Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #243342 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-05-12 21:53 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-14 09:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 106 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:53 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 12:47 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 08:11 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 09:18 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 18:36 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 14:41 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 12:01 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-13 17:30 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 15:00 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 18:23 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 01:30 +0200
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 16:39 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 20:26 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 17:43 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-14 15:08 -0500
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 13:44 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-14 20:44 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-14 23:14 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 16:31 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-14 09:07 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 08:37 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 23:38 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 16:55 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-14 00:30 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 17:46 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-14 09:09 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 08:36 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 17:41 +0200
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 08:49 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 14:32 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-14 23:00 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-15 01:10 +0200
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 16:51 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-14 19:11 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-14 23:24 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-14 19:34 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 16:54 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 16:51 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-14 20:04 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 17:15 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-14 20:30 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 17:35 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-15 01:07 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 18:16 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-15 01:41 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-14 21:48 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 18:52 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-14 23:09 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 20:17 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-15 12:31 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 14:51 +0200
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 09:15 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 16:55 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-15 13:25 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 16:55 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 16:53 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 09:13 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-15 13:32 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 10:46 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 08:27 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 16:57 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 16:55 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:01 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 18:49 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-14 23:07 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 20:27 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-15 08:53 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-15 17:14 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-14 16:52 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 11:42 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 19:01 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 12:12 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 19:27 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 19:48 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 13:05 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 20:15 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 13:28 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 20:43 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 13:57 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 21:09 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 14:12 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 21:17 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 14:22 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 23:45 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 16:54 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-14 00:03 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 17:10 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-14 00:20 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 17:29 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 17:44 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 17:55 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 15:05 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 22:03 +0200
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 13:06 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 20:14 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 13:27 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 18:01 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 15:02 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 20:10 +0000
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 13:27 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 17:59 -0400
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 15:03 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 09:17 -0700
Re: OT: Sandy Hook "Truther" - what is wrong with people? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 09:18 -0700
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-13 20:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhop3.a3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #243474 |
Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> writes: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 5/13/14, 5:47 AM, in article hgue0.r34a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/?p=620326> >>>>> >>>>> Telling a parent of a child who was killed that their child never even >>>>> existed. >>>>> >>>>> Really. These people are just insane scum. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Fake parent. Fake child. No problem. >>> >>> Ah, so you support the telling of a parent whose child was killed that their >>> child did not even exist - using the baseless accusation that they are not >>> really a parent of this child that did not exist. >>> >>> You are utter scum as well. >>> >> >> Sandy Hook was a complete hoax, you dumbass. And so was the Boston Cherry >> Bombing. >> > > Yo do realise your crap is against the law in some places. Good thing I live in America then, where we have freedom of speech. > You're as > dumb as turd but at least he doesn't "deny the holocaust" which is the > equivalent of what you are doing. I can only hope you are simply > trolling snot. > The difference is that there's actually evidence for the Holocaust. But if I wanted to deny it, I have that freedom, since I don't live in Europe or some other Taliban-controlled shithole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-13 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CF97CE28.3731D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #243477 |
On 5/13/14, 1:10 PM, in article fhop3.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/14, 5:47 AM, in article hgue0.r34a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/?p=620326>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Telling a parent of a child who was killed that their child never even
>>>>>> existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really. These people are just insane scum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fake parent. Fake child. No problem.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, so you support the telling of a parent whose child was killed that
>>>> their
>>>> child did not even exist - using the baseless accusation that they are not
>>>> really a parent of this child that did not exist.
>>>>
>>>> You are utter scum as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sandy Hook was a complete hoax, you dumbass. And so was the Boston Cherry
>>> Bombing.
>>>
>>
>> Yo do realise your crap is against the law in some places.
>
> Good thing I live in America then, where we have freedom of speech.
I think you do have a right to push your insane nonsense... but I have no
obligation to pretend your conspiracy BS is anything other than a way for
you to deal with your feelings of being out of control and not really
understanding the world around you.
>> You're as
>> dumb as turd but at least he doesn't "deny the holocaust" which is the
>> equivalent of what you are doing. I can only hope you are simply
>> trolling snot.
>
> The difference is that there's actually evidence for the Holocaust.
The difference is there there's actual evidence for both? How is that a
difference?
> But if I wanted to deny it, I have that freedom, since I don't live
> in Europe or some other Taliban-controlled shithole.
Some info for you to run from:
<http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
-----
First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
not just randomness.
What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
of reasoning.
