1. Usually, a self claimed internet residing 'know it all' who claims to have the knowledge to flop what he/she perceives as a 'conspiracy theory' on its head. This is often a means for showing off. The complete opposite of a hardcore conspiracy theorist, debunkers usually have little common sense, little or no ability to connect the dots, no respect for common sense and call everything that that is outside their narrow a conspiracy theory. Since they profess to rely on hard evidence so much, this often seeps out of the domain of 'hard evidence', and they begin to fabricate so called 'truths' based primarily on jumping to conclusions and ad hominem attacks. Their favorite tactic is to try to 'get something out of the way' by attempting to embarrass their opponent and call it a done deal.
2. The other type of debunker consists of those who are anti-establishment and attempt to expose mainstream fraud and nonsense for what it is using logic, anecdotal evidence, and supplemental facts and figures. They are commonly insulted with the term 'conspiracy theorist' by those who wish to tarnish their reputations. Although still fallible, anti-establishment 'debunkers' commonly have less of an emotional stake in their arguments, as they have seen the light far more than their naive counterparts. Some do, however, take this too far and become truly raving lunatics.
2. The other type of debunker consists of those who are anti-establishment and attempt to expose mainstream fraud and nonsense for what it is using logic, anecdotal evidence, and supplemental facts and figures. They are commonly insulted with the term 'conspiracy theorist' by those who wish to tarnish their reputations. Although still fallible, anti-establishment 'debunkers' commonly have less of an emotional stake in their arguments, as they have seen the light far more than their naive counterparts. Some do, however, take this too far and become truly raving lunatics.
As Joseph explained why psychiatry is not hard science, the debunker yelled "STOP WITH THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT BIG PHARMA". However, it's not a conspiracy theory that most funding for psychiatric studies comes from big pharma, that they fund the ads in medical journals profusely, that they conduct their own studies on the drugs they push, that they have a much larger budget (and therefore much larger influence) than the FDA, that they fund APA conventions, and that it is not hard to skew data if you have so much power and are working in a poorly understood area.
by Shadow Creator December 24, 2007
A term used that is usually used in the context of entertainment, which can include reading, video games, television, and films. It refers to the reader/watcher's ability or desire (or both) to ignore, distort or underplay realism in order to feel more involved with the game, film, or book. This is a very common practice in many action movies, some books, but probably the most in video games. It is usually permitted and ignored because most people don't care about realism in their entertainment. It's also much more difficult to program a realistic game with highly realistic damage scales, movement, targeting, and more. Some games which are meant to be silly (grand theft auto) don't require much of this, because the entire atmosphere revolves around the less-than-serious style. However, some others attempt to be serious but fail to relay such. This still does not ruin the feel for most, though.
Some people have poor suspension of disbelief, or just don't prefer to use it. These people usually don't care for casual 'shoot em up' games unless there is a huge element of humor and stupidity that is integral to the game itself. They are sometimes perceived as tight asses, but in reality, they just prefer to keep their unrealistic games silly and stupid.
Sometimes, fan boys will take their suspension of disbelief too far and proclaim blatantly unrealistic things to be realistic in an effort to validate the game against 'invaders' who simply assert the truth.
Some people have poor suspension of disbelief, or just don't prefer to use it. These people usually don't care for casual 'shoot em up' games unless there is a huge element of humor and stupidity that is integral to the game itself. They are sometimes perceived as tight asses, but in reality, they just prefer to keep their unrealistic games silly and stupid.
Sometimes, fan boys will take their suspension of disbelief too far and proclaim blatantly unrealistic things to be realistic in an effort to validate the game against 'invaders' who simply assert the truth.
Examples:
Live Free Die Hard - Stunts are too extreme for average cop, certainly a good movie, but the theme could have been portrayed in a much better way if done more realistically.
Resident Evil 4: Ability to dodge lasers, but not clumsy villagers. Headshots do not decapitate or kill, but neck breaks kill. Metal masks deflect bullets. Story of 'alien virus' does not nearly reconcile with these shortfalls and main character is unable to walk and shoot at the same time despite having supposed secret agent type reflexes.
Halo: Using assault rifles, pistols, and Jeeps in ad 2550 despite extreme advances in space travel. Highways, buildings, and tech that look identical to C. 2025
Starcraft: Organic creatures that can somehow tear through inches of armor and resist hypervelocity bullets and bombs. Missiles that can tear apart advanced alien buildings.
Starcraft is fun as an RTS, but it is simply difficult for some to get involved in the story because of these shortfalls in realism.
Halo and Resident Evil 4 are fun shoot em up games with the former having a more realistic damage scale, but both try to be too serious for the lack of realism. However, with suspension of disbelief, most people are okay with all of this.
Live Free Die Hard - Stunts are too extreme for average cop, certainly a good movie, but the theme could have been portrayed in a much better way if done more realistically.
Resident Evil 4: Ability to dodge lasers, but not clumsy villagers. Headshots do not decapitate or kill, but neck breaks kill. Metal masks deflect bullets. Story of 'alien virus' does not nearly reconcile with these shortfalls and main character is unable to walk and shoot at the same time despite having supposed secret agent type reflexes.
Halo: Using assault rifles, pistols, and Jeeps in ad 2550 despite extreme advances in space travel. Highways, buildings, and tech that look identical to C. 2025
Starcraft: Organic creatures that can somehow tear through inches of armor and resist hypervelocity bullets and bombs. Missiles that can tear apart advanced alien buildings.
Starcraft is fun as an RTS, but it is simply difficult for some to get involved in the story because of these shortfalls in realism.
Halo and Resident Evil 4 are fun shoot em up games with the former having a more realistic damage scale, but both try to be too serious for the lack of realism. However, with suspension of disbelief, most people are okay with all of this.
by Shadow Creator October 27, 2007