It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:08 PM

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

Visit the link for the rest of the points.

I came across this website by chance which has the following section on conspiracy theorists or as the website says "conspiraloons."

Are any ATS members familiar with this website? I've never heard of it before.

So what do people think? They're a bit unfair if you ask me. Not all people who discuss conspiracies conform to the stereotypes, as ATS has proven to me. Many of us have the ability to discuss things in a rational manner using logic and reason, but then again there are those who fly off the handle in some cases, especially regarding certain topics.

Do any members actually consider themselves "conspiracy theorists" and what conspriacies if any would you say you genuinely believe?

Me personally I don't one hundred percent believe in any conspiracies, I just find the majority of them interesting. However if I was to pick some which I personally find most convincing it would be conspiracies involving the assassinations of Martin Luther King, John Lennon and Marilyn Monroe.

I've posted this in the conspiracy forum as it's discussing the idea of conspiracies, even though it's not actually a conspiracy.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:25 PM
I don't use any of the stock phrases they mention, literally never. I bet 'The Powers That Be' didn't expect that did they.

Seems like a load of garbage to me. Whoever wrote it is complaining about conspiracy theorist using generalisations and also that they have a lack of proper research. However the author is in the same breath tarring all people interested in conspiracy theory with the same brush. Suggesting that we all fit an exact stereotype seems a tad hypocritical to me.

If they had for example done some actual research into a site like ATS they would find a wide range of belief structures, and plenty of debunkers and skeptics to boot. It would appear they have used one or two people they know personally to base their entire reasoning on. Or possibly they based it on a taxi driver they had 10 years ago...

Ridiculous. What a sheep!

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:26 PM
You can just as easily say that about people who dismiss conspiracy theories. I've seen people completely disregard something, simply because it has "conspiracy theory" attached to it. If it's considered a CT, in their eyes it can't possibly be true. The decision is made before even looking at the evidence for/against it.

That article is full of fallacies: "They are always"

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by Kram09

Depends on how you're defining a conspiracy theory.The definition I like comes from wikipedia:

To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end."

With that definition, I'm sure you would agree that there are many believable conspiracy theory. At least I would hope you would, otherwise I'd have to call you a sheep.
Not really... I absolutely hate that term and you'll never see me using it.

I do believe that there are many conspiracy theories that have merit and many that turned out to be correct.

7 Insane Conspiracies That Actually Happened


The last one gives many examples throughout history.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:33 PM
It's probably part of their propaganda.

One thought which keeps recurring is that the term 'conspiracy theorist' is a term they used to label those who challenge their deceit and who seek the truth, and to ridicule them.

I keep thinking that to use their terms is, so some extent, to 'play the game on their terms'.

I was thinking it might be worth considering referring ourselves something else, can't find the right one though.

I've thought of 'rationalists', 'alternative news analysts' , don't know, but it continues to bug me that I accept their propaganda label for what we are doing.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:39 PM

edit on 11-9-2010 by 2weird2live2rare2die because: retardation

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:41 PM
op i dont think that speaks for none or most of us we just want the truth....
so the give us thoughts and feelings now.... we're so special now
no conspiracys just like minded people who veiw the truth

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:48 PM
Condensing the list, we get:

1. Arrogance.
2. Relentlessness.
3. Inability to answer questions.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
7. Inability to withdraw.
8. Leaping to conclusions.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
10. It's always a conspiracy.

I considered myself a conspiracy theorist, but in all honesty I can only see 4, 8 and 9 in myself, and even those are a bit of a stretch.

(4) I do have a lot of quotes near and dear to my heart that I use when arguing my theories.

(8) I know I can be somewhat gullible when I first hear a good conspiracy theory, but I like to think that I can be persuaded by logic and reason. Once I'm aware of the facts, I will change my mind.

(9) I don't fault myself there. For example, it seems to me that the US has gone to war over a false flag attack more than it has for any legitimate reason. Why should I believe any reason the government presents for going to war?

Oddly enough, I can see 1 - 9 as applying to Bush and Obama.

(1) through (4) are pretty self evident.

(5) through (9) can be readily seen when you look at the bailouts, Middle East wars, Health Care "reform", illegal immigration, etc.

It really sucks that Bush and Obama are better "conspiracy theorists" than I am. I feel like such a sheeple.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:48 PM
i guess things getting to the point where if you don't believe everything you are spoon fed by the media you are considered a crazy person. i don't understand how this came to be, but we can only hope that someday doctors will find a way to cure stupid.

edit on 11-9-2010 by 2weird2live2rare2die because: forced to edit at gunpoint

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:59 PM
You shouldn't except any label.

