Take the Wacco conspiracy quiz

[Scott McKeown]

Conspiracy Quiz

In just the last few months I've noticed quite a large number of conspiracy theories posted as truth on this Wacco forum. Most all of them are conspiracies claimed to be instigated by various powers-that-be (either local, national, or global) with the intention to control the population in some way, sometimes going so far as leading to mass detention in FEMA camps. I am sure there are many others I have missed, but below I have listed the conspiracies I have recently seen put forward as truth in this forum. Please take this short quiz to find out where you rank with conspiracies. Give yourself one point for each conspiracy you believe to be true. (Your results below)

• Fluoridated water
• Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
• Chemtrails
• Efren Carrillo getting a delayed hearing and receiving only a misdemeanor charge
• The drought
• Agenda 21
• Smart meters
• Vaccination
• Fukushima "coverup"
• 9/11
• JFK
• Global Warming
• Neighborhood Watch programs
• HAARP
• Pretty much everyone around you

Your results (in points):

• 13-15-- Raving Wacco
• 9-12 -- Okay, now get off the computer quickly before they track your results through their embedded wifi mind scans.
• 5-8 -- You sufficiently question authority (or suffer from paranoia, depending on one's point of view) to qualify as a true West County-ite able to post on this forum without being seriously challenged.
• 3-4 -- Are you sure you are even a member of this community?
• 0-2 -- You are no doubt part of the Shadow Government and one of those who are behind these conspiracies.

[Larry's suggestions below have been integrated and the scoring scale adjusted. - Barry]

[Larry Robinson]

How about:

- Agenda 21
- Global warming
- JFK

[Mudwoman]

I'm just shy of RAVING if one considers these issues 'bogus'...

OR ALERT-AWARE, able to see patterns-connections, willing to educate myself on 'real' facts/science behind the major media mind-numbing pablum, even if the knowledge is deeply disturbing-distressful.

It's a challenge to live life consciously, lovingly, and respectfully...and to continue to be pro-active and hopeful, the way things are now with massive cultural, ecological, and economic destruction all around.

Thanks for your poll and opening a forum for discussion.

Conspiracy Quiz

[Barry]

Fluoridated water

This may be an actual conspiracy to dispose of a toxic waste.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Nope. Just a roving loony.

Chemtrails

I can believe there are limited scale experiments happening with weather modification (cloud seeding, etc). But I don't think all the vapor trails you see are anything other than normal engine exhaust.

Efren Carrillo getting a delayed hearing and receiving only a misdemeanor charge

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a conspiracy, but I would say the Efren's high-powered lawyer is serving him well.

The drought

I think the conspiracy angle on this was about the lack of publicity around this situation. That seems to have changed.

Agenda 21

Nope, but I can understand how and why it drives the more paranoid and individualistic people crazy. Agenda 21 is just common sense policy so we avoid the tragedy of the commons.

Smart meters

Don't think they were intended for anything other than helping make our electrical distribution system more efficient. However they can be a large intrusion into privacy. I think the wi-fi concerns were helpful at first to be sure they are not emitting more signal than intended, as well as accuracy concerns. I think both concerns have been addressed and I would have no problem with having one.

Vaccination

I don't think this is a conspiracy, but I think the premise is somewhat outdated and the whole issue needs to be re-examined with modern science and a more holistic orientation.

Fukushima "coverup"
I could definitely believe we have not been told the full truth and it was a travesty to leave Tepco in charge for so long.

9/11

There's enough strangeness about the event to make me wonder.

JFK

Magic bullets are right up there with tooth fairies.

Global Warming
I think there is definitely a conspiracy of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) being perpetrated by the deniers and their financiers. Seems so silly though, because I have no doubt that there as much or as more money to be made by working to mitigate climate change. People (and apparently corporations and industries) hate change. So unfortunate.

Neighborhood Watch programs
Huh?

HAARP

I had to look this one up. I found a good article about it in Wired here. I'll add it to my reading pile

Pretty much everyone around you

Clearly!

So lets see... I get points for:

- Fluoridation
- Vaccination (sorta)
- Fukushima "coverup"
- 9/11
- JFK
- Global Warming (but opposite of the normal understanding)

So based on the (updated) scoring I get:

5-8 -- You sufficiently question authority (or suffer from paranoia, depending on one's point of view) to qualify as a true West County-ite able to post on this forum without being seriously challenged

Whew! I'd hate to not be able to post here!

