Japan Today Get your ticket to GaijinPot Expo 2024

Here
and
Now

opinions

Some online conspiracy-spreaders don’t even believe the lies they’re spewing

62 Comments
By H Colleen Sinclair
Image: iStock/Arkadiusz Warguła

There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.

Coaxing conspiracists – the extremists

In our chapter of a new book on extremism and conspiracies, my colleagues and I discuss evidence that certain extremist groups intentionally use conspiracy theories to entice adherents. They are looking for a so-called “gateway conspiracy” that will lure someone into talking to them, and then be vulnerable to radicalization. They try out multiple conspiracies to see what sticks.

Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58% were intent on incitement and radicalization.

You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy, but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”

Combative conspiracists – the disinformants

Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.

Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.

As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”

Likewise, while Chinese officials were spreading conspiracies about American roots of the coronavirus in 2020, China’s National Health Commission was circulating internal reports tracing the source to a pangolin.

Chaos conspiracists – the trolls

In general, research has found that individuals with what scholars call a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of belief. These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent. Dark personalities and dark motives are prevalent.

For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.

Commercial conspiracists – the profiteers

Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”

When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.

Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.

Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.

Common conspiracists – the attention-getters

You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity, or know it is false.

These posts are common: Friends, family and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7% to 20% of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?

Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.

Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation. They want the likes and shares. They want to “stir the pot.” Or they just like the message and want to signal to others that they share a common belief system.

For frequent sharers, it just becomes a habit.

The dangers of spreading lies

Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.

It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write – and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”

H Colleen Sinclair is Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology, Louisiana State University.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.

© The Conversation

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

62 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

Certainly true.

Look at the Trump-Russia conspiracy hoax.

So many people were pushing it online but privately they probably doubted that Trump was a Russian agent.

-10 ( +9 / -19 )

BanthuToday  07:03 am JST

there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

Certainly true.

Look at the Trump-Russia conspiracy hoax.

So many people were pushing it online but privately they probably doubted that Trump was a Russian agent.

You mean the "hoax" backed up by Helsinki, Bob Woodward, and dozens of Trump's own statements. I'll wager the entire national security establishment believes that "hoax".

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Our beloved internet has evolved into a spreader of mind parasites that wreak havoc on our governments and institutions.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

There is so much fake stuff on the internet.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent.

Trollism seems to have become a stance. I often wonder how much people actually believe what they are posting on sites. Hell, some posters are not even human.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

“harass, or even just to get attention.”

Thankfully they are easy to identify, even when they change names multiple times.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

You would have to think that sites such as Breitbart, Infowars, Zerohedge, must know that they are spreading misinformation, but trust that their audience don't have or want the wit to be able to discern what is reality on the ground. Thus they make gold from their gullibility.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

A very good sign indeed, because they obviously still have some rudiments of thinking capabilities and question their own theories. The mainstream is the much bigger problem. They really completely believe their left and woke thought constructions and impossible theories would be the only and ultimate truth and at all costs they try to push them with maximum force into real practice and our daily lives. This is which leads to the catastrophic outcome, not the few so-called conspiracy theories or other fake providers.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Interesting types.

Very familiar.

All very sad specimens.

“harass, or even just to get attention.”

Thankfully they are easy to identify, even when they change names multiple times.

Very true. I like the ones who get confused and reply to their own posts.

Disorganized as well as pathetic and dishonest.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

A very good sign indeed, because they obviously still have some rudiments of thinking capabilities and question their own theories.

Someone that genuinely question their own theories would not be still pushing them and defending them as dogma that others had to accept no matter what.

For all its flaws traditional media has controls and anybody can fact check anybody else, with loss of confidence and scandals being just examples of the many types of consequences that follow repeating proved lies.

Conspiracy theorists don't have those controls, they lie and mislead continuously even to the point of being considered wrong by default. The problem then becomes the false balance approach of some outlets, where proved facts supposedly require balance even if that mean giving the same time and exposure to outrageous lies that can put in danger the lives of the people.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

You would have to think that sites such as Breitbart, Infowars, Zerohedge, must know that they are spreading misinformation

Hard to tell.

