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

Conspiracy Theories (“Alternative Research”)

cduggles said:
news.google.com

Conspiracy theorist ordered to pay $450,000 to victim’s father for claiming Sandy Hook shooting was fake

A conspiracy theorist who claimed that the Sandy Hook massacre did not happen, has been ordered to pay $450,000 (£351,000) to the father of one of the victims. Leonard Pozner, whose six-year-old son Noah was one of 26 killed in the massacre, was awarded the money by a jury in Wisconsin after...
news.google.com news.google.com
Apparently, the parent of a Sandy Hook victim won bigtime in court for defamation.
On the one hand, free speech. On the other hand, this conspiracy theory undoubtedly caused a lot of people a lot of pain.
Maybe it’s costly speech?

it’s interesting to see how people are being brought to account for things they say.

The internet has allowed people to disregard social norms and be e-brave. It’ll be fascinating to see how society and the courts deal with situations like this one.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, the line here is simple (and this case is on the right side of it).

You can say whatever stupid and horrible shit you like, so long as you speak in general terms. You can promote conspiracy theories about specific events. Where it crosses the line is when it becomes defaming an individual member of that event. As in this case where the individual accused one of the parents of faking a death certificate.

If you make those kinds of specific accusations with no real evidence behind them, your rights to free speech don't protect against that. And they never have.

What your right to free speech does protect, is giving your opinion that it was a conspiracy. And much as I think it's a disgusting and idiotic use of free speech, I believe nevertheless in protecting it.

It's a fine line, but the line has always been there. This case goes up to the edge of that line, but I'm satisfied it doesn't go over it.

This by the way is why I keep scoffing at the argument that such people are just expressing doubts of the official version of events. That's a complete lie. Most conspiracy theorists, sorry, "alternative researchers", at least most of what I have seen, take it a LOT further than that.
 
JessFR said:
You can tell a lot from a person based on how they expect others to behave.
Click to expand...

And you also uttered this nonsense:
JessFR said:
This by the way is why I keep scoffing at the argument that such people are just expressing doubts of the official version of events. That's a complete lie. Most conspiracy theorists, sorry, "alternative researchers", at least most of what I have seen, take it a LOT further than that.
Click to expand...

You're implying that most people who are skeptical of government narratives are also willing to harass the parents of a dead child.
You can tell a lot from a person based on how they expect others to behave.

cduggles said:
On the one hand, free speech. On the other hand, this conspiracy theory undoubtedly caused a lot of people a lot of pain.
Click to expand...

The actual possible scenario here is that a faction of the government conducted this attack in order to traumatize the population into accepting a push to ban guns. That's it. People died.
They don't want you to investigate that so they blow the theories out wild "it didn't happen, everyone's an actor" etc and some fucking idiot loonies run with and make every legitimate citizen researcher seem like a crackpot. That's part of the propaganda, to create the loonies with inserted disinformation and then to conflate them with legitimate researchers (we can see the latter works effectively in the case of you both).

The Sandy Hook Massacre: Unanswered Questions

Sandy Hook: School shooting or government false flag operation?
^neither of these articles deny that people died
 
JGrimez said:
The actual possible scenario here is that a faction of the government conducted this attack in order to traumatize the population into accepting a push to ban guns. That's it. People died.
Click to expand...
And yet that’s not the same thing as saying that someone’s father faked their child’s death certificate, is it. Or to harass people who have just lost a child.

In the father’s words:

He said that Mr Fetzer had "the right to believe that Sandy Hook never happened,” and "the right to express his ignorance."
But he added that the award "further illustrates the difference between the right of people like Mr Fetzer to be wrong and the right of victims like myself and my child to be free from defamation, free from harassment and free from the intentional infliction of terror.”
Click to expand...
JGrimez said:
we can see the latter works effectively in the case of you both
Click to expand...
How much does the looney position pay? Just curious.
 
Grimes, the problem with the argument that the rediculous conspiracy theories are themselves a conspiracy to discredit conspiracy theorists, is it leads to only one conclusion....

You are also working for the conspiracy.
 
cduggles said:
And yet that’s not the same thing as saying that someone’s father faked their child’s death certificate, is it. Or to harass people who have just lost a child.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the fucking point.
No sane or rational person believes that: a) the whole thing was staged forcing a parent to fabricate a death certificate and (b) that we should harass those parents even if they're allegedly lying.

However there are sane and rational people that are skeptical of the official version of events and who was behind it.
Hopefully you can understand the difference and separate those people (I'm not gonna count on it though).
For example calling those people and myself "conspiracy theorists" is disingenuous, insulting and inappropriate.

JessFR said:
Grimes, the problem with the argument that the rediculous conspiracy theories are themselves a conspiracy to discredit conspiracy theorists, is it leads to only one conclusion....

You are also working for the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

No you just completely fail to understand the concept of disinformation, even when I spell it out very plainly for you.

Let's take a hypothetical - that some damaging information came out that could potentially threaten a powerful group (who have media ties). Now instead of engaging in the impossible task of suppressing that information, the best thing to do is interject your own information while completely blowing the story way out of proportion to ridiculous levels - that way people don't even bother to take the legitimate information seriously. It's called poisoning the well or muddying the waters.
 
I understand the concept just fine, you've missed my point.

My point is, if we are to assume that instances of individuals making conspiracy theorists/citizen researchers look bad by acting excessive and irrational...

Then on that basis I would have to conclude that you are also such an individual, because you also seem to me (and I don't appear to be alone) to behave irrationally.

