Sandy Hook "truthers" vandalize memorial

[speakhandsforme]

Well how would you really know what a conclusion was based on? Out of context it won't make any sense lot of the time.

It could be based on thousands of man hours of investigation but that wouldn't be apparent on the surface.

Then I suppose you get not so bright people, who present someone else's work on a subject and make it look bad.

At the end of the day, it takes work. Most people will probably just label someone and be done with it

You're describing a very small minority. But even those who commit themselves to doing the research do so with a very limited scope of understanding, finding things which the research methodology intended to find. That's the thing that many CTers have a hard time understanding: you can find claims to support just about any argument if you're willing to ignore counterclaims.

The people who are especially ridiculed are those that, either through their own findings or through the five-minute viewing of a YouTube video, jump to a ridiculous conclusion based on some obscure facts which seem to obstruct proving the EXACT opposite of said conclusion.

Like a person who says "man, that time of entry really doesn't fit the time frame of the police response" and then uses that curious finding to say definitively "that Sandy Hook murders didn't happen!"

 

[drstrangelov]

I feel like the whole government conspiracy angle can sort of be traced to gullibility and foolish need to be validated as "in the know." I sort of get how that can infect a relatively normal person. Big power, nefarious secret meetings, there's a simple narrative appeal there.

The whole "nothing happened, everyone is an actor playing a role" thing strikes me as more like evidence of some kind of psychiatric issue. It reminds of the car salesman character in Breakfast of Champions who flips an starts seeing everyone as a machine, existing to serve some specific function his world. Once you start denying basic independent existence of others, there's no limit to what you can reconcile as real or true.

 

[IDL]

You're describing a very small minority. But even those who commit themselves to doing the research do so with a very limited scope of understanding, finding things which the research methodology intended to find. That's the thing that many CTers have a hard time understanding: you can find claims to support just about any argument if you're willing to ignore counterclaims.

The people who are especially ridiculed are those that, either through their own findings or through the five-minute viewing of a YouTube video, jump to a ridiculous conclusion based on some obscure facts which seem to obstruct proving the EXACT opposite of said conclusion.

Like a person who says "man, that time of entry really doesn't fit the time frame of the police response" and then uses that curious finding to say definitively "that Sandy Hook murders didn't happen!"

Certainly, there are people that believe anything once they are in a certain frame of mind. That applies to the population at large.

The presence of such people discredit things they are associated with which is where the labeling comes in.

Some people discredit 'left wingers' or 'right wingers' in the same manner though forgetting that it encompasses millions of people with diverse opinions and varying degrees of intelligence. It's tempting to do.

If someone came to any sort of conclusion based on a 5 minute YouTube video, or some bite sized piece of evidence then I'd agree they were not bright. Problem is how to know if that is all they based it on.

 

[Madmick]

I'll defend the concept of grassroots investigating of government.

I'm fine with that; just don't imply that "grassroots investigating" seated in a socially critical nature is inherently aligned with conspiracy theories. It's not. There's plenty of unattached reporters who criticize the government and try to shed light on stories of importance. The difference between this group and the CT group:

1. the ability to rationally assess likelihood instead of feeding a confirmation bias.
2. beating the pavement. I've noticed CTers tend to do all their "investigating" from a computer console.
3. typically the hard-hitting stories they write are boring because...government is boring. And that's the primary reason people aren't reading, not because some world-controlling cabal is suppressing the information. CTers, you notice, always gravitate towards the most sensationalist, salacious narrative.
4. they're not irrationally paranoid
5. intelligence. Maybe the biggest one. CTers, on this board and elsewhere on the internet, as a group, strongly tend to be among the least educated and least intelligent as far as casual political theorists go. Notice how quickly FSU distanced itself from its professor? Can you guess why? It's a gesture to other intelligent people. "Uh, we're sorry, we have no idea how someone this dumb managed to procure tenure at our university. We are embarrassed. Our sympathies to the grieving."

 

[Lead]

I'm fine with that; just don't imply that "grassroots investigating" seated in a socially critical nature is inherently aligned with conspiracy theories. It's not. There's plenty of unattached reporters who criticize the government and try to shed light on stories of importance. The difference between this group and the CT group:

1. the ability to rationally assess likelihood instead of feeding a confirmation bias.
   [*]beating the pavement. I've noticed CTers tend to do all their "investigating" from a computer console.
2. typically the hard-hitting stories they write are boring because...government is boring. And that's the primary reason people aren't reading, not because some world-controlling cabal is suppressing the information. CTers, you notice, always gravitate towards the most sensationalist, salacious narrative.
3. they're not irrationally paranoid
4. intelligence. Maybe the biggest one. CTers, on this board and elsewhere on the internet, as a group, strongly tend to be among the least educated and least intelligent as far as casual political theorists go. Notice how quickly FSU distanced itself from its professor? Can you guess why? It's a gesture to other intelligent people. "Uh, we're sorry, we have no idea how someone this dumb managed to procure tenure at our university. We are embarrassed. Our sympathies to the grieving."

