Truthers and Cargo Cult Argumentation

[timhau]

A couple of weeks ago, I entertained myself by participating in a multi-party exchange with a 9/11 Truther on a sports gaming message board (the OT section, obviously, which is members-only, so no link). I couldn’t help but wonder about his debating method: he threw around expressions like strawman and Occam’s Razor in the strangest of contexts. It soon became apparent that he had, in fact, no idea what those expressions meant (and that he was too lazy to use Google).

Now, there’s a lengthy thread on the subject of peer review, in which one of our resident Truthers hunts for the reviewers of Gravy’s work. It’s a long thread, but you don’t really have to read all that far to realize that the starter of the thread has a very strange idea of what peer review is and where it’s applicable.

I think these two instances have important in common; for a lack of a better term, I’d like to call it Cargo Cult Argumentation. It seems like the original presenters of the arguments try to imitate the way they’ve seen debunkers argue, using their lingo with at best a partial understanding of the words they use.

I find this somewhat baffling. It’s one thing to play-act in an environment where people familiar with the issues aren’t around to call BS on cargo cult arguments, but why do it here? And, in fact, why do it at all? It seems to me like a symptom of some sort of an inferiority complex - - you don’t go around imitating people who you think are below you. The Pacific Islanders carved headphones out of wood and did runway dances because they thought the Western soldiers had established contact with gods that way. Now, why would a Truther do an analogous imitation of a debunker if he thought the debunkers were winning the debate?

[Anti-sophist]

It seems like the original presenters of the arguments try to imitate the way they’ve seen debunkers argue, using their lingo with at best a partial understanding of the words they use.


I've experienced similarly poor logical constructs from CTers (and, to be sure, from IDers, math & physics cranks, and other assorted woo-psuedoscience). I think you've identified a new angle that I hadn't quite considered.

The word you might be looking for is sophistry. And by sophistry, I mean the older definition. Namely, arguing in a fashion whereby appearing right is the primary motivation. The goal of someone utilizing sophistry, is to play to the crowd and "win" the argument as if there was some kind of vote at the end.

Actually being right is immaterial to the sophist. The things you've described are very much sophistry. They are trying to sound smart. They are misusing words with little care in actually using them correctly. They are counting the on the fact that third parties won't know what they mean, either.


The Pacific Islanders carved headphones out of wood and did runway dances because they thought the Western soldiers had established contact with gods that way. Heh.


Now, why would a Truther do an analogous imitation of a debunker if he thought the debunkers were winning the debate?My answer, as you might have guessed, is to sound smart to third-parties. They presume most people know as much as they know, and therefore most people can't tell the difference. They aren't trying to be right. They aren't trying to convince you. They are trying to convince all the people "like them" in the audience. They are playing to this majority that they believe are much like them. In some very real sense, they are trying to convince themselves (not literally, but rather, they are trying to make an argument that would convince someone like them). They do this because they are trying to "win" some unofficial vote of the crowd.

[timhau]

The word you might be looking for is sophistry. And by sophistry, I mean the older definition. Namely, arguing in a fashion whereby appearing right is the primary motivation. The goal of someone utilizing sophistry, is to play to the crowd and "win" the argument as if there was some kind of vote at the end.

Actually being right is immaterial to the sophist. The things you've described are very much sophistry. They are trying to sound smart. They are misusing words with little care in actually using them correctly. They are counting the on the fact that third parties won't know what they mean, either.


Heh. If you're a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And if you're Anti-sophist, every form of bs looks like... :D

You could call it sophistry. However, I'm not sure it's even that. Or alternatively, it's sophistry with minimal sophistication. Let's take the Pacific Islander example as an illustration. The way I understand the words, a Sophist Cult would go through some trouble to look like genuine Allied GIs and have real if not functional equipment; their goal would be not to receive grates full of supplies from those big shiny birds that make a rumbling noise but to improve the Cultists' social standing by pretending to have a hotline to the gods. A Cargo Cult picks up aspects of GI behavior more or less randomly, goes through the motions, and hopes for a reward. The way I understand things (and the way I use those terms), it takes some digging into to realize that the sophist is trying to pull a fast one. With a cargo cultist, it's fairly obvious that he has no idea what he's doing.


