the T-word

[W.D.Clinger]

In several ongoing or recent threads, posters have complained that the word "truther" is ill-defined, overly broad, and/or pejorative.

Its meaning is certainly ill-defined. I use "truther" as a convenient abbreviation for members of and financial contributors to the various "X for 9/11 Truth" groups, including a few that don't actually have the word "truth" in their name. Others may use the word more broadly, referring to all who believe in or suspect a MIHOP or LIHOP scenario, even if they have no connection with an organized group.

The T-word also lumps together many people whose activies and beliefs are quite diverse. On the other hand, that's true of most words that identify a group of people: engineers, Christians, alchemists, pilots, scientists, musicians, atheists, astrologers, soldiers, liberals, conservatives.

The T-word can also be used pejoratively. When deliberately misspelled, the pejorative intent seems obvious. Otherwise its pejorative content would seem to require some knowledge of context or speaker, much as the word "atheist" is positive when Richard Dawkins uses it but may sound pejorative when spoken by some Christians, or "liberal" may be more pejorative when pronounced by some aspirants to elected offices than when pronounced by others. In a few cases, the pejorative content of a word reflects the judgment of history: "alchemist" and "astrologer" are more pejorative for us today than they were for Isaac Newton.

After comparing "truther" to other words that identify groups of people, I believe it remains useful even though, like those other words, it is ill-defined, ignores many differences, and can be used pejoratively.

On the other hand, words can change their meaning or lose their usefulness. If "truther" has acquired so much baggage as to compromise its neutrality, then perhaps it is time to invent or to adopt a different word.

So I ask:

Is "truther" no longer regarded as a neutral reference to members of the various "X for 9/11 Truth" groups?
Is there a better word, equally convenient and as widely understood but with less baggage?


Will

[Unsecured Coins]

I've always called a spade a spade, so if truthers get mad because as members of the "truth" movement, they don't like being called "truthers" I will then call a whiny bitch a whiny bitch.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truther

Members of the movement are often referred to as "truthers," "conspiracy theorists", occasionally as "9/11 deniers", and "9/11 skeptics."

And they're point about being called Truthers? Is nothing compared to the Force.

I wonder why we don't grip about being called "debunkers"? I know! Because we're not that childish.

[1337m4n]

It would be idiotic and childish for a Truther to complain about being called a Truther, seeing as how it was the Truth Movement who gave themselves the label of "Truther" in the first place.

Then again, if I ever had to choose just two words to describe the Truth Movement, "idiotic" and "childish" would be they.

[Macgyver1968]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truther

Members of the movement are often referred to as "truthers," "conspiracy theorists", occasionally as "9/11 deniers", and "9/11 skeptics."

And they're point about being called Truthers? Is nothing compared to the Force.

I wonder why we don't grip about being called "debunkers"? I know! Because we're not that childish.

I actually prefer the term "Archie Debunker" :)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I actually prefer the term "Archie Debunker" :)

Archie Bunker: "My hands was pickin' pockets... my feet was runnin' away from bank robberies... and my eyes was lookin' at hard pore cornography."

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I prefer to be called "Wookie". Chewbacca sounds like I chew tobacco which I don't.

[johnny karate]

If certain people on this forum don't like being called a "Truther", or any derivation thereof, let them report these grievous offenses to the mods. If it is determined these terms are verboten, then so be it. But until then, this whole issue is just a wankfest perpetrated by intellectual cowards who lack the integrity to engage in honest debate.

[AJM8125]

There are those that liken the word to racism. Yes, you read that right.

NGC actually used the term "truthers" to refer to the objectivists, a silly-sounding label used as shorthand within the community of 9/11 skeptics, but not one that they use when speaking to critics. The use of that insider label was one of the many appeals to emotion rather than reason used in the show. To help understand this, compare the use of the "N" word by African-Americans themselves, as opposed to its use by people who are not members of that group and instead are hostile toward its members. The repeated use of the word "beliefs," more appropriate to emotional and religious contexts, rather than the word "conclusions," which carries a connotation of rationality, is another example of this kind of manipulation.

I. kid. you. not.


http://www.ae911truth.org/info/92

[WildCat]

I prefer to be called "Wookie". Chewbacca sounds like I chew tobacco which I don't.
Not to be confused with a w00k (http://www.w00ks.org/g2/main.php)... :p

[Brainster]

Jon Gold claimed at one point (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5839) that he invented the word "Truther"; he said that Nick Levis first associated "Truth" with 9-11, and that when another guy got discouraged, he told him something like, "Don't give up, you're a Truther!"

I would trust that story about as far as I can toss Jon.

[Pardalis]

They're out of arguments, they know there's nothing they can do, so now they're left to acting like they're upset.

[Stellafane]

They're out of arguments, they know there's nothing they can do, so now they're left to acting like they're upset.

They're probably just looking for a name that's easier for them to spell.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Not to be confused with a w00k (http://www.w00ks.org/g2/main.php)... :p

LOL @ Wildcat! ;)

It's better than being called a "Twoofer".

T-Woofers sound systems sounds kind of nice though.

[DGM]

I think it's telling that they now object to the term (name). At one time they were shouting and proclaiming it themselves at the top of their lungs. Now that "truther" has become synonymous with "lying bastards" and "kooks" they want to change. I say they made the bed, now lie in it.

[Eyeron]

I refuse to call them that. They are nothing more than cultists for it is akin to a dogmatic religion.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Instead of being called "Truthers", what about?:

INGLORIOUS BASTARDS

Haven't seen the movie yet! :(

[apathoid]

I've noticed this too, only lately. I don't think it's so much a rejection of the epithet(as it's of their own creation) as it is a stalling and re-directing tactic. See this RedIbis example (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5175622&postcount=1398). In the line of serious fire, his "What is a truther?" derail provided him the necessary smokescreen to flee the argument.

If truthers don't like that particular term, they surely won't like the hundred or so more befitting terms that I could think up which describes them better.

