A new thread idea.

[Serenitude]

Hello BAUTers. I'd like to gauge the level of interest in some sort of stickied "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt" thread, that would be a list of common CTs/questions/tactics to avoid, compiled in one easy post/thread that could be pointed to for new members.

I have compiled mini-lists before, for such people as DavidC, but it did little good. However, it may or may not be useful to others in general.

In my (alpha-stage mind-dump) thinking, anyone could contribute a point/thread/tactic, the accompanying URL, and a breif description. Credit could be given individually, or we could keep it as a collective, common group repository. We could categorize it however, or post info as it comes.

Or we could just not bother

Just throwing out an idea for community feedback. What are the opinions/criticisms/ideas?

[davidlpf]

sounds like a good idea a believe there is an individual with a binary name who has a list of all 2012 threads.

[Laguna2]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

Hello BAUTers. I'd like to gauge the level of interest in some sort of stickied "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt" thread, that would be a list of common CTs/questions/tactics to avoid, compiled in one easy post/thread that could be pointed to for new members.

Nice idea, but it has a flaw. Those new members you want do direct to this thread won't read it. ;-)

[Serenitude]

Aye, and that's my fear - that it won't be worth the time. Thanks for the feedback

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Laguna2

Nice idea, but it has a flaw. Those new members you want do direct to this thread won't read it. ;-)

Yes, it might be useful for people already here, but for new CT members the pattern usually is: A current poster provides a link to a website or previous thread that would reasonably take an hour for a basic review, and the new poster (if they bother to look at it at all) comes back in five minutes with a comment about the "page of lies." Of course, they then make comments that show they either didn't read or comprehend anything they saw.

[Tog_]

Originally Posted by Laguna2

Nice idea, but it has a flaw. Those new members you want do direct to this thread won't read it. ;-)

What he said. Now if there was a way to put in a video on YouTube...

Seriously, I like the idea, and was thinking about something similar for the 911 CT's until the were no longer welcome. Rambling tangent to follow:

The TV show Wings had a great example of what I was thinking. The un-fun, sensible, older brother was about to lecture the younger, fun, playful brother about something, but instead of repeating his lecture yet again, just said "Speech six". That's what I though the CT FAQ could be. One post per topic, stickied, with the links numbered. When someone comes in to ask a question that's been asked countless ties before, instead of everyone writing it out again, we could just link to the post and say, "Link 9".

[JayUtah]

The cyclical nature of polemical discussion constantly fascinates and frustrates me. Fascinating because it reveals how much subjectivity there can be in the world, and frustrating because you can get easily roped into repetitive, non-productive activity.

Lots of conspiracy theorists seem to project their context onto others. So when they run across some new book or video or web site, they see it as new and exciting, full of information that makes their worldview seem more objectively correct. In presenting that material to their critics, they make the mistake of thinking it's new to the critics as well. So when there's an immediate response, the conspiracist naturally believes it's just rehearsed rhetoric; that the critic hasn't possibly had enough time to examine and analyze the evidence.

Of course he doesn't realize that nothing changes on the 17th time you're directed to the same video clip allegedly depicting suspension wires. If you thought about it extensively two years ago, and the conspiracist is raising nothing new, then of course the conclusion you drew two years ago is still valid and can be presented without delay.

There's a small-scale continuous cycle of polemical renewal as new believers join the throng. At any given point you can take a snapshot of the conspiracist camp and see a certain percentage of people in every stage of conspiracist engagement, from the bright-eyed newbie waving his copy of Kaysing to the jaded, withdrawn veterans who brag to each other about being banned at BAUT: that unspeakable tool of government oppression.

But there's also a larger-scale, more interrupted cycle of renewal centering around the release of new major works. Kaysing's book, then Rene's book, then Percy's book, then Sibrel's video: these are all seminal events in the life cycle of the moon hoax conspiracy theory. Those of you familiar with other theories can probably cite similar milestones. Not that these works necessary depict anything new with each iteration, but they represent surges in interest.

Engaging a cyclical phenomenon is difficult because the nature of the debate will be subjective. While we who have seen this evolve over years can say, "Oh no, not that claim again," the proponent has an understandable perception of novelty. The trick is to introduce him to the other side of the debate he has unwittingly joined in progress, but without sounding dismissive or condescending.

[Fazor]

I think part of the problem is the vast majority of CT'ers who take the time and effort to seek out a forum to discuss the "hoax" already have their views set in stone. I'm not as patient as many of you; it can be fun to debate those people but I personally don't care if they ever see the light of reason or not. In my humble opinion, the real need is to educate the "on the fence'ers".

