-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What it’s like being a “conspiracy theorist”.
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
an anarchist
Your local loco.
When the dystopia catches up to you personally, I hope the blissful ignorance was worth it!
It is you who lives in a fantasy. The world is on fire, but not for the reasons you think.
It is you who lives in a fantasy. The world is on fire, but not for the reasons you think.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Is the "you" the theorist or the non-theorist?
It's easy to surmise what it might be like to be a conspiracy theorist. People criticize and question government all the time, all the while expressing suspicions of corruption and/or politicians feathering their own nests. In most people's minds, it's pretty much a given that "power corrupts" and that "people are in business to make money." Very often, people can be skeptical of the "official story" offered by government or other such organizations.
As for me, I'm inclined to listen to alternative explanations and take them into consideration, but I wouldn't necessarily believe them entirely. The main "conspiracy theory" I've taken an interest in during my life has been those surrounding the JFK assassination. When Oliver Stone released the film JFK in 1991, I noticed a lot of pushback from people who felt a need to criticize and mock conspiracy theories and theorists. Such active opposition has persisted even to this day.
I guess that's what mystifies me, when people seemingly go out of their way to actively oppose a conspiracy theory. I don't know what it's like to be an anti-conspiracy theorist. I might question some conspiracy theories and ask where someone is coming from when they make certain claims, but that's as far as it goes. If someone says something negative about the government, it's no skin off me, so I don't take it personally or become angry about it, as I've seen many anti-conspiracy theorists do. That's something I don't understand.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I knew the Russian Collusion Coup; 2015-2018, was a conspiracy scam, within weeks of when it started. I was so surprised how so many people drank the kool-aid and bought the swamp land. I kept in mind that the lie, comes out fast, but the truth takes time to catch up, since the lie and the conspiracy have the option to lie even more, for the coverup and getaway. The truth does not have that option. It needs to find facts. It never made sense, since Hillary was the one who received a donation from Putin to the Clinton Foundation and then destroyed evidence on cells phones and a private server. Then Clinton pays for the fake dossier to project blame.
Once a group of con artists, runs such a scam, and gets caught, it is common sense that if the same cast of characters starts a new stunt assume another conspiracy, especially if they do not apologize for the first scam, nor are punished. To me the Jan 6 trial was a scam, in that a riot was mislabeled an Insurrection, by the same cast of shady characters, like shifty Schiff, leading to this misrepresentation scam.
If that had been a real insurrection, not in words, but in action, wouldn't that insurrection have been better prepared for their objective, which was to delay the certification? Why would Trump, use a bunch of amateurs to take and secure the Capital, knowing the consequences if he was caught masterminding any plot? It would be like getting the cheapest lawyers to defend against the DNC law fare.
Common sense says, If Trump planned an Insurrection, he would get the top Professionals, like his Lawyers. Due to the security lapse, due to Pelosi, not allowing extra backup, his team of Pro, fully armed with body armor, could get in quietly, secure the Capital from the inside, then gather all the people, and then state their demands. For enough money and Pros, Trump would be insulated. Trump was liked by the Military, due to his rebuilding them, and could have found trained people who were loyal.
Instead it was a rag tag group of citizens, 99% of which did not even have weapons or any special training. And those who did, had clubs and fewer than a handful of low impact handguns. They had no assault weapons or body armor that a professional team would have taken. The riot made more sense; citizens caught up in frenzy of the mob mentality. This was what fake news said the first few weeks, until the conspiracy decided to exploit the situation, and relabeled the riot, as "the insurrection", which was put on repeat cycle for a 1000 repeat washes.
Once Trump wins and that scam is debunked, from the inside, I think those incarcerated should be allowed to sue the conspirators. This was not a government sanction scam, so individuals should be sued, or place in jail for the same amount of time. Pelosi by making security so lax, needs to be cross examined by people who want answers and not help her cover up her role. She made it possible.
Once a group of con artists, runs such a scam, and gets caught, it is common sense that if the same cast of characters starts a new stunt assume another conspiracy, especially if they do not apologize for the first scam, nor are punished. To me the Jan 6 trial was a scam, in that a riot was mislabeled an Insurrection, by the same cast of shady characters, like shifty Schiff, leading to this misrepresentation scam.
If that had been a real insurrection, not in words, but in action, wouldn't that insurrection have been better prepared for their objective, which was to delay the certification? Why would Trump, use a bunch of amateurs to take and secure the Capital, knowing the consequences if he was caught masterminding any plot? It would be like getting the cheapest lawyers to defend against the DNC law fare.