The most transparent I’ve seen are Tucker Carlson and now Russell Brand.

Brand is probably the better grifter. His ‘conversion’ is hilarious.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Some? I'd go with "nearly all".

Once people realised that it was easy to become "internet famous" (as if this was something desirable) by making up some absolute nonsense, then the internet was doomed.

The internet is really just a mirror of the people who use it, so it's hardly surprising that a large portion of it is a pit of wilful ignorance - in fact I'd say "celebrated ignorance" is closer.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

The most transparent I’ve seen are Tucker Carlson and now Russell Brand.

Doesn’t seem like it

Brand is probably the better grifter. His ‘conversion’ is hilarious.

He is hilarious

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

The mainstream is the much bigger problem. They really completely believe their left and woke thought constructions and impossible theories would be the only and ultimate truth and at all costs they try to push them with maximum force into real practice and our daily lives.

Thanks for the laugh and I couldn't write a better summary of the mindset of the Dunning–Kruger effect than this.

Of course the fact is a lot of online conspiracy disinfo is pushed by corporate, oligarchic interests and state intelligence.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/memes-4chan-trump-supporters-trolls-internet-214856/

7 ( +10 / -3 )

He is hilarious

I could actually see Brand making a good go at cracking the American market. There's a large enough percentage of Americans who are so gullible that you can convince them of anything if you put a religious sheen on it. Heck, the evangelicals openly endorse a man who's broken most of the ten commandments.

In the UK we're better at sniffing out that kind of BS, because we're basically cynics by nature, but Brand could well find a new audience across the pond. If that means he stays there, then everyone wins.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Some online conspiracy-spreaders don’t even believe the lies they’re spewing

Some online official-narrative-spreaders don’t even believe the lies they’re spewing.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Anyone who prints "government sources say", "a source close to government" (who could be anybody), "experts in the field" etc. with no verification of whether the thing is actually true is part of the propaganda machine. They are knowingly repeating lies. This is a very high proportion of what the BBC does.

Russiagate was used to attack Trump solely because it did not implicate Democrats. There are many stronger attack lines on Trump but most of them involve things the Democrats are also guilty of (corruption, kowtowing to Israel, kowtowing to big business, hopeless on policy, nepotism, apathy about ordinary Americans, etc. etc.)

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

This article follows the panic that many have demonstrated lately. Such as Hillary Clinton saying ‘we lose total control’ if social media content isn't moderated. People are increasingly and rightfully losing trust in the MSM, so the powers-that-be want to also ensure total control on the online narrative.

Part of that approach is to have some truly wacky conspiracy theorists to try to discredit the legit online voices. So yes, some online conspiracy-spreaders indeed don’t believe the lies they’re spewing, but not the ones mentioned in the article.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.

Shame that they did not elaborate (who and what type of investment).

So if those primarily responsible for the vast majority of pro-vaccine statements (online or in MSM) had a financial investment in the product.... I suspect this group had a much much much higher level of investment.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Shame that they did not elaborate (who and what type of investment).

It does make you wonder whether some of the truly wacky stuff is made up by vested interests to discredit people who legitimately question certain narratives driven by governments and mainstream media.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

In the UK we're better at sniffing out that kind of BS, because we're basically cynics by nature

I think that’s true to a point but the surly British cynicism isn’t always a good thing.

How Tucker Carlson gets away with it is still beyond me. He was caught red-handed spouting trash which he didn’t believe to morons and is still at it now.

As for Brand, I saw an interesting phenomenon that a lot of the online grifters are failed comedians /actors/scriptwriters. Brand had a successful career until reports of his very grubby private life were released . He certainly has more charisma to sell his product to morons than most.

Brand has an excellent skill set for a grifter.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

It does make you wonder whether some of the truly wacky stuff is made up by vested interests to discredit people who legitimately question certain narratives driven by governments and mainstream media.

