Re: those supposedly “crazy” conspiracy theorists, guess what?
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Skinner (a host of the General Discussion forum).
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
You used a KNOWN, historical fact (the use of Agent Orange and its effect on our military and the civilian population in VietNam), and try to paint me as a... I'm not sure. You're making little sense. A subtle but huge difference.
Though I presume you're trying to be nice. That's a good thing. 
...just trying to figure out what you're attempting to say.
...since a gasket has been apparently blown.
Rest up, and we'll talk about this tomorrow.
Thank you for intellectual dishonesty! Now get some rest, Skippy!
...the worst haiku ever!
DU rules, and all that.
Kitten, meet yarn.
You fall back on the Holy Grail! What's next... the parrot sketch?
I am
Having Fun
With You Skippy!
A big thumbs up for the mention and thanks for the video!
... and used "theorize" in quotes for a reason. My apologies. I thought you knew English. 
There's fact, and then there's theories. And then there's crazy-ass theories.
I sense I've hit a nerve.
...and there's contrast. Look them up. They aren't the same, Skippy. 
Man, you are just too easy!
As per your post #52, you continue to make little sense.
Let me point out to you, Skippy, that I am addressing your WORDS. You, on the other hand attempt to attack me personally by insinuating that I'm not intelligent. Don't let me get under your skin, Skippy. This is an internet message board. Let's be adults and not resort to personal attacks. Friends?
You have my attention. Blabber on, my friend!
A word of advice my friend; out of the gate, you'll want to be a bit more subtle. That is, if you want to stay here and participate with the smart kids instead of being MIRTed. Perhaps you're one of those "blaze-of-glory" interlopers and want to leave the biggest stain before your pizza arrives?
If it was good enough for "Airplane!"
Neener neener neener.....
Well shit, if the Yahoo forums are to be read like that, then I'm a conspiracy theorist for NOT thinking Obama is a Muslim Kenyan. What a load of crap.
I am DYING!!! 
This thread is the best laugh I've had all day!!!
The line between "a bunch of powerful people working together to make money, or stifle competition, or influence the government" and "a conspiracy"??
As my old sociology professor said, "Just because you're paranoid, does not mean they aren't out to get you."
A blog with an interesting theory about 911. She says a magnetic bomb was used to destroy the towers.
http://wtcdust.blogspot.com/
OK.
Let’s start with this: it’s an opinion piece written by a known conspiracy theorist(1), defending conspiracy theorists and attacking people who don’t believe in his conspiracy theories as “government dupes”, not a well-researched scientific review of the literature or an original peer-reviewed study. As such, analysis of the veracity of the claims is richly deserved.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
The above is faulty logic, which is not at all surprising coming from a conspiracy theorist. It doesn’t prove CT is the conventional wisdom, or that anti-CT is a “small, beleaguered minority”. It simply proves that conspiracists post on message boards more than conventionalists. Any other claim is jumping to conclusions, which conspiracty theorists are obviously prone to do(2). It doesn’t take into account WHO posts on message boards, who isn’t motivated to post on message boards, paid trolls (THAT’s not a conspiracy theory, PLEASE don’t make me make this any longer by adding THAT discussion), and it doesn’t prove a THING about the general population. IOW, “anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority” is a prima facie lie. In short, by the second paragraph the author, a known conspiracy theorist, is openly lying to the reader.
Now seems like as good a time as any to make note of the fact that the author of the OP doesn’t link to a single “study”, much less provide a recognizable reference such as (Social Psychological and Personality Science, November 2012, vol. 3, no. 6, 767-773). Why doesn’t the author of the OP, a known conspiracy theorist, do more to encourage me, the reader, to check out the articles he references? Of course, that’s not “proof” of anything, and I’m no conspiracy theorist, but it raises the question without my participation. I’m only pointing it out.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility.
This statement, based on a lie (“anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority”), is a conspiracy theory. ‘Nuff said.
There’s a lot in this OP by a known conspiracy theorist to debunk (or “make fun of”, if you’ll allow me to be “angry and hostile”) and I’m not willing to put THAT much effort into it, but this one may have stood out to others and not just me:
In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA.
“In his two volume work The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper used the term “conspiracy theory” to criticize the ideologies driving historicism.” This was published in 1945.
“The Central Intelligence Agency was created by Congress with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947.”
So I’m to believe a proven liar’s interpretation of a secondary reference, that he doesn’t properly reference, that the CIA came up with “conspiracy theory”? I think the burden of proof is still on him.
I could go on, but I won’t. In short, when the OP author, a known conspiracy theorist(1), exhibited hostility toward and attacked people who believe their government (in my experience, “more often than not” fits better than “always”) and blatantly lied, he lost me.
(1) Background:
Kevin James Barrett (born February 1959) is an American former university lecturer and Muslim convert.
Barrett first drew attention to his views by publishing guest op-eds in the Madison Capital Times, in which he alleged that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks: “As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I’ll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape.”
(2) The Abstract of another publication by the cited authors, Wood and Douglas: http://spp.sagepub.com/content/3/6/767Dead and Alive
Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories
]
Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: A self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated in endorsement. In Study 1 (n = 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n = 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general.
tl:dr? I’m not surprised that the OP author, a known conspiracy theorist and liar with an agenda, is taking the position that conspiracy theorists are the main stream, while people who believe what is at least 90% of the truth are hateful, stupid, losers who will believe anything.
I anxiously await your reply.
Pee Ess: this is not to say that anyone should believe any government, anywhere, all the time. Or even some random person you meet on the street. Governments have told demonstrable lies on multiple occasions. But there’s a HUGE difference between making a decision based on the best facts available to you, and being delusional and paranoid.
Edit: And oh my God!! Check the reccers! Not a surprise in the bunch!!
much conspiracism has it's roots in anti-Semitism. The author of the article, Kevin Barrett, runs a tidy little blog called Muslims for 9/11 Truth, where he describes how the Jews are behind just about everything that happens in the world - 9/11, the London bombing, Boston bombing etc.
And the article was originally published at presstv, the propaganda arm of the Iranian government. I refer you back to this DU thread for their awesome reporting:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022023210
The DU TOS recognizes this fact too.
It is supremely ironic that in a thread you're posting to defend CTers, and explain how sane they are, you use Kevin fucking Barrett and press fucking tv as your sources.
Anti Semitic pieces of shit, both of them.
And 95 posters adding their rec to these anti-Semitic pieces of shit. Nice going DUers.
Sid