On JREF, LC and Criticism

[jhunter1163]

Something I just was thinking about...

Here at JREF, The Doc just put up a fine piece of work entitled "Screw 9/11 Mysteries." He then ASKED for critiques, in order to make it better.

Over at LC, Dylan Avery put up a piece of work entitled "Loose Change" and BANS people who critique it.

I've noticed this several times in Twoofers. They CANNOT accept criticism of any kind, no matter how well-intentioned it might be. It seems as though they feel that if they admit they were wrong about one thing, no matter how trivial, it starts them down the slippery slope to admitting that their entire construct is false. They have too much invested to allow that, so they fight tooth and nail on the tiniest of points, never giving an inch on anything. Even when they are thoroughly beaten, they just run away for a bit, then start spewing the same debunked claim again (retaking the ground).

Maybe our resident psychologist has some thoughts on this. Or anyone else....

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I've noticed this several times in Twoofers. They CANNOT accept criticism of any kind, no matter how well-intentioned it might be. It seems as though they feel that if they admit they were wrong about one thing, no matter how trivial, it starts them down the slippery slope to admitting that their entire construct is false. They have too much invested to allow that, so they fight tooth and nail on the tiniest of points, never giving an inch on anything. Even when they are thoroughly beaten, they just run away for a bit, then start spewing the same debunked claim again (retaking the ground).

I've noticed this several times in Creationists. They CANNOT accept criticism of any kind, no matter how well-intentioned it might be. It seems as though they feel that if they admit they were wrong about one thing, no matter how trivial, it starts them down the slippery slope to admitting that their entire construct is false. They have too much invested to allow that, so they fight tooth and nail on the tiniest of points, never giving an inch on anything. Even when they are thoroughly beaten, they just run away for a bit, then start spewing the same debunked claim again (retaking the ground).

I've noticed this several times in Fundamental Religious types. They CANNOT accept criticism of any kind, no matter how well-intentioned it might be. It seems as though they feel that if they admit they were wrong about one thing, no matter how trivial, it starts them down the slippery slope to admitting that their entire construct is false. They have too much invested to allow that, so they fight tooth and nail on the tiniest of points, never giving an inch on anything. Even when they are thoroughly beaten, they just run away for a bit, then start spewing the same debunked claim again (retaking the ground).

The reason that they cannot accept it, is because reality is very dull, and esssentially meaningless.

Lee-Harvey Oswald defines it. Bit wierd, bit odd, and didn't really have a motive. To attatch a clear motive onto it will give life some meaning, rather than have history just as a series of random events.

All conspiracies are bred out of events without a clear motive, and that is too much for the CTers to accept.

As that bloke in the BBC program said "They dont find reality comfortable". And when you debunk CTs it is dissapointing as you are taking peoples security blankets away from them and not giving anything in its place.

 

[jhunter1163]

Perhaps that's why their venue of choice is the Internet forum. They have some little bit of control there, some power, which they don't have in the real world. Anyone who debunks their theory is a threat to that control and must be dealt with severely.

 

[MG1962]

I just finished watching a doco about the real Monach of England. It deals with a divergence in history during the Tudor days which lead to the line of succession changing to what it is today

At the end of the progam the historian made a wonderful observation. History is both fragile and random, but the reality we have, is the reality we have.

It is so much more interesting to deal with DEW and various conspiracy ideas rather than accept 19 people felt strong enough to die for their cause

 

[Oliver]

Perhaps that's why their venue of choice is the Internet forum. They have some little bit of control there, some power, which they don't have in the real world. Anyone who debunks their theory is a threat to that control and must be dealt with severely.

...or "eliminated". That's why I think Dylan&Friends know the
truth. But are not willing to pass it to their "underlings"...

 

[Foolmewunz]

The reason that they cannot accept it, is because reality is very dull, and esssentially meaningless.