Reading or listening to conspiracy theorists attack other conspiracy theorists reminds you of the joke about the man who was so shocked to see someone smoking in church, he dropped his beer.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

It does make you wonder whether some of the truly wacky stuff is made up by vested interests to discredit people who legitimately question certain narratives driven by governments and mainstream media.

Yes, a bit like the insertion of agents provocateurs in protests, to give the police and government an excuse to crack down.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Reading or listening to conspiracy theorists attack other conspiracy theorists reminds you of the joke about the man who was so shocked to see someone smoking in church, he dropped his beer.

Say whatever you like, but it's a constant source of amusement reading your posts. Day in, day out you're the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

This article follows the panic that many have demonstrated lately.

Zero panic required to understand that without moderation those that mislead and fool others for profit can be extremely dangerous and that moderation of people repeating things proved false is something positive and desirable.

Part of that approach is to have some truly wacky conspiracy theorists to try to discredit the legit online voices

Is terribly easy to distinguish between them, if the person have their claims refuted with arguments and evidence, he can't defend those claims but still repeat them then this is not a "legit voice" but someone actively trying to mislead others with false information.

Reading or listening to conspiracy theorists attack other conspiracy theorists reminds you of the joke about the man who was so shocked to see someone smoking in church, he dropped his beer.

You can easily find people getting angry when compared with creationists or flat earthers and saying that they are nothing alike because the global conspiracy to hide the evidence of their claims is true in their case, not for the loons. Somehow the notion that lack of evidence puts both conspiracies down in the center of "impossible to believe" is lost because of their personal bias.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

It does make you wonder whether some of the truly wacky stuff is made up by vested interests to discredit people who legitimately question certain narratives driven by governments and mainstream media.

The problem here is what is regarded as wacky.

Conspiracy theorists exist on a spectrum. Stolen election/scamdemic/climate change a hoax/EVs a scam is standard hymn sheet stuff for the ‘free-thinkers’.

Faked moon landing is an interesting one.

Is that one wacky?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

JimizoToday  12:25 pm JST

In the UK we're better at sniffing out that kind of BS, because we're basically cynics by nature

I think that’s true to a point but the surly British cynicism isn’t always a good thing.

How Tucker Carlson gets away with it is still beyond me. He was caught red-handed spouting trash which he didn’t believe to morons and is still at it now.

As for Brand, I saw an interesting phenomenon that a lot of the online grifters are failed comedians /actors/scriptwriters. Brand had a successful career until reports of his very grubby private life were released . He certainly has more charisma to sell his product to morons than most.

Brand has an excellent skill set for a grifter.

Well, Carlson is American and thus, by extension, so is most of his fanbase. At the risk of offending our cousins, while I do think that America boasts some of the most brilliant people in the world (their nobel prize record alone demonstrates this), it is also home to some of the most staggeringly stupid, naive and easily-deceived people on the entire planet. That's why Carlson "gets away with it".

Conversely, when certifiable nutters like David Icke, Russell Brand, etc. come along, they are basically shoved to the fringe where a small percentage of idiots will listen to them.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

So is trump really a Russian agent?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

It does make you wonder whether some of the truly wacky stuff is made up by vested interests to discredit people who legitimately question certain narratives driven by governments and mainstream media.

No, it doesn’t make me wonder at all and I don’t need to make up a conspiracy theory to explain why there are wacky conspiracy theories.

There are just some very angry and lonely people out there who get a kick out of it. But as has been stated above several times they are easy to spot.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

ianToday 01:00 pm JST

So is trump really a Russian agent?

Might as well be. The rhetoric is certainly that of Putin.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

TaiwanIsNotChina

Today 01:28 pm JST

ianToday 01:00 pm JST

> So is trump really a Russian agent?

> Might as well be. The rhetoric is certainly that of Putin.

Hahahaha

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

"Some online conspiracy-spreaders don’t even believe the lies they’re spewing."

