Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Words like tin-foil hat, paranoid, anti-government, anti-Semite, Islamic sympathizer and others are often bandied about to describe those falling
under the ever widening umbrella of conspiracy theorists.
Fair enough too! But is calling the masses "Sheeple" or individuals "Shills", "trolls" or "dis-info agents" just because they do not believe a
particular conspiracy as right as equally offensive? if not why? Whats the difference?
First off there is no difference when people divide others into camps by labelling them, but the fact that something might be offensive when it comes
to the truth, is no reason to shun or avoid the hard questions that lead to the truth.
What I am suggesting is taking the emotion out of it, and instead replacing it with honest to goodness questions.
If you find someone with an alternative theory has a theory that offends you, the first question you might want to ask is why does it offend you,
because the truth is we live on a planet plagued by war, starvation, theft, murder, disease and fraud, so these things shouldn't be strangers to you.
Instead you might want to ask yourself instead, why not ask them questions how they arrived at that thinking, and if your only answer for their
questions is their thinking offends you, then you aren't offering them any quality alternative answer at all.
Look at it this way, some people might ask the person who does the cooking in their household, what time is dinner going to be, and that answer might
be, oh when it's ready.
That's not an answer, so you might ask well, could you narrow it down please, and they might respond oh sometime in the next hour or two, and that's
not much of an answer.
So they might follow up and say well are we talking closer to five minutes from now or two hours from now, and they then might answer probably an hour
and a half.
They might then confirm this and say, so it's going to be in an hour and a half, and the person then says, yes, in an hour and a half.
Now you finally have a real answer and real information but guess what, some people would have accepted the first answer.
Just because you accept the first answer shouldn't mean everyone else should, and just because you accepted a non-answer, that really was a
non-answer, well don't be offended when somebody then questions why they didn't get a real answer, by inventing a theory through investigation or
speculation as to what the real answer is.
Bottom line is, people know the difference between real answers, and non-answers, and partial answers.
One you have to make no excuses for, good bad or ugly, one you do have to, and one you have to make some.
If you don't have the answer, and you ultimately aren't the person responsible for supplying it or even capable because you aren't privy to all the
facts, it is a bit rediculous to be mad at those who go searching for the answers, and speculating and investigating.