The coming attack on ATS by MSM

Originally posted by Yoda411
First of all we would all appreciate it if you can stop flooding threads. Contribute your opinion all you want, but they integrated the edit button for a reason.

Additionally, you are attempting to debate that conspiracy theorists are not suggestible or suspicious of authority?

How about that, I "flooded" the thread by pretty much asking the same question 3 times and somehow it still goes unanswered in your response. What makes you think I will gloss over that and move on to your question to me?

You can answer me or ignore me but you cannot respond to me and sidestep and toss questions at me. I asked politely and it is a good question.

Originally posted by Yoda411

So then let me state something else.

The MSM does fact-checking.

You can quote me on that one.

Okay, I really can't believe that you're pulling out the same old arguments on this thread (which is not even about whether or not conspiracy sites contribute to mental illness) that were thoroughly debunked on the other thread over the course of the past three days.

Grrr.

I'm going to wait til I cool down bfore saying anything more.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Yoda411
First of all we would all appreciate it if you can stop flooding threads. Contribute your opinion all you want, but they integrated the edit button for a reason.

Additionally, you are attempting to debate that conspiracy theorists are not suggestible or suspicious of authority?

How about that, I "flooded" the thread by pretty much asking the same question 3 times and somehow it still goes unanswered in your response. What makes you think I will gloss over that and move on to your question to me?

You can answer me or ignore me but you cannot respond to me and sidestep and toss questions at me. I asked politely and it is a good question.

Please ask a question only once, then thoroughly read my response for the answer to your question.

Fact: Conspiracy theorists may be more suggestible or suspicious of authority.

I would find the argument against this statement to be fallible.

Originally posted by Yoda411
Please ask a question only once, then thoroughly read my response for the answer to your question.

Fact: Conspiracy theorists may be more suggestible or suspicious of authority.

I would find the argument against this statement to be fallible.

Facts cannot contain the word "may." That is conjecture not fact. Please go see dictionary.com if you must but that is not a fact. How do you even pretend that it is?"Conspiracy theorists may be more suggestible or suspicious of authority."

How many "facts" are conditional to the maybe/maybe not spectrum?

I look at it like this...

More and more people have started getting their news from Alternative News sources because more and more people find it harder and harder to trust their T.V sets. Everytime I watch the news on T.V, I take it with a grain of salt, because I know they are only allowed to report on what "dad" lets them report on. As for an example, look at the election, people couldnt believe what they were seeing on T.V as far as "getting the facts".
So what do people do when they dont believe what they see on T.V?
They go out on their own and do their own research, turning off the T.V and turning on the computer. Yet, people are suprised the media is attacking sites like this? It is apparant why they are saying stuff like that, THEY ARE LOSING RATINGS!!!
People cant trust T.V news anymore, or the Aholes that feed it to them.
How can we take anything serious if We cant have a conversation about whatever it is that concerns us?
If it wasnt for the internet and sites like this, I wouldnt be half as prepared for serious conversations as I would before. The internet gives us all access to another way of seeing the bs. If you look at the shape of a square face on, it looks like a square, thats the media. But only the internet gives you the ability to look at it from a side view and see not only is it not a square, but a cube ,or box. Major news outlets dont like people lookin from the other side, just from the front, where its easy to screen what really is.
Taking our internet away, is like taking our guns away. The internet is our weapon to fight back, and they want to take those weapons away, but (cough cough, I think im mentally ill now from typing in this little box)
ATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


We have taken this argument to a whole new level so if you don't mind I would like to bring it back to the original subject at hand.

I believe this article was not intended to disgrace the mental health of individuals who frequent Internet conspiracy forums. I also do not believe it was propaganda for Internet censorship. Those who are arguing it is, should take a step back and read this article one more time.

I have outlined what I consider the important portions of the article - which defend both the opposition as well as the successor to both of our arguments.

It is in my personal opinion that specific individuals, with the incapability of differentiating fact from fiction (or delusion from reality) can be pushed further into a delusional state of mind by reading conspiracy theories such as, "Reptiles rule the world".

The ABC article left it very much open to discretion, and obviously does not contain the factual answer to whether or not it does happen. The first quote is the best example I can give you to further promote the fact that this article was left wide open for your individual opinion to be made.