Like most main stream media it seems. The so called conspiracy theories and their spreaders is like a political football no team can win. Take for instance the election back in 2020, one side claim it was stolen right? The other side claim that is conspiracy theory, the election was not stolen right? However, the fact remains almost the entire American infrastructure was completely compromised by hackers way before the elections they were already in the system. How they got in? Most of us still don't know, yet rather than start there finding for solution. Demonizing each other becomes way to easier by claiming conspiracy theory. After all those who questioned Joe's competency before dropping out were also deemed conspiracy theorists too. The word conspiracy is basically now used to "silence" those with different opinion that's my take.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Demonizing each other becomes way to easier by claiming conspiracy theory. 

What makes it easier is to claim things without any evidence and making those claims the excuse to justify acting in certain ways. When people do not use the excuse of conspiracies it becomes much more difficult to be accused of doing that.

 After all those who questioned Joe's competency before dropping out were also deemed conspiracy theorists too.

Not really no, people on his side accepted both candidates were terribly old and showing it. If anything the accusations of conspiracy were about how only one was being targeted by the media.

The word conspiracy is basically now used to "silence" those with different opinion that's my take.

Again, conspiracy theory is used for people that try to justify something based exclusively on supposed conspiracies of which they have no evidence. When people provide the evidence or no longer use this universal excuse it becomes impossible to be accused of doing it.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Take for instance the election back in 2020, one side claim it was stolen right? The other side claim that is conspiracy theory, the election was not stolen right?

There was no reasonable evidence of widespread fraud.

Trump claimed millions of illegals voted in 2016.

There was no reasonable evidence of widespread fraud

Trump claimed Ted Cruz, whose father Trump claimed was in on the JFK assassination, was falsely declared the winner in Iowa in 2016.

There was no reasonable evidence of widespread fraud.

Can you see a pattern here?

You may as well listen to David Icke on lizard people or the flat-earthers.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

This silly article is a pseudo-academic version of what Hillary Clinton was bleating about the other day: the establishment is losing it's grip on the narrative, and feels like it needs to "control mis/disinformation for the greater good." This of course means restricting freedom of speech online and elsewhere to silence dissent against their economic and social destruction. The main thrust is to paint dissenters as mis/disinformation agents and anything they say that doesn't match the official narrative as "conspiracy theories." The idea, of course, is to smear people who challenge the official line on anything as a dangerous loon who should be ignored and/or punished with censorship, a fine and/ or prison time. This is happening in the UK now, and similar efforts are underway in Australia and Canada. Kind of like how the old USSR would declare dissidents insane and put them into an asylum. I mean would in their right minds would criticise communism? Well, history has a funny way of answering that question.

Intelligent, curious people, and experts in various fields whose evidence contravenes what governments and their friends want us to hear, are lumped in with the flat-earthers and whatnot in an attempt to dismiss their concerns. But dubious official messages about COVID in particular, together with the illegal immigration crisis, economic instability, unaffordable housing, and poor public health are causing widespread pushback. Hence the panic from the likes of Clinton and lame articles like this one.

If people like this author and the people she supports are so worried about conspiracy theorists, wouldn't the best course of action be to tell the truth? You'd think so, but instead they double-down with draconian laws to stifle criticism.

As for posters here laughing at the conspiracy theorists, how many of you fell for the Russiagate hoax or thought the Hunter Biden laptop affair was just made up, or the Bidens' questionable dealings with the Ukrainian gas company were all above board? The WMD con from the Bush years? The "very fine people" dodgy video edit? I bet not too many of you will admit it; you're vulnerable to mis/disinformation but think you're all too clever to fall for it. Nobody knows everything, and we are all prone to believing things aren't true from time to time. The answer is to think critically and don't take too much at face value even if it conflicts with your core beliefs.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

CephusToday 02:39 pm JST

However, the fact remains almost the entire American infrastructure was completely compromised by hackers way before the elections they were already in the system.

That's quite impressive that hackers got into thousands of local election systems with no evidence of their presence.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Bad HaircutToday 02:58 pm JST

how many of you fell for the Russiagate hoax

The evidence of our own eyes and ears tells us that Trump acts like a russian asset.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

"That's quite impressive that hackers got into thousands of local election systems with no evidence of their presence."

