comment: >
  
  Like what level of conspiracy? Is “government would do bad/shady shit behind the citizens back” a conspiracy? Then sure but that would also make literally everyone a conspiracy theorist.
context: Some things aren't even conspiracy theories, like the CIA just straight up admits stuff lol. >
  
  Yeah and everyone's just like "Huh, cool" >
  
  We're not even like "huh cool". We're like "which person on this ballot will hold these agencies accountable?  Oh, seriously?  Neither of them?  None of them? Well okay then." >
  
  The weird thing is, not that long ago, Reddit was mocking Republican holdouts during the nomination of a speaker of the house and one of their primary demands was an investigation into the intelligence agencies.
  People are so insanely partisan that they will oppose people doing something they want if they belong to the wrong party. >
  
  What’s the point of these intelligence committees investigating themselves tho? >
  
  We have investigated ourselves and determined that we have done nothing wrong! >
  
  There's a difference between claiming that, despite a massive preponderance of evidence, something didn't actually happen (like the moon landing or the Holocaust), and coming up with a theory to explain the why and how of something that DID happen (JFK was assassinated). >
  
  
  JFK was assassinated
  
  Wrong! His head just did that all on its own.  Wake up sheeple! >
  
  It was actually a failed assassination attempt, the bullet missed Kennedy, but he was the only one aware at the moment 
  The shock of that knowledge combined with the overall stress he culminated as president was far too great, and created too much pressure in his head, with no way to release all that pressure his head exploded. 
  The government realized that if the public knew that could happen to anyone the increased panic and stress would create countrywide "head popping" scenarios, so they went with the safer story and just covered it up as a successful assassination. >
  
  so... task failed successfully? >
  
  Here's one: Stanley Kubrick was hired to film the fake moon landing, but being such a perfectionist, he insisted on actually going to the moon to film it. >
  
  I guess it depends on what conspiracy theories you're talking about. There are definitely lots of real conspiracies, but I think when people say "conspiracy theory" they're generally referring to theories that upend basic assumptions about how our world works, with unclear or unsatisfying motivations, and which would involve an impossible amount of people keeping it under wraps. There are plenty of more believable conspiracies that don't meet those criteria, which I imagine are what you're referring to. >
  
  That's exactly what I mean. I don't like people who blanket deny all conspiracy theories, or make generalisations like 'conspiracy theories are dangerous', and shut down discussion. There's no one rule for all conspiracy theories. Some upend more basic assumptions than others. They should be considered individually. >
  
  Conspiracy theory: a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon
  In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. >
  
  There’s a happy medium between “I think the World is ran by lizard people” and “I think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone” >
  
  Isn't the conspiracy that there were multiple assassins? >
  
  
  There ain't no way that the all of 'the CIA killed Kennedy, flouride is bad for the brain, the vaccines is ineffective and dangerous, there are paedophile rings in the highest places, Obama spent $65,000 on hotdogs at the Whitehouse, chemtrails etc.' are all wrong
  
  Uh, sure there is. A large number of incorrect claims does not mean one of those claims suddenly becomes correct. >
  
  Tbh I can believe the 65k hot dog claim; The White House likely consumes insane amounts of food for meetings, diplomacy or banquets etc. >
  
  Yeah, I didn't pay much attention to that one in his list, but I'm not sure how it even counts as a conspiracy theory. >
  
  Hotdogs is a code word in that theory. >
  
  ...it was actually hamburgers? >
  
  To believe the Royal family are all lizards is one thing, while the idea there are real shady people in high places who have real power running things is far more feasible. However most theories are quite fascinating and entertaining to me >
  
  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Conspiracy theories are frequently presented as absence of evidence that the theory did NOT happen is evidence that it did happen. That’s not how you should determine your beliefs. >
  
  There is a great diversity in the subject, rational, reasonableness, and even definition of what are called conspiracy theories. I disagree with your assertion that someone should not base their opinion on a lack of disproving information. It is necessary to make decisions based on imperfect or missing information. Making decisions, like what you believe could be true, based on what you know to not be impossible is the first step. >
  
  The problem is, most of these "decisions" don't have to be made in any imminent way, as far as conspiracy theories go, so that doesn't make sense. Other commenter is absolutely correct; your assertion is not correct by default until disproven, that's not how sound epistemology works and why many if not most conspiracies are not reasonable to believe. I agree that it's sometimes necessary to make decisions with incomplete information, but that isn't the case with conspiracy theories and the greater the claim, the greater the bar for evidence needs to sit (i.e. we require far more complete information to decide who killed X than we do for who failed to pick up after their dog). >
  
