Inquiring minds want to know: are "truthers" conspiracy theorists?

[bje]

In a PM exchange with a another member here, that member states: "truthers are not conspiracy theorists."

Do you agree or disagree?

[CHF]

Well I suppose a major difference would be that most conspiracy theorists actually have a theory....while "truthers" are "just asking questions."

[jhunter1163]

I disagree. Truthers postulate a conspiracy by officials of the US government to either a) carry out the attacks of 9/11 or b) not interfere with the carrying out of the attacks of 9/11.

[Blender Head]

Yes, they are.

[CHF]

I disagree. Truthers postulate a conspiracy by officials of the US government to either a) carry out the attacks of 9/11 or b) not interfere with the carrying out of the attacks of 9/11.

Until questioned about their theory, then it's JAQ-off time.

I'm not aware of any other CTists who do this.

[Brainster]

Well, in the common usage of the term theory (wild-ass speculation), it's fair to call them theorists, but not in the technical meaning of the term (something proven to be true).

[brodski]

Is the pope Catholic?

[Dave Rogers]

I understand SkepticGuy's point about truthers being activists rather then conspiracy theorists, which is where I think this is coming from. However, I think it's a false dichotomy. Truthers in general, it seems to me, tend to be both, in the same way that overtly evangelical members of some religions can be religious fanatics and activists. So personally I disagree with the position that truthers are not conspiracy theorists, for reasons well expressed elsewhere in this thread; even though they rarely specify details of the conspiracy after the style of the classic conspiracy theorist, nevertheless it is central to their belief system that a conspiracy exists. I would classify them for the most part, therefore (subject to the usual caveats on generalisations) as evangelical conspiracy theorists.

Dave

[SkepticGuy]

9/11 Truthers are activists who have focused on a narrow set of "conspiracy theories" as a catalyst for their anger. Despite what they may say, their actions prove they are more concerned with inciting reactionary responses to their anti-establishment point of view.

Activists care about who is paying attention to them.

Conspiracy theorists care about who is paying attention.

The motivations are very different, as well as the gene pool form which they come.


Conspiracy theorists will change their mind or refocus their research when presented with material that refutes their theories... a "truther" not only doesn't change their mind, they start shouting louder as if volume contributes to accuracy.


If you would equate the universe of "conspiracy theory" to that of Christianity, "Truthers" would be comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church... a group that twists Christian teachings, but which no one considers "christians."

[bje]

9/11 Truthers are activists who have focused on a narrow set of "conspiracy theories" as a catalyst for their anger. Despite what they may say, their actions prove they are more concerned with inciting reactionary responses to their anti-establishment point of view.

Activists care about who is paying attention to them.

Conspiracy theorists care about who is paying attention.

The motivations are very different, as well as the gene pool form which they come.


Conspiracy theorists will change their mind or refocus their research when presented with material that refutes their theories... a "truther" not only doesn't change their mind, they start shouting louder as if volume contributes to accuracy.


If you would equate the universe of "conspiracy theory" to that of Christianity, "Truthers" would be comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church... a group that twists Christian teachings, but which no one considers "christians."

Two points:

Your site, ATS, doesn't make that distinction. A truther there sees nothing to tell him or her that he or she is not considered a true blue conspiracy theorist.

You are just as likely to get a reaction from true activists (by their definition of 'activist') that truthers are not activists in any sense of the word, e.g., as this activist recently wrote:

The truth about the 9/11 'truth movement' (http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=69564)

[SkepticGuy]

Your site, ATS, doesn't make that distinction.

"We" have no responsibility to do so.

[Childlike Empress]

What's you motivation for hosting ATS? Are you a sociologist?

[bje]

"We" have no responsibility to do so.

No one said you did. But at least you acknowledge what I've been saying all along.

[Pardalis]

9/11 Truthers are activists who have focused on a narrow set of "conspiracy theories" as a catalyst for their anger. Despite what they may say, their actions prove they are more concerned with inciting reactionary responses to their anti-establishment point of view.

Activists care about who is paying attention to them.

Conspiracy theorists care about who is paying attention.

The motivations are very different, as well as the gene pool form which they come.


Conspiracy theorists will change their mind or refocus their research when presented with material that refutes their theories... a "truther" not only doesn't change their mind, they start shouting louder as if volume contributes to accuracy.


If you would equate the universe of "conspiracy theory" to that of Christianity, "Truthers" would be comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church... a group that twists Christian teachings, but which no one considers "christians."

I believe we had such a discussion when you first got here.

I think one can say that there is a difference between people who believe in conspiracy theories and those who are interested in the phenomenon of conspiracy theories, but not necessarily believe in them. Maybe we should call the latter conspiracy theoreticians. Kind of like a theologist isn't necessarily a religious person.

[SkepticGuy]

What's you motivation for hosting ATS? Are you a sociologist?
Well... a few quick Google searches would give you a wide variety of speculation, from "in it for the money" to being a paid "NSA shill," and all manner of in-betweens. For one, after being involved in "online" since it was possible to do so... there are many ways to make serious money with far less effort than being on the team that runs a conspiracy board. ;)

The real motivation is simple...
1/3 real interest in serious conspiracy theory research
1/3 interest in social content communities and what makes them work well
1/3 wondering how far a good social content community can be extended offline


But at least you acknowledge what I've been saying all along.
I did?
Where did I do that?

