Conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

[Taxloss]

There's been a lot of talk about "conspiracy theories" on DU in the past few days and I thought I might add a few words. If Skinner feels I'm duplicating his brilliant post, he's free to delete it. Just typing it makes me feel better.

Let me say this right off: I am not trying to malign any conspiracy theorising or any posters here. You all have only the very best intentions in mind, I'm certain.

To begin, conspiracies exist. And they work. There was a conspiracy to set off bombs in London, and it worked. (There are always conspiracies to set off bombs in London. It's getting tiresome.)

There was a conspiracy to crash planes into the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001. That one worked as well.

According to my desk dictionaries, "conspiracy" is to plot and scheme in secret. So they abound in public life and history.

There was another conspiracy in your country, America. A bunch of subversives got together and decided they were going to reject the king and declare self governance. In about 1776.

That one worked too.

So conspiracies work to the bad and to the good.

Conspiracy THEORIES are different. They're a churning yeasty fermenting broth of speculation based on only the most slender shavings of evidence. And that makes for small beer. Small beer is an ancient Brit sayin for weak beer. While Conspiracy Theories might seem like the real hard stuff, the really hard stuff is verified facts. Hard to get, hard to take.

And it's hard work dealing with a situations you don't fully know or understand.

But I think we should face situations we don't fully know or understand in a spirit of open, honest ignorance, and not let phantoms spread in.

Rant over.

[beam me up scottie]

1. Brilliant.

Excellent ananogy: "small beer".

:applause:

[Taxloss]

3. Aw, ta!

Funnily enough, I PMed you right after writing this on an unrelated matter.

[Al-CIAda]

2. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.

'Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.'

-Michael Rivero

[NoSheep]

6. I have made a commitment. To never "sleep" again while these bastards

ruin my country. Perhaps the OP read my post-perhaps not.

For those who may call me a conspiracy theorist. Please read this:


This statement, made by a "senior advisor to Bush" is one of the most chilling I've ever read. I believe the speaker could easily be Rove and the hubris, unmistakably BushCo.
This is why I question everything. And I mean everything.

Written by Ron Suskind in the NY Times Magazine Oct 17, 2004:

snip

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

snip


http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2004-10-16b.html

[beam me up scottie]

15. "In our obsession

with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think, how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask is not an alien force ALREADY among us?" "There are only a handful of people who know the truth about this."
-Ronald Reagan to a full session of the United Nations-
September 21, 1987

[marions ghost]

34. LOL yes

an alien force is already among us.

[madeline_con]

99. ".... the citizen has to choose ...

...what he or she will do about it."

Eureka! Thank you, I finally realize what the hell's wrong with the RW. They'd be forced to face the truth, make a descision, and clean house. Too much like work!

[Corgigal]

4. theory

THEORY
A theory is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.



Works for me.

[Taxloss]

5. Sounds like speculation to me.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Yes, the fundies like that word too.

They call creationism "Theory of Intelligent Design" which is, of course, anything but.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Many things that are accepted as facts today were once theories.

[Taxloss]

9. Many things that are now considered laughably false were once theories.

[bpilgrim]

48. and we here on DU chronicle the DIFFERENCE

we a discerning bunch ain't we, thats why everyone LOOOOVES 'us' ;->

peace

[bloom]

10. yeah - it seems to me that people

are just trying to figure out now what most people will know in about 10 or 20 years.

It's hard to figure out a strategy based on the past to improve the future if you are not willing to consider it in the present.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Umm, yeah.

That's what he said.
How do you think that happened?
Because a bunch of old wives sat around telling stories ?

The bimbo in the White House keeps repeating his "theories" over and over again, hoping that they'll be accepted.

Without evidence, they're all the same.

[Minstrel Boy]

11. "This phrase is among the tireless workhorses of establishment discourse"

You are fudging "theory" and "hypothesis."

From an address by Professor Jamey Hecht entitled "Conspiracy and the State of the Union":

...

THE TERM ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY’

This phrase is among the tireless workhorses of establishment discourse. Without it, disinformation would be much harder than it is. "Conspiracy theory" is a trigger phrase, saturated with intellectual contempt and deeply anti-intellectual resentment. It makes little sense on its own, and while it’s a priceless tool of propaganda, it is worse than useless as an explanatory category.

...

If we say, 9-11 was orchestrated by the bin Laden organization, the Pakistani intelligence agency, and elements of the neoconservative group that seized power in 2000, that’s an hypothesis, derived logically from a set of documented facts that constitute evidence. It isn’t a theory. It can become part of a theory if it’s joined with other hypotheses into a coherent descriptive pattern that can help to predict future events in general terms.