  I think you are presenting a false dichotomy. At least it seems that way after a quick read. I don't think that you have to believe that smth is either ture or false. You can simply remain agnistic and say "I don't know". For example, if I say that there is a red pencil on my table rn, you can reply with "yes, there is", "no, there is not" or "bruh, idk". I don't think I believe in any conspiracy theory rn, but this doesn't mean, that I'm picking 2nd option. But I do generally agree, that blind trust is as stupid as blind denial. >
  
  We aren't doubtful because we are too trustful of the government. I absolutely do agree government can and do messed up shit. What we find unbelievable is the level of power and competency required to pull these conspiracies off. 
  ​
  As the old adage goes, three people can only keep a secret if two of them are dead, and most of these would require thousands and thousands of people who will never ever spill the beans so to speak, nor ever mess up or leave a shred of evidence. MK-ULTRA left a shitton of evidence.
  ​
  I am not convinced that a government that has idiots like Marjorie Taylor Green, or Louie Gohmert in high tier positions could pull off and cover up fluoride poisoning, or chemtrails without leaving a shred of evidence. >
  
  
  What we find unbelievable is the level of power and competency required to pull these conspiracies off.  
  As the old adage goes, three people can only keep a secret if two of them are dead, and most of these would require thousands and thousands of people who will never ever spill the beans so to speak, nor ever mess up or leave a shred of evidence. MK-ULTRA left a shitton of evidence.
  
  Speaking generally here, but it's really not that hard to believe many conspiracy theories are possible if not plausible when you consider a few things:
  
  Compartmentalization. Information on black projects, top secret, or illegal shit is only shared on a need to know basis. So... many people could contribute to something without knowing what the purpose is. Either because they are led to believe it's something else, or they accept that the information isn't for them to know. Generally with conspiracy theories, people say "there's no way that many people would be able to keep a secret" but the reality is that there doesn't have to be as many people keeping the secret as you'd assume. Case in point- the Manhattan Project. Over a hundred thousand people worked on it, but most of them had no idea the nature of the work they were doing. 
  You usually do have leakers/whistleblowers. Often these leakers are presumed to be crazy liars and often they are. But when they're automatically dismissed as such? Can't say there's no way that no one would speak up when there ARE people speaking up that we deem as nutcases. You can't say there's no way that something could be kept perfectly secret when you have people involved in these situations coming forward and saying things you dismiss out of hand.
  The organizations accused of being involved in conspiracies- if we assume, as a thought experiment, that they are guilty- obviously have incentive to lie and cover their own tracks. Because if they were to just confess... they would be prosecuted.
  There are already examples of exactly what I described. MK Ultra was one, for sure. Is there so much evidence of MK Ultra? Was there? I actually refute that claim. Most of the evidence was (intentionally) destroyed and had what was left not been declassified and had Clinton not publicly apologized for it, most people would today think it was a crazy conspiracy theory. But like, domestic espionage used to be a conspiracy theory. The entire existence of the NSA was kept secret for decades, and the actions they took against the public were also kept secret for decades. But some people did claim their existence, and some people DID accused them of data collection. But those people were shot down using the exact argumentation that you just used.
  
  TL;dr:  Argument from incredulity fallacy. >
  
  Your beliefs should be based on evidence, not speculation and mistrust >
  
  What I don't understand about this pov is how are you going to discover evidence if you don't speculate or distrust?  It's not how criminal prosecution or investigation works obviously. >
  
  He didn't say don't speculate or mistrust. Just don't let it cloud your belief until you have gathered evidence.
  To give a simplistic example, suppose you don't trust your brother, and some money goes missing at home. Your mistrust should lead to you searching for evidence that he stole the money. It shouldn't lead to you immediately blaming him without any evidence simply because you don't trust him. >
  
  So, if I believe all conspiracy theories are bullshit and my friend believes the same except for getting behind the world being flat, I'M the crazy one? Nice logic >
  
  Do you believe the origin of the virus was a wet market or natural origins? >
  
  I haven't heard of any real evidence of the former that I trust - but I am aware of the significant amounts of racism against chinese people. I'm also aware that coronaviruses aren't anything new.
  That is enough for me to hold a doubting stance against it originating from a wet market, and also against it being manufactured by a secret chinese lab.
  That said, I'm not about to jump on the nearest pedestal and announce my opinion as fact because, unlike many people, I know the difference and that I'm unqualified to say as much. This is where people get a little dumb in my opinion.
  And if actual evidence manifests showing me to be false, I will change my stance. For some reason people find that way harder than they really should, particularly for things they have basically no involvement in. >
  
