Am I dangerous? Looks like there's a concerted effort to label people who even read conspiracy theories as dangerous.

Dear Tainted Meat , thank you for your post and stepping out of your intellectual closet and telling us your profession.

First I would like to address the different ways of thinking you mentioned.

One of which isn't really thinking it's regurgitating others thoughts in the most precisely parroted manner.

This is the current paradigm engaged in, in our education systems today.

Whilst knowledge handed down is both valuable and in most cases proven , the staunch resistance to tangential thinking is of concern.

Most education systems require that the student parrot back
what they have read or been told and are marked according to their ability to do so.

Now I know we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us ,but we are not meant to camp there.

Within this sort of environment we begin to see the foundation of conditioning of control of thought and of grading individuals for their capacity to only repeat information without developing critical thinking.

While I speak in generalizations here , it is the pervasive standard adhered to in most houses of education.

We see it being heavily imposed on a lot of college campuses today , where alternative idea's are labelled as
Nazi or just plain ridiculed.

This then begins to represent persecution of thought.

In essence mind control.

With rigid conformity of thought a conditioning of the mind ensures. Neural pathways become limited , thinking becomes systemically rigid , inflexible and eventually stagnant.

Conspiracy thinkers are willing to challenge this paradigm, to question the validity of rout thinking.

I agree some of the tangents engaged in are illogical and either warped or weird to those steeped in linear , measurable, quantifiable an accepted thinking.

Conspiracy thinkers like their scientific counterparts are experimenting. Pushing the boundaries of traditional thought , firing up new neural pathways of exploration and imagination. Like scientists their experiments sometimes don't pan out or take them so far away from rational logical thinking that they become almost the ravings of a mad person. But don't forget the archetypal mad scientist either.

Innovation by it's mere definition can only come from those willing to look outside the box of traditional thinking in both pursuits.

I see conspiracy thinking as the poetry of the mind , not always on the surface making any rational sense, but creatively uncovering the nuance in thinking that is so often shoved aside for routine thought.

As you are aware many wonderful solutions to problems plaguing humanity have come from those in the scientific field who were prepared to step outside the establish thinking of their time.

It is only from these type of thinkers that evolution of human thought can occur, with out them we are merely parrots, parrots, should an event occur that is random and has no association with known information , could very well end up dead parrots as the Monty Python skit so wonderfully addressed.

I believe in a free mind , a free spirit and in only this way, will humanity truly reach the potential awaiting it.

For instance,

[link to www.eurekalert.org (secure)]

If you search for news articles about conspiracy theories, you see the same theme emerging. Dangerous, unpredictable, criminal, nationalistic (huh?), racist, fascist,...

I find it pathetic to label people as bigoted or potentially dangerous, because they like to engage in thinking. It is abhorrent to suggest that even READING conspiracy theories can damage your integrity or ability to draw your own conclusions.

I am a scientist - formally trained in rigorous fact-based thinking. I'm also a big fan of conspiracy theories and have been a connisseur of CTs since 90s. It doesn't mean that I buy into Nibiru or Flat Earth, of course. I always draw my own conclusions.

I enjoy CTs. The off-the-beaten-track thinking, finding alternative angles, and reasoning based on incomplete information is actually what I do as a scientist. On GLP, there's sometimes good discussion on physics which I - as a professional - find interesting. I do spot holes in logic and evidence, but most of the time it is still a good exercise in thinking.

In CTs, the boundary conditions (testability of the claims or the sources, for instance) are less rigorous than in formal science, but so what? Politicians don't think and make decisions like scientists. People in general don't think like scientists. Most important of all, mainstream news do not fulfil the criteria for scientific work.

In CTs, there's more leeway to draw conclusions, which may not be as firm as in empirical science, but they are often interesting enough to warrant further thought.

Thinking, in general, is extremely important and this backlash against CTs clearly seems to want to suppress free thinking. That pisses me off.

It is as if people should just outsource all thinking to some approved "trusted sources". Curious, isn't it? I guess that's the sticking point to the mainstream news agencies, politicians and, yes, to many scientists. They lose their precious ivory tower or bully pulpit, and the naive trust of the people. They lose a lot of authority when that happens.

CTs are also entertaining. I love the off-beat or even outright bizarre ideas which get floated around here.

The downside of the CT community is often the inability to revise pet theories when confronted with evidence to the contrary. Furthemore, showing such evidence is often taken as a personal insult. That pisses me off, too. If your pet theory can't survive perfectly good evidence to the contrary, it should change no matter how much you love it. That's intellectually honest.

You copy and paste like a dimwit. Obvious, because you’re is spelled correctly...

No click bait vid?

Most of history is the record of the conspiricies of those with power/money to keep more of it--and those who conspire to get it.

The main conspirators--those that are able to enforce punishment on those who expose them and their plots--are the folks who now control most of the world through their financial monopolies and resultant control of Media, Commodities, energy, educational system, and most governments.