-----
<http://goo.gl/f3pqK2> [Psychology Today]
-----
Melley proposes that conspiracy thinking arises from a combination
of two factors, when someone: 1) holds strong individualist values
and 2) lacks a sense of control. The first attribute refers to
people who care deeply about an individual's right to make their
own choices and direct their own lives without interference or
obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine
this with a sense of powerlessness in one's own life, and you get
what Melley calls agency panic, "intense anxiety about an apparent
loss of autonomy" to outside forces or regulators.
When fervent individualists feel that they cannot exercise their
independence, they experience a crisis and assume that larger
forces are to blame for usurping this freedom. "For one who
refuses to relinquish the assumptions of liberal individualism,
such newly revealed forms of regulation frequently seem so
unacceptable or unbelievable that they can only be met with
anxiety, melodrama, or panic."
...
For one thing, conspiracy theories help us cope with distressing
events and make sense out of them. Conspiracies assure us that bad
things don't just happen randomly. Conspiracies tell us that
someone out there is accountable, however unwittingly or secretly
or incomprehensibly, so it's possible to stop these people and
punish them and in due course let everyone else re-establish
control over their own lives. Conspiracies also remind us that we
shouldn't blame ourselves for our predicaments; it's not our
fault, it's them! In these ways, believing in conspiracies serves
many of the same self-protective functions as scapegoating.
-----
<http://goo.gl/JQ4NV> [Psychology Today]
-----
The number sounded wildly inflated. Conspiracy theorists have a
grandiose view of themselves as heroes "manning the barricades of
civilization" at an urgent "turning point" in history, Hofstadter
held. Jones has a "messiah complex," Black contends. Grandiosity
is often a defense against underlying feelings of powerlessness.
Even well-grounded skeptics are prone to connect disparate dots
when they feel disempowered. In a series of studies, Jennifer
Whitson of the University of Texas and Adam Galinsky of
Northwestern demonstrated that people primed to feel out of
control are particularly likely to see patterns in random stimuli.
-----
<http://goo.gl/v0dU9> [NY Times]
-----
"If you know the truth and others don't, that's one way you can
reassert feelings of having agency," Swami says. It can be
comforting to do your own research even if that research is
flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep.
Surprisingly, Swami's work has also turned up a correlation
between conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic
principles. But this isn't quite so strange if you consider the
context. Kathryn Olmsted, a historian at the University of
California, Davis, says that conspiracy theories wouldn't exist in
a world in which real conspiracies don't exist. And those
conspiracies -- Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair -- often involve
manipulating and circumventing the democratic process. Even people
who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a drama
staged by actors couch their arguments in concern for the
preservation of the Second Amendment.
...
Psychologists aren¹t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy
theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific
thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme
form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional
media ‹ which only perpetuates the problem.
-----
<http://goo.gl/psXzzr> [Smart Planet]
-----
A new article in Scientific American tries to figure that out.
Michael Shermer outlines in his "Skeptic" column four traits of
those who believe:
* patternicity, or a tendency to find meaningful patterns in
random noise;
* agenticity, or the bent to believe the world is controlled by
invisible intentional agent;
* confirmation bias, or the seeking and finding of confirmatory
evidence for what we already believe;
* hindsight bias, or tailoring after-the-fact explanations to what
we already know happened.
A conspiracy theory takes flight when all of these are concocted
into a heady mix of conviction. It's called "conspiratorial
cognition," and it's the fuel driving belief in Bigfoot, Area 51's
UFOs and the paranormal.
...
Some points from his article:
* People who believe in one theory are more likely to believe in
others.
* There is a strong association between income and belief levels:
the better-off are less likely to believe in conspiracy
theories. (Perhaps this can be chalked up to education.)
* Instability makes most of us uncomfortable; people prefer to
imagine living in a predictable, safe world. Some conspiracy
theories offer accounts that feel "safe" or "predictable."
* Conspiracy theories often mutate over time in light of new or
contradicting evidence.
* Conspiracies usually require a big newsworthy event on which to
peg it.
But it's Shermer who drives the point home. He writes:
"The more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that
would need to be involved, the less likely it is true."
-----
<http://goo.gl/EFn7BG> [LA Times]
-----
Conspiracy theories: Why we believe the unbelievable
Why do so many people refuse to accept this simple and obvious
conclusion? The answer: psychology.
There are three psychological effects at work here, starting with
"cognitive dissonance," or the discomfort felt when holding two
ideas that are not in harmony. We attempt to reduce the dissonance
by altering one of the ideas to be in accord with the other.
...
