[–] BRITTEACH 0 points 8 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.
[–] 2039627? 0 points 5 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?
[–] ghotioninabarrel 0 points 5 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.
[–] HowAboutShutUp 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] Beers 1 point -1 points 0 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.
[–] HowAboutShutUp 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Because most of them come off as the kind of people who spray vinegar at "chemtrails." I mean really, if conspiracy theorists could manage to stop seeming like the sort who'd manage to cut their own heads off if you asked them to apply Occam's and Hanlon's razors, it might be a bit easier to take them seriously.
And then when you act skeptical instead of trying to make a more well-reasoned argument their tactic is to SAY IT AGAIN LOUDER AS THOUGH YOU DIDN'T HEAR THEM THE FIRST TIME, and when you ask them for facts and sources, they offer you something made by somebody at least as irrational sounding as they do, if not more so. Also, they never, ever, ever shut the fuck up about it even if you're trying to do/talk about something else.
Like seriously, if you sincerely believe you see a problem, figure out a way to present it compellingly to the average person, then maybe people will stop assuming you're a retarded maniac. Nobody wants to hang out with a retarded maniac.
[–] escape 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Because the primary way they try to get followers to their cause is by being fucking annoying. Loud spammy messages, obnoxious websites that are all random colored text on a dark background, all center aligned. They get hyper-emotional when you challenge their theories. Oddly enough the majority of them can't separate their wacky beliefs and their own identity, so they get personally hurt if you debate them. It's like zealotry.
What does it mean to be a conspiracy theorist, to you?
If someone believes the moon landing never happened, but they never tell anyone, or host any annoying websites, etc. Are they still a conspiracy theorist? Are you still "against them?" I don't see how any of the traits you described have anything to do with the definition of conspiracy theorist that I understand...
[–] HowAboutShutUp 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If someone believes the moon landing never happened, but they never tell anyone, or host any annoying websites, etc. Are they still a conspiracy theorist?
Yes they are, they're just not one the general public has to put up with. They're still in denial, though.
I am generally not "for" anyone believing anything that's patently absurd, but if they're not holding the poop on the end of their stick under my nose, I won't generally go out of my way to complain about the smell.
You have to understand that when conspiracy theorists come up in conversation its the visible, annoying ones that are getting referred to, but the parlance is the same. Its like kleenex. Not every tissue is a kleenex, but every kleenex is a tissue, and people will still use kleenex to refer to all tissues.
[–] NothingButLies 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
It's jealousy. Scientific research indicates that conspiracy theorists are right at least as often as mainstream media.
[–] [deleted] 2 points 14 points 16 points (+16|-2) ago (edited ago)
[–] Kaysic 0 points 10 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."
[–] 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.
[–] HowAboutShutUp 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Obnoxious is probably the best term.