My answer, as you might have guessed, is to sound smart to third-parties. They presume most people know as much as they know, and therefore most people can't tell the difference. They aren't trying to be right. They aren't trying to convince you. They are trying to convince all the people "like them" in the audience. They are playing to this majority that they believe are much like them. In some very real sense, they are trying to convince themselves (not literally, but rather, they are trying to make an argument that would convince someone like them). They do this because they are trying to "win" some unofficial vote of the crowd.

Winning over the crowd is certainly a big part of it. What's interesting, then, is that they think they can do it better if they try to imitate the way debunkers argue. It's as if they saw debunkers having an air of legitimacy, and they hope that by saying "Strawman!" and "Occam's Razor!" some of it magically rubs on them. Or alternatively, it's like a bunch of nerds riding 70cc Vespas trying to emulate the cool kids who drive Harleys.*

*Disclaimer: I'm not saying Harleys are the epitome of cool. I'm considering getting a 750cc Honda Shadow myself.

[Sabrina]

I think these two instances have important in common; for a lack of a better term, I’d like to call it Cargo Cult Argumentation.

CaCA?

:D

ETA: Forgive me, it's Monday, I'm tired and apparently coming down with a head cold; I will take my amusement where I can.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it holds up. Reason being; if you take in to account why the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific did what they did and look for the same motivation in the CT mindset, I don't think it will be found. The Cargo Cults observed a cause/effect relationship, but failed to understand the underlying technology. They attempted to reproduce the cause in an effort to get the same effect, but did so with the available technology/knowledge to them.

That said, I find the Cargo Cult phenomenon to be abso-freakin-lutely fascinating.


Oh, and what you really want is a Honda VTX1300.

[leftysergeant]

This is kind of complicated, but I do see the parallels with the cargo cults.

The natives wanted the cargo that came with the planes. They figured that they just had to duplicate the conditions that brought the planes. They totally misunderstood the concept of a plane.

There is ample reason to believe that the Bush administration has altered the narrative of the eventrs in some ways. How many people believed, in 2003, that Saddam had a hand in 9/11? Controlling that narrative allowed Bush to invade Iraq with relatively little opposition at home.

The twoofers want the power that comes from controlling the narrative in the public mind. So they create their own narrative.

But they do not grasp the science behind the phenomena that the narrative describes.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This is kind of complicated, but I do see the parallels with the cargo cults.

The natives wanted the cargo that came with the planes. They figured that they just had to duplicate the conditions that brought the planes. They totally misunderstood the concept of a plane.

There is ample reason to believe that the Bush administration has altered the narrative of the eventrs in some ways. How many people believed, in 2003, that Saddam had a hand in 9/11? Controlling that narrative allowed Bush to invade Iraq with relatively little opposition at home.

The twoofers want the power that comes from controlling the narrative in the public mind. So they create their own narrative.

But they do not grasp the science behind the phenomena that the narrative describes.
Or, it could be that the twoofers see their opponents pointing out logical fallacies in their (the twoofers) narrative, then (correctly) assume that most laypeople seeing the debates/discussions will be unfamiliar with the details of said fallacies and, therefore, throw them out in an effort to generate the illusion of legitimacy in their argument. In the same manner which YECs make sure to refer to the THEORY of Evolution.

[Redtail]

Oh, and what you really want is a Honda VTX1300.

