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!

To be honest, you're very ill-mannered throughout this thread. Moreover, instead of apologising for distorting what I wrote, you demand I answer you like a bold child. People who are acting in good faith don't use these tactics. Why should I entertain your questions under these circumstances? 🤔

If you don't want to be challenged, maybe don't brag that you can debunk the research of actual experts, because then yes people will ask you to back up your claims.

If you have no opinions on specific claims being made by a movement you support so fiercely, I find that quite strange, but you do you I guess.

"Entrenched views" 🤔 You appear to have taken the claims in the Atlantic article at face value. In what way are my views on the issues covered in the article any more "entrenched" than yours?

"Why should people be respectful..." Eh, the disrespect I refer to coming from the people on "your side" is woven throughout this thread long before I answered your comment about the Atlantic article earlier today. Yet you seem to be trying to pin it on me. Why is that?

I will provide a couple of examples, which is a reasonable request. Unfortunately I am writing on a small device which is unweildy, so it will take me a few minutes to pull up the article and find a couple of examples.

I like being challenged by people who are acting in good faith.

Although I don't know you personally, your pattern of comments on this thread strongly suggests you are not one of them. If you ever become one, I would welcome a dialogue with you on the issues in this thread.

Proves your point really, doesn't it? They just can't stop.

How do you define 'acting in good faith'? I'm not trying to trick you. I'm responding directly to vague statements you are making and asking if you can be more specific. That is what actual dialogue is, it's not just listening to someone rant and saying, that's nice dear.

Well, for starters you put words in my mouth, I corrected you, and instead of apologising you addressed me like a stroppy child and demanded I answer your questions. When I pointed it out to you, you still ignored it.

Maybe self-awareness is not your strong suit. I can only go by what I see.

One of the fundamental principles I follow is to evaluate others by what they do and say, not by what they claim to be. This applies to everyone including you. YMMV

I did not apologise because I did not distort your words.

I asked for your opinion on specific claims in that article. You said you didn't necessarily have any opinion on them -- I quoted your exact words above. So no, I'm not putting words in your mouth when I say you have no opinion on those claims.

If you do have an opinion on those claims by all means share them. Until then, I don't see how I'm misrepresenting you.

By all means judge me by what I say. I don't know what you mean by 'claim to be' I'm not claiming to be anything. I'm just sharing my opinion, same as you.

I haven't read the Atlantic article since it came out last year, and didn't remember much about it apart from the fact that as I read it, more and more smoke began coming out of my ears. By the time I finished the article I wanted to throw my PC against the wall I was so disgusted.

When reading today (not finished yet) I was struck immediately by two things. The first one is sort of foundational:

1. The term QANON. There is no such thing as "qanon." It's is a makey uppy word used by the MSM to refer to the Q movement. Why is the Atlantic, with it's supposedly high editorial standards, using this fake term? I don't know, but it's a big red flag.

The truth is there is Q, and there are anons - they are two separate things. Q is the source of the series of Q posts which began on 4chan in 2017; Q is generally believed by the Anons (see below) to be a team of military intelligence officers, but no one knows for sure who Q actually is.

"Anons" are a loose network of online researchers from all over the world who actively research, analyse, and discuss material that Q posts on 4chan (later Q moved to 8chan). Anons are diverse and come from all walks of life, and every race/profession/ethnicity.

There is no centralised group called "Qanon" (again - fake word) and no spokesperson for the anons. Moreover, anons are curious people each with their own opinions on various issues, which can clash with the views of other anons.

Opinions of individual anons sometimes change depending on facts they discover, and persuasive arguments they hear. In sum, Anons "crowdsource" knowledge in the same way people on the AIBU board hash things out through discussion , disagreement, and debate. Some anons write books and give interviews, some Anons merely lurk and research.

All anons are "truthers" but not all truthers are anons; some truthers are very aware of Q but are agnostic as to whether Q is legitimate or fake.

