What is it with men and conspiracy theories 🙄

[Titicacacandle]

Online dating and it seems the only men I seem to be attracted to seem to have so many issues that come up after a few chats!

Latest one, and not uncommon by a long shot, has told me that he doesn't pay his water bill because water is free from the sky and the water companies are poisoning us (but doesn't have a distiller so drinks out of plastic bottles and that can cause cancer if all your drinks are from plastic), doesn't pay council tax, doesn't work because he's awake and it's part of the matrix, 5g is going to fuck us all up and our cows are now being injected by another Bill Gates vaccine. I asked him what he did with his day if he doesn't work and he spends his days researching on what is going wrong in the world in the fight against good and evil.. oh and the huge American pedophile rings and social workers trafficking kids. I am a bloody SW, no we don't want your kids, caseloads are overwhelmed enough as it is thanks.

I just think it's sad that his life has become this. I told him we aren't compatible as we don't believe in the same stuff. I feel bad for him and did like the look of him but these conspiracy theories are mental illness. It's almost like they are the new religion with the fevered zelous that the newly converts preach.. even when you tell them you're not interested in conspiracy theories they still bang them down your throat!

I suggest you watch The Sound of Freedom re child trafficking

@Titicacacandle perhaps you could provide a list of acceptable topics?

There are many things that have been considered conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true.
There are subjects that weren’t believed (like organ harvesting) and were seen as bollocks not that long ago, that have been proven to be true.

It also seems quite naïve to disallow all conversation about vaccines because some people believe that Bill Gates is secretly injecting microchips into us. There are aspects that need discussing. But not by you if you choose not to.

Yes, not a lot of nuance is there. Swathes of space between vaccinations being a method for Bill Gates to control us and them being completely risk and harm free, never to have a negative outcome. I said early on in the thread that I believed the government used fear as a tactic for the acquiescence of strict lockdown and social distancing rules, and pretty much got accused of being a covid denier. Crazy conspiracy theorists who think birds are fake a gay people cause tsunamis are just as bad as people who see the world in black and white with no allowance for deviation. IMO anyway.

I don't need to watch anything as I work with the actual reality of child trafficking. I don't need to disallow any conversation between two people in an echo chamber but I am completely within my rights to not participate in bullshit. Carry on believing in clones, I really don't care and I don't care to debate it either. I know it's not true. I don't need to prove otherwise as the truth is the reality most people live in. Please stop trying to tell me things that I don't believe in and then trying to argue your point to make me believe. I don't believe in things, I like evidence, I like peer reviewed theories that don't claim to be the truth but evidence findings that could all change as theories do. Peer reviewed studies that show findings and not beliefs. I like the news, I like being involved with politics and what is really going on around us in the world today.

I do however find it so very interesting that so many people claim they think critically when they have NO critical thinking skills. You can tell they have never had to write an essay, debate a topic from different sides, understand empiral, quantitative etc data and yet are so stuck on their beliefs. Beliefs they claim that because you don't believe (like believing in God) that you are the closed minded one.

Honestly it boggles my mind how people actually believe in the things they do. The money makers out of making conspiracy theories up are the clever ones.

You contradict yourself. You say you don't need to watch the Sound of Freedom because you "work with the actual reality of child trafficking," yet earlier you made a sweeping claim that "pedophile rings of young children being trafficked are not true."

Moreover, if you don't want to engage with people who research beyond what the establishment media tells us to accept as true because they claim to have authority and integrity, why do you keep responding to us?

You can tell they have never had to write an essay, debate a topic from different sides, understand empiral [sic], quantitative etc data and yet are so stuck on their beliefs.

Yes I fully agree.
But it’s hypocritical that some discussions simply aren’t allowed - if there is quantitive, empirical data proving something beyond shadow of a doubt, then there’s no harm discussing both sides as that will surely prove beyond shadow of a doubt which side is right, or at least allow healthy debate to reach a consensus. This is not allowed to happen in so many cases.

Gender ideology is an excellent case in point - for too long it was a case of no debate. Women lost jobs and were arrested. Policy was dictated on the day so of Stonewall and backed by a great number of people who did not question it. That’s how we are at this point where women are having to work hard to prevent our rights from being taken away from us.

