I'm bumping this thread rather reluctantly (from p. 3 of this forum) but I'm late to it and have only just caught up with it (it kicked off when I was away).
Apologies to anyone annoyed by its rebumping ...
Anyway I just wanted to say that tarranau's post below sums up far better than I can
exactly what I think not so much about the contents of many conspiracy threads and posts (bonkers-
sounding as so much of them are) as about the utterly alienating and non persuasive way so many CT proponents argue (and Dr Jazzz is far from the worst)
tarannau said:
I suspect that Dr Jazz feels that he's being hard done by, that his pet theories get a unfair airing on the boards. Things do get heated, temper levels do rise. I comparatively rarely post on 'conspiracy' theories, but every so often I'll admit to an absolute sense of annoyance and disbelief that riles me enough to write, despite the almost certain knowledge the thread will descend into frustrating circularity.
It's not about Dr Jazz or conspiracy threads in general. It's more that certain characteristics in a thread and posting style are almost guaranteed to raise frustration levels and lead to lively (read angry) debate. Certain actions are going to be like a red rag to a bull on a bulletin board, particularly when the same approach is repeated again and again; there's a sense that things are going nowhere.
For what it's worth, here's my top 5 'things that get my spleen levels up enough to write (despite the futility of it all)' list. These aren't unique characteristics of conspiracy threads, but it's fair to say that they often apply:
1) Does the thread come complete with a (mis)leading headline, one largely unsubstantiated by the content of the first post and subsequent events? ('Editor completely loses the plot', 'Ian Huntley framed by USAF etc)
2) Does the offending poster seek to nit-pick often seemingly minute holes in the 'official' version of events, whilst not submitting his own sources to anywhere near the same level of critical attention or cynicism? (eg acceptance of Joe Viallis as a credible source, failing to check dodgy seeming credentials, failing to spot inconsistencies in the selectively quoted material)
3) Does the offending poster never seem to learn from their lessons, entirely failing to apologise or admit any suspect methodology in their approach? Do they return with the same frustrating style of posting next time?
4) Does the poster claim some kind of special knowledge that only they can perceive, despite the glaring lack of evidence? Do they patronise you with the 'it's only what I see mates...' approach, as if that excuses their opinions from critical attention?
5) Does they characterise those arguing with them as being some kind of editorial patsies/arse lickers/blinded by and too trusting of 'official versions of events'?
Can't help it, but those characteristics get right on my tits. It's difficult to have any standard of debate with such (often misplaced) certainties, nor achieve any kind of resolution. Most of us are too worn down to try and reason on these threads, but I can see why Mike would feel passionate enough about the integrity of his site to repeatedly contribute. Gawd knows, it can't be a rewarding process...
Points 1-5 above are for me a particularly accurate summary of the
100% counterproductive way that way many CTists argue ... and to repeat, Dr Jazzz is far from the worst by any means, given that he's apparantly sane (as opposed to his theories!!!), more often than not courteous (apart from on this thread!!), generally rational (albeit while presenting absolutely irrational material ... )
This being so, I implore, nay plead!!! Dr Jazzzz to take my post and tarranau's post and Dubversion's posts seriously, because in our different ways we're trying to point out why he's going to be fighting a losing battle if he has any hope at all (has he??) of winning over the sceptics
I really do think that Dr Jazzz would do himself a
lot of favours if he showed some sign of realising what a hard job he sets himself when he attempts to post such
apparantly unconvincing and unpersuasive stuff.
And more importantly, he and other CTists would do themselves so many more favours if they didn't give the impression of thinking that anyone who disagrees with them is a dupe of the establishment or whatever.
Dr Jazzz is (again) far from the worst at this kind of sneering (although it slips in round the edges of his posts occasionally) but many of his fellow conspiracy theorists kill stone dead any realistic hope they might have of persuading others, if the others are so easily considered esablishment dupes for being sceptical.
It's all very well complaining that anti-CTists are thinking in tramlaines and refuse to consider alternative possibilities or 'rival theories'
I think that if an
apparantly implausible and
on the face of itdifficult to believe theory is being advanced, some better understanding by the CTists of exactly why perfectly non establishment minded people are disinclined to accept it at face value, might be in order.
To my mind, the wilder conspiracy theories are so utterly annoying because the ridiculousness of so many of them makes it easier for 'the establishment' (lazy shorthand) to discredit ANY non conventional analysis of a political controversy.
Conspiracy theorists only serve to discredit genuine investigative efforts to get at concealed or covered up truth. The work of independent/radical journalists/investigators attempting evidence based, rather than theory based analysis is made a lot harder by the randomness, selectivity and sheer fancifulness of the way so many CTs are strung together, with any contrary evidence ignored or dismissed as government propoganda.
In fact you'd think CTists were in the pay of the CIA/MI5 ...
