10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

[tmma 467]

Whatever, positive that I wasn't born paranoid, but with all the ####### our government has been pulling lately, sure getting that way. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? Really don't feel so, but does really tee me off.

No that doesn't automatically make you ( or anyone that questions anything) a 'conspiracy theorist', 'paranoid' or whatever other label gets banded around. It just makes you someone that has questions...... After all, the beginning of discovery is with a question. I hate it when people are automatically dismissed and slapped with a label just for having an opposing POV or questions. that- IMO- cheapens the entire debate from the git-go [no matter what it's about].

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny, this sound just like a few people here that cling to the idea of man made global warming.

These sum up a few here:

1. Arrogance. Oh man, they have this in spades.

2. Relentlessness. Whenever the subject is brought up those that claim to be experts gang up and beat any opposition down.

3. Inability to answer questions. Like, why isn't it getting warmer over the last 10 years?

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. "Consensus" anyone?

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Despite glaring evidence that they are wrong they still think they are right.

7. Inability to withdraw. Not until glaciers cover LA will they withdraw.

*Ahem*

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

An inconvenient truth for Gary.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[nowhereman 1]

funny you couldn't dig this out when bush was in office.

The Bush administration was a classic example of groupthink... not conspiracy theorists. Similar in some ways but not the same.

Eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. Example: The first 3 yrs of the Iraq War.

2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions. Example: Dismissing most of the findings of the Baker study.

3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Examples: Numerous statements made by Bush essentially ignoring critics (and worse yet ignoring the will of the majority)

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. Example: "Liberal" bashing

5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty". Example: I have absolutely no doubt that Cheney did this consistently behind closed doors.

6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. Example: Powell was treated like a leper because he didn't always agree with the Bush cronies.

7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. (probably part of Cheney's job description).

9/11 was all about Group think?

Cheney and Hali-burt were just group think?

All that Iraq oil Bush was setting his "oil buddies" up with was really group think?

Howz about Ole Bush using hurricane Katrina to blow a hole in the earthen wall to flood New Orleans, was that only group think?

You guys are too much,

Danno you think you are making fun of my point of view, but in actuality you are just reinforcing it. You entire position is built on rhetoric & nonsense. Let me give you a few examples:

1. Cheney himself recently admitted there was no credible link between 9/11 and Iraq.

2. Millions (if not billions) of dollars that went to Haliburton & their subsidaries (like KBR) are unaccounted for to this day. This isn't "liberal" fiction as I'm sure you will contend but hard factual information.

3. I never said Bush invaded Iraq for the oil... from what I gather he did it to establish a strategic foothold in the middle east & 9/11 was the perfect cover (or so he thought) to use as a reason.

4. Katrina was screwed up from the federal level down to the local level... Bush was partially to blame but the blame was far from his alone.

Next time go a little heavier on the facts & ease off on the rhetoric.

That reply was so lame, I will let it stand without correction except to note, my points of the endless conspiracies concerning Bush are from the left in general and not you specific.

Translation: You know what I stated is true, so you call it "lame". At least you didn't resort to nonsensical rhetoric so I guess that's a step up for you.

Was... that... Dannologic at work again?

We need mawilson to catalogue and update the 'Greatest Hits' thread series in his honor.

Isn't "Dannologic" an oxymoron?

[Danno 1,228]

Lets not drift to far afield from the topic here.

Are you saying that we did not have a multitude of conspiracy theorists during the Bush years?

Why this "list" would be posted now is laughable.

Perhaps you or anyone could list some of these...Obama unique conspiracies?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Certainly there were conspiracists (after all wasn't the Bush administration supposedly responsible for 9/11?).

But perhaps you haven't been paying attention over the last few months - I seem to remember reading claims that Obama was some sort of Muslim fundamentalist Manchurian Candidate, that he isn't a natural born USC, that he's a hardest left US politician there is or has ever been (strange when his cabinet and most of his decisions so far - would be best described as centrist in outlook).

[nowhereman 1]

Certainly there were conspiracists (after all wasn't the Bush administration supposedly responsible for 9/11?).

But perhaps you haven't been paying attention over the last few months - I seem to remember reading claims that Obama was some sort of Muslim fundamentalist Manchurian Candidate, that he isn't a natural born USC, that he's a hardest left US politician there is or has ever been (strange when his cabinet and most of his decisions so far - would be best described as centrist in outlook).