[W.D.Clinger]

I've noticed this too, only lately. I don't think it's so much a rejection of the epithet(as it's of their own creation) as it is a stalling and re-directing tactic. See this RedIbis example (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5175622&postcount=1398). In the line of serious fire, his "What is a truther?" derail provided him the necessary smokescreen to flee the argument.

That was one of several posts that inspired this thread, where the topic can be discussed at whatever length is necessary, without the distraction of more substantive issues.

Are there no dissenting voices? If those who objected to the term in other threads are unwilling to discuss the matter here, then it will look as though their objections were indeed mere diversions.

One thing I have learned from the discussion thus far is that some people find "9/11 truther" to be less objectionable than "truther". It seems redundant in this particular forum to make the "9/11" explicit, but I will make an effort to say "9/11 truther" instead of just plain "truther" in other fora.

I would also like to acknowledge that some 9/11 truthers have made genuine contributions to public knowledge of that day's events.

Will

[apathoid]

Are there no dissenting voices? If those who objected to the term in other threads are unwilling to discuss the matter here, then it will look as though their objections were indeed mere diversions.


They're thinking......it may take them some time to come up with an answer that makes any kind of sense. And don't bank on RedIbis answering a question with anything other than another question.

[dudalb]

That was one of several posts that inspired this thread, where the topic can be discussed at whatever length is necessary, without the distraction of more substantive issues.

Are there no dissenting voices? If those who objected to the term in other threads are unwilling to discuss the matter here, then it will look as though their objections were indeed mere diversions.

One thing I have learned from the discussion thus far is that some people find "9/11 truther" to be less objectionable than "truther". It seems redundant in this particular forum to make the "9/11" explicit, but I will make an effort to say "9/11 truther" instead of just plain "truther" in other fora.

I would also like to acknowledge that some 9/11 truthers have made genuine contributions to public knowledge of that day's events.

Will

Please name all the contributions that the Truthers have made to knowledge about 9/11. Genuine knowledge, mind, not batcrap crazy theories.

[apathoid]

Please name all the contributions that the Truthers have made to knowledge about 9/11. Genuine knowledge, mind, not batcrap crazy theories.


Russ Pickering on the Pentagon, for one. It was breath-taking to see how easily and effortlessly he countered the mutts at LC with evidence, facts, logic and insight. However, those attributes left him when he argued other 9/11 topics....

[W.D.Clinger]

Please name all the contributions that the Truthers have made to knowledge about 9/11. Genuine knowledge, mind, not batcrap crazy theories.

All? No can do. My knowledge is limited. I will give one example, though.

John Farmer and others investigated the approach of flight 77 to the Pentagon, obtaining data and making sense of it. See http://aal77.com/

Because Farmer actually cares about truth, he may no longer consider himself to be a truther, but my understanding is that he considered himself to be a truther when he began his research.

Will

[RedIbis]

I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again. Calling someone a truther, or calling one's self a truther is equally stupid.

How it is on a forum supposedly for critical thinking and civil discourse acceptable to label the opponent, conflate the position and basically refer to all opposition of a position with a pejorative is a bit of a mystery.

Anyone who uses this term freely has to at some point realize that not only does it strengthen your position not a jot, it weakens your position.

People who question the official story of 9/11 are not truthers, they're mothers, fathers, cops, lawyers, architects, students, your neighbor or co-worker. I would advise DRG and anyone else who accepts this term that they're not truthers and there is no such thing as a truth movement. It's damn near impossible to know the entire truth about anything. The best that anyone can do is establish facts. If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.

Abandon the practice of labeling and watch how much harder it will be to argue your opponent, how you cannot conflate your opponent's position with fringe ideas. I suspect the reason these labels are so popular here is because it dehumanizes the opponent, giving an easy excuse not to engage in discourse.

[T.A.M.]

I think part of the issue that some 9/11 CTists have with being called "truthers" is simply this.

(A) When they chose to be called it, it had no negative connotation associated with it, and in fact, as they saw it, had a positive one...they were "seekers of the truth". Now, however, in 2009, the word "truther" to most intelligent people on the planet, means "Paranoid Whiny Wooster", and so now they wish to abandon it...and what it now stands for in the common vernacular.

(B) Some consider a "truther" to be an active PROMOTER of the Conspiracy Theories on 9/11, and hence do not like to be labeled as such, if they simply have doubts, but do not actively promote the theories...their is an over-labeling occurring.

TAM:)

[Edx]

Im surprised Creationists dont have a problem being called as such. :)

[T.A.M.]

I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again. Calling someone a truther, or calling one's self a truther is equally stupid.

How it is on a forum supposedly for critical thinking and civil discourse acceptable to label the opponent, conflate the position and basically refer to all opposition of a position with a pejorative is a bit of a mystery.

Anyone who uses this term freely has to at some point realize that not only does it strengthen your position not a jot, it weakens your position.

People who question the official story of 9/11 are not truthers, they're mothers, fathers, cops, lawyers, architects, students, your neighbor or co-worker. I would advise DRG and anyone else who accepts this term that they're not truthers and there is no such thing as a truth movement. It's damn near impossible to know the entire truth about anything. The best that anyone can do is establish facts. If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.

Abandon the practice of labeling and watch how much harder it will be to argue your opponent, how you cannot conflate your opponent's position with fringe ideas. I suspect the reason these labels are so popular here is because it dehumanizes the opponent, giving an easy excuse not to engage in discourse.

I agree with a fair bit of what you say, but...

The idea that there is no "truth movement" so to speak, is naive. There is, with 100% certainty, an active movement, organized to varying degrees, of promotion of the CTs concerning 9/11. Scholars for 9/11 truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. S. Jones group. These people, along with many of the snake oil salesmen (DRG, Gage, A.Jones) and their loyal followers do constitute a "movement". Now whether you consider yourself and others who "simply have doubts" part of the movement, is a separate issue.

TAM:)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Crying over a word?

Anyone who uses this term freely has to at some point realize that not only does it strengthen your position not a jot, it weakens your position.

And what are your weak points Red?

