New study: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy

Phage
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

Do you think that threads, posts, and blogs about conspiracies are more effective? I must say I don't see any evidence of that.

No, not at all, but I have never seen you miss an opportunity to tow the official line. Your statement about the invasion of Iraq runs counter to that. I assume because it is now well documented you are ok to say that, but I'd be curious if you ever held that sentiment at the time.

I guess we'll have to take your word on it.

reply to post by St0rD

That's what this thread was about from the start: government dupes.

According to the OP that would include me because I think the "OS" about 911 is essentially correct.

See the problem with your view? There are many things about our government that I don't like. I don't trust it and I haven't since long before 9/11. But, because I think the "OS" is correct, it makes me a dupe. And, according to you, it makes me complicit in what occurred after.

reply to post by Rosinitiate

No, not at all, but I have never seen you miss an opportunity to tow the official line.

Perhaps you are confusing my penchant for separating fact from fabrication as "towing the official line."
It is not the same thing.

Phage
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

No, not at all, but I have never seen you miss an opportunity to tow the official line.

Perhaps you are confusing my penchant for separating fact from fabrication as "towing the official line."
It is not the same thing.

Perhaps but remains to be seen.

reply to post by Phage


There is only a problem with my view from your perspective.

I'll say it one last time: my above post was directed to those who don't question OS and follow them blindly. Those who trust the government without self-awareness.

You clearly don't fit into this box knowing you just said you don't trust the government. That means that even though you find the 911 OS to be truthful in the end, you actually took the time to verify and search it for yourself (or at least question it) since you don't trust the government.

Rosinitiate

Gryphon66

filosophia
you say both sides are equally violent, but how many wars has truthers started compared to those who side with the government?

Are you saying here that people who disagree with the 911 Truth Movement have started wars?

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

You are definitely no following his logic.

His simple and to the point comment was thusly: there is an argument on this thread that there are extremes on both sides of the divide. Another words equal wackos trumpeting both sides. The posters argument to this was: How many truthers (911 or otherwise) are responsible for starting wars of aggression. I didn't think it was that hard to follow, but that's just me and who knows maybe I'm wrong too.

Wow. Why would you take it upon yourself to speak for another poster, and provide your interpretation and elucidation according to your own beliefs and agendas of what someone else said in response to a simple request for clarification? I was giving filosophia the benefit of the doubt, and will continue to do so until they answer for themselves.

However, since you have chosen to reiterate the "question" I'll gladly respond to your post while I'm waiting. It is a nonsensical comparison to ask, since the conversation here is (fallaciously) separated into "them what believe" and "them what don't", a loaded question about how many "Truthers" have started wars, now isn't it? Given that for all intents and purposes we're talking about people just like "us" here at ATS who have no ability to begin or end wars at all.

Since the comment is so nonsensical on its face, I was certain that filosophia had more to say. As to your comment ...

so now we know that presstv.ir is lying according to the author of the paper.
the title of this thread is wrong and everyone who is taking presstv.ir and barrett as truth are proving they are not being sane.

read the paper, the authors make no mention of sanity about the two groups, he did however find that conventional story accepters are more hostile toward the debates about 9/11.
claiming the people that accept the official story are hostile is still wrong, they just don't want to debate it anymore.

by the way anyone who thinks hostility is some measure of sanity, the author wood points out that a study done in 99 shows that the more hostile you are as a trait the more likely you are to have a positive view of conspiracy theories.

the authors found a pretty well vetted psychological concept:the majority will bully the minority online, because as he puts it "The fact is, people just like to see themselves complimented and their enemies insulted, and they’ll do whatever rhetorical backflips they need to hang onto that even if the reasoning turns out to have been wrong all along – and that’s pretty much true no matter what they think about 9/11."

so yeah, you guys are wrong, barrett is a liar and so is presstv.ir for letting the fraud post that crap.

reply to post by Phage


Unfortunately the ways you have decided to separate fiction from fact are nonetheless largely set up to tow a certain line, like it or not.

And I see clearly that you do not care that NO STUDY has been done to determine if this is a factor, in facts.

Likely now you can hunt up a study that claims to have pored over these facts, but truthfully , a large lot of things you claim are facts are seen from the eyes of the beholder... I used to be like you, but now I am free to find out that I can actually do my OWN studies...entirely without the help of people who stand to gain from them.

Gryphon66

Wow. Why would you take it upon yourself to speak for another poster, and provide your interpretation and elucidation according to your own beliefs and agendas of what someone else said in response to a simple request for clarification?

Umm, maybe because it an open, public forum.

I was giving filosophia the benefit of the doubt, and will continue to do so until they answer for themselves.

How thoughful of you.

However, since you have chosen to reiterate the "question" I'll gladly respond to your post while I'm waiting.

I didn't realize I asked a question or reiterated "the" question. Besides pretty sure the answer is 47.

It is a nonsensical comparison to ask, since the conversation here is (fallaciously) separated into "them what believe" and "them what don't", a loaded question about how many "Truthers" have started wars, now isn't it?

I don't even know what you're going on about here.

Just replying to this thread so I can come back to it later. S&F, OP!

reply to post by swanne

There's a "subscribe" button at the bottom of the page that works really well for doing that.

reply to post by Phage


Oh. I'm still thinking like in the old ATS. I didn't noticed it. Thanks! It'll save me alot of breath.

Phage
From 2003? No, sorry. I wrote to my "representatives" and made my opinion known.

Glad to hear that. Bummer you failed to blog about it, though.

Do you think that threads, posts, and blogs about conspiracies are more effective? I must say I don't see any evidence of that.

Yes, because your representative probably gives not a pip what you think. On the other hand, blogs and forums are an alternative to the compromised MSM and highlight the disparity of what we are officially told and often reveal the true machinations behind world events. That factor alone has impetus as more become aware of that disparity if nothing else.

reply to post by The GUT

That factor alone has impetus as more become aware of that disparity if nothing else.

Didn't seem to help stop the invasion of Iraq any more than my emails to Washington did though. Did it?

Phage
Didn't seem to help stop the invasion of Iraq any more than my emails to Washington to did though. Did it?

It might take a bit of time but, yes, it's potentially much more collectively effective to be a part of pulling the veil of mainstream propaganda back than your emails to D.C.

The old, "the pen is mightier than the sword" doesn't refer to a few flaccid emails sent to a corrupt system, as much as it does to spreading awareness and shining our light into the darkness.

reply to post by The GUT

It might take a bit of time but, yes, it's potentially much more collectively effective to be a part of pulling the veil of mainstream propaganda back than your emails to D.C.

Is it? I suppose it would depend on what, in particular you are talking about but potentially it's no more than a group congratulating each other on how much smarter they are than all those government dupes. Their assumption being of course that those that don't agree with them are unreasoning dupes.

Phage
Their assumption being of course that those that don't agree with them are unreasoning dupes.

In a down & dirty morass of corruption and propaganda, sometimes one must be bold enough to call a spade a spade. I'm not saying that you are an unreasoning dupe, but the options, from my standpoint, do seem rather limited.

Public dialogue is almost always a good thing. Why are you so against it? You come across--maybe unintentionally--as a perfect parrot of the MSM and the gubmint poo-pooing of "conspiracy theorists." Is that a voice of reason? Or a failure to grasp reality, the lessons of history, and the manipulation of society?

My experience isn't one of "backslapping" amongst a bunch of do-nothing feebs, but a journey that has seen a much-valued education by writers with passion, the occasional journalist, bloggers, forum members, etc.

reply to post by The GUT

I'm not saying that you are an unreasoning dupe, but the options, from my standpoint, do seem rather limited.

Subtle.

Public dialogue is almost always a good thing. Why are you so against it?

Why do you say I am?

Phage
It would be nice if people could rationally discuss things and accept that because someone does not agree with them, it doesn't make them the enemy...or less sane. It would be nice if they could do so without distorting facts and inventing them. It would be nice if they could do so with misrepresenting the other's position.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is that a voice of reason? Or a failure to grasp reality, the lessons of history, and the manipulation of society?

A voice of reason.

My experience isn't one of "backslapping" amongst a bunch of do-nothing feebs, but a journey that has seen a much-valued education by writers with passion, the occasional journalist, bloggers, forum members, etc.

Oh, no doubt there is passion. I suppose some find passion persuasive. But my experience is that when presented with a dissenting view and with evidence to support that view, the conspiracist if unable to provide a response will ignore the point or call me a shill.

reply to post by Phage


This isn't the reason why I believe so.

First of all it's not about who's smarter than who. Both sides have equal intelligent minds.

The thing with blinded believers and why they might be less sane (only to an extent) is the fact that they have lost the ability to think by themselves on subjects of capital importance. They will rely mostly on what they are being taught and told. We have observed this reality many times in history (nazi germany, north korea) where citizens will follow and believe corrupt officials even though their intentions is evil. Hitler and what he did to history might be one of the greatest example. It's what we could call extreme naivety or just plain ignorance from the german people.
We've seen this not so long ago in America: 'Let us go to war americans, those evil terrorists have weapon of mass destruction!'. We all know the outcome.

I'm also basing my statement on people I've met in all my lifetime. Now that doesn't mean blind anti-conspirationist are necessarily less sane, it simply means they may have lost one of the most important faculty of all.

Phage
reply to post by St0rD

 

As for the website you provided (conspiracypsychology), seems to me they are doing a pretty damn good job trying to convince us of the inconsistency of conspiracy theories.

Or, studies show that could indeed be the case.

So when someone distorts the result of a study so that it fits your worldview, the study is valid.
But when those distortions are pointed out, the study is not valid.

Got it.

I'm surprised at you phage...you of all people should know that ...the gulf of Tonkin, Iran-contra, nuclear test effects on down-winders, the Tuskegee syphilis study, and the overthrow of south American governments by the CIA....were 5 conspiracies that were proven true, and admitted to, in later government documents...all 5 were covered-up (at and by) the highest levels of our government at the time, and in years following. this does not mean that all conspiracies are indeed factual, but, with a relatively recent track record like that, is it not understandable to have serious doubts about JFK, and 9/11?...