The Dark Side of "Conspiracy Theory"

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
All factures must be considered to make an informed choice. Including source.

But your just looking for an informed source and hope they make the right choice for you...

You have to get past trusting or believing a source that seems credible and judge each story on a case by base basis.

Automatically dismissing or accepting information because of what you think of the source is illogical...

Simply because information is not useful if dismissed or accepted from any source, it has to be analyzed.

Originally posted by Vanitas

That's why I believe that dealing with the "real" world as much as you can, emotionally as well as physically, is still - and always will be - a good idea.

This is essentially IT. Reading conspiracy-theories as a teen I was taught that so-and-so and such-and-such is totally evil. Then actually meeting some of the people talked about, visiting some of the places talked about, I learned that life is nothing like described in various books and that I was misled.

Originally posted by Jezus
A Liar telling the truth doesn't make the truth a lie.

Most people are suffering from Stockholm's Syndrome in regards to their main stream media captives...

I guess their niche is ignorant, naive, apathetic, lazy , and gullible people...

To pretend that some sources can be trusted mindlessly while others dismissed without hesitation is a disturbing trend of thought....

A basic misassumption of the conspiracy-theorist is that those who disagree with them must therefore agree with the "mass-media" or conventional media.

That is entirely untrue. I finished with tabloid-ist mass-media more than a decade ago. I finished with TV 5 years ago. And I finished with the paranoid fear-hate circus of "alternative press" 2 years ago.

Originally posted by Jezus
Again, to pretend that some sources can be trusted mindlessly while others dismissed without hesitation is a disturbing trend of thought....

I sometimes read articles on infowars. And sometimes I read articles from conventional sources such as N.Y. Times. Some, no matter the source, are written with an agenda, some are simply written to inform.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Jezus


Um, incorrect. Considering the fact that your arguing against considering source while promoting a source you yourself argue to be a liar. I would have to say you are projecting that on me. And making massive assumptions as well. As Sky points out ALL stories are written with an agenda, just some are written purely to inform. Though I would imagine those are becoming rare as human more and more polarizes and fractures.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I never said he was a liar...it is a simple expression that went over your head...

You should question the agenda of the main stream news just as much as you question alternative news....

It is easier to just trust and deny sources but it is intellectually dishonest and lazy, you have to analyze the message.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Eye of Horus
Just think of all the people that have died over thosands of years for one form of religion. You might be a smart guy but your statement is simply wrong.

Im one of the most anti-religious people around here, for the exact reasons you state - bloodshed and war. Nevertheless the majority of religious practitioners were never like that. Believing in a higher reality is what separates animals from humans.

However you cannot get rid of religion entirely, because there are good things in there, too.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Those estimates are based on a long road of research. Back in the day when I used to believe in nearly every conspiracy-theory out there I actually WENT to the places talked about in the theories. For example, I read about secret societies orchestrating world events, so I joined them.
Or I read about Area51, so I contacted people who work there. And so forth and so on. Lots of experience, lots of research.

But honestly: Take a look at the "recent posts" page of this Board. How much do you figure is based on agenda, personal entertainment, boredom, anger and how much do you figure is based on genuine research? 70% not having truth as an intention is a generous figure.

I'm curious: what did you get when you joined those secret societies? What did you get out of the people working at Area 51? And so on. And where also did you get the money to do all these research campaigns? As I'd like to investigate this stuff as well.

And for the few conspiracy theories that would have some truth to them, what would they be, and what is the evidence to back them up?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Truth is not something separate from ego and entertainment.

That reflects precisely the attitude of the Internet-Generation. "Who cares, its all the same", right?

I think thats questionable.

My own take on this is that truth can be entertaining. Truth can also be depressing. But truth and entertainment are not the same thing, nor are truth and depression. They are not the same, though they may not be totally unrelated either. (And does this bit mean I'm "toast" if I'm part of this "Internet Generation"?)

There's nothing wrong with entertainment in and of itself -- what is wrong is when one tries to take said entertainment as truth. For example, one may watch fictional TV shows to entertain themselves. This in and of itself is not wrong. What would be wrong would be to start believing those TV programs actually describe something real.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by mike3]

Originally posted by Jezus

I don't really think these people are EVIL but I think they are really focused on their own success...

Priority 1 - Be successful
Priority 2 - Help people

You need priority 1 to make priority 2 possible BUT working on priority 2 hurts priority 1...

This is the situation most politicians find themselves in and unfortunately you can go so far with priority 1 it is easy to forget about priority 2.

