the beer, yes. It's their decision whether or not to interpret that as an insult.
So I'm only a conspiracy theorist at the moment I'm thinking of a conspiracy? But when I'm not, and I'm just living my normal life, I'm not one?

I'm still sticking with 'what's the value in labeling someone in such a way'?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
When you share your theory with others, when you promote it with FB posts, when you post on their pages agreeing with them, when you share their belief system (the government/some secret group/aliens/etc) are responsible for many of the disasters we see, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Just like when you debunk many pieces of nonsense and such, you are a debunker. Some are specialists, like those that mainly concentrate on antiGMO or antiVaxxers, some are generalists.
 

Seeker

New Member
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.


You ended up being cheeky though, but I get your point. Fair point, I'd say. So, on that note, someone debunks conspiracy theories is a debunker, right?
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
When you share your theory with others, when you promote it with FB posts, when you post on their pages agreeing with them, when you share their belief system (the government/some secret group/aliens/etc) are responsible for many of the disasters we see, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Just like when you debunk many pieces of nonsense and such, you are a debunker. Some are specialists, like those that mainly concentrate on antiGMO or antiVaxxers, some are generalists.


This relates to my original question. Virtually everybody is a conspiracy theorist. Even those who point to muslims being terrorists. Is that not a conspiracy theory? One could say but they ARE terrorists but that is a matter of opinion. Just the same as an opinion of George Bush et al would be. That is why I was questioning its usefulness as a term especially in light of how offensive some people find it. Just trying to be rational and objective. Surely debunking everything just for the sake of it, for example, would be just as irrational. I like the posts on this forum that encourage critical thinking but a few seem to try and suppress it.
 
Last edited:

Gary Cook

Active Member
Do you know what the definitions of "bunk" and "debunking" are? Debunking does not mean, as you seem to imply, ineffectual whining about random things.

That's debatable. Technically it doesn't but effectively it could be.

Especially debunking finer details while ignoring the bigger picture, for example.

Same as conspiracy theories could be objective or insane rambling.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Not all Muslims are part of a conspiracy. Just like not all Baptists are represented by the Westboro Baptist Church 'cult'.

The details are what destroys the bigger picture, however.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
That's debatable. Technically it doesn't but effectively it could be.

Especially debunking finer details while ignoring the bigger picture, for example.

Same as conspiracy theories could be objective or insane rambling.

Insane rambling is not "debunking". What you are alluding to is not really debunking at all, so your point is meaningless. In fact, I think this entire thread is meaningless. I believe you are just enjoying pulling people's chains on Metabunk. Conspiracy theorizing is not objective, pretty much by definition. Debunking deals in facts. Conspiracy theorizing deals in speculation- usually based on little but whatever will fit with other theoretical reality details the theorizer imagines could be true.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
He would have to be correct first.

Most of the conspiracies that I see promoted would require hundreds in not thousands of for folks being involved. Real conspiracies, like the 9/11 Al Queda plot, involve very few folks. Even all of the hijackers didn't know the full plot. That was a real conspiracy.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Insane rambling is not "debunking". What you are alluding to is not really debunking at all, so your point is meaningless. In fact, I think this entire thread is meaningless. I believe you are just enjoying pulling people's chains on Metabunk. Conspiracy theorizing is not objective, pretty much by definition. Debunking deals in facts. Conspiracy theorizing deals in speculation- usually based on little but whatever will fit with other theoretical reality details the theorizer imagines could be true.
Thats not true , It might be speculation on perceived facts or documents . People have always said that our government is spying on its citizens like Big brother as Alex Jones would say NSA scandle ? Or Chemtrails , If I never found any documents like the Geo-engineering Royal Society in 2009 or any other factual documents I would have said its just a hoax . Same with Agenda 21 which is supposedly debunked yet something very similar is poping up everywhere In America ? Many of the theories come from documents not peoples imagination .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Joe, everyone knew the NSA was spying, they are not reading your emails or FB posts. I work with meta data in a game and everyone thinks I can see a lot more than I can.

You still don't have any evidence of geo engineering or of anything malicious about Agenda 21.

When you choose to ignore the facts and only choose to believe what they want, you can develop a conspiracy theory about most anything.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Joe, everyone knew the NSA was spying, they are not reading your emails or FB posts. I work with meta data in a game and everyone thinks I can see a lot more than I can.

You still don't have any evidence of geo engineering or of anything malicious about Agenda 21.

