there was a bbc documentary on this and they interviewed the Manchester arena victims. One of the women was imo stalked by one of these CTers. He found out where she worked and turned up there āto proveā her arm injury was real. bleeping whack job.I'm so sorry.
This is why I despise those type of CT arseholes, they cause nothing but pain in their quest to be seen as 'awake'.
Just the dregs of humanity as far as I'm concerned.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Okay which of you are eugenicists too? Do we need to form a sub-committee?
Alas another vom emoji recipient here!
And what the blazing hell was that eugenics comment about?
I think Iām the dirty little eugenicist theyāre referring to. I spoke recently on another thread about how Iām a carrier of the Cystic Fibrosis gene and want to make sure I donāt ever produce a child with CF who will suffer a short life of pain and misery (I mean, wouldnāt most people want to avoid this
?). To be honest I donāt even really want to pass on the single mutation as unfortunately many of us who are carriers also suffer symptoms too.But yeah, what a bleeping nazi eh?
Itās yet another example of the ridiculous 2D thinking which is often exhibited by CTists. Many of these people are so utterly incapable of seeing topics like these as anything other than purely black and white, so in their eyes, wanting to prevent a child from being born with an incurable, life shortening, painful disease is the exact same thing as the horrendous ways in which eugenics have been practiced in the past. E.g the compulsory sterilization and murder of thousands of people who were considered unworthy of life by the nazis.
they vomited a post of mine in the childfree thread where i discussed my deep fears of old age (completely my personal anxiety) so maybe me
I think it's better to rise above jibes, to be honest, as it just plays into the "they only want to criticise us" accusation, despite this clearly being a place to discuss general CTs and critique them.
There are plenty out there on YouTube, Twitter, vlogs, websites, etc. Other tattle threads are not the main source for me anyway.
There are plenty out there on YouTube, Twitter, vlogs, websites, etc. Other tattle threads are not the main source for me anyway.
Agreed. Whenever I post here, itās not in response to something on another tattle thread, itās just about CTs in general
A little laugh (hopefully at no one on tattle's expense). Have a lovely weekend folks x
Attachments
I made a joke about Anti Ctās rating high in eugenic beliefs and it wasnāt based on the situation you have described yourself being in above post, if you wanted a child I can imagine what a difficult decision it is not to have oneI think Iām the dirty little eugenicist theyāre referring to. I spoke recently on another thread about how Iām a carrier of the Cystic Fibrosis gene and want to make sure I donāt ever produce a child with CF who will suffer a short life of pain and misery (I mean, wouldnāt most people want to avoid this
But yeah, what a bleeping nazi eh?
Itās yet another example of the ridiculous 2D thinking which is often exhibited by CTists. Many of these people are so utterly incapable of seeing topics like these as anything other than purely black and white, so in their eyes, wanting to prevent a child from being born with an incurable, life shortening, painful disease is the exact same thing as the horrendous ways in which eugenics have been practiced in the past. E.g the compulsory sterilization and murder of thousands of people who were considered unworthy of life by the nazis.
I didnāt use the words dirty or nazi alongside eugenic beliefs for the record, people have these views for different reasons personal medical ones like you or more extreme the supremacist or elitist
When a person uses their eugenic beliefs to make decisions for themselves thatās their choice itās a problem for me when it extends to others
Last edited:
Well luckily for me itās a recessive condition and my husband isnāt a carrier so I wouldnāt have an issue having kids.
And you did specifically complain about seeing anti CTs expressing eugenic beliefs in other threads, not just in general.
As others have said, probably time to put this whole discussion to bed now. This thread wasnāt set up for poking fun at specific members on your thread, itās set up so that we can laugh about conspiracy theories and theorists in general. So whilst this cross over has been fun, we should probably move on now so as not to piss off the mods!
I said to be exact eugenic beliefs are freely shared on this platform that is not complaining itās my own opinion on what is at the root of certain peoples beliefs and their attitude towards others
If what I say elsewhere gets discussed here I will respond to clarify if I feel the need to especially if somebody wrongly assumes itās about them I donāt appreciate the mention of mods thereās nothing about my interaction to piss them off as you say
On the other hand, why shouldn't I comment on a CT just because it's been posted on Tattle rather than somewhere else?Agreed. Whenever I post here, itās not in response to something on another tattle thread, itās just about CTs in general
I donāt think anyone is saying you canāt comment on CTs that get posted elsewhere on tattle. More that itās just best for us not to rise to any more obviously provocative behaviour or attempts to start arguments in future, so as not to let these threads turn into a slanging match against each other.
I had a read of this earlier:
www.businessinsider.com
It debunks three CTs in its opening paragraph and highlights that CT discussion has grown on Twitter since Musk took over.