So how can you focus on 2, when doing that hurts 1 which you need to do 2?

reply to post by Jezus


Allow me to reiterate this. Pay attention this time pleaseI ANALYSE ALL MEDIA SOURCES REGARDLESS. Just because you have yourself convinced that I am your mirror opposite and only accept what you call "MainStreamMedia"'s information doesn't make it so. Especially considering I have not even infered otherwise.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Narcissism (They are out to get me!)

To me that sounds more like paranoia than it does narcissism. What's up with that? I'd think "narcissism" would be like "wooh, I'm great stuff" or something like that.

Lack of Personal Responsibility (Its their fault that my life sucks!)

In some cases it really is so that someone's life "sucks" because of things beyond their control. Of course, that doesn't mean government mega conspiracies are those things.

Originally posted by mike3
However you cannot get rid of religion entirely, because there are good things in there, too.

I agree. Getting rid of religion entirely = spilling the baby with the bathwater. Religion is responsible for some of the worst and some of the best in History.

Originally posted by mike3
I'm curious: what did you get when you joined those secret societies?

Nothing. Much less evidence of any conspiracy.

And where also did you get the money to do all these research campaigns? As I'd like to investigate this stuff as well.

Its more a question of curiosity + time-investment than money. A question of preferring experience over second-hand-information.

And for the few conspiracy theories that would have some truth to them, what would they be, and what is the evidence to back them up?

The activities going on in the secret are too numerous to count. Some of them are harmful some of them are well-intended. And many of them are actually secret, which means that so-called conspiracy-theorists have never heard of them.

There's nothing wrong with entertainment in and of itself -- what is wrong is when one tries to take said entertainment as truth.

yes

Originally posted by mike3
To me that sounds more like paranoia than it does narcissism. What's up with that? I'd think "narcissism" would be like "wooh, I'm great stuff" or something like that.

Look one layer deeper. "They are out to get ME" is highly narcissistic. There are people posting around here who think that they personally are being followed for posting on this site. Of course its paranoia as well, but with a good dose of narcissism mixed in.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Allow me to reiterate this. Pay attention this time pleaseI ANALYSE ALL MEDIA SOURCES REGARDLESS.

Great.

So you should understand that your statement before...

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Yet you cite infowars as credible. Not I.

...has absolutely no effect on the fact that Rockefeller feels this way.

Rockefeller: Internet is “Number One National Hazard”

www.infowars.com...

“It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet,” Rockefeller mused

The fact that this information comes from infowars does not change the information...

There's a such thing as super conspiracy theorists

reply to post by Jezus


Fortunately, nobody gives a rats ass about the old guys opinion on the internet.

You, on the other hand, are almost behaving as if you want the internet to be destroyed just so you can tell the world "I told you so!"

reply to post by Jezus


And the fact that it's on infowars does not make it true. Or ANY website for that matter. I personally don't know enough either way, but you are arguing that it's true because it is there. To which I answered "Consider the source." and you really have yet to despite some rather long rants about your false assumption you treat as fact that I believe everything the Main Stream Media tells me. While you accept unquestioningly something that comes from Infowars. You prove Sky's point rather well. I am sure he'd thank you.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I was randomly browsing the internet and came upon this article that defines the Perpetrator-Victim-Rescuer cycle and implies that all three positions are stuck in their own way and feeding each other.

PERSECUTOR - "It's All Your Fault"

Sets strict limits unnecessarily.

Blames

Criticizes

Keeps Victim oppressed

Is mobilized by anger

Rigid, authoritative stance

"Critical" Parent

TO GET OFF THIS TRIANGLE, MOVE TO CLEAR STRUCTURE


VICTIM - "Poor Me"

Feels victimized, oppressed, helpless, hopeless, powerless, ashamed

Looks for a Rescuer that will perpetuate their negative feelings.

If stays in Victim position, will block self from making decisions, solving problems, pleasure and self-understanding.

"Dejected" stance.

TO GET OFF THIS TRIANGLE, MOVE TO PROBLEM SOLVING


RESCUER - "Let Me Help You"

Rescues when really doesn't want to.

Feels guilty if doesn't rescue.

Keeps victim dependent.

Gives permission to fail.

Expects to fail in rescue attempts.

"Marshmallow" Parent

TO GET OFF THIS TRIANGLE, MOVE TO CLEAR NURTURING

I found this interesting in regard to some "conspiracy-theorists" who are in the ballgame not for inquiry and research but in order to play-out victim mentality.

The Perpetrators become "The Elite", "The Illuminati", "Politicians", "The Government" etc.

The Rescuers become UFOs, David Icke, Alex Jones, etc.

It is interesting that the article mentions problem solving as a way out of victim-mentality. Much of what conspiracy-theorists write has nothing at all to do with problem solving but merely affirming that problems cannot be solved, will never be solved and the enemy is sooooooooooo overwhelmingly powerful that all hope is lost.