Agreed. Even if it's your first bike a 1300 is still very forgiving with a new rider and a 750 gets small so fast it'll make your head spin. Plus I prefer Victory.:D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Agreed. Even if it's your first bike a 1300 is still very forgiving with a new rider and a 750 gets small so fast it'll make your head spin.
Agreed!
Plus I prefer Victory.:D
Honda = $$
Victory = $$$$

[OldTigerCub]

Or, it could be that the twoofers see their opponents pointing out logical fallacies in their (the twoofers) narrative, then (correctly) assume that most laypeople seeing the debates/discussions will be unfamiliar with the details of said fallacies and, therefore, throw them out in an effort to generate the illusion of legitimacy in their argument. In the same manner which YECs make sure to refer to the THEORY of Evolution.

I can see a bit of a parallel between Trootherism and Creationism in that the creationist will always question the Theory of Evolution,while relying on faith based on the legends in the Bible, that the Bible has all the truths.
The Troother will always question the science of the investigation relying on the legends of the movement, and the faith that his goverment is corrupt, and that, no matter how crazy they may appear, at least one of the theories may become largely accepted. Therein the troother hopes to find a sort of redemption.

Does that sound a bit farfetched, or essentially true?
(I think I hurt my brain trying to phrase it correctly):p

[CHF]

It seems like the original presenters of the arguments try to imitate the way they’ve seen debunkers argue, using their lingo with at best a partial understanding of the words they use.

Indeed, twoofers really are like children trying to copy what they see adults doing.

[OldTigerCub]

Indeed, twoofers really are like children trying to copy what they see adults doing.

Disregard my previous analysis. The "child trying to copy the adult" pretty well explains, at least to me, the sophistry pointed out early in the thread.:)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

A couple of weeks ago, I entertained myself by participating in a multi-party exchange with a 9/11 Truther on a sports gaming message board (the OT section, obviously, which is members-only, so no link). I couldn’t help but wonder about his debating method: he threw around expressions like strawman and Occam’s Razor in the strangest of contexts. It soon became apparent that he had, in fact, no idea what those expressions meant (and that he was too lazy to use Google).

Now, there’s a lengthy thread on the subject of peer review, in which one of our resident Truthers hunts for the reviewers of Gravy’s work. It’s a long thread, but you don’t really have to read all that far to realize that the starter of the thread has a very strange idea of what peer review is and where it’s applicable.

I think these two instances have important in common; for a lack of a better term, I’d like to call it Cargo Cult Argumentation. It seems like the original presenters of the arguments try to imitate the way they’ve seen debunkers argue, using their lingo with at best a partial understanding of the words they use.

I find this somewhat baffling. It’s one thing to play-act in an environment where people familiar with the issues aren’t around to call BS on cargo cult arguments, but why do it here? And, in fact, why do it at all? It seems to me like a symptom of some sort of an inferiority complex - - you don’t go around imitating people who you think are below you. The Pacific Islanders carved headphones out of wood and did runway dances because they thought the Western soldiers had established contact with gods that way. Now, why would a Truther do an analogous imitation of a debunker if he thought the debunkers were winning the debate?

I am sorry to say this; but lurking about the CT threads on this board I find a cult like atmosphere.

It is much different on other parts of the board.

I have found little in these threads outside of group think that has devolved into a mantra of attack.

[Good Lt]

but lurking about the CT threads on this board I find a cult like atmosphere.

It is much different on other parts of the board. [ed. - Forums, you mean?]

I have found little in these threads outside of group think that has devolved into a mantra of attack.

I'm sorry to say this, but if you've found little on these threads outside of group-think, then you haven't been reading them.

In addition, these threads often concern themselves with the claims put forth by CTs, and facts that counter the CTs are presented. That's not group think - that's called critical thinking. There are many people on these boards, from all ideological stripes, nationalities, belief systems, backgrounds and trades. They challenge the groupthink and illogical tendencies of conspiracy theorists.

At this point in time, the most idiotic and trendy conspiracy theories are 9-11 conspiracy theories and those are the primary but not exclusive focus of the sub-forum. If you have a problem viewing the laser-like focus and relative efficiency with which 9-11 nutter theories are shredded before your eyes here, that's just the rational part of your brain trying to escape.

