It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikipedia Defines Conspiracy Theories as Weak Ideas

page: 2
34
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
When a search is done for the definition of "conspiracy theory', the results bring up a number of links, including the Wiki that you sourced. It is curious that among all of the legitimate definitions you chose the Wiki, which can be edited by anyone at any time. In fact, you could have edited the definition yourself, simply to fit a narrative, and we wouldn't know the difference.



Given that the definition of conspiracy theory is apparently a faith-based accusation resting principles like "nothing happens by accident" and "nothing is as it seems" its no wonder that conspiracy theories are looked at as a joke and conspiracy theorists are looked at as jokers.


That statement comes from a place of bias, not anything rooted in fact. If you're looking for the definition of a word, use a dictionary rather than a site where anyone's personal opinion can be distorted to appear factual and empirical to people who don't know any better and/or don't bother to verify whether or not what they're reading is actually reliable information.

Conspiracy theory




posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr UAE

does wiki say the fonz is cool ?..... He is so not cool....



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Words are defined exactly how they are used, and how words are used depends on how they are defined. So, Wikipedia influences the definitions of words. Apparently they are influencing the definition of a "conspiracy theory" to a direction where I cannot use the term any more.

I fully intend to study word usage by various people in a Google study and see if the context suggests a match for the dictionaries what you want to be the definition, or whether they actually match how Wikipedia defines the term. This would be done by picking 100 random usages of the word "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" and then matching them to the definition of best fit given the context. That would settle whether the sources you want me to think are the authority on the words is correct, or whether Wikipedia is correct and the dictionaries are wrong.

Dictionaries don't define words, people do every time they speak them.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

When was the last time someone was called a Conspiracy Theorist in a positive way.

Most Conspiracy Theories are BS.
Some Conspiracy Theories do turn into news.

David Icke might be 100% correct, but until he can substantiate his claims he will and should be regarded as a Conspiracy Theorist with the negative connotation that it implies.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
Conspiracy theory: A theory that there is a conspiracy.

Everyone knows conspiracies happen constantly. To deny that conspiracies exist is beyond idiotic. When a couple people get together and plan to burglarize a house, it's a conspiracy. When a gang decides to sell drugs or rob stores, it's a conspiracy. When rich people share tips on how to cheat the tax system, it's a conspiracy. When politicians take bribes in return for secrets and favors, it's a conspiracy. Conspiracies exist among every level and element of society - from the bottom to the top. Will those who criticize "conspiracy theories" deny that the Nazis conspired to kill Jews?

"Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are terms that are now used by the MSM to attack ideas they don't want you to think about and to discredit the people who have those ideas. Whenever you see some media actor criticizing someone else for being a conspiracy theorist - ask yourself what it is they're trying to keep people from talking about.

Do beware also of one tactic "they" may try to use. Let's say the MSM wants to discredit some idea by throwing around the "conspiracy theory" term. They might open up the discussion by pointing out some other completely ridiculous "conspiracy theory" first. It might go like this: "You've probably heard conspiracy theories that Hillary secretly gave birth to a bat-boy or that little green men from Mars are controlling your mind, but here's a new conspiracy theory going around the internet: The CIA uses U.S. media outlets to manipulate what American citizens think. Crazy, huh?" And, of course, some people are going to subconsciously think "Pssh, well that's obviously crazy to think little green Mars-men are controlling my mind, so it must be crazy to think the CIA is using the media to manipulate Americans".



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz
Will those who criticize "conspiracy theories" deny that the Nazis conspired to kill Jews?

Nazi's conspiring to kill Jews isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's accepted news/history.

Jews conspiring to lie about how many Jews the Nazi's killed IS a conspiracy theory.
It's not accepted news/history.

I feel like I have to put up a disclaimer saying I don't believe that conspiracy theory so here it is.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: trollz
Will those who criticize "conspiracy theories" deny that the Nazis conspired to kill Jews?

Nazi's conspiring to kill Jews isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's accepted news/history.


No, it's not a conspiracy theory, but it WAS a conspiracy.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

So what was the relevance?

Those who criticise conspiracy theories and those who believe Nazi's conspired are apples and oranges.

You've been on this site for 7 years.
If you don't criticise conspiracy theories then you haven't been paying attention.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz


Everyone knows conspiracies happen constantly. To deny that conspiracies exist is beyond idiotic. When a couple people get together and plan to burglarize a house, it's a conspiracy. When a gang decides to sell drugs or rob stores, it's a conspiracy. When rich people share tips on how to cheat the tax system, it's a conspiracy. When politicians take bribes in return for secrets and favors, it's a conspiracy. Conspiracies exist among every level and element of society - from the bottom to the top. Will those who criticize "conspiracy theories" deny that the Nazis conspired to kill Jews?


Well said.


To call someone a conspiracy theorist today is a negative connotation. All cooked up by the CIA in the 1970's.

The properganda mainstream media ( fake media ) loves to call out independent thinkers, or people who do not tow the official line conspiracy theorists, the fact is it is a ploy to distract people to ignore alternative views and critical thinking and at the same time belittling these people.

