I go on a lot of conspiracy theory websites. I don't believe in that stuff and I would go into detail why but the basics are that these sites and associated Youtube videos are:

1. Repetition.. all of them have the same concepts

2. Hyperbolic, fear mongering language.

3. No substantial proof or research (again repetition)

Anyways, conspiracy theory language is the same at most of these sites I go to and are pretty much an echo chamber of people agreeing with the same topics being discussed. Any that come in and say "I don't agree with this concept." or try to rationalize the concept are met with hostility, attacks, and often get dismissed as a "disinfo agent" or any of it's derivatives. Skeptic Project has a glossary of the terms that conspiracy theorists use as well as tactics:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.c...racy-theories/

Conspiracy theorists are always, "moving the goalposts." Or when confronted with an alternative answer will often come up with another explanation for their thinking. Skeptic Project lists some of the tactics used by conspiracy theorists in that glossary.

Your comment is an example of this kind of thinking, you say you aren't a plant and being responded with "Well, obviously you would be instructed to deny it." is a classic example of someone needing to justify their thinking that you are a government plant despite the fact that you have stated that you are not.

It's basically like this: A makes viewpoints differing from consensus. B accuses A of being C. A states he is not C, perhaps providing proof. B refuses to believe the proof provided by A so states A is C instructed by D to claim that A isn't C.

So John states in ATS that he is an hobbyist astronomer and that he doesn't think the moon landing is a hoax. Mary who believes it is, accuses John of being a government shill because he is an astronomer (ignoring the fact that he does it as a hobby, conspiracy theorists will leave out certain details) John says he is not a shill and provides a website page of an astronomy club that he participates in, stating it is his hobby. Mary shoves aside the evidence and makes the claim to John that he is being instructed by his "higher ups" to deny "his involvement in the conspiracy."

Conspiracy theorists also will take someone's quote out of context, cherry-pick what someone says and twist it to fit their views and then attack the person by claiming "You were the one that said this!"

Now I know this isn't a conspiracy theory site, but I have seen the same kind of language and tactics used on these boards and others.

Good example of conspiracy theory websites and echo chamber? Vigilant Citizen and Infowars.