Which raises the question - if the Atlantic did their research as reputable investigative journalists, why are they using the blatantly inaccurate term "QANON?" Three possibilities: (1) they never talked to any anons (2) they talked to one or more anons and when they were corrected about the terminology, the Atlantic ignored this or (3) they were duped into talking to someone pretending to be an anon, who wants to help smear the anons. Very shoddy journalism right out of the gate.

TO BE CONTINUED

@Wallaw I just lost about 30 minutes worth of typing in response to your query. I'm going to have to come back to this later because I'm too tired.

Gently guide him on how to get a life. the conspiracy theories have drove him mad and he’s clearly got loads of anxiety

@Wallaw

ATLANTIC (CONT)

1. USNS Comfort

Article states that "...the digital soldiers were able to disseminate a cascade of false information about child trafficking on Instagram and Facebook: children were being trafficked on the hospital ship USNS Comfort...."

Atlantic's source for the above claim is a link to a BuzzFeed article which makes no such claim. In fact, according to the BuzzFeed article:

"Recently QANON supporters have been fixated on the US Navy Hospital Ship Comfort since it docked in New York City.... According to those in the movement, the hospital ship is being used to covertly rescue those children from sexual slavery, and they are being treated at the Central Park hospital."

Even assuming arguendo that Buzzfeed is a credible source, you can see unequivocally that the BuzzFeed article DOES NOT support the Atlantic's claim that "QANON supporters" claim children are being trafficked on the USNS Comfort. This citation would receive an "F" in a beginner's journalism course! Did the author and fact checkers even bother to read the BuzzFeed article to which they link? The Atlantic is inventing their claim out of thin air.

Moreover, as I explained previously, anons are not a homogeneous group. I followed the Mercy & Comfort docking in real time, and although a couple of anons claimed the ship was being used to rescue trafficked children, the general consensus amongst anons at the time was that this was a wild rumour supported by no real evidence.

Once again - there is no "spokesperson" for the anons. They are a loose and diverse group of people with varying opinions on different issues, similar to how gender critical people think similarly on certain key points but are not in agreement on every issue.

This is disingenuous journalism at the worse, and sloppy "journalism" at the best.

TO BE CONTINUED

I would like conspiracy theorists to start off by doing a Masters degree in their field of interest, which would give them a grounding in undertaking their own research.
Or if necessary, they should first complete an undergraduate degree in their field of interest.
It's a shame that tuition fees put this out of reach for some.

Excellent idea. Hopefully a member of staff would do as I used to, and doctor a Wiki entry to say something nutty and untrue (Virginia Woolf was a known werewolf, Timbuktu is in Hampshire, the Covid virus escaped from a lab in the International Space Station, whatever) just before a class on how ‘looking on the internet is not research’.

The original poster asks why men are so into conspiracy theory. My theory is that poor men 😉 feel disenfranchised in adult life. The guy I know earns half of what his wife does, rents, works for just over NMW in a job he doesn't particularly enjoy but knows he won't hold onto anything any better. Having all this 'knowledge' gives him something others don't have, something to rant about. It takes away focus from his inadequacies.
My response every time he starts is ' so what do you intend to do with your knowledge, no point in knowing all this stuff unless you do something with it' Of course, he can't do anything.

Thanks for letting me know, but read my Atlantic posts at your leisure (they are long!). My intention is to present information as accurately as I can, not to win an argument. It's great to see someone open minded about hearing ideas from the other side.

Since you like the Atlantic you might find interesting some of the more cerebral voices in the freedom movement. I like Martin Geddes (Mathematics degree from Oxford, former telecoms guru), Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal (sociologist) John Paul Rice (he is a filmmaker who worked in Hollywood, and also in the finance world), and Feargus O'Connell Greenwood. You can find interviews with all these people except Dannielle, who writes books and has a blog.

I've also been listening lately to interviews with medics in the freedom movement. Doc Malik has a show on Rumble and I am learning a lot from his many different guests.

Hope you enjoy your houseguests!

*Feargus O'Connor Greenwood (not O'Connell)

You appear to think you are superior to this man because of his lower socioeconomic status.

