10 traits of conspiracy worship

[seckle]

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

• 1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
  
  2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
  
  3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
  
  4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
  
  5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
  
  6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
  
  7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
  
  8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
  
  9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
  
  10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

[seckle]

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life ... 187493.ece

[helix]

[knell]

[2manynoobs]

yay, another generalization of the people who just ask questions

[helix]

yay, another generalization of the people who just ask questions

Read it. It doesn't apply to people who just ask questions.

[2manynoobs]

yay, another generalization of the people who just ask questions

Read it. It doesn't apply to people who just ask questions.

the moment when someone questions the 'truth' about something, someone else will always immediately say he's wrong or even say he's a conspiracy theorist. I've been called a conspiracy theorist by a lot of people but I'm certainly not. It just talk about possibilities, or just ask questions: don't you find that odd that ..
and people always stick that term conspiracy theorist on me; fucking ridiculous. Soon people will begin to use this to deny everything. One day some one will come up with good evidence and people will be like don't listen he's a conspiracy theorist (what is already happening i think)

[wub]

Is it arrogant to consider people unable to understand Occam's Razor?

[knell]

the moment when someone questions the 'truth' about something, someone else will always immediately say he's wrong or even say he's a conspiracy theorist. I've been called a conspiracy theorist by a lot of people but I'm certainly not. It just talk about possibilities, or just ask questions: don't you find that odd that ..
and people always stick that term conspiracy theorist on me; fucking ridiculous. Soon people will begin to use this to deny everything. One day some one will come up with good evidence and people will be like don't listen he's a conspiracy theorist (what is already happening i think)

For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

[DRTY]

Seckle is obviously a reptilian agent from inside the moon.

EDIT: look look he has a palindromic post count too! Coincidence? I think not

[borrowed]

Seckle is obviously a reptilian agent from inside the moon.

EDIT: look look he has a palindromic post count too! Coincidence? I think not

And look! 10101! 1+0+1+0+1 = 3
The beetles sang a song called 8 days a week, so 8+3 = 11. 11 is two digits, so subtract two and you get 9.
9/11.
Do I have to spell it out for you all? Seckle did 9/11, there's proof.

Edit: holy shit my post count is 611! if you read that upside down backwards it says 9/11. The proof is right before your eyes, sheeple.

[DRTY]

Seckle is obviously a reptilian agent from inside the moon.

EDIT: look look he has a palindromic post count too! Coincidence? I think not

And look! 10101! 1+0+1+0+1 = 3
The beetles sang a song called 8 days a week, so 8+3 = 11. 11 is two digits, so subtract two and you get 9.
9/11.
Do I have to spell it out for you all? Seckle did 9/11, there's proof.

Edit: holy shit my post count is 611! if you read that upside down backwards it says 9/11. The proof is right before your eyes, sheeple.

OMFG

[seckle]

stop crying.

[seckle]

numbers 1 & 8 apply to many people in this subforum.

[DRTY]

[nicenice]

ah wow, thanks

[Genevieve]

A lot of these 'symptoms' bear a striking resemblance to ones you would expect in mental disorders related to schizophrenia.

[noam]

A lot of these 'symptoms' bear a striking resemblance to ones you would expect in mental disorders related to schizophrenia.

shit son i've been there before... can. of. worms.

[2manynoobs]

the moment when someone questions the 'truth' about something, someone else will always immediately say he's wrong or even say he's a conspiracy theorist. I've been called a conspiracy theorist by a lot of people but I'm certainly not. It just talk about possibilities, or just ask questions: don't you find that odd that ..
and people always stick that term conspiracy theorist on me; fucking ridiculous. Soon people will begin to use this to deny everything. One day some one will come up with good evidence and people will be like don't listen he's a conspiracy theorist (what is already happening i think)

For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

it's because sceptics often ask the most ridiculous non-pertinent questions in stead of looking at the evidence these people give in the first place.

[crackf]

numbers 1 & 8 apply to many people in this subforum.

reading most of these i think they apply pretty well to you, and your sudden accusations

a number of times youve picked me and others out for no reason, or atleast reason you believe to be true when its not.