This is how some could actually believe no one died and everyone there were actors. I wish a CT would've came up about the recent student stabbing at a highschool cause I actually know someone who was there.

 

[IDL]

I'm fine with that; just don't imply that "grassroots investigating" seated in a socially critical nature is inherently aligned with conspiracy theories. It's not. There's plenty of unattached reporters who criticize the government and try to shed light on stories of importance. The difference between this group and the CT group:

1. the ability to rationally assess likelihood instead of feeding a confirmation bias.
2. beating the pavement. I've noticed CTers tend to do all their "investigating" from a computer console.
3. typically the hard-hitting stories they write are boring because...government is boring. And that's the primary reason people aren't reading, not because some world-controlling cabal is suppressing the information. CTers, you notice, always gravitate towards the most sensationalist, salacious narrative.
4. they're not irrationally paranoid
5. intelligence. Maybe the biggest one. CTers, on this board and elsewhere on the internet, as a group, strongly tend to be among the least educated and least intelligent as far as casual political theorists go. Notice how quickly FSU distanced itself from its professor? Can you guess why? It's a gesture to other intelligent people. "Uh, we're sorry, we have no idea how someone this dumb managed to procure tenure at our university. We are embarrassed. Our sympathies to the grieving."

It really is grassroots investigation. It's basically a no holds barred investigation methodology. Reporters working for licensed establishments have to work within a tight framework of what is acceptable to the establishment and society at large. People get ostracized for unpopular ideas in our society.

I don't know what you are basing that on, but in my experience it really isn't true.

There are a lot of extremely intelligent people that you are lumping in there.

 

[Madmick]

There are a lot of extremely intelligent people that you are lumping in there.

No, there's really not. I'm sure there's a small amount of "extremely intelligent" people who entertain CT's, most likely due to mental illness, but I specifically drew attention to the fact that I was generalizing, and the generalization is accurate. Here's one of the only solid studies on the subject:
http://political-science.uchicago.e...er Wood Conspiracy Theories Working Paper.pdf

There was a direct and negative correlation found between the level of education and the likelihood one was to believe in the 9/11 CT. In other words, the less educated are more likely to be truthers.

 

[IDL]

No, there's really not. I'm sure there's a small amount of "extremely intelligent" people who entertain CT's, most likely due to mental illness, but I specifically drew attention to the fact that I was generalizing, and the generalization is accurate. Howard Hawks is an example of someone who is mentally unhinged that was also incredibly intelligent and capable.

Here's one of the only solid studies on the subject:
http://political-science.uchicago.e...er Wood Conspiracy Theories Working Paper.pdf

There was a direct and negative correlation found between the level of education and the likelihood one was to believe in the 9/11 CT. In other words, the less educated are more likely to be truthers.

Yes, there really is. I used to think the same way as you but it's based on preconceived notions and not reality.

mental illness, nuts, crazies, low education, etc. Says who? People will believe anything coming from authority, weather that be a funded paper or something on television.

The only way to know is to search for yourself, with no preconceived notions.

The majority of people vastly underestimate how effective propaganda is these days.

 

[Madmick]

Yes, there really is. I used to think the same way as you but it's based on preconceived notions and not reality.

mental illness, nuts, crazies, low education, etc. Says who? People will believe anything coming from authority, weather that be a funded paper or something on television.

The only way to know is to search for yourself, with no preconceived notions.

The majority of people vastly underestimate how effective propaganda is these days.

And there it is. The vast chasm between you and me. You're presented with evidence that you don't like, so you deny its validity. The University of Chicago isn't good enough. Too mainstream. Can't be trusted.

 

[Lead]

Yes, there really is. I used to think the same way as you but it's based on preconceived notions and not reality.

mental illness, nuts, crazies, low education, etc. Says who? People will believe anything coming from authority, weather that be a funded paper or something on television.

The only way to know is to search for yourself, with no preconceived notions.

The majority of people vastly underestimate how effective propaganda is these days.

Dude, just go on facebook after Sandy Hook. All the people who actually posted a CT video with "OMG NO WAY!" were already seen as pretty uneducated to me before so. I didn't see one bright or successful fb friend post it and at most would see a condolences status for the families

 

[Jukai]

Yes, there really is. I used to think the same way as you but it's based on preconceived notions and not reality.

mental illness, nuts, crazies, low education, etc. Says who? People will believe anything coming from authority, weather that be a funded paper or something on television.