Who's next?

[Scott McKeown]

Neighborhood Watch programs
Huh?

Barry,

Below was a posting on Wacco from earlier this year:

It's important to know that your local "Neighborhood Watch" groups are teaching these harassment tactics to your neighbors to create a destabilized community, and promote false community leaders that have ties to protected organized crime such as Drug Dealing and Human Trafficking! It's networked through your local community service organizations, churches, social clubs, etc...

Gang Stalking is stalking by more than one person to a victim, usually involving community harassment, or the "mob", using people from all backgrounds and vocations to harass, tracking 24/7, sometimes organizing lethal vehicle accidents, poisoinings, electronic harassment, home invasions/property destruction, corrupt or ignorant doctor diagnosis given to stamp the victim as bogus mentally ill with delusions, paranoia, or schizophrenia, etc. Everything is done covertly, and with a sophisticated real time dispatching system to organize the criminals' harassment and attacks, often in the hundreds to thousands of criminals participating as a coordinated mob at any given time while the criminals due their normal routines of work, shopping, commuting to and from work, leisure, etc., using the method of moving foot and vehicular surveillance techniques, and computers, cell phones, verbal and visual cues, and every other conceivable type of communication.

This posting confirms the Wacco conspiracy category of "Neighborhood Watch programs" while the long series of similar postings it came from (along with numerous responses of agreement and support by other folks on Wacco) confirms the conspiracy category of "Pretty much everyone around you".

Scott

[Dixon]

Fun quiz. I don't feel I can participate because it's not clear how many points I'd get for answers like "Haven't the foggiest" and "I'm leaning in this direction but am not remotely sure"--the only honest answers I could give to most of the questions. As usual, I wonder how many of those with strong opinions have investigated at least two sides to the controversy fairly deeply.

P.S. Don't be a conspiracy monger! Pay no attention to the persssissstent rumor that I'm an interdimensional reptilian overlord.

[sharingwisdom]

“The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized and made to seem as either a communist, a kook, some sort of disloyal person or a conspiracy theorist – Something that shouldn’t even be entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and have a plan. DOESN’T HAPPEN. You’re a kook and a conspiracy buff.”— George Carlin

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/14/whatabout7/
‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile –
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation: the CIA’s 44 year old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn out. In academic studies, as in comments on the news article, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous-and more rational than anti-conspiracy ones. No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

In the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press, Professor deHaven-Smith… explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.”

University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information –

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:

"If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur."

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. [called cognizant dissonance]

Conspiracy Quiz

In just the last few months I've noticed quite a large number of conspiracy theories posted as truth on this Wacco forum.

[sharingwisdom]

I'm just shy of RAVING if one considers these issues 'bogus'...

OR ALERT-AWARE, able to see patterns-connections, willing to educate myself on 'real' facts/science behind the major media mind-numbing pablum, even if the knowledge is deeply disturbing-distressful.

It's a challenge to live life consciously, lovingly, and respectfully...and to continue to be pro-active and hopeful, the way things are now with massive cultural, ecological, and economic destruction all around.

Thanks for your poll and opening a forum for discussion.

I'm with you, MW. I find that 'connecting-the-dots' by educating myself is so very important. Those who like to divert the issues to jabs and public ridicule if others have a different point of view instead of discussing the topic and sharing their sources, oftentimes have no inkling in what it takes to maturely converse or to know how to agree to disagree.

I find discernment is always essential, and the patterns for what some of this group want to label 'conspiracy theories' have been backed by scientists, independent researchers, whistleblowers, doctors, engineers, government officials, military officers and other professionals. And the same corporate or government connections and players that work to destabilize what is really going on show up over and over in what these people report.

I want to reintroduce my friend, Fred Burks' site www.wanttoknow.org Fred use to work for several Presidents and high world leaders as a top Indonesian translator up until 2004. He uses verifiable news articles that are in many censored media publications to make the connections. The information is there if people want to open their eyes and minds....but snubs or scuffs will not further the cause of peaceful negotiations or changes. It's a reenactment of just what our government does.

