Spreaders of Conspiracy Theories: Unmasking the Motivations Behind the Lies

[frank83628]

5 hours ago, billd766 said:

S

 

How about Trump quoting Taylor Swift backing and supporting him? Did you believe that as well?

Trump was taking the piss, if you had any sense of humour you might have known that. there was an obvious satirical AI image of swift endorsing him, the media ran with a lie and as usual you guys lapped every single bit of it up, your hatred of Trump is so much that you will happily believe everything you read about him.

here  are the images, do you think if Swift had actually endorsed him he would have just said 'i accept'?

you don't think he would have made a speech or formal post about it and thanked her?? 
gullible is politest word i san say here, surely you have more brains that this

Edited 3 hours ago by frank83628
typos

[Cory1848]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And there’s lots of psychology research backing up this attachment to conspiracy theories.

I have to admit, I can see the appeal; it’s fun to speculate. And sometimes I’m not 100 percent certain on the “granddaddy” of conspiracy theories, the JFK murder (thanks, Oliver Stone ...). But in the end, plain reason and common sense have to prevail ...

[metisdead]

A post with a derogatory slang comment toward Americans has been removed.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Did they though. Out of 100 be honest about how many were true. Of those that turned out correct - did the government and media say  that it was definitely false - or was it not denied as such but simply said there's no proof it's correct.

 

What you're also forgetting is the conspiracy theories that revealed inconvenient facts, even if the conspiracy theory hasn't been confirmed.  Yet.

 

A perfect example is the "eating cats" conspiracy theory.  The inconvenient fact is that Springfield has been overrun with 20,000 Haitian migrants, straining the town's resources and causing all kinds of problems for the citizens.  Problems that would have been (and were) swept under the rug until the conspiracy theory went viral.  Even if the cat thing is never proven one way or the other, the controversy revealed huge problems with an open border, that wouldn't have made the MSM. 

 

But they were forced to acknowledge it, if only to cast doubt on the high statistical odds that turning loose 20,000 visitors from a culture that eats cats would result in some cats being eaten.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by impulse

[Cory1848]

7 hours ago, impulse said:

 

With over 10x as many registered Dems in mainstream journalism as registered Repubs, you don't figure there's a reason that Dems want you to listen only to the MSM? 

 

And the reason isn't journalistic integrity...

 

https://www.theamericanjournalist.org/_files/ugd/46a507_4fe1c4d6ec6d4c229895282965258a7a.pdf

 

 

For one thing, journalists in the US have just as much right to a political opinion, and a vote, as anyone else. And the other obvious point here: professional journalists (or what you would call the mainstream media) generally have advanced degrees in journalism (which includes training in fact checking, verifying sources, journalistic ethics, etc.); i.e., they are educated, and educated people do tend to vote Democratic, no doubt about it. (Remember Trump’s bellowing about how he loves the uneducated?)

 

Your favored brand of journalism, I take it, is not mainstream, but nor is it professional; as far as I can tell, non-mainstream media comprises scattered loser blowhards living in their mothers’ basements, blogging whatever comes out of their fevered brains. I’ll take CNN and the New York Times any day over that, thank you.

[bubblegum]

55 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

still crying cause your thread got removed?

Nope

[Yagoda]

17 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

For one thing, journalists in the US have just as much right to a political opinion, and a vote, as anyone else. And the other obvious point here: professional journalists (or what you would call the mainstream media) generally have advanced degrees in journalism (which includes training in fact checking, verifying sources, journalistic ethics, etc.); i.e., they are educated, and educated people do tend to vote Democratic, no doubt about it. (Remember Trump’s bellowing about how he loves the uneducated?)

 

Your favored brand of journalism, I take it, is not mainstream, but nor is it professional; as far as I can tell, non-mainstream media comprises scattered loser blowhards living in their mothers’ basements, blogging whatever comes out of their fevered brains. I’ll take CNN and the New York Times any day over that, thank you.

CNN and NY Times with a proven track record of lies and cover ups for the powers that be?

[bubblegum]

Never seen so much drivel by the right wing in 1 topic. Why is it always them that come up with this nonsense and then defend it till death. They know themselves is BS.

 

And @johng you cannot back up your plot claim, thus BS

And @frank83628 so you do remember but choose to ignore becaise it did not fit your version of truth. 

 

Both of you would make big rubels at the Kremlin

[frank83628]

10 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Never seen so much drivel by the right wing in 1 topic. Why is it always them that come up with this nonsense and then defend it till death. They know themselves is BS.

 

And @johng you cannot back up your plot claim, thus BS

And @frank83628 so you do remember but choose to ignore becaise it did not fit your version of truth. 

 

Both of you would make big rubels at the Kremlin

what are you on about this time? 

 

i received my Putin paycheck this weekend

[Yagoda]

13 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

what are you on about this time? 

 

i received my Putin paycheck this weekend

Was it in shekels? Cant have a good conspiracy without Jews

[Fat is a type of crazy]

58 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

What you're also forgetting is the conspiracy theories that revealed inconvenient facts, even if the conspiracy theory hasn't been confirmed.  Yet.

 

A perfect example is the "eating cats" conspiracy theory.  The inconvenient fact is that Springfield has been overrun with 20,000 Haitian migrants, straining the town's resources and causing all kinds of problems for the citizens.  Problems that would have been (and were) swept under the rug until the conspiracy theory went viral.  Even if the cat thing is never proven one way or the other, the controversy revealed huge problems with an open border, that wouldn't have made the MSM. 

