Conspiracy Theorist, Nut, or Wacko?

Morning all.

I couldn't sleep last night because I had the strangest thoughts running through my head.

How do we, as conspiracy theorists define ourselves and one another?

Who is a respectable conspiracy theorist?
Who is a nutjob?
Who is a wacko?

I use these terms not to be derogatory, but because I have seen them used here on ATS and in the press generally.

What are boundaries, or acceptable levels of belief for a conspiracy theorist to remain a 'mere' theorist?

Are there certain theories that are so unacceptable to our minds - even as theorists that to even consider these as a possibility moves us from the 'theorist' to the 'nutjob' category?

And what makes an out and out wacko? It is the belief that the British Royal Family are reptilians? Is it the belief that 9/11 was not just an inside job but a holographic event?

I suppose what I'm wondering, ATS, is whether - even amongst us more 'enlightened' ones (actually had to stop myself referring to us as 'illuminati' just for the fun effect there) there are certain levels of belief that are just too 'out there' for the majority to go with?

In a nutshell...

How far is too far?

Peace,

MGGG

When you kill yourself to go to a spaceship that is not there....you went too far. When you have a cardboard sign on saying something like the end of the world is tomorrow...your probably no longer stable...if you feel the urge to kill the elite...your close to tipping that point. If you a paranoid of everything...yup your losing it. If your spewing religious dogma and trying to relate it as a coincidence to every event in your life...your likely losing it. If you try to maintain a grip on reality and function in society as a normal person...you will lose it eventually.

Does that answer your question?

If you're asking what is "too far" and who is "crazy" you're just fine mate.

Its when you are sure of it all and no longer ask questions, on any side of any issue. Thats when you're done for.

Paranoia is natural,whether the paranoia is justified is a different story.I think like all walks of life people vary when it comes down to the conspiracy angle..of course you will always get the nutjobs who believe in all sorts reptillians,illuminati etc but of course no one has all the answers so they are nutjobs given current circumstances and evidence and may change in the future

reply to post by machinegun_go_go


MGGG,

To answer this I would say this as the short-term answer.

There are truly only 2 classes of Conspiracy Theorist:

Those who REALLY research and/or WANT to research via 'best practice' methods, and those who are simply out for entertainment.

I think the "respectable conspiracy theorist" falls into class 1 while all others fall into class 2.

IMHO, the basic problem is the lack of a single independent source of class 1 resource. In other words, without "someplace" to go that treats Conspiracy Theory as a science, if you will, to further the actual RnD necessary to weed out the real from the imagined, then class 2 becomes more viable. It's easy to "theorize" on just about anything...and if you're in it for entertainment, then no harm done.

Imagine though, that a "place" existed which had it's roots solely in research, research that was used as the definitive "go to" source for all things Conspiracy Theory related that used the 'best practice' model to debunk a claim.

There are several places on and off the internet where researchers specialize in a single area or another, but they are often very disorganized and either cater too much toward commercialism or too much toward science where the layperson can't seem to grasp the concepts. If a middle-ground existed, and if SUCH a place existed to aggregate the valuable research that encompasses a great deal of these claims and can start to put to rest some of the tried and true "hoaxal" mindsets, then I believe the Conspiracy Theorists would probably be given a greater degree of credence overall. Call it the ANSI standard of CT.



AB1

[edit on 12-5-2009 by alphabetaone]

Originally posted by Ihniwid
If you're asking what is "too far" and who is "crazy" you're just fine mate.

Its when you are sure of it all and no longer ask questions, on any side of any issue. Thats when you're done for.

You see, I'm going to have to disagree with this a bit.

While being open-minded is a GREAT thing, there are also some things in life (and physics) that seriously do have a finite set of possibilities.

Drawing the line on which have an end of lifecycle, and which require further inspection AND the ability to determine the difference between the 2 is important in my eyes.



AB1

I was more refering to the type of people who are SURE of certain conspiracies and in doing so fall dow a hole that eats them up. But yes you're right mate, good stuff.

When you start of listening to someone, you give the the benefit of the doubt. But only time can tell you if they are all there or not.

What is sanity and how does it apply to conspiracy is another question, as there are lots of cnspiracies, how you judge them analytically is hard, as people always have there way of pushing things for what ever reason.

Like all the truthers that are selling there info, i do not trust any of them today, as lots are just not realiable, and are there for what ever reasons.

But i for one, knowing how bad people are, would not discount stuff because it is weird, how do we know.

[edit on 5/12/2009 by andy1033]

reply to post by Ihniwid


Yes, absolutely true!

You're right brother, falling down of hole or letting what consumes your thoughts control your life, has got to be a horrible existence.

I imagine this is where critical thinking would come into play.


AB1

[edit on 12-5-2009 by alphabetaone]

Some extremely interesting ideas here folks and I thank you all for taking the time to respond.

I think that some interesting ideas are raised regarding research vs entertainment and the ability to critically think about an issue or realise your own thought process.

I'm still not sure about how we, as CT's feel though - or perhaps I'm just not sure myself really.

