Skeptic Project

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=229&id=251338

Apparently they dont he says and I quote

"So, no – we don't “support conspiracy theories”, for it is a truncated, contrived, false notion. To ask if “we support conspiracy theories” is really asking “do criminal conspiracies exist”. It is too narrow of a distinction, not to mention the question is intrinsically invalid, for it is, again, a falsely derived, derogatory contrivance."

mmmmmmmkay

Yeah hes such a complete wriggler, he clearly supports conspiracy theories, it only takes a brief look at his art flicks to see.

Why do you call Peter Joseph a hipster in like every post? Man that's getting old.

"To ask if "we believe the Earth is flat" is really asking "is the Earth not a circle?"

I'm having a hard time coming up with a statement just as stupid.

"Why do you call Peter Joseph a hipster in like every post? Man that's getting old."

Why do you complain in like every thread? Man that's getting old.

So I guess you are the hipster, Muertos?

I think I know what Matt means by "hipster" It's that aloof subculture mindset that you experience when you find yourself in the hip part of a city watching people perform bad music that everyone there seems to like; they like it for no reason other than that it makes them "cool" within their extended circle.

I often call those people "scene kids" or hipsters. They don't work, they think they know what is best for everyone, and they look down their noses at anyone wearing nondescript clothing. You have to dance their dance, talk their talk, etc.

It's all about being contrary. There is no such thing as an idea that is both popular and valid at the same time

Would these people support something like the ZM if it was popular, or even implemented? Probably not, because things are only cool when they're small. What if their moms were Zeitgeisters? They would probably turn into Republicans.

Do you like Primus? Scene kid answer: I only like Frizzle Fry and Seas of Cheese, they got way too popular after that.

How about electronic music? Scene kid answer: Oh, I only like late 80s Detroit house music, after that Madonna said the word "electronica", effectively making it "totally yesterday".

I could go on and on about this...

Well, musical expression is very important, and it is a civil liberty...

I already saw Danny's grossly illogical and misinformed opinion on music (everything after Mozart was crap, or something to that effect).

What about the still-living 20th century composer, Arvo Part? What about Shostakovich? Are they crap? If so, why?

To get back on topic: My point was that the ZM is just attempting to be another subculture. Mereola probably does not believe what he preaches, and his followers rotate in and out like employees at Papa Johns. Also, Mereola probably knows that no plan will ever be put into action. Fresh ears to preach to means another chance to create a replacement for the latest disillusioned member of his cult.

lofihigain wrote:

I think I know what Matt means by "hipster" It's that aloof subculture mindset that you experience when you find yourself in the hip part of a city watching people perform bad music that everyone there seems to like; they like it for no reason other than that it makes them "cool" within their extended circle.

I often call those people "scene kids" or hipsters. They don't work,

Having known various people involved in various "hip" subcultures, e.g. the goth scene, I have to say I have a very different impression:

1) In my experience, most of them do genuinely like the music they listen to. What makes you think they don't? Different people have different musical tastes. (Personally, I can't stand music clubs. I can't stand loud music, of any kind.)

2) Among the adults I've known who were involved in "hip" subcultures, most do have jobs, and some even have good jobs. As for those who are in fact kids, well, kids in general tend either not to have jobs or to have very low-paying part-time jobs, whether or not they are involved in "hip" subcultures.

they think they know what is best for everyone, and they look down their noses at anyone wearing nondescript clothing. You have to dance their dance, talk their talk, etc.

Groupthink and snobbery can be found everywhere, alas, and nonmainstream subcultures are no exception. However, amongst both mainstream folks and those involved in nonmainstream subcultures, people vary in the degree to which they embrace groupthink and/or snobbish attitudes. If anything, it seems to me that people involved in nonmainstream subcultures tend to have somewhat less of these tendencies than many mainstream folks.

Sil wrote:

many hipsters I've talked to are also CT's

That is true, in my experience. As far as I can tell, though, this is only a fairly recent development.

I've been a metalhead since 1983. I wouldn't call that a "hipster" subculture in any form. Generally the people who are metalheads really do like the music and they do generally have jobs, cars, kids etc. Of course you come across the poseurs who are into hardcore dancing, Slipknot and Insane Clown Posse, who are of course a joke from start to finish, but those kids aren't really metalheads anyway.

I'm personally acquainted with at least 25 metalheads who have been into metal for 20+ years and who don't just like it because it seems contrarian. Also, to contradict Danny, these people, while very committed to their music (obviously), don't put their music ahead of other things that really matter. Most of them are busy supporting their kids, but that doesn't mean they can't really like Iron Maiden or attend Wacken Open Air religiously.

Muertos, you are absolutely right. As a full on deathmetal fan, I found that I had to specify, "Richmond VA Metal scene". RVA metal doesn't usually have that timelessness or international appeal that the good stuff does. Like you said, it's all hardcore dancing, and what I call "breakdowncore". Mix in some really bad blackmetal and you get the picture. Voila, you have yourself and hipster subculture.

