Some friend of mine posted this article to Facebook with the comment:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/25/noam-chomsky...
"This can be applied not only to every conspiracy theory, but to most "alternative" remedies and treatments as well."
Here's my response:
Well, two can play at that game. Just as it's typical for '9/11 truthers' to post poorly founded overstatement about the nature of the attacks because most of them are illiterate and motivated by alienation, so too is it typical among the mainstream left for people to throw the baby out with the bathwater in support of the psychological desire to ward off troubling facts and intellectual responsibilities that disturb their sense of order and desire for intellectual confidence.
Now, I largely agree with what he and you are suggesting. Yes, most 'truthers' and 'naturopaths' are idiots or con artists. I have more first hand exposure than just about anyone to confirm this.
However, your psychological thrust is revealed by your willingness to overstate your position. I'll assume you are aware of the fact that there have been conspiracies in our history nearly as wild as the speculation about 9/11?
This is my space. I've spent years carving out a niche between the crazies and the left credibility boundary, pushing for greater skepticism based on simple historical facts. It's the part that isn't crazy but that people who sound like you do here find troubling and inconvenient.
And what I've come to find is that presented with those facts, most reasonable people will find them credible but then claim than their position which contradicts the official narrative is not "9/11 truth." The question then becomes, where is the boundary line.
How many facts that contradict the official narrative do you have to find credible before you stop calling me crazy?