It's a question I'm confronted with once again, after Manchester Arena bomb survivors filed landmark legal action against a conspiracy theorist who claims the attack was faked.

 

Martin and Eve Hibbert, who were left with severe disabilities after the 2017 blast, are suing Richard D Hall for defamation and harassment after he tracked down Eve and other survivors to see if they were lying about their injuries.

 

It's the first time such action has been launched against a conspiracy theorist in the UK, his defiant response to the BBC investigation, and an initial letter from Mr Hibbert's legal team, suggests he is yet to change his position.

 

READ MORE

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65201949

 

Never heard of him. Is he an Alex Jones clone, working from the same playbook?

The problem with people like Alex Jones and others is that too many people follow them and maybe believe them.

If I would see a video or text telling me the Manchester Arena bombing didn't happen, then I would stop viewing or reading it. And if everybody would do that, then those producers would be out of business.

 

I think the questions is not why they exist; the question is why do so many people follow them?

 

But to be fair, only because the mainstream reports things as if they are undoubtedly true doesn't mean they are true. I.e. I read often enough about the climate catastrophe, and according to some reports in well-known media, we all will die sometime soon. Really? But if I or others question those reports then others call that a conspiracy theory... 

Twenty years ago they walked around with a sandwich board proclaiming "the end of the world is nigh". Everyone laughed at them.

 

These days they have a laptop.

We should still laugh at them.

 

If they stop being risible, and start pursuing the sort of personal allegations this fellow is doing against these unfortunate people, injunction issued which if breached lead, rapidly, to prison.

On the other hand, perhaps 'some' of these conspiracy theories are not just theories.

We can't lump them all together. Some ARE complete nutjobs. No doubt about that. But if we get into the habit of 'labeling' everything quickly, for expediency, rather than investigating thoroughly , we do run the risk of a lot of misinformation being spread around. How often have you heard someone casually but instantly respond to a comment with a 'That's just a conspiracy theory,' giving the comment no further thought. Common labels do that to us. It's one of the reasons labels developed so well... they 'shortcut' the thinking process. Speed up the conversation, but a a much more shallow level.

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The problem with people like Alex Jones and others is that too many people follow them and maybe believe them.

If I would see a video or text telling me the Manchester Arena bombing didn't happen, then I would stop viewing or reading it. And if everybody would do that, then those producers would be out of business.

 

I think the questions is not why they exist; the question is why do so many people follow them?

 

But to be fair, only because the mainstream reports things as if they are undoubtedly true doesn't mean they are true. I.e. I read often enough about the climate catastrophe, and according to some reports in well-known media, we all will die sometime soon. Really? But if I or others question those reports then others call that a conspiracy theory... 

Can you share with us any of those reports in well-known media that endorse the claim we're all going to die soon from climate change? Seems to me like you're the one pushing BS here.

3 hours ago, FolkGuitar said:

On the other hand, perhaps 'some' of these conspiracy theories are not just theories.

We can't lump them all together. Some ARE complete nutjobs. No doubt about that. But if we get into the habit of 'labeling' everything quickly, for expediency, rather than investigating thoroughly , we do run the risk of a lot of misinformation being spread around. How often have you heard someone casually but instantly respond to a comment with a 'That's just a conspiracy theory,' giving the comment no further thought. Common labels do that to us. It's one of the reasons labels developed so well... they 'shortcut' the thinking process. Speed up the conversation, but a a much more shallow level.

Please give some examples in stead of a generic post.

Depends on where they are on the grift scale. If they monetize their "beliefs" then they do not believe them. If they're just the normal useful idiots, then yes, they believe everything.

 

 

Unattributed claims and replies leading to bickering have been removed

 

5. You will not use ASEAN NOW to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Topics or posts deemed to be scaremongering, deliberately misleading or which deliberately distort information will be removed. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source.

6 hours ago, FolkGuitar said:

On the other hand, perhaps 'some' of these conspiracy theories are not just theories

Until they're proven then, yes, they are just theories. That's the dictionary definition of the word!

6 hours ago, FolkGuitar said:

On the other hand, perhaps 'some' of these conspiracy theories are not just theories.

We can't lump them all together. Some ARE complete nutjobs. No doubt about that. But if we get into the habit of 'labeling' everything quickly, for expediency, rather than investigating thoroughly , we do run the risk of a lot of misinformation being spread around. How often have you heard someone casually but instantly respond to a comment with a 'That's just a conspiracy theory,' giving the comment no further thought. Common labels do that to us. It's one of the reasons labels developed so well... they 'shortcut' the thinking process. Speed up the conversation, but a a much more shallow level.

Well indeed, some are supported by wise, profoundly well informed and realistic thinkers.

 

For example, Jewish controlled space lasers being deployed to start forest fires, various school shootings being false flag operations, and Hilary Clinton sitting in the basement of a Pizza Restaurant murdering children and drinking their blood.

 

Frankly, any such theory, without a shred of real provable evidence to support it  and claiming a conspiracy falls into the category of barking at the moon! Invariably the propagator is, as it seems here, deluded, detached from reality and totally lacking in empathy. Mr Hibberts legal team cannot surely believe his ravings?

 

 

Suggestions that the Manchester Arena bombings, which killed 22 and injured over a 1000 were faked, scale new heights in morbid comedy. 

 

5 hours ago, JayClay said:

Until they're proven then, yes, they are just theories. That's the dictionary definition of the word!

Conspiracy theories are not just mere theories. Context is everything. Conspiracy theories require an allegation.

Just now, ozimoron said:

Conspiracy theories are not just mere theories. Context is everything. Conspiracy theories require an allegation.

No, indeed they are not "just mere theories"; they are a specific subset of theories. The rule that a theory is nothing more than a theory until there's credible evidence to back it up still holds true, regardless.

Just now, JayClay said:

No, indeed they are not "just mere theories"; they are a specific subset of theories. The rule that a theory is nothing more than a theory until there's credible evidence to back it up still holds true, regardless.

They are deliberately made in the hope that the allegation sticks. Conspiracy theories are designed to NOT be proven.

In most cases imo it’s a grift or a nutter most to me at least are easy to dismiss if they don’t pass the (sniff)test ie who does it benefit who’s pushing it what’s it about and is it plausible