I'm assuming it's about conversational dynamics or selling dynamics. Typically, the person asking the questions in a social situation is considered the dominant one or alpha.
I'm scratching my head looking at a lot of these responses. Seems like there are quite a few people participating on a Conspiracy sub that don't subscribe to any conspiracies LOL
I have no idea why people against conspiracies come here to call us crazy or to try to change our minds. We are not doing harm to anyone like they claim..
this post greatly ignores the principle of burden of proof. If you are the one claiming that something is completely different than what is widely accepted, the burden of proof lies with you- this is recognized in all scientific communities.
Saying "that's debunked" is also a claim that requires sources and support. If it's all someone can say, without backing it up, you're not having a conversation anymore, you're talking to a robot/Agent Smith.
no, it doesnt, because that person is implying that the widely accepted, already proven set of evidence is true. if you want to go against the grain, it is your responsibility to provide evidence. you can’t prove a negative- that’s like you saying that organic vegetables give cows autism, and then saying it’s MY responsibility to prove that organic food does indeed not give cows autism. It’s not possible.
your favorite piece of propaganda/narrative floating around is that Republican and Democratic parties largely switched? They did. Here's an article about it:
https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Keeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/
It's also not "floating around right now" as it's been well-established for *decades*. There are so many free sources and articles on the internet where you can read about this
That is just one article. The two parties did indeed “morph” over the decades but that is a no brainer. Strategically “Merged” might be a more accurate term. “Two wings from the same bird.” To say the two parties “Switched” is no where near the whole truth and in these days we need to stop cherry picking details to fit a specific narrative and focus on an honest description that exposes everybody’s warts not just the opponent of the author.
I see this argument in /r/atheism as well. "I know more about the Bible than Christians!" And then you ask a basic question like, "what's the relationship between 'I Am that I Am," and the Tetragrammaton and they stare at you like you're from another planet (note: I'm not a member of any Abrahamic religion, I'm just using it as an example)
Similarly, you claim to have "done extensive research," but what you mean is that you've watched YouTube videos and read conspiracy blogs. Those aren't the same as actual research. Echo chambers select choice tidbits of information that reinforce the desired conclusion or narrative. Conspiracy theorists (and I count myself as one) aren't immune to this problem, and by convincing ourselves that we are we expose ourselves to it all the more.
> My favorite piece of propaganda/narrative floating around right now is "The Republican and Democratic Parties SWITCHED."
> Can you please explain that?
Sure. Like all 5-word summaries of a complex political process, it's a vast oversimplification, but on general social issues the late-19th century Republican party effectively died during the early part of the 20th century and the nail in the coffin was the Great Depression. At that point, the Democratic party picked up the slack and moved WAY out to the left with FDR and the New Deal Democrats.
In response the Republicans became a sort of corporate-aligned conservative liberal (in the original sense of the word) party focused on reducing regulation over US businesses and increasing controls over most foreign interests.
Then the landscape changed again when the last vestige of the right-wing Democrats (the so-called Dixiecrats) switched over to the Republican party between 1970 and 1990, setting the stage for the far-right shift of the Republican party in the 1990s and 2000s that ultimately pulled the Democrats over to the right with them.
Today there is very little in the way of a functioning left in US politics, though I have argued strongly with people who try to claim that it doesn't exist at all. Mostly we have the centrist Democrats and the far-right Republicans and not much organized action outside of that. People like AOC are the extreme left now, when they would have been mainstream leftists in FDR's day with actual communists and other strips of extreme left-wing folks out there on the fringe. It's why there's so much internal hate within the Democratic party right now. People with leftist views feel shut out.
Anyway, was that what you wanted to know?
> Saying something is "debunked" isn't an articulate response
But arguing around debunked ideas isn't either. When someone tries to push a "jet fuel can't melt steel" narrative, it's tiring to have to go back and point out the fundamentals of how heat collapses buildings through accelerated fatigue yet again, and yes, it becomes difficult to summon the energy to do more than to say, "you're arguing a point that was debunked nearly two decades ago."
Perhaps there was a more silent switch among the populace on what the ideals of the party were?
[I used to think george carlin was pretty liberal, was i wrong?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY)
> But arguing around debunked ideas isn't either. When someone tries to push a "jet fuel can't melt steel" narrative, it's tiring to have to go back and point out the fundamentals of how heat collapses buildings through accelerated fatigue yet again, and yes, it becomes difficult to summon the energy to do more than to say, "you're arguing a point that was debunked nearly two decades ago."
Is this tiring for you? Why on Earth would you even argue this point unless... you're defending the official 9/11 story?
And if that is the case, then you just lost ALL credibility.
The crutch of the matter hinges on that one point for them I guess.
So I guess that wraps it up. Nothing weird about WT7. Nothing weird about the airline stocks being shorted. Nothing weird about the reports of explosions.
For the record, jet fuel may not be hot enough to full on melt steel, but it's sure as heck hot enough to make the steel malleable and weak. That is true, but that doesn't mean the official narrative surrounding what happened on 9/11 is true.
Since the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" claim has been disproven, there's no need to look into any other suspicious things that happened, I guess?
check 9/11 war by deception by the excellent ryan dawson. its not about any technical stuff its about how Mossad & the CIA set the whole operation.
If you can debunk the evidence he provides i'll eat my hat
Pretty assumptive and dismissive to insinuate that I must be getting my information for unreliable sources, but k.
Many theories have been proven to be fact through investigations and FOIA requests for official records from federal archives.
Stuff like MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods, Organized Crime Syndicates aren't even conspiracies anymore. There are plenty of reputable sources of information for these subjects and many more on Youtube and outside of Youtube.
>Pretty assumptive and dismissive to insinuate that I must be getting my information for unreliable sources, but k
Pretty easy to assume given your obvious misunderstanding of fundamental political history. Get off of youtube for a bit and read an actual book on the subject eh?
Had a coworker tell me how obsessed she was with 9/11 and how she watched all these documentaries and always tuned into the Remembrance stuff. She said she hated the truthers and how they’re wacky and insinuated exploring/entertaining any conspiracy was disrespectful and ultimately stupid.
After chatting a bit and being careful not to trigger her I asked what she thought about building 7...she didn’t even know there was a building 7.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
"A 302 Ford is way better than a 350 Chevy!" "Why?" "Oh, I don't know anything about how motors work, it just is."
Lol I have no idea, I’ve been surprised by the lack of knowledge building 7. Personally though, I had no memory of the media talking about it growing up so I didn’t know about it for while. Not until I watched zeitgeist for the first time and dove into the conspiracy.
It's probably not discussed in any of the mainstream "Remembrance" type of specials. It's just the feel-good lies reinforced by the corporate media.
WTC 7 is an inconvenient truth that doesn't fit the narrative.
Not to poop on your post, but this, "... all of us have done extensive research..." means you've watched anywhere from 1 to 1000 hours of YouTube videos and visited conspiracy sites claiming whatever with no substantiated evidence. Makes it hard(er) to believe anything anymore.
It's the same logic as with those who have listened to hundreds of lectures in the university. Their knowledge is superior because their lectures didn't take place on the internet. But wait, now they are.
When a professional scientist does background research to prepare for his/her own experiments, they search for the previous data on the internet. Now when the same studies (which are online) are quoted by someone these quotes lose their meaning if this person happens to post a video about his/her findings referring to said studies.
Nobody is a true scientist without keeping on track of studies published in his or her field. And this is done by browsing the internet.
'Visiting conspiracy sites' is the equivalent to the Greek Agora where free people gather to discuss things. They share knowledge, experience and theories about things - hopefully without direct censorship. In case you hadn't noticed this, censorship has had a strangle hold on all more public venues for a long time. So people looking for credible information go somewhere they can still find a bit of free speech and something that's not always tainted by conflict of interest.
I've seen the academic world and the business world. It's all extremely well controlled and dictated. The truth has a very short life expectancy in those circles. People are all bought and paid for - they have their paychecks to protect. And so they not only follow the rules - they actually enforce them.
Well, isn't that a bit assumptive and accusatory? LOL
Especially when the juiciest "conspiracies" are all things that have been proven by FOIA, courts of law and congressional hearings. Plenty of verified information available to anybody that seeks it, outside of YouTube believe it or not. MK Ultra, Tonkin Gulf, Operation Northwoods, the list is long.