One of the most factual moments of the article is this quote, "Those who have conspiracy theories to peddle can do it very easily. And if they're reasonably sophisticated, [they] can do it in a way that gives those ideas the appearance of validity".

That is the problem. The appearance of validity to unfounded claims; something we see on an hourly basis. As for the paranoid, delusional, or even psychotic effects of putting ones faith fully into these completely unfounded theories is yet to be concluded. Which is why we must make opinions based on our own personal experiences and judgement.

My own personal experiences are as follows. I have a friend who hears voices all day that tell him to do bad things. If I were to convince this individual that somebody specifically was out to get him, the voices in his head would therefor tell him to do bad things to those individuals. I know this because we had this discussion and the voices in his head are twisted reflections of his own reality.

I have to go get some coffee before I flat face, so take your time in reading the following important quotes from the article as well as responding.

"It's not an area that has been studied very well," said Angus MacDonald, a spokesperson for the mental health charity NARSAD, and an associate professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

Whether or not conspiracy theories harm people who are susceptible to mental illness is a matter of debate among psychiatrists.

"Most people with major mental illness don't believe in conspiracy theories," said Dr. Ken Duckworth, medical director of the National Alliance of Mental Illness.

According to MacDonald, most delusions begin with general, unexplained feelings of discontent that are caused by a problem with the brain. It's only when someone tries to search for an explanation for their feelings that a delusion forms.

"Then over time, the delusions become crystallized -- meaning they take on particular narratives, story lines and people's motives begin to be fleshed out," said MacDonald. "When one thing isn't explained, it's never abandoned. The plot just thickens ... and you credit your persecutor with a tremendous amount of power."

After studying conspiracy theorists, Michael Barkun, professor of political science at Syracuse University and author of the book, "Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America," said he thought image and packaging is actually key to attracting followers.

"Even someone whose ideas are deviant can produce a Web site that looks sleek and professional," said Barkun. "Those who have conspiracy theories to peddle can do it very easily. And if they're reasonably sophisticated, [they] can do it in a way that gives those ideas the appearance of validity."

Whether those who make conspiracy theories for the masses are themselves mentally ill, Barkun said it depends on the conspiracy theorist.

"I don't think you can generalize," he said. "Certainly, in terms of conspiracy theorists, they're all quite different."

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]

reply to post by Max_TO


Could this be a precursor to new legislation that will be used to close sites like this down? It almost seems as though the media is trying to get enough public support to allow Washington to really put the clamps on free speech and pass the legislation they need in order to legitimately close down sites such as ATS.

Let's face it, no matter how many sheep still lie dormant in hibernation inside our boundaries, the number of people waking up is growing exponentially every week. They know what is going to happen to the economy is far worse than anyone is publicly talking about, with the possible exceptions of peter Schiff and Ron Paul. And they also know that if and when the economy completely crashes and goes into a free fall, that most of the people that were brainwashed will suddenly start to open their eyes and look to sites such as this for information that they once considered to be the ideas of lunatics and conspiracy theorists, because they have finally realized that they cannot trust the main stream media.

This could perhaps be one of the single most dangerous things happening in this country at this point in time. I honestly, think they are making their final preparations for marshal law and the implementation of a police state. This would have to happen as to remove any mediums that the people might use to band together and gain cumulative information and to organize ourselves.

I would suggest that we also make preparations to keep ourselves organized and informed. Good luck to everyone as we may not have as much time together as we might like to think.

Originally posted by Max_TO
I am starting this thread in response to the recent comments from ABC that tried to link conspiracy websites to mental illness . It seems to me , and I hope that I am wrong , that the first shots have been fired in a coming attack on sites such as ATS that promote free and open discussion , no matter where it takes us . Given the history of MSM I see this notion being perpetuated and debated with a growing campaign targeting sites such as ATS . These recent comments mixed with the desire of many to start regulating the internet cause me great alarm and concern . All we need now is one nut with a gun being linked to a site such as ATS to see the spark that starts the fire .
When you look at the current state of world affairs it is becoming more and more unpatriotic to go agents group thought . More and more we will become labeled as fanatics or nut jobs , becoming the punch line of late night TV jokes and scorned in the media . We need to take heed of these recent comments and watch with a close eye to insure that our right to free speech and thought is always a protected right .