  So in summation OP doesn't understand what burden of proof means, or that not believing in something doesn't mean asserting the contrary. 
  Which makes sense since conspiracy theorists generally have awful logic >
  
  Idk about OP, but when it comes to powerful agencies, I distrust them regardless of proof bc they have the power to squash the truth. Not to say I believe all conspiracies about them, but if someone says “don’t use Teflon pans bc they’re toxic and people are getting sick in the town where they’re made”, I’ll be choosing another type of pan bc it doesn’t affect my life much. I’d rather be safe than sorry. >
  
  That's fair, but you would probably end up avoiding a lot of unnecessary things, follow conflicting information and such.
   I must point out thay "rather be safe than sorry"  isn't really true. By following or not following the advice you can end up "safe" or "sorry". It's a common human bias that makes us think that inaction/avoidance= not an action.
  You are free to do as you please, ofcourse, but you are probably not acting in your own best self interest. Do with that what you will >
  
  Or just naive >
  
  Naive is a better description for people who have never researched any conspiracy theories or learnt much about history, and so have a misplaced trust in the government. But it takes a certain more pernicious unwillingness to see truth, when you actively put down any and all 'conspiracy theories' as false, never having looked into them. >
  
  Yeah there’s no denying that some shady shit goes on. Like it’s a little wacky to say that they’re putting shit in the water to turn frogs gay. But when a president gets whacked, that’s a little questionable. >
  
  The frog thing was chemical run off that made frogs change genders, if I remember correctly. >
  
  Aside from the already admitted or proven ones, a few "crazy" ones are obviously true. 
  US politicians are basically owned. We know how this works, lobbying is just legal bribery and everyone serves special interest groups instead of the people. But somehow that's still a conspiracy. 
  Epstein was a well known pedophile that brought famous people to his island all the time. We know what happened. They raped children. Exclusively rich people. So yeah, there's a pedophile ring. Idk why the whole pizza place came into it, we already knew about the island, but I assume it's to make the whole thing look less credible. >
  
  like there's a big difference between "government high ups do fucked up things" and "the entire fucking earth is a different shape then you think" >
  
  Agreed 100% >
  
  Ding ding ding🏅🏅. The real conspiracies that everyone just glosses over. The movie Amsterdam 2022 is a real conspiracy. Forced sterilization of minority women. Big brother is watching.📱📵 >
  
  In my opinion I think it’s smart to have a healthy amount of distrust in any government but some of them are just really out there >
  
  there is a difference between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory". a "conspiracy theory" is specific to a hypothetical conspiracy with little to no evidence behind it. the presence of evidence suggesting something happened shifts it away from "theory" and into "reality". >
  
  A theory can have evidence to support it but still not be proven. It would still be a theory >
  
  During the 90s, a "conspiracy theory" I remember was that the military was spending $1,000 on a hammer, while paying $20 for the hammer and funneling the other $980 to things like Area 51, extrajudicial killings, etc. (there was a line in the movie Independence Day about it).
  Now most educated people know they spend that much because they need what they use specially ordered to their exact specifications and with a less than a .000001% chance of part failure during normal use, and doing that gets expensive. Anyone who has taken an Intro to Engineering class in college knows this.
  But it was true that they were actually spending exorbitant amounts on "basic" items, but for a valid reason. So, sometimes, "half" of a conspiracy theory is right. Dismissing the whole thing outright is just naive. >
  
  If you trust everything the government, law enforcement, religious leaders, and the media tell you then you are nuts. >
  
  Yeah number 1 is all wrong lol >
  
  I don't know what you understood by it, but I was making a very obvious non-controversial point - of course you can't blanket deny all conspiracy theories, at least one is bound to be correct. >
  
  
  you can't blanket deny all conspiracy theories, at least one is bound to be correct.
  