It's damn near impossible to know the entire truth about anything. The best that anyone can do is establish facts. If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.

If it's "damn near impossible" then how come you reject the evidence put by the 9/11 Commission?

Abandon the practice of labeling and watch how much harder it will be to argue your opponent, how you cannot conflate your opponent's position with fringe ideas. I suspect the reason these labels are so popular here is because it dehumanizes the opponent, giving an easy excuse not to engage in discourse.

Just because you're labeled a Truther shouldn't make you get emotional over a simple little word.

[apathoid]

Abandon the practice of labeling and watch how much harder it will be to argue your opponent, how you cannot conflate your opponent's position with fringe ideas.

Funny how you associate the term "truther" with fringe ideas(like a massive DNA planting operation at the Pentagon).


I suspect the reason these labels are so popular here is because it dehumanizes the opponent, giving an easy excuse not to engage in discourse.The term "truther" is dehumanizing?! Where is the drama queen smilie? Good Lord.


If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support. Nahh, that'd be inaccurate. I like the "JAQoff Movement" better. Descriptive. Accurate.

[apathoid]

I agree with a fair bit of what you say, but...

The idea that there is no "truth movement" so to speak, is naive. There is, with 100% certainty, an active movement, organized to varying degrees, of promotion of the CTs concerning 9/11. Scholars for 9/11 truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. S. Jones group. These people, along with many of the snake oil salesmen (DRG, Gage, A.Jones) and their loyal followers do constitute a "movement". Now whether you consider yourself and others who "simply have doubts" part of the movement, is a separate issue.

TAM:)


Red's trying to make us understand that the TM isn't one big cult of likeminded Kool-Aid drinkers. We know better....

[Scott Sommers]

I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again. Calling someone a truther, or calling one's self a truther is equally stupid.

How it is on a forum supposedly for critical thinking and civil discourse acceptable to label the opponent, conflate the position and basically refer to all opposition of a position with a pejorative is a bit of a mystery.

Anyone who uses this term freely has to at some point realize that not only does it strengthen your position not a jot, it weakens your position.

People who question the official story of 9/11 are not truthers, they're mothers, fathers, cops, lawyers, architects, students, your neighbor or co-worker. I would advise DRG and anyone else who accepts this term that they're not truthers and there is no such thing as a truth movement. It's damn near impossible to know the entire truth about anything. The best that anyone can do is establish facts. If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.

Abandon the practice of labeling and watch how much harder it will be to argue your opponent, how you cannot conflate your opponent's position with fringe ideas. I suspect the reason these labels are so popular here is because it dehumanizes the opponent, giving an easy excuse not to engage in discourse.

Do I get this right? You, or at least some people who share your opinions about 911, used to ask people to call them 'Truther', and now you don't?

[johnny karate]

I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again. Calling someone a truther, or calling one's self a truther is equally stupid.

How it is on a forum supposedly for critical thinking and civil discourse acceptable to label the opponent, conflate the position and basically refer to all opposition of a position with a pejorative is a bit of a mystery.

Anyone who uses this term freely has to at some point realize that not only does it strengthen your position not a jot, it weakens your position.

People who question the official story of 9/11 are not truthers, they're mothers, fathers, cops, lawyers, architects, students, your neighbor or co-worker. I would advise DRG and anyone else who accepts this term that they're not truthers and there is no such thing as a truth movement. It's damn near impossible to know the entire truth about anything. The best that anyone can do is establish facts. If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.

Abandon the practice of labeling and watch how much harder it will be to argue your opponent, how you cannot conflate your opponent's position with fringe ideas. I suspect the reason these labels are so popular here is because it dehumanizes the opponent, giving an easy excuse not to engage in discourse.

Simply saying "I have no substantial arguments about anything 9/11-related, so I'm going to continue to whine about a non-issue as a distraction" would have been much more concise and honest.

[TjW]

I call 'em twoofers, cause truth is only present in homeopathic quantities.

[WildCat]

If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.
About those facts... got any?

[16.5]

People who question the official story of 9/11 are not truthers, they're mothers, fathers, cops, lawyers, architects, students, your neighbor or co-worker idiots. I would advise DRG and anyone else who accepts this term that they're not truthers and there is no such thing as a truth movement. It's damn near impossible to know the entire truth about anything. The best that anyone can do is establish facts. If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.



FTFY! This is post number 789 in Red's continuing series, "Oh it is totally unfair when you lump "smart" truthers in with the rest of the farking morons."

Facters, hee hee hee, how about NO.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Name for the Truth Movement:

People's Front of Judea

Their infamous quote:

"We the People's Front of Judea, brackets, officials, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Truthers, on this, the occasion of your martyrdom. "

Taken from the funny British film: Monty Python & the Life of Brian.

[Brainache]

If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.

But then they would start calling themselves "Facters" and then we would also start using the term and then people like you would object to being lumped in with all of those stupid fringe "facters" who say stupid things about Larry Silverstein or DNA tampering or whatever.... So I don't see how substituting one label for another helps you here Red.

[AJM8125]

As a public service I should remind everyone that at this point, even calling them a bowel movement isn't accurate. To have movement, at least some part of the body in question should be in motion. Some would argue that even if you're going backwards, you're still moving. You're aren't making any progress but still moving nonetheless.

That is the beauty of 9/11 truth though. They may not know what direction they're moving in but dammit; they know it's the right one.

[WildCat]

But then they would start calling themselves "Facters" and then we would also start using the term and then people like you would object to being lumped in with all of those stupid fringe "facters" who say stupid things about Larry Silverstein or DNA tampering or whatever.... So I don't see how substituting one label for another helps you here Red.
True, true.

But let's not forget the reason Red suddenly has his panties in a knot over semantics all of a sudden.

It's because he's woefully short on facts, evidence, journal articles, experts, popular support, science, engineering, court victories, common sense, media support, and has no coherent alternate theory.

So arguing semantics it is, because it's all he has left.