The fact is, if it wasn't for conspiracy theories, police, homicide detectives, and good journalist, would never find the truth.

As far as Wikipedia I considered it to be fake News, full of bias narratives, and plenty of properganda.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: trollz
So what was the relevance?


I was explaining that conspiracies do happen. I pointed out that the Nazis conspired to kill Jews. This is an example of an obvious conspiracy carried out by peoples within a government, which is accepted as fact, as you have pointed out.
So, just to clarify: I explained that conspiracies happen. I then provided an example of a conspiracy. You replied by affirming that it did in fact happen. Therefore, my assertion that conspiracies do happen stands as accurate. Do you understand what "relevance" means?


originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Those who criticise conspiracy theories and those who believe Nazi's conspired are apples and oranges.


What you said here doesn't really have any actual meaning. I could just as well say I'm right because trucks are vehicles and dogs are animals. Some people who criticize all conspiracy theories believe that the Nazis conspired to kill Jews. Some people who criticize some conspiracy theories but not others believe that the Nazis conspired to kill Jews. Some people who don't criticize any conspiracy theories believe that the Nazis conspired to kill Jews. Some people who criticize all conspiracy theories believe that the Nazis didn't conspire to kill Jews. Some people who criticize some conspiracy theories but not others believe that the Nazis didn't conspire to kill Jews. Some people who don't criticize any conspiracy theories believe that the Nazis didn't conspire to kill Jews.
What you said is technically correct, in a meaningless, semantic kind of way... Just like how trucks are vehicles and dogs are animals.


originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
You've been on this site for 7 years.

I know. I hope you're not implying that my thoughts or opinions or ideas are more worthwhile than someone who signed up yesterday. The length of time I've been a member here has nothing to do with my ability to form thoughts or opinions or ideas. It doesn't indicate that I'm more intelligent than someone who's only been here 6 years, or 3, or 1 month, etc, and I certainly won't derive some sense of pride from something so trivial as how long I've been a member of a website.


originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
If you don't criticise conspiracy theories then you haven't been paying attention.

I didn't imply that I do not criticize conspiracy theories, nor did I imply that I do.
The point of this thread is to make people aware of MSM attempts to steer people away from important topics of discussion by labeling them "conspiracy theories" and the people who talk about them "conspiracy theorists".
All theories should be criticized, whether they're scientific theories or conspiracy theories, and regardless of MSM attempts to make such ideas and theories seem crazy or outlandish.
edit on 12/18/2016 by trollz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Sometimes MSM labels stuff as conspiracy theories because they are conspiring with advertisers and self proclaimed "Conspiracy Theorists" are bad for ratings so they try to dismiss them as quickly as possible.

I agree you should pay more attention when MSM labels something "Conspiracy Theory" but that doesn't give it any credibility. It's just displaying the paranoia that unites all of us on this forum.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: trollz
I agree you should pay more attention when MSM labels something "Conspiracy Theory" but that doesn't give it any credibility.


Yes, that's true. Some conspiracy theories are in fact ridiculous. But there is and has been a coordinated effort by the MSM to label certain very legitimate topics as conspiracy theories so as to make them seem crazy.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Simple answer, lies and truths in any given explanation after the fact does a conspiracy make.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Tell me is wikipedia based on facts or not ?
I remember llord pye ... This poor guy was shot down by wikipedia . for many people it's like wikipedia is the absolute truth. Look behind the scenes and one finds wikipedia is just the current general opinion mixed with some basic science. Wikipedia is just as biased when it comes to the fringe of science and conspiracy's than the MSM news.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Once a conspiracy is substantiated it stops being a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?


It stops being a conspiracy and never spoken of again, especially by any educational or media propaganda settings.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   
(citation needed)
edit on 19-12-2016 by Aleister because: citation needed



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Conspiracy theories/theorists simply point out any flaws and holes in the "official" narrative of something. How is it a "weak idea" to point out said flaws and holes in the 'official' narrative/explanation of something? ESPECIALLY if it becomes the big pink elephant in the room. If something smells fishy, and your bull# detector goes off, then it goes without saying that you're going to question and investigate the matter.
edit on 19-12-2016 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Generic/
Wiki is a dirty battlefield on some topics , and this is one of them . Go in and change the definition if you want . Time the change back again ...

Be aware of statements which twist up a proper or simple narrative , that wriggle differing subjects into one another , or expect you to go with the baseless or into obscurity . These are designed to reflexively control your mind into confuddlement where you drop your reasoning , and likely give up trying to understand something

The definition captured in op would be a good example .?

Often a good measuring stick for any given persons naiivity in these times is the moon landings , also a good measure of media complicity . Lest anyone needs it spelled out : nobody went to the moon , the best they could ever do was crash something into it .



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

That written wiki is in itself a conspiracy.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: fractal5

There's a lot of conspiracy theories that fit that description perfectly.

Is the gulf of Tonkin considered a conspiracy theory now?

Once a conspiracy is substantiated it stops being a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?


Agreed and the Gulf of Tonkin is regarded as "self evident" now just as the adage states.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join