Common sense says, If Trump planned an Insurrection, he would get the top Professionals, like his Lawyers. Due to the security lapse, due to Pelosi, not allowing extra backup, his team of Pro, fully armed with body armor, could get in quietly, secure the Capital from the inside, then gather all the people, and then state their demands. For enough money and Pros, Trump would be insulated. Trump was liked by the Military, due to his rebuilding them, and could have found trained people who were loyal.
Instead it was a rag tag group of citizens, 99% of which did not even have weapons or any special training. And those who did, had clubs and fewer than a handful of low impact handguns. They had no assault weapons or body armor that a professional team would have taken. The riot made more sense; citizens caught up in frenzy of the mob mentality. This was what fake news said the first few weeks, until the conspiracy decided to exploit the situation, and relabeled the riot, as "the insurrection", which was put on repeat cycle for a 1000 repeat washes.
Once Trump wins and that scam is debunked, from the inside, I think those incarcerated should be allowed to sue the conspirators. This was not a government sanction scam, so individuals should be sued, or place in jail for the same amount of time. Pelosi by making security so lax, needs to be cross examined by people who want answers and not help her cover up her role. She made it possible.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
TRUE STORY TIME!
My dad was definitely a conspiracy theorist. AND he believed in Bigfoot. So one day I said to him, and I almost but not quite felt bad about it, "If Bigfoot exists, why haven't we ever, ever found any bones or any archeological evidence of Bigfoot?" He had no answer. Oh, he also very strongly believed that he'd been abducted by aliens. This was a man with a very high IQ for the record. Like over 140.
My dad was definitely a conspiracy theorist. AND he believed in Bigfoot. So one day I said to him, and I almost but not quite felt bad about it, "If Bigfoot exists, why haven't we ever, ever found any bones or any archeological evidence of Bigfoot?" He had no answer. Oh, he also very strongly believed that he'd been abducted by aliens. This was a man with a very high IQ for the record. Like over 140.
Last edited:
I dated a woman some years ago who literally became more and more into conspiracy theories. She would start bringing up these things she believed and some were pretty far fetched, like the Rothchilds controlling everything, or there being the illuminati doing this and that. I never saw any evidence for or against these ideas. But it's much like those who believe a God exists, where's the definitive evidence to decide these ideas are true, or even likely true? Much of what she cited as evidence wasn't itself true, just more asserions.
Maybe everything she believed was true, I don't know. But as a critical thinker looking for facts that support a claim, there just wan't much, and I deferred to the logical default of not being convinced. She would get more angry over time because I didn't believe. Eventually the relationship fell apart. I had no clue what motivated her to start believing this stuff. She would not discuss WHY she started believing. I was hapyp in my life not believing in these ideas, but she must have had a hole that was quickly filled with these beliefs.
It did get me started looking into the big consporacy theories like the moon landings being faked, JFK being killed by the CIA, no the mafia, no, the Cubans, no, all of them working together. I looked into the 9-11 attacks being an inside job. I even looked at the flat earther claims. Of all these four conspiracy theries i found the claims, the evidence, and the arguments highly promlematic and ultimately not believable. The one major flaw in conspiracy theories that involve many people is no one talking. There are no witnesses to any of the claims made of a massive conspiracies among a large group of people, and that is suspicious.
I tink the attraction to conspiracy theories as a need for certain types of answers that remove the chance element for such significant events in n ex-president? Many can't accept the Occam's Razor explanation, they want there to be more to the story. And with the internet there are others out there willing to feed these folks with nonsense.
I tended to be somewhat apathetic about various theories regarding Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or other strange creatures like that. I simply didn't care. I figured, if I had an unfortunate encounter with a creature like Bigfoot, then I'd be dead anyway. But until that day, I'll just get on with my life and not worry or contemplate the possible existence of Bigfoot.
I have somewhat mixed views about alien stories.
I recall growing up in rather cynical times, when people were often questioning the government and its motives. Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, and many of the revelations from the Church Committee may have put the public into a rather cynical and skeptical state of mind. Fewer people were buying what the government was selling, and many of the activities of the FBI, CIA, and NSA were starting to become known to the public, and they didn't like it.
Some apologists acknowledged some of the bad things done by our government and attempted to justify it as a "necessary evil," considering the strains of the Cold War and the geopolitical instability they were dealing with. Things like installing and supporting the government of the Shah in Iran, or a right-wing military dictatorship in Chile or other places in the world.
Even setting aside the conspiracy theories, just the things that we know about our government, and which are largely considered historical fact, seem to paint a rather grim portrait.