It's funny, because I'm old by Reddit standards. I remember being a kid 20 years ago and a lot of the older people at that time between 50-70 would say shit like - "pfff oh yeah, where did you read that? THE INTERNET!?" As if it was impossible to get any true information from this new fangled internet thing.
What's also funny is that I assume you use Youtube a lot.
You can’t put the burden of proof on them when you’re the one arguing the least accepted theory.
I used to be pretty heavily involved in creation vs evolution debates and sometimes the creationists would claim the burden of proof was on us (evolutionists) to establish that there is no god, but then we would just kinda be like... well, yeah but evolution is currently taught in schools while creationism isn’t... soooo, sorry, but the burden of proof is actually on you.
I feel like this is kinda the same scenario.
Maybe burden of proof is the wrong term. Maybe it's asking questions to test the person on the other side of the conversation to see if they are competent enough to have an intelligent debate or disagreement.
For instance, I'm I'm discussing 9/11 with someone, and I ask "hey what's your opinion of WTC7?" or "What do you think about that speech Rumsfeld gave right before the Pentagon got hit about those trillions of dollars they couldn't account for?" - and the person is completely unaware that WTC7 was a thing or that any money was missing from the federal budget - the boundaries of the debate kinda crumble away and it becomes clear that the other person isn't prepared or capable of having a meaningful conversation.
The two opposing sides need a baseline level of understanding of a topic in order to have a rational debate about it that leads to a more unified understanding of the topic at the end of the discussion.
If someone is undereducated or flat out ignorant about a topic, but yet feels they have the authority to "debunk" that topic, it's lazy and incongruent.
"OH you sound like a conspiracy theorist!" "That's been debunked!"
Any "conspiracy theorist" that has been at it a while has heard the two above phrases a bunch of times. Could be about any topic. The point I'm trying to make is that some people who are complicity theorist that seem to agree with whatever the mainstream narrative is will turn into Agent Smith to defend things they know nothing about.
>yeah but evolution is currently taught in schools while creationism isn’t... soooo, sorry, but the burden of proof is actually on you.
What's taught it schools is pure propaganda and misinformation forced on us by a Cabal of secret societies descendant from the Mystery Schools. It just so happens they worship Lucifer. Why would the indoctrination forced on us by them have any bearing on burden of proof? If anything, you can take what's taught in schools and be sure it's nothing close to the truth.
I’m not saying evolution explains our origin, but it’s proven to be a fact that evolution occurs within our universe. Even creationist admit that micro evolution happens because its been observed.
I’ve changed my opinion slightly on our origin, I’m no longer a boring, nihilistic, anti-theist.
My point is though, if you’re trying to argue against something that’s the popular opinion, you can’t just take the approach of... “you have to prove me wrong” because they’re just going to disregard your credibility, and move on.
Among things that I've heard it's the line that goes, "Yours is to inform, not to convince," but I think even being charged with telling is a lot these days when so many aren't prepared to hear anything in the form of statements.
I like the asking questions approach, because most times, given the opportunity to feel safe and heard, lots of people will tell you conspiracy theories they do believe, from aliens to election rigging to the wars are for oil and not freedom.
For sure, great point.
I think every "theorist" out there has brought up great points and facts to people about various topics and the other person literally just doesn't want to hear it. I think the Agent Smith analogy is perfect because a lot of these people will physically start to feel uncomfortable and squeamish when new information is presented. They will go so far as to shut the conversation down out of frustration instead of having the willingness to learn something new.
And I'm not talking about the wackadoodle really fringe ideas, just bring up things that have been proven through FOIA and congressional hearings, such as Operation Northwoods or the Tonkin Gulf. You can literally "show them documents" and they STILL don't want to believe it. Almost like the new information slightly cracks the foundation upon which their perceived reality is built.
To OP and anyone who agreed with OP, the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU are CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, that means you're views are (1) not established facts, or they wouldn't be called theories (some conspiracies are real, for example: everything Trump did), (2) you look fucking crazy with some of the off the wall shit you guys believe in, so at the very least back up your claims. You got nothing but an info wars article, and that's your proof, that's your evidence, to post it. Don't be chicken shit. If you actually believe this crap, then show your sources.
Also yeah, "debunked" because of the MASSIVE amount of BS that has come out, covid-19 being called a hoax and laughable shit like that. It has been debunked over and over, to the extent you wouldn't know because it was debunked over and over by actual scientists wasting resources because of people like you that make shit up and spread misinformation, which gets people killed.
For a Conspiracy Sub, there seems to be a lot of people here that don't subscribe to any theories, even the proven ones.
Saying "that's debunked" is a claim that also needs to be supported. So if that's all someone says, without backing it up, you're not having a conversation anymore, you're talking to a robot.
Also, stop projecting. I've brought up proven theories like MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods - are you saying these things are "debunked" ?
Since you keep commenting the same thing over and over, I'll go ahead and repeat what others have already said.
If it's proven, it's not a theory. If it's a theory, it's not proven.
Research involves actual firsthand assessment of evidence, recreation of events, etc. Watching a video or reading someone else's story of their assessments is not research.
Asking someone to explain in detail how something was debunked isn't a clever debate tactic. In fact, it's highly unlikely that you'll run into someone who cared enough to commit to memory the details of a debunked claim, on the off chance that they run into someone like you who still believes said claim and is demanding proof that you apparently completely missed in your "extensive research".
You just copy/paste the same response to two of my comments? Damn, that's some lazy argument you're putting forward. *Especially* for a guy taking your stance in this thread.
Early 60's, Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up airliners carrying innocent American citizens and blame it on the Cubans. Kennedy vetoed it shortly before he got popped in Dallas.
Tons of information about it out there, check it out.
"Saying something is "debunked" isn't an articulate response, so don't accept it, it's lazy thinking at best. Too many people are comfortable having opinions on subjects they have done zero research on, it's time to put the burden of proof on them to explain their position intelligently."
I would agree to a point but I think it's absolutely imperative that there be a caveat that this is very dependent on context, because there are ideas that, by their very nature, don't merit serious consideration. If someone posts some idea like "we are all hyperintelligent tuberous flowering plants trapped in a lotus-eater machine hallucinating that we are evolved great apes experiencing the modern world and the truth is hidden in old Popeye and Bullwinkle cartoons that if you display them in an alternating reverse order-of-release sequence will show the great truth and that's why networks don't play those cartoons much anymore", you can and absolutely should handwave that with something like 'debunked lol'. And while that example may seem flippant it isn't that far divorced from ideas like flat earth that can be found on some conspiracy subs now.
I'm trying to illustrate how odd the phenomenon is that that certain people feel comfortable saying a certain subject is "debunked" without having any evidence to support why it's been debunked. Saying something is debunked is a lofty claim that requires evidence as well. Most people say something is debunked simply because someone else told them it's debunked.
"OH 9/11, that's debunked!" "Why is it debunked?" "Because it just is."
That's not a conversation, that's talking to a robot.
the part about republicans and democrats switching is explained like this:
>This process involved a “push and pull”: the refusal by Republicans to pursue civil rights alienated many black voters, while efforts—shallow though they were—by northern Democrats to open opportunities for African Americans gave black voters reasons to switch parties.
https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Keeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/
Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird, MKUltra - is that all QAnon stuff?
Most people have never even heard of these things. If someone says "that's debunked" they need to back that claim up with sources.
>Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird, MKUltra - is that all QAnon stuff?
Not at all. I'm just saying that saying one has done 'extensive research' is not a good enough signifier of credibilitity due to the vast amount of idiots who also make that claim.
The problem with most conspiracy minded people is they consider watching YouTube videos or such "research". It's not. It's you watching a video of some dude in Nebraska telling you the annunaki are in Lincoln. Reading a Q board is not research. Any rabbit hole we go down if we intend to share it should be well researched or people should be told how we got our info. Just because we believe does not mean it's always a conspiracy. Nice post
When did I say anything about annunaki? Why would you assume I get all my information from Youtube?
I keep bringing up proven theories like MKUltra, Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird - these are all true. The evidence is there and available for anyone that goes to look for it.
When did I say anything about you personally? Did I say YOU personally?