[W.D.Clinger]

Red's trying to make us understand that the TM isn't one big cult of likeminded Kool-Aid drinkers. We know better....

I don't know any better, but I'm willing to be educated.

I wouldn't say that John Farmer and Craig Ranke are like-minded. Jim Hoffman and Thierry Meyssan aren't drinking the same flavor, even if they're drinking the same beverage. And so on.

Even among those who question the official conspiracy theory here at JREF, some make less sense than others.

To me, the 9/11 truthers look as varied as (for example) the Christians. That doesn't imply that the words "truther" and "Christian" are meaningless or necessarily pejorative.

Will

[RedIbis]

About those facts... got any?

Sure. I've learned a lot over the last 8 years.

[triforcharity]

And yet, still hasn't posted any

[dtugg]

I find it hilarious that truther morons are now objecting to being called truthers.

[Hokulele]

The main thing is, the label "truther" is useful. Much like "Buddhist", "Democrat", or "Female", calling someone a truther is a legitimate shortcut in conversation. Granted, it doesn't give one a full picture of the beliefs or personality of the person so labeled, but calling it dehumanizing is a red herring at best. I typically avoid the term and use either conspiracy theorist or CTist instead since in my experience, 9/11 is only one of many CT's believed by the average truther.

So, a few questions to RedIbis (or any other CT proponent who cares to answer), is labeling myself a "skeptic" dehumanizing? What labels are and are not acceptable? Is calling the amalgamation of various evidence the "official story" or "official theory" derogatory?

As one last note (again directed specifically at RedIbis), if you do not accept such a label, it would be in your best interest to tell people what you do hold to be true such that we can discuss things based on your personal beliefs, rather than what we have to assume based on implication, given no other recourse.

[R.Mackey]

The objections to the name "Truther" fill me with a sense of grim satisfaction (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4819342#post4819342).

The real reason they're doing it, of course, is to try to pretend they're still holding up their end of the conversation. Every prominent figure in the Truth Movement has been exposed as a fraud. Every club and group in the Truth Movement has demonstrated its total impotence. So now we increasingly see individuals claiming that, why, no, I'm not a Truther, I'm something else! So please, deal with me! I haven't been debunked yet! Please?

This is just another typical example of the cargo-cult mentality that pervades the Truth Movement. Yes, you indeed have been debunked, but not because we call you a Truther. It's because you can't even articulate what you loudly proclaim must be treated as a valid possibility. "We Need a New Investigation" is the barely laundered resurgence of "Teach The Controversy."

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Give me an alternate hypothesis that makes a lick of sense. Do that, and you have a discussion. Otherwise, pipe down.

Can't do it, can you? Well, then what difference does it make what we call you?

While you chew on that, here's a sampling of names that I've personally been called, all for my high and treasonous crime of daring to disagree with the Truthers, and for trying to educate people with varying degrees of understandable misconceptions and utterly laughable delusions:

Pseudoscientist, pseudoskeptic, NIST apologist, NISTian
Liar, fraud, Military-Industrial Complex Scientist
Sheep, "sheeple," stooge, government agent, disinfo agent
Neo-Nazi, just plain Nazi, Zionist, Mossad agent
Mark Roberts (that one really stings :p)
"Official Lie Slurper" (still the funniest)
Traitor, murderer, Satanist
Compared to this, I don't see that "Truther" raises much of a call to action. I would instead remark that the "Truthers" appear to have rather thin skins, in addition to their other evident faults.

However, if the word is really that offensive, I suppose we could change it for you. Most folks think that the world has gotten too Politically Correct, but I guess there's room for a little more. So here's a few ideas:
Evidentiarily Challenged
The Alternately Percepted Community
Reality Escape Artists
If any of those meet with your approval, I'd be more than happy to oblige you. After all, we can't have a world-changing movement of die-hard activists and freedom fighters, daily risking life and limb, discouraged and rendered useless because their feelings were hurt. I believe in a world where we all should be free to live our our lives as unburdened by history, science, and objective fact as possible, at least provided there are no sharp objects within easy reach.

Of course, you can't blame them for trying. If I was part of a "Movement" that was as thoroughly void of initiative, destroyed in debate, mocked by the popular press, humbled by the scientific community, and marginalized by public opinion as the Truthers, I'd probably try to score some pity points too. :v:

[apathoid]

Sure. I've learned a lot over the last 8 years.


Pssst....I think he was expecting you to produce a fact that supports your inside-job contention.

[Foolmewunz]

Jon Gold claimed at one point (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5839) that he invented the word "Truther"; he said that Nick Levis first associated "Truth" with 9-11, and that when another guy got discouraged, he told him something like, "Don't give up, you're a Truther!"

I would trust that story about as far as I can toss Jon.

Bolded Part: Well, in order to ascertain just how far that trust would go, I think we need to do a scientific experiment. Jon's usually a good sport about participating. Could someone ask him to come over and let us see how far Brainster can toss him?


As to the dreaded T-Word.... They chose it themselves. For those who are hopping on the bandwagon but who don't like it, take it up with that well-oiled machine that is the Truth Movement. It's like joining the Democratic Party and deciding you don't like the term "Democrat". That's what you are and what you signed up for.

Now, the absolute bestest in this debate is, of course, my favorite poster, Jihad Jane. Why, after she's painted herself into yet another corner*, she can go on for fourteen pages in six threads simoultaneously, just arguing as to whether the diminutives (Twoofer, Truthie, Troof, etc..) lend anything to the argument.

Hey, it's better than having to present a theory or any evidence (Right, RedIbis?).


*(BTW Jane's corner-painting technique is so awesome and happens so frequently, that one has to assume that she lives in a snub dodecahedron as otherwise she'd have run out of corners last year sometime)

[Brainster]

There are those that liken the word to racism. Yes, you read that right.



I. kid. you. not.


http://www.ae911truth.org/info/92

That is beyond parody, but thanks for pointing it out. I'm flabbergasted at the gall of Deets.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Truthers or not. They're still wrong and they know it.

