Skeptic Project

I question I would like to discuss is this:
Why bother convincing people that their believe-system is based on lies, fallacies or misunderstanding of science?

I also like to investigate cult, Large Group Awareness Training, money scams and different other organisations, that not only sell/publish misinformation/pseudo science/newage bullshit like the conspriacy scene, but on top of that they use manipulative techniques to bind the people to their specific group or make them spend more money. They often know their teachings are just marketing/bullshit with a kernel of truisms, that they either use for power and sex or to get money.

Conspiracy Community Gurus on the other hand use them not to really scam people for their money. Most of the prodcts (books, DVDs) are normally priced and could hardly ruin somebody.
I mean the riches of the gurus is probablly Alex Jones, but I still dont see him sell overpriced Homestudy courses, hold LGAT style seminars/schools or abuse anyone.

It also seem to be the exception that people feel compelled to commit crimes or any kind of destructive action (Timothy McVeigh) to defeat the NWO. Most of them resort to a more or less harmless, albeit obnoxious, form of attacking the "Illuminati" or wake up the "sheeple" through discussion, informations and in the worst case crashing of discussions, readings, interviews and ambush journalism.

Even so I think it is annoying and frustrating that this paranoid and absurd worldview seems to spread like wildfire in the internet and infects to minds of young and not adequatly educated people, there is no real harm.

So are we :morally wrong, morally entitled or morally obligated to try our best to debunk conspiracy theories, but moreover, change peoples believe to stop the spreading of this "mind virus"?

"If you really, really believe that named individuals plan to do something horrific to the world, with the complicity of governments, wouldn't you feel obligated to take direct action to stop them?" (how do I quote formally in this forum?)

Yes, but the individuals who really, really believe in the conspriacy worldview are actually pretty few like I said. I am convinced, that the biggest part of the people in the Community doesnt actually believe in what they say.
I mean think about, if you would really believe, that a almost omnipotent gouvernment plans to reduce the population by all means, commits "false flag" attacks, poisons your food and water and sprays chemicals in the air and that the economic crash down, martial law and the 3. World war are just a question of time, you would probably move into some remote area, 3. world country or live self sufficent somewhere in Southeast Asia or the African mountains, stock water supplies and learn to grow your own food.
You would NOT waste your time on the internet or in NY to expose "their" agenda, to make sure, that you are one of the first to be put into a FEMA camp or even worse, some underground city, where they expiriment with alien genes on you.
Seriously, the actions of most NWO conspiracy theorists show clearly, that even so it probably serves some psychological purpose, they deep down know its bullshit. Otherwise they would not be on the internet with an readily traceable IP, pay taxes, buy foods in a supermarket or spend one more minute in any major city of the western world.
These people are just gullible and they are lucky that they end up as Alex Jones fans insteat of Xenu worshippers.
My point is, even so its irrational and cause a certain degree of problems, compared with some other cults, LGATs, New religious movements the financial, psychological or social damage the involvement in the Conspiracy/Truther Movements brings, seems minimal.

Timothy McVeighs background was more the White supremacist/Milita movement if my memory serves me right.

Do you know of any exampe from the Neo Conspiracy Movement (Jones, Icke, Watts, etc), in discrimination to the Milita/White supremacists/"ZOG"/christian sects of the middle of the 20. century, where it caused personal tradgedy to a follower, their family or "chosen" enemies?

I mean otherwise its not more dangerous than other (overall) harmless subcultures with extreme(ly stupid) worldviews like the black metal scene.

The question is if their is intentional and focused manipulation or abuse going on in the conspiracy scene, may it be motivated by money, power, ideology or whatever.

In short: Conspiracy Theorists may offend our intellect and be extremly stupid, but overall they are harmless.
So should we really try to change their worldview or just decide for ourself that its a irrational, invalid worldview and move on?

I disagree that there is "no real harm." Conspiracy thinking is, unfortunately, spreading, and I believe it's corrosive to democracy and tends to erode people's capacity for, and trust in, logic, facts and critical thinking.

Though it's often not discussed, conspiracy theories were crucial to Hitler's rise to power and his governance of Germany, those being the "stab in the back" theory (that Germany would have/could have won World War I in 1918 if not for the last minute treachery of the German officer corps and the government) and the ubiquitous "world Jewish conspiracy" theory. Even today, there are some people in positions of power who are conspiracy believers and unfortunately in a position of power to make policy to act on them--Ahmadinejad in Iran, for instance, who is a Holocaust denier, may be a 9/11 Truther and is as of this weekend armed with nuclear weapons, or so he claims.

