It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Excluding contributions that were pure insults or just links to other sites, Michael Wood and Karen Douglas identified 2,174 relevant comments posted to ABC news, CNN, the Independent and the Daily Mail between July 1 and December 31 2011. The comments were made by 1,156 different authors; 1,459 were coded as conspiracist, written mainly by people who follow the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, and 715 as conventionalist.
Conventionalist comments more often (56 per cent) contained information that supported their own position as compared with conspiracist comments (31 per cent). By contrast, conspiracist comments were more likely (64 per cent) to contain derogation of opposing explanations, as compared with conventionalist comments (44 per cent). Moreover, conspiracist comments more often signalled mistrust (10.6 per cent vs. 1.4 per cent). On the other hand, conventionalist comments were significantly more hostile in tone. Finally, neither side appeared happy applying the term "conspiracy theory" or derivatives to their own beliefs, suggesting the label has acquired derogatory connotations.
The researchers said their results also fit with the related idea that many conspiracists share a similar worldview - "a belief system conducive to conspiracy beliefs in general." Characterised by mistrust, this perspective is often focused on finding anomalies in official accounts and assuming they are unexplainable. "For many conspiracists, there are two worlds," said Wood and Douglas, "one real and (mostly) unseen, the other a sinister illusion meant to cover up the truth; and the evidence against the latter is evidence for the former."
Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations.
This result agrees with our theory that belief in conspiracy theories can be more accurately characterised as a disbelief in official or received explanations – that the content of the conspiracy theory doesn’t matter as much as the fact that it opposes whatever the official explanation is. The focus is not on promoting an alternative explanation, but in debunking the official story.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's easier to disprove official statements and accounts than to prove something that has many elements hidden to it. Sometimes by disproving things, you can bring other things to light.
Why not throw Yahoo links in there as well? In my opinion, you're taking a sample from which the general commentator has little to no knowledge of the subject manner that they're commenting on. I don't know about anyone else, but when I read the comment strings on these sites I come away not very impressed with the overall substance of the commentary. Second,2174 "relevant" comments from at least four major news sites over a six month period? Anyone ever notice these comment strings can go on for thousands of replies? Sounds a little easy to cherry pick certain data to fit a narrative given.Third,
Excluding contributions that were pure insults or just links to other sites, Michael Wood and Karen Douglas identified 2,174 relevant comments posted to ABC news, CNN, the Independent and the Daily Mail between July 1 and December 31 2011.
Once again, refer back to my first and second points. I could go on and on with this but 'll stop for the sake of brevity.I find it insulting to be linked with a group of commentators who have a very limited understanding of the subject manner of which they speak.Now on to why I agree with the basic premise, It's my opinion that the research can come to a conclusion that conspiracy analysis is not based off of any relevant facts because when you omit facts that are relevant you won't be left with any substance other than discredidation and nonsensical positions. It's called deligitimization by omission. You just completely omit any facts that contradict the general consensus. Just ignore them all together. If its not there than it doesn't existI'll use the set of events involving the Syrian chemical attacks as an example. In the early summer the Turkish government raided a location where individuals linked to the FSA via Al-Nursa, and found sarin gas in their possession. This fact has been completely omitted from the narrative.The reason this is done is the moment you accept certain facts, you begin to assign conscience intent. Certain entities can no longer be considered reactionary forces, but rather active participants in how events unfold.
Conventionalist comments more often (56 per cent) contained information that supported their own position as compared with conspiracist comments (31 per cent). By contrast, conspiracist comments were more likely (64 per cent) to contain derogation of opposing explanations, as compared with conventionalist comments (44 per cent). Moreover, conspiracist comments more often signalled mistrust (10.6 per cent vs. 1.4 per cent). On the other hand, conventionalist comments were significantly more hostile in tone.
Distrust and mistrust are roughly the same. Both mean (1) lack of trust or (2) to regard without trust . But distrust is often based on experience or reliable information, while mistrust is often a general sense of unease toward someone or something. For example, you might distrust the advice of someone who has given you bad tips in the past, and you might mistrust advice from a stranger.
Propaganda in the pursuit of labeling critical thinkers "insane".
"Conspiracy" Theories vs. "Coincidence" Theories by John Judge
OK. You can call me a Conspiracy Theorist if you call everyone else a Coincidence Theorist. But n-o-o-o-o, only conspiracies are "theories", well. that and Evolution. Ya, right, if this is Intelligent Design, what is a BAD idea?
I keep seeing all these so-called journalists barking at Conspiracy Theorists who think anything the government or the rich do could be less than benign. You might get away with criticizing the government for stupidity or incompetence, but if you even hint at intent or intelligent design on their part, you¹re ONE OF THEM -- a Conspiracy Theorist!