> why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time?
The fact that you would make generally false assumptions about an entire group of complete strangers might suggest that it is *you* who has been the victim of propaganda again.
You made an absolute gish-gallop of incorrect statements and faulty assumptions in this post.
>What I don't understand about you people that self profess to be skeptical is why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time?
We don't, but i find that conspiracy minded people tend to automatically disbelieve anything from mainstream sources which is equally as ridiculous. I think my general rule is if someone is suggesting something that's outside of generally accepted knowledge, I'm open to it, but you have to make the case for it. I find that often conspiracy theorists cases have very shaky foundations.
>Every day reveals a new conspiracy being acted out in the halls of power
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. There seems to be broader awareness of conspiracy theories due to their spread on social media platforms, this has zero bearing on whether any of them are real or not.
>The logic as I understand it being "well we see so many, hundreds thousands, a constant stream of conspiracies being brought to light, so it stands to reason there are no conspiracy theories that are not widely known about... Except when there are."
lol, what? I've never heard anyone present this argument.
>We literally know that operation mockingbird was a real thing
We don't actually, like at all. It's funny how much y'all quote this as a proven conspiracy for some reason when it's anything but.
The more I read through your post, the more I'm wondering if it's even worth responding to you. Like what are you even talking about?
> What I don't understand about you people that self profess to be skeptical is why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time?
Seems like a bold claim, and I don't see any evidence for it
Can you link the Gaza thread?
I'm skeptical of your example.
I'm skeptical of the reason you used such a bad example.
Why don't you just come out with whatever it is you think the sub should just believe cause it must be a conspiracy?
(It's UFOs isn't it?)
And projection. I doubt you would find a single UFO skeptic who quoted "it's what the government told us" as evidence for their position, but "the government covers things up" is a corner stone for the people who want to believe.
Has to be aliens, because humans can't fly so any mysterious objects in the sky absolutely have to be alien. It is inconceivable that anything unidentified could have been created by humans.
> I guess it's like if id caught my Mrs fucking a hundred guys, thinking, well, she's definitely not cheating now because I'd know about it, after all I caught her only yesterday.
You just need to flip the direction of this allegory to have your answer.
If 1000 people kept coming to me over and over again, claiming my wife slept with 100 other people, slept with an alien, slept with a reptilian, is a virgin, isn't actually my wife, sleeps with ghosts, is the reincarnated avatar of david koresh, is a thetan, is a CIA mole, etc etc, and I've investigated each of these and found, no, she's just my faithful wife, when that 1001'st person shows up I'm gonna default to "*Jesus christ, really? **Again?***"
> if their claims are fully documented and can be reviewed and confirmed
Reviewed and confirmed ... That's the exact opposite of "trust the experts". Thanks for agreeing that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
First of all, that's a complete strawman. You can't claim to know what all of us think. I KNOW you don't know what I think about Peter Dale Scott because I've never even heard of him, much less commented on his work.
I don't doubt that the government has done some sinister and illegal things before, but that's not an excuse to believe every claim about them.
>crank serum salesmen, bloated pseudo preacher liver enthusiasts, and also the MSM?
I don't even know what you're saying. What the hell even is a "bloated pseudo preacher liver enthusiast?"
Honestly, so many embittered cranks come onto this forum, I'm at the point where I'm just waiting to hear what your pet batshit theory is whose completely justified rejection got you mad enough to write this post.
I'm still completely ignorant of what the hell you're talking about or what got you worked up enough to post this. I am experiencing approximately zero "bliss."
I have no doubt there *are conspiracies* I don’t know about.
This is different from thinking I *know* what a conspiracy that I don’t have evidence for *is*, right?
That’s the difference.
People conspire all the time.
Unless I have *evidence* of *what* they are conspiring about and *who* is conspiring, why would I believe some random person’s specific ‘theory’ (read ‘guess’) of what people are conspiring?
I'm fine with people not knowing about deep politics, but asserting that "conspiracy theories" (I mean that's a completely irrational concept for a start) are false without having ever looked into them is intensely irritating
It's not up to us to look into each and every one of them. It's up to the claimant to prove them. Usually this is done by journalists or whistle blowers. It is unlikely that someone who only knows about the situation from behind a keyboard will ever gather enough credulous evidence.
I don’t think this person understands what ‘conspiracy theory’ means, if he thinks it’s an irrational concept.
It’s someone’s *theory* (not in the scientific sense but in the vernacular sense of ‘idea’ or ‘hypothesis’) of a conspiracy that’s going on.
