Why do CTists never cite CT books?

[Nick Terry]

In watching the burden-of-proof table tennis that passes for debate between our resident crop of CTists and the debunkers, it struck me that the CTists almost never cite any conspiracy theory literature, whether about 9/11 or anything else.

Why?

Is it because the YouTube generation are that incapable of reading?

Or is it because the JAQ-off stance prohibits them endorsing any name conspiracist?

This isn't a behaviour unique to Twoofers, though. Holocaust deniers seem to read a bit more than Twoofers but very rarely rely on citing the revisionist gurus.

So, is it possible that some CT books are now more likely to be read by debunkers than their target audience? How many twoofers have actually read David Ray Griffin anyway?

I'm curious whether this behaviour pattern holds true for other CTs - has anyone ever encountered some loon citing e.g. Milton William Cooper, Jim Keith, David Icke, or a specific JFK author?

 

[DGM]

I think it's more of a lazy thing for them instead of whether they actually read the information. It's far easier to cite an internet source than actually looking up the page number in a book..

 

[defaultdotxbe]

i was amused at a debate i had some time ago, it was regarding the military commissions act and whether US citizens could be declared "enemy combatants" under it, the CTer cited several videos, CT websites, and interviews, while i mostly cited form the text of the act itself, i came to realize the CTer was incapable of interpreting the military commissions act for himself and had to rely on others to tell him what it meant, and whether they were right or wrong he swore by what they said

 

[Nick Terry]

i was amused at a debate i had some time ago, it was regarding the military commissions act and whether US citizens could be declared "enemy combatants" under it, the CTer cited several videos, CT websites, and interviews, while i mostly cited form the text of the act itself, i came to realize the CTer was incapable of interpreting the military commissions act for himself and had to rely on others to tell him what it meant, and whether they were right or wrong he swore by what they said

That's not an uncommon experience. I think there are many debunkers more familiar with the structure and sources of a particular CT, than its actual adherents.

I think the majority of people who 'advocate' a CT online might repeat a fifth to fifteenth generation copy of an "original idea" that might have appeared in a book. The diffusion of CTs may be quite literal: they're diffuse, and tracing them back to the point of origin likely makes not the blindest bit of difference to the loon.

 

[DGM]

That's not an uncommon experience. I think there are many debunkers more familiar with the structure and sources of a particular CT, than its actual adherents.

I think the majority of people who 'advocate' a CT online might repeat a fifth to fifteenth generation copy of an "original idea" that might have appeared in a book. The diffusion of CTs may be quite literal: they're diffuse, and tracing them back to the point of origin likely makes not the blindest bit of difference to the loon.

It's interesting that you say this. I have on many occasions had success convincing CT's on the error of their ways because I was able to source their argument further down the line then they could.

Nothing stops a BSer better then to know where their BS comes from in the first place. (And it fun to rub their faces in it)

 

[njslim]

Maybe have not finishing coloring the pages?

 

[cisco]

For the dumb ones (95%), it's because they don't read.

For the smart ones (5%), it's because they know how easily refutable specific arguments are.

 

[Nick Terry]

It's interesting that you say this. I have on many occasions had success convincing CT's on the error of their ways because I was able to source their argument further down the line then they could.

Nothing stops a BSer better then to know where their BS comes from in the first place. (And it fun to rub their faces in it)

Interesting too. What sort of examples could you mention of this 'sourcing further down the line'? It might help to make this more concrete.

A lot depends on where the contradictions lie. CT authors might contradict themselves internally or they might not, but one or two of their claims are picked up by the next generation, and so on, so that by generation 3 there are mutually contradictory theories.

This is usually when the sheep are separated from the goats; sensible people spot that not everyone in the CT camp can be right, and in fact the contradictions are so great that none of them are right. But the diehards ignore this and cling limpet-like to the essence of the claim, which is when they become dogmas.

Several more generations of transmission onwards, and you end up with LastChild. Would it even be worth asking someone like that where they found their sources?

 

[DGM]

Interesting too. What sort of examples could you mention of this 'sourcing further down the line'? It might help to make this more concrete.

A lot depends on where the contradictions lie. CT authors might contradict themselves internally or they might not, but one or two of their claims are picked up by the next generation, and so on, so that by generation 3 there are mutually contradictory theories.

This is usually when the sheep are separated from the goats; sensible people spot that not everyone in the CT camp can be right, and in fact the contradictions are so great that none of them are right. But the diehards ignore this and cling limpet-like to the essence of the claim, which is when they become dogmas.

Several more generations of transmission onwards, and you end up with LastChild. Would it even be worth asking someone like that where they found their sources?

Without specifies examples at hand. Prison Planet is notorious for their quote mines, but they also rely on the reader not following the links that they provide. If CT's would only pay attention they would catch 90% of the BS before it becomes internet law. How many times have you read an article that was posted by a "truther" (or PP) that if he/she had read it in the first place they would realize it doesn't support their argument?

Most of these "truthers" would do better in their "debates" if they would actually read the articles that they reference, like we do. It's almost like they don't expect us to check up on their sources. Sort of like they don't check on the sources they originally got their argument from.

Critical thinking is becoming a lost art with most of these people.

 

[twinstead]

Critical thinking is becoming a lost art with most of these people.

Enter the YouTube Generation. Gotta love 'em.

 

[DGM]

Enter the YouTube Generation. Gotta love 'em.