For instance, the amply demonstrated hypothesis that the 35th President of the United States was murdered by a consortium of interests including the CIA, Cuban exiles, organized crime, and the military. 11-22 and 9-11 are examples of premeditated murder by more than one person – in law, they are cases of conspiracy to commit murder (and fraud, and perjury, and treason). Taken together, they imply a theory whose greatest expression is the work of Peter Dale Scott, who coined the term deep politics: "the constant, everyday interaction between the constitutionally elected government and forces of violence, forces of crime, which appear to be the enemies of that government." Deep politics is a robust theory, a powerful explanatory account of demonstrable phenomena; it applies to myriad cases and offers a unified understanding of their causes and meanings. Like Goethe’s conceptual account of color, and like Newton’s rival account which refuted it, Scott’s deep-political theory applies uniformly to the domain it describes.

Conspiracy, on the other hand, is a hypothesis about a particular case at hand. The only rigorous meaning that the phrase "conspiracy theory" can have would be that political crimes involving more than one actor are usually exceptional episodes unrelated to one another – rather than the ongoing, systemic and unacknowledged relationships between authorities and the criminals they are paid to hinder and to punish.

...

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Yeah, I'll keep that in mind the next time I read about the Reptoids.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Types

The word ‘theory’ derives from the Greek ‘theorein’, which means ‘to look at’. According to some sources, it was used frequently in terms of ‘looking at’ a theatre stage, which may explain why sometimes the word ‘theory’ is used as something provisional or not quite real. The term ‘theoria’ (the noun) was already used by the ancient Greeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_reason

Speculative reason
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." -- Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut

Speculative reason is theoretical (or logical, deductive) thought (sometimes called theoretical reason), as opposed to practical (active, willing) thought. The distinction between the two goes at least as far back as the ancient Greeks philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, who distinguished between theory (theoria, or a wide, bird's eye view of a topic, or clear vision of its structure) and practice (praxis), as well as productive knowledge (techne).

Speculative reason is contemplative, detached, and certain, whereas practical reason is engaged, involved, active, and dependent upon the specifics of the situation. Speculative reason provides the universal, necessary principles of logic, such as the principle of contradiction, which must apply everywhere, regardless of the specifics of the situation.




Instead of approaching a problem with "open,honest ignorance" how about "open, honest intellectual curiosity"?

[beam me up scottie]

14. Next thing you know,

we'll be hearing from David Icke and Freddy Silva.

[bloom]

16. "Alternate framing for arguments termed "conspiracy theories" - Lakoff

http://forum.rockridgeinstitute.org/?q=node/99

[Taxloss]

17. I'm not trying to shut down argument.

I'm saying speculation is speculation.

[bloom]

18. The trouble is - as I see it

is that what the Mainstream Media speculates about - becomes "fact" - even when it's not. Because it is what people hear the most.


P.S. It is worse in the States - where the mainstream "credible" media that most people get does not begin to take seriously or to even cover what the government doesn't want covered.

[bloom]

23. blogging

Just for fun I googled - "Al Qaeda", subway bombing - and got 62,000+ hits

Then I googled - "CIA", subway bombing - and got 55,000 hits

(There are 442,000 hits for - subway bombing - by itself)


Which would seem to suggest (others might come to other conclusions) - that on the web - nearly as many people connect the CIA to subway bombing (not London's specifically) as do people who connect Al Qaeda. But you sure wouldn't get that out of the Mainstream media.

[Matariki]

19. could you link to Skinner's post

i want to read it. thanks.

[Taxloss]

21. Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4081298

[H2O Man]

20. A conspiracy

is simply something two people are working on secretly. A theory should not be confused with applying to science in any special way. It is simply someone looking at any set of facts, and coming up with an interpretation. That theories are part of science is a given; however, they are part of everyday life.

Hence, a conspiracy theory is simply someone looking at a set of facts, and interpreting those facts to indicate there are likely two or more human beings playing a coordinated role that is not apparent on the surface.

Some conspiracy theories are rational; some indicate that they are the by-product of a tormented mind. And a lot fall somewhere in between.

[H2O Man]

119. Now here's proof!

Everyone ignores my post! Tell me that ain't a conspiracy! Huh? Oh, sure: it could be evidence that I'm paranoid, but that's your theory.

[frictionlessO]

121. Both of your posts are excellent!

Wonder why the hardcore "purge 'em" people never pick fights with you??

I think its because yer just cuddly!

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taxloss]

25. Well, we are ignorant right now. There's nothing wrong with admitting we

don't know what happened in certain places at certain times.

Facts are precious. Opinion is free.

I'm not dismissing anyone or anything. But conspiracy theories are easy. Actually finding the facts behind a conspiracy is a lot harder.