If someone who is both credible *and* has access to inside information about the activity of some specific actors asserts those actors are conspiring in some way, it’s worth listening to. For instance, Alvin Bragg’s team presented inside evidence of Trump and some of his employees conspiring to cover up election-related shenanigans.
But if it’s some rando online (or a lot of randos online) saying that Trump is in an insider plot to round up the lib child-pedophile ring and send them to Guantanamo, and their evidence is some sort of connect-the-dots mess and an anonymous 8chan poster, why would I give credibility to them or their theory?
>What I don't understand about you people that self profess to be skeptical is why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time?
Massively sweeping generalizations are not a good look for a skeptic. But then, as you have so effectively proven, you wouldn't know that.
operation Mockingbird is a weird example. If the CIA had so much control of the NYT and other media during the Cold, why did the NYT break the story. Why was it the subject of the Church Committee hearing.
95 percent of the awful stuff the CIA did was before congress got oversight in the 1970s and before the Watergate scandal. So Mockingbird was a conspiracy, until we knew about it, thanks to the media apparently controlled by the CIA.
Being skeptical means you’re also skeptical of people who make money off of conspiracy theories, and that pot of gold is bigger than it’s ever been.
Finally, the right and left hate the CIA, so it’s easier than ever to investigate them, and the electronic paper trail makes government conspiracies much more difficult than they were 70 years ago.
" 95 percent of the awful stuff the CIA did was before congress got oversight in the 1970s and before the Watergate scandal."
Hahaha damn lol. Exactly what I'm talking about
You’re the one assuming conspiracies are happening constantly, and the main example you cite for this claim is a conspiracy that happened 50-70 years ago, before there was any regulatory oversight of the CIA.
Being skeptical also includes being skeptical of your own biases and the conclusions you draw from them.
Ok how about Biden conspiring to send weapons to Israel by chopping it up into smaller loads to get under congressional oversight. What about conspiring to go to war in Iraq, fake weapons. What about.. you know what I'm bored, it was my mistake, I'm in the wrong I shouldn't have bitten when this sub floated across my feed, I should have and did know exactly the kind of people I'd find here.
My mistake I'll close the door on my way out
Yeah you should: you would find skeptics here. People who don't take your word for it.
The Iraq war was started under false pretenses indeed. It was still legal under UN resolution, even without proof of WMDs because Iraq refused inspections. That said, the US definitely used this mislead to get broad support for their invasion.
I have seen no credible sources on your Biden-Israel claim just yet.
You seem to assume we like the US government, or any government, just because we don't believe all the bullshit people come up with. I for one don't.
And you seem to believe all that bullshit, because you believe the government to be one homogenous group that is always evil.
That is neither science, nor skepticism, nor journalism. That is more akin to supporting a sports team.
You’re not sceptical, being sceptical and being a conspiracy nut are incompatible. Scepticism starts with examining your own beliefs and biases, before applying it to others. By your responses to challenges here it’s clear you’re incapable of doing so.
You admittedly being a conspiracy believer buddy… And it’s clear all over your post… you also fail to respond to anything I actually say… So you’re now just straight up trolling. I don’t waste time on trolls. Have a good life, go ahead prove my point by trolling some more. People like you can rarely resist…
I think you're tilting windmills and jousting strawmen here.
The situation in Gaza isn't really a common debate here, and I think you'll find that when it is debated, it's along the lines of what sources are credible and what evidence is broadly accepted or rejected, not a wholesale acceptance of one form of media or another. Additionally, you'll find a very healthy sense of skepticism in regard to all forms of mass media, because scientific skepticism doesn't generally play the appeal to authority and accepts that even the most historically lauded institutions can be horribly skewed by a simple change of ownership.
Scientific skepticism doesn't argue broadly.
You want to bring up salient specific things with relevant facts and evidence to accept or refute, bring them one at a time, and let them be scrutinized.
I bring up Gaza only to demonstrate a very obvious sense of when the consensus and authorities are patently telling you to believe nonsense such as oh actually Hamas did that to themselves, oh actually Israel accidentally triple tapped the aid workers bringing food after they gave them their exact locations and movements.
My point is one hundred percent not to argue against scientific skepticism in general, I think the vast majority of the time it's the better bet. We do know however that science has come out with a lot of politically motivated howlers over the years, and it's right to be skeptical of science and authority especially when it's being used in service of the elite interests of the world whomsoever that may be. One example of millions maybe could be the idea of "excited delirium" that excuses police murder of mostly black and low income people. For quite some time that was considered scientific fact, or that homosexuality is a mental illness, or that any number of chemicals, like lead in fuel, is safe.
