When conspiracy theorists are vindicated, it’s no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s what we call, um, a fact.

Just because it's an evolutionary trait, doesn't mean we want it. A hairy male for instance why be able to stand the cold better, but doesn't mean it's a trait him or his potential mates like.

Things like paranoia, or even community, to depression can and do have several links to an evolutionary advantage. The issue here isn't that paranoia is good or extreme, it's that the levels at which they express themselves in certain people are and can be well above normal. There is a thing as healthy paranoia where we generally fear things we don't know as a preservation technique. However, the level of wanton paranoia expressed by manic conspiracy theorists is not healthy. Much the same as sex is good, but a sex addiction is bad. Or sugar . . . we love the taste of sugar but in a time of plenty, it works against us.

I just thought of a different title for this Sift: "Off-duty Comic Heckles Conspiracy Theorist"

Can't argue with anything you said, except I don't believe there is an equivalency to FOX of all network news, although I think the success of FOX has definitely encouraged the downward spiral of non-FOX networks as they try to keep up.

The truth is out there, although it's increasingly difficult to discern from within this 3000-mile-wide bubble, and people can be easily waylaid by false narratives. I don't think our elected officials and Washington "insiders" even fully grasp the big picture. That gives lots of breathing room for dispair and paranoia, as well as conspiracy theorists who see clandestine machinations in everything. There absolutely is treachery afoot, but that doesn't mean every terrorist attack or shooting rampage is a government plot.

It's Florida. Simple as that. That's all the story you need. This happens, a lot. And hopefully the stupid conspiracy theorists I've seen on YouTube claiming this is fake don't show up here.

Florida's substrate is mostly limestone, which is also why we have such a huge aquifer. However, as more and more people move here and more developers continue to build without any other thought than profit margins, we'll see this more and more. Add tons of weight, then pump out all the water holding a fragile strata together, and then surprise, sinkhole.

In this case, it's the same as the others. People are at home, sinkhole forms, and people get killed. In this case there are 6 dead, and this guy was the only one willing to go on camera.

I know you believe you are a brave awakened cassandra, privy to secret truths that others are not capable of understanding, but from outside this bubble, the image is less flattering.

I'm up to date on most of the major conspiracy theories, so it's not that I don't understand them or that I'm brainwashed by TV (I don't have TV service), it's just that I flat out reject them as unprovable foolishness.

I find conspiracy culture to be extremely lame, in the same way that I find Scientology and Magic Mormon Underpants to be lame, and have no problems saying so. When you accuse others of being unaware, gullible, mentally handicapped, unintelligent or lacking in reason, you do so from a very vulnerable position, because these are the same terms people use to describe conspiracy theorists.

In short, throwing stones from within a cathedral of glass is not without risk.

He clearly covered Nasa having superior tech. He said you can't have it both ways, in that many of the people claiming that the landing was fake say that Nasa did not have the tech to make a moon landing. So they either had sophisticated tech or they didn't, and if they did, why waste time faking a landing and risking the inevitable leaking of it to the public.

That is what these conspiracy theorists constantly forget, we can't keep anything secret.

Yes, there are some who are giving Conspiracy Theorists a bad name...

Here's Anderson Cooper's coverage of a truther, and here's a report about another one...

Yeah, I would agree that it's rather skeezy of Piers to invite this stream of mouth-breathers, conspiracy theorists, and tinfoil-hat wearers so that he doesn't really have to say anything. He just sits back and lets these guys sabotage their own cause. There's plenty of republicans that have broken ranks and have come out in favor of some form of increased safety measure so he really should be interviewing one of them.

The prospect seems so outlandish but with all the disinformation we are fed, It's hard to know for sure.
Every fiber in my being says this is the most batshit crazy thinking I've ever seen.

But if it's so crazy then:
• Why do the experiments continue?
• Why did the highest level of the US military buy out every piece of HAARP and classify it at the highest level?
• Why won't they inform the public as to what they are really doing?

Perhaps some declassification would still the rumors a bit.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I do have trust-issues when it comes to Governments and Power.

After a quick search I'm seeing a lot of articles along the lines of the media grooming for war but it seems to be mostly conspiracy theorist stuff.

Looking at the recent past though I can't think of a single example of mainstream media outlets starting consistent rhetoric on possible war with a specific country that didn't turn into an actual war.

Anyone got any examples?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

There's a difference between being partisan (Maddow definitely is) and being a racist, homophobic conspiracy theorist. (current GOP base)>> ^My_design:

You know the funny thing is that many of the same things being said above can also be said of the Democratic party.

I thought this was a nice gesture from the Norwegian Police. I'd like to note, though, that this video was posted by a conspiracy theorist blog called Gates of Vienna who were one of the inspirations behind Breiviks "manifesto".

My apologies for missing your point, I sometimes tend towards the contentious. I think we have been arguing diagonally; of course religion (and faith) are the result of human traits, as is everything about human society. What I argue is that the unpleasant traits you rightly observe in other social institutions and widespread beliefs find a special form of propagation and protection from scrutiny in the supernatural aspect provided only by religious/supernatural belief. I still believe society would be better without religion, just as it would be without conspiracy theorists (often religious as well), state religion, and more generally the lack of critical thought. The reason religion is a worthy target when trying to effect social reform/progress is that, as I argue above, it ossifies and protects the negative traits you speak of, elevating them out of the sphere of human scrutiny/criticism by means of the supernatural argument.

>> ^jonny:

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.
And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)
I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.
Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.
>> ^hpqp:
You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

1. The Swedish government handed Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza over to the Egyptians after they "obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials". Even Human Rights Watch conceded that this was done merely to "cover itself", knowing full well that these two would be tortured.

So yes, the Swedes are more than capable of sending Assange to the States.

2. According to Fair Trials International, Swedish law permits a level of secrecy for trials such as this that everyone should be concerned about. No public hearings and extended isolation, to name the key aspects.

3. As previously said, if Swedish authorities assured either Assange or the Ecuadorians that he wouldn't be handed over to the US, he'd be in Sweden already. It is entirely within their power to bring an end to this farce or to reveal Assange to be full of shit, should he still not comply even after acceptable guarantees were provided. But they chose not to make these assurances. And the stakes are too high for Assange to accept anything less, given the consequences he faces should he ever enter the US.

On a personal note: if it was me, I wouldn't believe any assurances by any country that took part in the CIA's extraordinary rendition program -- including my own country in the case of Khalid El-Masri.>> ^Babymech:

There is no way that any Swedish politician or authority would support Assange's extradition to the US. Nothing you ridiculous conspiracy theorists have come up with so far has indicated that they would. Maybe the US would kidnap him (?) but that could happen in London or Ecuador or wherever. Meanwhile, you delightful people think that alleged rapists should not have to collaborate with authorities investigating the charges as long as they're famous enough, and that the women making these claims should not have the basic rights that any other Swedish citizens normally would. Tasteful.