• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Conspiracy Theories (“Alternative Research”)

The term just means investigating crimes lol.... that's what's so insane about how they've been able to weaponize the term against any theory that contradicts the (often incorrect) official narrative.

There are divisions in some police departments specifically tasked to investigate conspiracy.

It doesn't matter how many "conspiracy theories" have later been proven to be true, some people will not be able to extricate themselves from this brainwashing and will continue to use the term to attack alternative yet credible theories. Generally people who still put their faith in establishment media.
 
New video: Conspiracy Theories Is Terrorism

YouTube

t.co t.co

"An internal FBI intelligence bulletin recently classified conspiracy theories as a new form of domestic terrorism. Why? How far could this go if people's beliefs are criminalized?"
 
How much YouTube do you watch in a day?

I mean like, you seem to have a lot of YouTube videos to share. And presumably you've watched all the ones you share.

For what it's worth, the second they start prosecuting conspiracy theorists for discussing or promoting conspiracy theories. I'll be 100% on your side in the fight to stop that.

I may think conspiracy theorists are wrong, but the right to be wrong is a fundamental principle of what americas supposed to be about. :)

EDIT: I just remembered you're in Australia. So, sorry but you're on your own. It's not for me to fight for rights in Australia that Australians don't believe in. :)

Actually forget the YouTube question, I've got a more important one. Do you speak with an Australian accent? Cause if so that's my mental image shattered. :(
 
Last edited:
JessFR said:
How much YouTube do you watch in a day?
Click to expand...
A few hours, usually while I'm driving I'll listen to stuff. It's a much better place to get news than the television or print media.
Just got done watching a science documentary (it was on youtube though so it must be fake or dangerous)

JessFR said:
For what it's worth, the second they start prosecuting conspiracy theorists for discussing or promoting conspiracy theories. I'll be 100% on your side in the fight to stop that.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It's important that people resist this. It's not even about "conspiracy theories" per se, it's a way to introduce political censorship through legislation. In the future any opinions they choose could be labeled conspiracies and silenced. That's why I'm against any anti-free speech laws even if it's to criminalize the most disgusting speech that I disagree with.

JessFR said:
I may think conspiracy theorists are wrong, but the right to be wrong is a fundamental principle of what americas supposed to be about. :)
Click to expand...
It's cool you have your opinions but I can show you conspiracy theories that have been proven correct in the past, so your opinion is not based on facts.
Remember when Jussie first came out and said he got attacked by those MAGA guys? The people who were perceptive enough to call bullshit on his story were labeled "conspiracy theorists". But personally I was amazed that so many people actually believed his story. They look really stupid in hindsight and the "conspiracy theorists" i.e. the ones who are more skeptical of the information they receive were vindicated.

JessFR said:
EDIT: I just remembered you're in Australia. So, sorry but you're on your own. It's not for me to fight for rights in Australia that Australians don't believe in. :)
Click to expand...
Screw you then :P This is about setting a precedent globally.

JessFR said:
Actually forget the YouTube question, I've got a more important one. Do you speak with an Australian accent? Cause if so that's my mental image shattered. :(
Click to expand...
It's mixed. More Aussie than American, which helps a lot when picking up American girls.
 
There's very little in the way of speech that I'm ok with censoring.

Directly and unambiguously rallying people to bring violence upon specific individuals is one. And there may be some others along similar lines.

But everything else is protected. And that includes all discussion that might be considered discussing or promoting conspiracy theories. Unless you're telling other people to go out and murder specific alleged conspirators, pretty much all of it is your absolute right as far as I'm concerned. And yes, that includes what would often be called hate speech. Again with the one exception being unambiguously advocating people use violence against individuals.

I keep saying unambiguously because I've seen people try to get argue that all hate speech is implicitly advocating violence.

Any law that tries to stop people doing that is something I'm firmly opposed too.

As for conspiracies that have been proven true. I can't speak for what other people might call conspiracy theories. But I defined what I consider them the other day. And I wouldn't consider jussie being guilty to fit my definition. Since it's not excessively complicated. It only requires a single bad actor. Not thousands of them.

While I was willing to believe him up until there was evidence to disbelieve him, I don't believe I would have and ever did call disbelieving it in itself a conspiracy theory.

To me a conspiracy theory is a theory that's excessively complicated, requiring implausibly large resources to succeed.

Which is why I don't mostly don't think of the Epstein doubts in themselves to be a conspiracy theory. Since it doesn't require too much in the way of complexity to work.