 

But they were forced to acknowledge it, if only to cast doubt on the high statistical odds that turning loose 20,000 visitors from a culture that eats cats would result in some cats being eaten.

 

Hardly swept under the rug - right wing media love this type of story.

Can't Trump talk about it with facts and a bit of heart and intelligence. Not make <deleted> up. I think you assume he had a plan to paint a bigger picture but really he just new the base loves this sort of stuff. But from your point of view the end justifies the means. 

Conspiracies tend to hurt people as - though they are normally not correct - the ones that take off with the lowest common denominator are those where one can find someone easy to  blame for what ills them.

I am likely repeating what's been said. 

There is no evidence it's true. The Haitians did nothing wrong. There was work in that town. Imagine being a Haitian child going to school amongst the local community. Life's hard enough. How would they feel. 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Fat is a type of crazy

[farang51]

44 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

CNN and NY Times with a proven track record of lies and cover ups for the powers that be?

 

Do you have any souce for that proven track record?

[Yagoda]

Just now, farang51 said:

 

Do you have any souce for that proven track record?

Well Im not a bot that keeps links at my fingers, but how about Walter Duranty? Thats a good one. 

[farang51]

9 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Well Im not a bot that keeps links at my fingers, but how about Walter Duranty? Thats a good one. 

I see a name, I do not see any links. I guess you cannot back up your claim that CNN and New York Times has a proven track record of lies and cover ups. Not that I am surprised.

[HighPriority]

1 hour ago, johng said:

 

Many are more believable than the "accepted narrative" would have you believe.  9/11  being a good case study   how many steel framed buildings have collapsed (into their own footprint)  due to fire  before and after this event ? then look the building 7 collapse.

3 on the same day...yeah conspiracy theories alright.

We are so lucky to have such highly credentialed structural engineers and metallurgists like yourself amongst us here.

The university of YouTube strikes again… 🙄

[Yagoda]

55 minutes ago, farang51 said:

I see a name, I do not see any links. I guess you cannot back up your claim that CNN and New York Times has a proven track record of lies and cover ups. Not that I am surprised.

You mean you don't know who Walter Duranty is is without looking it up?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You mean you don't know who Walter Duranty is is without looking it up?

Oh, almost 100 years ago a single reporter who had obviously gone bush.

[Yagoda]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh, almost 100 years ago a single reporter who had obviously gone bush.

Can you imagine a whole hundred years of consistent left-wing lying. I'll give you points for knowing who he is though. Your bro didn't

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Can you imagine a whole hundred years of consistent left-wing lying. I'll give you points for knowing who he is though. Your bro didn't

He’s dead.

 

But the same question to you that nobody on the rightwing seem able to answer.

 

What news source do you recommend as reliable.

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’s dead.

 

But the same question to you that nobody on the rightwing seem able to answer.

 

What news source do you recommend as reliable.

 

The Financial Times can be reliable, but it is still no guarantee of truthfulness.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The Financial Times can be reliable, but it is still no guarantee of truthfulness.

It also has a very narrow subject coverage.

 

So not much use for an understanding of broad issues.

[farang51]

25 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Can you imagine a whole hundred years of consistent left-wing lying. I'll give you points for knowing who he is though. Your bro didn't

So, you have one person some 100 years ago - when the times was different and you did not have the means to check sources or facts the way you do today; his writings means that everything The New York Times has published since are lies and cover ups? Does that include the article where New York Times wrote this:

"And having bet on Stalin's rise in the 1920's, Mr. Duranty remained loyally partial to his horse. The result was some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper."

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-notebook-trenchcoats-then-and-now.html

 

If all you can do is refer to a person dead long before I and most people in here were born, then you have failed miserable to prove that New York Times lies and cover up for the government.

 

By the way, you can find newer examples of rogue journalists at New York Times; you can find those at any news outlets. The difference between the serious ones and the not serious ones is how they handle mistakes and errors.

 

Edited 26 minutes ago by farang51

[Yagoda]

2 minutes ago, farang51 said:

So, you have one person some 100 years ago - when the times was different and you did not have the means to check sources or facts the way you do today; his writings means that everything The New York Times has published since are lies and cover ups? Does that include the article where New York Times wrote this:

"And having bet on Stalin's rise in the 1920's, Mr. Duranty remained loyally partial to his horse. The result was some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper."

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-notebook-trenchcoats-then-and-now.html

 

If all you can do is refer to a person dead long before I and most people in here were born, then you have failed miserable to prove that New York Times lies and cover up for the government.

 

By the way, you can find newer examples of rogue journalists at New York Times; you can find those at any news outlets. The difference between the serious ones and the not serious ones is how they handle mistakes and errors.

 

Well dude I guess when I get up tomorrow morning with my coffee I'll throw Link afterlink at you. Although based on your blinders, I doubt you'll pay attention.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Well dude I guess when I get up tomorrow morning with my coffee I'll throw Link afterlink at you. Although based on your blinders, I doubt you'll pay attention.

Once you’ve had your coffee have ago at answering this question:

 

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But the same question to you that nobody on the rightwing seem able to answer.

 

What news source do you recommend as reliable.

 

[Yagoda]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It also has a very narrow subject coverage.

 

So not much use for an understanding of broad issues.

Well if you want to understanding of Broad issues, add the Wall Street journal, the Jerusalem post, the Straits times, the Bangkok post, the khmer times, foreign policy, Taibbi, Weiss, realclearpolitics, cnn, fox, NY post and politico. That should keep your morning coffee busy