A few interesting quotes from it:
"People who believe in conspiracies tend to be more dogmatic, and unable to handle disagreement well."
"conspiratorial thinkers overindex for their own intuitive leaps ā that they are, to put it bluntly, lazy. Most don't bother to "do their own research," and those who do believe only things that confirm their original conclusions"
But the main aspect to the study (by a guy called Gordon Pennycook) is they feel conspiracy theorists are overconfident. It's easy to see Trump and Musk as overconfident and perhaps that's why many conspiracy theorists gravitate towards those sort of personalities and believe them (not all, of course). Another extract:
"Open-minded thinking isn't just engaging in effortful thought," Pennycook observes. "It's doing so to evaluate evidence that's directed toward what's true or false ā to actually question your intuitions." Pennycook wanted to know why someone wouldn't do that. Maybe it was simple overconfidence in their own judgment.
But anyway, it's definitely worth a read. I don't buy all of it, as I think it can oversimplify some of the traits CTists show, but it definitely makes some very interesting points.
Science has finally cracked the mystery of why so many people believe in conspiracy theories
Fall for conspiracy theories isn't driven by ignorance, or isolation, or insanity. It's something far more common ā and way, way scarier.
www.businessinsider.com
It debunks three CTs in its opening paragraph and highlights that CT discussion has grown on Twitter since Musk took over.
A few interesting quotes from it:
"People who believe in conspiracies tend to be more dogmatic, and unable to handle disagreement well."
"conspiratorial thinkers overindex for their own intuitive leaps ā that they are, to put it bluntly, lazy. Most don't bother to "do their own research," and those who do believe only things that confirm their original conclusions"
But the main aspect to the study (by a guy called Gordon Pennycook) is they feel conspiracy theorists are overconfident. It's easy to see Trump and Musk as overconfident and perhaps that's why many conspiracy theorists gravitate towards those sort of personalities and believe them (not all, of course). Another extract:
"Open-minded thinking isn't just engaging in effortful thought," Pennycook observes. "It's doing so to evaluate evidence that's directed toward what's true or false ā to actually question your intuitions." Pennycook wanted to know why someone wouldn't do that. Maybe it was simple overconfidence in their own judgment.
But anyway, it's definitely worth a read. I don't buy all of it, as I think it can oversimplify some of the traits CTists show, but it definitely makes some very interesting points.
I love studies like this, absolutely fascinating. The blurring of the pictures is experiment is so good! It really makes you question how people's minds tick when you don't operate that way yourself.I had a read of this earlier:
Science has finally cracked the mystery of why so many people believe in conspiracy theories
Fall for conspiracy theories isn't driven by ignorance, or isolation, or insanity. It's something far more common ā and way, way scarier.
It debunks three CTs in its opening paragraph and highlights that CT discussion has grown on Twitter since Musk took over.
A few interesting quotes from it:
"People who believe in conspiracies tend to be more dogmatic, and unable to handle disagreement well."
"conspiratorial thinkers overindex for their own intuitive leaps ā that they are, to put it bluntly, lazy. Most don't bother to "do their own research," and those who do believe only things that confirm their original conclusions"
But the main aspect to the study (by a guy called Gordon Pennycook) is they feel conspiracy theorists are overconfident. It's easy to see Trump and Musk as overconfident and perhaps that's why many conspiracy theorists gravitate towards those sort of personalities and believe them (not all, of course). Another extract:
"Open-minded thinking isn't just engaging in effortful thought," Pennycook observes. "It's doing so to evaluate evidence that's directed toward what's true or false ā to actually question your intuitions." Pennycook wanted to know why someone wouldn't do that. Maybe it was simple overconfidence in their own judgment.
But anyway, it's definitely worth a read. I don't buy all of it, as I think it can oversimplify some of the traits CTists show, but it definitely makes some very interesting points.
Yes I thought that was a good test, as the article says, there was no reason for people to be confident in that scenario - yet some still were.
I'm someone who only becomes confident when I have a good reason to be. I know in that scenario I'd be truthful and say I wasn't confident (how could I be if the images were blurry?) and here I am in an anti CT thread, questioning CTs...
Like I say, it doesn't 100% prove anything, as there are always limitations to studies and alternative reasons. That said, it's interesting all the same.
Really interesting read. Trump and Musk 'failing upwards', operating without accountability and espousing a culture of overconfidence and un-factuality.I had a read of this earlier:
Science has finally cracked the mystery of why so many people believe in conspiracy theories
Fall for conspiracy theories isn't driven by ignorance, or isolation, or insanity. It's something far more common ā and way, way scarier.
It debunks three CTs in its opening paragraph and highlights that CT discussion has grown on Twitter since Musk took over.
A few interesting quotes from it:
"People who believe in conspiracies tend to be more dogmatic, and unable to handle disagreement well."