[bpilgrim]

37. but there are certain FACTS out there as well...

that SOME don't wanna acknowledge in the face of their ignorance even, as i mentioned above... seen it happen all the time, over the years, here and 'there' (media in gen), some questions & FACTS must never be addressed or certainly ridiculed when brought up even bringing up FACTS (ie: WTC7)

i find it very interesting, after all we now, collectively, KNOW about these in-your-face CRIMINALS & TRAITORS and their BEHAVIOR, these past horrid, recent YEARS - not to mention their written goals(PNAC) - that any DU'er is still 'surprised' that these topics, occasionally are discussed, not only on DU - hello - but also by a great many americans.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[marions ghost]

71. Perhaps you don't really understand what happens to people

living under an illegitimate, repressive government and repeatedly abused, repeatedly told that "black is white," lied to over and over in the best Orwellian tradition. And in a fearful, less-than-ethical society with a stifled media, many people WILL actively support such a government --simply because it seems "strong." In this situation, truth becomes highly debatable. There is certainly no trust that truth will be provided by the government, except by accident. IN ORDER to claim SOME sense of order and explanation, such a beleaguered population will have a tendency to speculate, perhaps beyond the given facts. But this is no less rational, when "facts" are suspect. Speculation in itself is not a bad thing, and involves a building up of facts, some of which may be discarded later. Most of us here seem to be able to ignore topics we don't resonate with, if they seem too outrageous. Hopefully DU will still have a place for speculative topics, even if they are not allowed in the main forums.

It seems to me that you in Britain have a certain level of trust in the system, enviable to some of us who have lost it in ours. So please be a little more tolerant of different reactions to this kind of stress is all I'm saying, and don't take it personally. Our freedom of expression IS being curtailed here and that makes people sensitive to any attempt to put a damper on discussion. Dialogue between our two countries is fruitful at this critical juncture. I am hopeful that "the facts" about your recent terrorist tragedy will come out, with a kind of verification that exceeds American standards. We are in this together.

Do you think I'm way off base here, or can you see that we may have a slightly different perspective on this subject, both equally valid in these disturbing times?

[beam me up scottie]

26. What I find interesting, is that so many DUers

showed so little respect for our friends in London who were trying to come to grips with a terrible tragedy.

Starting thread after thread after thread about how "convenient" it was for this to have happened.

Starting thread after thread after thread about how bush and cheney were responsible.

Starting thread after thread after thread about how Tony Blair was in on it too.

Starting thread after thread after thread about how a company was conducting a *gasp!* planned emergency drill at the same time - as if they never have drills in London or anywhere else, for that matter.

After being told countless times that such posts were inappropriate, was it too much to ask for posters to use, if not respect and compassion for our friends, just a little common sense ?

Apparently, it was.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

29. See ? You just threw any credibility you might have had

right down the crapper by insulting me.

I never said you had to "be nice" or show respect, by all means, continue on as you have been, just quit crying about how you are not allowed to speak freely.

Nobody got banned or told to stop posting, and neither the op nor myself even hinted at censorship.

You act as though Skinner himself is trying to stifle dissent against the government-don't leave anybody out when you start throwing insults around, do you?

"If some tragedy happens to me - I would rather that people be interested in the truth than in covering Bush&Cos. ass."

People are either "interested in the truth" (YOUR version, that is) or
"covering Bush&Cos. ass"

That is the only defense cts have and I'll bet it's one of the reasons
why so many are thrilled with Skinner's decision today.

You do not know what respect is.

Maybe this will remind you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4081298&mesg_id=4082085

but I doubt it.

I used to lurk around your forum because I was genuinely interested in listening to any new evidence, but after the behaviour exhibited this past week, I will never listen to anything DU cts have to say again.

I'll get the information from sources who exist just to inform, not force their opinions on others.

You are only interested in pushing your agenda down every body else's throat.

Even when you know you have absolutely NO evidence indicating that our governments were involved in the London attack, and even after Skinner has told you that you can post freely in the appropriate forum, you still scream bloody murder because you can't keep posting your speculations in GD, GDP and LBN.

Anybody who disagrees with you gets insulted and dismissed, as you just illustrated.

[bloom]

33. I don't presume to know the truth

but I have had several others tell me that they do.

Seems to me you know how to throw out insults pretty well yourself.

About those of us who "showed so little respect" that we wanted to talk about reasons besides those of the MSM.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Right, because NOBODY ELSE wanted to discuss

anything outside of the msm.

We all just drank the kool aid and believed everything they told us.

Because cts are THE ONLY ONES who are willing to investigate the truth.

Because NOBODY ELSE suspects the government or the bush cartel.

That is apparently all you have to add to the discussion.

Either we believe a crackpot theory or else.

No middle ground there at all.

Now, what was it you were saying about respect and being open to other people's opinions ?

[bloom]

40. Look at what the censorship has led to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4086895&mesg_id=4086895

You think this is progress? I don't.

[beam me up scottie]

43. What does that thread have to do with anything ?

Are you saying the poster should be censored for being a smartass ?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

51. I believe that idea was suggested by the ct's themselves.

Read Skinner's thread again.
They are the ones insisting on hard and fast rules about source, something Skinner and most of the rest of us are dead set against.

[bpilgrim]

52. "source" has ALWAYS been IMPORTANT on DU

at least the threads i have time to read & skinner (and the mods) talk about it all the time... it's a DU tradition actually.

fyi

peace

[beam me up scottie]

58. I post stuff from Weekly World News all of the time.

It never gets deleted. Why is that ?

[bpilgrim]

61. never heard of it

also... it depends on the forum <lounge don't count ;->

peace

[beam me up scottie]

63. I don't go to the lounge.

weeklyworldnews.com

Check it out. They've got tons of conspiracy articles.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Most of that bru ha ha started

with Prison Planet being referenced in dozens of threads.