It's funny you say that. I'm a cub scout leader and we're working on a research project. They wanted to use the Internet for all of their research. I insisted on no Internet, only printed word/ library would be excepted. After much initial complaints they have risen to the challenge and had a lot of fun in the mean time. Maybe there is hope.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It's funny you say that. I'm a cub scout leader and we're working on a research project. They wanted to use the Internet for all of their research. I insisted on no Internet, only printed word/ library would be excepted. After much initial complaints they have risen to the challenge and had a lot of fun in the mean time. Maybe there is hope.

i think thats a bit extreme, there are plenty of online sources that are comparable to libraries, many newspapers and magazines have their archives online, i think rather than avoiding the internet as a source altogether the next generation needs to learn how to distinguish a good internet source from a bad one

 

[gumboot]

Without specifies examples at hand. Prison Planet is notorious for their quote mines, but they also rely on the reader not following the links that they provide. If CT's would only pay attention they would catch 90% of the BS before it becomes internet law. How many times have you read an article that was posted by a "truther" (or PP) that if he/she had read it in the first place they would realize it doesn't support their argument?

Most of these "truthers" would do better in their "debates" if they would actually read the articles that they reference, like we do. It's almost like they don't expect us to check up on their sources. Sort of like they don't check on the sources they originally got their argument from.

Critical thinking is becoming a lost art with most of these people.

On the flip side of this I've had many discussions with CTers and cited articles as evidence, and they've gone off attacking a strawman because they didn't actually bother to read the article and find out what I was actually saying.

Bluntly put, they're lazy and stupid.

Anyone who isn't lazy and stupid can work out that there's no 9/11 Conspiracy in about 5 seconds.

 

[Good Lt]

Books don't have YouTube mash-ups.

 

[Walter Ego]

i think thats a bit extreme, there are plenty of online sources that are comparable to libraries, many newspapers and magazines have their archives online, i think rather than avoiding the internet as a source altogether the next generation needs to learn how to distinguish a good internet source from a bad one

What the internet lacks is what every good library should have, namely a skilled and unbiased research librarian who will lead you to good sources of material on the subject you’re researching. The internet is like a library where any ding dong can write a book and stick it on the shelf.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

What the internet lacks is what every good library should have, namely a skilled and unbiased research librarian who will lead you to good sources of material on the subject you’re researching. The internet is like a library where any ding dong can write a book and stick it on the shelf.

well i think people need to be their own librarian, rather than assume the librarian is unbiased

 

[Liszt]

In watching the burden-of-proof table tennis that passes for debate between our resident crop of CTists and the debunkers, it struck me that the CTists almost never cite any conspiracy theory literature, whether about 9/11 or anything else.

Why?

Is it because the YouTube generation are that incapable of reading?

Or is it because the JAQ-off stance prohibits them endorsing any name conspiracist?

This isn't a behaviour unique to Twoofers, though. Holocaust deniers seem to read a bit more than Twoofers but very rarely rely on citing the revisionist gurus.

So, is it possible that some CT books are now more likely to be read by debunkers than their target audience? How many twoofers have actually read David Ray Griffin anyway?

I'm curious whether this behaviour pattern holds true for other CTs - has anyone ever encountered some loon citing e.g. Milton William Cooper, Jim Keith, David Icke, or a specific JFK author?

By the way, the last thing Jim Keith did (before he died of a bad leg) was tear a hole in David Icke's bonkers The Biggest Secret. Some of Keith's work on, for example the origins of the education system and the influence of Wilhelm Wundt, is actually very well researched. He dismissed the majority of conspiracy theories (especially ones about aliens), but thought there was was one sourrounding the JKF hit and other assasinations.

Jim Keith is also the source of the "Diana is pregnant" rumour, which he heard from her doctor, whom he knew. Although I have never seen him referenced in any of the Daily Express's million articles (I have his original piece, from about 10 years ago)

 

[deep]

It's funny you say that. I'm a cub scout leader and we're working on a research project. They wanted to use the Internet for all of their research. I insisted on no Internet, only printed word/ library would be excepted. After much initial complaints they have risen to the challenge and had a lot of fun in the mean time. Maybe there is hope.

Interesting approach. I personally would have taken the opportunity to teach the kids how to use the Internet for finding factually accurate information. I would probably setup a fake Wikipedia page with questionable material (available only locally, so it doesn't confuse anybody else), and let the kids figure out what to believe and what not to believe -- using real books or whatever other resource they feel is reliable.

 

[DGM]

Interesting approach. I personally would have taken the opportunity to teach the kids how to use the Internet for finding factually accurate information. I would probably setup a fake Wikipedia page with questionable material (available only locally, so it doesn't confuse anybody else), and let the kids figure out what to believe and what not to believe -- using real books or whatever other resource they feel is reliable.

For the critical thinking test I sent them to research the "tree octopus"
http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

(they passed the test)

These kids are 9/10 year olds they know the internet better than I do. The exercise was mostly to get them to explore other avenues of research and to not expect to always get information handed to them (so to speak). Anyway they had fun and learned somethings and that's all that matters.

 

[T.A.M.]

It's funny you say that. I'm a cub scout leader and we're working on a research project. They wanted to use the Internet for all of their research. I insisted on no Internet, only printed word/ library would be excepted. After much initial complaints they have risen to the challenge and had a lot of fun in the mean time. Maybe there is hope.

Interesting approach. I personally would have taken the opportunity to teach the kids how to use the Internet for finding factually accurate information. I would probably setup a fake Wikipedia page with questionable material (available only locally, so it doesn't confuse anybody else), and let the kids figure out what to believe and what not to believe -- using real books or whatever other resource they feel is reliable.

For the critical thinking test I sent them to research the "tree octopus"
http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

(they passed the test)

These kids are 9/10 year olds they know the internet better than I do. The exercise was mostly to get them to explore other avenues of research and to not expect to always get information handed to them (so to speak). Anyway they had fun and learned somethings and that's all that matters.

While I agree, a lesson on how to critically analyze various sources of information on the internet is a good one, I also see the validity in forcing children born into and raised on the internet, to use the printed word, and a library.

TAM