The only way to know is to search for yourself, with no preconceived notions.

The majority of people vastly underestimate how effective propaganda is these days.

So because the people who actually have studied this stuff are a form of authority, we should believe people who have no form of knowledge on the subject.

IDL, everyone, IDL!

 

[Lead]

And there it is. The vast chasm between you and me. You're presented with evidence that you don't like, so you deny its validity. The University of Chicago isn't good enough. Too mainstream. Can't be trusted.

When you consider the scale of what CTers bring their theories too, you realize they somehow believe the majority are somehow on the inside of it. I mean, it's almost like the people who say the NFL is rigged. If you took 5 minutes to consider the number of players on each team that cycle through each year as well as coaches and staff, it would be impossible to keep it all hush hush.

The same is true with Sandy Hook. You really think something like that wouldn't get leaked at all? You think people couldn't easily find these "crisis actors" don't live around the area and all leave after the event?

 

[IDL]

And there it is. The vast chasm between you and me. You're presented with evidence that you don't like, so you deny its validity. The University of Chicago isn't good enough. Too mainstream. Can't be trusted.

I know lots of things, and one of them is the degree of intelligence that goes into a lot of research that average people write off as crazy. I can say that, because I've examined a lot of it and I have done plenty of my own.

I also know that the government has the motive and means to steer people away from it.

It's a game, in a sense. Same game that has always existed between the ruling class and the common class. The common class is always left in the dark, and is kept in line using every tool in the toolbox. In this day and age, that toolbox is extremely sophisticated and diverse.

It's understanding the nature of that game that is basically the prerequisite to even entertaining a lot of seemingly crazy ideas.

 

[Lead]

So because the people who actually have studied this stuff are a form of authority, we should believe people who have no form of knowledge on the subject.

IDL, everyone, IDL!

The less you know, the more you believe!

 

[IDL]

When you consider the scale of what CTers bring their theories too, you realize they somehow believe the majority are somehow on the inside of it. I mean, it's almost like the people who say the NFL is rigged. If you took 5 minutes to consider the number of players on each team that cycle through each year as well as coaches and staff, it would be impossible to keep it all hush hush.

The same is true with Sandy Hook. You really think something like that wouldn't get leaked at all? You think people couldn't easily find these "crisis actors" don't live around the area and all leave after the event?

A lot of them are built on a lot of foundational knowledge.

I can't comment on Sandy hook, but in general. Most people think "I can't see how that could work, so it must not be true" or "If that was true, someone would tell me"

Our entire governing system is built around the few governing the many. Think military.. Once you know how control structures work it's easier to see how people at the top of the structure can do things without most participants being aware of it.

 

[Lead]

I know lots of things, and one of them is the degree of intelligence that goes into a lot of research that average people write off as crazy. I can say that, because I've examined a lot of it and I have done plenty of my own.

I also know that the government has the motive and means to steer people away from it.

It's a game, in a sense. Same game that has always existed between the ruling class and the common class. The common class is always left in the dark, and is kept in line using every tool in the toolbox. In this day and age, that toolbox is extremely sophisticated and diverse.

It's understanding the nature of that game that is basically the prerequisite to even entertaining a lot of seemingly crazy ideas.

The problem with that is it becomes far to structured. Yes, I agree there are powerful people out there who do bad things. However, you forget there are many, many powerful forces in the world, all with their own objectives and agenda which makes it much harder for these seemingly simplistic New World Order government controlling the masses idea seem silly.

Are powerful people trying to control the masses with a narrative? Sure. Just watch Fox News or MSNBC or look at the Koch brothers or George Soros. The thing is though that these people have very different ideas on what they want the masses to believe.

 

[IDL]

The less you know, the more you believe!

The more you know, the less you believe

 

[Lead]

The more you know, the less you believe

The problem between us is you and I wouldn't agree on what "knowing" is and what "believing" is.... and what "is" is

 

[Lead]

A lot of them are built on a lot of foundational knowledge.

I can't comment on Sandy hook, but in general. Most people think "I can't see how that could work, so it must not be true" or "If that was true, someone would tell me"

Our entire governing system is built around the few governing the many. Think military.. Once you know how control structures work it's easier to see how people at the top of the structure can do things without most participants being aware of it.

There are checks and balances to that however and also competing interests trying to attain that power. Our structure allows the ruling class to have to constantly struggle to get what they want. It's not a perfect system but it sure has empowered the common man compared to the times of a monarchy.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

The mere suggestion that the US Government, with all of its technology and unlimited resources would be able to stage a tragedy like this but a handful of "normal people" with computers and library cards could "totally expose the hoax" is completely laughable.

But I forgot, the liberal president wants to take your guns.