Lee-Harvey Oswald defines it. Bit wierd, bit odd, and didn't really have a motive. To attatch a clear motive onto it will give life some meaning, rather than have history just as a series of random events.

All conspiracies are bred out of events without a clear motive, and that is too much for the CTers to accept.

As that bloke in the BBC program said "They dont find reality comfortable". And when you debunk CTs it is dissapointing as you are taking peoples security blankets away from them and not giving anything in its place.

I agree with what you're hitting at, here, but I think you're off on a couple of points.

Firstly, history is not merely the written diary of a series of random events. Much of history is the result of very well thought-out plans. True, some of the individual actions that make up that greater story are random happenstances, but most of the major chapters in the history of the world are as the result of some serious planning and policy decision.

Secondly, you use "conspiracy" when you mean "conspiracy theory". Hitler had a conspiracy to invade Russia. In the aftermath, and in history, it's now referred to as a "plan" (Barbarosssa). Similarly, there was a conspiracy by a large group of people in the governments of different countries, and hidden from as many other people as possible, to invade Europe in 1944 - Operation Overlord. In historical hindsight, it's now an "operation". A conspiracy theory is one that takes those or similar events and makes up impossible motives and draws impossible conclusions. A conspiracy theory would take the first of these two examples and ask (it's been done, believe me) why Stalin refused to do anything in the face of mounting evidence that the Germans were going to attack, and conclude that he was secretly in league with the Nazis.

There was a definite conspiracy on 9/11. Osama and his planners conspired with a bunch who believed in their cause, had secret finances arrange, had private communiques, and then attacked the USA with four laden passenger aircraft. That's no longer a "theory", though.... They've claimed it as their plan. The Conspiracy Theory comes in when armchair revolutionaries apply their own personal bias and attribute those events to the ulterior motives of world domination of whichever group it is they currently hate.

 

[gumboot]

Something worth remember...

A conspiracy involves a group of people secretly planning together to commit an ILLEGAL act. Simply secretly planning something as a group is not a conspiracy, though we might use the word, for example "My family conspired to give my sister a surprise birthday party". While the word is used in this way, that example is not, in fact, a conspiracy.

-Gumboot

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Firstly, history is not merely the written diary of a series of random events.

I agree partly, but I think "Events", that happen suddenly and without warning are a shock to the system. People thus attempt to heal from these sudden and random events by attatching a guiding hand to it (Neo-Cons etc). It is interesting to note every theory is about people not comprehending that the small is able to take out the powerful.
Diana-Car Crash
9/11-19 arabs
JFK-one nutter
RFK-another nutter
Moon-3 blokes (In the end).

I lean to the conclusion that life is a completly random, meaningless, pointless mess. Conspiracy theorists are people who dont want to accept life is out of their control so attatch this hand that makes order out of chaos. In a way, they were fixated on America being the most super-dooper thing in the world, and when their government failed them, they realised that they are not safe. It was too scary.

You see, most of these guys who believe in CTs watch a lot of very conventional movies, with a plot and a happy (Or firm) ending, and a certain set of morals. I believe life is a film without a plot or a happy ending, and that is why religion, creationism, and conspiracy theories all sit in the same camp for me. All 3 want a life with a plot and a happy ending.

There was a definite conspiracy on 9/11. Osama and his planners conspired with a bunch who believed in their cause, had secret finances arrange, had private communiques, and then attacked the USA with four laden passenger aircraft. That's no longer a "theory", though.... They've claimed it as their plan. The Conspiracy Theory comes in when armchair revolutionaries apply their own personal bias and attribute those events to the ulterior motives of world domination of whichever group it is they currently hate.

True. But to the rather racist CTers, Arabs only sit around in caves and cant put pen to paper. Only white guys can make a conspiracy.
In the end though, on the day, 9/11 was a tiny operation. No guns, no karate moves, no bombs. Just a bunch of boxcutters and some mace, and a ruthlessness. It was a bit of a mess, but a mess that hit 75% of it's targets.
The smallness of this operation (On the day), and the easy nature of it all was too small for the CTers to come to.
How can such might be taken down by so few?