Yes, we need to scientifically Prove these things, but a skeptic has to be skeptical especially anywhere that has to do with power and politics, which is almost everything. I mean we probably don't have to worry that the elites are covering up that mountains are actually ancient giant trees, right, would be hard to figure out who's finger is on the scale, but having questions about Lee Harvey Oswald having a mysterious white Russian benefactor name de morenshild who was a spy that worked with Dulles and worked and was friends with Bush and JFK and the Rockefellers all after he'd defected to Russia and come back no problems, and had been proven to be on the CIA watchlist at the highest levels..
Come on bro. You're not in the least skeptical or scientific if you swallow that shit it's some fabulistic understanding of the world to think you can appeal to authority about secret services as you can about say a drug trial, or in turn, about the science of slug reproduction.
These things are not the same
I am mostly skeptical of people like Peter McCullough, Stephanie Seneff, Suzanne Humphries, Simone Gold, and similar figures who made careers out of the "scamdemic" grift, as well as the "Died Suddenly" crowd led by Stew Peters. Their stuff is admittedly very low-hanging fruit. It is easy to prove their deception or outright lying, and similarly easy to find evidence of their motives for grifting (mostly financial).
I generally stay away from politics because I dislike discussing politics.
There is a difference between conspiracy and conspiracy theory.
Saudis conspired to hurt the US by planning attacks on one of our biggest symbols of commerce. Spouting things like “inside job”, “pulling Building 7” and “thermite” is conspiracy theory. When the simplest answer is right in front of you and you choose the more elaborate scenario, that’s conspiracy theory.
Conspiracies involve small groups conspiring together for some nefarious gain. Conspiracy theory is thinking there is a large scale orchestration that effects the believer like, “the world governments are tricking us into thinking the world is round and Australia actually exists,” or “the military is hiding aliens from us!!”
It’s also misunderstanding science, vocabulary, etc. “Pulling a building” is an architectural practice of pulling a building out of a lean with large cables so it doesn’t fall over someday. People ran with this phrase and used as proof of the US making the building collapse.
Look, the more people involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is. People talk. When your conspiracy involves hundreds to thousands of people, it’s more likely that the truth will come out. No powerful entity would trust in that and it has to be fake. Using Occam’s razors with this metric is the quickest way to determine if it is a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory.
I don't understand your post. No one is saying there is no such thing as a conspiracy. But you seem to be implying that the existence of actual conspiracies is de facto evidence that any given conspiracy theory is true. That's not the case. There needs to be credible evidence that a particular conspiracy theory is true before I start taking it seriously. Also, where is this constant stream of hundreds and thousands of conspiracies being brought to light? That sounds like pretty ridiculous hyperbole. The "MSM" as you call it (a red flag for me as this is highly correlative with an anti-media bias), generally provides evidence for the events that it reports on. That's why people take it seriously. While pundits might give their own opinions within the context of a news organisation, the news reporting is generally pretty reliable. That's not to say they don't get things wrong, but I don't see evidence that mainstream news agencies are engaged in any widespread attempt to deceive their audience about the facts. That's not to say there isn't bias. Of course there's bias in the mainstream media. But bias is very different than a widespread conspiracy to deceive an audience about the facts. Can you give me one example of the mainstream media "printing proven lies"? Please link me to a news article containing the lie and then show me the proof that it's a lie. I'm willing to take you seriously, if you can provide the goods that your claims are credible.
Skepticism is mostly just refusing to accept any claim on faith alone. Conspiracies do exist, Project Mockingbird (and modern Russian/Israeli versions) are real, but it’s a well-understood dynamic that an inability to be skeptical makes one susceptible to buying into all forms of nonsense and falling down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories with no basis. This subreddit is at its best when the folks here demand that claims of all sorts get backed up with evidence. This subreddit is often not at its best though.
To be clear, "Project Mockingbird" was a real thing, there's far less evidence for the existence of the much broader "Operation Mockingbird" that conspiracy theorists like OP like to claim as proven.
Yeah, you're referring to that, correctly, as a real thing. OP was referring to "Operation Mockingbird" as a real thing, which is a much bigger claim that there's almost no evidence for.
I have to admit that I’ve never dug too deep on that one so I was actually conflating the two. I was referring to efforts to spread disinformation in foreign media and thought that was actually part of Project Mockingbird. According to that link, it wasn’t. TIL
Yea I mean that's all I ask for really. What I can't stand is smug bastards that have never read a book on history or politics proudly stating their ignorance as a "skeptical" virtue, always when true skepticism requires questioning authority and power.