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Max_TO]

I hate to say this but if the Illuminati want it they will have it..

reply to post by Yoda411


So what your telling me is that 25 million people are having the same delusional vision? How many will it take before it is considered credible?

I am not certain; however, I would willing to bet pennies to dollars that this same thing happened in the 1930's in Germany.

My father always told me that if it looked like crap, smelled like crap, and felt like crap, you pretty much don't have to taste it to realize that it is in fact crap.

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
reply to post by Yoda411

 

So what your telling me is that 25 million people are having the same delusional vision? How many will it take before it is considered credible?

I am not certain; however, I would willing to bet pennies to dollars that this same thing happened in the 1930's in Germany.

My father always told me that if it looked like crap, smelled like crap, and felt like crap, you pretty much don't have to taste it to realize that it is in fact crap.

What I'm telling you is that there is no factual evidence to support the fact that reptilians rule the world. There is just as much evidence that Whales use sonar to control our minds. Whether or not it's a delusion is hypothetical and depends on the individual.

Edit: Would you argue there isn't someone out there who would believe Whales ruled the world with sonar if I made a YouTube video about it and posted it on ATS? Just something to ponder...

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]

reply to post by Yoda411


I am sorry, I thought you were referring to government conspiracy not alien's controlling the government. I find that somewhat delusional myself.

I should have known better just by the fact that I have read and starred many of your post. You are typically a rather intelligent poster.

I apologize.


[edit on 12/16/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

I'm convinced eventually most, or a large enough percentage, of those who are dismissed today as emotionally unstable will be, at least relatively and probably reasonably (if not very) soon, historically known as the normal reactions and actions of sufficiently thinking and feeling people. Let's face it, a decent percentage of those who frequent this site (if I can speak for anyone else but myself) suffer from (nonviolent) emotional and/or psychological conditions or disorders BECAUSE, or primarily, of the beyond astronomical level of institutionalized or legalized insanity (denial, lies/illusions) that rules the world as we know it now. That doesn't make what we intellectually and spiritually have to offer any less valid... in a world with just the bare minimum of objective reality (if we can ever have it). Those who rule this twisted paradigm are, quite understandably, simply very much afraid of those who are higher on the evolutionary scale of consciousness. Case closed. Next paradigm, please.

reply to post by Yoda411


You are the master of deflection. I cannot take another thing you say seriously until you address the 'facts' in this article you are so fond of quoting from. I say there are no facts in it. I say what you quoted was not a fact. Am I right or wrong about that because the idea of the "news" story you are using to back you up kind of relies on it having facts in it. Especially since you did say...

So then let me state something else.

The MSM does fact-checking.

You can quote me on that one

as well as ...

That's one of several facts mentioned in the article.

Did you not? Now, can you explain to me what facts I am missing or what it is about the quote you provided that I am missing that is factual. If we can agree on what a fact is, we can go from there.

Originally posted by Lightworth
I'm convinced eventually most, or a large enough percentage, of those who are dismissed today as emotionally unstable will be, at least relatively and probably reasonably (if not very) soon, historically known as the normal reactions and actions of sufficiently thinking and feeling people.

I would have to agree with you on this. There is clearly a growing number of psychotherapist patients whom many are receiving brand name prescriptions.

The "wild cards", as the article refers to, are the people with real mental health issues and the effect of conspiracy theories on their perception of reality.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
What do you do when you have a source getting too close to unleashing a dangerous truth?

It's called a smear campaign, or image killing. This is only valid because people are beginning to looks away from the mainstream, and finding out that thinking for your self is one of the freedoms we havn't lost, yet.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


Here's a fact from the article since you are craving one so badly, and apparently will overlook all other posts until you receive this.

Duckworth argued that most mentally ill people create conspiracy theories that are self-centric, such as, "the mailman is after me," not inclusive such as, "the postal workers are all out to get us by 2015."

Edit: New Quote.

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]

Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

Here's a fact from the article since you are craving one so badly, and apparently will overlook all other posts until you receive this.

Duckworth argued that most mentally ill people create conspiracy theories that are self-centric, such as, "the mailman is after me," not inclusive such as, "the postal workers are all out to get us by 2015."

Sigh. "argued that' is NOT A FACT either.