"conspiratorial thinkers overindex for their own intuitive leaps ā that they are, to put it bluntly, lazy. Most don't bother to "do their own research," and those who do believe only things that confirm their original conclusions"
But the main aspect to the study (by a guy called Gordon Pennycook) is they feel conspiracy theorists are overconfident. It's easy to see Trump and Musk as overconfident and perhaps that's why many conspiracy theorists gravitate towards those sort of personalities and believe them (not all, of course). Another extract:
"Open-minded thinking isn't just engaging in effortful thought," Pennycook observes. "It's doing so to evaluate evidence that's directed toward what's true or false ā to actually question your intuitions." Pennycook wanted to know why someone wouldn't do that. Maybe it was simple overconfidence in their own judgment.
But anyway, it's definitely worth a read. I don't buy all of it, as I think it can oversimplify some of the traits CTists show, but it definitely makes some very interesting points.
The blurred pictures experiment is fascinating. I too would front up and say I didn't know. The alternative is it's impossible to know for sure what the images are. At worst this represents a cocksure overconfidence, at best perhaps hopeful optimism - that the participant wants the images to mean something? Either of these might link with CT modes of thinking.
The author briefly mentions the Dunning-Kruger effect, which in itself is a fascinating cognitive bias often oversimplified to equate to low intelligence when in fact it has very little to do with that. It's much more connected with overestimating/overconfidence in one's ability in very, very specific areas in which, empirically, you have no direct experience, or are way beyond your skill level. The Dunning-Kruger effect interestingly can also apply to the oppsoite situation, in which, say, a highly skilled person - astronaut, chief engineer, senior academic, clinician, mathematician, etc etc - finds her work so effortless she assumes this work must be straightforward for everyone, hence another level of cognitive bias. I think many people into CTs fall into the former category - cf the number of sudden armchair virologists, microbiologists, respiratory experts, pharmaceutical scientists and public health exponents proliferating during the covid pandemic and beyond...
The whole article is so interesting.I had a read of this earlier:
Science has finally cracked the mystery of why so many people believe in conspiracy theories
Fall for conspiracy theories isn't driven by ignorance, or isolation, or insanity. It's something far more common ā and way, way scarier.
It debunks three CTs in its opening paragraph and highlights that CT discussion has grown on Twitter since Musk took over.
A few interesting quotes from it:
"People who believe in conspiracies tend to be more dogmatic, and unable to handle disagreement well."
"conspiratorial thinkers overindex for their own intuitive leaps ā that they are, to put it bluntly, lazy. Most don't bother to "do their own research," and those who do believe only things that confirm their original conclusions"
But the main aspect to the study (by a guy called Gordon Pennycook) is they feel conspiracy theorists are overconfident. It's easy to see Trump and Musk as overconfident and perhaps that's why many conspiracy theorists gravitate towards those sort of personalities and believe them (not all, of course). Another extract:
"Open-minded thinking isn't just engaging in effortful thought," Pennycook observes. "It's doing so to evaluate evidence that's directed toward what's true or false ā to actually question your intuitions." Pennycook wanted to know why someone wouldn't do that. Maybe it was simple overconfidence in their own judgment.
But anyway, it's definitely worth a read. I don't buy all of it, as I think it can oversimplify some of the traits CTists show, but it definitely makes some very interesting points.
This part is something Iāve noticed, does anyone else think so too? Its all become a much more normal part of āideaspaceā, or cultural conversation. Like, 20 years ago, the Illuminati was not discussed as widely as it is today.
I think the internet plays a big part.
And I liked this part, itās something that we all do from time to time.
As much as I appreciate the research in that article, I hope it goes further.
For example. Iām sure overconfidence is a reason a lot of people believe in CTs, but I think itās reductive to say thatās the case for all of them. Iād also love to know how it differs between women and men, and how people come to believe in CTs depending on their culture, background, upbringing etc.
Last edited:
It is an interesting article but I think it misses one very obvious phenomenon; the use of conspiracy theories to influence political or social agendas. I'm thinking of things like QAnon. I don't believe that the originators of many of the CTs disseminated through these channels believe them for a second. They are simply a tool aimed at a certain section of the population that are disposed to believing them. I'm not sure that these people believe CTs because they are 'over-confident' so much as a range of psychological needs.
Thatās a very interesting article and I agree with a lot of the thoughts put forward on this thread tbh.
I think the overconfident CTist described in the article describes perfectly the ones who are the most obnoxious and vocal, and the ones who tend to be successful at shoving their views onto others. However as others have pointed out, itās reductive to say that all CTists are like this, itās often easy to paint this caricature of this type of CTist and then apply it to all of them, but that isnāt the case. I think thereās a huge silent majority out there who are actually for the most part extremely normal people, however they all lack one thing which makes them vulnerable to CTs.