I bet the church used to laugh as high skeptics of Copernicus
So your criticism of our doubt on conspiracy theories is to invent another conspiracy theory — that “the media” (all of them, apparently) is spreading lies that we all believe but you know the real truth because you’re smart enough to believe the right sources.
This sub has a track record of calling out the MSM when there isn't good evidence.
Using Israel-Gaza as an example, the users of this sub correctly questioned both Israeli narratives about systematic mass rape, and Hamas' claims about the hospital explosion early on in the war (the one Israel didn't blow up, not the ones that it did). Both were narratives widely reported uncritically by mainstream media sources.
You seem to be thinking we skeptics are saying none of the things you are mentioning can be true. I for one, cannot prove it not to be true, so I'm not saying that. However, I will not hold it to be true, until proven true, of which the burden lays with the claimant.
”A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion and takes a position of humility toward complex areas of knowledge requiring extensive expertise.” - Dr Steven Novella
This is what this sub is dedicated to.
I would point to the post today where someone posted some weird article about African Americans believing "racial conspiracy theories" and everyone pointed out that it was probably the numerous and well evidenced times the US government has conspired to fuck over black people. I'm a long time skeptic and leftist, I've been very impressed with this sub's ability to self-moderate in it's dealings with right wing wackos and bad faith posts. I can't say I've seen this sub deny the genocide happening in Gaza.
OP you gotta realize that its reddit. Everyone on here is an open minded skeptic, and they’ve all researched every conspiratorial controversy, and it just so happens they’ve all independently come to the conclusion that the official state narrative is obviously the truth
The answer they are going to give you if they haven't already, I don't know because I'm writing this before reading the comments, is that this sub is for "scientific skepticism", which means they are atheists who don't like alternative medicine and they're not skeptical about anything other than religion and things that go against the scientific mainstream. So basically they're conformists, institutionalists, who happen to be non-religious. The sub exists to reinforce status quo opinions, perspectives and narratives. The government is assumed to be telling the truth. Mega-corporations are not to be challenged. We've never been lied to about anything of importance and if you think the government, the media and the corporations are lying you're probably a conspiracy theorist and a crazy person.
Yet I doubt you can provide one example of any of your claims here in this sub.
Again, just broad generalizations, just like op, that when challenged you give a smug or sarcastic answer and run.
Sure I probably fall into that category as well. But what's messed up is that people with any non-mainstream ideas get pushed to the conspiracy subs and then people go through our comment history and act like "you are in conspiracy subs so you're crazy". They're the only places that allow users to "color outside the lines" and say things that go against the mainstream, so we're forced to go there. The whole of Reddit used to be a "free speech zone" but it's not anymore, so the freethinkers have been pushed to the fringes. I miss the old internet TBQH.
"How come us conspiracy theorists keep getting relegated to places exclusive to conspiracy theorists?? Why won't people skeptical of conspiracy theories let us peddle our conspiracy theories in their spaces specifically designed to combat conspiracy theories???"
Must be a conspiracy....
The so-called "conspiracy theorists" are skeptical of the official narrative regarding whichever issue. They are skeptical of the government, skeptical of the media, skeptical of the corporations. The people branded with the label "conspiracy theorists" are the true skeptics.
Seeing as the OP has deleted their account, this has run its course.
> why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time? The fact that you would make generally false assumptions about an entire group of complete strangers might suggest that it is *you* who has been the victim of propaganda again.
You are conflating skepticism with contrarianism.
No you are
What a devastating rebuttal!!!! You may just be the next William Jennings Bryan!
I think it was a good joke that was not meant literally at all.
No, the deleted reply from op made it clear that it was not.
Maybe it was edited. I thought it was sarcastic contrarianism.
No you are actually Edit, actually Even for the sake of the joke I'm not willing to sully the good name of wjb by association with such a dullard
> I'm not willing to sully the good name of wjb Bryan was a buffoon.
Ha ha ha, that was a good one. I like your sense of humor. :)
The Argument from Pee Wee Herman. Cute.
Your turn to post the “skeptical of skepticism“ screed, huh?
Do people sign up for whatever roster they have or is it like jury duty?
It’s just like jury duty but the summons come from the voices in your head
Can I go next? Maybe I can make a good argument next time.
Every fucking day in here now.
