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'?
But i dont think many people are labelled in such ways really.
Even the creator of Loose change is regarded as a filmmaker on Wikipedia
Maybe because Wikipedia can be authored and editted by anybody. (not just the 'powers that be' as some would have you believe - I have made numerous entries and updated articles concerning some of the more obscure and cult UK 1980's rock and heavy metal bands) If the author / editor agrees with the person concerneds stand point they will get called something like 'investigative reporter', if on the other hand they don't your gonna get tarred with the old brush of negativity. And it may well change from week to week as the infamous 'edit wars' rage and various pro and anti posters edit and re-edit eachothers edits to paint each article with their personal slanted hue of choice.Why does the supposed Government shill site Wikipedia award Russell with a professional profile, calling him an investigative journalist, and not write him off as a conspiracy theorist?
that guy Russell IS a journalist.If the author / editor agrees with the person concerneds stand point they will get called something like 'investigative reporter',
and on wiki he DOES get tarred with the brush of negativityFor most of his career, he has been a mainstream journalist writing for mainstream publications like The New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and the Village Voice. https://www.cjr.org/the_profile/the_world_according_to_russ_baker.php
In a January 2015 profile, Boston magazine said that over the past decade, "Baker has abandoned the mainstream media and become a key player on the fringe, walking that murky line between conventional investigative journalist and wild-eyed conspiracy theorist." Baker has raised questions about the Boston Marathon bombings, and "is not willing to rule out the possibility that the bombings were a false-flag operation conducted or permitted by elements of the American government in order to justify the Homeland Security complex." He argues that the FBI recruited the Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an agent or informant, which the FBI has categorically denied.
They use the word conspiracy theory as a bludgeon now days, and I can understand why. Sometimes these conspiracies people believe in are just crazy, easily explained away, flat earth being one of them. I agree with the book mostly, that we all have our demarcation lines, and we draw the line somewhere, and that what someone believes of what a conspiracy theory is can be a lot different than what someone else would have theirs.
When people read or hear conspiracy theorists they think scale #10 for the most part, but its a spectrum. Even me, I believe that there is a conspiracy to hide certain technologies from the public, I have no proof of this, but I just believe it. That's where I draw the line for, the most part, some might think that project bluebeam is real or that sandyhook never happened. Everyone is a conspiracy theorist at some level, no?
since cutting edge technology used in military and spy-craft is not made public in order to maintain an advantage over an adversary. It is understandable belief based on what has been published by reputable sources.believe that there is a conspiracy to hide certain technologies from the public
However when someone makes the claim that directed energy weapons were used to cause the Camp Fires, that crosses over into conspiracy theorist, since it is not based on any verifiable evidence from a reputable source that 'directed energy weapons' were used to create that fire.Military use of directed-energy technology has moved beyond the realm of science fiction. In the past two decades, directed-energy technologies have quickly matured from the research laboratory, to the operational force and have become highly effective instruments of war.
That's not really the goal though. It's to get people to focus on real problems instead of imaginary problems. I don't really trust the government myself and I think there needs to be vigilance over their actions. False conspiracy theories get in the way of effective checks on power.Debunking will not solve the underlying distrust that is the cause of CT.
False conspiracy theories get in the way of effective checks on power.
.....Haha! "False conspiracy theories". Is not the thread about just that? Having a theory about a conspiracy that goes against the dominant narrative/facts about an event or situation is a large part of what the label "conspiracy theorist" denotes
Russiagate is not considered a CT because it is part of the dominant narrative even though not true when it comes to many of its parts.
Debunking will not solve the underlying distrust that is the cause of CT.
That is true. Although in defence of most people here that is what they do. Sadly, some do react with the old insult routine. Not so much on this forum but that is how too many people react generally elsewhere. Been through that myself. Like with the gun debate. I kept getting called a conspiracy theorist just because I think we have the right to posses anything we want as long as we are not hurting anybody. After all the government does. It has literally tons of stuff that is very dangerous just by its very existence.
Mick previously posted in 2014:It turned out he did not like my debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, because he is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist (although he disputes the term.)
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.
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.