  Yes you can. Once you have proof it becomes a fact and I will stop denying it. Just because there are a lot of them doesn't make them more likely to be true. You realise how easy it is to just churn out fake shit? >
  
  Isn't that the exact logic he is criticizing?
  I believe in innocence until proven guilty, and in theory that should apply to conspiracies as well.  But it doesn't apply 
  at all to investigation.  It's doesn't make sense to presume everything potentially guilty is innocent.  It's just not how it works.  Do you think anything far fetched or not already proven should be dismissed?
  Think about a murder investigation: detectives are investigating based off unproven evidence or, honestly, hunches.  They are not assuming everyone is innocent until concrete proof magically materializes.  They are searching for concrete proof based off of investigation.  
  For example, a spouse is the most likely one to commit a murder of another spouse.  It's not a conspiracy for detectives to suspect the other spouse of the murder.  Maybe other evidence adds up; they don't have an alibi, there was a motive, etc.  No this evidence cannot alone convict someone of the crime, but it will lead the investigation in trying to find proof. >
  
  It’s not ignoring innocent until proven guilty to look for the proof, but they also aren’t saying for certain that that person is guilty without proof either. 
  I am not against the investigation, but to assume that some conspiracy theories must be correct because there are so many so some must be true is not investigating. If the theory can’t hold up to scrutiny then we shouldn’t just accept it on the off chance. 
  Scientific theories are built on evidence too, not just ‘what if’s’. It’s very easy to say ‘this could have happened’ it has no weight without anything to back it up. >
  
  Yeah, well put and I agree.  I just think that because something isn't already proven doesn't mean it should be dismissed or not looked into further.  I only mention it because it seems like once something is labeled a conspiracy it's totally dismissed, as if the theory is expected to already have proof, when it's just regular people being skeptical and investigating on their own.
  There a lot of stupid conspiracies, and they shouldn't ALL be taken seriously, but to dismiss any particular one off hand because it's not already proven is illogical to me.  
  Not saying that's what you meant, but I feel like it's a popular sentiment and worth mentioning. >
  
  It doesn’t have to be completely proven to be discussed but to be taken seriously it needs some sort of evidence to back it up as a theory. It needs some sort of foundation in reality and fact. >
  
  No yeah I totally agree.  I honestly feel like you helped refine my original point so thanks haha.  Always good to get a constructive response. >
  
  
  All of those are absolutely and demonstrably all wrong.
  I'm dangerous for disregarding flat-earthers? >
  
  
  They were just some examples. I'm just making the basic point that, given history and the nature of how large groups of people in positions of power act, it's very unlikely that all conspiracy theories going forward will be proven incorrect.
  No you're not. I said 'Automatically discrediting ALL conspiracy theories is equally as dangerous as automatically believing in them'. I have no problem with you disregarding a specific conspiracy theory. I only have a problem when you just lump them altogether and disregard them all at once, just because people call them 'conspiracy theories'. >
  
  I was just using flat-earthers as an example. How am i the dangerous one for ignoring the whack-jobs? >
  
  Exactly. Like why do we blindly trust this stuff because the government says they're conspiracy theories?  We blindly trust them. The same people who interned innocent Japanese people then gave a feeble "apology" that probably was just a "shut up" thing, especially since Canada was late on the apology. They're not sorry, as they shouldn't have done it in the first place. The manipulation that made friends betray each other because they were Japanese.
  ​
  How about all the proven government admitted illegal and evil human experiments and torture incidents they conducted back in the 50s and 60s, there definitely is more they aren't talking about.
  I don't trust the government end of story. >
  
  also it's hilarious how people call this stuff "conspiracy" if you say covid is a murder scam or the government is run by aliens or lizards or JFK assassination or anything else you can think of. They call you mad. Yet people believe in religion, which frankly is more conspiracy theory in my opinion. Like why is it that religion isn't considered a conspiracy theory or propaganda or stupid when their stories are probably more outlandish and fictional than even the most "crazy/fictional/Orwellian/Scifi/Racist/Whatever" beliefs? >
  
  I swear birds aren't real ! >
  
  I just don’t know/care either way. So why wast my time looking to them? >
  
  Sure, but that's not a good reason. Something could be having a direct negative affect on you, but as long as you don't know about it you won't care about it and won't look into it any further >
  
  I see your point. I like the way you said that. But how am I to be 100% sure of anything?  I have a family and a business, I can’t dedicate my life to finding the answers/ truths.  As much as I would like to know the answers of the universe it seems like a lost cause. 
  Like for instance. In my mind the only way to know if plans are emitting mind controlling substances in to the atmosphere with their chem-trails is to capture a sample from a bunch of plains and test it my self.   Well I’m not a chemist first of all.  2nd, I’m not jumping out of another plain to capture a sample
  of chemtrail, It’s just not in the cards.  And I say I would have to get and test these things my self because then I would know with 100% certainty that they were not tampered with. 
  You know what I mean? >
  
  i don’t care. i really don’t. i’m so busy trying to have enough money to make rent to worry about if the royal family members are really lizard-people. >
  
