Re: those supposedly “crazy” conspiracy theorists, guess what?

[Timbuk3]

81. Delusional Paranoia is NOT "the mainstream"

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.