Even if the FACTs were true, they didn't add up to anything and people were just using them as a launching pad for their cock-eyed speculation.

Those posters abused the forums, admin and mods and caused many of us to flee GD, GDP and LBN because we were sick of being bombarded with this.

You read how the one poster posted his thread SEVEN different times because it kept getting deleted, do you think that is using common sense and discipline ?

I don't think Skinner wanted it to come to this but he had no choice.

And DU is not compiling a list of banned sources, that is coming from ONE person and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

70. I actually just went there for the first time last week.

The article looked on the up and up and the BBC source was legit.
It was really freaky that an emergency drill was being conducted at the same time.
But then I started digging further and I started noticing that what they do is feed the worst of the fear mongers facts that they can use to "prove" their theories. None of the facts added up to much. They do drills all of the time in London, this one was planned since 2002.
The most I could believe was that the bombers planned their attack around the drill, since it was publicized well in advance.
But I did my homework, just like you because I don't trust the msm.

I really believe that the cts are right about a lot of things, the voting fraud, the cover up, I read the New World Order a couple of years ago and am still revolted by it.

I wouldn't put anything past the people who stole our country.

[beam me up scottie]

105. Goodnight Bloom.

I'm sorry if I offended you, it wasn't right.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

130. WHERE do I say I "favor censoring" anything ?

Show me.

[marions ghost]

78. Skinner clearly said in that thread that

all "mainstream" news websites were acceptable, but other websites were not and he gave a couple of approvals and disapprovals, and obviously this reflects a list in his head, if nowhere else. The admins are making an attempt to express their viewpoint on sources, but it may cause confusion if not made very clear.

A request--please avoid characterizing anyone who weighs in on this topic as "a CT"--your attempts to marginalize are blatant.

[beam me up scottie]

80. What ? You want an apology for using ct ?

I apologize to any and all posters in the known universe and beyond for ever thinking or saying anything that might have offended somebody.

Conspiracy theorists is too damned long to type in every post.

Or do you want me to qualify every statement so that I don't offend you ?

[marions ghost]

88. Yes

I'm insulted at the negative implications of "conspiracy theorist" OR "a ct" --not a good term. Can you think of something less inflammatory? Or is it your purpose to create an "outsider" group, with you firmly on the side of greater wisdom? It's divisive.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Isn't that what you call someone who theorizes about conspiracies ?

I have no idea what else to call them.
Skinner references conspiracy theories, is that a good term ?
CT is not derogatory, merely accurate.

Honestly, give me something else to call them and I'm game, but I will probably still abbreviate it.

[marions ghost]

93. smokescreen

You are clearly using CT and 'conspiracy theorist' in a derogatory sense. It's not a complimentary term to begin with, implies wacko.

[beam me up scottie]

98. Hardly.

I'd use the other name if I wanted to be insulting.

Talk about censoring...

[beam me up scottie]

92. MG, I've got to sign off now.

I've got orphans to feed but I'd like to apologize if I offended you.
When the dust settles, I hope DU will be stronger for it.
I have been insulted many times in the past week and I have returned fire and I regret my part in most of it.
G'nite.

[marions ghost]

102. OK sure

truce. In the aftermath of such a stressful & eventful week this isn't too surprising. Maybe there are some positives here.

[beam me up scottie]

104. Seriously,

I've posted in threads with you before, I'd hate to upset somebody I like because I was smarting from other posters.

~L

[rman]

111. What the heck does speculation on the matter have to do with disrespect?

Right, every day there are multiple drills everywhere, that between them cover all possible scenarios for any possible terror attack that day.
So it is inevitable that when an actual attack takes place, it is identical to one of the drills taking place at that time.

[beam me up scottie]

116. Sigh...what appears to be inevitable is the fact that

some are unable to produce evidence to back up their theories and expect skeptics to do the work.

I don't have to disprove anything, remember ?

[stickdog]

125. Were you equally distressed by the far more widespread speculation that

Muslim fundamentalists conspired to plan this horrible attack?

Why or why not?

[etherealtruth]

24. Wonderful

Thank you ---- you stated "everything" I feel about this subject, but would be (am) incapable of articulating with any grace, coherence or logical progression.

[bvar22]

28. When DU was founded,

..."Stealing an Election in Florida" was a Conspiracy Theory that was ridiculed by the mainstream.

[beam me up scottie]

30. And more recently on DU,

"Carl Rove Engineered Earthquakes in California" is a Conspiracy Theory that is ridiculed by the mainstream.

Boy, times sure change, don't they ?

[bvar22]

35. Yes

I am glad that I have the final decision when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff. I don't trust others to make those decisions for me.

I didn't bother wasting any time on the "Earthquake Threads".
Did you?

[beam me up scottie]

65. It's NOT your decision, though, is it ?

It's Skinner's, admin's and the mods'.