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see a brick wall at the back of the theater." Zappa

[Dixon]

Someone privately emailed me asking my opinion about this thread's list of "conspiracies". He wanted something a little more than my refusal to express a strong opinion due to my ignorance of the arguments pro and con. FWIW, here's what I wrote to him:

Fluoridated water
May very well be a conspiracy in the sense that people may be continuing fluoridation programs to make money even knowing that fluoridation is useless or even harmful (if indeed it is).

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
Seems unlikely to be a conspiracy.

Chemtrails
The pictures I've seen proffered as proof of conspiracy have looked like nothing unusual to me, so I'm skeptical. I understand that some cloud-seeding with different substances has been done for weather control purposes. I believe it's credibly reported that factions of the government have at times disseminated disease organisms in public places to test biological warfare, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the use of contrails in such enterprises occasionally.

Efren Carrillo getting a delayed hearing and receiving only a misdemeanor charge
Bigwigs (federal, state, local etc.) commonly get special treatment, so this one is plausible to me.

The drought
Whaaaa?

Agenda 21
From what little I know about it, it seems like climate change deniers' paranoid interpretations of environmental policies that are, at least arguably, reasonable.

Smart meters
Dunno. I have the impression that most (all?) perceived sensitivity to radiation is imaginary, but wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were some increased health problems associated with some wavelengths. Concerns about fire hazard may be reasonable.

Vaccination
If you mean thimerosal > autism, I think that's been fairly well debunked. Other concerns about vaccination I don't know about. Perhaps some vaccines are useless or dangerous but still used so someone can make money? Dunno.

Fukushima "coverup"
Money-making industries and their handmaidens in government always attempt to whitewash dangers or damages to the public, partly to limit legal liability and partly to secure the future of the industry. No doubt much of this could accurately be described as "conspiracy". But of course many claims about the seriousness of the contamination, as well as claims that the accident was done on purpose (!) seem to lack credibility.

9/11
Many aspects of this stink to high heaven. I suspect that factions of our government are involved, at least to the extent of knowing it was going to happen and allowing it. Benefits to them are obvious: an excuse for lucrative war-making, distracting people from domestic problems to focus on an alleged external threat, rationalizing erosion of civil rights such as habeas corpus, increasing surveillance and police and military presence in society, and possibly even destroying records of investigations into financial improprieties (including the Pentagon's missing trillions of dollars).

JFK
With anyone as influential as an American President, there are always powerful people who have the motivation and wherewithal to commit an assassination. I suspect a conspiracy in this case; I don't buy the "lone nut" story.

Global Warming
Seems unlikely to be fake.

Neighborhood Watch programs
To the extent that they may suppress harmless behavior like a little drug-dealing, they are oppressive, but I don't think the term "conspiracy" would apply. Mostly they seem like a good idea.

HAARP
Haven't heard enough pro and con to venture an opinion, though I've heard there's been pretty good evidence of sea creatures such as cetaceans being harmed/killed, no?

Pretty much everyone around you
For good evolutionary reasons, we have the capability and tendency to deceive, sometimes in very complicated ways. Advertising, propaganda, public relations, and the numerous West County snake-oil peddlers come to mind. Some of that could fit the definition of "conspiracy".

[Ted Pole]

Lack of verifiable evidence proves the conspiracy is working.

[jbox]

I find it quite interesting that conspiracy theories are for the most part embraced by the more extreme ends of the political spectrum. I also think if you were to diagram the political spectrum it would look like an omega shape, so the far left and the far right are kinda close to one another. Just sayin.......

P.S. We haven't heard from wacco's own Director of Conspiracy Theories yet. What's up with that?

[theindependenteye]

Like Dixon, I'm of mixed minds about some of these, think others are far-fetched, others quite likely. But I have to admit that I simply don't KNOW anything for a fact. "Connecting the dots" is a valid tool up to a point, but the fact that we connect a bunch of dots of light into Orion, the Big Dipper, and Casseopeia doesn't mean that those beings actually exist or have anything whatever to do with one another.

"Follow the money" is certainly a valid tool as well. But it seems there must be a small distinction between making money from research to find a cure for AIDS and being responsible for (a) inducing panic about AIDS or (b) causing AIDS in order to make money on it.

I'm only moved to write because of these quotes:

>>>University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong confirmation bias - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the conspiracy theory label) to avoid conflicting information.
>>>The extreme irrationality of those who attack conspiracy theories has been ably exposed by ...