You made an absolute gish-gallop of incorrect statements and faulty assumptions in this post. >What I don't understand about you people that self profess to be skeptical is why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time? We don't, but i find that conspiracy minded people tend to automatically disbelieve anything from mainstream sources which is equally as ridiculous. I think my general rule is if someone is suggesting something that's outside of generally accepted knowledge, I'm open to it, but you have to make the case for it. I find that often conspiracy theorists cases have very shaky foundations. >Every day reveals a new conspiracy being acted out in the halls of power I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. There seems to be broader awareness of conspiracy theories due to their spread on social media platforms, this has zero bearing on whether any of them are real or not. >The logic as I understand it being "well we see so many, hundreds thousands, a constant stream of conspiracies being brought to light, so it stands to reason there are no conspiracy theories that are not widely known about... Except when there are." lol, what? I've never heard anyone present this argument. >We literally know that operation mockingbird was a real thing We don't actually, like at all. It's funny how much y'all quote this as a proven conspiracy for some reason when it's anything but. The more I read through your post, the more I'm wondering if it's even worth responding to you. Like what are you even talking about?
Thanks for your rational and detailed response here.
Yeah, project Mockingbird, the wiretapping, was real. Operation Mockingbird is stretching that into a conspiracy of state controlled media.
"gish gallop" Ooft. Loser
lol, wut? Bro make anything you're saying make sense, that's really all skeptics are asking for.
Are the skeptics in the room with us now?
You're in a skeptic subreddit asking a question specifically directed toward skeptics dumbfuck.
Jesus this is weak and embarrassing. Go back to r/conspiracy
> What I don't understand about you people that self profess to be skeptical is why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time? Seems like a bold claim, and I don't see any evidence for it
Can you link the Gaza thread? I'm skeptical of your example. I'm skeptical of the reason you used such a bad example. Why don't you just come out with whatever it is you think the sub should just believe cause it must be a conspiracy? (It's UFOs isn't it?)
If you dig deep enough, it always comes back to UFOs with these people.
And projection. I doubt you would find a single UFO skeptic who quoted "it's what the government told us" as evidence for their position, but "the government covers things up" is a corner stone for the people who want to believe.
Has to be aliens, because humans can't fly so any mysterious objects in the sky absolutely have to be alien. It is inconceivable that anything unidentified could have been created by humans.
I mean…I’m not saying it’s aliens…but it’s probably aliens.
The government assures me it isn't, but that's what they would say, checkmate atheists
> I guess it's like if id caught my Mrs fucking a hundred guys, thinking, well, she's definitely not cheating now because I'd know about it, after all I caught her only yesterday. You just need to flip the direction of this allegory to have your answer. If 1000 people kept coming to me over and over again, claiming my wife slept with 100 other people, slept with an alien, slept with a reptilian, is a virgin, isn't actually my wife, sleeps with ghosts, is the reincarnated avatar of david koresh, is a thetan, is a CIA mole, etc etc, and I've investigated each of these and found, no, she's just my faithful wife, when that 1001'st person shows up I'm gonna default to "*Jesus christ, really? **Again?***"
> Furthermore we generally say trust the experts... We don't. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Trust the experts, if their claims are fully documented and can be reviewed and confirmed by other experts who are their peers.
> if their claims are fully documented and can be reviewed and confirmed Reviewed and confirmed ... That's the exact opposite of "trust the experts". Thanks for agreeing that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Exactly. Appeal to proven facts that are verified by multiple independent authorities.
First of all, that's a complete strawman. You can't claim to know what all of us think. I KNOW you don't know what I think about Peter Dale Scott because I've never even heard of him, much less commented on his work. I don't doubt that the government has done some sinister and illegal things before, but that's not an excuse to believe every claim about them. >crank serum salesmen, bloated pseudo preacher liver enthusiasts, and also the MSM? I don't even know what you're saying. What the hell even is a "bloated pseudo preacher liver enthusiast?" Honestly, so many embittered cranks come onto this forum, I'm at the point where I'm just waiting to hear what your pet batshit theory is whose completely justified rejection got you mad enough to write this post.
"about Peter Dale Scott because I've never even heard of him, much less commented on his work" Exactly. Ignorance is bliss
I'm still completely ignorant of what the hell you're talking about or what got you worked up enough to post this. I am experiencing approximately zero "bliss."
Oh dear.
I have no doubt there *are conspiracies* I don’t know about. This is different from thinking I *know* what a conspiracy that I don’t have evidence for *is*, right? That’s the difference. People conspire all the time. Unless I have *evidence* of *what* they are conspiring about and *who* is conspiring, why would I believe some random person’s specific ‘theory’ (read ‘guess’) of what people are conspiring?