[Par]

How it is on a forum supposedly for critical thinking and civil discourse acceptable to label the opponent, conflate the position and basically refer to all opposition of a position with a pejorative is a bit of a mystery.


In that case, how, in your opinion, should we be referring to Denierbud and others who deny the Holocaust?

[TruthersLie]

Please name all the contributions that the Truthers have made to knowledge about 9/11. Genuine knowledge, mind, not batcrap crazy theories.

Dud...

I can only think of one off the top of my head...
David Chandlers indepth analysis of the wtc7 collapse which furthered the knowledge and information for NIST.

But he then went off the rails.... But that part did help contribute to the knowledge.

[TruthersLie]

I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again. Calling someone a truther, or calling one's self a truther is equally stupid.

How it is on a forum supposedly for critical thinking and civil discourse acceptable to label the opponent, conflate the position and basically refer to all opposition of a position with a pejorative is a bit of a mystery.

Anyone who uses this term freely has to at some point realize that not only does it strengthen your position not a jot, it weakens your position.

People who question the official story of 9/11 are not truthers, they're mothers, fathers, cops, lawyers, architects, students, your neighbor or co-worker. I would advise DRG and anyone else who accepts this term that they're not truthers and there is no such thing as a truth movement. It's damn near impossible to know the entire truth about anything. The best that anyone can do is establish facts. If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.

Abandon the practice of labeling and watch how much harder it will be to argue your opponent, how you cannot conflate your opponent's position with fringe ideas. I suspect the reason these labels are so popular here is because it dehumanizes the opponent, giving an easy excuse not to engage in discourse.

Again red... you dodge the question.

No one is calling someone who is skeptical about 9/11 a truther. Not done. The difference between a Truther and a person who is skeptical has to do with what YOU (the skeptical person) does once you find the information.

Do you dodge around and ignore the evidence? (DNA pentagon, fuel at shanksville, etc....) or do you then take that information and continue with research?

That is the difference between a Twoof and a skeptical person. At this point in time, there are very few on the fence "skeptics."

[1337m4n]

How it is on a forum supposedly for critical thinking and civil discourse acceptable to label the opponent, conflate the position and basically refer to all opposition of a position with a pejorative is a bit of a mystery.

The "pejorative" you speak of was originally invented and adopted by the very people that it is used to describe. You do realize that, don't you?

For instance, I joined the Libertarian Party of my own free will. So it would be stupid for me to get offended at somebody calling me a "Libertarian", now wouldn't it?

We're using the labels THEY created.

Anyone who uses this term freely has to at some point realize that not only does it strengthen your position not a jot, it weakens your position.

My position is weakened by a conveniece of communication? Guess I had better stop using contractions.

People who question the official story of 9/11 are not truthers, they're mothers, fathers, cops, lawyers, architects, students, your neighbor or co-worker.

My bad. And hey, why stop with "Truther"? Why not apply this logic to every label in existence? People who break the law are not criminals, they're mothers, fathers, cops, lawyers, architects, students, your neighbor or co-worker.

I'll remember to put out a help-wanted ad for "mothers, fathers, cops, lawyers, architects, students, neighbors and co-workers" the next time I need a plumber. That'll go over well.

I would advise DRG and anyone else who accepts this term that they're not truthers and there is no such thing as a truth movement. It's damn near impossible to know the entire truth about anything. The best that anyone can do is establish facts. If it were called the Fact Movement, I'd be in full support.

You reject a movement that shares all of the same goals as you, solely on the basis of petty semantics?

I can't even begin to express how stupid that is.

Abandon the practice of labeling and watch how much harder it will be to argue your opponent, how you cannot conflate your opponent's position with fringe ideas.

You do have a point here; it is unfair to lump you in with the same group as people who believe in hushabooms, DEWs, UFOs...

...wait...no it's not. It's perfectly fair, in fact. Your position may not sound as absurd to the ear, but it still has exactly the same amount of factual support.

I suspect the reason these labels are so popular here is because it dehumanizes the opponent, giving an easy excuse not to engage in discourse.

Wait, what?

You run away from 95% of questions that are asked of you, and you're accusing US of not wanting to engage in discourse?

Your jokes are funny.

[RedIbis]

The "pejorative" you speak of was originally invented and adopted by the very people that it is used to describe. You do realize that, don't you?



Obviously I realize it since I stated right at the beginning of my post:

I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again. Calling someone a truther, or calling one's self a truther is equally stupid.

[dtugg]

Well, now that I think about it, "truther" is not the best label for somebody that believes 9/11 conspiracy theories. How about "insane lying idiot"? I suppose that fits better but is unfortunately not as succinct.

[dtugg]

I wonder why RedIbis doesn't protest the term "birther." After all Orly Taitz herself is a lawyer, real estate agent, dentist, mother, child, wife, ect.

[Par]

How it is on a forum supposedly for critical thinking and civil discourse acceptable to label the opponent, conflate the position and basically refer to all opposition of a position with a pejorative is a bit of a mystery.In that case, how, in your opinion, should we be referring to Denierbud and others who deny the Holocaust?I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again. Calling someone a truther, or calling one's self a truther is equally stupid.


What about calling someone a "Holocaust denier"?

[WildCat]

Pssst....I think he was expecting you to produce a fact that supports your inside-job contention.
Oh no, I didn't expect RedIbis to actually produce a fact. After all, he doesn't have any.

What I do expect RedIbis to do is duck, weave, ignore, dodge, hide, play dumb, whine, complain gripe, and cry. And eventually run away, like he always does. See the "C-Ring" thread for a great example.

[stateofgrace]

So now truthers don't like to be called truthers, so what ?

What should we call truthers now ? Maybe "Person formerly known as a truther" ? Or maybe " Truther who no longer wishes to be called a truther but something much nicer" ?

[TruthersLie]

They should take a piece of advice from prince.

They are now this glyph (http://www.lambertcs.com/images/facepalm_picard_riker.jpg). Formerly known as Truthers

[RedIbis]

So now truthers don't like to be called truthers, so what ?

