1
189

[–] PM_Me_Your_Buttfloss 1 points 189 points (+190|-1) ago 

Do you want facism, because this is how you get facism

0
73

[–] catfaceddog 0 points 73 points (+73|-0) ago 

Some people do, unfortunately.

0
28

[–] BrownMoses 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

The government does

20
6

[–] HASTAG_GAY_PORN 20 points 6 points (+26|-20) ago  (edited ago)

Wait why exactly does everyone hate on fascism? It worked so well in Italy and Germany. They were economic, cultural, and scientific hubs at the time, so much so that the Nazi's nearly created a nuclear bomb in a third of the time as the Manhattan project. The German scientists achieved nuclear fission in fact. So why is it bad to be devoted to one's culture? Would you rather a quasi oligarchy or aristocracy where we are all complacent instead of one motivated ruler making rapid advancements in relevant fields? Edit: yes, downvote me, but no one provides a counter argument. mmm voat, so mature.

0
36

[–] Toto-che-handala 0 points 36 points (+36|-0) ago 

you already have it,in the middle of it,saturated by it and its all legal....

0
27

[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

WARNING: CONSPIRATORIAL SUBJECT MATTER........This comment is to be flagged for referral to the NSA.

0
1

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

We already have fascism. Corporations write the laws that govern them. That's fascism. Between this article and Wesley Clark's recent comments, I'm starting to realize I am no longer welcome in this country and should probably leave for my own safety.

0
1

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

You are just being paranoid, that sounds like something a terrorists would say.

0
98

[–] Lonecrowe 0 points 98 points (+98|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So..... changing the system to benefit the people would be considered terrorist activity... even if it were peaceful..

Welcome to 1984

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIoMXYBztdg

4
3

[–] datjedi 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

I am born next year :)

1
6

[–] BrianFellow 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

You're -1 years old?

0
0

[–] antiplebbitor 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

YOU CANNOT DEFECT NOW, WINSTON SMITH - COME JOIN US AS WE BRING BIG BROTHER TO HIS KNEES...

0
45

[–] kivan117 0 points 45 points (+45|-0) ago 

Ah yes, thinking differently is a sign you're a threat. Haven't seen this before.

0
4

[–] sneakybells 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

intellectual vices

fucking chills

6
41

[–] brother_tempus 6 points 41 points (+47|-6) ago  (edited ago)

This study shows that government dupes are the real problem .....

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/14/whatabout7/

0
45

[–] dogrel 0 points 45 points (+45|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This article linked above is not a study. It's someone's opinion about what results of the study actually mean. If anyone is interested in reading the abstract from the actual study here you go:

from Pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847577

Abstract: "Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. We examined a large sample of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news websites in order to investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs. rejecting conventional explanations for events. In accordance with our hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters. However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the "conspiracy theory" label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations."

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] BrownMoses 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone.

This is incredibly prevalent on reddit, and among some posters on this site - lashing out angrily the moment someone voices an opinion they don't like.

0
2

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

AKA skeptics are always skeptical and they don't like being called conspiracy theorists because that does imply that you are crazy because somehow those words got linked. Popular media calls anyone who said what Edward Snowden was saying the same thing they call people who believe aliens abducted Elvis.

0
23

[–] Zen0 [S] 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

Ah yes, but this will not be the study they consistently cite to justify their actions against any potential dissenters.

Guilty until proven innocent will quickly become the new status quo.

0
12

[–] bill.lee 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

I think it's a case of where a certain view gets put out there to gauge response. For example, Clark floated out the whole "dissenters" should be placed into internment camps. I think there will be some more public comments, probably around this study, about the need to track those that aren't quiet exuberant enough in their patriotism.

0
8

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

dead until proven innocent is becoming the new status quo

0
1

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

"Love your country; never trust its government." - Robert A. Heinlein

0
1

[–] Super-Script 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

that website is bogus. the founder admits it.

1
30

[–] MamaFrankie 1 points 30 points (+31|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Take studies like this to help justify data collection, seed dissenting opinions through the media, track who shares these opinions with whom, and make your handy dandy terrorist list. Then tell the non-dissenting public they are safe, and voila! Democracy! It's so easy, the plot practically writes itself!

EDIT: almost forgot! Sell collected data to advertisers! PROFIT!

0
4

[–] sneakybells 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The day I compromise my voice for fear of retribution, they win. These are the chilling effects.

0
1

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

damn straight. Allow the retribution to take place, it will only spur more voices to speak out against it.

1
29

[–] Klaxon 1 points 29 points (+30|-1) ago 

The people who said that the government was recording all of our online activity were called conspiracy theorists until they were proven right by Snowden. That doesn't mean all theories are right, but it does show that conspiracy theorists are a part of a healthy society.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
15

[–] Taka 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

I prefer "logical human being that isn't swayed by bullshit government propaganda". 'Cause I mean really, that's what we are.

1
5

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

I'm more of a conspiracy analyst

0
2

[–] Zodi 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

"theorist" implies they come up with conspiracies, rather than examine them.

0
1

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

Sure, provide a source. While you are at the Wiki page I suggest you read the history. The phrase was coined in 1908 (I think?) but popularized by the CIA just after JFK's assassination. So, your statement is either partially correct or correct and it is a conspiracy. No, really... It was not created by the CIA. Just popularized. It had already been used and citations are provided on the wikipedia page. The only reason I know this is because I checked about two weeks ago because someone mentioned it and I wanted to at least give it a quick fact check as it sounded unusual. It is, mostly, true though except for the invented part. You could say they invented using it as a pejorative. I think that would be accurate.

0
23

[–] Redditsdead 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

I've figured that's how they view me anyways. Now they're just being open and honest about it.

0
2

[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

and the waiting game continues..be sure to keep your underwear clean...

0
18

[–] NeptuneRises 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Funny because most Conspiracy types I know are deathly anti war. I guess in times like this, being anti war might be considered extremist.

0
2

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Back in the 60's they turning firehoses on people for being anti-war. Or even killing them.

0
1

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

War is peace, do you hate peace? Terrorists hate peace you know.

0
1

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

This makes them sound like colicky little children. Maybe isis just needs a nap.

load more comments ▼ (51 remaining)