Tactics of Conspiracy theorists, Creationists and holocaust deniers.

[NWO Sentryman]

I was thinking about tactics used in online debates over evolution, the holocaust, the September 11th attacks and the JFK assassination among particular conspiracy theories. The Creationists, holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists seem to be merging ever closer. You have James W Von Brunn in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting being a Neo-Nazi. Of course, I am not trying to lump them in the same group, but I am noticing some very eerie similarities.
Where exactly? In the way they debate. There are seven key areas in which they show similarity. They are as follows:
They all imply their opponents are on the other side. For example, Alex Jones called Chomsky a New World Order Shill. Creationists imply evolutionists are Satanists. Holocaust deniers imply their opponents are communists.
They call the other side liars. For example, John McAdams in his JFK website is constantly called a liar. Evolutionists are accused of spreading lies by creationists and so on.
They promote fictional stories in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Creationists advocate the idea that earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, in spite of evidence proving the existence of life ~400 million years ago. Conspiracy theorists advocate the theory of controlled demolition of the twin towers in spite of the fact that the collapse was not consistent with a controlled demolition.
They demand that the other side provide the burden of proof instead of proving their arguments, in what is known as the negative proof fallacy. I.e. Conspiracy theorists demand that the other side prove that astronauts landed on the moon, or that planes hit the WTC. Creationists demand proof for evolution.
They use straw man fallacies. For example, the Conspiracy theorists say “fire does not melt steel” with regards to the twin towers. Creationists say about how our grandfathers were chimps. Holocaust deniers trumpet the fallacy about the furnaces not burning hot enough to dispose of the corpses.
They take any grain of sand as absolute proof of their claims, no matter the context. I.e. Creationists point to some bones as evidence of creationism, even if it is far older than 6000 years. Conspiracy theorists claim Larry Silverstein gave an order for demolishing building 7 in his “pull it” quote, even though it meant pulling [aborting] the operation. Holocaust deniers latch on to any tiny mistake and take it as total proof of their claims.
Inversely, any small inconsistency on the other side is taken as though they were absolutely wrong. For example, the way Kennedy’s head jerks is taken as proof that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. Holocaust deniers pick up on the initial estimates on the death toll.

[T.A.M.]

Burden of Proof Shift.
Goal Post Moving.
Appeal to Authority.
Appeal to incredulity.
Appeal to Emotion.

Appeal to stupidity.

TAM:)

[Squidgy]

I know what you mean, the truth movement is becoming the hate movement.

[Alferd_Packer]

Burden of Proof Shift.
Goal Post Moving.
Appeal to Authority.
Appeal to incredulity.
Appeal to Emotion.

Appeal to stupidity.

TAM:)

Rinse and repeat

[Nick Terry]

I would extend the above to encompass almost all forms of nonsense. I am an avid reader of books on Bad Ideas, and the latest few have included

David Aaronovich, Voodoo Histories (about CTs)
Ronald Fritze, Invented Knowledge (about pseudohistory)
Seth Kalichman, Denying AIDS

It really doesn't matter what subject one picks, the flaws in the arguments remain basically the same. Online, the tactics also remain basically the same.

There seems to be really only one difference, and that is whether the woo-peddler is trying to negate something they don't like, or trying to fantasise and invent something they do like.

9.11 Truthers belong together with Holocaust deniers and AIDS denialists, as well as creationists, because they are all fundamentally negationists. Even though creationists, supposedly have their own wonderful story to tell, when confronted with evolution they turn into deniers, and thus the similarity of tactics and approach. All of them rely on FUD

Conspiracy theorists and pseudohistorians are basically credulists. Standards of evidence get thrown out of the window, since that would interfere with the fun of making it up as they go along.

But in the end, the difference between negationists and credulists is not that important, since the majority of woos are BOTH at the same time. That is why one can have so much fun pointing out their evidentiary double standards. It is alternately hilarious and frustrating that none of them ever admit to or in many cases can even get their heads around the fact that they have obvious double standards.

Thus, the Stundies.