Labels are placed on groups of people to stereotype, which makes it easier to dismiss a whole group of people.

Look through history and you'll see most names attached to groups of people did not originate with that group of people, but placed on it by others, such as the MSM. People who come later quit often mistakenly accept the label and all the stereotypes that come with it.

Take youth fashion for example, I remember when punk first started in London before the media got a hold of it, before the media coined the term 'punk rock'. No studded leather, no mohawks etc., everyone dressed originally and made their own fashion. What happened once the MSM got hold of it? It turned into a media created fashion circus, the 'sheeple' just followed what they thought was punk as seen through the eyes of the media, so it became something completely different to what it started out as. The media showed a picture of one guy in a leather jacket and red mohawk, and that became the fashion stereotype. Ask any 'mohawk punk' and they'll swear they are the real deal, not a media created version of it, lol. People are followers and the establishment know how to control the population, and take the power away from any popular movements.

This is how most people see and react with the world, through the distorted view provided by MSM. Not only shallow stuff like youth fashion, but everyday reality.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:03 PM

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
i guess things getting to the point where if you don't believe everything you are spoon fed by the media you are considered a crazy person. i don't understand how this came to be, but we can only hope that someday doctors will find a way to cure stupid.

edit on 11-9-2010 by 2weird2live2rare2die because: forced to edit at gunpoint

The modern witch hunt. It's always been this way. People who question are always grouped together into stereotypes and then discredited, or demonized, to keep other people from taking them seriously.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:37 PM
As a complete skeptic on anything remotely thought of as "conspiracy theory" , I have to agree with the link. I think conspiracy theories are so silly, I decided long ago to concentrate on just one, "Chemtrails". People who believe in CTs are a tenacious bunch, and simply move on to another point of contention when a key factor they promote is debunked. They distrust any traditional source of information as being part of the conspiracy. The only forward thinking they seem to possess is jumping to conclusions. They dismiss EXPERTS, in favor of "study"and "observation" by people without training. Really, how can you hope to discuss something high altitude intelligently without talking to pilots and meteorologists? Yet when they contribute, they are wrong? Really, CT are amazing. It is almost entertaining.
This board is surprisingly polite compared to some I've read. I'm HATED at YouTube by "Chemtrailers" and am often blocked from commenting by people I've never had any contact with. As are any debunkers there. The other side of the coin is, where they go about politely flaying alive any conspiracy theorist who is not able to supply facts and sources. Some days it's almost refreshing.
Perhaps you don't see these traits in yourself, and I can't recall ever engaging any of the current posters on this thread, but from this side of the table, the article is spot-on.
And of course, as a skeptic you probably think I'm a paid shill government disinformationalist, suckered by the MSM, blindly following TPTB like a sheep. Bahhhhh.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by Kram09

Well the real problem is that some conspiracies ended up being true.

If they had all been false then there would be less ppl willing to risk ad hominem attacks
due to taking a view point that is not mainstream.

If the list were just a handful over the many years then I'd even say the risk of thinking
this way might not be worth it, but humans and the power hungry among them have
shown a desire to use deception to forward their agendas.

What happened to JFK shows that these issues reach the highest level.

Since that day, it is much the same, and it will persist until ppls fear of death
is overcome by their anger.

As I have said before, I plan to hide that day.

Good Luck to all the good ppl !!!

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:05 PM
Nice useless data...

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:22 PM
well good grief it sounds like they are guilty of all the things they are accusing us of especially the arrogance

oh and how about starting out by marginalizing conspiracy theorists
anybody who questions anything is a conspiraloon

typical , I don't give a sight that would post such nonsense much credibility ,other skeptic sites manage just fine by presenting fact based arguments rather than name calling like this


posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:26 PM

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.


See below.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by Kram09

I sat and wrote a long response to this thread. When I had finished it, I realized that I had actually spent a great deal of time defending something that didn't need defending.

I will simply say this.

Point 1. Arrogance.

It is the main characteristic I see in the ten point list.

The primary and never ending characteristic I see most from those that spend so much time attacking conspiracy is their arrogance.

Glass houses.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by Kram09

Do any members actually consider themselves "conspiracy theorists" and what conspriacies if any would you say you genuinely believe?

Yeah, I guess I do. The Kennedy murder got me on the trail, and as for the things I think are a conspiracy? Practically everything government and church does is done in a secretive manner, and all facts are not known to the masses. The main conspiracies I try to get across are:

Church Conspiracy of a Rapture and a Savior, and Heaven and Hell.
ET/UFO cover-ups and deals made conspiracy.
Political Murders conspiracy.
Secret Government conspiracy.
Federal Reserve Bank and World Bank conspiracy.

top topics


log in