The growth of alternative media has required the development of a whole cottage industry to mentally diagnosis and counterattack the burgeoning population of truthers, who are often labeled “conspiracy theorists” (a CIA term and invention).
Of course, conspiracy theories are not all created equal. In fact, some are deliberately created as a straw-man tactic to make truthers seem mental. You will see the dishonest tactic of bunching different “wild” or weak theories on the same page as legitimate theories.
Or they will cherry pick weak parts of a conspiracy argument and overplay that hand. I have friends who are on the same page with me on many conspiracies and truths but who seem out there on others. That goes with the territory. Do I dismiss them in general? Absolutely not.
Here is a discussion at Reddit on how to deal with “paranoid conspiracy theorists.” You will see advice on how to set boundaries. You will see advice on “seeking mental health treatment.” Frankly, if I was treated in this manner, I would burn bridges.
Still, this might be in part be understandable given that those of us who are passionate truthers find we can get into other’s spaces and faces. In part, this is because we are not dark-hearted or indifferent people. We have underlying decency and hold veritas in high esteem. My advice is not to hound or get too personal with pajama people. Only lead them to water.
One of the wags at Reddit commented:
“Our pattern loving brain has gotten so good at recognizing them that it is now able to see patterns that aren’t there, to imagine connections.”
I find it curious that those who call conspiracy theorists “mental cases” rarely, if ever, bother to look through our lenses. Do they think this just all comes out of a vacuum? In fact, it’s my belief that conspiracy inquirists, or truthers, excel at introspection, a trait strangely lacking in their doubters.
You would think they are some type of “experts” on the “theories.” In almost all instances that I have observed, not even remotely. In fact, in one presentation by one of these so called theorist “experts,” a trait of the conspiracy theorist is stated to be their attention to details. This is supposed to be a deficiency? Mostly this is gaslighting. Lately, I’ve seen more of the appeal-to-authority scam, whereby some “expert” from “Yale” is hauled out to pontificate in front of a cadre of cheerleaders.
Another common tactic is the straw man fallacy, or shooting down or even inventing a weak theory or anomaly and then victory dancing a soft-toss debunking. The is common at sites like Metabunk.
Calling anomalies “superficial” is another common tactic. Therefore, it’s necessary to focus on large and quick-hitting anomalies.
A common sling at conspiracy realists is to allude to their “doubting” nature and then insert the plastic word “radical” doubters. What does radical even mean? Is that like “deniers”? Personally for me, radical doubter is a label I’m willing to wear. Non-doubters will also use the appeal-to-authority, or “experts” fallacy, quite frequently.
Therefore, truthers need to have our own set of boundaries to deal with this. If you are the one who is casting dispersion on a truther about “patterns that aren’t there,” then it’s an essential exercise to objectively view visually to the end the sample short videos below. There are many, many, many more on these pages (Winter Watch is a good archival resource), but start small with your short attention span, pajama people. The young men in water cases discussed here might be a good exercise.
And what’s with the constant surreal use of shoes in staged deceptions?
For further reading:
Then, the skeptic needs to make a pronouncement or call about what they see to the truther. Can they objectively watch this without tuning out? Is an emotional response all they can muster? Do they have more than a 10-second attention span when viewing videos? I really wonder, and in fact doubt it.
The difference is that so-called “conspiracy theorists,” or inquirists, actually alertly and critically examine evidence. They are wired differently. If you actually did critically view the sample video below in its entirety, would you — with straight face — dismiss as “crazy” somebody who saw a pattern of lies and extreme deception or something seriously out of kilter? Or would you be curious enough to examine other short-duration exercises or even longer, more time-consuming examples?
Forget the “conspiracy theorist” and “mental health” diagnosis for a moment and ask yourself what you are seeing here. Does it take “great imagination” or “pattern loving” or “a lot of attention to details” to call a spade a spade? If you see nothing here and move along after a 10-second viewing, you might want to reconsider who it is seeing unicorns and rainbows. If you still don’t give a damn (black pilled), then, at minimum, immediately cease the gaslighting and labeling of truthers as “mental.”
The top example may be viewed in the post “The Use of Magical Bullets in Staged Deception Shooting Events.” The videos are only three or four minutes each and some of your gaslighters or critics might be able to watch them all the way through. For more advanced analysis to use with your critics who exhibit more than a five-minute attention span and who pay attention to detail, “The Boston Bombing as a Staged Deception” post is a good reference.