  My question is, whatever the conspiracy is, what can you do? You going to go liberate some guns and take to the hills of west Virginia? Have a camp fire and sing mojo Nixon songs? >
  
  Its not that i dont believe in them, its more that i dont give a shit. 
  i have too much else to worry about that to care about whether epstein killed himself or who killed JFK >
  
  Do I think conspiracies never happen? No.
  Do I go around believing any conspiracy theory sans evidence to support it, or even that has a considerable evidence against it? Also, no.
  In general, conspiracy theories ought to be treated with skepticism. >
  
  I’m mostly annoyed that being skeptical of something gets you a label. I’m skeptical of police, so now I’m a liberal. Or I’m skeptical about a new vaccine, now I’m just anti vax. Or I question some things that happened on 9/11 and now I’m a nut job. I mean, the list goes on. 
  Like, come on man, I didn’t say these things were fact I just said I don’t know if I trust it yet based on the current information given or lack there of. I just wanna see more real world results before I commit to anything. Be that a political candidate, belief in a narrative etc. >
  
  Yeah, it's unfortunate that people will often group you with the extreme in order to discredit you. That's what I think is happening with the term 'conspiracy theory'. Theories that have evidence to support them get grouped in with wild ones like flat earth theory. >
  
  Man, it’s been so divisive. Like, I’m not a nut job because I don’t fully buy the narrative. All I’m saying is the story as presented just doesn’t seem logical. Like tower 7 or whatever, that’s pretty weird to me, and I don’t think I’m an extremist for not really believing that the “seismic activity” from the towers falling caused it to collapse. If that were the case why was it the only one? I mean, maybe there is an explanation but I’ve never heard one. I just get eye roles when I mention it. 🤷🏼‍♂️ >
  
  I mean I don’t think anyone should blindly follow what the government says (or media for that matter). A person who’s skeptical should follow the trail of logic and evidence, and look into reliable sources before coming to a conclusion. 
  However, all the the conspiracy theories that have been proven true had 1) a mountain of evidence and 2) people who were involved started talking. This lead to a strong foundation to base the “conspiracy theory” on. That’s incredibly different from most stupid popular conspiracy theories, which are incredibly convoluted, illogical, and too involved for it to be true. There would be way too many to keep quiet about these huge conspiracies, and it highly unlikely that that many people wouldn’t speak up or that evidence wouldn’t come to light. Occam’s Razor man. People who believe in whacky theories are often not using sound logic, they are bias to the information and will not be looking at facts that disprove them, their “evidence” is never solid, and they don’t understand basic concepts. Not everything is a psyop bro. >
  
  Chemtrails. Wrong. 
  The vaccines are ineffective and dangerous. Wrong.
  >Fluoride is bad for the brain. 
  From what I have seen, only in very high dosage and long exposure right?
  >Obama spent 65 000 on hotdogs. 
  Uh, Idk, maybe? Did not even know this was a thing
  >CIA killed Kennedy. 
  Probably not. They are most likely not telling the full story though.
  Literally most of the ones you listed are either very obviously wrong or clutching at straws at best. Most were terrible examples of conspiracy theories that might be realistic. 
  Most conspiracy theories are pretty ridiculous. >
  
  Vaccine can be dangerous to some, some who already had the virus so in that sense it didn’t make sense to get it for them. The virus most likely came from the Wuhan lab and that was a conspiracy theory in 2020 >
  
  No one has ever doubted that the vaccines can be dangerous to some... Some people did not take the vaccine because that was the opinion by medical professionals. 
  The virus coming from a lab is a good example of a conspiracy that isn't completely ridiculous though. That would have been a better example for OP to use. >
  
  I mean it depends. If you’re scared about fluoride in the water then you better not be using toothpaste with fluoride because swallowing a bit of that will give you orders of magnitude more. Vaccines have been proven to work so many times over its insane to believe otherwise (for vaccines in general). CIA killing Kennedy… actually I wouldn’t be surprised about this one the CIA has done more than a little shenanigans. Applying scientific rigor to these has to be a priority. Not having an opinion or taking a neutral stance about any given conspiracy theory can be better than having one no matter what that opinion is. >
  