I think that's absolutely true. But I would ask whether "strong confirmation bias" is equally true of people promoting such theories. I don't believe one side of these arguments is any less immune to fierce addiction to its world-view than the other. I would ask a rude question: Is there anything that would sway you from your belief in (name the idea)? Any way for contrary evidence not to be seen as tainted?

Tad's jocular note (I assume it's jocular) — "Lack of verifiable evidence proves the conspiracy is working" — is in fact a rephrasing of the report a general made in WW2 about West Coast Japanese sabotage: its absence proves the danger. That resulted in the concentration camps.

I realize that no one here has any lack of evidence for their beliefs, maybe dozens of Web postings, videos, citations, etc. But I have yet to see much, if any, collaborative exploration of any of these. It's "This is the truth, Buster, and you better believe it!" Not my kinda party.

Hope this isn't offensive enough to warrant a counterattack, but as you will. Just sharing my own perspective, as the conspiracies start to make me go numb.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[gardenmaniac]

or as Carl Sagen said, "Absence of evidence Is not evidence of absence."

Lack of verifiable evidence proves the conspiracy is working.

[arthunter]

I thought that this graphic was appropriate ... also appropriate is this quote ...

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about”

Can't seem to find the author, sorry ... or my own personal mantra " do the research " ....


Yes, it's all very murky, ...... I do know one thing though, where there is injustice, deception and greed ( as exposed constantly in our present world ) ... you can expect to find a dozen or so spin doctors convincing you that it's not really happening ....

[arthunter]

Scott,

The post that you reference regarding "gang stalking" can only be mine, as I don't recall anyone else posting about this subject. Thank you for renewing my concerns ...

If you do a general search for this term on google you will find over 2 million references.... If you do a search on YouTube for this term you will find over 200,000 videos..... If you do a search on Change.org for this term you will find pages of petitions addressing the problem..... Are all of these people wacko "conspiracy theorists" or is this a real problem worthy of our attention ?

I suggest that we, as an intelligent, open minded community, do the research to determine the validity of any claims, ... it would be a shame to ignore information which might be true and a danger to our community ....

[Larry Robinson]

The Reptilian Overlords disseminate a vast array of conspiracy theories to distract us from seeing who really controls everything.

[Jim Wilson]

Finally someone else who really understands!!!

The Reptilian Overlords disseminate a vast array of conspiracy theories to distract us from seeing who really controls everything.

[Dixon]

The Reptilian Overlords disseminate a vast array of conspiracy theories to distract us from seeing who really controls everything.

That would be the Mammalian Overlords, who have shown themselves to be somehow colder than reptiles.

[sharingwisdom]

There are patterns that occurs over and over, like the fibonacci sequence, like seasonal changes, like life cycles. To me, there is an order in the chaos of life...something I have experienced, not a belief system.

And to just say that we can connect the dots and they may not connect can be just like the 'cup half empty' perspective... AND what if they do actually exist, they aren't theories and have everything to do with each other since there are so many interconnections in life, in creation? How would one hold that against what they were taught to believe? How would that change a person's relations with others if their perspective shifted radically? What if what you're calling beliefs are someone's actual experiences? How and where would that fit into your belief system? Could you hold space for another's reality as a possible truth without you having the experience? What is the scariest thing if the conscious mind doesn't rule the subconscious in what it thinks is real and true?

I agree that not "one side of these arguments is any less immune to fierce addiction to its world-view than the other." I offered an open opportunity to explore a collaborative source that has been working diligently to bring to light many topics that people want to label conspiracies (which comes from the word conspire or breathe together, which I appreciate in its essence), who worked in a top governmental position and works with both independent and media journalists all over the world. He is also sourcing from our own local Project Censored. I didn't hear if anyone was actually interested in looking into this site or did look into this. One can twist, turn and intellectualize what is said, but if it's not researched and looked into deeper, it means little but opinion in what is called belief, theory or facts.