And, of course, this is just funny coming from a trafficker in a bonified cultish religion like Trooferism, complete with canonical, blind acceptance of any Troof-based idea no matter how stupid or ridiculous, reams of faith-based claims, leaders, high priests, blasphemers, apostates, converts, mindless group think and fact-free hierarchical belief systems.

Rich. :w2:

[Redtail]

Agreed!

Honda = $$
Victory = $$$$

True but worth every penny.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm sorry to say this, but if you've found little on these threads outside of group-think, then you haven't been reading them.

In addition, these threads often concern themselves with the claims put forth by CTs, and facts that counter the CTs are presented. That's not group think - that's called critical thinking. There are many people on these boards, from all ideological stripes, nationalities, belief systems, backgrounds and trades. They challenge the groupthink and illogical tendencies of conspiracy theorists.

At this point in time, the most idiotic and trendy conspiracy theories are 9-11 conspiracy theories and those are the primary but not exclusive focus of the sub-forum. If you have a problem viewing the laser-like focus and relative efficiency with which 9-11 nutter theories are shredded before your eyes here, that's just the rational part of your brain trying to escape.

And, of course, this is just funny coming from a trafficker in a bonified cultish religion like Trooferism, complete with canonical, blind acceptance of any Troof-based idea no matter how stupid or ridiculous, reams of faith-based claims, leaders, high priests, blasphemers, apostates, converts, mindless group think and fact-free hierarchical belief systems.

Rich. :w2:


Case in point.

I am not a troofer and you attack my critique with personal insults that amount to no less than 14 smearing adjectives.

:jaw-dropp

[Good Lt]

I'm sorry to dissapoint you, JEROME, but Trooferism exhibits quite a few cult-like qualities - central to which is the faith-based belief in righteousness of the cause without any factual or scientific grounding.

And the sensitivity you seem to exhibit when Trooferism is called on the carpet for what it is seems to suggest that you are more sensitive to criticism of the so-called '9-11 Truth movement' than an average non-Troofer.

Why?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm sorry to dissapoint you, JEROME, but Trooferism exhibits quite a few cult-like qualities - central to which is the faith-based belief in righteousness of the cause without any factual or scientific grounding.

And the sensitivity you seem to exhibit when Trooferism is called on the carpet for what it is seems to suggest that you are more sensitive to criticism of the so-called '9-11 Truth movement' than an average non-Troofer.

Why?

I was just pointing out the lack of thought occurring here. I find that this section does little more than find some troofer web site and proceed to make fun.

Hey, no problem. But I find it out of place at JREF. I also lurked at screw loose change. The posts I read here would seem more at home there.

[Good Lt]

I was just pointing out the lack of thought occurring here.

And what about a lack of facts? Did you, by any chance, peruse the sticky posts at the top of the sub-forum? Any posts today and from the past on WTC7 refutations, debunkings of NIST conspiracy theories, reports of Troofer leaders doing their things, etc.?

Like I said, if all you see here is some good-natured ribbing of what is quite obviously nuttery, then you aren't reading everything. You're being, how you say, selective.

I find that this section does little more than find some troofer web site and proceed to make fun.

Then you obviously haven't been reading everything.

Hey, no problem. But I find it out of place at JREF. I also lurked at screw loose change. The posts I read here would seem more at home there.

There's nothing wrong with having a little fun with overheated conspiracy nuttery. Wouldn't you agree?

[beachnut]

I was just pointing out the lack of thought occurring here. I find that this section does little more than find some troofer web site and proceed to make fun.

Hey, no problem. But I find it out of place at JREF. I also lurked at screw loose change. The posts I read here would seem more at home there.
Please do not destroy the CT poster with your u2z345 device. We will try harder to live up to the standards you expect. Please give us a chance.

Please do not destroy the CT posters with "Uranium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator", device. We will try harder to live up to the standards you expect. Please give us a chance.