For me this thing that they lack is an understanding of logical reasoning. When you listen to some of the arguments they put out, theyāre often based on premises which arenāt true or are completely circular. You can be as intelligent and as educated as you like, but if you do not possess the tools required to be able to differentiate between an argument which is logical and one which is not, then how on earth are you supposed to critically evaluate all of the information weāre constantly bombarded with on social media in order to figure out whatās true and what isnāt? I think you become extremely vulnerable to falling for CTs when you canāt do this.
This blog deconstructs some of the common arguments put forward by CTists about the vaccine and shows some of the fundamental logical flaws in their thinking. Iāve also linked this scientific article which goes deeper into it but itās a bit long haha.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7509825/
https://youcanknowthings.com/2022/02/05/10-logical-fallacies-used-in-vaccine-arguments/?fbclid=IwAR0TaEOTIFLJZ6XNhDR62YlHgjqpiK6cATHZ69qSICWQ6t_IvUO8A5KVrqQ&
Iām not saying that the solution to help someone who has gone down the CT rabbit hole is to just sit them down and force them to read a book about logic though. Iām also not saying that a fundamental lack of understanding of logic alone is the only reason people become CTists. Obviously there are so many other factors, like if you donāt really understand how vaccines work or when youāre confronted by an argument which despite being logically sound, is false because it uses statistical analysis from data which has been misinterpreted, manipulated or just downright fabricated, youāre still vulnerable to falling for CTs. You need to have a certain level of trust in professionals as well. However, I do think a decent understanding of how to critically evaluate arguments and figure out if theyāre true or not is something which can really help.
In fact, I really recommend looking into logic in general to everyone, itās not something which comes naturally to me and once I started to learn about it, it really helped with my anxiety. Being able to see which of my worries were rational and which were irrational completely changed my perspective of the world and genuinely helps me to reduce anxiety.
But I digress, as others have said, there are a multitude of different factors and life experiences which lead to someone becoming a CTist.
Anyway, I hope my morning thoughts makes sense and sorry for the ramble and any spelling/grammar errors lmao. Time to get the duck out of bed and take my ADHD meds
I think the overconfident CTist described in the article describes perfectly the ones who are the most obnoxious and vocal, and the ones who tend to be successful at shoving their views onto others. However as others have pointed out, itās reductive to say that all CTists are like this, itās often easy to paint this caricature of this type of CTist and then apply it to all of them, but that isnāt the case. I think thereās a huge silent majority out there who are actually for the most part extremely normal people, however they all lack one thing which makes them vulnerable to CTs.
For me this thing that they lack is an understanding of logical reasoning. When you listen to some of the arguments they put out, theyāre often based on premises which arenāt true or are completely circular. You can be as intelligent and as educated as you like, but if you do not possess the tools required to be able to differentiate between an argument which is logical and one which is not, then how on earth are you supposed to critically evaluate all of the information weāre constantly bombarded with on social media in order to figure out whatās true and what isnāt? I think you become extremely vulnerable to falling for CTs when you canāt do this.
This blog deconstructs some of the common arguments put forward by CTists about the vaccine and shows some of the fundamental logical flaws in their thinking. Iāve also linked this scientific article which goes deeper into it but itās a bit long haha.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7509825/
https://youcanknowthings.com/2022/02/05/10-logical-fallacies-used-in-vaccine-arguments/?fbclid=IwAR0TaEOTIFLJZ6XNhDR62YlHgjqpiK6cATHZ69qSICWQ6t_IvUO8A5KVrqQ&
Iām not saying that the solution to help someone who has gone down the CT rabbit hole is to just sit them down and force them to read a book about logic though. Iām also not saying that a fundamental lack of understanding of logic alone is the only reason people become CTists. Obviously there are so many other factors, like if you donāt really understand how vaccines work or when youāre confronted by an argument which despite being logically sound, is false because it uses statistical analysis from data which has been misinterpreted, manipulated or just downright fabricated, youāre still vulnerable to falling for CTs. You need to have a certain level of trust in professionals as well. However, I do think a decent understanding of how to critically evaluate arguments and figure out if theyāre true or not is something which can really help.
In fact, I really recommend looking into logic in general to everyone, itās not something which comes naturally to me and once I started to learn about it, it really helped with my anxiety. Being able to see which of my worries were rational and which were irrational completely changed my perspective of the world and genuinely helps me to reduce anxiety.
But I digress, as others have said, there are a multitude of different factors and life experiences which lead to someone becoming a CTist.
Anyway, I hope my morning thoughts makes sense and sorry for the ramble and any spelling/grammar errors lmao. Time to get the duck out of bed and take my ADHD meds
- Status