=== How To Be A Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist And Make It Impossible For Others To Criticize You ===
1) Make a list of all the methods people use to criticize you. Such as demanding evidence, questioning your motives, calling you a conspiracy theorist.
2) Rename the list, "How to Control an Internet Forum, Rules of Disinformation, Techniques for Truth Suppression"
3) Mix in some legitimate methods so your agenda doesn't seem too obvious.
4) Publish list on the internet under the disguise of looking like you just want to help forum owners foresee and prevent trolling problems.
5) Watch as unknowing innocent people submit and upvote your propaganda thinking they're helping the community.
Read between the lines and you'll see it. And it was written in such a way that you can't criticize him in any way without breaking one his "Rules for Truth Suppression" or "Disinformation". Cleverly written in such a way that doesn't allow you to criticize obvious things or demand evidence. Thus making the author win no matter what. I live with a conspiracy theorist father who uses some of these himself. Not to mention I was a religious fanatic myself and am well trained in spotting the same bullshit I used to spread. Sorry man, nice try, pretty clever though.
> Make a list of all the methods people use to criticize
> you. Such as ... calling you a conspiracy theorist.
Should we really encourage Ad Hominem as a valid criticism of an argument? If your only criticism of someone's statements is, "you're just a conspiracy nut," then your argument doesn't hold much water.
Yes you're right about Ad Hominem but that's not exactly what this is. This is "Classification". And classifying someone is just one of the many things a person uses in judging weather or not someone else is biased or open minded, weather their statements are more likely to be evidence or agenda based. And weather or not to further research their evidence and argue with them or just write them off as close minded, unchangeable, stubborn, and not worth dealing with. When someone tells us a statement, we don't immediately go out and start researching it to see if it's substantiated or not. If they seem like an open minded person and their statement seems well thought out and backed up by evidence, we accept what they say as truth and move forward with the conversation. If they come off as one sided from the perspective of [conservative, liberal, religious, atheist] without taking into consideration other view points or universal truths then why not call them what they are?
I know in politics classification is used to easily and cheaply attack someone unfairly but I can't help but think that in it's own way, it is a valid criticism.
When we say things like: "Of course you'd want to regulate everything, you're a liberal" and "Of course you'd want to deregulate everything, you're a conservative". What we're really doing is telling the person, "I think you're biased and you're not thinking outside of your own point of view". Is that not a valid criticism?
If a Christian extremist says to me "You're going to hell because you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as your savoir" and I reply with "of course you'd say that, you're a Christian extremist." Is that not a perfectly valid criticism and a very true statement?
It's not the best way to engage in a debate but not everyone has 2 and a half hours to argue with others. Sometimes you just need to remind someone that they're lost in their own lala land quickly and effectively. Nothing accomplishes that better than classification.
1) Make a list of all the methods people use to criticize you. Such as demanding evidence, questioning your motives, calling you a conspiracy theorist.
2) Rename the list, "How to Control an Internet Forum, Rules of Disinformation, Techniques for Truth Suppression"
3) Mix in some legitimate methods so your agenda doesn't seem too obvious.
4) Publish list on the internet under the disguise of looking like you just want to help forum owners foresee and prevent trolling problems.
5) Watch as unknowing innocent people submit and upvote your propaganda thinking they're helping the community.
Read between the lines and you'll see it. And it was written in such a way that you can't criticize him in any way without breaking one his "Rules for Truth Suppression" or "Disinformation". Cleverly written in such a way that doesn't allow you to criticize obvious things or demand evidence. Thus making the author win no matter what. I live with a conspiracy theorist father who uses some of these himself. Not to mention I was a religious fanatic myself and am well trained in spotting the same bullshit I used to spread. Sorry man, nice try, pretty clever though.