Marvin please spare us. We know we have disgraced Mars, and we will make amends. No not the Illudium PU-36 device, we can try harder. Pleaseseseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
But you can do what you want with the 9/11 truth movement, they are the ones without a single fact to support their fraudulent claims.

[Good Lt]

Better watch it, beachnut. Don't want to exhibit too much cult-like behavior/group-think. :rolleyes:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Better watch it, beachnut. Don't want to exhibit too much cult-like behavior/group-think. :rolleyes:

I thought most of what he wrote was an example of humorous and individual thought.

:)

[beachnut]

I thought most of what he wrote was an example of humorous and individual thought.

:)
We have been spared? Thank Mars. But what about the truthers? (rhetorical at best)

[Good Lt]

We have been spared?

Only until the next "cult-like" needling of Trooferism.

I was born in pa philly

What a town, huh?

[Dog Town]

I was just pointing out the lack of thought occurring here. I find that this section does little more than find some troofer web site and proceed to make fun.

Hey, no problem. But I find it out of place at JREF. I also lurked at screw loose change. The posts I read here would seem more at home there.

Wow! Did you miss the amount of humor? The "twoofers" have none! How do you associate holograms, and no-planers? Dying to hear! Lack of thought is an oxy-moron here! Only to TWOOFERS!


Try the death ray...* laughs loud *

DT!

[beachnut]

Only until the next "cult-like" needling of Trooferism.
What a town, huh?
It earned me my damn Yankee title in Atl GA

[Dog Town]

What a town, huh?

If you like BOOOING Santa! Classless....

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you like BOOOING Santa! Classless....

They were booing the cheap owner of the team at the time. He sent a raggedy Santa out on the back of a lawn tractor.

They should have booed.

Now needing a court and jail in the stadium---well thats another story.

[Dog Town]

Now needing a court and jail in the stadium---well thats another story.

It is called the "LINK"!

[Good Lt]

Try the death ray...* laughs loud *

Or space beams. Or Twooferbucks. Or Loose Change: We Really Mean It - This is the FINAL VERSION, v. 2,3,4, etc. Or Alex Jones - period. Or "voice morphing." Or controlled demolitions of the WTC.

Take your pick. There's plenty of unintentional humor to be found in them thar Troofer theories and sites.

But I'm told it's "cult-like" to point this out.

[Good Lt]

If you like BOOOING Santa! Classless....

Hell - this town booed Mike Schmidt on multiple occasions. And he's a local hero and a Hall of Fame legend.

[orphia nay]

I am sorry to say this; but lurking about the CT threads on this board I find a cult like atmosphere.

It is much different on other parts of the board.

I have found little in these threads outside of group think that has devolved into a mantra of attack.

Case in point.

I am not a troofer and you attack my critique with personal insults that amount to no less than 14 smearing adjectives.

:jaw-dropp

Case in point.

I don't see any "cult-like group-think" in this sub-forum (I see cameraderie, though) and you attack Good Lt's critique with insults to all debunkers.

Good way to get yourself noticed in here, though. :rolleyes::p

ETA: Interesting thread, BTW.

[Dog Town]

Hell - this town booed Mike Schmidt on multiple occasions. And he's a local hero and a Hall of Fame legend.

See D' McNabb,first round pick!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

ETA: Interesting thread, BTW.

I find it an interesting story. Without a link it may just be an unreasonable false characterization. I find that all here accept the story wholly revealing. It is very woo to accept what you assume to be true without facts.

Like I said, it is much different in these threads than the rest of the forum.

[orphia nay]

<snip>I couldn’t help but wonder about his debating method: he threw around expressions like strawman and Occam’s Razor in the strangest of contexts.<snip>

Indeed, twoofers really are like children trying to copy what they see adults doing.


Yes, I've noticed that too, and I like the cargo cult analogy. They also do it by calling themselves skeptics, and also by using the term "Official Conspiracy Theory".