If you've got a problem with Skinner and DU rules, I suggest you talk to him about it, don't accuse other posters of censoring you.

It's dishonest.

[bpilgrim]

38. "Carl Rove Engineered Earthquakes in California" - lol

how often is that discussed here?

betcha it's way LESS than the M$MWs talk about it or SHARK-ATTACKS :evilgrin:

peace

[beam me up scottie]

66. Why tell me ? Talk to Skinner, it's his house.

nt

[rman]

112. See how easy it is for disruptors to discredit DU? As Skinner said:

"I think it is safe to say that few of us would like Democratic Underground to become widely known as that place where people believe space aliens cause tsunamis." - Skinner


Where "us" would be anyone who posts on DU, which indeed can be literally "anyone", as i imagine every DU-er would have noticed by now.
Though maybe there are "few of us" who don't recognize a freeper invasion even if it hits them in the face.

Indeed "few" of "us" would like to discredit DU - but then again, it only takes a few to do just that.
All that's needed then is for the MSM to cherry pick certain posts.


And in case you did not know: the "Carl Rove Engineered Earthquakes in California" CT is ridiculed by the vast majority of DU CT-ers. Likewise with for instance "The moonlanding was a hoax", wich in fact is a FOX News/RW CT.
Of course as in any case, there are always a "few" of "us"...

[beam me up scottie]

117. Crow the Tsunami Caused By Aliens CT from the rooftops for all I care.

Just don't expect it to remain in LBN and then cry when it doesn't.

And they're not my rules, in case you haven't noticed.

Take your issues up with Skinner and stop trying to blame other members for disruptions.

[rman]

120. Which part of 'Tsunami CT' ridiculed by DU CT-ers did you not understand?

Why do you paint all CTs with the same broad brush?

[Telly Savalas]

31. The injunctions by the GOP to stop the recounts were secret?

I missed that.

[AX10]

32. True

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Who's shutting anything down ?

You are aware that there is a forum for those theories, aren't you ?

[stickdog]

127. Yes, segregating thoughtcrime is much more thoughtful than banning it

and much easier than having to intellectually confront it.

[beam me up scottie]

131. Take up your issues with Skinner, or do you prefer

harassing me ?

[starroute]

42. Are you now or have you ever been a conspiracy theorist?

Given the example of past history, it's pretty apparent that some conspiracy theories are true, some are false, some are disinformation designed to make people who believe them more easily manipulated, some of them are disinformation designed to divert attention from more accurate conspiracy theories, and on and on ad infinitum.

For myself, I believe in a Jeffersonian marketplace of ideas. The best way to arrive at the truth is to allow everybody's version to slug it out on equal terms.

But that's kind of a side issue at the moment. What I see going on at this forum that really alarms me is the creeping McCarthyism.

Already, certain lines of discussion are taboo -- or at least ghettoized. Now it's being proposed (though not on this thread) that links to certain sites be taboo as well.

I don't know that I can play by those rules. What if another bombing occurs that appears suspicious in some way and I want to make a point about it by comparing it to the London bombings? Will my post be deleted or the entire thread deep-sixed?

But what's potentially worse is the guilt by association. If certain topics become taboo, will other topics that are associated with them be taboo as well? Will posters be banned if they persist in referring to forbidden topics -- and will others be banned if they defend them?

People sometimes worry that statements made at DU could be picked up by the right and used to make us look bad. But if DU itself choses to cast those positions beyond the pale, how much easier will it be for the right to use them to tar the left in general?

First they came for the conspiracy theorists, but I said nothing because I was not a conspiracy theorist . . .

[beam me up scottie]

46. What the hell is everybody talking about ?

Did you READ Skinner's message ?

You are aware that you can discuss Retoid Research or crop circles until your heart's content, right ?

[Old and In the Way]

107. Eloquently stated.

"Marketplace of ideas" That's my thought exactly. Isn't that what we trade in here? Currency is post count. If they are too kooky, no one should buy them.

Regarding guilt by association....Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all believed the Earth revolves around the sun. So do I. Does that mean I'm like those guys?

[Tuesday_Morning]

118. "A Jeffersonian marketplace of ideas"

That's why I'm here.

I suppose it's natural for someone who gave birth to this wild and woolly baby - DU - to worry about its reputation but for me it's different.

I want to hear all the theories; I want to hear them in depth; I want to hear the crazier ones. I want to make up my own mind.

[FredStembottom]

123. I posted a non-commital comment about ________________

I posted yesterday and mentioned the ghettoized topic of _________________.

My comment was similar to yours, that I wanted to hear the chaff as well as the wheat and sort it out myself.

My mistake seems to have been to site _specific_ instances of more worthwhile arguments co-existing along with really silly ones when it comes to ______________.

I was deleted.

Apparently, you are OK until you invoke certain specific words connected to certain specific topics - no matter what your comment about them is. Even when contained within a thread like this one that specifically addresses the subject.

This surprises me as a new member of DU.

This gives me pause.