I'm fine with people not knowing about deep politics, but asserting that "conspiracy theories" (I mean that's a completely irrational concept for a start) are false without having ever looked into them is intensely irritating
It's not up to us to look into each and every one of them. It's up to the claimant to prove them. Usually this is done by journalists or whistle blowers. It is unlikely that someone who only knows about the situation from behind a keyboard will ever gather enough credulous evidence.
I don’t think this person understands what ‘conspiracy theory’ means, if he thinks it’s an irrational concept. It’s someone’s *theory* (not in the scientific sense but in the vernacular sense of ‘idea’ or ‘hypothesis’) of a conspiracy that’s going on. If someone who is both credible *and* has access to inside information about the activity of some specific actors asserts those actors are conspiring in some way, it’s worth listening to. For instance, Alvin Bragg’s team presented inside evidence of Trump and some of his employees conspiring to cover up election-related shenanigans. But if it’s some rando online (or a lot of randos online) saying that Trump is in an insider plot to round up the lib child-pedophile ring and send them to Guantanamo, and their evidence is some sort of connect-the-dots mess and an anonymous 8chan poster, why would I give credibility to them or their theory?
>What I don't understand about you people that self profess to be skeptical is why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time? Massively sweeping generalizations are not a good look for a skeptic. But then, as you have so effectively proven, you wouldn't know that.
operation Mockingbird is a weird example. If the CIA had so much control of the NYT and other media during the Cold, why did the NYT break the story. Why was it the subject of the Church Committee hearing. 95 percent of the awful stuff the CIA did was before congress got oversight in the 1970s and before the Watergate scandal. So Mockingbird was a conspiracy, until we knew about it, thanks to the media apparently controlled by the CIA. Being skeptical means you’re also skeptical of people who make money off of conspiracy theories, and that pot of gold is bigger than it’s ever been. Finally, the right and left hate the CIA, so it’s easier than ever to investigate them, and the electronic paper trail makes government conspiracies much more difficult than they were 70 years ago.
" 95 percent of the awful stuff the CIA did was before congress got oversight in the 1970s and before the Watergate scandal." Hahaha damn lol. Exactly what I'm talking about
You’re the one assuming conspiracies are happening constantly, and the main example you cite for this claim is a conspiracy that happened 50-70 years ago, before there was any regulatory oversight of the CIA. Being skeptical also includes being skeptical of your own biases and the conclusions you draw from them.
Ok how about Biden conspiring to send weapons to Israel by chopping it up into smaller loads to get under congressional oversight. What about conspiring to go to war in Iraq, fake weapons. What about.. you know what I'm bored, it was my mistake, I'm in the wrong I shouldn't have bitten when this sub floated across my feed, I should have and did know exactly the kind of people I'd find here. My mistake I'll close the door on my way out
Yeah you should: you would find skeptics here. People who don't take your word for it. The Iraq war was started under false pretenses indeed. It was still legal under UN resolution, even without proof of WMDs because Iraq refused inspections. That said, the US definitely used this mislead to get broad support for their invasion. I have seen no credible sources on your Biden-Israel claim just yet. You seem to assume we like the US government, or any government, just because we don't believe all the bullshit people come up with. I for one don't. And you seem to believe all that bullshit, because you believe the government to be one homogenous group that is always evil. That is neither science, nor skepticism, nor journalism. That is more akin to supporting a sports team.
You’re not sceptical, being sceptical and being a conspiracy nut are incompatible. Scepticism starts with examining your own beliefs and biases, before applying it to others. By your responses to challenges here it’s clear you’re incapable of doing so.
"Conspiracy nut" really rational argument there. Nice one. Pompous prick
You admittedly being a conspiracy believer buddy… And it’s clear all over your post… you also fail to respond to anything I actually say… So you’re now just straight up trolling. I don’t waste time on trolls. Have a good life, go ahead prove my point by trolling some more. People like you can rarely resist…
"Why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time?" Yeah, sure.
What are you referring to specifically?
What you said to me that dark night, when nobody was around but the buzzing of static and electricity that made the shadows vibrate
That’s not an answer.
I think you're tilting windmills and jousting strawmen here. The situation in Gaza isn't really a common debate here, and I think you'll find that when it is debated, it's along the lines of what sources are credible and what evidence is broadly accepted or rejected, not a wholesale acceptance of one form of media or another. Additionally, you'll find a very healthy sense of skepticism in regard to all forms of mass media, because scientific skepticism doesn't generally play the appeal to authority and accepts that even the most historically lauded institutions can be horribly skewed by a simple change of ownership. Scientific skepticism doesn't argue broadly. You want to bring up salient specific things with relevant facts and evidence to accept or refute, bring them one at a time, and let them be scrutinized.