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it holds up. Reason being; if you take in to account why the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific did what they did and look for the same motivation in the CT mindset, I don't think it will be found. The Cargo Cults observed a cause/effect relationship, but failed to understand the underlying technology. They attempted to reproduce the cause in an effort to get the same effect, but did so with the available technology/knowledge to them.

That said, I find the Cargo Cult phenomenon to be abso-freakin-lutely fascinating.<snip>

CTists seem to know the terms "skeptic" and "conspiracy theory" carry weight, yet they don't understand that reversing the meaning dissolves the terms' substance, and just makes them sound delusional.

The cause of the words has the wrong effect.

[Dog Town]

Indeed, twoofers really are like children trying to copy what they see adults doing.

My office " whom I do pay " call them chimps! Appropo!

[leftysergeant]

I was just pointing out the lack of thought occurring here. I find that this section does little more than find some troofer web site and proceed to make fun.

Hey, no problem. But I find it out of place at JREF. I also lurked at screw loose change. The posts I read here would seem more at home there.

It really isn't a good idea to take part in this sort of discussion with a length of number six rebar threaded up your backside.

The events that we are discussing involved the deaths of thousands in one day. The people and the ideas that we are debunking, dismissing or lampooning minimize the significance of the atrocities committed, and, in some cases, subvert national grief into a vehicle for those who would, like the white nationalists, tax resister nut jobs and militia types, use the national grief to build in this country a kakiocracy such as the world has never seen. A nation led by Dylan or AJ or dusty old Judy would be about the only thing I would find less tolerable than the realization of Karl Rove's dream of a hundred years of Republican rule.

Among the participants of this forum are numerous active and former military people, fire fighters past and present, and at least one, myself, who are both.

We, more than anyone, can see what would be the result of the rise of the kind of society that the twoofers and their puppet masters like AJ and Bollyn and Szymanski would build.

We may, in fact, be taking a stand against an enemy as deadly as any we have ever faced under arms. It can, in a way, be almost as stressful, because we do not always know who is actually an enemy and who is just a misguided dork, like most of the twoofers.

It would be easy to despair utterly, of ever educating people to the point where these flim-flammers and subversives lose their power to recruit followers. But we have to keep trying. This is deadly serious business.

That's why ridicule so often enters into the discussion of people like Dylan or Wood or Bollyn. They may be as serious as cancer, but they lose some of their power when their ideas are lampooned in the public square.

Humor has that power over tyrants and those who would become tyrants. Humor also gives us courage and confidence. We know that our humanity is not being stripped from us during our walk through the morasse that is the twoofer mind.

When we stop laughing, something really dreadful has already happened, and our humanity is gone.

[orphia nay]

I find it an interesting story. Without a link it may just be an unreasonable false characterization. I find that all here accept the story wholly revealing. It is very woo to accept what you assume to be true without facts.

Like I said, it is much different in these threads than the rest of the forum.


Here's a link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95863) to the thread timhau was talking about here:

Now, there’s a lengthy thread on the subject of peer review, in which one of our resident Truthers hunts for the reviewers of Gravy’s work. It’s a long thread, but you don’t really have to read all that far to realize that the starter of the thread has a very strange idea of what peer review is and where it’s applicable.

[timhau]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it holds up. Reason being; if you take in to account why the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific did what they did and look for the same motivation in the CT mindset, I don't think it will be found. The Cargo Cults observed a cause/effect relationship, but failed to understand the underlying technology. They attempted to reproduce the cause in an effort to get the same effect, but did so with the available technology/knowledge to them.

The truther are also trying to achieve something with that argumentation; I don't think it's just simple trolling (that seems to be often done by invective and youtube/prisonplanet links). I can only presume that the intended effect is establishing credibility by winning arguments. They attempt this by imitating the aspects of the cause that they can see, just like Cargo Cults imitated those aspects of GI behavior they could see. Both make the mistaken assumption that the visible aspects of the cause are sufficient to bring about the effect.

Oh, and what you really want is a Honda VTX1300.

