I am Proud of Being a Conspiracy Theorist

Of course i have.

Ive experienced it lots of times in here from the same few.

Are these beliefs harmful? Certain ones are.

For example, someone believes in Bigfoot, okay, it's not exactly harmful.

Unfortunately there are harmful beliefs. People harassing relatives of slain children. Historically, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Political stuff (e.g. the 2020 insurrection), medical disinformation where people avoid medical treatment and put their lives (and others) at risk.

So you want to harangue peoples beliefs then?

Do you think you can harangue people into changing their beliefs? Or you just enjoy haranguing people in the CT forum?

Of course some beliefs cross a line, but where do you draw your line?

You seem to take umbrage with ALL theories in here, not just the Anti semitic or harassing the relativies of slain children (???) ...

But whats harmful about Political views?? people are entitled/allowed to favour whatever side they feel like?

People can post their personal views if they like , i dont think you are the decider of what people should think.....

Which is as the OP had asked for in a different thread, that fortuitous synchronicity crossed with his starting this one. Not an insult, an answer to the OP.

It's killing 2 birds with one stone.

Narrative? What narrative? That the conspiracy hypothesists who frequent this corner of boards rarely present evidence? That when they do, they invariably either misrepresent it or misunderstand it?

Or that when a hypothesis is presented, they want to have a right to it's being treated as inviolate?

There's an obvious paradox that can be used as a "get out of asylum free" card by the "thought morphers", so in order to stay a few steps ahead, one needs to remain cognisant of the fact that a convincingly proven theory becomes fact.

Such cases exist - nicotine for instance, asbestos too perhaps, and a host of other substances like DDT as an example.

A "knowing denial" of the health risks incurred by a global product is obviously a conspiracy.

A simple defence to be used here, is the fact that the verb "conspire" has not been intentionally socially stigmatised to the extent that the word "conspiracy" has.

A certain type of individual will attempt to point out a contradiction above, but I'm anticipating them confusing "conspiracy" with "conspiracy theory" in order to do so.

See thats it.

A lot of people feel they have to follow other posters around in the CT forum and belittle their beliefs. What they tthink could be true, would could have happened.

But no. The fact finders demand answer NOW... and if they dont , theyll hold onto the questions they asked months ago (bit strange... 🤔) and they demand answers the next time they feel like demanding a reply.....

"Killing 2 birds with 1 stone" - is that what its about for you?

And has anyone actually ever killed 2 birds with one stone? Or is that another Con Theory ?

Indeed, but remember this is what most conspiracy theorists say, whether it's Alex Jones, a flat-earther, someone who believes people are lizards, they say they are "just questioning things"

But many don't like when their conspiracies are questioned. Some go to great lengths to avoid that happening.

What WEF stuff?

Poor auld galileo. Mad stuff he came up with.

I agree proof is required and not mad nonsense, but people should be allowed bring their thoughts out and open to honest discourse. Only see one side not being open and honest.

And?

🤔

you missed the 3rd one..... ??? 🤣 3) "what is mocked is someone" .......

But perhaps you answered it in your reply to

Mock the post ? or Mock the poster?

You just said ""Mock the poster's abject failure at defending/explaining/outlining their beliefs".

So if a person that posts in CT forum , decides that he doesnt want to/shouldnt have to defend/explain/outline their beliefs , you will mock the poster?

Or if theres 'abject failure' to do so, you will also mock the poster ? You do realise thats not really supposed to happen?

I doubt youd do that in 'real life' / face to face ....

Also, just on the "abject failure to defend/explain/outline their belief" who decides that its a fail? Who decides that the posse of followers should then "Mock the poster" ?

You also said -

"I fully reserve the right to mock and belittle anyone who does the above. For the sake of clarity, I'm not mocking their BELIEFS, I'm mocking their dishonest METHODS of defending or promoting those beliefs. There is a difference between the two, a huge difference.

WOW -

I think you should really think about how you , and your cohort of friends , go about things online.

"If you don't want to be taken to task for talking sh1te, then the answer is to stop talking sh1te, not banning everyone who says "he's talking sh1te"."

Once again , you feel you are 'entitled' to "take people to task" for posting their opinion - Its not your job kid.

If we are talking $hite Shifty, why keep coming back? Is it a civic duty for you?

"Leaving it unchallenged" - A bit like a moral guardian , protecting the narrative, and the truth- Like a Superhero , if you will.

Very noble of you and the rest of the (why cant we) Get Along Gang ....... Beautiful.

See , you say that. But the rest of your posts are a giveaway to your true intentions........

Mocking posters, belittling them .$hite , crap ....

You just mentioned all those while saying people have to explain themselves or else face the wrath of the Gatekeeping Get Along gang....

Sounds great.......