0
5

[–] ghotioninabarrel 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

They're really annoying.

They show up often in the wrong place and start spouting discredited theories, often using false premises to justify their conclusions. And if you try to dispute anything, they freak out at you.

TL;DR: They're really annoying.

1
-1

[–] Beers 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Wait, so to be a conspiracy theorist, you must speak in public? What does it have to do with speaking, or communicating? I thought it was based on what you believe is true, or what you accept as false, etc. That has nothing to do with speaking.

I'm not really sure you all agree on what a conspiracy theorist actually is.

0
1

[–] HowAboutShutUp 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

oh man, the thing where they try to drag some vaguely tangentially related theory up somewhere it doesn't belong is the worst.

1
5

[–] Pawn 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Because they think they are right even when proven wrong with evidence and then do mental gymnastics to rework the conspiracy theory.

0
1

[–] Sith-Jin 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

This. They completely ignore logic to follow a narrative that is paper thin. It's like they have an aversion to critical thinking and prefer fantasy to reality.

0
1

[–] Beers 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I think you guys are talking about extreme stereotypes. You might want to define how you decide someone belongs in the "conspiracy theorist" category.

0
5

[–] 2039627? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

There are different levels of conspiracy theory. Many people have doubts about the official version of JFK or 9/11, but very few doubt that the earth is round, or that NASA went to the moon.

In-between you have people who believe that we're being visited by aliens or that God has done something, e.g. God opened a parking space for them, or is punishing people with a tornado.

When someone is acting sheepish about expressing their openness to a conspiracy theory, it's because they know that it's not mainstream and it's just a way of saying "I know this isn't the official viewpoint, but..." It's a way of pre-emptively deflecting the immediate criticism that their view is considered a conspiracy theory. If someone came straight out and said JFK was killed by the Mafia (or Johnson, or whoever) without that caveat, would it be any better?

0
8

[–] BRITTEACH 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Personally I'm not opposed to conspiracy theories. I find them interesting and sometimes entertaining. I think those who are adamantly opposed to them are uncomfortable with the uncertainty that accompanies most conspiracy theories.

For instance, many people taking comfort in the Warren Commission report about the Kennedy assassination feeling that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter. Then, after considerable study along comes the view in the late 70s, that there may have been more than one gunman and that there may have been a conspiracy to assassinate the president.

Some people like their history in neatly wrapped packages with a clear beginning, middle, and end. But history doesn't work that way. The only thing we can be certain about are basic facts such as names, dates, and places, but how they connect to each other and the sequence of events is too often left to a variety of witnesses who must rely on their memory to recount their experience. And everyone by now understands the limitations and failings of memory. So what we have left is a composite and conjecture.

IT is also possible that if a conspiracy opens up the truth of an event, the outcome may be more than most people can handle. For instance, let's assume that a Cadre of CIA, FBI, and other high level political officials had a hand in the death of Kennedy ostensibly for his indecisiveNess with Bay of Pigs and his signaling a lack of support for Vietnam, would Americans really be comfortable with the fact that the military industrial complex, which benefitted from JFK's death, is actually running the government and that the President is really nothing more than a tool of those interests?

No. Americans want to believe they have a voice in their government, that it is of the people, for the people. They would never accept that it is in fact an oligarchy run by tech, military, corporations, and big banks. And yet they have no problem buying into the belief that all they need to do is go out and vote. As if their vote really means something. It doesn't unless they do the work necessary to keeping a government operating for the good of all, and not just those with deep pockets. It is alot of work, and Americans, particularly are a selfish lot. And where you have those who are not selfish, you will find them indifferent or exasperated.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] serious ago 

What would be the common denominator for this kind of annoying person? 'Forcefully obtrusive'?

Someone could be the biggest conspiracy nut / SJW / whatever in the world and no one would mind if they kept it all to themselves.

0
1

[–] HowAboutShutUp 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Obnoxious is probably the best term.

0
10

[–] Kaysic 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

"The moon landings were f-"
"The next two words out of your mouth better be 'fucking awesome' or else you're about to get decked by an Aldrin Punch."