It's a philosophy forum and we try to maintain high standards. Discussions about conspiracy theories as a social or psychological phenomenon would be interesting. Discussions that take the theories seriously on their own terms are much less welcome. Conspiracy theories are examples of bad thinking and I want to see less of that here.

It's true that there is nothing in the site guidelines to suggest that conspiracy theory threads will automatically be deleted, and I know that other moderators would have let it go, but beyond the guidelines we have to sometimes make editorial decisions based on other criteria.

I know what really happened. The thread had explosives wired into the superstructure.

The US government deleted it.

It's a philosophy forum and we try to maintain high standards. Discussions about conspiracy theories as a social or psychological phenomenon would be interesting. Discussions that take the theories seriously on their own terms are much less welcome. Conspiracy theories are examples of bad thinking and I want to see less of that here. — jamalrob

What makes you think you can trust the U.S government and why do you reject all Conspiracy theories as bullshit?

What makes you think you can trust the U.S government and why do you reject all Conspiracy theories as bullshit? — René Descartes

Let me swing at this one. What makes me think that I can trust the US government? First we need clarity and honesty. I suspect the question you're asking, that in form is about what I think (as if anyone cared), is in fact an implied statement that the US government is not trustworthy. All kinds of things are wrong with this, most of them of the form of begging the question. For the question to be meaningful requires a good deal of explication and definition of terms and standards, which work it has never occurred to you to attempt. As asked, you're just a proto-arsonist irresponsibly playing with matches. Clearly you don't even care about your own topic, or you might have asked it and even made a separate thread here, in this form: Is the US Government Trustworthy? Asking that question requires real groundwork. But you're not interested in that topic: questions like yours come of a different agenda, utilizing the inherent power language to do much harm with little effort.

Similarly with your second question. Conspiracy theories qua conspiracy theories, just are bullshit. If you have something substantive to say, make your case. A resort to conspiracy theories as evidence or as valid argument, is ignorance, stupidity, both, or you're selling something.

I'm not a fan of censorship. Usually it's a question of a pig in the parlor. I guess TPF doesn't have a pigpen.

"It's a philosophy forum and we try to maintain high standards. Discussions about conspiracy theories as a social or psychological phenomenon would be interesting. Discussions that take the theories seriously on their own terms are much less welcome. Conspiracy theories are examples of bad thinking and I want to see less of that here.

It's true that there is nothing in the site guidelines to suggest that conspiracy theory threads will automatically be deleted, and I know that other moderators would have let it go, but beyond the guidelines we have to sometimes make editorial decisions based on other criteria."
-jamalrob

I understand that forums that are mainly focused on philosophy may not be a good place to discuss conspiracy theories, but I believe that one is likely biased if they believe that it is a given that anything that involves conspiracy theories is wrong because they are considered conspiracy theories. Things like MK-Ultra, Operation Paperclip, the Harvest of Sorrow (which involved the deaths of around 25-30 million people) were all originally dismissed to be merely conspiracy theories and were thought to be obviously the work of some crazy people with overactive imagination; until someone bothered to look into such claims and was able to find some actual proof.

until someone bothered to look into such claims and was able to find some actual proof. — dclements

Exactly the point. As a conspiracy theory, it wasn't anything. Until someone did some work

Exactly the point. As a conspiracy theory, it wasn't anything. Until someone did some work — tim wood

You should read up a bit on the "conspiracy theory of 9/11". The reason you ignore it is because it is a labelled a "conspiracy theory", but maybe if you actually did some work as you say to look at another perspective of a story, of which many intellectuals support and have put their own work in to researching maybe you might understand better. Simply dismissing something shows ignorance, stubbornness and a lack of will to find truth (which aren't good things to have as a Philosopher, as you stick to one perspective all your life without even considering another. I thought Philosophers are supposed to consider different sides of an argument to come to a rational judgement, but I'm sure you're a very wise man just sticking to your side. Might as well be a Trump supporter or a Hillary supporter. Both don't even consider the arguments of each other's sides and continue following the herd. Now I'm not saying I completely support the theories, but I do my research and take an unbiased approach to it, rather than you who is content on your closed-minded view.

Conspiracy theories qua conspiracy theories, just are bullshit. — tim wood

Bullshit.

I'm not a fan of censorship. — tim wood

But obviously anyone who says anything you disagree with is stupid, wrong and should not be allowed to speak.

Try facts instead of rants. And it's a good idea not to tell people what they're doing or thinking (or feeling), unless you get it right. Like any adult who wastes part of his life online, I've seen 9/11 conspiracy theories. Being curious I've followed them up. There's never anything there. They're akin to Joseph McCarthy's notorious lists, which no one ever saw. Or like the stripteaser who's all tease and no strip, the pasties never moving. The burden on conspiracists is to make their case with *gasp* real facts. But they don't.

Btw, I wrote, "Conspiracy theories qua conspiracy theories, just are bullshit." Try looking up "qua."

Like any adult who wastes part of his life online, I've seen 9/11 conspiracy theories. — tim wood

Good.

Btw, I wrote, "Conspiracy theories qua conspiracy theories, just are bullshit." Try looking up "qua." — tim wood

I know what qua means and I'm saying it's bullshit.

Or like the stripteaser who's all tease and no strip, the pasties never moving. — tim wood

Why do you need to bring Strip teasers into a Philosophical discussion.

Try facts instead of rants. — tim wood

First fact of the day: Steel melts at around 1400°C

I know what qua means and I'm saying it's bullshit. — René Descartes

To be exact, what you're saying is that conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories in their essence as conspiracy theories, are not conspiracy theories. Equivalently, if it's a conspiracy theory, it has merit of substance. But, you see, in my understanding of "conspiracy theory," The conspiracy theory is a claim that in itself has no merit (that's why it's called a conspiracy theory), but that requires evidence to elevate it from its status as a mere conspiracy theory. The qua says all that; I don't think you got it.

Here, from WIkipedia, "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is often a derogatory one.[3]

According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.[4] Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof"."

I'm not entirely surprised it is gone, but I just what to know the reason for it's removal.

Thanks — dclements

It's funny, cause now we're talking about 9/11 on the thread which is talking about why the 9/11 thread was deleted.