A second psychological effect is the "monological belief system,"
or "a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together
in a mutually supportive network," in the words of University of
Kent researchers Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M.
Sutton in a 2012 paper titled "Dead and Alive: Beliefs in
Contradictory Conspiracy Theories." A conspiracy theory, they
wrote, is "a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations
working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister)
goal." Once you believe that "one massive, sinister conspiracy
could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy [it]
suggests that many such plots are possible."
...
A third psychological effect is "confirmation bias," or the
tendency to look for and find confirming evidence for what you
already believe and to ignore disconfirming evidence. Once you
believe, say, that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush
administration, you focus on the handful of anomalies that fateful
day and connect them into a seemingly meaningful pattern, while
ignoring the massive evidence pointing to Al Qaeda.
-----
--
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice: <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013: <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-13 17:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lku4jc$vs6$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #243474 |
On 14-05-13 04:03 PM, Hadron wrote: > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> writes: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 5/13/14, 5:47 AM, in article hgue0.r34a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/?p=620326> >>>>> >>>>> Telling a parent of a child who was killed that their child never even >>>>> existed. >>>>> >>>>> Really. These people are just insane scum. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Fake parent. Fake child. No problem. >>> >>> Ah, so you support the telling of a parent whose child was killed that their >>> child did not even exist - using the baseless accusation that they are not >>> really a parent of this child that did not exist. >>> >>> You are utter scum as well. >>> >> >> Sandy Hook was a complete hoax, you dumbass. And so was the Boston Cherry >> Bombing. >> > > Yo do realise your crap is against the law in some places. You're as > dumb as turd but at least he doesn't "deny the holocaust" which is the > equivalent of what you are doing. I can only hope you are simply > trolling snot. Questioning government rhetoric is against the law? I really hope to never live in whatever country you are in and especially not to be as passive about such stupid laws. -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-13 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CF97E4CA.37357%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #243510 |
On 5/13/14, 2:59 PM, in article lku4jc$vs6$5@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<ndr@slvrlps.c> wrote:
>>> Sandy Hook was a complete hoax, you dumbass. And so was the Boston Cherry
>>> Bombing.
>>>
>>
>> Yo do realise your crap is against the law in some places. You're as
>> dumb as turd but at least he doesn't "deny the holocaust" which is the
>> equivalent of what you are doing. I can only hope you are simply
>> trolling snot.
>
> Questioning government rhetoric is against the law? I really hope to
> never live in whatever country you are in and especially not to be as
> passive about such stupid laws.
You buy into insane conspiracy theories... let me give you some insight as
to why:
<http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
-----
First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
not just randomness.
What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
of reasoning.
-----
<http://goo.gl/f3pqK2> [Psychology Today]
-----
Melley proposes that conspiracy thinking arises from a combination
of two factors, when someone: 1) holds strong individualist values
and 2) lacks a sense of control. The first attribute refers to
people who care deeply about an individual's right to make their
own choices and direct their own lives without interference or
obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine
this with a sense of powerlessness in one's own life, and you get
what Melley calls agency panic, "intense anxiety about an apparent
loss of autonomy" to outside forces or regulators.
When fervent individualists feel that they cannot exercise their
independence, they experience a crisis and assume that larger
forces are to blame for usurping this freedom. "For one who
refuses to relinquish the assumptions of liberal individualism,
such newly revealed forms of regulation frequently seem so
unacceptable or unbelievable that they can only be met with
anxiety, melodrama, or panic."
...
For one thing, conspiracy theories help us cope with distressing
events and make sense out of them. Conspiracies assure us that bad
things don't just happen randomly. Conspiracies tell us that
someone out there is accountable, however unwittingly or secretly
or incomprehensibly, so it's possible to stop these people and
punish them and in due course let everyone else re-establish
control over their own lives. Conspiracies also remind us that we
shouldn't blame ourselves for our predicaments; it's not our
fault, it's them! In these ways, believing in conspiracies serves
many of the same self-protective functions as scapegoating.
-----
<http://goo.gl/JQ4NV> [Psychology Today]
-----
The number sounded wildly inflated. Conspiracy theorists have a
grandiose view of themselves as heroes "manning the barricades of
civilization" at an urgent "turning point" in history, Hofstadter
held. Jones has a "messiah complex," Black contends. Grandiosity
is often a defense against underlying feelings of powerlessness.
Even well-grounded skeptics are prone to connect disparate dots
when they feel disempowered. In a series of studies, Jennifer
Whitson of the University of Texas and Adam Galinsky of
Northwestern demonstrated that people primed to feel out of
control are particularly likely to see patterns in random stimuli.
