Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

For a start, your question on the Ray D'arcy thread is not a genuine question. You are not looking to foster debate or gain any actual information, you are essentially just saying to people "If you don't like it, then switch it off" which isn't the point of the thread. It's perfectly reasonable to want to discuss things whether you like them or not. So what you present here is not the same thing in any way.

Secondly if you went to the EV forum and said that they are not that good for the environment, then it would be within the rights of the posters there to ask you to back up your claims. In this case, I would imagine you would have many points to make to back up your claim and that would be fine. That's the very definition of discussion.

Let me ask you a question on your points if that's ok?

If someone started a thread on the EV forum saying that EVs had absolutely zero impact on the environment, that the manufacturing of, say, the tyres was actually net zero and, in fact, their particular model didn't even cause wear and tear on the roads because it could fly and whilst it flew it spewed out pure oxygen............ do you think it would be ok for them to be able to block you from asking them any questions at all? Do you think it would be reasonable for them to put this forward and not allow any dissenting voice in any way and present this as truth?

But ye won’t discuss anything. One of the CT’ists even thinks they discussion is ‘creepy’. CT’ists posting and then point blank refusing to discussion on a discussion board could also be seen as trolling and should in reality get their threads closed down.

if you think theories are not based on facts you don't understand what a theory is.

But there's a difference between what you're describing on other fora and what's going on over in CT.

If I was in the soccer forum and I said that Italy winning Euro 2020 was all pre-planned, that certain teams threw games, that Bukayo Saka missed his penalty intentionally and even Christian Eriksen was faking his injury because it played a part in this conspiracy........... I would expect to be asked questions to back myself up.

If I refused to engage and just glossed over or completely ignored these questions, I would expect the same questions to be asked again. After all, I haven't answered them and that information hasn't been presented by me yet. I am the claim.

This is not the same as constantly asking people "Why don't you just turn your radio off?"

Ok. So it looks like we're back to the idea that all conspiracy theories are just makey uppy fantasy again...

But your analogy doesn't really hold. Conspiracy theorists often claim that their theories are fact and that they are supported by facts. The forum is filled with people making statements of fact that they believe supports their beliefs.

One recent example is was that a poster claimed that 1000 American POWs were killed by the bomb on Nagasaki and that this was evidence that America was evil or some such.

Now is it unfair to ask him to back up this claim that 1000 American POWs were killed? Is it unfair to point out all the other evidence that was easily found that showed the true number was 8?

What happened was people pointed out this to him, then asked if he had any evidence to support that claim. Is this an unreasonable thing to do?

Is it then reasonable that he proceded to just ignore those points and requests?

Another example is when one poster claimed all space missions were faked and that the evidence for this was that all the images were obviously faked.

What else can people do to continue that discussion other than ask how he knows those images are faked?

Translation:

A forum actually allows people to question the positions we are putting forward.

We don't want that. We want to be able to present things as fact even though we can't back anything up with actual proof, evidence or anything like it.

So I propose a safe-space where we can all echo one another's sentiments but keep out the bad men who wish to engage us in discussion. How are we to create a collective delusion if people keep pointing out that what we're putting forward is false?

Lets say the people complaining get what they want and no one is allowed to ask for evidence or asked why someone believes something.

What discussion would actually take place?

Conspiracy theorists won't talk to each other as most don't actually share any of the same conspiracy theories. And even if they do, they are of varying levels of "daft."

As we've seen on this thread, they won't even acknowledge the existance of a theory posted on the forum they know is ridiculous.

So a conspiracy theorist posts a thread about their theory and dumps a ton of links to various videos and blogs etc. Skeptics can't respond because they aren't allowed to engage in a discussion. At best they could only point out what is wrong with the conspiracy, but then the theorist would just ignore the points or claim that the skeptic is misrepresenting their postion. No clarification can be asked for, because that would require asking questions. So discussion killed.

Conspiracy theorists won't join the thread as again, they can't disagree or ask questions and most will just "see that the theory is obviously invalid" as has been claimed.

So discussion killed again.

So basically it would reduce the forum to literally a dumping ground for misinformation that no one is allowed able or willing challenge.

And maybe updates about the Conspiracy Guys podcast.

No, that's his opinion on the people who posted in the CT forums saying that the vaccine was created by Gates, that it had microchips/nano tech in it, that 5G would set said chips/tech off, that Gates was the anti christ, that a satanic cabal led by Gates was trying to kill off/sterilise the world's population, and thats just a few of the out there theories that were posted.