When you choose to ignore the facts and only choose to believe what they want, you can develop a conspiracy theory about most anything.
How do you know they are not reading your emails ? Malicius about agenda 21 ? well we sure did get our elected officials in 2 counties One being a democratic and ours being republican county to remove themselves from The Seven50 plan which is Agenda 21 . So why some chose to ignore because their arent enough Facts others are working to maintain their freedom . Evidence that the are geoengineering No I have no solid proof . You act like it doesnt exist at all ? Maybe ill just make sure it never happens by pressuring my elected officials to cut funding . While you play your games and make jewlery .
 
J

Joe

Guest
Joe, you are not making sense to me. And you are borderline on insulting me.
How was anything I said insulting ? Oh thats right thats how you avoid answering a question . You say they are not reading our emails ? I wonder why my brother is very careful in what he says over the phone and thruogh the web ? He is X militarily and worked for the State Dept and is in Law Enforcement ? MAYBE HE IS JUST PARANOID ? or maybe you are clueless to what they can and cannot do . Unless you have evidence ? Its easy to say Im making no sense when you have no answers .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JRBids

Senior Member.
I think he is just paranoid, he reminds me of my brother in law who used to go to the library if he wanted to google illnesses, because he claimed the insurance companies would know what you searched for and deny insurance. While I have no doubt they COULD read my emails I'm sure they aren't. If "they" were so great at reading everything you post on line, how do Gnarly Carly and the rest of the characters on the "Advocating violence" thread here stay alive?
 
J

Joe

Guest
I think he is just paranoid, he reminds me of my brother in law who used to go to the library if he wanted to google illnesses, because he claimed the insurance companies would know what you searched for and deny insurance. While I have no doubt they COULD read my emails I'm sure they aren't. If "they" were so great at reading everything you post on line, how do Gnarly Carly and the rest of the characters on the "Advocating violence" thread here stay alive?
He could be or not ? We dont know even a small percentage of what they are doing . m sure theyre selective on who they monitor
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
He could be or not ? We dont know even a small percentage of what they are doing . m sure theyre selective on who they monitor

They're ignoring people who think passenger planes should be shot down but reading my emails? LOL. :)
 
J

Joe

Guest
They're ignoring people who think passenger planes should be shot down but reading my emails? LOL. :)
they ignored the Boston Bombers . I think they should focus on the Jihadist more then some kook on Facebook when it comes to taking out a aircraft . Dont worry if they think their is a real threat they will have some undercover FBI guy to offer them stinger missile that doesn't work then arrest them . Its the ones who dont say anything that are the ones more likely to do something stupid .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
They are not even arresting all the folks that threaten public officials.

I happen to understand what ones sees in meta Data. Last night's 60 Minutes had a good piece on the NSA.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
they ignored the Boston Bombers . I think they should focus on the Jihadist more then some kook on Facebook when it comes to taking out a aircraft . Dont worry if they think their is a real threat they will have some undercover FBI guy to offer them stinger missile that doesn't work then arrest them . Its the ones who dont say anything that are the ones more likely to do something stupid .

Are you saying they are ignoring people who make threats, but trying to sting people who don't? And people who really make threats don't say anything? Or maybe they're not "ignoring", their omniscience isn't what you think it is?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
In the US, even those some don't believe it, there still needs to be evidence of wrongdoing, not just wrong thinking, or even speech against the government is not actionable.

I am sure there are some abuses out there that can be found, but for the most part, the law is followed.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
So I'm only a conspiracy theorist at the moment I'm thinking of a conspiracy? But when I'm not, and I'm just living my normal life, I'm not one?
Normal life? C'mon Josh, you're not suggesting that being a conspiracy theorist is abnormal are you? ;)
You're still a father when your kids are not around, or a musician when you are not playing, or a golfer when you are not on the links......


I'm still sticking with 'what's the value in labeling someone in such a way'?
The value? Convenience. It's much easier to say "Conspiracy theorist" than "One who postulates on the possibility that nefarious deeds have been or are being carried out by persons or entities in positions of influence without the knowledge or consent of the populace."

