SkepticGuy
5th April 2009, 07:52 PM
I don't see what relevance there is to stating that the general culture has a tolerance of conspiracy theories.
The initial reference was "soft spot" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4581458#post4581458) in response to a question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4580927#post4580927): "What's so bad being called a conspiracy theorist?" from malcolmxwarrior. My response was directed at him, using brevity to indicate how the general culture isn't so knee-jerk averse to the term as we see here on the JREF forum.
You jumped in with the apparent assumption that my reference, in my response to another, was intended as some form of validation.
A sadly significant portion of "the general culture" (in America, at least) believe in some form of Creationism.
As indicated, my comments weren't intended as a validation of conspiracy theorists, simply a degree of acceptance that it's part of the culture at large.
An in fact, to alter the subject somewhat, the issue of aggressive promotion of creationism and/or intelligent design is a popular reoccurring "conspiracy within religion" on ATS.
I don't mind disagreeing with someone, but I'd hate to think I was disagreeing simply because I don't understand the other person's position.
Hopefully you now understand the context of the statement.
I have a passing (amateur) interest in cultural anthropology and worked with Neil Howe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Howe) on a few projects. Understanding contemporary and previous cultures provides meaningful context for lots of things.
The initial reference was "soft spot" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4581458#post4581458) in response to a question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4580927#post4580927): "What's so bad being called a conspiracy theorist?" from malcolmxwarrior. My response was directed at him, using brevity to indicate how the general culture isn't so knee-jerk averse to the term as we see here on the JREF forum.
You jumped in with the apparent assumption that my reference, in my response to another, was intended as some form of validation.
A sadly significant portion of "the general culture" (in America, at least) believe in some form of Creationism.
As indicated, my comments weren't intended as a validation of conspiracy theorists, simply a degree of acceptance that it's part of the culture at large.
An in fact, to alter the subject somewhat, the issue of aggressive promotion of creationism and/or intelligent design is a popular reoccurring "conspiracy within religion" on ATS.
I don't mind disagreeing with someone, but I'd hate to think I was disagreeing simply because I don't understand the other person's position.
Hopefully you now understand the context of the statement.
I have a passing (amateur) interest in cultural anthropology and worked with Neil Howe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Howe) on a few projects. Understanding contemporary and previous cultures provides meaningful context for lots of things.