It is constantly used in a derogatory light.
It stereotypes.
It pidgeon holes.
It lumps HUNDREDS of theories into a single group.
It is purposefully demeaing.
It is a "tool" of the machine.
It misuses the term "conspiracy" and the term "theory" usually.
It makes a conspiracy seem like an uncommon occurence.
IT is used to DERAIL and INFLAME nearly EVERY thread on this board.

In light of this I believe calling someone a "CTer" is the equivalent of undehandedly calling them an idiot and anyone using this term should be warned.

Attack a single theory.
Hell, attack a poster, but if a I called you a "brainwashed, LOW IQ Official Lie Believer"... I believe I would be banned.

CTer is used as an insult, read between the lines, solve the problem.

thanks.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]

So are we going to ban "sheeple" when someone who discounts a conspiracy theory vocalises such? I've heard conspiracy theorists use the term "CTer". And why do you only want the term banned from the 9/11 forum? Do your points not apply to others? Not having a go at you, just trying to understand your point of view.

Yes, the term SHEEPLE should also be banned when referring to posters or groups of posters as it is not exacting or to the point. Just a simple insult.

Describing the entire public or whatnot... I do not know.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Another BS thread jujust like the one asking to ban anyone who doesn't support a conspiracy.

What term should be used instead of CT? What symantics would be unofensive to the thin skinned people? "truthers"? To be honest that term offends me, since many "truthers" have nothing to do with truth.

CT is short for Conspiracy Theorist. There are no individual terms for each and every theory since everyone has their own. It's not a derogatory term at all. "tin foil head" and "sheeple" are offensive terms, not CT. All this thread is doing is leting someone justify trying to get rid of anyone who disagrees with them. If one cannot handle the term CT, then they have no business being here. If they ban everything that offends everyone then there would be no forums left.

My suggestion is to grow some balls and get used to life where we don't all get what we want and people simply disagree.

CT:

attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence. Researchers who advocate the conspiratorial view claim that most major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.

You see Snoopy, the reason you lioke the term SO MUCH is that you can lump a physicist with factual calculations into a group of 'others' who believe that the "shadow Government" used a top secret fusion device into one group... even though they do not necessarily agree with eachother.

It allows you to attempt to discredit EVERYONE, no matter what they believe in,(Excepting the official story line) all at once.

Which is your goal.

It is not constructive and 99% of the time it is a FLAME and nothing more.

Sorry that you get OWNED so often on here... weird that Vushta gave up and you stepped right in.

It's not the word/acronym or usage that matters, its your/our response that is important. If we get all in a fuss over how people refer to us... then they know how to get under our skin.

Personally... much prefer TFHB to CTer myself.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's not the word/acronym or usage that matters, its your/our response that is important. If we get all in a fuss over how people refer to us... then they know how to get under our skin.

Personally... much prefer TFHB to CTer myself.

If:

1. You OPENLY admit that the term CTer is used to "get under our skin"

and

2. You Openly admit that personal attacks/instigations not based on the topic at hand or fact are against ATS policy..

How do you justify the continued use without warnings?

Finally, how is Snoopy not on warn for telling me to "grow some balls"... This is clearly against ATS policy and I have been DOUBLE WARNED for far less. As a possible female or unic I find this to be HIGHLY insulting.

Why the double standard?

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Personally... much prefer TFHB to CTer myself.

What's 'TFHB'?

Is it like 'Completely Copulating Hirsute Encephalon'?

What does CTer stands for?

I'm guessing, but is it Tin Foil Hat Brigade?

Name calling works both ways. I've seen people on both sides of the equations get warnings. But they seem to come after repeated global warnings by staff to tone down the personal attacks. I still fail to see why CTer is such a big deal. If you believe in a conspiracy theory, you are a conspiracy theorist. Where's the problem?

Conspiracy Theorist-er...I think.

This is not a one line post!

Originally posted by Willard856
I still fail to see why CTer is such a big deal. If you believe in a conspiracy theory, you are a conspiracy theorist. Where's the problem?

It is used to lump people who, for example, believe in the FACT that odd put options were made prior to 9/11 with people talking about missile pods, holograms and that W is an alien.

It is a stereotype used to advance an agenda of discrediting all alternative theories through lumping.

Originally posted by Willard856
I'm guessing, but is it Tin Foil Hat Brigade?

Lol...I was WELL off then!! Actually though, now I come to think of it...

I still fail to see why CTer is such a big deal. If you believe in a conspiracy theory, you are a conspiracy theorist. Where's the problem?

Agree, in principle. It's just a shame that so much baiting seems to go on, but that is part and parcel of human nature I guess. I suppose the easiest way to combat it is to not get wound up...or take some time away from ATS!

What is so offensive about concpiracy theorist?

I don't get what the problem is here.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
It is used to lump people who, for example, believe in the FACT that odd put options were made prior to 9/11 with people talking about missile pods, holograms and that W is an alien.

Some members seem to be more prone to doing this than others. You probably have a list of usual suspects. Don't rise to them is my advice. If you know who they are, then don't let yourself get wound up. You can see a lot of fishing going on sometimes, from both sides, I might add. Some statements made on here remind me of that famous phrase 'We're gonna need a bigger boat'.

Slap nuts,

It sounds to me like you are against open mindedness..

Originally posted by selfless
Slap nuts,

It sounds to me like you are against open mindedness..

I don't think it's that. As has been said, the term in question is sometimes used as a blanket reference to cover everyone who is suspicious of 'events', if you like.

Myself, for example. I find it hard to accept that America's defences, advanced as they are, were so easily penetrated on 9/11, as the official conspiracy theory tells us. That arouse my suspicions. But, conversely, I don't believe in bombs in the buildings, or holograms etc., yet I may be classed as a 'CTer', along with Mad Jeff McCrazy who swears he saw Elvis riding Little Boy down Pennsylvania Avenue on that day, which kind of negates any genuine and legitimate questions I may have regarding these events. Not that I mind anymore, to be honest.

It sounds to me like you are against open mindedness..

I don't think there is anything in Slap Nuts post that indicated they aren't open minded. They are simply suggesting that a term they personally find offensive should be banned, and result in a warning if used. Your post, Selfless, sounds like the baiting that Slap is talking about. It doesn't add to the discussion on the topic in any way, shape or form.