[silvershadow]

45. there wouldn't be so many conspiracy theorists if

there weren't so many conspiracies. Every thing about my country seems to be corrupt to the very core, so it is hard not to look at some of the more outrageous theories (such as LIHOP/MIHOP) and think to yourself "you know what, just maybe..." Luckily for me, there are enough obvious misdeeds to occupy my attention. I do, however, secretly wish that a few of the conpiracy theories would be proven true, so people would be indicted and go to jail. I would just grab a bag of popcorn and watch the fun.

[beam me up scottie]

49. I don't think there is a single member

who doesn't suspect them just as you do.

Certain posters want us to believe that they are not allowed to discuss their theories at liberty on DU.

Perhaps it was behaviour like this, and not the theories themselves, that caused KOS to purge them from his site.

Skinner has been more than fair, IMO and I don't know a single DUer who wanted anyone banned or censored.

It's a ridiculous attempt to spin the facts.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

60. YEAH I REALLY WANNA SAY THAT.

Because it is SPECULATION and it is ALLOWED ON DU .

And knock it off with the pathetic wanna-be tough guy routine, it belongs back on your football forum.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Yawn.

:boring:

Oh, did I mention I'm intimidated ?

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Why ? You can't keep up now.

You've had to resort to threats, name calling and bigotry;
it's really quite an arsenal you've brought with you.

But most of us on DU don't need to use them and they're generally not welcome here.

[AlwaysQuestion]

50. What're labels anyway

I don't take this "conspiracy theorist" thing seriously. It's nothing but a bloody label--a tool to ridicule the "messenger" backed up by no more evidence than what the "messenger" provided for his case in the first instance.

And while in exasperation we all at one time or another dip into our cavernous bag of labels and pluck a few out to hurl at someone hoping they will stick, the act only serves to muddy the waters.

When someone pins a label on me or alludes to one they'd like to pin on me, I rush to embrace it if for no other reason than it tickles me. Perverted sense of humour? Hell, I dunno.

Tell me that you think my ideas are implausible, misinformed, or gawd fobid--just plain wrong--and back up your assessment with either sources or even just your own reasoning based on logic, experience, gut instinct, common sense, and damn, I'll at least consider it. But plop a Tinfoil hat on my head or tag me as a conspiracy theorist; or shower me with other labels like idiot, brain-dead, etc., and well, the debate devolves into sport for me.

In the case of BushCo I would suggest that as proven miscreants, everything that it is alleged that they've said or done cannot be discounted as a matter of course. All reports however bizarre should be accorded a second look--at least.

The post today about the possibility of an American death squad killing their own may sound implausible at first thought, but damn it, not impossible. Once again, since the Bush regime has repeatedly shown that there's not much it won't do to assure the agenda, and since it is collectively bereft of morals, scruples, and respect for life this bunch automatically renders itself a subject of interest.

How we choose to respond to posts which up our ire is more important than the post itself.

If something has legs, it is almost irrepressible. If it doesn't it will die. In the absence of any evidence what keeps an issue going is our reaction to it. Discount it; engage in labelling; and the whole thing can soon evole into a cauldron of trouble.

We're forever blaming the media for self-censoring. I think we should heed that warning ourselves. Bushco in particular requires that we keep an open mind if we are to remain vigilent.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Egad. NOBODY IS BEING CENSORED.

It's just wonderful to see that the screaming me me's have triumphed again.

Skinner gave them a forum and they want to clog up GD, GDP and LBN with their threads.

I am a rabid atheist, among other things, and I don't expect to be allowed to deluge the main forums with MY agenda, why does anybody else think they should have that right?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Oh, that's telling me...

:rofl:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Or, you could talk about

your football forum again, that was pretty funny .

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

87. That's it ?

No more name calling ?
No more veiled threats ?
No more football references ?

"Where's my adversary ? I say, where's my worthy adversary ?"

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Ooooooooooooo, cowboy talk.

My my, you do have an active imagination.
Reminds me of someone else...




buh bye.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

103. Wrong again.

Found your thesaurus ?
You can keep looking up words and guessing, but your best bet is still making a donation to DU.

But remember, no stalking.
No name calling.
No threats.
No bigotry.

Not much like football forums, but it works for us.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

76. I made my point in my first reply,

but I'll be more than happy to repeat it for you:

Nobody is being censored on DU

Clear enough ?

[AlwaysQuestion]

82. Oh, Beam me Up Scottie, Do!

That's what I thought you said, but I wanted to make absolutely certain that I wasn't missing anything else before pointing out to you that I didn't mention anyone in particular--and definitely not the moderators. I used the royal "we." It's a way of not directing the admonition to any one in particular but rather to whomever it might fit. And the point still stands.

But it was awfully sweet of you to confirm your original response to me.

[beam me up scottie]

84. So does mine.

"We" are not being censored.

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Nicely done.

But you need to come up with better insults.

Check with sheva upthread, she's a pro.

Not tired, bored.

:boring:

[beam me up scottie]

106. AQ, I

apologize for jumping your post.
You were being diplomatic.

[stickdog]

128. What do you think is the agenda of everyone who rushed to blame 'al Qaeda'

before a single shred of evidence is in?