Por ejemplo*, I was talking to a friend who I generally thought to be very skeptic (like his insistance that anyone who believes in ghosts or ufos are morons). I mentioned the hoax discussions that go on here, and he said, "yeah, but isn't there actually some pretty good evidence that they were hoaxed?". UGH! After I recovered from the suprise, I answered, "Actually, no. There's some good evidence that if you don't examine it, it might seem that way." And asked him which things in particular he had heard of. His big one was the "flag blowing in the wind" video. I explained the lower-gravity, inertia answer to him and he was like, "oh. yeah that makes sense". We discussed a few of the other common ones, such as the shadows, or the lack of stars. I think in five minutes he went from thinking there was good evidence for the hoax to realizing it's more of a marketing thing.

Anyway sorry to be so long winded, but the point was that there's a lot of people out there who, through media and what-not, are under the impression that this "evidence" is good. Not because they're uninteligent, but because they've heard it, but don't have the interest to investigate it further. Those are the only people I hold any hope for.



*Sorry, I sometimes interject random Spanish into my writing for no reason what-so-ever.

[Serenitude]

It looks like the consensus is no - the community has spoken I had feared that it would be a waste of time, myself, if it's any consolation, but thought I'd toss the idea out. I initially thought the shock value of a compendium of the theories in one database might be an eye-opener to a new CTer, but in hindsight, I think I'll just link them to Jay's post here

Thanks everyone!

[Irishman]

Fazor said:
Anyway sorry to be so long winded, but the point was that there's a lot of people out there who, through media and what-not, are under the impression that this "evidence" is good. Not because they're uninteligent, but because they've heard it, but don't have the interest to investigate it further. Those are the only people I hold any hope for.

Yes, that is a critical element of the current moon hoax popular culture element. Many people get presented just enough information as an interesting tidbit that sounds halfway plausible, and that's as much as they care to dig in to the matter. They just accept the story, and go on with their lives. They then think the moon landings have been refuted, the arguments are valid, and there's no counter evidence or argument - because they haven't seen one and don't care to bother looking.

I'm not sure what the answer is other than addressing it as it is encountered and continuing the efforts here and elsewhere to make the truth available for those who do go looking.

But that's why I suggest taking any Moon Hoax proponent with respect and care rather than knee-jerk "You fell for that? What an idiot you are."

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Irishman

I'm not sure what the answer is other than addressing it as it is encountered and continuing the efforts here and elsewhere to make the truth available for those who do go looking.

But that's why I suggest taking any Moon Hoax proponent with respect and care rather than knee-jerk "You fell for that? What an idiot you are."

Yes, I'm trying to make an effort to be a bit more careful not to be condescending and would hope others always try to keep that in mind. Mind you, if somebody starts out by calling anybody arguing for the landings as either fools or paid disinformation agents, or if they blow off good answers to questions, I'm not going to ignore it.

[mugaliens]

If it's a public-use sticky, it'd probably work.

[Serenitude]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

If it's a public-use sticky, it'd probably work.

That was my original plan, something that could be a centralized repository for research, not just the RTFM! thread. But the community consensus is it would be a waste of time, and I can't say I don't have the same nagging suspicion. The community rules on this one

[Van Rijn]

I remembered something about a skeptic wiki, did a search, and there is moon hoax page:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Moon_Hoax

but the moon hoax info is pretty limited. It isn't clear how you'd create an account, though. A wiki would be great for putting this sort of stuff together. What I'd prefer would be a large number of separate pages to cover issues individually when possible, but with lots of interlinking.

It still wouldn't matter much to the dedicated MHer, though.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

The cyclical nature of polemical discussion constantly fascinates and frustrates me. Fascinating because it reveals how much subjectivity there can be in the world, and frustrating because you can get easily roped into repetitive, non-productive activity.

I hadn't noticed the problem, myself. I just beat at 'em until they bleed.

Uh, no, not the other posters. My fingers. The keys.

If you believe that...

You're right, though, Jay, and I've encountered a few myself. Frustrating.

[Grashtel]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

but the moon hoax info is pretty limited. It isn't clear how you'd create an account, though.

From the front page:

Originally Posted by SkepticWiki

For those that wish to have a new account, please email skepticwiki AT gmail DOT com and include your first and last name, location, and your requested moniker for your account.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Mind you, if somebody starts out by calling anybody arguing for the landings as either fools or paid disinformation agents, or if they blow off good answers to questions, I'm not going to ignore it.

At that point, they've demonstrated that they're more than curiously misled.

[Michael Noonan]

Originally Posted by Irishman

At that point, they've demonstrated that they're more than curiously misled.

I've only recently gotten into this whole conspiracy thing and frankly it is very limiting. Someone says something bad about what another human did or saw alternately says they didn't do or see it. That is just about it really.

It took a while but I sort of spotted a pattern there. There really isn't the scope available to get right into creating some really good conspiracies like 'pink marshmallows' as weapons of mass distraction without upsetting the real conspiracy forum members.