 

[Architect]

I just finished watching a doco about the real Monach of England. It deals with a divergence in history during the Tudor days which lead to the line of succession changing to what it is today

I'll think you'll find the CTers claim that it was a conspiracy by the Scots to put their King (James VI) on the English throne and combine them, so that me and 5.5m other people can get perennialy annoyed when foreigners talk about "the Queen of England".

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It is so much more interesting to deal with DEW and various conspiracy ideas rather than accept 19 people felt strong enough to die for their cause

Yes.
I admit, when I was young(er) I did find that watching a conspiracy show, your mind can go from 0-100 in a second. This is what the CTers describe as the "enlightened feeling". You feel it, because it gives you an out. It makes life more interesting, and exciting, and gives you a clear purpose. It gives you the devil (The US government) and the good (Those who can see past the lies). CTs exist in a world of black and whites, not, not greys.

You can commend them on trying to find a meaning in life, a moral code, but ultimately, it is a unwillingless to accept the harsh reality of life.

-Walrus

"I think what it boils down to really, is I hate reality. Unfortunatly, it is the only place you can find a good stake dinner"-Woody Allen.

 

[Seismosaurus]

It seems as though they feel that if they admit they were wrong about one thing, no matter how trivial, it starts them down the slippery slope to admitting that their entire construct is false.

Isn't that just it, though? I mean, if you allow open criticism based on the actual facts, then you would end up having to admit just that - that your conspiracy theory is just a bunch of hot air. They don't want to do that, so they can't afford to allow real criticism.

The only vaguely surprising thing about that reasoning is that it implies that, on some level, the conspiracy theorists actually know that their ideas are nonsense.

 

[The Doc]

I ask for criticism for two reasons

To get people from the opposing side to actually read it carefully to try and find something I screwed up on. This way I know they are paying attention to what's being said.

The other is so I can make my work 100% accurate. I am confident in my research and I have no problems with any critique provided. If I agree that I am wrong, I admit I am wrong and I make edits, or remove the argument.

But yes, the OP makes a very good point. I wonder how they will react when their critics have other means of critiquing their "Final Cut".

 

[jhunter1163]

Isn't that just it, though? I mean, if you allow open criticism based on the actual facts, then you would end up having to admit just that - that your conspiracy theory is just a bunch of hot air. They don't want to do that, so they can't afford to allow real criticism.

The only vaguely surprising thing about that reasoning is that it implies that, on some level, the conspiracy theorists actually know that their ideas are nonsense.

I think that many of them do know that their theories are nonsense, but don't want to admit it for a variety of reasons; they don't want to be exposed as incompetent researchers, they're making money off their theory and don't want to kill the golden goose, or maybe just plain ol' pride.

Of course, there is a significant minority who truly do believe their theories. They simply refuse to see the criticisms. Mercutio could tell you the name of the psychological phenomenon that blocks out anything unpleasant or threatening to one's self-esteem.

 

[T.A.M.]

Relating to OP:

I think the reason criticism is accepted here, on works in progress, as opposed to over there is due to:

1. Maturity level (both physical and mental)
2. The belief in the scientific method, and in how science works and progresses.

You remember when you were young? Your view on the world was the right one, and the only one that counted. Now despite them having some older members, the LCF, especially the LC leaders, are all very young, still full of young ideals, and still full of the "self importance" of youth. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, we see it here with a few of our posters, but I think the LC crew are guilty of this.

TAM

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I think the biggest evidence is in them saying "This edition is going to be airtight".

What?

Surely if it was just "common sense" and "so obvious" that it was all a conspiracy by dubya, the edition would not need to be airtight, as the evidence would speak for itself.

They say this because they know deep down it is all bollocks, but want to rest in their little bubble of denial and fantasy in which the nasty real world cant get at them.

