It is quite simple, you are not allowed to even question of "that stuff" without being called a conspiracy theorist or "right wing". This is no agument but simply trying as hard as you can to put people in a compartment. This has 0 to do with the topic but it is rather a reactionary knee jerk and lends nothing to your arguments, in fact it detracts from your points. The word "conspiracy theorist" allthough it contians "theo" is an attempt to label and discredit people. "shadow stats" yes they calculate the unemployed as it was calulated in the past, that is not a conspracy. Bringing up 911 - automatic right wing conspracy no matter the content. Anything that is not shown in the mainstream media or on wiki, must be a conspiracy. RT=Bad BBC=Good These "debunkers" might just have the same vested interest in traffic to increase ad revenue, imagine that.
Criminalizing the homeless is mostly about securing property values and the "purfication" of cities to make them more suitable for commerce. No I dont have documents to back this up ,so this is in fact 100% opinon.
= anything the mainstream media or the goverment says. It must be true.
It's true, I'm always the first to cry conspiracy theory, and I do so with the intent of discrediting a viewpoint. Pretty much everything you mention here I've called a conspiracy theory.
At the same time, though, I do no listen to mainstream media or the government. The media--especially mainstream--is heavily influenced by a variety of factors, and everyone knows it. No conspiracy there; it's a pretty public matter. The government, likewise, has its own interests to protect.
Rather, I like to assess the viability of theories from the perspective of everyone who would be involved. For example, FEMA is super-confidential. If they had received orders to round up the homeless with malicious intent, what are the chances there wouldn't be multiple whistleblowers? Big ones, with real evidence: not a few guys who make a few wild claims.
I like to use the NSA nonsense as an example. Being in the IT industry, I was well aware that this was going on long before it hit mainstream media. Was it a conspiracy? Sure. Did I call it a conspiracy theory? Sure. Did everyone in my position know it was going on? Yup. There were even high profile lawsuits long before the recent shenanigans--big organizations, real evidence, etc. Nobody cared because it just wasn't a media sensation. If you had gone around trying to convince everyone that the NSA was spying on everything everyone did, I would've probably called you a conspiracy theorist--because that's just not how the people who really understood what was going on approached the problem. To this day, I still do everything online, with all my history saved, and make no attempt to cover my tracks, with full belief that the NSA has access to all of it.
It's just not realistic to breed conspiracy theory, even if it's true. There are more reliable ways to go about solving problems. Besides, it doesn't take a genius to wonder if 9/11 was an inside job: sure, it crossed our minds. We just didn't pursue it. Throw me all the evidence you want, but as long as it's all circumstantial, I can't spend my life being paranoid about every single person in power. That's just not a productive use of my time or emotions.
I don't really care if other people choose the other path and get all worked up about every possibility. Some people are just overwhelmed by the chance that someone, somewhere could be doing something evil. But even if I agree with you, I'm still going to call you a conspiracy theorist. Next time I say that, don't read it like I'm giving you the finger; just insert this post in its place. "Sure, you might be right, but I don't really feel like going there."
