Monthly Archive for November, 2007

Generalizations really tick me off. The subject in question here is the 9/11 Truth movement. Dead horse, I know, but I happen to like beating things. Anyways, I was browsing around some sites recently and began to notice a trend. Among sites that discussed 9/11, the ones that supported the idea that it was an inside job and/or that the government perpetrated the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were heavily liberal (of the far left flavor). Sites that debunk such conspiracy theories or simply make fun of them tend to be heavily conservative (moderate to far right). I can kind of understand the split here, but after reading through the comments on certain sites, I really wish this wasn’t how it was split up.

I am a libertarian at heart, but I tend to lean more liberal than anything. I also believe that 9/11 was an act of terrorism caused by the hijacking of airplanes by fundamentalist Muslims. The government wasn’t involved in any way and failed to act properly due to shoddy intelligence and confusion surrounding the events. In other words, I’m no 9/11 truther.

This puts me in a rather awkward position. Because I’m fairly liberal, conservatives tend to assume that I’m off my rocker and think that little green aliens told George Bush to fly remote control airplanes into American buildings. And because I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories, liberals tend to assume I’m a neo-conservative government crony and/or brainwashed. Both are clearly wrong and are a direct result of the oversimplifying of the situation here.

9/11 truthers are composed of people from all over the political spectrum. Some, like Alex Jones, are conservatives. Others, like the 35% of Democrats who think Bush knew about the attacks beforehand, are more moderate or liberal. I wish people would realize this, especially on the conservative side of things. Perry Logan (no relation) is a lot more liberal than I am, but he also debunks the claims of 9/11 truthers. Even so, he’s still attacked by more conservative blogs (especially DUmmie FUnnies) for being a liberal, which means he must be a truther. Exhibiting other traits often connected with truthers (such as being against the conflict in Iraq) also garners a person a reputation as a weed-smoking hippie truther.

Blogs like Screw Loose Change seem to be a little smarter when it comes to realizing that not all liberals are moonbats (my research indicates that word is only used by conservative blogs with nothing important to say), but that’s not saying much for the commenters, who still seem to be of the type to criticize anyone with a slightly liberal slant. Honestly, people. It’s all well and good to have an opinion, but attacking anyone who varies from that opinion in the least is bad form and makes you look like a jackass. I’m talking to both sides here. Truthers need to stop thinking I’ve been brainwashed or that I’m too ignorant to see their truth, and debunkers need to stop assuming I’m a truther because I’ve always thought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. False correlations are the sign of someone with a big mouth and a little brain.

And please, if you’re a truther, stop getting all surprised when you tell me to make my own conclusions and don’t agree with your version of events. Expecting me to believe everything you say makes as much sense as believing everything the government says, wouldn’t you agree?