You are not an example of someone I'd call a sensible citizen researcher. Your behavior strikes me as exactly the same, only the details of what you believe differ, but all the same illogical thinking applies.

As always, you just accept anything that fits your narrative. Using one argument at one time and another at another.

Sometimes the conspiracy has everyone so brainwashed that they know they can just kill epstein in the most obvious way and get away with it, sometimes they're so weak they need to worry about people on the internet who seem to do a great job discrediting themselves.

So beyond reason are your arguments that I routinely ignore them now.

This is hardly uncommon. "citizen researchers" are always accusing other citizen researchers of being part of the conspirators for promoting a slightly different version of the conspiracy.

It's just more insanity. If I were part a conspiracy, these are the last people I'd be concerned about because they discredit themselves in the eyes of most sensible people.

I keep waiting to meet a sensible "citizen researcher". I still hope to because I think that'd make for seriously interesting conversations. And I can imagine such a person existing. Alas, hasn't happened yet.
 
JessFR I guess I would match that definition (in a broard sense) To be honest I dont like labeling myself into any 'category. I just spend a lot of time collecting facts then analize that.
 
Just to submit a piece of evidence against the conspiracy theory that feminism has created the transgender awareness movement as a way to convert everyone and destabilize society... I work for a market research company and we have started (well our clients, we do what our clients want) have started by default putting "other/non-binary" along with male/female at gender questions. Since starting that a few months ago, among respondents selected from the general population, we have had a grand total of 1 person select that option out of tens of thousands of inetrviews, even among 18-24 year olds. I encounter a good number in my town but that's because it's a haven for transgender people so they come here to be with a community. However some people would have you believe that there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate gender confusion, rather than a concerted effort to promote acceptance of other ways of life and self-identity.

Oops I meant to put this in the conpiracy theories thread. I'll move it.
 
Xorkoth said:
Just to submit a piece of evidence against the conspiracy theory that feminism has created the transgender awareness movement as a way to convert everyone and destabilize society... I work for a market research company and we have started (well our clients, we do what our clients want) have started by default putting "other/non-binary" along with male/female at gender questions. Since starting that a few months ago, among respondents selected from the general population, we have had a grand total of 1 person select that option out of tens of thousands of inetrviews, even among 18-24 year olds. I encounter a good number in my town but that's because it's a haven for transgender people so they come here to be with a community. However some people would have you believe that there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate gender confusion, rather than a concerted effort to promote acceptance of other ways of life and self-identity.
Click to expand...
Very interesting!
 
Remember the golden rule of conspiracy theories. If there's evidence against the theory, you can always fall back on saying that evidence is fabricated by the conspiracy.

There's no way to win an argument over conspiracy theories. Because all evidence against the conspiracy is taken as fabrications, and therefore more evidence of the conspiracy.

In short, all evidence supports the conspiracy.
 
Xorkoth said:
Just to submit a piece of evidence against the conspiracy theory that feminism has created the transgender awareness movement as a way to convert everyone and destabilize society...
Click to expand...

I always wondered how that kind of thing worked -- more below . . .

I am a non-member sympathiser of that awareness movement above and beyond simply wanting to be a good citizen and neighbour because it is, well, an awareness movement -- it is a movement with political and cultural impact about education, respect, and treating people as one would want to be treated, which is the kind of thing needed in qeneral . . . Just on the latter point, on a purely human level, folks who are wondering about these matters should think about what it is like to carry around a secret of one depth level or another of that general type for years and decades and be looking forward to a lack of assistance with issues which may arise from it, at a bare minimum. Of course I was mortified to learn of the 41 per cent suicide rate, which has appeared to be, statistically speaking, more or less etched in stone for at least 50 years with no improvement . . . Much of the awareness movement appears to be working on building community, of course, the importance of which for everyone involved is manifest, I would think.

In theory, since the political and cultural questions here are about things which are innate, determined or similarly beyond the conscious control of the individual, the movement would have a shorter political row to hoe as it deals unquestionably about what people are, rather than what they do, which is often cited by folks in some factions on the other side of the LG&B civil & human rights movements. As this is a message board about drugs, many readers are no doubt familiar with the line of argument that it all is behaviour and is subject to conscious control of the individual. Well, then people should think about why there is organised opposition to people who are being nice to one another. When was there too much of that going on in society? Is this what is destabilising society? Does it maybe need to be destabilised? The marriage debate (which was important in many strategic ways, but why doesn't the government get out of that kind of business altogether?) was supposedly all about "weakening" the institution of marriage. Well, to make a long story short, heterosexual ostensible monoamourists have been doing an excellent job weakening it and making it unappealing for young folks for many, many years. What strengthens something like that more than people who do not need to do it knocking on the door asking to go ahead and do it anyways? Not only that, but raise families, which is essentially literally building society from the ground up? And the recent abomination in Washington with former Congresswoman Katie Hill (Democrat -- California XXV. District) was precipitated by her soon to be ex-husband in a very familiar method of destruction; as far as I am concerned, the Eisernes Kreuz on her pussy is the big issue . . . it actually could mean just about anything. Well, maybe not . . .

Also, the feminist movement, like the LGBTQ+ movement, is a big tent, and there are many opinions about all of the above in it and not all of them finally formed and set in stone. Nobody got together and planned any of this, I can assure people.
 
So does it make me a semi-conspiracist or non-conspiracist to say that Lee Harvey Oswald was shooting at Texas Governor John Connally and may or may not have had help from local buddies of his, but that is all the further it went?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top