Should any LBN or GD article suggesting such a unfounded CT be banned to its own forum as well?

[beam me up scottie]

132. Perhaps you should ask them.

nt

[anarchy1999]

59. It only takes two for a "conspiracy". Best of luck to you.

n/t

Go get yourself some tin-foil. It may be in your best interest.

Phantoms! That's rich.

Peace.

You are so on it.

[mmonk]

64. mistrust brews small beer

[rman]

108. Right, Conspiracy THEORIES *NEVER* turn out to be true, as in

Watergate, Iran-Contra.

Conspiracy THEORIES *ALWAYS* are nothing more then "churning yeasty fermenting broth of speculation based on only the most slender shavings of evidence".

You're saying conspiracies do exist, but theories about conspiracies are never valid.

People either know about the conspiracy, or the conspiracy does not exist. Never mind that the whole point of a conspiracy is to keep it secret.
In other words conspiracies simply can not go unnoticed until such time that some people get wind of it and start speculating about it, which eventually may lead to investigation that exposes the conspiracy (again i refer to Watergate, Iran-Contra).
Oh wait, does that not make sense? No it doesn't, but then again i'm not the one making that claim.

It's such incredible arrogance to liken your post to the one Skinner made. "Duplicate" my ass.

If you read Skinners post, it is clear that he thinks there is in fact room for "conspiracy theories" (though he prefers to call it speculation) on DU - much unlike what you are suggesting.

[bpilgrim]

110. i still have no idea what he is talking about

especially with the Skinner bit :eyes:

peace

[beam me up scottie]

115. Really ?

"If Skinner feels I'm duplicating his brilliant post, he's free to delete it."

Seems pretty simple, what part don't you understand ?

[GeekMonkey]

109. Except that all conspiracies were once conspiracy theories

A conspiracy is just a proven conspiracy theory.

Theories are necessary. If investigated and debunked, good, if investigated and proven, good.

The only problem is when people assert that a theory is fact when it hasn't been proven.

[MadHound]

113. Great point, and spot on accessment!

People moaned and whined about all of the "conspiracy theories" regarding JFK's assassination. The people who persued these theories were labeled(and sometimes still are) as crackpots, cranks, mental cases and worse. And yet these diligent people persevered through out, and finally got their validation when no less austere an organization than the House Committee on Assassinations declared that the JFK assassination was indeed done by at least two people, hence, it was a conspiracy. Granted, nothing has been done with that information sense, but nonetheless, such validation is a good thing.

Yes, there are some really out there CTs. But most CT are merely far flung investigations that the mainstream law enforcement can't or won't follow up on. Sometimes this leads to such dementia as man made tsunamis, but more often it opens up otherwise neglected facts for further examination. CTs have their place, and they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Rather, follow them up, and prove one way or another if such speculation is valid and based in fact. That is the only way to put such issues to rest, once and for all.

[lala_rawraw]

114. Once again

I find us mired down in jargon over something very simple: reason. Yes, to theorize is to reason, a process by which some level of truth or falsity is established. Everything begins with theory, in part because there is not always enough empirical evidence and in part because sometimes the empirical evidence seems to contradict itself. In any case, we always begin with theory.

I have a theory, for example, that based on my knowledge Karl Rove's background, history as specific to leaking (once even to Novak), fraud, using retired CIA assets to do dirty work, and so forth, that he is most "probably" the leaker from the front office end of things. Note that probability is higher based on pattern analysis.

My theory, however, regarding the other side of the leak does not yet (or may not at all) show any significant level of probability. It is in the nascent form of theory, before hypothesis, but still reasonable.

So, there is theory.

Now, conspiracy has been adequately summarized by the poster, so I will not go into much detail on that point. We know that it takes at least two people scheming to qualify as conspiracy in the context of the law.

We know that conspiracies have gone on since the beginning of civilization, from Rome, to Athens, to Germany, to the US, and so forth.

Let us now put the two together (and I did this in another thread already using the same example), empirical evidence in a particular case is as follows:

What we KNOW (empirical)
1). Several men broke into Watergate (reason unknown)
2). Guard phone police, men arrested
3). Men turn out to be CIA assets
4). The particular location of the break in is Democratic HQ.

Those are the empirical elements. So, next come the questions:

What we ask (missing pieces needed to clarify)
1). The reason is given that these men broke in to bug the DNC, but why would high level CIA assets break into do a simple wire tap?
2). The guard calls the police based on tape he finds over the door. Now highly trained assets were this careless?
3). Were they acting of their own volition or on orders? If on orders then from whom?
4). Who is paying for their defense and why?
5). If CIA is not allowed to work inside the country, then does this become a whole other crime?

So those are some questions that logic begs to be answered. However, we don't have enough information (at this point). What can we theorize from the empirical evidence we have that would answer the logical questions we have raised?

