A real skeptic.... ( conspiracy )

submitted by Fnordpocalypse

When did the term skeptic start to mean someone who "debunks" ideas that are at odds with the status quo? When did "critical thinkers" stop asking the tough questions and just decide to parrot the official narrative?

It seems that the definitions for these terms have been hijacked by people who demonstrate the exact opposite of their original meanings. People that now claim these distinctions are neither skeptical or critical thinkers.

Just an observation that's been bugging me for a while.

istalkezwhoa

Yes, funny isn't it.

Endemoniada

When did "critical thinkers" stop asking the tough questions and just decide to parrot the official narrative?

About the same time you made up the version of reality in which that actually happens.

I could simply turn the question around and ask the same of you: why are you not asking the tough questions about the truth movement? Why do you decide to just parrot the un official narrative?

I have considered both sides and decided which one makes more sense to me. Just like you have. Give me the same respect you demand I give you.

It seems that the definitions for these terms have been hijacked by people who demonstrate the exact opposite of their original meanings. People that now claim these distinctions are neither skeptical or critical thinkers.

Again, I can simply state the same about you and everyone in the truth movement. You don't actually explain how you come up with this conclusion, or present any reason to agree with you other than confirmation bias. You're just stating these things in the place you know people will agree with you no matter what.

Just an observation that's been bugging me for a while.

Curiously, you don't seem eager to "ask the tough questions" and consider that maybe you and this movement are the actual problem. You just decide that "they're all wrong" and bad skeptics, while you (despite showing the opposite) are the true character of a critical thinker.

Finally, to confirm my hypothesis, I have no doubt you and others will continue accusing me of being a "debunker" and a bad skeptic, because why would you stop and truly consider anything I say, and question your own methods and motives, when you can just parrot what you think you know and dismiss me out of hand?

Your post essentially boils down to asking this subverse "they're wrong and we're right, right? Right."... and if that isn't an echo chamber, I don't know what is.

Fnordpocalypse

Observation is how we reach conclusions about the world around us. As others have correctly pointed out, skepticism goes both directions. Now, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but from my observations, the skeptic community, in popular media, doesn't seem to hold many controversial views, and to the skeptic in me, that raises some red flags. Am I wrong or am I right in my observations? It's probably a little of both. I'm obviously painting with broad strokes here, so if you don't fit in my definition, please don't take offense, this wasn't about you.

Every criticism of my post you raised is certainly correct to some extent. Likewise all those same criticisms can be applied back to the skeptic community.

So my challenge to you is to consider the possibility that what I'm saying has some truth to it, and I will do the same for your statement. Fair enough?

unit731

Additionally, there seems to be a tendency toward only being skeptical of specific ideas, like all conspiracy related topics. If you look to many of the main skeptic outlets, they seem to conveniently forget to be skeptical of things such as claims of the Bush/Obama administration, or claims made by corporations that have been proven liars in the past.

With that said, I was a skeptic early on in the "skeptic movement," and still am to this day. I just try to apply the skepticism outside of the box of ideas the movement has been concentrating on for the last decade or so. Even though I believe Michael Shermer (popular skeptic talking head) is corrupted somehow, I still recommend his book "Why people Believe Weird things," and the writings of Sam Harris.

"The 'war on drugs' has been well lost, and should never have been waged. While it isn’t explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, I can think of no political right more fundamental than the right to peacefully steward the contents of one’s own consciousness." -Sam Harris

istalkezwhoa

I think the "leaders" of the skeptical movement are paid propagandists or part of psy op intelligence community. They are usually hired from academical societies.

Omar

You're thinking of contrarian, not skeptic.

Just because something is the official story, doesn't mean it's false.

Flytape

I'm pretty sure he said what he meant and meant what he said.

These so called skeptics that we have today seem to only be skeptical of things that don't support their established norms. That isn't skepticism, that is religion.

Much like how you religiously repeat the mantra "flytape is an antisemite, flytape is an antisemite, oooohm ooohm."

If you were the slightest bit skeptical of my "antisemitism" you would quickly discover that the word is being misused and abused to stain people's enemies.

casualwhoaversereade

Likewise, just because a story is 'official' doesn't make it true.

Sachyriel

You can be skeptical in either direction, and critical thinking must be applied to all whom suggest an explanation, not just those in positions of authority.