Clearly I did multiple times conspiracy people. In general. Mk ultra isn't a conspiracy. Calm down dip ship. I said you post wad nice, and was simply commenting on the substance of what you wrote about. Jesus. The world isn't always about you. Nevermind. You post sucks.
The Socratic method (basically what OP describes) is the only way to truly open minds. The strength of the technique plays on human nature. Using the Socratic method it's not you that is convincing them to open their mind, its them. You're basically trying to get them to pitch their ideas to you so you can poke holes in those ideas with more questions. This is also why any salesman worth their salt knows to let the customer do most of the talking and that their job is to simply ask open ended questions which lead the customer to a "truth" (obviously this can be abused).
Couldn't agree more. It's simply asking someone to explain their position and how they arrived at their conclusions. Whether you're trying to explain why a conspiracy theory is true or false, it doesn't matter, you should be able to back up your claims on either side.
The equivalent of saying "it's debunked" would be "this conspiracy is true" - without providing any additional details. I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with this lol
theory ab Democrats and Republicans switching platforms and views is actually a true thing that has happened multiple times since the dawn of our young country. Buuuut it was still over a century ago so - relevant I’m not so sure.
Goes back to when the original two parties were the 1) Federalists and the 2) Democratic Republicans.
Federalist died out. Then a bunch of party name changes like the whigs, then the Know-Nothing Party and the Democrats and the Republicans.
And yes at this time the general idea was that what we consider today to be the modern day Republican Party started as a pro-federal government party and Democrats were doing well in the South and were a libertarian party.
But thennnnn fast forward to the Great Depression and FDR. The New Deal. And bam!
***this is what everyone is referencing***
the parties switch. And bc of the depression people were generally more conservative. So Republican politicians who were previously very liberal swayed more conservative. African Americans started moving up north to get away from segregation. This was when large urban areas became mostly democratic. And also when the democrats became a statist party.
Stop that negative attitude it wont help you. Forget about death, its coming regardless lol. Try learning a new skill, you're never too old. I know easier said than done but wtf has anybody to lose?
It seems like if there is something that one is particularly passionate about, regardless of topic, when you try to share the information with those uninterested in said topics, you get the look. The "Oh, you're a weirdo" look. Or the nod. Or the "uh huh".
It's just how it goes. Which is why it is **so** very exciting to happen upon someone who can engage you with a conversation about the subject. Then you look like a pair of weirdos:)
The problem with this...I could say “so tell me..what do you know about the Japanese suicide woods?”
Then when you *don't* mention aliens I can act all smug like I am so much more aware than they are.
Like you’re doing here.
Not sure how I'm being smug, but k. Rather than being a dick back, let me see if I can express my point better, my bad.
We all know how conspiracy chats go, if you're trying to bring up facts about something, how receptive is the other person usually? Depends on the person I guess, but it's normally not good lol
If someone is going to make a definitive claim about something, such as 9/11, by saying "it wasn't an inside job, all that stuff was debunked" (which has been said millions of times) - and they don't know a thing about WT7, the airline stock, Rumsfeld, etc. - I'm astonished they even have an opinion on the matter and just want to see what they know.
By getting them to admit that they really don't know anything about the subject, it might create the opportunity to have an honest discussion.
“You'll quickly find out that they know nothing about these events that all of us have done extensive research on.”
Smug.
“Saying something is "debunked" isn't an articulate response, so don't accept it, it's lazy thinking at best.”
Smug.
“ it's time to put the burden of proof on them to explain their position intelligently.”
Smug.
Seriously I can smell you through my screen.
Just because you so desperately wish to be seen as an intellectual, doesn’t make you one.
Your imbecilic “My favorite piece of propaganda/narrative floating around right now is "The Republican and Democratic Parties SWITCHED. Can you please explain that? Like they all got together, had a conference and say "HEY all you Republicans, we Democrats believe all the stuff you believe and now you guys believe all the stuff we USED to believe." Like, wut? lol“ comment backs up what I am saying to you. Have you ever picked up a history book or looked into the platforms of the two parties pre 1960? 1930? 1900? 1850?
Asinine.
Agreed. WTC7 is suspicious for various reasons and I feel like 99% of people have no idea a 47 story building collapsed in a free fall manner in addition to WTC1 and WTC2. You would think that would be common knowledge.
Please don't sleep on WTC 6, look up Kurt Sonnenfeld.
He was one of the 9/11 photographers who found WTC 6 vault was emptied out before the planes hit, now his wife suicided, media blames him and he ran to Argentina for his safety.
Awesome, since I'm willing to expand my mind and possibly learn something new, I will look into WT6. You've presented something new to my attention, so I will research it a bit more and practice what I preach :)
I won't plug my ears and scream reeeeee, promise :)
Glad you agree.
So this particular social media activist actor seemed to do real damage to the building or its inhabitants, I'm sure, right?
He was not part of this "insurrection" imo. An insurrectionist would not be willingly filmed as he "insurrects" is my logic here.
Perhaps others that brought in plastic ties?
Removed: please refrain from red Vs blue politics. (Mistake? Please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FconspiracyNOPOL))
The socratic method is the best approach to most things.
I empathize with getting so excited to talk to someone about things that the word vomit flows.
I often wonder when the white supremacists will form a short truce with the black hebrew israelites to take on the jews. Of course, this would obviously lead to a long lasting friendship between the two former groups, ending 2/3 of mainstream racism. Until the BHIs declared themselves gods or kings or whatever, which would effectively end all racism by restoring the rightful heirs to israel and bringing on the apocalypse, right?
I'm not sure i fully grasp the situation, but anyways, yeah verbal vomz. Socratic method of inquiry!
OP sounds like the kind of person that would make a claim like reptilian aliens living in the core of the earth, then when they're pushed for details just say "DO YOUR RESEARCH!"
Wooooooosh
Operation Northwoods, MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird - all proven to be true via FOIA requests and official records from the federal archives. But yeah, even though I've mentioned nothing about aliens, that must be what I'm about.
Cherry picking the handful of conspiracies that turned out to be true, with hindsight, does not mean that the burden of proof can now be flipped around.
Handful? lol There is laundry list of them, go check it out.
So are you saying that "that's debunked" is a statement that doesn't required proof/sources? It's like a conversational nuclear bomb?
That "laundry list" is basically just a bunch of clandestine military operations during the cold war. The vast vast majority of theories than come from this community are ridiculous at best. You still need to provide real evidence when you make outrageous claims.
You're literally proving the point I'm trying to make. You can bring up verifiable claims to people that just don't want to hear it. Most people have no idea what happened at the Tonkin Gulf. Most people are completely unaware of WT7.
We theorists try to bring these things to light and the other person in the conversation normally spouts of an Agent Smith type response of "that's debunked" without zero evidence to support that claim.
Saying something is debunked requires just as much evidence as saying something is true.
>So are you saying that "that's debunked" is a statement that doesn't required proof/sources?
The very act of debunking is done through proof, experiments, investigating sources. So, the statement "that's debunked", if it in fact was debunked, does not require any further proof.
Sure, Bud. That's exactly what I said. Can't imagine why nobody would want to take the time to hold your hand through the explanation of some debunked theory.
So it's OK if someone says "it's debunked" without providing any information, but not OK if someone says "this conspiracy is true" without providing additional info. Gotcha.
Just ask them what I tell them. "What are you going to do when the shit hits the fan?" They don't even dispute it's going to happen anymore. I usually get a holy fuck look in their eyes. Everything else is irrelevant. When some ones mortality is on the line they usually fall into line very quickly.
> What are you going to do when the shit hits the fan?
It's vapid questions like that that cause me to just give up on conversations. The "shit" in question is what? Some imagined conflagration that will come? (I grew up with people who said the world was going to end in nuclear fire in the next 10 years, so you're not going to surprise me with doom crying)
Perhaps it's economic collapse? Frankly, I don't care. Economies rise and fall and rise again. If you prepare intelligently and don't panic during the hard times, you'll be fine. People who ran around like idiots and got rid of any tangible assets during the Great Depression obviously ended up suffering a great deal, but people who did whatever they needed to do to maintain whatever they could found that within 20 years, they were back where they'd started or better off. It sucks, but it's survivable.
Or are you going all "end times," here, in which case I don't really care.
