New studies: Conspiracy theorists sane, while government dupes are crazy...

These four different university studies listed below reveal a lot about the psychology of official story gatekeepers and how irrational and emotionally unstable they become when challenged with an alternative view

****

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled conspiracy theorists appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/07/17/new-studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-while-government-dupes-are-crazy-and-hostile/

Knew this for a long time considering the emotional tirade a lot a users go into when it comes to expressing any kind of conspiracy. Or when they respond with photos like "Aliens...". Thoughts?

It's a silly term used by the establishment to brush off any critical thinking or undesired opinions. "The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized and made to seem as either a communist, a kook, some sort of disloyal person, and now it's conspiracy theorist - Something that shouldn't even be entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and actually have a plan. DOESN'T HAPPEN. You're a kook, a conspiracy buff." - George CarlinMrPraline

sounds like a conspiracy

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]It's a silly term used by the establishment to brush off any critical thinking or undesired opinions. "The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized and made to seem as either a communist, a kook, some sort of disloyal person, and now it's conspiracy theorist - Something that shouldn't even be entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and actually have a plan. DOESN'T HAPPEN. You're a kook, a conspiracy buff." - George CarlinHoolaHoopMan

That article is absolutely laughable in its logic.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="MrPraline"]It's a silly term used by the establishment to brush off any critical thinking or undesired opinions. "The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized and made to seem as either a communist, a kook, some sort of disloyal person, and now it's conspiracy theorist - Something that shouldn't even be entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and actually have a plan. DOESN'T HAPPEN. You're a kook, a conspiracy buff." - George CarlinMrPraline

Disagree, and your post shows everything I believe is wrong with that term. It's a term used to ridicule. To group people with questions about 9/11 together with those who do not believe in the moon landing. To group people skeptical about man made global warming together with those who believe Queen Elizabeth is an extra dimensional shape shifting reptilian. Believe in x so you must believe in y is not a logical conclusion considering the scope of it all. "Conspiracy believers", for want of a better term, are not a single group sharing a single ideology. All a "conspiracy theorist" does is doubt an official story. Grouping them all together is useless mocking and dismissing in lieu of honest rebuttals.MrPraline

There's a difference between questioning things and burying your head in the sand despite evidence as I've already stated.  Obviously some 'theories' are more outlandish than others, however the bottom line is that if it has no grounding and stands against a mountain of evidence contrary to it, then I have no problem labeling it as such.  

Is the idea of Queen Elizabeth being an alien reptilian lizard more outlandish than the 9/11 loose change videos?  I would say yes.  That still doesn't mean that 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't outlandish in their own way.  They've already gone through the vetting process and don't hold up to even basic scientific scrutiny. 

I never implied that all conspiracies were equal, I believe they can have differing shades of outlandishness though. 

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Marginalizing someone before they have presented their case, yeah I don't think its a good way to about things. I can agree with that. However continuing to support long discredited 'theories' despite the mountain of evidence against them, there's nothing wrong with that. Its not a silly term when dealing with 9/11 hoax people, moon landing hoax people, reptilian alien overlord people, or groups alleging that all science supporting global warming is a hoax. The term conspiracy has its place. JJ_Productions

If the mountaon of evidence has been shown 1,000,000 times, like with 9/11, then what's the point in showing it for the 1,000,001th time when it'll just be ignored again?

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"] Disagree, and your post shows everything I believe is wrong with that term. It's a term used to ridicule. To group people with questions about 9/11 together with those who do not believe in the moon landing. To group people skeptical about man made global warming together with those who believe Queen Elizabeth is an extra dimensional shape shifting reptilian. Believe in x so you must believe in y is not a logical conclusion considering the scope of it all. "Conspiracy believers", for want of a better term, are not a single group sharing a single ideology. All a "conspiracy theorist" does is doubt an official story. Grouping them all together is useless mocking and dismissing in lieu of honest rebuttals.worlock77

If the mountaon of evidence has been shown 1,000,000 times, like with 9/11, then what's the point in showing it for the 1,000,001th time when it'll just be ignored again?

I have yet to see the evidence. Provide it.JJ_Productions

You'd have to provide a specific position you believe in, then provide evidence.  You're being a bit vague, the gambit of conspiracy theories is endless. 

good finddave123321

:lol:LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Very well said. It would be nice to actually break down the tactics further as they have many means to go about dismissing or ridiculing any questions about an official story. If the official story rests on a sound and solid foundation, any questions should be relatively easy to answer considering all the evidence would prove it to be so, but that is not the case. We get responses that avoid the question all together while suggesting that there are "mountains of evidence". If there are mountains of evidence, at least provide a pebble in your rebuttal.

JJ_Productions

If the mountaon of evidence has been shown 1,000,000 times, like with 9/11, then what's the point in showing it for the 1,000,001th time when it'll just be ignored again?

That article is absolutely laughable in its logic.

worlock77

"Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan was indisputably true."

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]:lol:JJ_Productions

[QUOTE="dave123321"]good findLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

That article is absolutely laughable in its logic.

GamerForca

"Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan was indisputably true."

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="dave123321"]good finddave123321

Another thing I noticed the government apologist do is that when you respond to one, other apologist chime in for them to continue the argument as if they have one mind. Clearly, its a sign of a unified objective. They respond for each, and continue the argument for each other without a single debate between them. Definitely saving this thread for future references for tactics being used. JJ_Productions

Another thing I noticed the government apologist do is that when you respond to one, other apologist chime in for them to continue the argument as if they have one mind. Clearly, its a sign of a unified objective. They respond for each, and continue the argument for each other without a single debate between them. Definitely saving this thread for future references for tactics being used. JJ_Productions

Another thing I noticed the government apologist do is that when you respond to one, other apologist chime in for them to continue the argument as if they have one mind. Clearly, its a sign of a unified objective. They respond for each, and continue the argument for each other without a single debate between them. Definitely saving this thread for future references for tactics being used. JJ_Productions

What is 21st Century Wire? After reviewing the article that site seems a bit wonky. Just look at the caption under one of the pics in the article involving 9/11, "Few are willing ask why over 1000 car were fried up to a mile from the WTC on 911". HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]What is 21st Century Wire? After reviewing the article that site seems a bit wonky. Just look at the caption under one of the pics in the article involving 9/11, "Few are willing ask why over 1000 car were fried up to a mile from the WTC on 911". JJ_Productions

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]What is 21st Century Wire? After reviewing the article that site seems a bit wonky. Just look at the caption under one of the pics in the article involving 9/11, "Few are willing ask why over 1000 car were fried up to a mile from the WTC on 911". JJ_Productions

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]What is 21st Century Wire? After reviewing the article that site seems a bit wonky. Just look at the caption under one of the pics in the article involving 9/11, "Few are willing ask why over 1000 car were fried up to a mile from the WTC on 911". JJ_Productions

So to begin a debate in 9/11 I propose that the tc provides an example of one of the issues he has with the official story.dave123321

Do you listen to Alex Jones?

It's a silly term used by the establishment to brush off any critical thinking or undesired opinions. "The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized and made to seem as either a communist, a kook, some sort of disloyal person, and now it's conspiracy theorist - Something that shouldn't even be entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and actually have a plan. DOESN'T HAPPEN. You're a kook, a conspiracy buff." - George CarlinMrPraline

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]What is 21st Century Wire? After reviewing the article that site seems a bit wonky. Just look at the caption under one of the pics in the article involving 9/11, "Few are willing ask why over 1000 car were fried up to a mile from the WTC on 911". JJ_Productions

So you made a thread on a public discussion forum and now you take issue with people discussing what you've posted in the thread?

Since it was brought up, and yolo, here's one my favouriteMrPraline

After listening to him it seems he's just recycling the same old arguments that haven't even held up any scrutiny.  

He claims that there was no wreckage at the Pentagon: lol False (just google image it)

He claims that the towers fell demolition style: False.

The rest of it he just meandors about not trusting the government yadda yadda.  I mean he's a film maker afterall, not quite sure I would consider him an expert on chemistry, physics, or even engineering.  

Honestly, these things have been answered years ago.  

Also. The FBI being resposible for killing many of Americas rising black leaders including Tupac Shakur. I asked this to LJS last time and he ran out of the thread. Lets see if he runs again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBf5zmc6yIJJ_Productions

Thank you for posting this.  This is not surprising at all to thsoe of us who have been pointing out the holes in official stories for years.  We already knew that we were being sane, analytical, and open-minded.  It's great to see it in an article like this.  

Thank you for posting this.  This is not surprising at all to thsoe of us who have been pointing out the holes in official stories for years.  We already knew that we were being sane, analytical, and open-minded.  It's great to see it in an article like this.  

hartsickdiscipl

Another tactic I noticed they use as well is that they will all simultaneously abandon a thread to let it be pushed into oblivion. Also, when Edward Snowden revealed the fact about the NSA, the apologist come out and say "if you didn't know this already then your naive." While a week before they would have been posting pictures of tin foil hats. JJ_Productions

[QUOTE="dave123321"]So to begin a debate in 9/11 I propose that the tc provides an example of one of the issues he has with the official story.JJ_Productions

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"]Also. The FBI being resposible for killing many of Americas rising black leaders including Tupac Shakur. I asked this to LJS last time and he ran out of the thread. Lets see if he runs again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBf5zmc6yILJS9502_basic

That article is absolutely laughable in its logic.

worlock77

No, it's actually quite sound.  I'm sorry that you didn't get it.  

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

That article is absolutely laughable in its logic.

hartsickdiscipl

No, it's actually quite sound.  I'm sorry that you didn't get it.  

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"]Also. The FBI being resposible for killing many of Americas rising black leaders including Tupac Shakur. I asked this to LJS last time and he ran out of the thread. Lets see if he runs again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBf5zmc6yIJJ_Productions

FYI...it's not abandoning a subject or thread if I've left the site to do something else and you decide to make a post dude.  Seriously....you are delusional.

I have to wonder how many people here ridiculing the article actually read it... because many of you are proving what it said about "gatekeepers" to be 100% true.