What should we call truthers now ? Maybe "Person previously known as a truther" ? Or maybe " Truther who no longer wishes to be called a truther but something much nicer" ?


It's not about taste. I personally don't care what you call me. I'm just curious whether people realize that labeling is a cheap rhetorical tactic that doesn't belong in any forum that is promoting civil discourse.

TAM seems to recognize this, and I suspect that other more mature and reasonable posters do as well.

[Pardalis]

Listen Red, you said you believed 95% in MIHOP. This means you're a truther.

Live with it.

[stateofgrace]

It's not about taste. I personally don't care what you call me. I'm just curious whether people realize that labeling is a cheap rhetorical tactic that doesn't belong in any forum that is promoting civil discourse.

TAM seems to recognize this, and I suspect that other more mature and reasonable posters do as well.

I did not label you anything. The word truther was not of my making. Don’t even go down the road of maturity and reasonability, Red. There is nothing reasonable and mature about accusing innocent people of being involved in mass murder.
You may be one of the more civil truthers around here, Red, but don't delude yourself that I hold your opinion in any less distaste than I do any other truthers opinions. If you want civil, mature, reasonable debate, answer the questions that are put to you, start to learn from those that are far more knowledgeable to speak on a subject than yourself and stop acting like some whiny immature kid when you are called out.

You could start by answering my civil question. Are you ashamed to be called a "truther" ?

[Pardalis]

This is all feigned offense, just to avoid confronting his denial.

There's really nothing else there for them to do now. Every subject has been discussed to death, they've been debunked thousands of times over. This is all they have left.

He's been at it since 2007, and now he's concerned with the word "truther"? Pleeeease. :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

Too bad calling them nut case conspiracy theorists does not make them think, wake up, find some evidence, discover hearsay and opinions are not evidence.

Truthers that start using rational thinking will recover from terminal stupidity and thrive after overcoming the intellectual fraud of the "1984/NAZI like" named Truth Movement.

[RedIbis]

Don't take it too personally, guys. I think the discussion is interesting. Some might find it boring or irrelevant but I'm actually interested in linguistics, argumentation, and what role labeling plays in the overall discourse.

[DGM]

Pssst....I think he was expecting you to produce a fact that supports your inside-job contention.
[red mode] When have I ever said "inside job"? [end red mode]:D

[johnny karate]

Don't take it too personally, guys. I think the discussion is interesting. Some might find it boring or irrelevant but I'm actually interested in linguistics, argumentation, and what role labeling plays in the overall discourse.

... as opposed to actually engaging in the discourse.

[WildCat]

About those facts, RedIbis... got any? Go on, don't be shy. I'll even crown you leader of the Facters if you can produce one.

[Foolmewunz]

Don't take it too personally, guys. I think the discussion is interesting. Some might find it boring or irrelevant but I'm actually interested in linguistics, argumentation, and what role labeling plays in the overall discourse.

Well, that's certainly interesting and I'm sure you could start a good thread on the topic over in Education, say. Those of us in the Grammar Resistance are always up for a good discussion of linguistics and philosophy of language. You can bring your Chomsky and I'll bring my Wittgenstein.

In the interim, though, this is the 911 CT sub-forum. For the purposes of this forum, we use "Truther" or it's baby-talk diminutives to mean you noble web warriors who have aligned with and/or actually identify yourselves as supporting that group of people collectively known as "The Truth Movement".

Do you really have any difficulty understanding this very basic concept. For the few of you who continue to carry this particular lance onto the battlefield (Hi, Jane - how ya doin?), this is like eschewing all meat and dairy products and saying, "Oh, but how can you say I'm vegatarian. I don't consider myself a vegetarian. I like to call myself an animal products-flesh skeptic."

I'm a liberal. If someone calls me a "Lib" with a sneer, I knock the sneer of their face but just because I don't like people sneering. I'm a liberal or lib and that's a label and it's accurate.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I was thinking and pondering where to put this silly little Conspiracy Theory I had about The Grinch.

Awe hell, here it goes:

Since Christmas is almost apon us (in about 2 months) I figured I'd put this up about The Grinch.

Now ponder this boys and girls:

The Grinch lived above Whoville on top of Mt. Crumpet, his HQ.

Why is it that The Grinch only came down when the people of Whoville were asleep on the night before Christmas so he can steal their Christmas decorations, presents, and for the love of God, their food?

Is The Grinch a Whovernment Agent? Is he part of the WFBI? WCIA? Or is he part of the NWO (New Who Order)?

How and why The Grinch Stole Christmas? Because stealing Christmas was an Inside Job!

[eromitlab]

Truthers might have solid ground to stand on in objecting to being labeled with a name they believe is a slur or a smear if they hadn't spent the last eight years slurring and smearing anyone and everyone who disagrees with them.
I'm sure every "debunker" has had truthers sling labels identical or similar to the ones that R.Mackey mentioned in post #45 at them. Who hasn't been characterized as a neocon government agent for questioning the ever-changing troof? How many times has a truther labeled someone who doesn't instantly convert to truthism as a Fox News viewer who believes everything their government tells them and charged that the person would rather run off and watch American Idol and Dancing with the Stars than face the cold hard troof?

It's also worth noting that if truthers want to complain about being labeled with their meaning of the term "truther", then what of their own catch-all pejorative label for their opponents, "debunker"? Another truth movement case of "it's not okay for you, but it's okay when we do it?"

[Orphia Nay]

Yep, at a forum where I debate truthers, they think the term "debunker" is evil, horrid, and nasty. I just laugh when they call me that. I would be proud to be a real debunker.

Truthers getting upset about being called "truthers"... that's so precious, and telling about the failure of the truth movement in general.

[Sam.I.Am]

Well we could call you guys "Group W"...

[Lupie]

If nobody ever called them truthers, they would probably be angry and criticize people for NOT calling them the title they so proudly gave themselves a few years back. Truthers seem to have a need to always be perpetually angry about something, and seem to take the opposite point of view when faced with a percieved foe regardless of how silly it ends up sounding, or how much they contradict themselves.