They have acquired that world-wide control in the past 100 years--mainly via their devious Federal Reserve system. There are many people now awake to that conspiracy--and awareness of conspiracies can sometimes halt the further encroachment by the Conspirators.

People who expose said conspiricies are therefore dangerous to the Conspirators.

For instance,

[link to www.eurekalert.org (secure)]

If you search for news articles about conspiracy theories, you see the same theme emerging. Dangerous, unpredictable, criminal, nationalistic (huh?), racist, fascist,...

I find it pathetic to label people as bigoted or potentially dangerous, because they like to engage in thinking. It is abhorrent to suggest that even READING conspiracy theories can damage your integrity or ability to draw your own conclusions.

I am a scientist - formally trained in rigorous fact-based thinking. I'm also a big fan of conspiracy theories and have been a connisseur of CTs since 90s. It doesn't mean that I buy into Nibiru or Flat Earth, of course. I always draw my own conclusions.

I enjoy CTs. The off-the-beaten-track thinking, finding alternative angles, and reasoning based on incomplete information is actually what I do as a scientist. On GLP, there's sometimes good discussion on physics which I - as a professional - find interesting. I do spot holes in logic and evidence, but most of the time it is still a good exercise in thinking.

In CTs, the boundary conditions (testability of the claims or the sources, for instance) are less rigorous than in formal science, but so what? Politicians don't think and make decisions like scientists. People in general don't think like scientists. Most important of all, mainstream news do not fulfil the criteria for scientific work.

In CTs, there's more leeway to draw conclusions, which may not be as firm as in empirical science, but they are often interesting enough to warrant further thought.

Thinking, in general, is extremely important and this backlash against CTs clearly seems to want to suppress free thinking. That pisses me off.

It is as if people should just outsource all thinking to some approved "trusted sources". Curious, isn't it? I guess that's the sticking point to the mainstream news agencies, politicians and, yes, to many scientists. They lose their precious ivory tower or bully pulpit, and the naive trust of the people. They lose a lot of authority when that happens.

CTs are also entertaining. I love the off-beat or even outright bizarre ideas which get floated around here.

The downside of the CT community is often the inability to revise pet theories when confronted with evidence to the contrary. Furthemore, showing such evidence is often taken as a personal insult. That pisses me off, too. If your pet theory can't survive perfectly good evidence to the contrary, it should change no matter how much you love it. That's intellectually honest.

For instance,

[link to www.eurekalert.org (secure)]

If you search for news articles about conspiracy theories, you see the same theme emerging. Dangerous, unpredictable, criminal, nationalistic (huh?), racist, fascist,...

I find it pathetic to label people as bigoted or potentially dangerous, because they like to engage in thinking. It is abhorrent to suggest that even READING conspiracy theories can damage your integrity or ability to draw your own conclusions.

I am a scientist - formally trained in rigorous fact-based thinking. I'm also a big fan of conspiracy theories and have been a connisseur of CTs since 90s. It doesn't mean that I buy into Nibiru or Flat Earth, of course. I always draw my own conclusions.

I enjoy CTs. The off-the-beaten-track thinking, finding alternative angles, and reasoning based on incomplete information is actually what I do as a scientist. On GLP, there's sometimes good discussion on physics which I - as a professional - find interesting. I do spot holes in logic and evidence, but most of the time it is still a good exercise in thinking.

In CTs, the boundary conditions (testability of the claims or the sources, for instance) are less rigorous than in formal science, but so what? Politicians don't think and make decisions like scientists. People in general don't think like scientists. Most important of all, mainstream news do not fulfil the criteria for scientific work.

In CTs, there's more leeway to draw conclusions, which may not be as firm as in empirical science, but they are often interesting enough to warrant further thought.

Thinking, in general, is extremely important and this backlash against CTs clearly seems to want to suppress free thinking. That pisses me off.

It is as if people should just outsource all thinking to some approved "trusted sources". Curious, isn't it? I guess that's the sticking point to the mainstream news agencies, politicians and, yes, to many scientists. They lose their precious ivory tower or bully pulpit, and the naive trust of the people. They lose a lot of authority when that happens.

CTs are also entertaining. I love the off-beat or even outright bizarre ideas which get floated around here.

The downside of the CT community is often the inability to revise pet theories when confronted with evidence to the contrary. Furthemore, showing such evidence is often taken as a personal insult. That pisses me off, too. If your pet theory can't survive perfectly good evidence to the contrary, it should change no matter how much you love it. That's intellectually honest.

They like to brand people as "conspiracy theorists", as if there is no such thing as REAL conspiracies, and conspiracy ANALYSTS.

For every known conspiracy, there a re a hundred that will never see the light of day.

People who don't believe in conspiracies are not only totally ignorant, but incredibly stupid.

For instance,

[link to www.eurekalert.org (secure)]

If you search for news articles about conspiracy theories, you see the same theme emerging. Dangerous, unpredictable, criminal, nationalistic (huh?), racist, fascist,...

I find it pathetic to label people as bigoted or potentially dangerous, because they like to engage in thinking. It is abhorrent to suggest that even READING conspiracy theories can damage your integrity or ability to draw your own conclusions.