I honestly wonder how can we be interested in important topics of our times like fracking, radiation, GMO's, Snowden, NSA, Andy Lopez/police militarization, drones, taking away constitutional rights, letting the bankers off the hook, creating wars, and more, and not see what is working behind the scenes as connections when the information is available. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking that there are common threads but after many years of exploring this, I tend to think this exists. The Watergate scandal was first considered a 'conspiracy' until enough people supported Daniel Ellsberg, like Bob Woodward and other journalists, who connected the dots The newspapers were not run by five corporations then, and there was no internet. If Ellsberg could bring down a president and what went on behind the scenes, what are the possibilities for the rest of us in seeing how to work with connecting the dots, collaboratively, in the similarities of issues of today? If you (and not specifically meaning you, Conrad) don't want to look into it, fine. Use your time and energy where it feels appropriate.

But the mockery, disparaging remarks, and condescending attitude towards those of us who do, is what I question....it's been a pattern on this forum and many people have left. And I'm fine agreeing to disagree. I appreciate that you have your concerns, and you could share it without being offensive at all (at least to me). I respect that people have different points of view...we don't want to be another sheep clone like Dolly ;-)
.

Like Dixon, I'm of mixed minds about some of these, think others are far-fetched, others quite likely. But I have to admit that I simply don't KNOW anything for a fact. "Connecting the dots" is a valid tool up to a point, but the fact that we connect a bunch of dots of light into Orion, the Big Dipper, and Casseopeia doesn't mean that those beings actually exist or have anything whatever to do with one another.

"Follow the money" is certainly a valid tool as well. But it seems there must be a small distinction between making money from research to find a cure for AIDS and being responsible for (a) inducing panic about AIDS or (b) causing AIDS in order to make money on it.

I'm only moved to write because of these quotes:

>>>University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong confirmation bias - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the conspiracy theory label) to avoid conflicting information.
>>>The extreme irrationality of those who attack conspiracy theories has been ably exposed by ...

I think that's absolutely true. But I would ask whether "strong confirmation bias" is equally true of people promoting such theories. I don't believe one side of these arguments is any less immune to fierce addiction to its world-view than the other. I would ask a rude question: Is there anything that would sway you from your belief in (name the idea)? Any way for contrary evidence not to be seen as tainted?

Tad's jocular note (I assume it's jocular) — "Lack of verifiable evidence proves the conspiracy is working" — is in fact a rephrasing of the report a general made in WW2 about West Coast Japanese sabotage: its absence proves the danger. That resulted in the concentration camps.

I realize that no one here has any lack of evidence for their beliefs, maybe dozens of Web postings, videos, citations, etc. But I have yet to see much, if any, collaborative exploration of any of these. It's "This is the truth, Buster, and you better believe it!" Not my kinda party.

Hope this isn't offensive enough to warrant a counterattack, but as you will. Just sharing my own perspective, as the conspiracies start to make me go numb.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[arthunter]

Scott,

I was looking through my writings on gang stalking hoping to find this quote but I'm not having any luck ... can you tell me where you found it? ... thanks!

Barry,

Below was a posting on Wacco from earlier this year:

It's important to know that your local "Neighborhood Watch" groups are teaching these harassment tactics to your neighbors to create a destabilized community, and promote false community leaders that have ties to protected organized crime such as Drug Dealing and Human Trafficking! It's networked through your local community service organizations, churches, social clubs, etc...

Gang Stalking is stalking by more than one person to a victim, usually involving community harassment, or the "mob", using people from all backgrounds and vocations to harass, tracking 24/7, sometimes organizing lethal vehicle accidents, poisoinings, electronic harassment, home invasions/property destruction, corrupt or ignorant doctor diagnosis given to stamp the victim as bogus mentally ill with delusions, paranoia, or schizophrenia, etc. Everything is done covertly, and with a sophisticated real time dispatching system to organize the criminals' harassment and attacks, often in the hundreds to thousands of criminals participating as a coordinated mob at any given time while the criminals due their normal routines of work, shopping, commuting to and from work, leisure, etc., using the method of moving foot and vehicular surveillance techniques, and computers, cell phones, verbal and visual cues, and every other conceivable type of communication.

This posting confirms the Wacco conspiracy category of "Neighborhood Watch programs" while the long series of similar postings it came from (along with numerous responses of agreement and support by other folks on Wacco) confirms the conspiracy category of "Pretty much everyone around you".