Furthermore, conspiracy theories crystallize as culturally-derived "truth" after a while. For instance, the historical facts of the JFK assasination are almost irrelevant at this point, given the overwhelming (75% in some polls) popular sentiment that he was killed as a result of a conspiracy. If debunkers had done a better job arguing the facts, and especially in targeting the lies and distortions in Oliver Stone's film, JFK assassination theories would be fringe now rather than mainstream. Conspiracy theories snowball; once the public accepts that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy, the conclusions that other assassinations (RFK, MLK, etc.) were also conspiracies go largely unchallenged because people think those questions are already closed.

Right now I see global warming denial as a conspiracy theory that is dangerously close to becoming accepted into the mainstream. Considering that climate change is the #1 threat to life on this planet right now and global warming denial directly impacts political and financial will to begin solving the problem, I'd say that preventing mainstream acceptance of the "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theory is vitally important right now.

Alphalifestyle: sort of an addendum to what I just said, I think focusing on the issue of "how many conspiracy theories have actively hurt someone?" is an extremely narrow formulation that ignores 99.9% of the damage conspiracy theories do.

Conspiracy theories are a lethal virus on the societal and civilizational level. They're killing democracy and rational thinking in the Western world right now. It's not about how many Alex Jones fans are going to go out and shoot people. It's about how many otherwise rational, normal people believe global warming is a hoax or that Oswald had help, or might in the future believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that the Illuminati is real. That's the danger, in my view.

@Muertos: I edited my last statement to adress you. Please read. In addition: I agree with you and see this danger, the question is: WIll the gouvernments do anything/spend any tax dollars to educate the population about the conspiracy theories unless something "serious" happens? Its probably tricks to directly link conspiracy theories to a decline in rational thinking and democracy, as well as distrust in gouvernments and science. I mean, our german gouvernment spends every year millions for the "Kampf gegen rechts" (fight against neonazis), because their are crimes directly linked to that ideology.
Will the gouvernments react to the menace in form of the conspiracy movement before they manifest their believesystems into action?

"Will the gouvernments react to the menace in form of the conspiracy movement before they manifest their believesystems into action?"

They do, when they break the law. You can break the law in the US by making a statement, but the criteria is very specific.

"WIll the gouvernments do anything/spend any tax dollars to educate the population about the conspiracy theories unless something "serious" happens?"

I doubt it, at least not directly, for the simple reason that I don't think a lot of people would agree this is a wise use of tax dollars, and certainly the conspiracy theorists themselves would scream bloody murder that they're being "infiltrated" and "suppressed." I don't think you could have a "Federal Bureau of Conspiracy Debunking" and the political ramifications of it would be disastrous anyway. The best thing to do is to spend tax dollars on improving education in general--which desperately needs to be done anyway--and pursue a long-term strategy where people are less gullible generally and more prone to the type of critical thinking that makes it difficult for conspiracy theories to get traction.

You (Alphalifestyle) also said that you think our (debunkers') efforts should be aimed at the "potential Truthers" on the fence who might be at risk for falling into the orbit of Alex Jones and the other cult leaders. While I agree we definitely need to reach those people, I see the best way that debunkers can fight conspiracy theories is to keep up the pressure and prevent any one theory from gaining mainstream acceptance. Most of those 75% of Americans who believe JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy aren't really invested in the issue. Those aren't the kind of people who listen to Alex Jones or who even might potentially listen to him or become activist in Zeitgeist or other conspiracy movements. They're totally normal people who just sort of go with the flow, and because there is a mainstream acceptance of a JFK conspiracy theory, they find it rational and normal to accept that a conspiracy must have taken place. In other words, they regard it as a historical fact, and don't need to bother themselves investigating the facts that demonstrate that Oswald in fact acted alone.

This is what needs to be prevented, conspiracy theories gaining "critical mass" to the point where they're accepted by normal people who aren't invested in the debate one way or the other. 9/11 Truth is a pretty exotic theory and I don't think there's a big danger of Trutherism becoming widespread or accepted, but other conspiracies such as global warming denial, which I mentioned before, are dangerously close to "critical mass." If we can tip the scales by debunking the Alex Joneses and the more extreme theorists out there, I think we can prevent theories like this from becoming accepted. If a conspiracy theory remains fringe and radical, like Icke's reptilians or NESARA, it's much less likely to go mainstream and begin to influence normal people who aren't active in the conspiracy underground.

Legally it probably is, assuming that Alex Jones consciously knows what he's saying is false, but proving it in court is another matter. Any type of defamation (libel, slander, false light, private disclosure of public facts, etc.) involves an element of proving the accused's state of mind at the time. This is why it's notoriously hard to prove which is why it isn't litigated much and when it is why defendants tend to win.

Ironically it's habitual and instinctive liars who are hardest to prove defamation against because they often can't tell reality from lies.