I am a scientist - formally trained in rigorous fact-based thinking. I'm also a big fan of conspiracy theories and have been a connisseur of CTs since 90s. It doesn't mean that I buy into Nibiru or Flat Earth, of course. I always draw my own conclusions.

I enjoy CTs. The off-the-beaten-track thinking, finding alternative angles, and reasoning based on incomplete information is actually what I do as a scientist. On GLP, there's sometimes good discussion on physics which I - as a professional - find interesting. I do spot holes in logic and evidence, but most of the time it is still a good exercise in thinking.

In CTs, the boundary conditions (testability of the claims or the sources, for instance) are less rigorous than in formal science, but so what? Politicians don't think and make decisions like scientists. People in general don't think like scientists. Most important of all, mainstream news do not fulfil the criteria for scientific work.

In CTs, there's more leeway to draw conclusions, which may not be as firm as in empirical science, but they are often interesting enough to warrant further thought.

Thinking, in general, is extremely important and this backlash against CTs clearly seems to want to suppress free thinking. That pisses me off.

It is as if people should just outsource all thinking to some approved "trusted sources". Curious, isn't it? I guess that's the sticking point to the mainstream news agencies, politicians and, yes, to many scientists. They lose their precious ivory tower or bully pulpit, and the naive trust of the people. They lose a lot of authority when that happens.

CTs are also entertaining. I love the off-beat or even outright bizarre ideas which get floated around here.

The downside of the CT community is often the inability to revise pet theories when confronted with evidence to the contrary. Furthemore, showing such evidence is often taken as a personal insult. That pisses me off, too. If your pet theory can't survive perfectly good evidence to the contrary, it should change no matter how much you love it. That's intellectually honest.

For instance,

[link to www.eurekalert.org (secure)]

If you search for news articles about conspiracy theories, you see the same theme emerging. Dangerous, unpredictable, criminal, nationalistic (huh?), racist, fascist,...

I find it pathetic to label people as bigoted or potentially dangerous, because they like to engage in thinking. It is abhorrent to suggest that even READING conspiracy theories can damage your integrity or ability to draw your own conclusions.

I am a scientist - formally trained in rigorous fact-based thinking. I'm also a big fan of conspiracy theories and have been a connisseur of CTs since 90s. It doesn't mean that I buy into Nibiru or Flat Earth, of course. I always draw my own conclusions.

I enjoy CTs. The off-the-beaten-track thinking, finding alternative angles, and reasoning based on incomplete information is actually what I do as a scientist. On GLP, there's sometimes good discussion on physics which I - as a professional - find interesting. I do spot holes in logic and evidence, but most of the time it is still a good exercise in thinking.

In CTs, the boundary conditions (testability of the claims or the sources, for instance) are less rigorous than in formal science, but so what? Politicians don't think and make decisions like scientists. People in general don't think like scientists. Most important of all, mainstream news do not fulfil the criteria for scientific work.

In CTs, there's more leeway to draw conclusions, which may not be as firm as in empirical science, but they are often interesting enough to warrant further thought.

Thinking, in general, is extremely important and this backlash against CTs clearly seems to want to suppress free thinking. That pisses me off.

It is as if people should just outsource all thinking to some approved "trusted sources". Curious, isn't it? I guess that's the sticking point to the mainstream news agencies, politicians and, yes, to many scientists. They lose their precious ivory tower or bully pulpit, and the naive trust of the people. They lose a lot of authority when that happens.

CTs are also entertaining. I love the off-beat or even outright bizarre ideas which get floated around here.

The downside of the CT community is often the inability to revise pet theories when confronted with evidence to the contrary. Furthemore, showing such evidence is often taken as a personal insult. That pisses me off, too. If your pet theory can't survive perfectly good evidence to the contrary, it should change no matter how much you love it. That's intellectually honest.

The danger of collectivism, is it leads to dictatorship where one person can control the thoughts of millions even though reality does not line up with those thoughts, dear leader ways of thinking goes, no conspiracy groups to fact check the Emperor with no clothes, so lefties love collectivism, and righties love the individual pursuit of life, liberty and happiness....

Free Thinking is dangerous and runs counter to the communist ideology; Im a scientist as well. They want stupid sheep because smart people CAN PLAN WAYS TO STOP THEM.

The Communists killed intellectuals in Russia and China. They would round up the smartest engineers, teachers, politicians and execute them. This is well known, watch the movie : The Soviet Story on U tube.

The plan for the NWO is this : Economically, it will be unfettered free trade capitalism. This will maximize corporate profits, assure cheap labor and cheap capital.

Socially, the NWO will be totalitarian in nature with harsh punishment for disobeying rules. The reason why the Globalists setup Russia, China and other countries under Communism, was so they could fine tune it for later implementation.

Todays young people have been engineered to WANT SOCIALISM ( Communism).

step 1. pass red flag laws under the guise of "public safety"

step2. label alt media and glp as "dangerous"

step 3. identify and round them up.