Thanks to all for helping me with this issue....Glad me and my wife are divorced now, it is good to be back at home.

Originally posted by ventian
I get tired of being labeled a conspiracy theorist when I bring more facts to the table than most people. I talk openly about my beliefs and feelings to my co-workers. They tend to ignore me and label me a conspiracy theorist. What could I tell them to call me other than that. I get tired of hearing about how I am wrong (even after hours of studies on specific subjects), but they are right (after 15 minutes of Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC).

Try using the title "Alternatives Analyst" whenever you're presented with the conspiracy theorist situation.

Make them stop and think.

I call them Consparanoids!

We could call ourselves ignored.. That's basically what we are isn't it? Ignored?

Chiefly, I would suggest that semantics are less important than decorum and the spirit of what you articulate.

Becoming offended (which is of course everyone's prerogative) and reacting by asking them not to label you - which they will do in some respects no matter how much you protest - will not convince them to be more tolerant of your views in my experience. (People label each other in society, sadly, for this among myriad other reasons, as I have learned the hard way. There are more of them than you so they feel validated, their instinct to attack and belittle is well ingrained, and in my experience cannot be overturned by responding defensively, no matter how appropriate that response may be or feel.)

Instead, my advice would be to calmly, politely, and rationally explain your reasons for the views and interests you hold. And also listen to them. No one knows everything, and there will no doubt eventually be times when you are wrong and they are right. Be humble and willing to learn from any potential source, even those who hold enmity for you. You don't benefit from ignoring potential knowledge on the basis of their attitude toward you. In time, if you do this habitually, they will (hopefully) recognize that you are not a threat to their worldview or paradigm, because you are tolerant of it. At that point they may likewise stop feeling the need to threaten or attack you for yours. The ultimate goal being that you both learn from one another and find a way to coexist.

That's just my, admittedly extremely accommodating and diplomatic, advice. That isn't for everyone. I know some people need to take a more aggressive tact which, as I said, is everyone's prerogative.

As for the aforementioned semantics, if it really bothers you and you feel the need for them to not call you a conspiracy theorist, I would first suggest that you politely request that they not call you that, perhaps by explaining that you feel it minimizes your opinion and the importance you place on it. Failing that, perhaps you could suggest an alternative like, "Open-minded hypothesizer."

I like Con-Spy, not perfect but made up by shortening Conspiracy a little and at least it doesn't scream "everyone is out to get me". Just researching who is doing a Con-job on us with lies and half truths.

It is a stupid term for stupid people promoting stupid #.

It seems to work very well.

“I’m going to tell you a story,” said Zedka. “A powerful wizard, who wanted to destroy an entire kingdom, placed a magic potion in the well from which all the inhabitants drank.

Whoever drinks that water would go mad.“The following morning, the whole population drank from the well and they all went mad, apart from the king and his family, who had a well set aside for them alone, which the magician had not managed to poison.

The king was worried and tried to control the population by issuing a series of edicts governing security and public health. The policemen and inspectors, however, had also drunk the poisoned water, and they thought the king’s decisions were absurd and resolved to take no notice of them.

“When the inhabitants of the kingdom heard these decrees, they became convinced that the king had gone mad and was now giving nonsensical orders. They marched on the castle and called for his abdication.

“In despair the king prepared to step down from the throne, but the queen stopped him, saying ‘Let us go and drink from the communal well. Then we will be the same as them.

’“And that was what they did: The king and the queen drank the water of madness and immediately began talking nonsense. Their subjects repented at once; now that the king was displaying such wisdom, why not allow him to continue ruling the country?“

The country continued to live in peace, although its inhabitants behaved very differently from those of its neighbors. And the king was able to govern until the end of his days.”

-extract from veronika decides to die
Paulo Coelho.

We could call ourselves "Alternative Theory Providers"

Problem with that, right enough, is it makes us sound like we are working as middle management in some consultancy somewhere with a flip chart and a can do attitude

A theory is basically just nonsense. Just because there are facts involved doesn't mean that the theory derives directly from the facts, or even makes sense based on the facts.

Obviously, there are a bunch of different things going on, the government is effing people over in all different types of ways, blowing up buildings and killing Muslims and collapsing economies, etc. But to jump to "the creation of a global government is a conspiracy", as generally all "conspiracy theorists" tend to do, is nonsensical. The progression to a global form of government is required by the progression of technology. So the conspiracies to make this happen - 9/11, global warming hoax, massive wars, etc. - are just necessary step for the managing class to take in order to ensure that the whole structure doesn't collapse in on itself.

Do you follow?

There is no conspiracy.

I don't remember when I first read the phrase, but it was in a post of Valhall's, I believe.

Critical Thinker.

It's what I consider myself. When presented with information, my first thought is to be critical of it and ask questions:
Is this the whole story?
Are there other sources?
Does this make logical sense?
What are the possible alternative theories?
Is the sensational headline obscuring important facts?
What message are they TRYING to get across?

Conspiracy Theorists get a bad name because some people are just out to believe any wild and crazy possibility there is... But there are plenty of skeptical and curious people who are CTers. (Conspiracy Theorists or Critical Thinkers)

Rationalist.
2nd

Originally posted by andreoutlaw
But all I hear from any of these people, on this site or any of the others, is just a bunch of silly nonsense, mixed with a bit of truth.

Yes. It takes all kinds. Each person has the choice to be a "critical thinker" or a "gullible believer in all things whacky".

People are not following the guidelines you have laid out.

Oh, I know. These guidelines are for me. I don't expect others to agree. To each his or her own.

This "truth movement" is the biggest load of # I am aware of.

I don't know what truth movement you mean, but I'm all for the truth. I'm all for asking questions.