  The issue with conspiracies is that they (usually) offer an explanation for things that sound nicer, is easier to understand, or is more complete than the reality of the situation.
  For example, people that believe 9-11 conspiracies, it probably feels more comfortable to believe that it was an inside job, rather than accepting the chaotic belief that you're not actually safe in the US despite having the strongest military in the world.
  In other words, just thinking rational doesn't always help you and then you kinda just need to know what's true and what's not. It's the same way for real science. You start from a base of what you know to be true already and research from there. No scientist is trying to reinvent the wheel for every project. >
  
  Bizzarrely, 9/11 conspiracy theorists (who believe Osama Bin Laden was innocent) tend to also be MAGA >
  
  How do I not know you're one of the aliens who rapes me in my sleep? >
  
  Considering how many "conspiracies theories" have come out to be true I agree >
  
  As you say OP, there are lots of crazy and baseless conspiracy theories out there. As a result of that, the mainstream media and governments have started labelling everything that is inconvenient to them and their preferred narrative as a conspiracy theory.
  A lot of the ‘conspiracy theories’ from the last three years have turned out to be factual. >
  
  I have yet to find a single conspiracy theory that isn’t easily disproven with five minutes of research and a high school education. It has nothing to do with trust. >
  
  The movie Amersterdam 2022. Tuskegee experiment. Intelligence agencies collecting on US citizens. Forced sterilization of minority women. Mind control experiments. I’m very certain most of what I mentioned has been verified. >
  
  I'm not sure what you're getting at. Things that have been verified to have happened and have loads of evidence for them aren't conspiracy theories. >
  
  I don’t want to get into a semantic debate. These were all conspiracies and theories at one point and we verified years or decades later. My point is years ago people would think your crack pot talking about any of this stuff. And documents were released and books, and films were written like 50 years later.🤷‍♀️ >
  
  I don't think the difference between conspiracy theory and proven fact is really a semantic argument. They're categorically different things.
  Showing that some rumors end up being true is not really an argument to believe in any of the hundreds of conspiracy theories that exist but have no evidence to substantiate them, or even significant evidence against them. The original post is "people who don't believe in any conspiracy theories are nutty", but the fact that some percentage of unverified claims turn out to be true doesn't mean we should believe in any specific unverified claim with zero evidence. Saying one in a hundred conspiracy theories ends up being true is not a reason to "keep an open mind" when it comes to the other 99 that will end up being false. That's not being open-minded, it's just being overly credulous. Believing in something just because it sounds plausible is how we get people claiming the mRNA vaccine re-writes your DNA, and then denying medical care to hundreds of patients without their consent or knowledge. >
  
  I agree 100%. Some conspiracies are 100% proven facts. The whole point is there really are people in back rooms plotting and planning all kinds of heinous, evil shit. Which makes me question the adage, “ don’t attribute to malice what could easily be explained by incompetence.” Thanks for the convo. >
  
  Oh, I agree as well! We are constantly being manipulated by those in power, sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. I think you should especially always be careful when you read something that makes you feel a certain way, because this is often on purpose, to achieve a specific goal.
  This is actually why most conspiracy theories drive me nuts. They take attention away from the proven, factual ways in which those in power are acting against people every day. I have a friend who has a formidable intellect, but his reason fails him when it comes to conspiracy theories. He'll ignore all the ways he's being obviously manipulated in his daily life, and then spend an hour complaining about an obviously faked photo of boxes of filled out ballots being unloaded from a truck proving election fraud. Of course in that case it was easy to show that the photo was taken five years earlier and in a different country. But somehow despite all his intelligence, he never met a conspiracy theory he didn't believe, even though most of them are just things some guy thought up based on nothing other than "it's not literally impossible this might be true." >
  
  The only conspiracy theories I believe are the ones that have a lot of evidence to back them. Such as the FBI killing MLK.
  Otherwise it’s ridiculous. >
  
  That’s not really a conspiracy theory, because 1. MLK’s own family believes that James Earl Ray was innocent and that the FBI probably organized the killing
  2. Ray was found innocent during a mock trial in the 1990’s
  3. MLK was suspiciously sent a note (probably from the FBI) telling him to kill himself
  4. We know very well that the FBI or rather, J Edgar Hoover, were enemies of the Civil Rights Movement >
  
  I like the wendigoon video on MLK's assassination, there's just so many holes. I don't even necessarily believe that the CIA or FBI kills these people directly, but they certainly are involved in covering up who actually did >
  