If the intention was to influence or steal the elections that's a possibility. The entire infrastructure can't be compromised without someone working from inside. It's what others call inside job.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

"Intelligent, curious people, and experts in various fields whose evidence contravenes what governments and their friends want us to hear, are lumped in with the flat-earthers and whatnot in an attempt to dismiss their concerns. But dubious official messages about COVID in particular, together with the illegal immigration crisis, economic instability, unaffordable housing, and poor public health are causing widespread pushback. Hence the panic from the likes of Clinton and lame articles like this one.

If people like this author and the people she supports are so worried about conspiracy theorists, wouldn't the best course of action be to tell the truth? You'd think so, but instead they double-down with draconian laws to stifle criticism." Bad Haircut

It's always a delight to see the world still has great independent minded people who can make sound judgement. Least we forget every theory starts with a premise, of which the current woke schools calls conspiracy.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

The evidence of our own eyes and ears tells us that Trump acts like a russian asset.

Thanks for the chuckle. And what evidence would that be, pray tell?

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Most people basically believe what they wanna believe, based on their unexamined emotions, and either find the evidence to suit or make it up. Simple.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Bad HaircutToday 03:48 pm JST

The evidence of our own eyes and ears tells us that Trump acts like a russian asset.

Thanks for the chuckle. And what evidence would that be, pray tell?

Sending covid tests, for one.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  03:58 pm JST

Bad HaircutToday 03:48 pm JST

The evidence of our own eyes and ears tells us that Trump acts like a russian asset.

Thanks for the chuckle. And what evidence would that be, pray tell?

Sending covid tests, for one.

Again, thanks for the laugh. Trump's too erratic to be a reliable asset for anyone. To think the Russians could keep him on a leash is beyond hilarious. He may do things from time to time that could be perceived as benefiting some Russians, but he could turn on a dime and kick them in the groin 5 minutes later.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

If the authors of the article had any sincerity, they would have mentioned some (or at least one) of the many "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

If the authors of the article had any sincerity, they would have mentioned some (or at least one) of the many "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true

On occasion, but the problem here is that what constitutes proof of a claim to a conspiracy theorist isn’t what is generally accepted by serious people. They often cite ‘proof’ of a claim from…other conspiracy theorists ( other sources fall into the bought-and-paid-for/MSM/deep state/elites/big something or other/category and can be discarded ).

Similarly, you often find ‘proof’ of a small fragment of what was claimed is blown up to be proof of the whole.

With conspiracy theorists you are often dealing with dishonesty and a very tight bubble of reference.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Bad HaircutToday 04:12 pm JST

Mr. Can't Make It Through A Notecard isn't going to be kicking any of our adversaries in the groin.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I could actually see Brand making a good go at cracking the American market. There's a large enough percentage of Americans who are so gullible that you can convince them of anything if you put a religious sheen on it.

You can make that argument about anyone, any culture, anywhere.

Heck, the evangelicals openly endorse a man who's broken most of the ten commandments.

Most evangelicals know that no one is perfect, but what they do care about is someone that will protect the sanctity of life.

In the UK we're better at sniffing out that kind of BS,

I disagree

because we're basically cynics by nature,

Well, we got that from you guys since we’re kind of your improved spawn

but Brand could well find a new audience across the pond. If that means he stays there, then everyone wins.

And has more freedom, unless the Marxists get in, what’s not to love? 1st and 2nd amendment enshrined.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

The evidence of our own eyes and ears tells us that Trump acts like a russian asset.

I think the Russian thing is old and comparative to when conservatives talk about locking Hillary up or her 30K emails, they’re going nowhere.

No, it doesn’t make me wonder at all and I don’t need to make up a conspiracy theory to explain why there are wacky conspiracy theories. 

But the left do it all the time, seriously, all the time.

There are just some very angry and lonely people out there who get a kick out of it.

Hmmmm

But as has been stated above several times they are easy to spot

Oh, boy…

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

So there are actually people here who believe trump conspires with the russians?

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

bass4funkToday 05:03 pm JST

The evidence of our own eyes and ears tells us that Trump acts like a russian asset.