Theories that certain people now want to have in the CT forum without anyone questioning said claims.

Great response. You do know on the old site all you had to do was click on a username and it would tell you how many posts that person had in a particular forum? Literally two clicks

Care to actually answer any of my questions? I'm actually on the side of the 'realists' for want of a better term. Mad theories should absolutely have something to back it up or else they have no place being on a rational discussion board. I'm just still at a loss as to what drives some posters to rehash the same argument with a new 'crackpot' day after day, popping up almost as if they have a scraper which alerts them anytime any of a series of buzzwords are mentioned on the site. I'm on a Man United forum and have defended the goalkeeper a few times. I don't tend to go on each and every day and start the same argument with every single poster who calls for him to be dropped. I'm actually interested in what's the answer here

The forum doesn't work in its current guise. Il give an example. Say people posts diets and nutrition etc on the fitness or food board, and after every new post one of a small few regular posters comes in and tells them the nutrition is wrong for x or y reason and they should change to Z. Over and over again month after month. Nobody questions them because clearly they've spent years talking about this topic and know way more than the average Joe. You'd come away saying two things, 1. That forum isn't worth reading anymore, it's always the same thing, and 2. Why do those people care so much to go on and put every single person right repeatedly, always creating an echo chamber

how did the Christianity forum deal with the issue of 'sceptics' coming in and threadspoiling, maybe something similar could be tried?

What is going on here is actually effective way on how to deal with dissent or simply anyone opposing or questioning current narrative. If you do not agree with something which is currently "in" then you are swiftly sent to CT forum. Something like "this belong to CT and take it there or be banned".

Any poor sod who follow marching orders will finds itself being questioned by the same little merry band of brothers whose only qualification is that they post mostly the same vague general questions over and over again. Be persistent few more years and you may become household name, sort of an expert of nothing.

All you need to do is to ask vague question in a way that no matter what answer come you can still claim "you do not answer my question" And then press on with the same till the OP is gone. Do it few times for a few years and voila, you become resident "expert".

So now we're getting a bit of contradiction.

This entire thread conspiracy theorists have been claiming that their theories need to be sheltered from scrutiny because they are "just theories" or "just for fun" and that it isn't fair to expect them to be held to the standards of other claims and opinions.

Now you're saying that all the conspiracies are true and important, but they are being oppressed to protect some narrative. And in the course of this, they are being sent to a place with lower standards against the will of the theorists.

You seem to be saying that the conspiracy theories should be considered seriously and be allowed to be posted in other sections of the site like CA.

This doesn't make sense.

If that happens, conspiracy theories will still be subjected to the same kind of questions and scrutiny people are complaining about. You will still be asked for evidence and to explain your claims. And when you aren't able to answer those questions, you will not be taken seriously, even if you were in the first place.

If this is what you want, what's the problem with the forum then?

You are saying that you don't mind these difficult questions when the conspiracy theories are out in CA etc, but then they need protection in their own safe space as well. Why would they need that?

So guys which is it? Are conspiracy theories real valid opinions that should be discussed at big boy tables with all the scrunity and questioning you are complaining about? Or are conspiracy theories special fragile things akin to religious belief or fantasy stories and need to be protected?

It can't be both.

The positions being expressed here however seem to be claiming it's both. Conspiracy theories are important valid worldviews, but also they can't be questioned or doubted.

It's a conspiracy theory forum, but many posters can't address the question "what is the conspiracy theory?". They struggle to give details because they typically don't have any. The conspiracy or "inside job" is often based on denial of an event and/or a personal belief. As such they see basic questions as an "attack" on that belief and posters asking questions as the "enemy". Which is why they refer to them as "shills", "trolls", etc on a regular basis. They avoid questioning because it can expose their beliefs or views as faulty.

It's completely self-evident on the forum, anyone can go and point to this.

Normal discussions have questions, but since questions are so threatening to people's beliefs, they see themselves and paint themselves as victims of them, and we see that going on in here.

If I have a conspiracy, I present it, give whatever details I have, if I can answer a question I do, if I can't, then I don't. It's my conspiracy and it's up to me to demonstrate it to others. It's a discussion forum, it would be utterly bizarre if I thought they have no right to question it, even worse if I thought creating an echo chamber was the best solution to shield my views