[Sunray Breaker]

Whats so hard for me to accept and I'm sure there's some on here who agree,
is that I was part of a hate group. I was part of this fear mongering, seperatist, isolationist society and when you come to that realization, it's a hell of a shock.

I've always been a firm believer in peace and revolutionary ideas and I suppose that's why it appealed to me at first.

It becomes so unbelievably romanticizing and disorienting that it seems that once your sucked in, they never give you time to get your feet back on the ground.

I think that's another one of their tactics...Like Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

If you're kept in a constant state of disorientation and fear, than you'll be in that flight or fight mode and can't quite make a logical decision until the shock wears off. Their tactic is to keep the shock coming. This makes us more susceptable to influence and group think.

I again commend the Skeptic community for grabbing me by the ankles and yanking me out of that downward deceptive spiral known as "The Truth Movement".

I will do my part to promote this site and various other resources for the community...

Have you guys considered creating a counter news website to info wars?

Kinda like skeptic magazine but a little bit more promotion.

We need to propose a serious counter to all of these con groups out there. Because they could end up posing a serious threat.

There's nothing more dangerous than stupid people with guns and an agenda.

[dudalb]

Burden of Proof Shift.
Goal Post Moving.
Appeal to Authority.
Appeal to incredulity.
Appeal to Emotion.

Appeal to stupidity.

TAM:)

And Lying and Distorting in General.

[Brainster]

The key point with all these groups is that they start with the conclusion and work backwards to find evidence that will prop it up. Real investigators start with the evidence and see where it leads.

[Longfellow]

I know what you mean, the truth movement is becoming the hate movement.

Becoming the hate movement?

Nay, sir or ma'am. I respectfully submit that the 'truth movement's' very existence is predicated on hate.

Hatred of Jews.
Hatred of Bush.
Hatred of government.

Though not necessarily in that order; nor am I claiming that list is complete.

[RHolmes]

The key point with all these groups is that they start with the conclusion and work backwards to find evidence that will prop it up. Real investigators start with the evidence and see where it leads.

Bingo. They are walking adverts for confirmation bias.

[T.A.M.]

Whats so hard for me to accept and I'm sure there's some on here who agree,
is that I was part of a hate group. I was part of this fear mongering, seperatist, isolationist society and when you come to that realization, it's a hell of a shock.

I've always been a firm believer in peace and revolutionary ideas and I suppose that's why it appealed to me at first.

It becomes so unbelievably romanticizing and disorienting that it seems that once your sucked in, they never give you time to get your feet back on the ground.

I think that's another one of their tactics...Like Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

If you're kept in a constant state of disorientation and fear, than you'll be in that flight or fight mode and can't quite make a logical decision until the shock wears off. Their tactic is to keep the shock coming. This makes us more susceptable to influence and group think.

I again commend the Skeptic community for grabbing me by the ankles and yanking me out of that downward deceptive spiral known as "The Truth Movement".

I will do my part to promote this site and various other resources for the community...

Have you guys considered creating a counter news website to info wars?

Kinda like skeptic magazine but a little bit more promotion.

We need to propose a serious counter to all of these con groups out there. Because they could end up posing a serious threat.

There's nothing more dangerous than stupid people with guns and an agenda.

You know when I read a post like this, it makes me stop and reflect...honestly.

1. I have bolded a couple of the things that I feel get to the heart of it.
2. I am not so much sure that it is a purposeful attempt to keep members/believers in a state of confusion, as it is the overwhelming volume of speculation and associated material available on line that can make one feel so.
3. It is encouraging that some either grab themselves by the ankles, or find a life preserver like JREF, and get themselves back to sane, rational, logical thought.
4. The truth movement, as of 2009, is a disorganized, sparse, apathetic excuse for a "movement". Will that change...doubtful. Right now, I think they are insignificant. At the rate they are attracting followers, it will be 5000AD before they get any significant news coverage again.

TAM:)

edit:

I just realized that someone grabbing their own ankles is probably not the correct analogy for pulling ones self out of something...but I will leave it in, as it is a funny image to think of, none the less.

[Nick Terry]

The key point with all these groups is that they start with the conclusion and work backwards to find evidence that will prop it up. Real investigators start with the evidence and see where it leads.