I think the Russian thing is old and comparative to when conservatives talk about locking Hillary up or her 30K emails, they’re going nowhere.

It's going to be as old as the suffering in Ukraine: i.e. you got a long time left to be reminded of when you grabbed your ankles.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

ianToday 05:09 pm JST

So there are actually people here who believe trump conspires with the russians?

All the people not being paid by russia or with a man crush on their asset.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

This silly article is a pseudo-academic version of what Hillary Clinton was bleating about the other day: the establishment is losing it's grip on the narrative, and feels like it needs to "control mis/disinformation for the greater good."

When the mis/disinformation is so easily demonstrated as such there is nothing wrong with doing it, What part of the evidence or the discussion that support the contents of this article can you refute? without this you can't just claim something is pseudoscientific just because you don't want to agree with it.

The idea, of course, is to smear people who challenge the official line on anything as a dangerous loon who should be ignored and/or punished with censorship, a fine and/ or prison time.

False, disagreeing or challenging something is not the problem, and people do it all the time without having to use the excuse of impossible conspiracies without any proof.

Intelligent, curious people, and experts in various fields whose evidence contravenes what governments and their friends want us to hear, are lumped in with the flat-earthers and whatnot in an attempt to dismiss their concerns.

No they are not, only those that can't support their claims and immediately turn to the excuse of a conspiracy that hides all the evidence that should be present if their claims are correct. Experts that make a claim have either evidence to support it, or excuses like a conspiracy to "justify" not having that evidence. The second kind are understandably shunned by the first since they are failing in their jobs.

If people like this author and the people she supports are so worried about conspiracy theorists, wouldn't the best course of action be to tell the truth? You'd think so, but instead they double-down with draconian laws to stifle criticism.

No, it is not the best course, to tell the truth takes effort to actually investigate and confirm things, to lie is free, just make up things and recycle the same excuses, it also takes orders of magnitude more effort to disprove a lie than to make it up in the first place. Once an actor is found to willingly repeat falsehoods systematically then the best course of action is to move him away from the conversation.

If the intention was to influence or steal the elections that's a possibility. The entire infrastructure can't be compromised without someone working from inside. It's what others call inside job.

Realistically that is not a possibility, when you require more and more impossible conditions to justify the explanation you favor this means it is getting more and more impossible to believe.

Least we forget every theory starts with a premise, of which the current woke schools calls conspiracy.

Still false, a conspiracy theory is giving up trying to prove a premise and instead use the easy and universal excuse of the conspiracy to "explain" why you can't explain something nor prove it is true.

If the authors of the article had any sincerity, they would have mentioned some (or at least one) of the many "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true.

The article is talking about disinformation and how many of the spreaders don't even believe what they are pushing, by definition it can only include false things being excused with the claim of a conspiracy.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

If the authors of the article had any sincerity, they would have mentioned some (or at least one) of the many "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true.

The article is talking about disinformation and how many of the spreaders don't even believe what they are pushing, by definition it can only include false things being excused with the claim of a conspiracy.

Hmmm, fair enough. So let me reword it then: If the authors of the article had any sincerity, they would have included some (or at least one) of the many mainstream narratives that turned out to be mis/disinformation.

This silly article is a pseudo-academic version of what Hillary Clinton was bleating about the other day: the establishment is losing it's grip on the narrative, and feels like it needs to "control mis/disinformation for the greater good."

When the mis/disinformation is so easily demonstrated as such

It is indeed very easy to call them mis/disinformation, but to demonstrate them as such requires some legit evidence. Instead, all we get is name calling or nonsensical sophistry or links to sites with fancy names that do that.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Heck, the evangelicals openly endorse a man who's broken most of the ten commandments.

Most evangelicals know that no one is perfect, but what they do care about is someone that will protect the sanctity of life.

Evangelicals make up a significant portion of the Trump base. They donate to preachers who feed them conspiracy theories from the pulpit and deification of Trump.

What unites the conspiracy theorists, evangelicals and Trump supporters is their credulity, they commit their beliefs and money to fantasies.