No topic should be out of bounds, even the bonkers ones have some place in the world, even if the only benefit is a way to filter out incompatible men on a dating site!

You don’t have to discuss these things, but your tone very much implies that no one should, and I dread to think what the future will look like if we’re all made to comply with a rigid set of topics we can talk about.

You're on my thread and you've highjacked it into a conspiracy theory debate! If you want to talk about them start your own so I can ignore it! Get off my door step lols

Mumsnet is a public forum, threads evolve.
The flow of discussion brought it to this point, which is as it should be.
Perhaps we should be stating “my thread, my rules” and include a list of banned subjects?

@Titicacacandle I too work with victims of trafficking. You sound very close minded to be honest for someone in this line of work. Remember it wasn't too many years ago that people were saying organ harvesting was a conspiracy.

Some of the stuff I hear from victims often sounds more far fetched than what any conspiracy theorist can come up with, but it is in fact their reality.

You seem to have certain topics that are put into little boxes in your mind that are deemed acceptable to discuss and question and others that are not and that must just be accepted at face value no matter what. I find that very strange for someone in this field as the very nature of this job is to leave no stone unturned, every topic should be investigated thoroughly and no topic is a no go etc.

Over the last several years I have listened to hundreds of hours of testimony from survivors of child trafficking .

I listen with an open mind and always pray for discernment. There are some amazing independent journalists who are covering this topic that the establishment media will not touch.

So many of us out here ask what can we do other than listen and pray. I've heard survivors say that being truly seen and heard is rare for them, and that in itself this has immeasurable value.

Thank you for standing up for these children who have no real voice.

I have a long time friend who is like this and tends to use our walks to rant on. Gets quite nasty if I disagree or challenge, puts RS me off meeting up these days, the world's gone bonkers

I was just reading a Guardian article about a greater number of people who are into 'wellness' and alternative medicine also increasingly sucked into conspiracy nonsense. The article links the isolation of lockdown with the increasing turn to nutty sources of woo on the internet and the rejection of 'mainstream media' (ie outlets with some form of moderation and journalistic standards, however flawed).

It might be a good thing to stick to dating people who had to leave the house during lockdown...

😁 I think the term is ‘Conspirituality’, a kind of mishmash of conspiracy and new age thinking combined with wellness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspirituality

I haven’t rtft but imo believing in conspiracy theories makes stupide people feel cleverer and superior - they know something that other people don’t.

I never met full-blown conspiracy theorists but I knew a few ladies who, despite being intelligent and otherwise lovely, over the time started to believe in various bullshit about world government, Covid is just a cold, hating the West and the USA (despite themselves living wealthy western lifestyle and quite enjoying it) and generally subscribing to Gwineth Partlow kind of wooo. I used to be friend with them but I had to put an end to that as I could not deal with the stupidity of what they were telling me, it was embarrassing and made me think they were nuts.

What I can say that in all the cases it started with anti-vaxing which in itself used to piss me off as I'm really pro-vaccination; but at the time I was all "live and let live" - until I heard about Western world rulers plan everyhting together to turn us into robots and use stolen kids to stay young or something and the only hope in the world we have is China and Russia as they are so wonderful. I literally could not believe my ears. So now I just avoid anyone who is against vaccination and is overly into "healthy lifestyle" as it indicates someone soft brained enough to develop into a nutcase and basically saves me being disappointed in the person later on.

The Atlantic article is very good and confirms my scepticism about the accuracy of the claims of this QAnon-like ‘save our children’ movement and the Sound of Freedom film. Thank you, Wallaw

Can't speak for Naunet, but I read this disgusting piece when it came out. I had a subscription to the Atlantic nearly 40 years ago and used to read it cover to cover back then when it was a great magazine.

I haven't looked at the Atlantic much in recent years because my time is limited, and the articles are still so darn long (although I do still like Caitlyn Flanagan a lot).

The piece you linked to is an example of how far the Atlantic has fallen. Page after page of extreme bias masquerading as objective journalism, veiled by the Atlantic's usual highbrow stylistic standards. What a lesson in propaganda!