Yes and no. Really politicised types like most Truthers and Holocaust deniers start that way, but a great many woos, cranks and loons do start out by finding something that is odd, they then run amok with it and spin the limited research they have done into the most ridiculous fantasies.

It's especially noticeable with pseudohistorians. Idiots like Gavin Menzies, or the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail people, use the same logical fallacies and rhetorical sleights-of-hands as their more politicised brethren, but they do at least start off someplace different from their conclusion. The problem starts once they have leapt to their conclusion, and then won't budge; that's when the dishonesty begins.

[dudalb]

It's especially noticeable with pseudohistorians. Idiots like Gavin Menzies, or the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail people, use the same logical fallacies and rhetorical sleights-of-hands as their more politicised brethren, but they do at least start off someplace different from their conclusion. The problem starts once they have leapt to their conclusion, and then won't budge; that's when the dishonesty begins.

As someone preparing to write a thesis for his Master's degree in history, I cannot agree more.
In my own area of study..19th Century American History...the Neo Confederates are prime examples. Their attempts to whitewash the South and show that the Confederacy was the true champion of individual liberty boggles the mind. Particularly how they deal with that little issue of Slavery which they try to reduce to a minor issue.......

[Mikister]

For example, Alex Jones called Chomsky a New World Order Shill.

I remember this particular episode. Noam Chomsky and Alex Jones disagreed on the subject of gun control, and then Alex Jones says at the end, "Say, 'Hi' to David Rockefeller for me." and follows up by bashing Noam Chomsky after he's off the air.

<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FwjK07gEpCM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FwjK07gEpCM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>

EDIT:

Since I'm horrible at simply embedding a video, here's the link to the interview. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwjK07gEpCM)

[Brainster]

Yes and no. Really politicised types like most Truthers and Holocaust deniers start that way, but a great many woos, cranks and loons do start out by finding something that is odd, they then run amok with it and spin the limited research they have done into the most ridiculous fantasies.

It's especially noticeable with pseudohistorians. Idiots like Gavin Menzies, or the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail people, use the same logical fallacies and rhetorical sleights-of-hands as their more politicised brethren, but they do at least start off someplace different from their conclusion. The problem starts once they have leapt to their conclusion, and then won't budge; that's when the dishonesty begins.

Are you sure that's where they started? I don't know the people you give as examples, but many conspiracy theorists claim to have started as skeptics and then were drawn inevitably to the illogical conclusion by the "evidence". Indeed, the "conspiracy theorist as initial skeptic" routine is a familiar trope; we're supposed to identify with him because we ourselves are skeptical.

I'm certainly not arguing the point you make in the first paragraph; oh, boy do the CTs like anomalies! But at least with the 9-11 Truthers that is the soft sell; the "We're just asking questions like this," routine. They really want to convince everybody that "9-11 was an inside job," but they recognize that's a pretty tough hurdle, so they go for the "Isn't this odd?" routine. It's "baby steps" towards the woo, not asking people to make the giant leap.

Again, a lot of this may be my own experience with the 9-11 CTs and may not apply to creationists or holocaust deniers.

[dudalb]

That is one of the few times I sympathized with Noah Chomsky,someone whom I usually can't stand.

[Brainster]

That is one of the few times I sympathized with Noah Chomsky,someone whom I usually can't stand.

If he had been running in 2008, Screw Loose Change would almost certainly have endorsed Bill Clinton for president for his forthright denunciation (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/10/if-bill-clinton-were-running-again.html) of the 9-11 Truthers. When he said, "An inside job? How dare you? How dare you?" I came out of my seat and pumped my fist.

Many liberals and leftists have earned my undying admiration for their stand on the 9-11 Truthers. I may disagree with them about politics but I am pleased to share the rational world with them.

[NWO Sentryman]

well, at least chomsky or his followers on youtube ain't nufffrespect.

[JihadJane]

Of course, I am not trying to lump them in the same group...


Of course not. How could anyone get that impression?

[T.A.M.]