We are all labelled in some way. Usually in many ways.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
Maybe Conspiracy theorists would be less uncomfortable about the epithet if they actually occasionally uncovered a real conspiracy. Seems that most dubious actions that come to light are blown from within, or by admission, and the theorists (theorisers?) reflect on it afterwards.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Are you saying they are ignoring people who make threats, but trying to sting people who don't? And people who really make threats don't say anything? Or maybe they're not "ignoring", their omniscience isn't what you think it is?
No Im saying whether or not its a credible threat . Maybe they tried to sting those people and found out they were no threat ? You would never know and neither would those people . If I say Im going to punch someone in the nose in New Zealand is that a credible threat or just hyperbole ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
Maybe Conspiracy theorists would be less uncomfortable about the epithet if they actually occasionally uncovered a real conspiracy. Seems that most dubious actions that come to light are blown from within, or by admission, and the theorists (theorisers?) reflect on it afterwards.
Maybe they are trying but then you have debunkers telling them they are wrong ? :)
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Normal life? C'mon Josh, you're not suggesting that being a conspiracy theorist is abnormal are you? ;)
You're still a father when your kids are not around, or a musician when you are not playing, or a golfer when you are not on the links......
This is a pretty clever deflection. But I'm not falling for it. Once again, let's go to the example I brought up before. If I drink one beer my entire life, should I be labeled a beer drinker? You say yes, at the time I'm drinking that beer. So if you're with me at that time, you can truthfully call me a beer drinker. And anytime after that, you can say I was a beer drinker, one time.
So I'm only a conspiracy theorist when I'm theorizing a conspiracy. If I step back, so I leave these forums and go venture out and do my daily activities, I'm not creating a conspiracy theory or thinking about one, so at that time I'm not a conspiracy theorist? But when I return to the forum later in the day and say '911 was an inside job' I'm a conspiracy theorist again?
This doesn't add up to me. It seems so unnecessary to label someone and not instead focus on the information they present.



The value? Convenience. It's much easier to say "Conspiracy theorist" than "One who postulates on the possibility that nefarious deeds have been or are being carried out by persons or entities in positions of influence without the knowledge or consent of the populace."
And you don't need to say either. You do it because you want to. It's a diversion from the information that person is presenting and offers no value other than your 'convenience' of shortening another useless label.
Convenience is not always a good thing, it's circumstantial.

We are all labelled in some way. Usually in many ways.
So it's ok to perpetuate this? Instead of trying to break away from labeling people. It's still a diversion from whatever the situation is at hand, whatever that person is trying to bring to the table.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
This doesn't add up to me. It seems so unnecessary to label someone and not instead focus on the information they present.


Perpetually? Ever hear of the idea of "crying wolf"? They don't have information. The have eternal speculation.

PS: You think no one has even looked into the claim that we never went to the moon- that it was just dismissed? That "information" has been looked into ad nauseam. You STILL think proponents of that idea should not be called conspiracy theorists? I claim that Elvis is alive and shacked up with Marylin Monroe- want to see "information" on that?
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Perpetually? Ever hear of the idea of "crying wolf"? They don't have information. The have eternal speculation.

PS: You think no one has even looked into the claim that we never went to the moon- that it was just dismissed? That "information" has been looked into ad nauseam. You STILL think proponents of that idea should not be called conspiracy theorists? I claim that Elvis is alive and shacked up with Marylin Monroe- want to see "information" on that?
So the answer isn't to politely inform them where they are wrong, it's to just call that person a conspiracy theorist? It's borderline name calling. That's why some people have a tendency to be offended. I'm not offended, I've been called a conspiracy theorist as well as a shill, it's just something people do on the net.
I can't believe I'm still defending the position that calling someone a conspiracy theorist has no real value. I guess it's just fun for some people to call others by these labels, or maybe it makes people feel good, like they're the smarter person and their information is all grounded in hard, indisputable facts.
But at the end of the day, again, it's just a deflection. If you want to help people understand things and stop them from believing bunk, the answer is NOT obtained by labeling anyone anything. Period.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
So the answer isn't to politely inform them where they are wrong, it's to just call that person a conspiracy theorist? It's borderline name calling. That's why some people have a tendency to be offended. I'm not offended, I've been called a conspiracy theorist as well as a shill, it's just something people do on the net.
I can't believe I'm still defending the position that calling someone a conspiracy theorist has no real value. I guess it's just fun for some people to call others by these labels, or maybe it makes people feel good, like they're the smarter person and their information is all grounded in hard, indisputable facts.
But at the end of the day, again, it's just a deflection. If you want to help people understand things and stop them from believing bunk, the answer is NOT obtained by labeling anyone anything. Period.

