JADE HELM 15

Post Reply New Topic

Wrong.

The Dividing Line between Rational Skepticism and Conspiracy theory:

So given what I have stated, it might be apparent that this dividing line, in some way, exists. That Chomsky and Zinn are able to intellectually approach a controversial topic and provide valid reasons for our introspection is testament to the idea that rational skepticism is a reasonable approach. Moreover, that conspiracy theorists reject this approach in favor of unreasoned, ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories is testament to the fact that people still want to believe in the invisible enemy. However, there is a reason that people like Zinn and Chomsky have difficulty with mass appeal outside of academia and its small umbrella of overlap in mainstream culture.

Conspiracy theorists ruin the whole game for great academics like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Radio hosts like Alex Jones who prop up wild theories of false flag attacks effectively make the public uneasy about trusting people who take the more nuanced approach toward investigating the ills of the world. Nuance and cogency are rendered obsolete when people like Alex Jones are allowed to openly state that the United States intentionally kills its own citizens so that it can begin to rile the dogs of war. Nuance and cogency are replaced by scaremongering and unsoundness.

So where we draw the line between rational skepticism and conspiracy theory has to be based on how blunt one's approach is. Where Zinn and Chomsky tear down the illusion of a beautiful America attempting to help the world using big words and fancy writing, Alex Jones has the openness and blunt prose which is more effective. Rhetoric beats prose every time. So after the first line of information (bought and paid for in our corporate democracy) passes to the public, the next step is to look to what the "real news" is. What aren't they telling us about X? And doesn't it just seem more obvious that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration in order to rile up the dogs of war and set us on a path to Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, no. That's not rational. But, what if the 9/11 terror attacks were retribution for decades long imperialist foreign policy by the United States and its allies? Well that seems to make more sense.

So what this all comes down to is this: A conspiracy theory is an irrational, instinctual thought process which puts to the fore the greatest fears in our minds. The conspiracy theorist is deluded into believing that the fear they feel is the fear everyone else feels, and they find avenues of opening up the dark recesses of our minds to the "truth". The rational skeptic is that person who intellectually approaches a problem, investigates the problem rationally, deduces a conclusion, and affirms or rejects the hypothesis. The skeptic and the conspiracy theorist are, for all intents and purposes, in each others company, but the fine line that separates them is ultimately logic. They both hear hoofbeats, but only one thinks horses.

Source: http://observationdeck.kinja.com/the-fi ... 1607326065

I was actually starting to read your post with an open mind until I read this:

"ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories"

When that kind of talk starts, I shut down and the conversation goes no further. Learn how to debate respectfully.

I was actually starting to read your post with an open mind until I read this:

"ill-informed propagation of batshit insane theories"

When that kind of talk starts, I shut down and the conversation goes no further. Learn how to debate respectfully.

it was accurate, you didn't read far enough as it's referencing 9/11 trutherism.

Ban-Dodger, I have to let you know, you are incredibly handsome!

I think there's a very real sentiment that so many people have gone slack, are plugged into their iphones/ipods, and completely dead to work events that a lot of people either less included or actively excluded gasp at the sense that instituting a global totalitarian state right under these people's noses would be like taking candy from a baby. These same people are also use to the math that if it can happen, and if it's a temptation to someone to try, eventually someone will do it.
(snip)
I hate to say it but I might suggest a conspiracy of my own. I often wonder if some of the big names in conspiracy-study, particularly those really huge on the US being run by Illuminati witches and synarchs, aren't getting a healthy dose of funding from overseas. A particular guy I was listening to a fair deal really woke me up when he started drooling over Vladamir Putin the way Chris Matthews drooled over Obama and then even talking about how the whole NWO already owned all the fat, lazy, porned-addicted, permachild helpless dumb-undo-damnation wretches in the US, Europe, and in other places but that Putin was the last man fighting the Illuminati that it's the reason why the US and UN was after him. Him going on about gold and silver with his own brokerage was bad enough. Hearing him drone on about Putin pretty much clinched it and when I think of crazy, B-movie, Sky Captain type conspiracy plots I tend to think about how much pulp and reality-blending fiction Russia turns out these days.