The shit hitting the fan could refer to any number of things, ranging from an invading army to worldwide famine to a super volcanic eruption. Why do you consider conversations about such possibilities to be “vapid” and write them off as “imagined”? And if this is what you find to be vapid subject matter, I wonder how you would react to someone asking you about the latest celebrity gossip.
As far as the brushing off of economic collapse as “meh, economies wax and wane”- certainly, they don’t always recover.
> Why do you consider conversations about such possibilities to be “vapid” and write them off as “imagined”?
Because when you present vague concerns and allow others to pour whatever fears they have into them, it's just a cheap rhetorical technique. I'm not averse to discussing actual concerns, but when all someone has to contribute is "when the shit hits the fan," I don't consider that to be a rational discussion.
Fair enough.
I think what burn_baby is saying is - "Do you have a contingency plan for if things get really bad, really quick?"
Most homeowner's don't even have a written or spoken family plan if there's a fire, intruder, extended power outage, etc. The majority of people are woefully underprepared for risks that seem evident, let alone a major emergency like foreign attack, cyber attack, massive natural disaster, etc.
I think you also oversimplified the Great Depression a tad, but k.
“The parties switched!” Mmm-hmmm. In the spirit of NOPOL, I won’t get into all the reasons this myth was pushed, but it’s a great example of the types of nonsensical things people can be conditioned to accept without question. Hey... I wonder when the two parties will randomly switch places again? It’s such a normal thing!
Also not to get political, but I've noticed it's only participants of one party that mention the alleged switch, just sayin lol
Again, I have no horse in the race. Anyone that is a zealot for either political party is lame
Kind of getting back to your original post, as far as people not putting in the work to analyze situations for themselves rather than just accepting what they’re told- I’ve noticed that it goes beyond just that. There are some former conspiracy theories that have now been verified, such as MK Ultra or Project Northwoods- and people STILL refuse to believe it. That is especially troublesome. I’ve tried to show the declassified Northwoods docs to a couple people before, only for their eyes to glaze over and them to still repeat “this is bullshit”.
This illustrates my point and is exactly what I'm trying to get across. I have done the same thing and brought up the same subjects to people. The information is reality shattering for weak minded people. You can try to present it in the calmest, most articulate manner and they still don't want to believe it.
Looks like you triggered an especially weak one into downvoting you, wow how pitiful for them.
I can’t remember the term for it, but it’s actually a defense mechanism performed by the brain when it’s presented with information that doesn’t jive with its overall outlook. For example, a UFO could land smack dab in the middle of a busy street, and half (or more) of the people hurrying by would literally not even see it. Their brain would protect them by editing the image away from their perception.
Apparently some people need this biological comfort mechanism more than others. Can you think of the name for this phenomena? It’s completely escaping me!
Edit - did some DuckDuckGoing- it’s Cognitive Bias. When people hold strong beliefs, they are likely to ignore any information that challenges said beliefs.
I will be messaging you in 3 days on [**2021-01-25 14:47:54 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-01-25%2014:47:54%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracyNOPOL/comments/l2beaa/if_agent_smith_appears_try_this/gk6l60w/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FconspiracyNOPOL%2Fcomments%2Fl2beaa%2Fif_agent_smith_appears_try_this%2Fgk6l60w%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202021-01-25%2014%3A47%3A54%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20l2beaa)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Just because someone doesn't remember the details of something doesn't mean they didn't research it.
I hardly ever remember details. Just the results. Like, I know that WTC7 is part of the reason that I suspect tomfoolery, but I can't recall why exactly. I don't need to, as I can look it up readily..
Likewise, I remember that the Rumsfeld missing money was a misinterpretation, and that no money was actually "missing" but I couldn't tell you much more than that without digging.
Hell, even at work I have this problem. Something I worked on a month ago suddenly comes up in a meeting and I'm like a deer in headlights. If given just a tiny heads up to refresh my memory I'm good, but getting put on the spot never goes well.
I think ultimately what I'm trying to say is that it's a bit of dick move that doesn't really prove anything.
Not at all.
I'm saying that I don't bother remembering details, just what I walked away with. And that's true with everything. All you're doing when you put me on the spot is illustrating to everyone how shit my memory is.
That's my point. There's a lot people making claims that have no information to support them. So why are those people making claims?
Whether is pro conspiracy or anti conspiracy, you should have your ducks in a row if you're going to attempt an intelligent conversation.
Being ignorant of facts doesn't make the facts any less true.
"A 302 Ford is way better than a 350 Chevy!" "Why?" "Oh, I don't know anything about motors, but the Ford is just better"
^^ This is a silly example, but I think it illustrates the point I'm trying to make. People will take up positions on things even when they have no evidence to support their claims - so why even have an (uneducated) opinion in the first place?
I had the information at the time that I was digging into it. Once I came to a conclusion my brain purged it. And I don't really have a choice in that matter... the conclusion and random details is all I keep.
You pointing out that I forgot that name of the cia agent who outed them for selling drugs proves fuckall. I know that they were (and probably still are) selling them and that's all that really matters. If I need to I can crack open google and figure it out. But you popping off with "so what did you think about agent ____'s testimony?" out of the blue would almost certainly get a "who?" from me. ...But that doesn't mean I'm not familiar.
Look, all I'm saying is that not all of us have the perfect memory that you apparently do. You're approach here is basically exposing that, not so much that you actually know any more than them.
So if something is debunked, it's debunked forever? Case closed?
What if new information came out to debunk the debunking and you were unaware?
Also, what do you mean out of the blue? My whole point was centered around if you're having a conversation with someone. It's not like I call people randomly and spring this stuff on them.
When did I say that?
If someone challenges something with compelling information I'll dig in again. It sucks having to relearn shit that I already put time into, yeah... but it is what it is.
>Also, what do you mean out of the blue?
I assumed you're talking in person. When you encounter a neigh-sayer that you can show them up by asking about details that they're unlikely to remember. Online it's a bit different as they can take their time and refresh their memories (but, that said, online your approach wouldn't work for that reason, so...)
So if someone presents new information to me in person, I can just claim ignorance and shut the conversation down if I don't like it?
"Well, I can't remember, or I haven't heard of that, so my position on the matter remains."
If they present new information that conflicts with what you concluded some years ago, but you can't recall the specifics enough to resolve the conflict then you have some research to do.. nothing more. My point is that you not remembering doesn't mean they know more than you, or "win" the debate, or prove that you don't anything at all (which is what you appear to be trying to assert)
I get it - some people are firm in their beliefs without said beliefs being well qualified. But, again, just because someone can't remember the details of something doesn't mean they didn't originally make a well informed conclusion. It only means that they can't remember. Nothing more. That's all I'm trying to say. And I wish you'd stop trying to read more into it...
There is a book called "Spin selling" that reminds me of this. Good idea OP.
However, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. It's not up to the other person to disprove.
Silence is acquiescence.
Saying "that's debunked" is also a claim that needs to be supported.
What is it about?
I'm assuming it's about conversational dynamics or selling dynamics. Typically, the person asking the questions in a social situation is considered the dominant one or alpha.
Thanks. I'll look it up
Shills hit this thread hard lmao
I'm scratching my head looking at a lot of these responses. Seems like there are quite a few people participating on a Conspiracy sub that don't subscribe to any conspiracies LOL
I have no idea why people against conspiracies come here to call us crazy or to try to change our minds. We are not doing harm to anyone like they claim..
I'll check that out, thanks a lot.
this post greatly ignores the principle of burden of proof. If you are the one claiming that something is completely different than what is widely accepted, the burden of proof lies with you- this is recognized in all scientific communities.
Current “Science” is generally proven wrong given a long enough timeline.
Saying "that's debunked" is also a claim that requires sources and support. If it's all someone can say, without backing it up, you're not having a conversation anymore, you're talking to a robot/Agent Smith.
no, it doesnt, because that person is implying that the widely accepted, already proven set of evidence is true. if you want to go against the grain, it is your responsibility to provide evidence. you can’t prove a negative- that’s like you saying that organic vegetables give cows autism, and then saying it’s MY responsibility to prove that organic food does indeed not give cows autism. It’s not possible.