Scott

[Scott McKeown]

It's my experience that wild conspiracy theory claims are actually rarely challenged in this forum. And when they are challenged I have found the exchanges have often gone something like this:

Person A makes a public claim in this forum that is highly improbable and not backed up by solid evidence. (Maybe something like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where it was claimed in this forum that it was a "false flag" operation and all an elaborate conspiracy involving fake school officials, fake "parents", emergency responders, media, and many others, probably hundreds if not thousands all together, done by the Government or some sort of shadow Government, all so that Obama could get stricter gun control laws passed -- which apparently failed, by the way.)

Person B challenges the claim, maybe calls the idea ludicrous or something.

Person A then goes after Person B on an individual level, attacking them personally for challenging the claim, and thus taking things out of the realm of discussing ideas and into the realm of personal conflict.

My hope is that with these things we can keep the discussion on the ideas themselves and not make it personal (or take it personally). And maybe all lighten up a bit (that includes me too).

Scott

[Scott McKeown]

Scott,

The post that you reference regarding "gang stalking" can only be mine, as I don't recall anyone else posting about this subject. Thank you for renewing my concerns ...

If you do a general search for this term on google you will find over 2 million references.... If you do a search on YouTube for this term you will find over 200,000 videos..... If you do a search on Change.org for this term you will find pages of petitions addressing the problem..... Are all of these people wacko "conspiracy theorists" or is this a real problem worthy of our attention ?

I suggest that we, as an intelligent, open minded community, do the research to determine the validity of any claims, ... it would be a shame to ignore information which might be true and a danger to our community ....

Scott,

I was looking through my writings on gang stalking hoping to find this quote but I'm not having any luck ... can you tell me where you found it? ... thanks!

Wacco link here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...nt-Individuals

Look, I really do not wish to argue with you about "gang stalking" or whether or not Neighborhood Watch groups are trying "to create a destabilized community, and promote false community leaders that have ties to protected organized crime such as Drug Dealing and Human Trafficking." I just included them on a list of conspiracy claims I've seen posted on Wacco in recent months. My posting was all in good fun and meant to be humorous.

Scott

[podfish]

It's my experience that wild conspiracy theory claims are actually rarely challenged in this forum. And when they are challenged I have found the exchanges have often gone something like this:

Person A makes a public claim in this forum that is highly improbable and not backed up by solid evidence....

Person B challenges the claim, maybe calls the idea ludicrous or something.

Person A then goes after Person B on an individual level, attacking them personally for challenging the claim, and thus taking things out of the realm of discussing ideas and into the realm of personal conflict.

I think she's referring to a different perception of the third step: Person A's feeling is that their idea is being ridiculed and not given respect, much less a fair hearing. Because remember, person A usually really believes their claim; they're not actually posing it as a plausible but refutable idea, and they really don't want to hear reasons that it may not be as well-established a fact as they know it is. I've yet to see a response that treats step two as something to be engaged and considered. Sometimes step two's argument doesn't rise to much more than a blanket denial of the one in step one; but even when it does, it's rarely followed by useful dialog where multiple points of view are tested against each other.

[podfish]

But the mockery, disparaging remarks, and condescending attitude towards those of us who do, is what I question....it's been a pattern on this forum and many people have left. And I'm fine agreeing to disagree. I appreciate that you have your concerns, and you could share it without being offensive at all (at least to me). I respect that people have different points of view...we don't want to be another sheep clone like Dolly ;-)
.

replying to posts in somewhat random order.. my immediately preceding post doesn't apply to ones like this! good post, sharingWisdom. I may disagree about the level of mockery/disparaging remarks, but your defense of the 'connecting the dots' doesn't deserve mockery OR disparagement.

[tomcat]

I heard someone on the radio last night mention "Confirmation Theory". He also said that some folks will present all the evidence that supports their Theory and ignore evidence that does not. I looked it up when I got home and found some very interesting information on reasoning, which I believe may relate to conspiracy Theorists.


Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

So, as to those topics listed... Conspiracies?
I don't know.

Tom

[arthunter]

No offense taken Scott, and I'm actually glad that you brought it up, I just wanted to see the entire post so thanks ...

Perhaps we could shift this conversation a bit ...

I have been writing about gang stalking, a new and controversial subject ... this subject was brought to mind recently because of the overwhelming published response on Dr. Phil's website following his show on stalking. For those of you who looked at that response, you can see for yourselves what I mean ... also, I've recently posted the search statistics for this term on the internet citing 3 sources, a general google search, a YouTube search, and a search on change.com ...

