How to make sense of Conspiracy Theories - pt 7A of 9

[rabudman]

"the circus arena of corporate media"lol...two thumbs up!

[kirkmccormack1]

Rob- I'm sure you will get to this in your concluding video's- is there an approach you are suggesting for the balanced-measured assessment of a 'Conspiracy Theory'? Perhaps there is no quick, catch all way of doing this but if there was an agreed mechanism for the classification of particularly relevant or dangerous theory it would go a long way to achieving the openness discussed in your most recent videos. The current system of tribunals and committees itself seems to be fuel to the fire...

[robag88]

@kirkmccormack1 Yes, Part 8 will outline information gathering and processing principles. Part 9 will outline communication strategies for debating a conspiracy theory from both sides. Everything so far is leading in that direction because the scrambled mixture of conflicting assumptions about the topic, which isn't helped by economically and politically biased influences, must first be unravelled :)

[llaevigrof]

Also thank your for the continued series... enjoying them.

[llaevigrof]

Just listening to alternative news reveals so much of what is not covered in mainstream news. So many bombarding detriments to the planet and mankind. So in a sense all of those things not covered could be considered conspiracy theories. Mainstream propaganda, I know are blacking out, lying, and leaving out so much info of the 'subject' to bias. It's prevalent in the US. Its like business as usual, but the abyssal sinkhole is underneath waiting to give way.

[Nightmonkey17]

The internet could be a powerful medium for investigation if it was more ordered. What we need is a peer review overlay for every article and page on the web, where not only is the content of the website reviewed, but the reviewers themselves are reviewed. Expert opinion would be most highly regarded.

Several programs have tried to achieve this, but few have garnered mass appeal.

[robag88]

@Nightmonkey17 The problem with peer review is that it usually has funding ... and where there is funding there is usually an attached bias. I personally prefer to judge the information myself rather than trust the integrity and efficiency of a committee. Of course, it would take too much time to do that with everything.

[Nightmonkey17]

@robag88

yeah one organization that has tried it is hypothes.is

They only raised 200,000 dollars. Compare that to facebook's millions.

[systemanic]

It's very hard to inform ppl of conspiracies.I feel alot of em are true, but you've got to live in the real world.I hear others all the time say to me "stop believing that rubbish".For instance, telling your partner whos expecting that vaccines are armful & cause autism, or that your newborn is gonna be microchipped.Trust me, all you get is a "dont talk crap, hope your not gonna brainwash our kid with that crap".Imagine goin upto your Dr & telling him/her that; they'd throw you out the room.

[robag88]

@systemanic I honestly don't think convincing people of conspiracies is a problem. They're already convinced of many without realizing it. They believe in Al Qaeda sleeper cells, WMDs in Iraq, Iran's nuclear weapons program, organ harvesting in China, and tons of other conspiracies fed to them by the media. After you show people that they're already conspiracy theorists they can begin to exercize observation as to which conspiracies are more plausible than others.

[robag88]

@Arguemento I advise you view them all from time to time. Even if you know something is a biased source it can still be informative in an indirect way :)

[canecorsomob]

@TheZaius ur YouTube name account is stupid funny " the zaius ?????? Trying to be a comic super hero or what? I bet your one of those dumb fucks who go to comic book conventions dress like a comic super hero and who is in his 30 s and still live with mom & dads in the basement

[Daelyn75]

One can state any well founded conspiracy theory that is up there with what would be listed as looney by the MSM. No matter the evidence, no matter how much sense it makes contrary to the official explanation, there , many people trying to debunk it. I've always known that there are in fact paid agents to come onto chat sites to do just that, and here is a high up government paper saying that that is exactly the way they should attack conspiracies!

[Nightmonkey17]

@Daelyn75

Arguing against a conspiracy theory is not evidence of a conspiracy in its own right.

He mentions in the video that that in the illogical thinking of many conspiracy theorists, denials of conspiracy are just part of the conspiracy itself. If you don't consider other viewpoints, how can you get to the truth?

[Fistwagon]

As great as this series is, it makes me rage every time a new episode comes out.

[ALLNAMESAREALLREADYT]

@Fistwagon

why ?

[TheZaius]

Hugo CHA-vez.

CHA-vez.

[ALLNAMESAREALLREADYT]

@TheZaius

so?

[robag88]

@TheZaius REL-avance?

[TheZaius]

@robag88 I just thought the pronunciation was funny...

[DragonYearJoji]

excellent work Rob - this needs to be brought to the attention of all those who seek to uncover the truth and are embattled and infiltrated by counter-speech agents. Since 2008 there has definitely been a dumbing-down and marginalizing of those who question official positions. The message gets diluted and washed away.

[robag88]

To the folks posting comments for and against diff conspiracy theories: This video is about exploring how the term is used in our society at all levels and our attitudes to the topic. If you want to promote or debunk a particular theory you're best doing it on a video that is directly related to the theory question. Thanks :)

[PDzero]

Do the authors of that book not realize that they are proposing an actual conspiracy to debunk conspiracy theories??

[hozayamz]

"Former government employees" - or secretly still on the payroll. I'd love to trust Tarpley/Madsen, etc.- but many of their sources are complete fictions- perfect example-Sibel Edmonds. "Assange/Wiki-leaks" media blitz events established "street creds" but is a sham. "Governments" often take the blame for criminality to cover for transnational interests/old money. Anything given media hype is counterintelligence propaganda. RT builds it's credibility, but it's stuffed with actors.

[thumminxy]

Thank you.

[happosai27]

loose change is not that good. they leave alot of unconvinient things out like the dancing israelis which have been there to "document the event" like they said later on israeli tv in some tv show. but its a good example anyway. zeitgeist is a good example too. they use a mix of conspiracy theories and bad atheist propaganda to sell their own version of the brave new world

[mistertakeda]

@happosai27 I know people are on the "outside" when they say things like this. Everybody knew 9/11 was going to happen. It was an open secret. The Israelis were very excited about it, is all. It was politically convenient for them.

[happosai27]

@mistertakeda the first section of the zeitgeist movie where they supposedly find loads of common things among all kinds of gods and try to proof that all religions are basicly just a huge mindcontrol scam

[mistertakeda]

@happosai27 Yes, Zeitgeist is very stupid.

[MeebleMeeble]

@happosai27 what is this "bad atheist propaganda" you are referring to?

[PDzero]

@happosai27

"atheist propaganda" ...what on earth are you talking about?

[happosai27]

@PDzero watch the movie. its all over the internets ^^

[PDzero]

@happosai27 I've seen all three movies. My question is since when does Atheism have a dogma to base propaganda on.

[happosai27]

@PDzero the dogma is that there is no god and everyone who disagrees must be kind of retarded, backward, mentally ill, propagandized evil the evil priesthood and so on. so far their replacement god, science, has not yet come up with a god-o-meter or something like that. so both sides are just a belief based on no real evidence. the atheists have their scientists as priesthood that comes up with new revelations trough mysterious ways. it got the same basic charakteristics. oversimplified of cours

[KinGodTakeOver]

@happosai27 Though it's quite sad that religion has appeared on this thread, there is plenty of evidence to support evolution, and scientifically it has been disputed and fixed enough to be considered a fact. This doesn't rule out god, as many priests believe that God created the "gloop" that then went through the evolutionary process, but it does show that one side does in fact have evidence on their side, while not against the other side, to support their "beliefs"

[happosai27]

@KinGodTakeOver just say "god created us and then we evolved from there" ;3 safes alot of time and makes every side happy lol