Sorry for the caps. Anyway, I consider myself a smart person. I have a masters degree in a respectable profession, I vote responsibly and I like to keep myself informed. That said...
I know people who are what you might call conspiracy theorists. They would say they are not but they have a view of the world entirely derived from hand-picked sources that support their own opinion and have a HUGE knowledge base when it comes to that particular subject. They sound right when they argue it.
I have strong opinions, but theoretically and politically I'd be considered middle-of-the-road, maybe a little liberal. Most of these conspiracy theorists are on the left, to be honest, with globalization and government takeover and 9/11, but some are on the right, with government takeover (same shit, I know...) and personal freedoms and homosexuality,
My question is, how do you argue with someone who has an arsenal of information about a single subject when you have a more theoretical grounding? When I try and argue with my friend about 9/11, for instance, he throws out some historical fact or quote that makes it seem as if it was an inside job. I argue that, but feebly because I don't know the context, and then he just throws out another fact or quote. I don't have the answers to "whodunnit" so he seems right. Then most of his other conspiracy theories MUST be right because he's "proven" the first one
I could go on for a while here, but I'll only do so if there's some interest. Anyone else see this kind of thing? It's so hard to argue with someone like this. My biggest problem is when they ask you a question: "Have you heard...?" I say, "Uh, no." Then, "You're a slave of the media, la la la."
Man, I've gone on for a while. Who else deals with conspiracy theorists on a daily basis?