So when do we decide that a theory is worth researching? ... What sort of information determines this? With most media censored and under control ( see sharingwisdom's post ) and the awareness of covert policies on the rise ( as proven by whistleblowers Snowden, Ted Gunderson, William Binney, Thomas Drake, et al ) it's a fair guess that any information which concerns practices which are controversial, illegal, immoral, or questionable will be suppressed.

At this point it is up to the citizens themselves to gather and disseminate information, ...

A good example of this is the current Fukushima controversy ... we are being told that everything's fine, everything's under control, but when citizens take readings on our beaches they are elevated .... also, life is dying in our ocean without explanation .... so why should the citizens be out there on the beach doing the research? ... shouldn't our government be doing this? ... what's going on here?

So back to gang stalking ... if thousands of people are publishing on the internet trying to educate the public about this, ... is that enough to prompt research?

Wacco link here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...nt-Individuals

Look, I really do not wish to argue with you about "gang stalking" or whether or not Neighborhood Watch groups are trying "to create a destabilized community, and promote false community leaders that have ties to protected organized crime such as Drug Dealing and Human Trafficking." I just included them on a list of conspiracy claims I've seen posted on Wacco in recent months. My posting was all in good fun and meant to be humorous.

Scott

[gardenmaniac]

I repeat:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

which of course speaks to both sides of many, if not most, theories and arguments

I heard someone on the radio last night mention "Confirmation Theory". He also said that some folks will present all the evidence that supports their Theory and ignore evidence that does not. I looked it up when I got home and found some very interesting information on reasoning, which I believe may relate to conspiracy Theorists.


Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

So, as to those topics listed... Conspiracies?
I don't know.

Tom

[Chris Dec]

... and let's not forget the subsequent steps of siting an internet link, sometimes reputable, sometimes not, with Person B calling that link total BS, and refuting with an opposing internet link, sometimes reputable, sometimes not.

What research, what evidence, what statistics... are reliable? It takes a lot of reading, thinking and observing to start to get a clear picture. It is my observation that most of us who discuss have a firm pre-existing belief and find corroborating evidence to support that belief, digging in our heels even more when that belief is challenged.

I once said on this board that I do not disbelieve anything. This is not the same as believing everything, but rather remaining open to the possibility of some truth in all I hear until proven to me to be BS. For example, yeah, I can imagine that there are some liars and corrupt profit-minded forces working within the Center for Disease Control, and other government agencies, AND I can concede that among people who claim to be stalked and harrassed, there are those who probably are.

Why do we end up so polarized againt an entire viewpoint package? Can we, along with refraining from personally insulting each other, be open to agree with some aspects of the package even if we disagree with other aspects? This is essential to what I like to call INDEPENDENT thought. But it is easy to find the black crayon and the white crayon... where did all the gray crayons roll off to? Let's remember what fundamentalism is and what it has done to us throughout history.

It's my experience that wild conspiracy theory claims are actually rarely challenged in this forum. And when they are challenged I have found the exchanges have often gone something like this:

Person A makes a public claim in this forum that is highly improbable and not backed up by solid evidence. (Maybe something like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where it was claimed in this forum that it was a "false flag" operation and all an elaborate conspiracy involving fake school officials, fake "parents", emergency responders, media, and many others, probably hundreds if not thousands all together, done by the Government or some sort of shadow Government, all so that Obama could get stricter gun control laws passed -- which apparently failed, by the way.)

Person B challenges the claim, maybe calls the idea ludicrous or something.

Person A then goes after Person B on an individual level, attacking them personally for challenging the claim, and thus taking things out of the realm of discussing ideas and into the realm of personal conflict.

My hope is that with these things we can keep the discussion on the ideas themselves and not make it personal (or take it personally). And maybe all lighten up a bit (that includes me too).

Scott

[Dixon]

I heard someone on the radio last night mention "Confirmation Theory". He also said that some folks will present all the evidence that supports their Theory and ignore evidence that does not.

Tomcat, for a discussion with examples of the "confirmation bias", see my Wacco column here. As a bonus, there follows an extremely long and heated comment thread in which I get rather viciously slapped around by a number of folks who took offense at my suggestion that beliefs we're attached to in spite of a lack of evidence are likely delusional.

[Dixon]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That's true as far as it goes, but there are far more possible claims than true ones, so claims without evidence are more likely to be false than true.