[defaultdotxbe]

9/11 Truthers are activists who have focused on a narrow set of "conspiracy theories" as a catalyst for their anger. Despite what they may say, their actions prove they are more concerned with inciting reactionary responses to their anti-establishment point of view.

Activists care about who is paying attention to them.

Conspiracy theorists care about who is paying attention.

The motivations are very different, as well as the gene pool form which they come.


Conspiracy theorists will change their mind or refocus their research when presented with material that refutes their theories... a "truther" not only doesn't change their mind, they start shouting louder as if volume contributes to accuracy.


If you would equate the universe of "conspiracy theory" to that of Christianity, "Truthers" would be comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church... a group that twists Christian teachings, but which no one considers "christians."
whats your take on JFK assassination conspiracy believers, are they conspiracy theorists?

what about moon hoaxers?
CIA drug trafficking?
false flag terrorism?
pearl harbor-related CTs?
gulf of tonkin?
iran-contra?
2000/2004 election theft?
black projects (aurora, et al)?
chemtrails?
freemasons?
illuminati?
bilderberg?
zionists?
NWO?
ET-government relations?



i ask because ive yet to encounter a 9/11 truther who didnt believe in several of the above theories and cite them as precedent for a 9/11 conspiracy


truthers may be the cockney-accented scullery maids of the conspiracy theorists, but they are conspiracy theorists nonetheless

[Childlike Empress]

Well... a few quick Google searches would give you a wide variety of speculation, from "in it for the money" to being a paid "NSA shill," and all manner of in-betweens. For one, after being involved in "online" since it was possible to do so... there are many ways to make serious money with far less effort than being on the team that runs a conspiracy board. ;)


Aha. I have you here so i don't need any google searches.

The real motivation is simple...
1/3 real interest in serious conspiracy theory research
1/3 interest in social content communities and what makes them work well
1/3 wondering how far a good social content community can be extended offline


Aha. Thanks for your answer.

edit: jfyi: i know ATS for a lot of years but i never signed up, mainly because i categorically never join forums with white text on blackish background.

[SkepticGuy]

mainly because i categorically never join forums with white text on blackish background.

Top-left corner... hit the "Go Light" button, and the entire board is magically transformed to dark-text on light-gray. ;)

[SkepticGuy]

i ask because ive yet to encounter a 9/11 truther who didnt believe in several of the above theories and cite them as precedent for a 9/11 conspiracy

Actually, I've seen quite the opposite.

In my experience, "9/11 Truthers" think those that believe in UFO's are "nutters," and visa-versa (many UFO-centric people think the turthers are nutters).

As for the abbreviated list of popular conspiracy mythos... some yes, some no, some maybe... but that's not the topic of this thread.

[Childlike Empress]

Top-left corner... hit the "Go Light" button, and the entire board is magically transformed to dark-text on light-gray. ;)


Great!

[Childlike Empress]

(many UFO-centric people think the turthers are nutters).


Evidence?

[bje]

I did?
Where did I do that?

In your statement above that you don't have to make the distinction, acknowledging that there is, in fact, a distinction.

So truthers on ATS are left to post in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories forum even though they have no way of knowing your Board, ATS, claims they are not conspiracy theorists.

Hey, it's your policy.

[firecoins]

Is the pope Catholic?
does the pope ***** in the woods?

[DC]

....
Iran-contra?
2000/2004 election theft?
....

those are theorys?

[defaultdotxbe]

those are theorys?
iran-contra is an interesting one that i find very telling in regards to CTers motives and beliefs, even when we have a confirmed and known conspiracy, additional conspiracy theories still get built around it (there were other weapons sold, there were never any hostages, its also attached to the CIA drug trafficking theories)

reality is apparently never good enough

[Liszt]

Well, in the common usage of the term theory (wild-ass speculation), it's fair to call them theorists, but not in the technical meaning of the term (something proven to be true).


The technical meaning of "theory" is "something proven to be true"?

Are you sure?


Anyway, Conspiracy Theorist is a far better term then childish sounds like "twoofer". (And better then "truth Movement" too, which is just wrong)

[gc051360]

They are conspiracy theorists. The "Just asking questions" thing is just a cop out.

And a lot of them, usually buy into a lot more than this one conspiracy theory. The 9-11 inside job people, move right into the Illuminati / NWO / NAU / Federal Reserve / Ron Paul for President type stuff.

eta: Ron Paul for President isn't a conspiracy theory. But, usually they believe that the powers that be, are somehow scared of Ron Paul, and are trying to silence him.

[Sporanox]

2000/2004 election theft?

This is a relatively persistent one among otherwise non-conspiracy minded people. It is also wrong.

[Horatius]

The technical meaning of "theory" is "something proven to be true"?

Are you sure?





Not quite. It depends, of course, on who you're talking to.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.