comment: >
  
  
  All of those are absolutely and demonstrably all wrong.
  I'm dangerous for disregarding flat-earthers?
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.