Perpetually? Dream on. For "name-calling" it is pretty darn tame and actually quite descriptive and accurate. Are you just grasping for something/anything to argue about? I see FAR more name-calling coming from conspiracy theorists than from debunkers. Why don't you take your cause up with them?
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Perpetually? Dream on. For "name-calling" it is pretty darn tame and actually quite descriptive and accurate. Are you just grasping for something/anything to argue about? I see FAR more name-calling coming from conspiracy theorists than from debunkers. Why don't you take your cause up with them?
No thanks. I have better things to do with my time, things which don't include calling people conspiracy theorists. But, to each his own, right? One day it will hit you like a ton of bricks, or maybe you'll live your whole life and never realize how useless it is. Like talking to a god who might not be there.

I think some people spend more time trying to get at the person than what they are trying to bring to the table.

And your whole 'perpetually' thing. Sure, why not? Keep pushing the facts. Don't fall back on the labels and the name calling. That's where we turn into savages.

It sounds like you're at a point where you are bored of debunking, if you are sick of doing it 'perpetually.' If that's the case, maybe you should move on or simply find something else to debunk that hasn't been touched on.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So the answer isn't to politely inform them where they are wrong, it's to just call that person a conspiracy theorist? It's borderline name calling. That's why some people have a tendency to be offended. I'm not offended, I've been called a conspiracy theorist as well as a shill, it's just something people do on the net.
I can't believe I'm still defending the position that calling someone a conspiracy theorist has no real value. I guess it's just fun for some people to call others by these labels, or maybe it makes people feel good, like they're the smarter person and their information is all grounded in hard, indisputable facts.
But at the end of the day, again, it's just a deflection. If you want to help people understand things and stop them from believing bunk, the answer is NOT obtained by labeling anyone anything. Period.

The "name calling" is a tiny tiny part of what goes on here. It's simply a useful way of describing a group with common characteristics.

The answer IS to politely inform people they are wrong. And that what I do. It's inordinately rare for someone here to say "you are conspiracy theorist".
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
The "name calling" is a tiny tiny part of what goes on here. It's simply a useful way of describing a group with common characteristics.
What is useful about it?

The answer IS to politely inform people they are wrong. And that what I do.
That's right. And it doesn't involve using terms like 'conspiracy theorist'.

It's inordinately rare for someone here to say "you are conspiracy theorist".
Right. It's used less directly. But look at almost any thread here and see how fast people start saying things like 'CTs do this and do that and think this way and act that way' etc. there's a lot of it, it seems to me that some people just want to vent their frustrations.[/quote]
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
No thanks. I have better things to do with my time, things which don't include calling people conspiracy theorists.

So you don't really care about this "issue"? Then why all the time spent on it here?

But, to each his own, right? One day it will hit you like a ton of bricks, or maybe you'll live your whole life and never realize how useless it is. Like talking to a god who might not be there.
o_O

I think some people spend more time trying to get at the person than what they are trying to bring to the table.

"Some people"? And? What is your point?

And your whole 'perpetually' thing. Sure, why not? Keep pushing the facts. Don't fall back on the labels and the name calling. That's where we turn into savages.

No one here is doing that.

It sounds like you're at a point where you are bored of debunking, if you are sick of doing it 'perpetually.' If that's the case, maybe you should move on or simply find something else to debunk that hasn't been touched on.

This is what you said: "So the answer isn't to politely inform them where they are wrong, it's to just call that person a conspiracy theorist?" Did I or anyone here advocate JUST calling people "conspiracy theorists" and NOT giving them information? Not at all. You are playing a strawman card.

PS: You don't seem to get that some "conspiracy theorists" are actually only out to pull people's chains on the internet. They are only doing it for the attention. In fact, I think it's actually a fairly large percentage of them for whom it's basically just a social exercise.
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
So you don't really care about this "issue"? Then why all the time spent on it here?


o_O



"Some people"? And? What is your point?



No one here is doing that.



This is what you said: "So the answer isn't to politely inform them where they are wrong, it's to just call that person a conspiracy theorist?" Did I or anyone here advocate JUST calling people "conspiracy theorists" and NOT giving them information? Not at all. You are playing a strawman card.
Congratulations, you win this high school debate.

But really, I'm waiting to hear how calling people names is useful.

Tick tock tick tock
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Demonstrate how using a term that accurately describes the action of another is 'calling them names'. The functional use of the term has been demonstrated.
 
Top