Truther-
"I am a Truther!"

Normal Person-
"Hello Truther, how are you today?"

Truther-
"How dare yo call me a TRUTHER you shill!"

L.

[twinstead]

Who cares what they are called? They're wrong.

[Lupie]

Who cares what they are called? They're wrong.

Can't argue with that!

[Scott Sommers]

The Facebook page for Toronto 9/11 Truthers Welcome describes the group as,

This group is for local 9/11 truthers who strongly investigate the truth behind the operators of September 11, 2001. There has been a lot of skeptics behind the fact that it was indeed not a "conspiracy". However each person is allowed their own opinion. BUT! When the topic arises anywhere, with almost anyone (in my experience) have agreed to the fact that yes it was an inside job.The reality of it is, nobody really knows the true story except for the people who made it happen! So, what people... (read more)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Let's call them "Sheeners".

After all Charlie Sheen's in there along with them.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My opinion:

[Par]

Well, that's certainly interesting and I'm sure you could start a good thread on the topic over in Education, say. Those of us in the Grammar Resistance are always up for a good discussion of linguistics and philosophy of language. You can bring your Chomsky and I'll bring my Wittgenstein.

In the interim, though, this is the 911 CT sub-forum. For the purposes of this forum, we use "Truther" or it's baby-talk diminutives to mean you noble web warriors who have aligned with and/or actually identify yourselves as supporting that group of people collectively known as "The Truth Movement".

Do you really have any difficulty understanding this very basic concept. For the few of you who continue to carry this particular lance onto the battlefield (Hi, Jane - how ya doin?), this is like eschewing all meat and dairy products and saying, "Oh, but how can you say I'm vegatarian. I don't consider myself a vegetarian. I like to call myself an animal products-flesh skeptic."

I'm a liberal. If someone calls me a "Lib" with a sneer, I knock the sneer of their face but just because I don't like people sneering. I'm a liberal or lib and that's a label and it's accurate.


Solid. (Personally, I object to being labelled a labeller.)

[Lupie]

My opinion:

Love the Cartoon-

Troofer talk=Bantha Pudu!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Love the Cartoon-

Troofer talk=Bantha Pudu!

Exactly Lupie & thanks!

I had to modify that picture a bit.

[Slayhamlet]

Truthers complaining about being labelled according to the name of the ideological movement they support is just too precious.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My 2 cents:

[WildCat]

Has RedIbis found a fact yet?

[Brainache]

Has RedIbis found a fact yet?

I believe he has been examining some holes in the ground in an attempt to determine whether or not they constitute part of his anatomy. He has been using both hands, but he still hasn't reached a firm conclusion...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

My position is weakened by a conveniece of communication? Guess I had better stop using contractions.


Actually, it seems RedIbis may prefer that we all communicated in legalese. Each post will require an entire section devoted to explicitly defining the words we choose to use within.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This is what the Truthers watched while growing up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qc9MMMoyec&feature=related

[RedIbis]

Actually, it seems RedIbis may prefer that we all communicated in legalese. Each post will require an entire section devoted to explicitly defining the words we choose to use within.

You only need to read the post right after yours to see the juvenile stereotyping that labeling leads to. And as we all know, it gets much worse than that.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You only need to read the post right after yours to see the juvenile stereotyping that labeling leads to. And as we all know, it gets much worse than that.

You've got no sense of humor what-so-ever RedIbis. That's just tragic!

You're a Truther who's own personal goal is to make everyone elses life a living hell & not your own. Ain't gonna happen here buddy!

[Thunder]

You only need to read the post right after yours to see the juvenile stereotyping that labeling leads to. And as we all know, it gets much worse than that.

when truthers quit labeling me a Zionist agent/Mossad/NWO shill/traitor........I will then have a weeee bit more sympathy.

[RedIbis]

You've got no sense of humor what-so-ever RedIbis. That's just tragic!

You're a Truther who's own personal goal is to make everyone elses life a living hell & not your own. Ain't gonna happen here buddy!

Reading your posts, I'm a bit relieved to find that you don't think I have a sense of humor.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Reading your posts, I'm a bit relieved to find that you don't think I have a sense of humor.

So you're relieved that I'm aware that you've got no sense of humor. Umm ok!

But what about the part where you've got no evidence to prove that 9/11's an "Inside Job"?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

What's wrong Redibis?

Can't answer the question or does the cat have your tongue?

But what about the part where you've got no evidence to prove that 9/11's an "Inside Job"?

[WildCat]

How's that search for a fact coming along RedIbis?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Any year now RedIbis!

[TexasJack]

Dang truthers, first it's thermite, then it's thermate. Then it's no-planes, then it's planes...
Then they self-title themselves truthers, and they say that's stupid?

Well, to be honest truthers, labels don't mean squat without facts, and what is really stupid is that you can't produce any, so you whine about labels. I guess that's all your left with.

[Algebra34]

Dang debunkers, first it's melted, then it's weakened. Then it's thermal expansion. Then they self-title themselves debunker and not debunk anything?

Well, to be honest debunker, labels don't mean squat without facts, and what is really stupid is that you can't produce any, so you whine about alternative theories. I guess that's all your left with.

[dtugg]

LOL. Sure, HI. Tell yourself that if it makes you feel better about being a twoofer.

[TexasJack]

Oh and I forgot to mention, that they constantly get banned on this forum and keep coming back. Why is that? First it's Homeland Insurgency, then it's Wubriny...well you get the picture.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Oh and I forgot to mention, that they constantly get banned on this forum and keep coming back. Why is that? First it's Homeland Insurgency, then it's Wubriny...well you get the picture.
Wrong. First it's LastChild, then it's RAZEtheFlag, then it's TruthbyDecree, THEN it's Homeland Insurgency and the rest of his stupid screen names.

Who else could write such a well thought-out OP?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102703

[Algebra34]

Wrong. First it's LastChild, then it's RAZEtheFlag, then it's TruthbyDecree, THEN it's Homeland Insurgency and the rest of his stupid screen names.

