TED Conversations

Michael Fullerton

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why is someone a "conspiracy theorist" merely because they question the government account of something? Isn't that plain old skepticism?

Skepticism is supposed to involve objectively questioning claims based on evidence. Why then is someone called a conspiracy theorist when they merely question a government's extraordinary claim which is seriously lacking in evidence?

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 31 2013: Here is my "conspiracy theory". If you look up organised stalking/gangstalking, such as on wikipedia, the account will give prominent position to the view that organised stalking does not exist, it is a delusion. And this seems to be the view promoted by the "authorities" whoever they happen to be. But this is a ridiculous viewpoint. We know that stalking exists. We know that bullying exists. We know that in the past, and in other countries, individuals, and various social groups have been targets of persecution - collective persecution. It is difficult for a single person to persecute one person, or an entire group (Jews, blacks, etc). And we know that any crime which can be commited by an individual, such as stalking, can just as easily be carried out by a group. So why should the authorities resist the view that gangstalking is a criminal fact. And promote the view that it is a personal delusion? Unless they are engaged in it.
    So my conspiracy theory is this. Not that gangstalking is a conspiracy theory held by delusional people, but a fact, and the conspiracy is the authorities pretending that it doesnt exist and making out that the victims are "crazy". Just like in Russia. any who complained of mistreatment by the state were defined as crazy and put away.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.