If the man you describe complained regularly about "conspiracy theorists," (how ignorant they are, how uneducated, what loons /nutters they are, etc.) - thus revealing himself as someone with whom you have common ground - would you be talking in such a way about his "inadequacies" (your term) such as socioeconomic status, personality flaws, etc.?

@Wallaw

In addition to the truthers I named, I have learned a lot from people like Catherine Austin Fitts, Dr Peter Breggin, and Dr. Phyllis Chesler. They have been at this a long time. All are independent thinkers.

Breggin and Austin Fitts did an interview together recently.

Chesler is interesting because she is from the left and still there to some extent. Her work exposing the antisemitism of the left is without peer IMO.

Naomi Wolf is another interesting truther from the left.

Far from it, we earn the same, he is similar background. My point is that a lot of boys to men feel they should have more influence in life. When it becomes clear that they have no agency and ambition is either squashed by life they fix on something.

Some of what he says is plausible, but his 'research' is usually some American YouTube video.

One he goes on about is birth bonds, has he tried claiming it, no. Can he produce evidence of successful claims, no.

We all know the authorities cover stuff up, hide truths, and conspiracy theory usually has an element of truth somewhere. The op asks about men believing. My experience is that it's disenchanted individuals who get interested as it gives them a feeling of power.

Birth bonds - meh. I switch off to that stuff too.

I agree that men by their nature are driven by external achievement in a way most women aren't (outliers excepted). I think this a good thing, however, in the case of the man you mention, it doesn't sound like a productive channel for him. He might find more sense of accomplishment training for marathons, trying to master a craft, returning to school PT, etc.

With that said, the freedom movement is a wide tent that includes many people of high accomplishment.

To focus on these personal elements, however, is an ad hominem technique which distracts from examining critically the merit of the various claims in question. Maybe that's why the establishment media uses it so often!

Perhaps the social approval and affirmation that comes with having your views affirmed on a daily basis by establishment figures and institutions - such as NGO's, academics, and the mainstream media - gives people with mainstream views a sense of social power/safety/self-worth/well-being that they would lack if they failed to publicly conform to the status quo.

Is this the kind of dynamic at play in places like Kathleen Stock's former university?

I read the Times - hardly an extremist paper - and just about every day there is a story about some kind of cover-up from the authorities, not to mention quite sociopathic behaviour from all sorts, of late mainly the police!

I'm afraid I have gone from generally thinking any State body is kosher and trustworthy to accepting it is generally corrupt and supposed to be. This certainly encompasses Surrey County Council's Social Services - my entry point to all this - but also the police, in particular the Met but also Greater Manchester Police and Devon & Cornwall police, regulators such as the Care Quality Commission and the Nurse and Midwifery Council... Don't expect your MP to do much about it if he's Chris Grayling, though you'll have three constituency meetings over the course of a year where you tell him everything you know and he tells you sweet FA of any use back. Initially charming though.

Had numerous stories about my mother's poor care in various care homes in Surrey in the local and national press. Nobody accountable, and neither press are able to whisper anything about Social Services' blatant wrongdoing despite evidence provided. After that, one does sort of start thinking, okay, what other stories are being suppressed?

The odd thing is, the populist parts of the Conservative and Republican Party tap into this grassroots discontent - but do sweet FA in terms of actually addressing it, preferring to pardon their rich mates for crimes, dispense honours to dodgy cronies, offer contracts to privileged few, pump sewage into rivers. I mean, I'd love it if Johnson and got rid of Dame Cressida Dick as head of Met, but it was Labour's Sadiq Khan who forced her hand, otherwise she'd still be there! Love it if Trump had locked Hilary Clinton up, had she done wrong, but he did nothing of a sort. It's like they're the symptoms of the disease they profess to cure!

You need to hang out with some different people OP. These opinions are extreme and not normal. I would suggest these people have been sitting around on their phones for hours and hours getting sucked down rabbit holes. It’s not just men, I only know women who have become like this. It’s disturbing how easily influenced certain people are when they don’t have enough going on in their lives.