  The CIA definitely kills people directly - look up Patrice Lumumba. >
  
  All conspiracy theory crap is just a waste of time with no evidence.
  Once real, meaningful evidence comes to light and tells us something funky happened that's when it goes from nothingness to a thing that happened... just skipping over conspiracy.
  I've never seen a conspiracy that had any chance of being real so I never believed in the pipe dream I was being sold. >
  
  I mean, there are plenty that have been declassified, but go on. >
  
  That's not an argument to believe in the ones for which there is currently no evidence. >
  
  I don't think you need insane notions to understand the world around you...
  It is very clear the right wing and church are working together to retain their power, that things like the Illuminati and Wokism have become targets to motivate people towards living lives of utter selfishness.
  We do not understand that everything belongs to God, we allow men to claim ownership and enslave us for access to necessities of life.
  It is odd that people think any of this is what God wants.
  It is also no wonder that so many want nothing to do with God today.
  Why would anyone want what the loudest believers say is his will? >
  
  I was called a nutty conspiracy theorist so I linked to the plethora of shit the CIA has admitted to that's documented and then got called a nutty conspiracy theorist 🙄 >
  
  It wouldn't surprise me if every large corporation buys up accounts to use in astroturfing campaigns.  Just go to any popular sub and look at replies to top comments.  You'll find several bots copy-pasting comments from further down the thread as replies to the top comments.
  It's meant to make the accounts look real so they're more "believable" when used to promote a business or push an agenda. >
  
  There are bunch if true conspiracy theories. Many of them are for the “reeducation” of people to make them docile and make them easier to control. Beware peons! Worship Celoana to find enlightenment! >
  
  Does nobody believe in reptilians? Lyran? Draconians? Annunaki? The demiurge? >
  
  I think flat earthers are cute it is almost like religion. If they keep it to themselves or some occasional conversation good for them. If it becomes them and ruins their life and others its a problem. >
  
  It's interesting how jet fuel melts steel, and if you crash airplanes into skyscrapers, they will collapse into their own footprint exactly the same as a controlled demolition. But shreds of paper "found" in the rubble afterward prove it was foreigners. >
  
  You know when I think of a conspiracy theory I think of the flat earth theory or something far fetched like that. But you actually gave me a different view point, totally makes sense what you are saying. I’ve never really thought about it like that. >
  
  It’s called critical thinking. Yes some conspiracies could very well be true but you make up your mind with fact based evidence from reputable sources. 
  The problem is blindly believing things without even the most basic level of scrutiny, reasoning and logic. Only absorbing information at that conforms to whatever narrative you’re painting.
  Just because you had to scroll to page 6 of google to find the one website that confirms your beliefs, doesn’t mean that ‘they’ are trying to hide it from people. If ‘they’ were so all powerful and influential, that website or blog wouldn’t be there in the first place. >
  
  We are not discrediting them automatically but due to compeling evidence and if a theory is correct and proven to be true its not a conspiracy theory. Those that are not true are called conspiracy theory by definition so by logic we dont believe in all conspiracy theories. >
  
  There is a difference, as nuanced as it is, between believing there are conspiracies to believing in conspiracy theories.  Conspiracies happen.  When 2 or more people plan out nefarious things they are in a conspiracy.  We all accept that.  But conspiracy theories not yet demonstrated or proven, though they may have factual elements and certain parts of them may prove to be true, are rarely if ever true in their entirety as presented.  Believing in those theories whole-clothe, or worse, changing aspects of a conspiracy fantasy they disagree with and claim their version is more believable or accurate without proof, is what separates the tin foil hat nut from the more reasoned. >
  
  A lot of it comes down to whaty you believe and why you believe it. I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job because I don't think the government has that level of coordination and competence as well as being able to silence all of their own people involved.  I believe that intelligence agencies will do shady shit and try to overthrow governments, I believe that most major corporations have mercenaries doing dirty work for them in any country they can get away with it in. A lot of it comes down to evidentiary support and levels of plausibility. >
  
  Exactly, you just need to think critically about each one, what evidence there is, how many assumptions need to be made, how many people would it involve. >
  
  The Psyop is Branding unfavorable information a “Conspiracy Theory” so it divides the masses even further.
  If Citizens of the World came together, WEF or any number of influential entities would have no power. >
  
  Once the truth of things are revealed, like when the CIA admits to being the shady people we know them to be, it stops being a “conspiracy theory” and it just becomes facts. >
  