If he had been running in 2008, Screw Loose Change would almost certainly have endorsed Bill Clinton for president for his forthright denunciation (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/10/if-bill-clinton-were-running-again.html) of the 9-11 Truthers. When he said, "An inside job? How dare you? How dare you?" I came out of my seat and pumped my fist.

Many liberals and leftists have earned my undying admiration for their stand on the 9-11 Truthers. I may disagree with them about politics but I am pleased to share the rational world with them.

Thank you sir (although I am more or less left of center...a fair bit left of it).

TAM:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If he had been running in 2008, Screw Loose Change would almost certainly have endorsed Bill Clinton for president for his forthright denunciation (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/10/if-bill-clinton-were-running-again.html) of the 9-11 Truthers. When he said, "An inside job? How dare you? How dare you?" I came out of my seat and pumped my fist.

John McCain writing the foreword to the Popular Mechanics Debunking 9/11 book wasn't enough?

[Nick Terry]

Are you sure that's where they started? I don't know the people you give as examples, but many conspiracy theorists claim to have started as skeptics and then were drawn inevitably to the illogical conclusion by the "evidence". Indeed, the "conspiracy theorist as initial skeptic" routine is a familiar trope; we're supposed to identify with him because we ourselves are skeptical.

I'm certainly not arguing the point you make in the first paragraph; oh, boy do the CTs like anomalies! But at least with the 9-11 Truthers that is the soft sell; the "We're just asking questions like this," routine. They really want to convince everybody that "9-11 was an inside job," but they recognize that's a pretty tough hurdle, so they go for the "Isn't this odd?" routine. It's "baby steps" towards the woo, not asking people to make the giant leap.

Again, a lot of this may be my own experience with the 9-11 CTs and may not apply to creationists or holocaust deniers.

My wording wasn't maybe precise enough. It is not so much to do with whether someone starts out as a sceptic, real or fake. It is about the point of entry into the subject that becomes the woo.

Pseudohistorians like the authors of THBATG, or Gavin Menzies, usually start out by researching an entirely different subject, or in an entirely different form, and then stumble across something that their deficient or politically-warped brains overintepret into a fantasy thesis. To a very limited extent, their initial discovery, the one that sets them off, is a product of genuine research, but usually the discovery is not really that meaningful, and is massively overinterpreted.

THBATG is possibly the classic example of this. The authors were working on 'mysteries' for quite some time, but it wasn't until they were 10 years into their research that they joined the dots to produce their ultimate thesis. Obviously, they were predisposed to woo-like conclusions, but the conclusions were not there as premises. The book reads like a detective story, and because it is one of those down-the-ages things, there is something of a story. Closer examination reveals the joins and the pyramiding of possibilities into probabilities and thence into certainties.

Creationists and holocaust deniers mostly start out with their preconceived agendas because it is is in their ideological (political-religious) interests to deny evolution or mass murder. The conclusions are the premises. So there is no process of 'discovery', except to the limited extent that, when they approach the science or history with their preconceived agenda, they then stumble across anomalies or very rarely, discoveries, that are parlayed into significance through the exact same pyramiding of possibility>probability>certainty, or resort to one of the familiar logical fallacies.

Different route in, similar end result.

And often, surprising convergences. The authors of THBATHG ended up writing a second book in which they claimed that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was really an allegory about their fantasy secret society, The Priory of Sion. I think you've read Barkun's book on CTs - you will know that the UFO conspiracists also made the same migration to 're-evaluating' the Protocols.

Truthers do contain many whose point of entry is entirely ideological, but mostly I think they were ensnared by an 'anomaly' that was being pushed by one of the originators, and due to their predispositions, political and epistemological, swallowed the baloney.

One other thing on similarities: there is a fairly consistent resort to dubious evaluation of sources and a consistent pattern of appeals to authority among all forms of woo. Citing newspapers as Gospel truth is hardly an innovation of the Truth Movement, it is a hallmark of cranks for the past 150 years. Ditto with treating anyone who has published a book as an Authority, as long as the claims conforms to the woo's agendas or preconceptions. Ditto the trappings of scholarship - emphasising titles, fake institutes, seizing on even the faintest praise as proof that the woo is right.