Add in some Hollywood fiction into the mix - with corrupt politicians in league with the Mob, military leaders and spy chiefs acting like complete psychopaths, the crusading journalist with the evidence to prove some major misdeed but mysteriously vanishes, along with the evidence.
The question of evidence is key, as you have noted here. Where is the evidence? I think questions about the JFK assassination also tend to revolve heavily around questions about the evidence and testimony made available to the public and published by the Warren Commission and later explored by the Church Committee. However, there is some evidence which has remained sealed to this day.
There may be some things which will remain unexplained and questions which can't be answered. That's pretty much where I leave the matter.
I neither believe nor disbelieve, however I'm willing to entertain any theories one might have. But I see it more as a historical question, not something that anyone needs to take any political "side" on.
If there's any political angle I would take here, it would be regarding the lack of transparency in government overall, and a general culture of secrecy and a kind of national security posturing, which can be problematic in a society purporting itself to be free.
Governing the USA has gotten more complex over the decades, and it’s understandable that the intelligence agencies have to exist and function in a way that is highly secretive. No doubt many citizens want answers, but to give them answers would compromise security. I suspect more capable thinkers understand and tolerate this, while more unsophisticated minds want answers and will believe conspiracy theories.
I’m fine with not knowing what the intelligence agencies are doing. That security is in part to having a competent and ethical administration. That would change for me if Trump gets elected.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
I do (respectfully) take issue with this.
I am not saying it is the inverse, but some “conspiracy theorists” (such as myself) believe what we believe because we are intelligent enough to question absolutely everything.
As for evidence, I have viewed plenty of evidence supporting “conspiracy theories”. Normies have the mainstream media and politicians to point to for their information. When I was down the conspiracy rabbit hole, I was presented with evidence supporting wild and terrifying claims. It takes an intelligent mind to parse all of the information and all of the sides and come to a conclusion. Different minds will come to different conclusions, but it does not mean one of them is stupid. Perhaps there are stupid people on both sides.
I am a “conspiracy theorist” for intelligent reasons. Believe me, I miss being a naive patriot.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
We are all in this basket together, folks.
So you don't find comfort in it?
That's one thing that gets proposed as a motivation for conspiracy theories: psychological comfort.
Do you approach your conspiracy theories from this perspective? Do you find reassurance in the idea that big unfortunate events can't happen just by random chance or bad actors?
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Nooooooo no no no no no comfort at all.
I haven’t studied conspiracy theories in five years because I would bring up 9/11 in every conversation I was going insaneo.
For my own well being, I dug myself out of the rabbit hole. Been five years since I’ve done research. I live under a rock now as I don’t trust mainstream sources. I just try to ignore the dumpster fire that is the world and yap about it on here occasionally (well maybe often).
I researched conspiracy theories from 15-21 years of age. It destroyed my patriotism. I was lined up to go to Air Force college, they wanted me. But my research turned me off from it.
Really? I find that surprising.
I mean, I get how personal interactions could be difficult, but there's a certain reassurance to be gained from the idea that a lone gunman can't kill a president, or from the idea that the unseen forces controlling the world have a consistency to their actions that can be figured out and worked around.
Probably for the best. As a civil engineer, I find it painful to talk to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Disinformation is a hell of a drug.
"Video unavailable
This video contains content from BBC Studios, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds"
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Harumph.
It reminds me of when mobsters used to say that mafia didn't exist...and we were all lunatics, conspiracy theorists.
Decades later they were all arrested.
I believe that those who invented this expression are criminals who found the perfect way to eliminate suspicion upon them: by delegitimizing and insulting their detractors.
If you conspire against your country, it's natural you will call lunatics those who accuse you.
Decades later they were all arrested.
I believe that those who invented this expression are criminals who found the perfect way to eliminate suspicion upon them: by delegitimizing and insulting their detractors.
If you conspire against your country, it's natural you will call lunatics those who accuse you.
Last edited:
Some of what our intelligence agencies do has to do with the direction our politicians have taken us. I can agree that there is a need for some secrecy, but how much is truly necessary?
The funny thing is, during the Cold War, I remember it being said that Russian agents were probably spending more time studying in U.S. libraries than spying around military bases.
However, I strongly disagree with this statement: "I suspect more capable thinkers understand and tolerate this, while more unsophisticated minds want answers and will believe conspiracy theories." In my observation, it's been just the opposite. Back in the day, students, intellectuals, and free thinkers were attacked by hard-hatted construction workers. The typical pro-government, pro-military type was usually some kind of brutish dolt and unintellectual musclehead, such as Archie Bunker, Joe McCarthy, and others of that caliber. They were anything but free thinkers.
