A selfish thread: recommend me a book.

[heart]

Sorry, I just don't like the term "conspiracy theorist." It works to destroy the credibility of those to whom it refers while providing no real refutation. So, I think any usage of that word is mockery.

Yes, exactly. And of course the best way to mark a subject off limits would be to create some outlandish "conspriacy theory" about green men, racist overtones and such. Then when someone had legitimate concerns, questions and facts, they could be dismissed with "Oh gawd, another one of those nutjob conspiracy theroists again!"

 

[Into It]

Axioms:
1.There are many bad people.
2.Often, bad people have malicious goals.
3.Often, more than one person is required to achieve a goal.

You are right though, there are some people who jump the gun, and what's worse, they tend to be loudest.

Edit: I'm going to pick up Burr and The Eternal Golden Braid

 

[Synarch]

Yes, exactly. And of course the best way to mark a subject off limits would be to create some outlandish "conspriacy theory" about green men, racist overtones and such. Then when someone had legitimate concerns, questions and facts, they could be dismissed with "Oh gawd, another one of those nutjob conspiracy theroists again!"

Conspiracy is difficult to prove or disprove. This is what makes it so popular. Likewise, conspiracy theories fail to account for the inherent complexity in most things by introducing a false simplistic complexity.

 

[Synarch]

Axioms:
1.There are many bad people.
2.Often, bad people have malicious goals.
3.Often, more than one person is required to achieve a goal.

You are right though, there are some people who jump the gun, and what's worse, they tend to be loudest.

We see things not as they are but as we are.

 

[heart]

Conspiracy is difficult to prove or disprove. This is what makes it so popular.

History is not popular and History is just one long string of conspiracies.

But the problem is that people think of the strangest, most outlandish conspiracy theory they can think of and attach that sort of nuttiness to all those who question current events. People who question current events may not even have a "theory" at all just say they are skeptical of the current official explainations and have questions they want answered.

All you have to do now is say you don't accept the media at face value, that you have questions and just like that, you're now a "conspiracy nut." What a world, huh?

 

[Synarch]

History is not popular and History is just one long string of conspiracies.

But the problem is that people think of the strangest, most outlandish conspiracy theory they can think of and attach that sort of nuttiness to all those who question current events. People who question current events may not even have a "theory" at all just say they are skeptical of the current official explainations and have questions they want answered.

All you have to do now is say you don't accept the media at face value, that you have questions and just like that, you're now a "conspiracy nut." What a world, huh?

History is a story. Conspiracy is another story. Both are equally bullshit. It is impossible to accurately describe the reality of complex events. It necessitates a God-like perspective. As such, history is a lie right from the jump. For every event in history, I could give you an alternate telling. Conspiracy theories are just a story some people find more psychologically comforting. Usually these people had oppressive fathers.

 

[heart]

History is a story. Conspiracy is another story. Both are equally bullshit. It is impossible to accurately describe the reality of complex events. It necessitates a God-like perspective. As such, history is a lie right from the jump. For every event in history, I could give you an alternate telling. Conspiracy theories are just a story some people find more psychologically comforting. Usually these people had oppressive fathers.

True scholarly History is not bullsh*t, people work very hard to document their statements and positions with real facts and they try to make a clear line when things cannot be known for certain. It is not the same as whitewashed history or pop history that shows on TV. And no I didn't have an oppressive father. My father was very liberal and free thinking in fact.

 

[Synarch]

True scholarly History is not bullsh*t, people work very hard to document their statements and positions with real facts and they try to make a clear line when things cannot be known for certain. It is not the same as whitewashed history or pop history that shows on TV. And no I didn't have an oppressive father. My father was very liberal and free thinking in fact.

1. I wasn't saying you were a conspiracy theorist. If you are, so be it. I think conspiracy theorists fear authority and identify with victimhood. Often, though always would be a stretch, this can be rooted in the abuse of authority in the hands of a parent, usually the authority figure, which in most cases is the father.

2. A well-documented story that is incomplete or coming from a particular point of view, as history generally does, is still bullshit.

I don't believe we can rely on television for a view of anything. It would be safer to rely on my opinion.

 

[heart]

1. I wasn't saying you were a conspiracy theorist. If you are, so be it. I think conspiracy theorists fear authority and identify with victimhood. Often, though always would be a stretch, this can be rooted in the abuse of authority in the hands of a parent, usually the authority figure, which in most cases is the father.

2. A well-documented story that is incomplete or coming from a particular point of view, as history generally does, is still bullshit.

I don't believe we can rely on television for a view of anything. It would be safer to rely on my opinion.

I don't know what your background is with History (and I don't want to assume) but I don't think many people really understand it unless they've studied and taken Historiography and Historical Methods at the college level ( I know when I was going to college neither of these clases were required for those studying to be high school history teachers, Teacher Education BA... only required for the BA in History and I think that's just wrong) Otherwise they have an idea of what they think it is, but they only know what they've seen in public school (way different) and TV (ugh). Real History will explore an idea/event from many different viewpoints and do a compare/contrast of that topic to draw conclusions.

But nothing can be real history until 10 years passes before that it is Journalism. And the more time that goes by the better Historical perspective one can have on an event. Real, scholarly history does not view things from one point of view. But bad history does and it is usually bad history that gets around because reading real History books takes time and effort and most people couldn't care less.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I don't occupy myself with things I have no control over. Knowing about secret cabals who pull the levers of power does nothing to:

1. Give me power
2. Get me into secret cabals
3. Give me lots of money

So, what use is it? I study things I can add to my "Synarch Improvement Project (tm)".

Typical.

 

[Synarch]

Typical.

Aw, I love how you follow me around. I like you, too.

 

[Laurie]

Sounds like typical fluffy ENFP paranoid reading. Are all NF's conspiracy theorists?

 

[Synarch]

Be more specific.

 

[Synarch]

I don't know what your background is with History (and I don't want to assume) but I don't think many people really understand it unless they've studied and taken Historiography and Historical Methods at the college level ( I know when I was going to college neither of these clases were required for those studying to be high school history teachers, Teacher Education BA... only required for the BA in History and I think that's just wrong) Otherwise they have an idea of what they think it is, but they only know what they've seen in public school (way different) and TV (ugh). Real History will explore an idea/event from many different viewpoints and do a compare/contrast of that topic to draw conclusions.

But nothing can be real history until 10 years passes before that it is Journalism. And the more time that goes by the better Historical perspective one can have on an event. Real, scholarly history does not view things from one point of view. But bad history does and it is usually bad history that gets around because reading real History books takes time and effort and most people couldn't care less.

You may be right. I do occasionally find myself deferring to your wisdom on various things.

 

[heart]

You may be right. I do occasionally find myself deferring to your wisdom on various things.

Now I feel bad. I was just defending History, but really good History will try and see things from all angles. High School history is so one-sided and bland compared to college level history that I think many people get turned off it before they ever really see what history can be.

 

[Synarch]

Now I feel bad. I was just defending History, but really good History will try and see things from all angles. High School history is so one-sided and bland compared to college level history that I think many people get turned off it before they ever really see what history can be.

You're a horrible, horrible person.