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.

 

Is being a gung ho conspiracy theorist a pathology or irrational?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
We all should examine the mainstream media and mainstream culture critically. Sometimes the mainstream media does not accurately or completely portray a story. Mainstream culture in America and the West has its flaws. That being said, there are gung ho conspiracy theorists that believe everything or almost everything that appears in the mainstream media is a fabrication. They believe every product on the shelf and every facet of mainstream culture is part of some masonic or CIA plot to control the masses. This view point seems irrational or pathological.

Let us assume for argument's sake that the mainstream media does deliberately lie. If the mainstream media is lying, it is doing so in a way that is believable. In order for a liar to be believable, they must surround their lies mostly with truth. Therefore, most of what appears in the mainstream media must be truthful in order to perpetuate the lies. If one automatically discredits everything that appears in the mainstrem media or most of what appears in the mainstream media, one is discrediting a great deal of truth.

Let us assume for argument's sake that a small elite group of people is controlling the masses. The masses have little idea of the plans or designs of the small group. While this small group of people can make some decisions, it will require the masses to carry out much of the leg work to implement the plan. Some of this leg work involves making discretionary decisions. Therefore, there are a lot of ordinary people making discretionary decisions outside the small elite group that makes up the conspiracy. If there are many people outside the elite group making discretionary decisions, the conspiracy is less powerful.




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


So what are you trying to say? Are you attempting to set me up? What the hell is going on here? Show me some credentials!!


*runs away*



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
This is the second post I've seen in the last couple days that calls into question the mental stability of a so-called conspiracy theorist. I don't know if it's intentional of course, but it's an oldie but goodie, if you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness.
We're all crazy, all my best stuff comes from Bing Crosby's ghost who comes to me sometimes in laytex or robes of velvet and muslin, speaking in olde english in limmericks about controlled demolitions and the like.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
To the posters other than the op, it is probably my fault that the op questions the mental stability of said quote "conspiricy theorist". In my thread on why are the majority of posters preaching non violence as a philisophical discourse into a reaction to the current situations facing people in the world.

I know that a lot of people in the truth seeking movement have seen, heard and read some really bizarre things. But there are a lot of possibilities out there. I am not saying I buy into all I see, read or hear, but I do try to keep an open mind to a certain extent.

To the op feel free to call me an ass or worse.

edited for spelling and grammar and being a bit tipsy from J.D.


[edit on 29-12-2007 by djaybeetoo]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Well, while I certainly do think that there is a conspiracy to keep the masses in the dark and confused, I don't necessarily think it is incredibly easy to pinpoint the culprits. People are so accustomed to pointing a finger at the Masons that I think the real culprits fly below the detection mechanism of the thinking individual.

With that being said, obviously mostof what the mainstream media tell you is truthful. It's not so much that they are not telling you the truth as it is that they are not telling you the COMPLETE truth. They give you bits and pieces of what they are told to release and withhold information that would be relevant in understanding why things happen the way they do.

What most don't understand is that the media is regulated by the FCC. What is the FCC? The Federal Communications Commission. Notice the word FEDERAL? Yeah.

To think that the media reports anything without a filtering system is to live in extreme naivete.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I find the irrationality becomes evident when the proposer of theory X becomes so dedicated to it that nothing contradictory, however sound and reasonably presented, to said theory X is worthy of consideration. The only recourse is then to attack the messenger bringing what's seen to be bad news in terms of theory X's chances of success.

Balance and objectivity need to be resurrected often



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
This is the second post I've seen in the last couple days that calls into question the mental stability of a so-called conspiracy theorist. I don't know if it's intentional of course, but it's an oldie but goodie, if you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness.
We're all crazy, all my best stuff comes from Bing Crosby's ghost who comes to me sometimes in laytex or robes of velvet and muslin, speaking in olde english in limmericks about controlled demolitions and the like.


The problem many gung-ho conspiracy theorists make is that the are the ones that attack the witnesses rather than the evidence. If you try to contradict them by saying "an article in the Wall Street Journal says X" their knee jerk reaction is to respond "the Wall Street journal is full of lies because it is run by the conspirators."



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

What most don't understand is that the media is regulated by the FCC. What is the FCC? The Federal Communications Commission. Notice the word FEDERAL? Yeah.

To think that the media reports anything without a filtering system is to live in extreme naivete.


1. The FCC only regulates broadcast media. It does not regulate the internet or print media like newspapers and magazines.

2. If the FCC puts a filter on the media, how come programs with a conspiratorial slant sometimes show up on television. I have seen documentaries on topics like Area 51, the world trade center bombing, and freemasonry on television that presented the conspiratorial viewpoint. Granted programs showing the conspiratorial viewpoint may not necessarily get a lot of air time or be on the most watched channels during the most watched time slots, but they are on television. If the FCC is implementing a filtering system, it is doing a lousy job as viewpoints contrary to its alleged prefered view are getting out there.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join