V
Villan Of The North
Guest
Firstly, to avoid this thread becoming about members of the forum, let's leave names, implications and personal accusations out of this thread.
These people both fascinate and terrify me. From my perspective I start to wonder what has made them so cynical to the mainstream that the eschew anything that comes through it unless it happens to support their pre-concieved ideas. Also, there seems to be a great need for acknowledgement and it seems as if it makes them feel special to be relatively early adopters of therories so that when that magical day of vindication arrives they can point fingures and gloat at all those that were wrong. I also find their selectivity or inconsistancy to be interesting. choosing those things in the media that support their ideas and holding them up as absolute proof but then dismissing out of hand anything that doesn't support them as "you can't trust the mainstream media"
I met one last friday at my local swimming pool and I observed a few interesting behavioural commonalities that I will now highlight: They don't just believe in one conspiracy, they believe in many (boarding on all in some cases). They invariably are supporters of Donald Trump and haters of Hilary Clinton. They can always point to evidence that they can never actually show. In the face of evidence that contradicts them, they blow it off with comments like, "I don't know anything about that". In fact they don't really seem to undrstand the concept of evidence. They always think that they are "in the know" and that they are so much more open minded and enlightened than others. They seem to want to be able to scoop the news.
The one I met on Friday actually claimed that he knew of the recent New York terrorist attack 3 weeks before it happened though "his source". Ignoring the fact that, had he and his source really known of the attack in advance they had both a legal and moral duty to inform relevant authorities, he couldn't explain to me how his source had this information whilst billion dollar/euro/pound funded intelligence agencies with vast experience of investigating terrorism and terrorist groups were not aware of the attack.
These people strike me, in general, as immature, narcisistic, insecure and being easily lead.
It's a shame as they rob the world og conspiracies of any real credibility and there can be no doubt that, from time to time, there actually is a conspiracy, the issue being that these people always see a conspiracy when in reallity it's Occams Razor that's usually correct.
These people both fascinate and terrify me. From my perspective I start to wonder what has made them so cynical to the mainstream that the eschew anything that comes through it unless it happens to support their pre-concieved ideas. Also, there seems to be a great need for acknowledgement and it seems as if it makes them feel special to be relatively early adopters of therories so that when that magical day of vindication arrives they can point fingures and gloat at all those that were wrong. I also find their selectivity or inconsistancy to be interesting. choosing those things in the media that support their ideas and holding them up as absolute proof but then dismissing out of hand anything that doesn't support them as "you can't trust the mainstream media"
I met one last friday at my local swimming pool and I observed a few interesting behavioural commonalities that I will now highlight: They don't just believe in one conspiracy, they believe in many (boarding on all in some cases). They invariably are supporters of Donald Trump and haters of Hilary Clinton. They can always point to evidence that they can never actually show. In the face of evidence that contradicts them, they blow it off with comments like, "I don't know anything about that". In fact they don't really seem to undrstand the concept of evidence. They always think that they are "in the know" and that they are so much more open minded and enlightened than others. They seem to want to be able to scoop the news.
The one I met on Friday actually claimed that he knew of the recent New York terrorist attack 3 weeks before it happened though "his source". Ignoring the fact that, had he and his source really known of the attack in advance they had both a legal and moral duty to inform relevant authorities, he couldn't explain to me how his source had this information whilst billion dollar/euro/pound funded intelligence agencies with vast experience of investigating terrorism and terrorist groups were not aware of the attack.
These people strike me, in general, as immature, narcisistic, insecure and being easily lead.
It's a shame as they rob the world og conspiracies of any real credibility and there can be no doubt that, from time to time, there actually is a conspiracy, the issue being that these people always see a conspiracy when in reallity it's Occams Razor that's usually correct.