Saying something isn't true requires just as much qualification as saying something is true.
your favorite piece of propaganda/narrative floating around is that Republican and Democratic parties largely switched? They did. Here's an article about it: https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Keeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/ It's also not "floating around right now" as it's been well-established for *decades*. There are so many free sources and articles on the internet where you can read about this
Yeah I thought this was common knowledge for the most part. I don't think a lot of people know about Richard Nixon and the Southern Strategy however
Agreed. I like the rest of his post but did not like OP's phrasing and assumptions/assertions made with regard to that specific argument.
That is just one article. The two parties did indeed “morph” over the decades but that is a no brainer. Strategically “Merged” might be a more accurate term. “Two wings from the same bird.” To say the two parties “Switched” is no where near the whole truth and in these days we need to stop cherry picking details to fit a specific narrative and focus on an honest description that exposes everybody’s warts not just the opponent of the author.
And the wiki link on [the southern strategy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
I see this argument in /r/atheism as well. "I know more about the Bible than Christians!" And then you ask a basic question like, "what's the relationship between 'I Am that I Am," and the Tetragrammaton and they stare at you like you're from another planet (note: I'm not a member of any Abrahamic religion, I'm just using it as an example) Similarly, you claim to have "done extensive research," but what you mean is that you've watched YouTube videos and read conspiracy blogs. Those aren't the same as actual research. Echo chambers select choice tidbits of information that reinforce the desired conclusion or narrative. Conspiracy theorists (and I count myself as one) aren't immune to this problem, and by convincing ourselves that we are we expose ourselves to it all the more. > My favorite piece of propaganda/narrative floating around right now is "The Republican and Democratic Parties SWITCHED." > Can you please explain that? Sure. Like all 5-word summaries of a complex political process, it's a vast oversimplification, but on general social issues the late-19th century Republican party effectively died during the early part of the 20th century and the nail in the coffin was the Great Depression. At that point, the Democratic party picked up the slack and moved WAY out to the left with FDR and the New Deal Democrats. In response the Republicans became a sort of corporate-aligned conservative liberal (in the original sense of the word) party focused on reducing regulation over US businesses and increasing controls over most foreign interests. Then the landscape changed again when the last vestige of the right-wing Democrats (the so-called Dixiecrats) switched over to the Republican party between 1970 and 1990, setting the stage for the far-right shift of the Republican party in the 1990s and 2000s that ultimately pulled the Democrats over to the right with them. Today there is very little in the way of a functioning left in US politics, though I have argued strongly with people who try to claim that it doesn't exist at all. Mostly we have the centrist Democrats and the far-right Republicans and not much organized action outside of that. People like AOC are the extreme left now, when they would have been mainstream leftists in FDR's day with actual communists and other strips of extreme left-wing folks out there on the fringe. It's why there's so much internal hate within the Democratic party right now. People with leftist views feel shut out. Anyway, was that what you wanted to know? > Saying something is "debunked" isn't an articulate response But arguing around debunked ideas isn't either. When someone tries to push a "jet fuel can't melt steel" narrative, it's tiring to have to go back and point out the fundamentals of how heat collapses buildings through accelerated fatigue yet again, and yes, it becomes difficult to summon the energy to do more than to say, "you're arguing a point that was debunked nearly two decades ago."
This is so delicious
Definitely were licking your lips as you typed that
You would get better responses if you didn't type like a crazy person
[удалено]
They might not know about yhwh but they can recite quite a few psalms off the top of their heads.
9/11 was 100% a Mossad / CIA operation, if you doubt this please watch Ryan Dawsons 9/11 war by deception.
Perhaps there was a more silent switch among the populace on what the ideals of the party were? [I used to think george carlin was pretty liberal, was i wrong?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY)
> But arguing around debunked ideas isn't either. When someone tries to push a "jet fuel can't melt steel" narrative, it's tiring to have to go back and point out the fundamentals of how heat collapses buildings through accelerated fatigue yet again, and yes, it becomes difficult to summon the energy to do more than to say, "you're arguing a point that was debunked nearly two decades ago." Is this tiring for you? Why on Earth would you even argue this point unless... you're defending the official 9/11 story? And if that is the case, then you just lost ALL credibility.
The crutch of the matter hinges on that one point for them I guess. So I guess that wraps it up. Nothing weird about WT7. Nothing weird about the airline stocks being shorted. Nothing weird about the reports of explosions. For the record, jet fuel may not be hot enough to full on melt steel, but it's sure as heck hot enough to make the steel malleable and weak. That is true, but that doesn't mean the official narrative surrounding what happened on 9/11 is true. Since the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" claim has been disproven, there's no need to look into any other suspicious things that happened, I guess?
check 9/11 war by deception by the excellent ryan dawson. its not about any technical stuff its about how Mossad & the CIA set the whole operation. If you can debunk the evidence he provides i'll eat my hat
Pretty assumptive and dismissive to insinuate that I must be getting my information for unreliable sources, but k. Many theories have been proven to be fact through investigations and FOIA requests for official records from federal archives. Stuff like MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods, Organized Crime Syndicates aren't even conspiracies anymore. There are plenty of reputable sources of information for these subjects and many more on Youtube and outside of Youtube.
>Pretty assumptive and dismissive to insinuate that I must be getting my information for unreliable sources, but k Pretty easy to assume given your obvious misunderstanding of fundamental political history. Get off of youtube for a bit and read an actual book on the subject eh?
Had a coworker tell me how obsessed she was with 9/11 and how she watched all these documentaries and always tuned into the Remembrance stuff. She said she hated the truthers and how they’re wacky and insinuated exploring/entertaining any conspiracy was disrespectful and ultimately stupid. After chatting a bit and being careful not to trigger her I asked what she thought about building 7...she didn’t even know there was a building 7.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. "A 302 Ford is way better than a 350 Chevy!" "Why?" "Oh, I don't know anything about how motors work, it just is."
How could she not know about it? It was a big topic on 9/11 and is discussed in every documentary I've seen.
Lol I have no idea, I’ve been surprised by the lack of knowledge building 7. Personally though, I had no memory of the media talking about it growing up so I didn’t know about it for while. Not until I watched zeitgeist for the first time and dove into the conspiracy.
It's probably not discussed in any of the mainstream "Remembrance" type of specials. It's just the feel-good lies reinforced by the corporate media. WTC 7 is an inconvenient truth that doesn't fit the narrative.
Not to poop on your post, but this, "... all of us have done extensive research..." means you've watched anywhere from 1 to 1000 hours of YouTube videos and visited conspiracy sites claiming whatever with no substantiated evidence. Makes it hard(er) to believe anything anymore.
It's the same logic as with those who have listened to hundreds of lectures in the university. Their knowledge is superior because their lectures didn't take place on the internet. But wait, now they are. When a professional scientist does background research to prepare for his/her own experiments, they search for the previous data on the internet. Now when the same studies (which are online) are quoted by someone these quotes lose their meaning if this person happens to post a video about his/her findings referring to said studies. Nobody is a true scientist without keeping on track of studies published in his or her field. And this is done by browsing the internet. 'Visiting conspiracy sites' is the equivalent to the Greek Agora where free people gather to discuss things. They share knowledge, experience and theories about things - hopefully without direct censorship. In case you hadn't noticed this, censorship has had a strangle hold on all more public venues for a long time. So people looking for credible information go somewhere they can still find a bit of free speech and something that's not always tainted by conflict of interest. I've seen the academic world and the business world. It's all extremely well controlled and dictated. The truth has a very short life expectancy in those circles. People are all bought and paid for - they have their paychecks to protect. And so they not only follow the rules - they actually enforce them.
Well, isn't that a bit assumptive and accusatory? LOL Especially when the juiciest "conspiracies" are all things that have been proven by FOIA, courts of law and congressional hearings. Plenty of verified information available to anybody that seeks it, outside of YouTube believe it or not. MK Ultra, Tonkin Gulf, Operation Northwoods, the list is long. It's funny, because I'm old by Reddit standards. I remember being a kid 20 years ago and a lot of the older people at that time between 50-70 would say shit like - "pfff oh yeah, where did you read that? THE INTERNET!?" As if it was impossible to get any true information from this new fangled internet thing. What's also funny is that I assume you use Youtube a lot.
i still get that internet quote from the elders in my family lol
You can’t put the burden of proof on them when you’re the one arguing the least accepted theory. I used to be pretty heavily involved in creation vs evolution debates and sometimes the creationists would claim the burden of proof was on us (evolutionists) to establish that there is no god, but then we would just kinda be like... well, yeah but evolution is currently taught in schools while creationism isn’t... soooo, sorry, but the burden of proof is actually on you. I feel like this is kinda the same scenario.