Edward wrote:

>> we support conspiracy theories” is really asking “do criminal conspiracies exist

In other words, believing that NASA is putting giant lasers and projection screens in space to fake the second coming of Jesus, is on the same level of Watergate and both topics are equally valid.

Although I think Zeitgeist is full of crap, I think this FAQ page has a valid point. I didn't read the above statement as a claim that "believing that NASA is putting giant lasers and projection screens in space to fake the second coming of Jesus, is on the same level of Watergate and both topics are equally valid."

Rather, it's objecting to the ambiguity of the term "conspiracy theory" -- a term whose literal meaning is different from, and sometimes even at odds with, its meaning in common use. And it's objecting to the use of such an ambiguous term as a perjorative. Such terms are always problematic in communication between people who have different points of view on the topic at hand.

The term "conspiracy theory" is typically used to refer not to just any theory about any conspiracy (the literal meaning of "conspiracy theory"), but, rather to either of the following two things or some combination thereof:

1) Grand conspiracy ideology -- belief that many or all political, economic, and social trends are masterminded by a single, all-encompassing conspiracy.

2) Unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing.

Both of the above are valid things to object to. But calling them "conspiracy theories" creates communication barriers between people with different points of view.

For example, back in the days when I was at least a semi-believer in 9/11 "inside job" theories, the tendency of many debunkers to use the term "conspiracy theory" or "9/11 conspiracy" as a synonym for "inside job" made me feel that those debunkers were sloppy thinkers who hadn't even bothered to notice the obvious absurdity of claiming that they didn't believe in a "9/11 conspiracy." After all, the "official story" does not claim that the 19 hijackers all just coincidentally happened to end up on the same four planes at the same time. Everyone agrees that what happened on 9/11 was indeed a conspiracy. The actual point of disagreement between inside-job believers and debunkers is on whether there was only a conspiracy of the nineteen hijackers plus some other people in Al Qaeda, or whether there was also (or instead) a conspiracy involving some people in the U.S. government. Hence, in the 9/11 Truth movement, "inside job" believers commonly refer to the "official story" as the "official conspiracy theory."

(Edit: A further linguistic irony here is that if someone, somehow, ever managed to dream up a "lone gunman theory" of 9/11, that fantasy would probably get labeled a "conspiracy theory" too.)

To many debunkers, this may seem like silly nitpicking. Nevertheless, it's a linguistic trap that must be avoided by anyone who seriously wants to communicate with believers in "inside job" claims or other so-called "conspiracy theories."

The ZM FAQ page on "Conspiracy Theories" correctly points out some of the problems with using such an ambiguous term as a pejorative:

As a more detailed example, in 1953 Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup organized by the United States' CIA. A pure Government “Conspiracy” by every possible definition. It wasn't until the CIA declassified its secret plan, years later, that more extensive details were finally known, such as paid fake protests, false flag events and other propaganda. This is now public knowledge... and the point to be made is that you can bet that there were journalists covering these events which got wind of the CIA connections and attempted to speculate on the true nature of the event itself. You can also bet that they were dismissed as crazy “Conspiracy Theorists” at that time as well, though likely not with the same derogatory term.

....

So before the said question is answered, let it be understood that the merit of any idea should be based on the evidence available, scientifically analyzed in an objective way... not dismissed because the idea is contrary to the traditional, prevailing world views and values. If no one ever challenged anything the established orders decreed as the sole truth, people would still believe the world was flat.

Of course, Zeitgeist itself contains a lot of claims that are not supported by "the evidence available, scientifically analyzed in an objective way." But the above points are still valid, even if they aren't really applicable to Zeitgeist itself.

A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory surrounding a conspiracy its referring to stupid unfounded illogical irrational claims of conspiracies.

Diane, you are absolutely right, and your post above has tons of merit. I am unclear as to whether or not these distinctions are useful though. We should be able to assume that the parties involved (Merola especially) are able to make these distinctions. It is just convenient for us to have more generalized categorizations (creationist, conspiracy theorist, tea partier, skeptic, atheist, "scene-kid", etc.).

When you had truther leanings, do you think that it would have helped you to understand the "other side" if they didn't use the term "conspiracy theory"? I had vague CT leanings at one point myself, and the use of the term as a pejorative actually helped me to snap out of it.

But it's not the literal meaning.

Peter knows full well what people mean when they say Conspiracy Theorist. Its like arguing semantics with someone that decides to tell you there's lots of meanings of words, which is true, but only one is relevant. Peter just doesn't like it because we don't agree with HIS conspiracy theory. I'm sure when pressed he'd call a variety of groups conspiracy theorists, its just he considers them more insane.