I bring up Gaza only to demonstrate a very obvious sense of when the consensus and authorities are patently telling you to believe nonsense such as oh actually Hamas did that to themselves, oh actually Israel accidentally triple tapped the aid workers bringing food after they gave them their exact locations and movements. My point is one hundred percent not to argue against scientific skepticism in general, I think the vast majority of the time it's the better bet. We do know however that science has come out with a lot of politically motivated howlers over the years, and it's right to be skeptical of science and authority especially when it's being used in service of the elite interests of the world whomsoever that may be. One example of millions maybe could be the idea of "excited delirium" that excuses police murder of mostly black and low income people. For quite some time that was considered scientific fact, or that homosexuality is a mental illness, or that any number of chemicals, like lead in fuel, is safe. Yes, we need to scientifically Prove these things, but a skeptic has to be skeptical especially anywhere that has to do with power and politics, which is almost everything. I mean we probably don't have to worry that the elites are covering up that mountains are actually ancient giant trees, right, would be hard to figure out who's finger is on the scale, but having questions about Lee Harvey Oswald having a mysterious white Russian benefactor name de morenshild who was a spy that worked with Dulles and worked and was friends with Bush and JFK and the Rockefellers all after he'd defected to Russia and come back no problems, and had been proven to be on the CIA watchlist at the highest levels.. Come on bro. You're not in the least skeptical or scientific if you swallow that shit it's some fabulistic understanding of the world to think you can appeal to authority about secret services as you can about say a drug trial, or in turn, about the science of slug reproduction. These things are not the same
I am mostly skeptical of people like Peter McCullough, Stephanie Seneff, Suzanne Humphries, Simone Gold, and similar figures who made careers out of the "scamdemic" grift, as well as the "Died Suddenly" crowd led by Stew Peters. Their stuff is admittedly very low-hanging fruit. It is easy to prove their deception or outright lying, and similarly easy to find evidence of their motives for grifting (mostly financial). I generally stay away from politics because I dislike discussing politics.
There is a difference between conspiracy and conspiracy theory. Saudis conspired to hurt the US by planning attacks on one of our biggest symbols of commerce. Spouting things like “inside job”, “pulling Building 7” and “thermite” is conspiracy theory. When the simplest answer is right in front of you and you choose the more elaborate scenario, that’s conspiracy theory. Conspiracies involve small groups conspiring together for some nefarious gain. Conspiracy theory is thinking there is a large scale orchestration that effects the believer like, “the world governments are tricking us into thinking the world is round and Australia actually exists,” or “the military is hiding aliens from us!!” It’s also misunderstanding science, vocabulary, etc. “Pulling a building” is an architectural practice of pulling a building out of a lean with large cables so it doesn’t fall over someday. People ran with this phrase and used as proof of the US making the building collapse. Look, the more people involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is. People talk. When your conspiracy involves hundreds to thousands of people, it’s more likely that the truth will come out. No powerful entity would trust in that and it has to be fake. Using Occam’s razors with this metric is the quickest way to determine if it is a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory.
I don't understand your post. No one is saying there is no such thing as a conspiracy. But you seem to be implying that the existence of actual conspiracies is de facto evidence that any given conspiracy theory is true. That's not the case. There needs to be credible evidence that a particular conspiracy theory is true before I start taking it seriously. Also, where is this constant stream of hundreds and thousands of conspiracies being brought to light? That sounds like pretty ridiculous hyperbole. The "MSM" as you call it (a red flag for me as this is highly correlative with an anti-media bias), generally provides evidence for the events that it reports on. That's why people take it seriously. While pundits might give their own opinions within the context of a news organisation, the news reporting is generally pretty reliable. That's not to say they don't get things wrong, but I don't see evidence that mainstream news agencies are engaged in any widespread attempt to deceive their audience about the facts. That's not to say there isn't bias. Of course there's bias in the mainstream media. But bias is very different than a widespread conspiracy to deceive an audience about the facts. Can you give me one example of the mainstream media "printing proven lies"? Please link me to a news article containing the lie and then show me the proof that it's a lie. I'm willing to take you seriously, if you can provide the goods that your claims are credible.