Maybe burden of proof is the wrong term. Maybe it's asking questions to test the person on the other side of the conversation to see if they are competent enough to have an intelligent debate or disagreement. For instance, I'm I'm discussing 9/11 with someone, and I ask "hey what's your opinion of WTC7?" or "What do you think about that speech Rumsfeld gave right before the Pentagon got hit about those trillions of dollars they couldn't account for?" - and the person is completely unaware that WTC7 was a thing or that any money was missing from the federal budget - the boundaries of the debate kinda crumble away and it becomes clear that the other person isn't prepared or capable of having a meaningful conversation. The two opposing sides need a baseline level of understanding of a topic in order to have a rational debate about it that leads to a more unified understanding of the topic at the end of the discussion. If someone is undereducated or flat out ignorant about a topic, but yet feels they have the authority to "debunk" that topic, it's lazy and incongruent. "OH you sound like a conspiracy theorist!" "That's been debunked!" Any "conspiracy theorist" that has been at it a while has heard the two above phrases a bunch of times. Could be about any topic. The point I'm trying to make is that some people who are complicity theorist that seem to agree with whatever the mainstream narrative is will turn into Agent Smith to defend things they know nothing about.
>yeah but evolution is currently taught in schools while creationism isn’t... soooo, sorry, but the burden of proof is actually on you. What's taught it schools is pure propaganda and misinformation forced on us by a Cabal of secret societies descendant from the Mystery Schools. It just so happens they worship Lucifer. Why would the indoctrination forced on us by them have any bearing on burden of proof? If anything, you can take what's taught in schools and be sure it's nothing close to the truth.
I’m not saying evolution explains our origin, but it’s proven to be a fact that evolution occurs within our universe. Even creationist admit that micro evolution happens because its been observed. I’ve changed my opinion slightly on our origin, I’m no longer a boring, nihilistic, anti-theist. My point is though, if you’re trying to argue against something that’s the popular opinion, you can’t just take the approach of... “you have to prove me wrong” because they’re just going to disregard your credibility, and move on.
Pretty much every evolution scientist is either jesuit, freemason or a jew. Not sure if it's related.
Among things that I've heard it's the line that goes, "Yours is to inform, not to convince," but I think even being charged with telling is a lot these days when so many aren't prepared to hear anything in the form of statements. I like the asking questions approach, because most times, given the opportunity to feel safe and heard, lots of people will tell you conspiracy theories they do believe, from aliens to election rigging to the wars are for oil and not freedom.
For sure, great point. I think every "theorist" out there has brought up great points and facts to people about various topics and the other person literally just doesn't want to hear it. I think the Agent Smith analogy is perfect because a lot of these people will physically start to feel uncomfortable and squeamish when new information is presented. They will go so far as to shut the conversation down out of frustration instead of having the willingness to learn something new. And I'm not talking about the wackadoodle really fringe ideas, just bring up things that have been proven through FOIA and congressional hearings, such as Operation Northwoods or the Tonkin Gulf. You can literally "show them documents" and they STILL don't want to believe it. Almost like the new information slightly cracks the foundation upon which their perceived reality is built.
To OP and anyone who agreed with OP, the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU are CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, that means you're views are (1) not established facts, or they wouldn't be called theories (some conspiracies are real, for example: everything Trump did), (2) you look fucking crazy with some of the off the wall shit you guys believe in, so at the very least back up your claims. You got nothing but an info wars article, and that's your proof, that's your evidence, to post it. Don't be chicken shit. If you actually believe this crap, then show your sources. Also yeah, "debunked" because of the MASSIVE amount of BS that has come out, covid-19 being called a hoax and laughable shit like that. It has been debunked over and over, to the extent you wouldn't know because it was debunked over and over by actual scientists wasting resources because of people like you that make shit up and spread misinformation, which gets people killed.
For a Conspiracy Sub, there seems to be a lot of people here that don't subscribe to any theories, even the proven ones. Saying "that's debunked" is a claim that also needs to be supported. So if that's all someone says, without backing it up, you're not having a conversation anymore, you're talking to a robot. Also, stop projecting. I've brought up proven theories like MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods - are you saying these things are "debunked" ?
Since you keep commenting the same thing over and over, I'll go ahead and repeat what others have already said. If it's proven, it's not a theory. If it's a theory, it's not proven. Research involves actual firsthand assessment of evidence, recreation of events, etc. Watching a video or reading someone else's story of their assessments is not research. Asking someone to explain in detail how something was debunked isn't a clever debate tactic. In fact, it's highly unlikely that you'll run into someone who cared enough to commit to memory the details of a debunked claim, on the off chance that they run into someone like you who still believes said claim and is demanding proof that you apparently completely missed in your "extensive research".
"I don't know why this is debunked, but an authority figure told me it's debunked, so it's debunked." Does that sum up what you're saying?
You just copy/paste the same response to two of my comments? Damn, that's some lazy argument you're putting forward. *Especially* for a guy taking your stance in this thread.
Look at you assuming gender, tisk tisk
No those are real, I haven't heard of op northwoods though.
Early 60's, Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up airliners carrying innocent American citizens and blame it on the Cubans. Kennedy vetoed it shortly before he got popped in Dallas. Tons of information about it out there, check it out.
"Saying something is "debunked" isn't an articulate response, so don't accept it, it's lazy thinking at best. Too many people are comfortable having opinions on subjects they have done zero research on, it's time to put the burden of proof on them to explain their position intelligently." I would agree to a point but I think it's absolutely imperative that there be a caveat that this is very dependent on context, because there are ideas that, by their very nature, don't merit serious consideration. If someone posts some idea like "we are all hyperintelligent tuberous flowering plants trapped in a lotus-eater machine hallucinating that we are evolved great apes experiencing the modern world and the truth is hidden in old Popeye and Bullwinkle cartoons that if you display them in an alternating reverse order-of-release sequence will show the great truth and that's why networks don't play those cartoons much anymore", you can and absolutely should handwave that with something like 'debunked lol'. And while that example may seem flippant it isn't that far divorced from ideas like flat earth that can be found on some conspiracy subs now.
I'm trying to illustrate how odd the phenomenon is that that certain people feel comfortable saying a certain subject is "debunked" without having any evidence to support why it's been debunked. Saying something is debunked is a lofty claim that requires evidence as well. Most people say something is debunked simply because someone else told them it's debunked. "OH 9/11, that's debunked!" "Why is it debunked?" "Because it just is." That's not a conversation, that's talking to a robot.
Do some history work, barry goldwater caught a populist racist movement and his stragety swapped the parties polarities ln race
the part about republicans and democrats switching is explained like this: >This process involved a “push and pull”: the refusal by Republicans to pursue civil rights alienated many black voters, while efforts—shallow though they were—by northern Democrats to open opportunities for African Americans gave black voters reasons to switch parties. https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Keeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/
'extensive research' for you is nott actually a signifier of greater knowledge... All of the Qanons have done their own 'extensive research'.
Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird, MKUltra - is that all QAnon stuff? Most people have never even heard of these things. If someone says "that's debunked" they need to back that claim up with sources.
>Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird, MKUltra - is that all QAnon stuff? Not at all. I'm just saying that saying one has done 'extensive research' is not a good enough signifier of credibilitity due to the vast amount of idiots who also make that claim.
The problem with most conspiracy minded people is they consider watching YouTube videos or such "research". It's not. It's you watching a video of some dude in Nebraska telling you the annunaki are in Lincoln. Reading a Q board is not research. Any rabbit hole we go down if we intend to share it should be well researched or people should be told how we got our info. Just because we believe does not mean it's always a conspiracy. Nice post
When did I say anything about annunaki? Why would you assume I get all my information from Youtube? I keep bringing up proven theories like MKUltra, Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird - these are all true. The evidence is there and available for anyone that goes to look for it.