  I think skepticism is a safer default than blind belief. It's far easier to prove that something did happen than didn't. >
  
  There’s a difference between 911 was an inside job, the moon landings were fake etc type of conspiracies and then facts, like the cia foes spooky shit and keeps it secret. >
  
  There are certain things I would be open to but generally when you hear the term “conspiracy theory” it’s shit with no evidence, evidence to the contrary,  or wildly incorrect claims like earth is flat, moon landing was fake, vaccines make you magnetic, etc. On the other hand like if someone presented a compelling argument that like John Hinckley or Sirhan Sirhan made up their motives to cover for some kind of conspiracy plot I could entertain that, maybe hinckley more than Sirhan since the Jodie foster excuse is just bonkers and the Sirhan one kinda atleast makes logical sense but it’s not completely nuts to think maybe they were hired for some other reason by the masons or some weird shit >
  
  I’m willing to buy into things like Kurt Cobain being murdered or something to that effect. But when it comes to Qanon level conspiracies and vaccine conspiracies I draw the line. That kind of shit is ridiculous and dangerous. >
  
  i’m similar to you, but regarding the vaccine- i don’t believe the q-anon or population control conspiracies. I do however consider the possibility of big pharma being in bed with governments to rush the vaccine and then minimize or hide negative data. Some countries (Denmark, Sweden etc…)have even stopped recommending the vaccine for kids and certain populations due to data. I am vaccinated but having second thoughts on repeated boosters until more time has passed, especially since i’ve had covid twice already.  So there are levels to considering the possibility of conspiracy on certain hot topics. >
  
  Some theories make sense, who knows what really happened to JFK for example but some theories like the Illuminati and Lizard People are not true, they're blatantly wrong
  Basically if it has to do with the CIA doing some fucked shit, or the mafia, or something like that it could very well be true but if it's some New World Order, Lizard People, Faked Moon Landing, Flat Earth shit it's not even really debatable it's just wrong >
  
  There is a difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories.  There are thousand of conspiracies that are facts and there are even more theories made up by dummies. >
  
  There's a stereotype about conspiracy theorists being gullible or dumb, but when actual research is done, they reveal that conspiracy theorists are comprised of highly intelligent people with great problem solving and lateral thinking skills. 
  Our brains are designed to find patterns and solve problems. Humans are great rationalizing creatures, even when we're not being rational. We try to make sense of things that are nonsensical. It's why we can interpret abstract art as emotionally meaningful. 
  Conspiracy theorists apply these skills to things that often have very simple and straightforward justifications for existing ie: vaccines, the shape of the Earth, economic recessions, etc. and ascribe complex hidden meanings to them to help explain other things about the world they find troubling. It's more comforting to have a large sinister cause for all the world's problems than to accept that things happen out of randomness and apathy.
  I agree that we should be devoted skeptics to how large powerful entities affect the world, and that is a noble and worthwhile pursuit. But sometimes things just happen and don't require a bigger explanation. 
  If the reason you're seeking a more complex explanation is because the simple one is uncomfortable, then maybe the problem is your discomfort and not the explanation. >
  
  Making people reject conspiracy theories altogether is a nice trick and many people fell for it very easily.
  They are just scared and need to man up, they don’t want to live in a world where people lie to them so they decide to believe the lies without questioning them.
  There have been so many proven conspiracies, believing they never happen is insanity. >
  
  I think the real conspiracies are crazier than the fake ones. Like covid obviously didn’t come from a lab. It wasn’t remotely deadly enough. But it also had an out of patent cure that was banned by big pharma to extract billions in profits from the populace. And I remember hearing it, thinking it was stupid, and finding primary sources on Google.
  People just parrot what they hear. >
  
  This really should not be an unpopular opinion. Great post! >
  
  I don't think the person you're unpopular opinion is about exists. I've never seen a person in real life or on the internet who actively denies every conspiracy ever just because. >
  
  I only truly believe in one and it's an unpopular opinion in its own right. No evidence of anything, just a hunch. But for the most part, conspiracy theories that lack concrete evidence or don't match up with basic biology and physics are a waste of mental space imo. I am a woman of science though so once I can afford to go back to school, that sentiment will only be more concrete lol >
  
  Actually now that I think about it, I'm an asocial recluse and am a little nutty lol fuck. >
  
  What’s the conspiracy you believe in >
  
  I refuse to believe in any theory involving more than one person.