Who else could write such a well thought-out OP?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102703

Wow. I hadn't even found this place yet by then. How about you? This just keeps getting better and better. I'm really glad I strolled by tonite. How about you?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Wow. I hadn't even found this place yet by then. How about you? This just keeps getting better and better. I'm really glad I strolled by tonite. How about you?
Caught in two lies in one post.
UNL you are on ignore with two others. don't bother.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Wrong. First it's LastChild, then it's RAZEtheFlag, then it's TruthbyDecree, THEN it's Homeland Insurgency and the rest of his stupid screen names.

Who else could write such a well thought-out OP?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102703

On YouTube he's known as: TheCrimsonSkull

http://www.youtube.com/user/thecrimsonskull

He's a very irritating person who likes to stalk & harass people. He calls that "fun", I call that a crime.

[UNLoVedRebel]

He's not TheCrimsonSkull.

[Algebra34]

Caught in two lies in one post.

I took you off. It's funny. I didn't want to miss any of it. Debunkers are funny. Or is it just debunker not plural? I can't tell.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

He's not TheCrimsonSkull.

Well I'm pretty sure he is.

There's only 1 person from YouTube who knows that my screen name was "ThereIsNoConspiracy" & the current 1 I have "WhyAskQuestions".

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=157275&page=2

Algebra34
Ask Questions & Demand Evidence from Truthers

but There Is No Conspiracy. so Why Ask Questions?

BTW: This message is hidden because Algebra34 is on your ignore list.

[Algebra34]

There's only 1 person from YouTube who knows that my screen name was "ThereIsNoConspiracy" & the current 1 I have "WhyAskQuestions".

So you are ThereIsNoConspiracy & WhyAskQuestions?

[TexasJack]

Wow. I hadn't even found this place yet by then. How about you? This just keeps getting better and better. I'm really glad I strolled by tonite. How about you?

Why did you respond to his post? I don't see him mentioning you anywhere in his post.

[Algebra34]

Why did you respond to his post? I don't see him mentioning you anywhere in his post.

Right. Like you weren't talking about me in a response to a post about me. Well good. Don't want to talk about who was found? Don't want to talk about 9/11? Why not?

[TexasJack]

Right. Like you weren't talking about me in a response to a post about me. Well good. Don't want to talk about who was found? Don't want to talk about 9/11? Why not?

Where did I mention you anywhere in my post? Or did I? ;)

[Algebra34]

Where did I mention you anywhere in my post? Or did I? ;)

Right. So report it. Good luck. Any thoughts on 9/11ChewbaccaDefense?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Any thoughts about me?

Hmmmmm!

I'm not a Truther! I'm glad!

I'm not someone who stalks & harasses people on YouTube or JREF! I'm safe!

I'm not TheCrimsonSkull from YouTube who is a Truther or stalks & harasses people online for fun! Thank God for that!

[TexasJack]

Right. So report it. Good luck. Any thoughts on 9/11ChewbaccaDefense?
Nope and don't care, just love to point out truthers who are obsessed like Homeland Insurgency that they feel they have to come back time and again. A rather disturbed person, wouldn't you say?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

A rather disturbed person, wouldn't you say?

If there's any personal attacks I'll report people. I just don't like people stalking or harassing me. There's nothing "disturbing" about that. It's just a crime that hasn't been punished yet.

[TexasJack]

If there's any personal attacks I'll report people. I just don't like people stalking or harassing me. There's nothing "disturbing" about that. It's just a crime that hasn't been punished yet.

My comment was in reference to Homeland Insurgency, a banned member who has had several sock puppets.

[Algebra34]

Any thoughts about me?

Hmmmmm!

I'm not a Truther! I'm glad!

I'm not someone who stalks & harasses people on YouTube or JREF! I'm safe!

I'm not TheCrimsonSkull from YouTube who is a Truther or stalks & harasses people online for fun! Thank God for that!

I'm telling you honestly I am not TheCrimsonSkull ( I had to copy and paste that BTW) and I'm not stalking anyone. I haven't even reported you. I don't care.

Why are you on this forum as two different debunkers? You weren't banned. Did you forget your password? You know your posts and style are pretty shall we say... memorable. I've read you many a time on youtube. The whole living near Shanksville and the star wars obsession. Did you just want to change your name? What's up? Do you have more than two?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My comment was in reference to Homeland Insurgency, a banned member who has had several sock puppets.

Ok, I must've got mixed up a bit since Algerbra34 (TheCrimsonSkull from YouTube) is here trying to gull me into arguing with him.

My apologies!

Have you considered that it's Algerbra34's sock puppets?

TheCrimsonSkull had 80 sock puppet accounts on YouTube, I could imagine he has them here as well.

[TruthersLie]

Dang debunkers, first it's melted, then it's weakened. Then it's thermal expansion. Then they self-title themselves debunker and not debunk anything?

Well, to be honest debunker, labels don't mean squat without facts, and what is really stupid is that you can't produce any, so you whine about alternative theories. I guess that's all your left with.

Please just start going on about your lack of understanding of radar, 11 jets claiming to be hijacked and turned off transponders..

pretty please.

No debunker ever said the steel melted. The steel weakened in the towers, and thermal expansion happened (with weakening steel) in wtc7.

Which version of therm**te are you twoofs on now? Were there therm**te potato chips in the vending machines?

[triforcharity]

Please just start going on about your lack of understanding of radar, 11 jets claiming to be hijacked and turned off transponders..

pretty please.

No debunker ever said the steel melted. The steel weakened in the towers, and thermal expansion happened (with weakening steel) in wtc7.

Which version of therm**te are you twoofs on now? Were there therm**te potato chips in the vending machines?


Are those the really hot ones made by Lays??? :D:D:D

[Dave Rogers]

Dang debunkers, first it's melted, then it's weakened. Then it's thermal expansion.

We apologise for the fact that you're unable to construct a consistent strawman argument.

Dave