It's something that I'm going to be pondering some more tonight, I think and will hopefully form a coherent thought process on the subject.

Peace,

MGGG

If you're not crazy, you don't understand.

First thing that came to my mind here was a song lyric: "Just because you're paranoid....don't mean their not after you...."-Nirvana

Seriously, I dont think a little paranoia means you are a nut job. Paranoia is often just a byproduct of an analytical mind.

It is when your fear and paranoia control you that you cross that line.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


I think that's an interesting point. However, I find myself getting paranoid from time to time about a range of things - not usually CT based, but when I try to explain it to people they just blame it on the fact that I am a Conspiracy Theorist.

However, I like to think of myself as level headed most of the time.

I suppose it's a form of stereotyping really.

Peace,

MGGG

Originally posted by machinegun_go_go
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

I think that's an interesting point. However, I find myself getting paranoid from time to time about a range of things - not usually CT based, but when I try to explain it to people they just blame it on the fact that I am a Conspiracy Theorist.

However, I like to think of myself as level headed most of the time.

I suppose it's a form of stereotyping really.

Peace,

MGGG

I find that people often associate awareness with paranoia, which is silly in my opinion. I think for the most part it is just a lot safer to chalk things up as "paranoid dilusions" than to give fringe matters any actual attention.

Originally posted by machinegun_go_go
Who is a respectable conspiracy theorist?

See that TV show, "The Lone Gunmen". Here's a snippet (this was broadcast before 9/11):

Who is a nutjob?

Surely each of the Lone Gunmen from the TV show would fit the profile of "nutjob" if the prosecutor wants to show them in that light. It's all about who is throwing the light on you.

Who is a wacko?

This term can also be applied to anybody who says that the TV show above was anything more than a coincidence. That is to say, Hollywood got lucky here, and if you believe anything other that, you are a wacko.

Luck is 100% true, and conspiracy is 100% false. Repeat this to yourself daily.

And what makes an out and out wacko? It is the belief that the British Royal Family are reptilians? Is it the belief that 9/11 was not just an inside job but a holographic event?

Let us imagine a fourth character here in this TV show. He is not one of the "Lone Gunmen", he is a "Lone Gunman" of his own. And let's say he attaches himself to these guys here. Well, he might be paid, and be simply harassing them. But also he might be mentally in pain. Hmm, is it only conspiracy researchers that need therapy or is it the whole human race?

But I for one, did not know "The Lone Gunmen" were out there in 2001. I did not watch their show. They had my back, and I didn't know it.

Nor did I watch that FBI recruiting miniseries called "The X-Files". Only recently have I begun to watch and discover these TV shows. Will they make me more of a nut or a wacko? Nah, probably not. I don't even discuss 9/11 with people (or on ATS) anymore because it's a giant black hole. I like to sit back and watch the room divide into three parties. These three poles of every 9/11 group discussion can be named: Truthers, Plants and Officiators. Officiators will never yield, Truthers will never accept, and Plants will try to be as crazy and will try to find the limits of the group's gullibility. Plants are sometimes chaos-ticians who have no goal except to test people's limits of believability. I think many of these are paid.

All of humanity is being hypnotized by words and symbols. If you wake up to that, you will start sounding crazy to them what know not symbols or words.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

I don't even discuss 9/11 with people (or on ATS) anymore because it's a giant black hole. I like to sit back and watch the room divide into three parties. These three poles of every 9/11 group discussion can be named: Truthers, Plants and Officiators. Officiators will never yield, Truthers will never accept, and Plants will try to be as crazy and will try to find the limits of the group's gullibility. Plants are sometimes chaos-ticians who have no goal except to test people's limits of believability. I think many of these are paid.

All of humanity is being hypnotized by words and symbols. If you wake up to that, you will start sounding crazy to them what know not symbols or words.

Good observations and conclusions. I only know 9/11 discussion from ATS and a couple other forums. Your Plants designation is new to me. Can't say that I've observed them, but maybe because I wasn't aware.

Holding onto beliefs and whether they represent loss of faculties or not is a new area of exploration.

Pointed out recently, hard core Conspiracists used to be considered somewhat deranged, off-balance, whatever the acceptable jargon was.

But now there are so many of them, can we conclude millions have gone nuts?

And lets compare it to religion. In the US alone, tens of millions genuinely
believe a certain messianic guides them in their everyday lives. Stories of the supernatural beings and a Supreme Deity are taken as factual, with no external validation.

Where I am going with this is to point out that certain belief systems are culturally accepted and others aren't.

When the tipping point is reached, and 51% of the population believe the US planned and executed the destruction of the World Trade Center, or that Jews control the country, or that aliens and their technology are being concealed by the US military, does it morph into fact?

Do claiming otherwise brand you as nuts?


Mike

reply to post by alphabetaone


if such an organization were created, if it ever came to the conclusions opposite to some people's beliefs, they'd call it a government disinformation campaign and keep on believin'.

I would bet real money on that.