Either explain how that is a fact or try again. Try all you like, you are not going to be able to produce one fact from that article. NOT ONE. If you want to argue on differing ideas of what qualify as facts, I will gladly point you to your precious dictionary.com.

BUZZ TRY AGAIN.

Exhibit #1: From the post that opens this thread:

Originally posted by Max_TOI am starting this thread in response to the recent comments from ABC that tried to link conspiracy websites to mental illness . It seems to me , and I hope that I am wrong , that the first shots have been fired in a coming attack on sites such as ATS that promote free and open discussion , no matter where it takes us.

I cite this to remind us what the topic of this thread is.

It is not “do internet conspiracy sites ever cause a psychotic crisis in a mentally unstable person?”

There is at least one other thread that got hijacked into that question for pages and pages. The person who started this thread explicitly states that it is about the possibility of an attack on sites like ATS by the main stream media.

Exhibit #2: From the first post to veer off topic into the factuality of the link that the ABC article makes between conspiracy sites and mental illness:

Originally posted by Yoda411 The link between the comments made by ABC and Internet Censorship are fictional.

While it is an easy target to say that they intend to censor the internet to prevent mental illness, the article also makes the point that online community discussion surrounding conspiracy theories is also considered healthy therapy for the delusional. This is because there is someone on the other side to tell them, "You're not crazy".

The main reason I am the only supporter on the concept is that:
Delusions are a common occurrence on ATS. Paranoia even more common. Can they be considered a mental health issue? That is for the professionals to determine depending on an individuals severity. They are however extremely common.

Point A: The link is not fictional, since it was made by the OP. He is not saying that ABC made the link between their article and censorship, he is expressing concern that articles like the ABC article may signal a move toward censorship.

Point B: We went over this last night, and when I thought you didn’t understand I specifically repeated my post on it until you said you got it.

The ABC article does not say that the community aspect of these sites might be helpful to the delusional. That quote comes from a paper published by Dr. Vaughan Bell in 2006 in the academic journal Psychopathology.

The ABC article says that the community found on conspiracy site might be helpful to those in healthy mind – note the might. It adds the caveat that the stories spun on such sites are destructive by nature.

For the fourth or fifth time: you keep saying that the ABC article says conspiracy sites might be helpful to the mentally ill, by providing a community for support and empathy. This is not true.

It is true that the researcher in the forefront of the academic study of this issue has said that the benefits might outweigh the problems even for the delusional. But the ABC expert does not – he in fact says that conspiracy site might be harmful to the not mentally ill.

Okay, enough for one post. I’ll be back.

Exhibit 3:

Originally posted by Yoda411
I think when Lauren Cox included David Icke's theory of Reptilians ruling the world, she did so to show the possibility of a delusional reality. No matter how healthy your mind is, we are all victim to trickery and lies. Depending on how deeply you believe in the trickery, and how you apply it to your future life is what determines whether or not you are delusional.

Is the possible to develop delusions from conspiracy websites?

Point A: The question is moot, since that is not relevant to the topic of this thread. Whether or not conspiracy theorists and websites might contribute to mental illness, the ABC article is a propaganda piece designed to associate the words “internet conspiracy” with the most far-out theorist and with the specter of mental illness – specifically paranoid schizophrenia.

Point B: Yes, Lauren Cox uses David Icke as an example of a delusional reality.

Note that she assumes that it’s delusional. I happen to agree with her, but many people do not. By definition, a delusion cannot be shared by a community – that’s how all different religions can coexist without being labeled delusional by the mental health profession.

The issue is that she uses only David Icke, and does not provide a more moderate sort of conspiracy theorist.

That’s that post. See you again soon.

As C. Wright Mills observed in The Sociological Imagination:

[people] often feel that their private lives are a series of traps. They sense that within their everyday worlds, they cannot overcome their troubles, and in this feeling, they are often quite correct: What ordinary [people] are directly aware of and what they try to do are bounded by the private orbits in which they live; their visions and their powers are limited to the close-up scenes of job, family, neighborhood; in other milieux, they move vicariously and remain spectators. And the more aware they become, however vaguely, of ambitions and of threats which transcend their immediate locales, the more trapped they seem to feel.

[edit on 12/16/08 by Yoda411]