The process of reason (theory)
1). The CIA assets may have broken in to wire tap because they were in fact not full CIA, but contract workers working for someone else. That someone else has an interest in wire-tapping the DNC. We know that FBI is far more accountable to the oversight committees and to the citizens than the CIA is. So CIA contractors would be a better, probable, choice. Possible reason? Maybe. Probability? average.

2). It is possible, someone having learned of this project made sure that the project members were "noticed." Or, they were just that careless. Unknowable.

3). In this case, it is highly doubtful that these men were acting of their own volition. So again, the person who has an interest in wire-tapping the DNC would most probably be their employer on this project. But who would have access of high level CIA assets, contracts or otherwise? Someone with the requisite seniority certainly would. Possible? Yes. Probability, High.

4). Whomever has an interest in bugging the DNC and who is also probably the person who hired these men would either pay for the project (including legal) directly, pay for the project indirectly (including legal), or off budget money could be used for this project (including legal), or the CIA picked up the tab. It is even possible that these men paid for their own highly expensive defense team. Possible? Yes. Probability, uncertain.

5). Now, are we sure these are authorized CIA assets given the restrictions on CIA activity in the states and if so, then why risk their cover for a wire-tap? The natural conclusion is, that while they could be contractors, off the books (as related to #1 above), reason would suggest that they were not their to bug the office at all. Possible? Yes. Probability, High.

So the theory, on that basic question/answer and empirical evidence we have thus far can be summarized as follows:

The CIA assets who broke into Watergate were likely hired by someone with access to such assets, someone high level. This high level person needed something done at the DNC and would benefit from that thing being done.

The person to benefit would, most probably, have political motivations, and as such, makes that person of the opposition party, namely, a Republican.

A high level Republican with access to CIA assets would come from a small group of people, mostly those with the security clearance needed to "know" who these men are and to "hire" these men.

The same person who hired the assets may have set up a defense fund for them, but that is not yet a high probability, simply a possibility. The CIA assets are most likely contractors, working off the books on "special projects". The assets, depending on their past projects, could have broken into Watergate for a number of reasons. However, wire tapping the DNC does not seem the likely/probable reason, given the dangers of involving such assets and quite simply that CIA assets were not needed to merely bug an office. Anyone could have bugged the office.

So there is a working theoretical structure of conspiracy to commit a crime. As more empirical evidence comes out, the theory either changes or a new theory forms.

Now, let's say that the empirical data listed is all we will ever know and the questions raised must be addressed? The theory can become speculative or logic based, depending on the person.

A logic based theory could conclude that the person who hired the assets must have been a Republican in a position to lose power against a Democrat in an upcoming election. Such a person COULD Be a Senator on the intel committee, as one example

A speculative scenario could go further by making assumptions. For example, the person who hired the assets IS a Republican Senator on the intel committee.

Finally, there is also the group of speculative theorists who extend their speculation into illogical, unfounded, and even absurd directions. For example given the above scenario, the following theory develops: Henry Kissinger would have hired the assets because he has close ties to the CIA and has abused his power in the past. He did so to cover up something involving drugs.

As you can see, this last one is a huge jump from reason, empirical evidence, and a logical process. There is no support for that argument at all.

So theoretical processes regarding criminal activity where at least 2 people are involved are in, and of themselves, hardly insane ramblings. They are merely the use of a highly developed human tool called reason.

It is the acknowledgment of the highly speculative theorists as somehow representative of an entire community of logic based thinking that is the flaw.

Solution: do not acknowledge highly suspect speculative theories OR use a new set of terms to describe the process and the questions, given the stigma attached to Conspiracy Theory.

Going back to bed, hope this made sense as I was half asleep.

[stickdog]

122. You mean like the Phantom of the Osama?

Please tell that to Blair, Bush and our entire corporate media establishment.

[Minstrel Boy]

129. "Go on and tell yourself again there are no secrets"

Conspiracy Theory by Steve Earle

What if I told you it was done with mirrors?
What if I showed you it was all a lie?
Better be careful, someone might hear ya
The walls have ears and the sky has eyes
What if I said you were only dreamin'?
What you wanna bet that all you gotta do
Is open up your eyes and you will wake up screamin'
When you realize that it's all come true?

Hush now, don't you believe it
Cover your head and close your eyes
Now, take it or leave it
Go back to bed
And don't you cry

Half a million soldiers fly across the water
One in ten are never comin' back again
Fifty thousand sons who never grew to fathers
Don't you ever wonder who they might have been
What if you could've been there on that day in Dallas?
What if you could wrestle back the hands of time?
Maybe somethin' could've been done in Memphis
We wouldn't be livin' in a dream that's died

Go on and tell yourself again there are no secrets
Go on and tell yourself that you don't want to know
It's best that you believe that you don't hear the footsteps
That follow you around no matter where you go
Maybe you were thinkin' that it didn't matter
Maybe you believed nobody else would care
But once you've added every little lie together
You finally find the truth was always waiting there



Statement by Jack Ruby after his trial:

"Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motives. The people had - that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world."

Reporter: "Are these people in very high positions, Jack?"

Ruby: "Yes."

[The Magistrate]

133. locking

This is generating more heat than light.