If you read over even half of the glut of books dissecting Bad ideas (Michael Shermer, Ben Goldacre, Damien Thompson, David Aaronovitch, Seth Kalichmann) or chronicling their histories (Lipstadt, Barkun, Taguieff, Fritze) that have been published in the past decade, it really doesn't matter what the subject is - you always get a sense of deja vu about methods and tactics.

And, usually, find some point of overlap, since crank magnetism is a well-observed phenomenon.

[JihadJane]

John McCain writing the foreword to the Popular Mechanics Debunking 9/11 book wasn't enough?

Isn't John McCain one of those bad people who advocates murder?

[Klimax]

Isn't John McCain one of those bad people who advocates murder?

Evidence? (Where,when and exact quote)

[TheDaver]

the "We're just asking questions like this," routine. They really want to convince everybody that "9-11 was an inside job," but they recognize that's a pretty tough hurdle, so they go for the "Isn't this odd?" routine.
When you actually provide them with the answers, that façade crumbles just about instantly and the hate comes out full-force.

[TheDaver]

John McCain writing the foreword to the Popular Mechanics Debunking 9/11 book wasn't enough?
I don’t get what you’re saying. Did John McCain suddenly turn liberal overnight and I missed the news? Or are you trying to say, in an incredibly vague way, that McCain writing the foreword to the book somehow discredits it?

[T.A.M.]

I don’t get what you’re saying. Did John McCain suddenly turn liberal overnight and I missed the news? Or are you trying to say, in an incredibly vague way, that McCain writing the foreword to the book somehow discredits it?

No, I think he was trying to say that Brainster should have given the endorsement to John McCain, given he wrote the intro for the PM 9/11 book.

TAM:)

[Brainster]

No, I think he was trying to say that Brainster should have given the endorsement to John McCain, given he wrote the intro for the PM 9/11 book.

Well, I did endorse McCain on my political blog, but on SLC we were covering all the Troofers who were doing their "Hecklivism" videos of them confronting politicians and demanding that they take a stand on 9-11 Troof. Almost all the real candidates did the political thing and refused to stand up to them. In fact, at one point McCain posed for a photo with a bunch of blackshirted "Truth" activists; although some of his aides were trying to get him to reconsider.

Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were the two exceptions, perhaps because they were not running in 2008. Clinton's "How dare you?" was a terrific moment, topped perhaps by Gingrich's terse and caustic reply about what he thought of people like Bowman and Stubblebine who believe 9-11 was an inside job: "They're insane."

ASUUDP2GYpY

[Information Analyst]

Holocaust deniers latch on to any tiny mistake and take it as total proof of their claims.
Inversely, any small inconsistency on the other side is taken as though they were absolutely wrong.
I think this in essence sums up CT thinking, and we see exactly the same viewpoint at play in relation to London 7/7. Conspiracists will cling to every vague and unintentially erroneous initial news report as the absolute "truth" over and above any subsequent rebuttal/clarification/etc. In parallel, they routinely cite the mis-reported time of the bombers' train to London as a magic wand that automatically invalidates everything in the British government's published narrative account.

[Eyeron]

Actually another tactic is argumentem ad nauseum. They present the same evidence over and over and over again until the person resigns in frustration after a lot of repeating the evidence. Then they claim see, I win so it must be a conspiracy.

Other favorite tactics include outright dismissal with the usual "it's shoddy work" then do the bait and switch.

And it's entirely like a religion to them.

[c4llum]

Actually another tactic is argumentem ad nauseum. They present the same evidence over and over and over again until the person resigns in frustration after a lot of repeating the evidence. Then they claim see, I win so it must be a conspiracy.

Other favorite tactics include outright dismissal with the usual "it's shoddy work" then do the bait and switch.

And it's entirely like a religion to them.

It's a very frustrating situation to be in because a discussion can turn into a viscious circle very easily. And it is often supported by false information and misconceptions. That's what drives me nuts, people often just don't want to believe the truth because the CT is so much more ''fun''. That is what often makes them believe the false information and causes this seemingly endless repetition of there ''evidence''.