You could have a conspiracy where certain individuals realize epstein is suicidal, and arrange for him to be able to easily kill himself. Or something similar. It doesn't seem like it would take many coconspiritors to work. Unlike what I'd call conspiracy theories which seem to regularly require thousands of coconspiritors.

Some specific versions of the Epstein was murdered theory might be what I'd call a conspiracy theory. But just thinking it isn't.

We're never gonna agree on this though, since even if we agreed on my definition, the definition itself is largely subjective and open to interpretation.
 
I think some of what you just said is fair, but then imo you need to realize how the mainstream and establishment are weaponizing the term "conspiracy theory". So by you continuing to use it, you are kinda perpetuating it. Because have a look at this, anything they disagree with they can call a conspiracy theory:

Is Donald Trump Jr. promoting a Jussie Smollett conspiracy theory?
www.mercurynews.com

Is Donald Trump Jr. promoting a Jussie Smollett conspiracy theory?

Donald Trump Jr. was on Twitter this week liking or retweeting posts from people who allege that the attack on “Empire” star Jussie Smollett is a left-wing hoax.
www.mercurynews.com www.mercurynews.com

JUSSIE SMOLLETT SLAMS CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT ATTACK: I'VE BEEN '100% FACTUAL AND CONSISTENT ON EVERY LEVEL'
www.newsweek.com

Jussie Smollett Breaks Silence on Alleged Attack

"My body is strong but my soul is stronger," the actor said.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

LIke how is it even "a conspiracy theory" for people to doubt his fantastic story? You see how they use it to shut down opinions?
They've basically conflated doubting Jussie Smollett with believing that the Earth is flat. This is what annoys me.
So I'd prefer you to be more specific with which groups you are talking about when you use that term, because as I've shown time and again, it really means nothing.
 
I would agree that the term conspiracy theory is a problematic one. For various reasons but the main one I have in mind is that the way I use it, the way I think many people use it, doesn't very accurately reflect the literal meaning of the two words by themselves.

Conspiracies can be real, there have been many criminal conspiracies in history. And so there's difficulties in using the term conspiracy theory to mean something more specific than simply a theory about a conspiracy theory.

While I don't believe the CIA invented the term, I do agree that it's possible to use the term conspiracy theory to dismiss legitimate doubts about official explanations. And I do think people have used it that way.

I use the term the way I do for lack of a better one.

What's unfortunate is that people have been attacked by conspiracy theorists. Specifically people who've lost children in mass shootings.

That kinda thing is really despicable. Even if you believe the mass shootings are totally faked, which I think is a rediculous assertion. I don't accept that there's any way to justify attacking such people when either you're right, and it's a pointless exercise, or you're wrong and have committed a horrible act against a grieving parent.

I bring this up because I think that's a lot of why some people are inclined to jump to defend someone like jussie in this situation.

And honestly I don't think personally attacking jussie is acceptable even now. While it's pretty much certain that he fabricated the attack, attacking him is pointless cruelty.

I don't trust the mainstream media at all. I don't trust social media either. While I don't think they're involved in a conspiracy, I do think both types of media completely fail to exercise impartiality or due diligence in reporting the facts.

I suspect we both agree that the media frequently tells people falsehoods. We likely just disagree on the causes and implications of it.
 
Last edited:
"What's unfortunate is that people have been attacked by conspiracy theorists."
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about. They weren't attacked by conspiracy theorists - they were attacked by fucking psychos.
It's like saying "they were attacked by men" therefore men are dangerous.

And honestly I don't think personally attacking jussie is acceptable even now.
Click to expand...
Yes it's perfectly acceptable. He's a piece of a shit, a liar, maybe a narcissistic sociopath, and he was willing to not only put innocent white men behind bars if caught, but he was also inflaming racial tensions nationwide and tried to portray himself as a crusader for minority rights. Fuck that guy and I hope gets attacked more (not physically though). Actually I don't want him to be attacked if he does jail time like he should.
 
What is the purpose of attacking him other than to make you feel better?

What positive benefit does it have to anything?

I can't see any, and so to me attacking him is unsupportable. It's a pathetic attempt to feel better by being hurtful to others.

I think it's really quite disgusting to be honest. I don't care what the guy did. Causing harm to people to make yourself feel better, or no reason at all, is wrong. If there's no positive outcome to doing it, it can't be supported.

And as for them being psychos rather than conspiracy theorists. I think that's a really silly distinction to make. If someone attacks you because they believe they believe you're part of a conspiracy, you're going to think you were attacked by conspiracy theorists.