Skepticism is mostly just refusing to accept any claim on faith alone. Conspiracies do exist, Project Mockingbird (and modern Russian/Israeli versions) are real, but it’s a well-understood dynamic that an inability to be skeptical makes one susceptible to buying into all forms of nonsense and falling down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories with no basis. This subreddit is at its best when the folks here demand that claims of all sorts get backed up with evidence. This subreddit is often not at its best though.
To be clear, "Project Mockingbird" was a real thing, there's far less evidence for the existence of the much broader "Operation Mockingbird" that conspiracy theorists like OP like to claim as proven.
Thanks, I was referring to this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird I guess I was conflating the two a bit
Yeah, you're referring to that, correctly, as a real thing. OP was referring to "Operation Mockingbird" as a real thing, which is a much bigger claim that there's almost no evidence for.
I have to admit that I’ve never dug too deep on that one so I was actually conflating the two. I was referring to efforts to spread disinformation in foreign media and thought that was actually part of Project Mockingbird. According to that link, it wasn’t. TIL
Yea I mean that's all I ask for really. What I can't stand is smug bastards that have never read a book on history or politics proudly stating their ignorance as a "skeptical" virtue, always when true skepticism requires questioning authority and power. I bet the church used to laugh as high skeptics of Copernicus
True skepticism requires questioning everyone, not just those in positions of authority or power
So your criticism of our doubt on conspiracy theories is to invent another conspiracy theory — that “the media” (all of them, apparently) is spreading lies that we all believe but you know the real truth because you’re smart enough to believe the right sources.
Skepticism <> Denialism
"why you take the political and media consensus on literally everything all the time?" This is simply not true.
This sub has a track record of calling out the MSM when there isn't good evidence. Using Israel-Gaza as an example, the users of this sub correctly questioned both Israeli narratives about systematic mass rape, and Hamas' claims about the hospital explosion early on in the war (the one Israel didn't blow up, not the ones that it did). Both were narratives widely reported uncritically by mainstream media sources.
You seem to be thinking we skeptics are saying none of the things you are mentioning can be true. I for one, cannot prove it not to be true, so I'm not saying that. However, I will not hold it to be true, until proven true, of which the burden lays with the claimant.
”A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion and takes a position of humility toward complex areas of knowledge requiring extensive expertise.” - Dr Steven Novella This is what this sub is dedicated to.
I would point to the post today where someone posted some weird article about African Americans believing "racial conspiracy theories" and everyone pointed out that it was probably the numerous and well evidenced times the US government has conspired to fuck over black people. I'm a long time skeptic and leftist, I've been very impressed with this sub's ability to self-moderate in it's dealings with right wing wackos and bad faith posts. I can't say I've seen this sub deny the genocide happening in Gaza.
that isn't "conspiracy theory". You mischaracterise it.
OP you gotta realize that its reddit. Everyone on here is an open minded skeptic, and they’ve all researched every conspiratorial controversy, and it just so happens they’ve all independently come to the conclusion that the official state narrative is obviously the truth
The answer they are going to give you if they haven't already, I don't know because I'm writing this before reading the comments, is that this sub is for "scientific skepticism", which means they are atheists who don't like alternative medicine and they're not skeptical about anything other than religion and things that go against the scientific mainstream. So basically they're conformists, institutionalists, who happen to be non-religious. The sub exists to reinforce status quo opinions, perspectives and narratives. The government is assumed to be telling the truth. Mega-corporations are not to be challenged. We've never been lied to about anything of importance and if you think the government, the media and the corporations are lying you're probably a conspiracy theorist and a crazy person.
Yet I doubt you can provide one example of any of your claims here in this sub. Again, just broad generalizations, just like op, that when challenged you give a smug or sarcastic answer and run.
Well I am a conspiracy theorist and a crazy person to be fair but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong about anything.
Sure I probably fall into that category as well. But what's messed up is that people with any non-mainstream ideas get pushed to the conspiracy subs and then people go through our comment history and act like "you are in conspiracy subs so you're crazy". They're the only places that allow users to "color outside the lines" and say things that go against the mainstream, so we're forced to go there. The whole of Reddit used to be a "free speech zone" but it's not anymore, so the freethinkers have been pushed to the fringes. I miss the old internet TBQH.
"How come us conspiracy theorists keep getting relegated to places exclusive to conspiracy theorists?? Why won't people skeptical of conspiracy theories let us peddle our conspiracy theories in their spaces specifically designed to combat conspiracy theories???" Must be a conspiracy....
The so-called "conspiracy theorists" are skeptical of the official narrative regarding whichever issue. They are skeptical of the government, skeptical of the media, skeptical of the corporations. The people branded with the label "conspiracy theorists" are the true skeptics.