[The Platypus]

Some of their tactics i would add are:

They excessive overuse and abuse of the word "truth" and claim to be the only ones that know it.

They have quite arrogant and juvenile attitudes and behaviour towards those outside their groups.

Their primary focus and mission is always to recruit others into believing them and joining their group.

Self projection! They love to try to put their own faults, mistake, tactics, etc, on everyone else.

They often have massive delusions of grandeur.

Constant and often dishonesty and habitual lying.

[dropzone]

It becomes so unbelievably romanticizing and disorienting that it seems that once your sucked in, they never give you time to get your feet back on the ground.Seductive, ain't it? :(

[c4llum]

Some of their tactics i would add are:

They excessive overuse and abuse of the word "truth" and claim to be the only ones that know it.
True, but that's often only due to the CTists not knowing the other side of the story.

They have quite arrogant and juvenile attitudes and behaviour towards those outside their groups.
Yes, and again this is often caused by a lack of information.

Their primary focus and mission is always to recruit others into believing them and joining their group.
I think you're generalising too much now. I've come across enough CTists who see them selves as special because they know all their staggering and often unknowingly false information. They tend to want to keep this superior feeling and therefor don't always want to ''recruit'' others to their group.

Self projection! They love to try to put their own faults, mistake, tactics, etc, on everyone else.

They often have massive delusions of grandeur.

Constant and often dishonesty and habitual lying.
I agree with most of what you say but you've got to keep in mind that they don't think they're lying. They think they're telling the truth. It's very easy to call them arrogant, juvenile etc. but it's often due to a lack of information and you can't always blame the conspiracy theorists for that.

[Dave Rogers]

True, but that's often only due to the CTists not knowing the other side of the story.

Yes, but depressingly often that appears to be as a result of choosing not to know the other side.

Dave

[BobTheDonkey]

Seductive, ain't it? :(

What bothers me the most about the seductive level of it all is how these people raise their kids to believe the lies. Religion, of course, is the easy target here. But the same applies to racism and conspiracy theorists (example of racism is American History X, at the end we find that the father was the one who really pushed the racism/neo-nazism on the boys). Growing up with these beliefs makes it that much harder to not only accept the truth, but to find it in the first place.

From my own experience, to this day there are pieces of music I cannot listen to without hearing the lyrics appended by some Christian.

[Eyeron]

There is also the stealth CT. They aren't as irrational as other CTs, but they never use the word CT and use tactics such as "I prefer to look at the evidence" but when the evidence is presented to them, they dismiss the official evidence and say look here is the real evidence.

[David Rothscum]

The Creationists, holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists seem to be merging ever closer.
Don't forget, they're, working together with the child molesters, satanists and wife beaters too. If you're gonna go for guilt by association, get it right.

Hey you know who are really merging ever closer? The anti-war movement, the 9/11 Truth movement, the anti-globalism movement, the anti-imperialism movement and the civil rights movement. The Socialist party in the Netherlands quotes Prisonplanet.com when it asks questions in the Dutch parliament about Dutch minister's visits to the Bilderberg group.

At the same time, other groups are merging ever closer as well. The Democratic Party and the Republican party come to mind.

[joe911]

I was a conspiracy theorist untill about a month ago,and one of the tactics was beleiving everything revolved around an agenda.

Perfect example of this been here;

Sorry lewi, but i'm repulsed by your suggestions. These kind of posts are getting more & more frequent and scare me much more than any mainstream news article ever could. You're repeating what you've been told.. and playing right into their hands by supporting their depopulation agenda. Thread at di forums (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1160511#post1160511)

[dudalb]

Don't forget, they're, working together with the child molesters, satanists and wife beaters too. If you're gonna go for guilt by association, get it right.

Hey you know who are really merging ever closer? The anti-war movement, the 9/11 Truth movement, the anti-globalism movement, the anti-imperialism movement and the civil rights movement. The Socialist party in the Netherlands quotes Prisonplanet.com when it asks questions in the Dutch parliament about Dutch minister's visits to the Bilderberg group.




The Revolution is just around the corner,dude!

[NWO Sentryman]

The Revolution is just around the corner,dude!

but hell has to freeze over first.