-----
<http://goo.gl/v0dU9> [NY Times]
-----
"If you know the truth and others don't, that's one way you can
reassert feelings of having agency," Swami says. It can be
comforting to do your own research even if that research is
flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep.
Surprisingly, Swami's work has also turned up a correlation
between conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic
principles. But this isn't quite so strange if you consider the
context. Kathryn Olmsted, a historian at the University of
California, Davis, says that conspiracy theories wouldn't exist in
a world in which real conspiracies don't exist. And those
conspiracies -- Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair -- often involve
manipulating and circumventing the democratic process. Even people
who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a drama
staged by actors couch their arguments in concern for the
preservation of the Second Amendment.
...
Psychologists aren¹t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy
theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific
thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme
form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional
media ‹ which only perpetuates the problem.
-----
<http://goo.gl/psXzzr> [Smart Planet]
-----
A new article in Scientific American tries to figure that out.
Michael Shermer outlines in his "Skeptic" column four traits of
those who believe:
* patternicity, or a tendency to find meaningful patterns in
random noise;
* agenticity, or the bent to believe the world is controlled by
invisible intentional agent;
* confirmation bias, or the seeking and finding of confirmatory
evidence for what we already believe;
* hindsight bias, or tailoring after-the-fact explanations to what
we already know happened.
A conspiracy theory takes flight when all of these are concocted
into a heady mix of conviction. It's called "conspiratorial
cognition," and it's the fuel driving belief in Bigfoot, Area 51's
UFOs and the paranormal.
...
Some points from his article:
* People who believe in one theory are more likely to believe in
others.
* There is a strong association between income and belief levels:
the better-off are less likely to believe in conspiracy
theories. (Perhaps this can be chalked up to education.)
* Instability makes most of us uncomfortable; people prefer to
imagine living in a predictable, safe world. Some conspiracy
theories offer accounts that feel "safe" or "predictable."
* Conspiracy theories often mutate over time in light of new or
contradicting evidence.
* Conspiracies usually require a big newsworthy event on which to
peg it.
But it's Shermer who drives the point home. He writes:
"The more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that
would need to be involved, the less likely it is true."
-----
<http://goo.gl/EFn7BG> [LA Times]
-----
Conspiracy theories: Why we believe the unbelievable
Why do so many people refuse to accept this simple and obvious
conclusion? The answer: psychology.
There are three psychological effects at work here, starting with
"cognitive dissonance," or the discomfort felt when holding two
ideas that are not in harmony. We attempt to reduce the dissonance
by altering one of the ideas to be in accord with the other.
...
A second psychological effect is the "monological belief system,"
or "a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together
in a mutually supportive network," in the words of University of
Kent researchers Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M.
Sutton in a 2012 paper titled "Dead and Alive: Beliefs in
Contradictory Conspiracy Theories." A conspiracy theory, they
wrote, is "a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations
working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister)
goal." Once you believe that "one massive, sinister conspiracy
could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy [it]
suggests that many such plots are possible."
...
A third psychological effect is "confirmation bias," or the
tendency to look for and find confirming evidence for what you
already believe and to ignore disconfirming evidence. Once you
believe, say, that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush
administration, you focus on the handful of anomalies that fateful
day and connect them into a seemingly meaningful pattern, while
ignoring the massive evidence pointing to Al Qaeda.
-----
--
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice: <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013: <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-13 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ac3fd17-3c19-4f27-a474-dd628a4d983a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #243359 |
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:47:19 PM UTC, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/?p=620326> > > > > > > Telling a parent of a child who was killed that their child never even > > > existed. > > > > > > Really. These people are just insane scum. > > > > > > > Fake parent. Fake child. No problem. Snit does not get it. Being "cruel" to someone who is lying for Obama is not being cruel at all. It is helping people see the truth. Another forum ruined by Michael Glasser Prescott Computer Guy of Prescott, Arizona 86301 http://prescottcomputerguy.com The best website design in Prescott, AZ is shown at his own site http://prescottcomputerguy.com/web-design.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d10e0f95-71f2-4a53-8edd-02144a9e9bae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #243342 |
On Monday, May 12, 2014 10:53:44 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/?p=620326> > > > > Telling a parent of a child who was killed that their child never even Hey, Mr. Gigantic Hypocrite... how is this "relevant" to COLA? Oh, that's right... things are only irrelevant when *you* say they are <eyeroll>.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web