Articles like this confirm the sense of superiority the Boden and Waitrose set (who consider themselves cerebral and cultured and who are extremely susceptible to this kind of sophisticated propaganda) feel toward those with less formal education (and usually less money) who voted for Brexit, who can see through the agenda of the establishment media, and possibly - gasp! - even like Donald J. Trump.

I could debunk this article paragraph by paragraph, but I won't waste my time since your mind is so closed!

Perhaps the Atlantic was always extremely biased and elitist, and its writers, editors, and "fact checkers" lacking in basic common sense, but I was too naive, and too dazzled by the quality of the prose itself, to see it at the time.

Thanks for sharing that Atlantic article. I need to go back up the thread and find the pocasts and other articles linked. Although I may start getting cross at peoples ignorance again and end up in pointless debates with people that say they're against sex offenses yet like Donald Trump!

I could debunk this article paragraph by paragraph, but I won't waste my time since your mind is so closed!

So I take it then that you believe:

Children are being trafficked on the USNS Comfort into New York through tunnels under Central Park

Barack Obama, Lady Gaga and Tom Hanks are involved in sex trafficking

Anthony Bourdain, Kate Spade and Avicii did not commit suicide, they were taken out because they were trying to expose Hollywood

Wayfair sold children on its website

Adrenaline is being harvested from children

That article actually does present serious research, from academics and government agencies, to show that the numbers being shared about hundreds of thousands of children being sex trafficked are greatly inflated. But sure, why not believe a bunch of social media hacks who of course have no agenda of their own -- only govenrments and mass media have agendas and bias, random grifters on the internet are pure of heart.

Yes quite

You can't claim the moral high ground on sex trafficking if you also support Donald 'grab them by the pussy' Trump, who has been found liable for sexual abuse by one jury and credibly accused of assault by other women as well

That I could challenge the assumptions and expose the bias in that piece doesn't mean, nor does it automatically follow, that I have a definitive opinion- or even ANY opinion - on the items you listed. What it does mean is the Atlantic's claim to authority on these matters as presented in the article is in the main a sham and can be exposed as such, using logic and facts.

Similarly, the research you cite as "serious" because it originates from sources you categorise as credible (by virtue of authority), reveals your limited understand about the crime of human trafficking and its cover up. If you examined the evidence broadly and with an open mind, as many have done, your perceptions as regards this subject would most likely change.

Moreover, your pejorative characterisation of whistleblowers, independent researchers, and independent journalists as "hacks" and "grifters" in fact describes most of the sources who YOU believe at face value - and it also describes the various voices of controlled opposition woven throughout alternative media which very effectively muddy the waters. Ask yourself what purpose these voices serve.

What those pejorative terms don't describe is the people who search relentlessly for truth and who expose this corruption, often at tremendous cost to themselves both personal and financial.

You should spend some time exploring and considering the work of people like Martin Geddes, John Waters (Ireland), and Feargus Greenwood. There are many, many additional worthy writers/researchers, but these men are three of the best.

@Wallaw

If you read through this thread you will see a pattern of insult, contempt, and disrespect demonstrated throughout for people who think differently.

You were fairly mild on the spectrum, but your ill-mannered quip "I bet you won't" was gratuitous and totally uncalled for.

Why would I take the time to write a rather lengthy piece (it would take a few hours) to help educate someone who claims an interest in learning yet evinces such disrespectful behaviour?

Yes shoot me, I consider actual experts to be more credible than random people on social media.

Someone who has spent several decades conducting rigorous research, using actual and verifiable data, collaborating with other researchers to refine their conclusions, publishing openly and in peer-reviewed fora -- yes, I take them more seriously than a digital warrior who has no real evidence just emotive appeals and conspiracy theories.

You said you could debunk every paragraph, now you say you have no opinion of some of the strongest claims that are made in that article. Okay sure.

You are putting words in my mouth.

I never said I had "no opinion" on the issues listed.

I suggest you go back and read carefully what I actually said!

You said:

That I could challenge the assumptions and expose the bias in that piece doesn't mean, nor does it automatically follow, that I have a definitive opinion- or even ANY opinion - on the items you listed.

So which is it?

I have listed several of the strongest claims made in that article. Do you have an opinion on those claims or not?