Just as if you're attacked by liberals, liberals attacked you. Not ALL liberals may have any desire to attack you, but that doesn't make your attackers not liberals. Replace liberal with conservative, gays, vegans, any group you like and this still fits.

Trying to argue a distinction is a really poor self defense.
 
Liberals are more clearly defined.

Some people think Sandy Hook was staged.
Some people think it happened but was carried out by deep state actors.
Some people believe the official story but then they might think that 9/11 was an inside job.

Would you call all these people conspiracy theorists?
 
So there's the issue. It's only a ridiculously small number of people that actively wish to harass parents of shooting victims.
It's not accurate or fair to group all conspiracy theorists in together with those small few.
And I know Alasdairm will chime in and say "you're doing the same with liberals" but it's not the same because I'm attacking the leftist themes that are being pushed officially by their leadership and establishment. There's no cohesive conspiracy ideology, I don't even label myself with that term.
You use it to group together an extremely diverse and varied group of opinions, with the only similarity being that they're skeptical of official/establishment narratives.
And by you saying conspiracy theorists harass victims' parents - you're kinda perpetuating the "conspiracy theorists are domestic terrorists" trope.
 
Obviously it's not fair for all conspiracy theorists to be blamed or tarred by the same brush as its worst behaved members. But I'm really not arguing that it's fair to do that, just that it's not unreasonable or untrue to say that some conspiracy theorists do behave in that way.

Just as some militant feminists may say and do some crazy shit. It's not fair to claim all feminists are like that, but neither is it unreasonable to suggest that they're still feminists. Just the most extreme kind of feminists.

Just as not all conspiracy theorists fall into the most extreme opinions or behaviors of the group. But I do think recognizing it as a broad group that does exist is a sensible description to use in discussion.

BTW sorry if this post seems a little unclear or lacking an obvious point, I'm really tired as I'm writing it. :)
 
JessFR said:
But I do think recognizing it as a broad group that does exist is a sensible description to use in discussion.
Click to expand...
Nope, it isn't. You're falling for political propaganda and acting as one of their foot soldiers.
And it doesn't matter how many times I've explained something to you, you either fail to grasp it or choose to constantly ignore it.
That's your choice but it's annoying.

Here's some pretty important news (I think so anyway) that you will not see anywhere on the MSM:

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) University of Alaska Fairbanks

The principal conclusion of the University of Alaska Fairbanks WTC 7 study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7...
ine.uaf.edu

This is a study by an American university of the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001.

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, so if piles and piles of studies say it was fire, that's lies. If one says it wasn't. It's the truth.

Can't imagine where alasdairm got the idea you evaluate evidence selectively from.

So tell me, how have you come to the conclusion that this specific study is more likely to be true?
 
Because I have eyes and there's plenty of footage of Building 7 coming down in what appears to be some kind of controlled demolition.

If you wish to ignore what you see along with common sense, and also ignore facts like Building 7 not even being mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report - in order for you to desperately avoid any hints of conspiracy - that's on you. Good luck with that.

Building 7 is like another Epstein - super obvious.
 
People always say that, that it "looks like a controlled demolition". As if they've seen hundreds of buildings demolished and hundreds of buildings collapse due to fire and are intimately familiar with how the two look different.

It's rediculous though. People's ideas of what it "should look like" are based on nothing more than what they've seen in movies. They have no real world experience to base it off of.

This is my problem with conspiracy theories. It's never enough for the government to have just let it happen or made it happen the way it appeared. It has to have happened in the most implausible manner possible with hundreds of people somehow covertly rigging up the entire building for a controlled demolition for some reason.

This is why this is my definition of a conspiracy theory. That a conspiracy theory is by definition overly complicated and implausible and based on selective evaluation of evidence with a predecided answer.
 
It would take team of a dozen or so a few weeks to do. It's obvious you know nothing about controlled demolitions, which is ironic when you go on a rant about others not understanding controlled demolitions....

How about we listen to an expert on controlled demolitions?
This guy (like many people) was unaware that a 3rd building fell that day on 9/11.
He was shown the footage of Building 7's collapse and this was his opinion:



Will you be honest enough to comment on what he says?
 
And how exactly do you conceal the couple weeks setting up the demolition charges when there are people already working in the building?

How have you determined that this guy is a genuine expert? Did you look into his credentials? What about experts who say it was highly implausible to be controlled demolition? Why do you accept the argument of one but not the other?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top