Well, I was thinking of working my way up to it (and perhaps someday even to the 1800). It's not my first bike, but it would be the first in over 15 years and the first in the over-400-cc category. And the 750 is quite a bit cheaper, and I'd need to buy good riding gear as well, so...


ETA: Thanks for the link, Orphia. Should've included that myself.

[JimBenArm]

I am sorry to say this; but lurking about the CT threads on this board I find a cult like atmosphere.

It is much different on other parts of the board.

I have found little in these threads outside of group think that has devolved into a mantra of attack.

Not that your post is anything like that. "Cult like atmosphere", "group think" blah, blah, blah. When I see stuff posted like that, it means one thing. You haven't read much of this part of the board, plain and simple. Have you read much from T.A.M., RMackey, Architect? How about LashL? Obviously not, or you wouldn't make baseless accusations like this. Those are just the few I could come up with off the top of my head, and there are easily dozens more like them. So methinks you need to spend a bit more time exploring here before you go off half-cocked again.

[fagin]

... A nation led by Dylan or AJ or dusty old Judy would be about the only thing I would find less tolerable than the realization of Karl Rove's dream of a hundred years of Republican rule.

...

I think Bob would make a great president.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

We may, in fact, be taking a stand against an enemy as deadly as any we have ever faced under arms. It can, in a way, be almost as stressful, because we do not always know who is actually an enemy and who is just a misguided dork, like most of the twoofers.

It would be easy to despair utterly, of ever educating people to the point where these flim-flammers and subversives lose their power to recruit followers. But we have to keep trying. This is deadly serious business.

That's why ridicule so often enters into the discussion of people like Dylan or Wood or Bollyn. They may be as serious as cancer, but they lose some of their power when their ideas are lampooned in the public square.

Humor has that power over tyrants and those who would become tyrants. Humor also gives us courage and confidence. We know that our humanity is not being stripped from us during our walk through the morasse that is the twoofer mind.

When we stop laughing, something really dreadful has already happened, and our humanity is gone.


So, you think the troofers are equatable to a growing tyranny. I think you are giving them a little to much credit.

:jaw-dropp

[chillzero]

Case in point.

I don't see any "cult-like group-think" in this sub-forum (I see cameraderie, though) and you attack Good Lt's critique with insults to all debunkers.

Good way to get yourself noticed in here, though. :rolleyes::p

ETA: Interesting thread, BTW.

I fully agree this is an interesting thread, but I daresay that the way a few of you jumped all over this opinion only serves to enhance that opinion.

This subforum does indeed hold many vital facts and arguments against ignorance, and serves an amazing purpose in upholding rationality.

But, take a step back for a moment. Take a look at the threads which are either non-factual (the 'ha ha ha look what Dylan's doing now' type), or some of the ones that CTists raise (the 'this is the real smoking gun' type). There is a cameraderie amongst skeptics that sometimes requires the mods to come in and cool off the discussion somewhat. It goes both ways - true - that is the point I am trying to make.

Now, I suspect that the Paranormal subforum often comes close to this as well, when someone steps up to make a claim about psychic ability, and they find themselves somewhat shouted down by a community in unison. So, it isn't just restricted to the CT forum, or even the CTists or skeptics. It's a universal thing that happens when people who agree over certain issues feel the need to support/reject that issue.

So, what I am saying, in short, is you should recognise this 'banding together', and not deny it. After all - how many are proud to be called JREFers?

[Dave Rogers]

I fully agree this is an interesting thread, but I daresay that the way a few of you jumped all over this opinion only serves to enhance that opinion.

That sounds rather like confirmation bias. Did you notice that quite a few of us completely ignored it?

Dave

[chillzero]

That sounds rather like confirmation bias. Did you notice that quite a few of us completely ignored it?

Dave

I did, yes. ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So, you think the troofers are equatable to a growing tyranny. I think you are giving them a little to much credit.

:jaw-dropp
I think he was more implying that, at least some of them, may well be capable of another Wace/Ruby Ridge/OKC/etc.