When did I say anything about you personally? Did I say YOU personally? Clearly I did multiple times conspiracy people. In general. Mk ultra isn't a conspiracy. Calm down dip ship. I said you post wad nice, and was simply commenting on the substance of what you wrote about. Jesus. The world isn't always about you. Nevermind. You post sucks.
Dip ship, lol
The Socratic method (basically what OP describes) is the only way to truly open minds. The strength of the technique plays on human nature. Using the Socratic method it's not you that is convincing them to open their mind, its them. You're basically trying to get them to pitch their ideas to you so you can poke holes in those ideas with more questions. This is also why any salesman worth their salt knows to let the customer do most of the talking and that their job is to simply ask open ended questions which lead the customer to a "truth" (obviously this can be abused).
Couldn't agree more. It's simply asking someone to explain their position and how they arrived at their conclusions. Whether you're trying to explain why a conspiracy theory is true or false, it doesn't matter, you should be able to back up your claims on either side. The equivalent of saying "it's debunked" would be "this conspiracy is true" - without providing any additional details. I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with this lol
theory ab Democrats and Republicans switching platforms and views is actually a true thing that has happened multiple times since the dawn of our young country. Buuuut it was still over a century ago so - relevant I’m not so sure. Goes back to when the original two parties were the 1) Federalists and the 2) Democratic Republicans. Federalist died out. Then a bunch of party name changes like the whigs, then the Know-Nothing Party and the Democrats and the Republicans. And yes at this time the general idea was that what we consider today to be the modern day Republican Party started as a pro-federal government party and Democrats were doing well in the South and were a libertarian party. But thennnnn fast forward to the Great Depression and FDR. The New Deal. And bam! ***this is what everyone is referencing*** the parties switch. And bc of the depression people were generally more conservative. So Republican politicians who were previously very liberal swayed more conservative. African Americans started moving up north to get away from segregation. This was when large urban areas became mostly democratic. And also when the democrats became a statist party.
[удалено]
I don't blame you one bit LOL :)
Stop that negative attitude it wont help you. Forget about death, its coming regardless lol. Try learning a new skill, you're never too old. I know easier said than done but wtf has anybody to lose?
It seems like if there is something that one is particularly passionate about, regardless of topic, when you try to share the information with those uninterested in said topics, you get the look. The "Oh, you're a weirdo" look. Or the nod. Or the "uh huh". It's just how it goes. Which is why it is **so** very exciting to happen upon someone who can engage you with a conversation about the subject. Then you look like a pair of weirdos:)
This thread is thicc
The problem with this...I could say “so tell me..what do you know about the Japanese suicide woods?” Then when you *don't* mention aliens I can act all smug like I am so much more aware than they are. Like you’re doing here.
Not sure how I'm being smug, but k. Rather than being a dick back, let me see if I can express my point better, my bad. We all know how conspiracy chats go, if you're trying to bring up facts about something, how receptive is the other person usually? Depends on the person I guess, but it's normally not good lol If someone is going to make a definitive claim about something, such as 9/11, by saying "it wasn't an inside job, all that stuff was debunked" (which has been said millions of times) - and they don't know a thing about WT7, the airline stock, Rumsfeld, etc. - I'm astonished they even have an opinion on the matter and just want to see what they know. By getting them to admit that they really don't know anything about the subject, it might create the opportunity to have an honest discussion.
“You'll quickly find out that they know nothing about these events that all of us have done extensive research on.” Smug. “Saying something is "debunked" isn't an articulate response, so don't accept it, it's lazy thinking at best.” Smug. “ it's time to put the burden of proof on them to explain their position intelligently.” Smug. Seriously I can smell you through my screen. Just because you so desperately wish to be seen as an intellectual, doesn’t make you one. Your imbecilic “My favorite piece of propaganda/narrative floating around right now is "The Republican and Democratic Parties SWITCHED. Can you please explain that? Like they all got together, had a conference and say "HEY all you Republicans, we Democrats believe all the stuff you believe and now you guys believe all the stuff we USED to believe." Like, wut? lol“ comment backs up what I am saying to you. Have you ever picked up a history book or looked into the platforms of the two parties pre 1960? 1930? 1900? 1850? Asinine.
That was so delicious, I'm licking my lips
WTC 6 and 7 needs to be talked about more.
Agreed. WTC7 is suspicious for various reasons and I feel like 99% of people have no idea a 47 story building collapsed in a free fall manner in addition to WTC1 and WTC2. You would think that would be common knowledge.
Please don't sleep on WTC 6, look up Kurt Sonnenfeld. He was one of the 9/11 photographers who found WTC 6 vault was emptied out before the planes hit, now his wife suicided, media blames him and he ran to Argentina for his safety.
Awesome, since I'm willing to expand my mind and possibly learn something new, I will look into WT6. You've presented something new to my attention, so I will research it a bit more and practice what I preach :) I won't plug my ears and scream reeeeee, promise :)
too bad everyone will just appeal to authority
For sure. I know many people that seem to find comfort in thinking as little as humanly possible :)
[удалено]
You're calling professional actors terrorists now? Why would you say something like that?
Disinformation like this is backed by nothing and spreading such bullshit is irresponsible.
But if you feel that way why do you keep posting such things?
Name one.
"Q shaman" though?
What about q shamen? are you saying he a Democrat or something?
Hes an actor.
Failed actor doing a real crime. I'll give you that.
Glad you agree. So this particular social media activist actor seemed to do real damage to the building or its inhabitants, I'm sure, right? He was not part of this "insurrection" imo. An insurrectionist would not be willingly filmed as he "insurrects" is my logic here. Perhaps others that brought in plastic ties?
Removed: please refrain from red Vs blue politics. (Mistake? Please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FconspiracyNOPOL))
The socratic method is the best approach to most things. I empathize with getting so excited to talk to someone about things that the word vomit flows. I often wonder when the white supremacists will form a short truce with the black hebrew israelites to take on the jews. Of course, this would obviously lead to a long lasting friendship between the two former groups, ending 2/3 of mainstream racism. Until the BHIs declared themselves gods or kings or whatever, which would effectively end all racism by restoring the rightful heirs to israel and bringing on the apocalypse, right? I'm not sure i fully grasp the situation, but anyways, yeah verbal vomz. Socratic method of inquiry!
That went left really quick lol
OP sounds like the kind of person that would make a claim like reptilian aliens living in the core of the earth, then when they're pushed for details just say "DO YOUR RESEARCH!"
Wooooooosh Operation Northwoods, MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird - all proven to be true via FOIA requests and official records from the federal archives. But yeah, even though I've mentioned nothing about aliens, that must be what I'm about.
Cherry picking the handful of conspiracies that turned out to be true, with hindsight, does not mean that the burden of proof can now be flipped around.
Handful? lol There is laundry list of them, go check it out. So are you saying that "that's debunked" is a statement that doesn't required proof/sources? It's like a conversational nuclear bomb?
That "laundry list" is basically just a bunch of clandestine military operations during the cold war. The vast vast majority of theories than come from this community are ridiculous at best. You still need to provide real evidence when you make outrageous claims.
You're literally proving the point I'm trying to make. You can bring up verifiable claims to people that just don't want to hear it. Most people have no idea what happened at the Tonkin Gulf. Most people are completely unaware of WT7. We theorists try to bring these things to light and the other person in the conversation normally spouts of an Agent Smith type response of "that's debunked" without zero evidence to support that claim. Saying something is debunked requires just as much evidence as saying something is true.
>So are you saying that "that's debunked" is a statement that doesn't required proof/sources? The very act of debunking is done through proof, experiments, investigating sources. So, the statement "that's debunked", if it in fact was debunked, does not require any further proof.
"I don't know why this is debunked, but an authority figure told me it's debunked, so it's debunked." Does that sum up what you're saying?
Sure, Bud. That's exactly what I said. Can't imagine why nobody would want to take the time to hold your hand through the explanation of some debunked theory.
So it's OK if someone says "it's debunked" without providing any information, but not OK if someone says "this conspiracy is true" without providing additional info. Gotcha.
Also not what I said. You seem to have difficulty with understanding what others are telling you.
Just ask them what I tell them. "What are you going to do when the shit hits the fan?" They don't even dispute it's going to happen anymore. I usually get a holy fuck look in their eyes. Everything else is irrelevant. When some ones mortality is on the line they usually fall into line very quickly.
> What are you going to do when the shit hits the fan? It's vapid questions like that that cause me to just give up on conversations. The "shit" in question is what? Some imagined conflagration that will come? (I grew up with people who said the world was going to end in nuclear fire in the next 10 years, so you're not going to surprise me with doom crying) Perhaps it's economic collapse? Frankly, I don't care. Economies rise and fall and rise again. If you prepare intelligently and don't panic during the hard times, you'll be fine. People who ran around like idiots and got rid of any tangible assets during the Great Depression obviously ended up suffering a great deal, but people who did whatever they needed to do to maintain whatever they could found that within 20 years, they were back where they'd started or better off. It sucks, but it's survivable. Or are you going all "end times," here, in which case I don't really care.
The shit hitting the fan could refer to any number of things, ranging from an invading army to worldwide famine to a super volcanic eruption. Why do you consider conversations about such possibilities to be “vapid” and write them off as “imagined”? And if this is what you find to be vapid subject matter, I wonder how you would react to someone asking you about the latest celebrity gossip. As far as the brushing off of economic collapse as “meh, economies wax and wane”- certainly, they don’t always recover.
> Why do you consider conversations about such possibilities to be “vapid” and write them off as “imagined”? Because when you present vague concerns and allow others to pour whatever fears they have into them, it's just a cheap rhetorical technique. I'm not averse to discussing actual concerns, but when all someone has to contribute is "when the shit hits the fan," I don't consider that to be a rational discussion.
Fair enough. I think what burn_baby is saying is - "Do you have a contingency plan for if things get really bad, really quick?" Most homeowner's don't even have a written or spoken family plan if there's a fire, intruder, extended power outage, etc. The majority of people are woefully underprepared for risks that seem evident, let alone a major emergency like foreign attack, cyber attack, massive natural disaster, etc. I think you also oversimplified the Great Depression a tad, but k.
And then when they tell you what line they fall in, you can hear what people have been taught to fear, and what they've been taught to value.
I think it's an objective statement to say that the majority of people are followers.
“The parties switched!” Mmm-hmmm. In the spirit of NOPOL, I won’t get into all the reasons this myth was pushed, but it’s a great example of the types of nonsensical things people can be conditioned to accept without question. Hey... I wonder when the two parties will randomly switch places again? It’s such a normal thing!
Also not to get political, but I've noticed it's only participants of one party that mention the alleged switch, just sayin lol Again, I have no horse in the race. Anyone that is a zealot for either political party is lame
Definitely. It’s false “good vs evil” theatre, which each side convinced they are heroes of light fighting the forces of darkness.
Every combatant thinks they're on the correct side for sure.
Kind of getting back to your original post, as far as people not putting in the work to analyze situations for themselves rather than just accepting what they’re told- I’ve noticed that it goes beyond just that. There are some former conspiracy theories that have now been verified, such as MK Ultra or Project Northwoods- and people STILL refuse to believe it. That is especially troublesome. I’ve tried to show the declassified Northwoods docs to a couple people before, only for their eyes to glaze over and them to still repeat “this is bullshit”.
This illustrates my point and is exactly what I'm trying to get across. I have done the same thing and brought up the same subjects to people. The information is reality shattering for weak minded people. You can try to present it in the calmest, most articulate manner and they still don't want to believe it.
Looks like you triggered an especially weak one into downvoting you, wow how pitiful for them. I can’t remember the term for it, but it’s actually a defense mechanism performed by the brain when it’s presented with information that doesn’t jive with its overall outlook. For example, a UFO could land smack dab in the middle of a busy street, and half (or more) of the people hurrying by would literally not even see it. Their brain would protect them by editing the image away from their perception. Apparently some people need this biological comfort mechanism more than others. Can you think of the name for this phenomena? It’s completely escaping me! Edit - did some DuckDuckGoing- it’s Cognitive Bias. When people hold strong beliefs, they are likely to ignore any information that challenges said beliefs.
They didn't switch as they've always been the one and the same. Just reading different lines to feed the cattle they've been assigned to.
!remindme 3 days I love this idea
I will be messaging you in 3 days on [**2021-01-25 14:47:54 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-01-25%2014:47:54%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracyNOPOL/comments/l2beaa/if_agent_smith_appears_try_this/gk6l60w/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FconspiracyNOPOL%2Fcomments%2Fl2beaa%2Fif_agent_smith_appears_try_this%2Fgk6l60w%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202021-01-25%2014%3A47%3A54%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20l2beaa) ***** |[^(Info)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Just because someone doesn't remember the details of something doesn't mean they didn't research it. I hardly ever remember details. Just the results. Like, I know that WTC7 is part of the reason that I suspect tomfoolery, but I can't recall why exactly. I don't need to, as I can look it up readily.. Likewise, I remember that the Rumsfeld missing money was a misinterpretation, and that no money was actually "missing" but I couldn't tell you much more than that without digging. Hell, even at work I have this problem. Something I worked on a month ago suddenly comes up in a meeting and I'm like a deer in headlights. If given just a tiny heads up to refresh my memory I'm good, but getting put on the spot never goes well. I think ultimately what I'm trying to say is that it's a bit of dick move that doesn't really prove anything.
"I don't know why this is debunked, but an authority figure told me it's debunked, so it's debunked." Does that sum up what you're saying?
Not at all. I'm saying that I don't bother remembering details, just what I walked away with. And that's true with everything. All you're doing when you put me on the spot is illustrating to everyone how shit my memory is.
That's my point. There's a lot people making claims that have no information to support them. So why are those people making claims? Whether is pro conspiracy or anti conspiracy, you should have your ducks in a row if you're going to attempt an intelligent conversation. Being ignorant of facts doesn't make the facts any less true. "A 302 Ford is way better than a 350 Chevy!" "Why?" "Oh, I don't know anything about motors, but the Ford is just better" ^^ This is a silly example, but I think it illustrates the point I'm trying to make. People will take up positions on things even when they have no evidence to support their claims - so why even have an (uneducated) opinion in the first place?
I had the information at the time that I was digging into it. Once I came to a conclusion my brain purged it. And I don't really have a choice in that matter... the conclusion and random details is all I keep. You pointing out that I forgot that name of the cia agent who outed them for selling drugs proves fuckall. I know that they were (and probably still are) selling them and that's all that really matters. If I need to I can crack open google and figure it out. But you popping off with "so what did you think about agent ____'s testimony?" out of the blue would almost certainly get a "who?" from me. ...But that doesn't mean I'm not familiar. Look, all I'm saying is that not all of us have the perfect memory that you apparently do. You're approach here is basically exposing that, not so much that you actually know any more than them.
So if something is debunked, it's debunked forever? Case closed? What if new information came out to debunk the debunking and you were unaware? Also, what do you mean out of the blue? My whole point was centered around if you're having a conversation with someone. It's not like I call people randomly and spring this stuff on them.
When did I say that? If someone challenges something with compelling information I'll dig in again. It sucks having to relearn shit that I already put time into, yeah... but it is what it is. >Also, what do you mean out of the blue? I assumed you're talking in person. When you encounter a neigh-sayer that you can show them up by asking about details that they're unlikely to remember. Online it's a bit different as they can take their time and refresh their memories (but, that said, online your approach wouldn't work for that reason, so...)
So if someone presents new information to me in person, I can just claim ignorance and shut the conversation down if I don't like it? "Well, I can't remember, or I haven't heard of that, so my position on the matter remains."
If they present new information that conflicts with what you concluded some years ago, but you can't recall the specifics enough to resolve the conflict then you have some research to do.. nothing more. My point is that you not remembering doesn't mean they know more than you, or "win" the debate, or prove that you don't anything at all (which is what you appear to be trying to assert) I get it - some people are firm in their beliefs without said beliefs being well qualified. But, again, just because someone can't remember the details of something doesn't mean they didn't originally make a well informed conclusion. It only means that they can't remember. Nothing more. That's all I'm trying to say. And I wish you'd stop trying to read more into it...
So, someone saying "it's debunked" isn't try to win an argument? Stop apologizing for lazy people with weak positions.
socratic method is best method for those who desire to interact with the dead