 

[jhunter1163]

I agree. Saying your film is "airtight", considering the chaos of that day, is nonsensical. There can never be a 100% "airtight" story of the events of 9/11 simply because there is so much that we don't know and probably never will know. The official story is as close as we're ever likely to get. And, to follow up on my original point, the people who wrote the official story are STILL looking for criticism. Dylan.. well, he still has a big TV.

 

[LashL]

There is quite a startling contrast, indeed, between works by CFs and work by skeptics, isn't there?

The makers of LC have been claiming in advance that their "final cut" will be "airtight" and "undebunkable", and the duo who created that little video of Citgo witnesses ran around for months claiming that it would be "earth shattering" and "undebunkable".

Neither the LC guys or the Citgo duo invite critique or accept legitimate criticism. Neither of them can entertain the slightest suggestion that they may have something wrong. Neither of them can stand opposition of any kind. The forums that they operate (in the case of LC) or participate in (in the case of the Citgo duo who are heavily into the PFT forums) allow any dissent and ban those who disagree with the premises of their videos.

In contrast, skeptic such as the Doc actively seek out and welcome legitimate critique in order to make their work as accurate as possible.

I am not a psychologist but I tend to agree with some of the posts above (by jhunter and the Walrus) about the motivation of CFs in refusing to accept or even entertain legitimate critique or criticsm.

 

[The Silver Shadow]

I have found that they like to isolate themselves. It's a child-like mentality that they have, they see nobody else's view but their own.

 

[T.A.M.]

There is quite a startling contrast, indeed, between works by CFs and work by skeptics, isn't there?

The makers of LC have been claiming in advance that their "final cut" will be "airtight" and "undebunkable", and the duo who created that little video of Citgo witnesses ran around for months claiming that it would be "earth shattering" and "undebunkable".

Neither the LC guys or the Citgo duo invite critique or accept legitimate criticism. Neither of them can entertain the slightest suggestion that they may have something wrong. Neither of them can stand opposition of any kind. The forums that they operate (in the case of LC) or participate in (in the case of the Citgo duo who are heavily into the PFT forums) allow any dissent and ban those who disagree with the premises of their videos.

In contrast, skeptic such as the Doc actively seek out and welcome legitimate critique in order to make their work as accurate as possible.

I am not a psychologist but I tend to agree with some of the posts above (by jhunter and the Walrus) about the motivation of CFs in refusing to accept or even entertain legitimate critique or criticsm.

But you see, I think their use of the word "airtight" is a clue as to the slant the FC is going to take.

I think that LC:FC will be so vague in its accusations, so nondescript in terms of its "blame laying", so "Thats pecular" in its wording, that it will be "airtight" simply because of what little it will actually have to say, what little it will actually COMMIT to.

TAM

 

[LashL]

But you see, I think their use of the word "airtight" is a clue as to the slant the FC is going to take.

I think that LC:FC will be so vague in its accusations, so nondescript in terms of its "blame laying", so "Thats pecular" in its wording, that it will be "airtight" simply because of what little it will actually have to say, what little it will actually COMMIT to.

TAM

That is a very good point, with which I agree in the case of LC. The only way to make any of its conspiracy fantasist claims "airtight" is to make them so devoid of content, and completely devoid of any commitment to any actual theory, as to make its claims virtually meaningless. Just more JAQing off, in other words, but with some effort put into avoiding being sued if/when FC ever garners the attention of the masses and makes it worthwhile to sue the LC makers, distributors, promoters, etc.

Not so, in the case of the Citgo boys, though, where "airtight" to them means plugging their ears and chanting, "Na na na na na, I can't hear you!" when the obvious frailties of their little video are pointed out to them, and when even their fellow conspiracy fantasists tell them how bad their video is, and that the statements of their four witnesses do not mean what they think it means, let alone prove what they think it proves.