Well according to the right it's OK to make up ridiculous stuff like this about Obama, but it was liberal nonsense when the same tactics were applied to Bush. As for the Bush conspiracies the only one I hold as true (and it's not really a conspiracy) is that he used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq (and as I stated earlier even Cheney now admits there was no credible link between the two).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well there's a difference (slight as it may seem) between a reasonable supposition and a gigantic leap of faith.

[Peikko 1,575]

Funny, this sound just like a few people here that cling to the idea of man made global warming.

These sum up a few here:

1. Arrogance. Oh man, they have this in spades.

2. Relentlessness. Whenever the subject is brought up those that claim to be experts gang up and beat any opposition down.

3. Inability to answer questions. Like, why isn't it getting warmer over the last 10 years?

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. "Consensus" anyone?

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Despite glaring evidence that they are wrong they still think they are right.

7. Inability to withdraw. Not until glaciers cover LA will they withdraw.

*Ahem*

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

An inconvenient truth for Gary.

I actually find this sad, not funny. People who under normal circumstances display excellent judgment can get sucked into these ludicrous positions of arguing black is white. I am not sure of the motivation. It appears as though with GW it's an ideological one, the idea that GW is being used as a ruse to stop people from using perfectly viable energy forms. That's such an odd notion, particularly when the industries that extract, distribute or otherwise rely on these energies are themselves actively engaged in finding alternatives. Of course they are not solely doing so because of the problems associated with GW, but they do take this on board.

[HAL 9000 96]

funny you couldn't dig this out when bush was in office.

The Bush administration was a classic example of groupthink... not conspiracy theorists. Similar in some ways but not the same.

Eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. Example: The first 3 yrs of the Iraq War.

2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions. Example: Dismissing most of the findings of the Baker study.

3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Examples: Numerous statements made by Bush essentially ignoring critics (and worse yet ignoring the will of the majority)

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. Example: "Liberal" bashing

5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty". Example: I have absolutely no doubt that Cheney did this consistently behind closed doors.

6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. Example: Powell was treated like a leper because he didn't always agree with the Bush cronies.

7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. (probably part of Cheney's job description).

9/11 was all about Group think?

Cheney and Hali-burt were just group think?

All that Iraq oil Bush was setting his "oil buddies" up with was really group think?

Howz about Ole Bush using hurricane Katrina to blow a hole in the earthen wall to flood New Orleans, was that only group think?

You guys are too much,

Danno you think you are making fun of my point of view, but in actuality you are just reinforcing it. You entire position is built on rhetoric & nonsense. Let me give you a few examples:

1. Cheney himself recently admitted there was no credible link between 9/11 and Iraq.

2. Millions (if not billions) of dollars that went to Haliburton & their subsidaries (like KBR) are unaccounted for to this day. This isn't "liberal" fiction as I'm sure you will contend but hard factual information.

3. I never said Bush invaded Iraq for the oil... from what I gather he did it to establish a strategic foothold in the middle east & 9/11 was the perfect cover (or so he thought) to use as a reason.

4. Katrina was screwed up from the federal level down to the local level... Bush was partially to blame but the blame was far from his alone.

Next time go a little heavier on the facts & ease off on the rhetoric.

That reply was so lame, I will let it stand without correction except to note, my points of the endless conspiracies concerning Bush are from the left in general and not you specific.

Translation: You know what I stated is true, so you call it "lame". At least you didn't resort to nonsensical rhetoric so I guess that's a step up for you.

Was... that... Dannologic at work again?

We need mawilson to catalogue and update the 'Greatest Hits' thread series in his honor.

Isn't "Dannologic" an oxymoron?

In more ways than one, officer nowhere.

[Danno 1,228]

Certainly there were conspiracists (after all wasn't the Bush administration supposedly responsible for 9/11?).

But perhaps you haven't been paying attention over the last few months - I seem to remember reading claims that Obama was some sort of Muslim fundamentalist Manchurian Candidate, that he isn't a natural born USC, that he's a hardest left US politician there is or has ever been (strange when his cabinet and most of his decisions so far - would be best described as centrist in outlook).

Well according to the right it's OK to make up ridiculous stuff like this about Obama, but it was liberal nonsense when the same tactics were applied to Bush. As for the Bush conspiracies the only one I hold as true (and it's not really a conspiracy) is that he used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq (and as I stated earlier even Cheney now admits there was no credible link between the two).