And since they gather at certain sites, like Truth Social, and their ability to be conned is already proven they are being targeted by other scammers who prey on the credulous.

https://gizmodo.com/truth-social-users-are-losing-ridiculous-sums-of-money-to-scams-2000506604

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Russians and bad faith actors are creating conspiracy theories to do what the Soviets did: to try to make the truth unknowable and thus any opinion is relative.

And the goober-cult of MAGA eats it up in a way that the KGB could only have dreamed of during the Cold War.

I hate to break it to you, but it's not the MAGA side that has been pushing for censorship; and throughout history, those who pushed for censorship have never been good.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

I hate to break it to you, but it's not the MAGA side that has been pushing for censorship; and throughout history, those who pushed for censorship have never been good.

Selected censorship would do you some good. You and MAGA in general seem particularly susceptible to being hoodwinked by bogus 'experts'.

And since you are unable / unwilling to differentiate batsh1t mental from logical then it needs to be left to sharper minds to do this for you.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Selected censorship would do you some good.

I disagree, I don’t think there should be any limit to free speech, other than in certain situations depending on the criteria, but overall, no.

You and MAGA in general seem particularly susceptible to being hoodwinked by bogus 'experts'. 

The left as well listening to their msm pundits whether it be on TV and print with their talking points blaring out every hate filled drivel about the former President or conservatives and the left take them as fact because libs just always speak using facts. ROFL!

And since you are unable / unwilling to differentiate batsh1t mental from logical then it needs to be left to sharper minds to do this for you.

Yeah, I think liberals need to heed their own advice on that one before throwing stones.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

And since they gather at certain sites, like Truth Social, and their ability to be conned is already proven they are being targeted by other scammers who prey on the credulous.

"One person who says they lost $170,000 explained they were initially scammed on a different site but met someone on Truth Social who claimed they could help get their money back. That turned out to be a scam as well."

Fraud and criminality oozes from anything that Trump puts his minute grubby hands on.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I could actually see Brand making a good go at cracking the American market. There's a large enough percentage of Americans who are so gullible that you can convince them of anything if you put a religious sheen on it.

You can make that argument about anyone, any culture, anywhere.

If you can convince me that (for instance) the church of Scientology could have germinated anywhere but the USA, I'll take that statement back.

Heck, the evangelicals openly endorse a man who's broken most of the ten commandments.

Most evangelicals know that no one is perfect, but what they do care about is someone that will protect the sanctity of life.

I read daily reports about evangelical pastors being busted for child related crimes that you, as a parent (I believe you once said you had a daughter), would find morally abhorrent. So yeah, they're important until they're born, but after that they're fair game.

In the UK we're better at sniffing out that kind of BS,

I disagree

Know a lot of Brits, do you?

because we're basically cynics by nature,

Well, we got that from you guys since we’re kind of your improved spawn

Not sure about the improved part. I think Brexit and electing Trump in 2016 rank fairly equal on the stupid scale.

but Brand could well find a new audience across the pond. If that means he stays there, then everyone wins.

And has more freedom, unless the Marxists get in, what’s not to love? 1st and 2nd amendment enshrined.

Hey, if you'll take him off our hands, we'll have no complaints. He is practically persona non grata in the UK these days, apart from with the lunatic fringe.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

TaiwanIsNotChina

Today 05:14 pm JST

ianToday 05:09 pm JST

> So there are actually people here who believe trump conspires with the russians?

> All the people not being paid by russia or with a man crush on their asset

Wow you actually believe trump conspires with the russians.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Selected censorship would do you some good.

I disagree, I don’t think there should be any limit to free speech, other than in certain situations depending on the criteria, but overall, no.

Duh! In that case you don't disagree. You completely agree.

You stand corrected.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The Trump-Russia conspiracy theory was the most disgraceful in living memory, created by Hillary Clinton in league with other Democrat swamp rats, deep state actors, and the disgusting ex-MI6 greaser Christopher Steele. Shame on the lot, and on the mainstream media, which uncritically pushed this rubbish on to us.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites