Ironies in Conspiracy Theories

[dudalb]

BTW I am not a big fan of the "Principal Of Charity". The assumption of Rationality is a might big assumption to make.
It might work in a philisophical dicussions in a Philosophy Seminar, but outside of Academica you are setting yourself up to be a sucker.
And I find that the people who appeall to it are almost inevitably peddling woo of some sort.

 

[LightinDarkness]

I have two favorite ironies from the world of conspiracy theorists:

#1 The irony of CT use of terms like "research" and "evidence."

Most CTs really act like they do real research and have mountains of evidence for the paranoid things they believe in. However, when you ask them for their research you are presented with a series of youtube links, personal websites with absolutely no sourced material except other CT sites, or (my personal favorite) the number of hits that google gives you on a term (as "evidence" for said paranoid CT existing). When you try to present them with real research or real evidence that debunks them, you are summarily dismissed as a NWO disinformation agent. Ironically, if the CT was really a "researcher" then they would have considered the real peer reviewed or primary source evidence and would not be a CTer.

#2 The irony of freemason conspiracy theories.

Unlike so many of the imaginary and fantasy groups conspiracy theorists conjure up to represent Ultimate Evil and World Domination (AKA, Illuminati, NWO, etc.), freemasonry is one of the groups they get hysterical about which is actually real in the sense that the organization exists in reality. Because freemasonry is real and has been around for hundreds of years, it has countless thousands of documents providing evidence for its real history, real motives, real membership, etc. And yet absolutely all of this evidence is ignored by CTers:

- Instead of doing the real research and reading the well publicized rituals of freemasonry available since 1725, conspiracy theorists make up fake masonic rituals and include in them imaginary rituals involving satan worship and the like.
- Instead of looking through all the countless publicly available lists of famous freemasons, everyone that is involved in a imaginary CT is a freemason. Example: CTs hate George Bush so he becomes a freemason, and it must be true because someone found a picture of him with members of the Grand Lodge of Texas. Lets ignore that he was signing a proclamation for Texas freemasons like he did for countless other groups and like all governors do.
- Despite the volumes of literature showing the historical adverserial relationship the Vatican has towards freemasonry, lets make sure everyone in the Vatican and the Pope are freemasons.

And I could go on and on. Its ironic and...sad.

 

[Travis]

If you'll recall from this month's Stundies one guy asserted that the Nazi's, Freemasons, Atheist Scientists and Jews were all the same entity.

 

[Tippit]

Sure, stuff like that happens, but rarely. Your default position seems to be that sort of thing happens all the time. Let me guess; when that guy attacked figure skater Nancy Kerrigan your first thought was "I bet she did it to herself". I think you've been watching too many murder mysteries, where murky motivations and red herrings abound. Real life (for better or worse) isn't like that...or at least is rarely like that.

Your analogy isn't very impressive, to say the least. I've never questioned what reportedly happened to Nancy Kerrigan. Assuming I cared, and I were responsible for an investigation, I would start with the physical evidence, and weigh the possible motives according to their cost-benefit. I don't really see much benefit for Kerrigan to have staged her own assault and beating, other than possible publicity. What would she have had to gain, other than some public sympathy?

I don't watch much TV, and I will spare you any arrogant proclamations about real life.

At the end of the day in the business of figuring out who did what to whom, it all comes down to evidence and that, believe it or not, is ultimately a good thing.

It is a good thing. But I have no doubt that if with respect to 9/11 it were not the veracity of the evidence itself, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Tippit]

BTW I am not a big fan of the "Principal Of Charity". The assumption of Rationality is a might big assumption to make.
It might work in a philisophical dicussions in a Philosophy Seminar, but outside of Academica you are setting yourself up to be a sucker.
And I find that the people who appeall to it are almost inevitably peddling woo of some sort.

Color me surprised to hear someone like you say that. I submit that if you don't have the basic assumption that someone who you're arguing with is honest, sincere, and rational, you might as well be jerking off rather than wasting your time talking to them.

 

[JihadJane]

I'm really enjoying where this discussion is going - really constructive. I think a lot of the irony regarding PCTs (paranoid conspiracy theorists) stems from their complete inability to reason or accept criticism. My sister has recently started believing in many of these theories and I repeatedly find myself being told that the government and the media are fear-mongering and spreading terror. ...

You appear to think she's wrong about the last bit.

What is your counter-argument?

 

[Ocelot]

I still can't get my head round whether the evidence for controlled demolition is that the buildings fell neatly within their own footprint or that they ejected material for hundreds of yards.

 

[TjW]

I still can't get my head round whether the evidence for controlled demolition is that the buildings fell neatly within their own footprint or that they ejected material for hundreds of yards.

For a Conspiracy Theorist, the answer to this question is: Yes.

 

[Nosi]

The evidence is the buildings fell neatly into their own footprint, as do controlled demolitions we see in Vegas do. I think...