This charge that Bush blamed Iraq and in fact used this as the launching pad to invade Iraq has been so popular there must be truth to it right?

I mean you even believe it.

Why is it I don't recall even one time Bush blaming Sadam for 9/11.

The only thing I can recall is him claiming Sadam had WMD's, (which is a different thing altogether).

I have asked people to link me to this footage and I still have not seen it.

They put of clips of Cheney or others but please show me a few of the clips where Bush blames Sadam for 9/11.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you read what I wrote and followed the links I posted (the one from the other week where cheney conceded there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq you would have your answer.

The other answer Danno, is that you just aren't very well informed, that's why you aren't aware of these things.

[NickD 203]

Who really killed JFK and the events leading up to 9/11 are still valid questions. The doubling of our police force where you can get a ticket for sneezing and those long long waits at the airport.

Is it right to suspect those that benefited from this stuff? JFK gave LBJ absolute power as giving GWB the same with 9/11. The energy crisis is already 35 years old and has been a constant problem ever since, the average CAFE fuel consumption today is worse now than in the 80's. Throw in the financial crisis of late last year, suddenly the bubble was popped, but still getting worse from the latest newscast. Heard a guy talking yesterday that Wal-Mart is based on cheap gas with plans last year of even widening the Panama Canal even more to handle super huge container ships. He reported that Wal-Mart had to shut down over a thousand stores these last few months.

Price of gas rose to 3 bucks a gallon three weeks before and during the 4th, see it's back down to 2.40 a gallon this morning, is the energy market that volatile or are we getting screwed? Learned last week, I better add 60 bucks a month to my account to pay for property taxes, if that is not paid, will find myself out in the street. One part of government is trying to give us a couple of extra bucks, another part is taking more of that back.

Heard this morning that the health insurance companies are spending 1.4 million bucks a day to lobby congress, but they never said who is pocketing that money, but certainly not hard to guess who. Sure isn't us. 1.4 million divided by 435 is about $3,300 bucks for each a day, but forget about the little guys, the big ones with the big mouths must be getting a much larger share. That would be like $30,000 for each of those per day.

Conspiracy? No such thing, we only have representatives of the people, read the US Constitution.

[nowhereman 1]

Certainly there were conspiracists (after all wasn't the Bush administration supposedly responsible for 9/11?).

But perhaps you haven't been paying attention over the last few months - I seem to remember reading claims that Obama was some sort of Muslim fundamentalist Manchurian Candidate, that he isn't a natural born USC, that he's a hardest left US politician there is or has ever been (strange when his cabinet and most of his decisions so far - would be best described as centrist in outlook).

Well according to the right it's OK to make up ridiculous stuff like this about Obama, but it was liberal nonsense when the same tactics were applied to Bush. As for the Bush conspiracies the only one I hold as true (and it's not really a conspiracy) is that he used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq (and as I stated earlier even Cheney now admits there was no credible link between the two).

This charge that Bush blamed Iraq and in fact used this as the launching pad to invade Iraq has been so popular there must be truth to it right?

I mean you even believe it.

Why is it I don't recall even one time Bush blaming Sadam for 9/11.

The only thing I can recall is him claiming Sadam had WMD's, (which is a different thing altogether).

I have asked people to link me to this footage and I still have not seen it.

They put of clips of Cheney or others but please show me a few of the clips where Bush blames Sadam for 9/11.

Danno now you are just being silly. If Cheney made the link then the Bush administration owned it... I don't recall if Bush himself linked Saddam & 9/11 but if his VP did it's pretty much the same thing. Now if Bush specifically said Cheney was full of ####### then that would be different, but I don't recall him ever saying that.

[GaryC 7]

Funny, this sound just like a few people here that cling to the idea of man made global warming.

These sum up a few here:

1. Arrogance. Oh man, they have this in spades.

2. Relentlessness. Whenever the subject is brought up those that claim to be experts gang up and beat any opposition down.

3. Inability to answer questions. Like, why isn't it getting warmer over the last 10 years?

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. "Consensus" anyone?

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Despite glaring evidence that they are wrong they still think they are right.

7. Inability to withdraw. Not until glaciers cover LA will they withdraw.

*Ahem*

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

An inconvenient truth for Gary.

Inconvenient for you also. Look how many peer reviewed studies you just dissmiss because you don't like them.