'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Are you suggesting that everyone who believes that the events of 9/11 were caused by a conspiracy carried out by a secretive network of Wahhabist islamists should be labeled a conspiracy theorists? Conspiracy theories aren't about conspiracies, they are about events. Typically, they involve uncritically speculating about hypothetical conspiracies to explain these events and a reluctance to consider evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory.

They also give a causal emphasis to conspiracies - imaginary or otherwise - that is unhelpful, as it prevents people from looking for other wider causes. 9/11 was caused directly by a conspiracy. Everyone agrees on that, even if we disagree about who was in on it. But, if we accept that it was a network of Islamist militants, rather than an inside job, the conspiratorial aspect is almost irrelevant to a wider discussion about why it happened. The questions become: Why did the plot happen? What can we learn from it? How can we avoid this sort of situation in the future? How should 'we' respond?

In general, conspiracy theories leads to passivity, paranoia and isolation for those who are sucked in by them.

Again, you are going along with certain types of conspiracy theory. Lordy, have we been here before. Your attempt to put it down to "events" rather than "conspiracies" doesn't hold up with regard to the organisations that are considered, rightly or wrongly, to be complicit in such events.

The last line of your post happens to be true, but is not of itself a reflection on the viability of any given CT.

As to 911, "inside job" and "network of islamist militants" / "Make it happen on purpose" and "everything as the Commission said" stand as somewhat binary positions often advanced with some stubborness and resort to insult. But there are a vast range of possibilities in the territory between them.

 

[editor]

But there are a vast range of possibilities in the territory between them.

Most of which are completely unsupported by anything even remotely approaching credible evidence, and fail miserably to stand up to proper scientific scrutiny.

 

[eoin_k]

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that [actual] important political, social or economic events are the products of [hypothetical] secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

(Source: wikipedia)

I would have gone for the OED or some other sources, but I am not at home.

Now I appreciate that dictionary deffinitions or references to wikipedia can't settle these sort of disagreements. Nor should they. But, it is interesting that this deffinition is not simply:

conspiracy theory: a theory about a conspiracy

Obviously the wikipedia deffinition avoids being partisan so there is less emphasis on them being batshit batshit. But, otherwise it is closer to what the rest of us are saying than your perspective. Clearly all batshit theories aren't conspiracy theories, take intelligent design as an example. Intelligent design as a pseudo scientific 'theory' in the 21st century seems pretty batshit to me but it clearly isn't a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are theories about events that rely on hypothetical conspiracies. The point is that you don't need a conspiracy to have a conspiracy theory.

Likewise, just because you seek to explain events which involve a conspiracy it doesn't follow that you are engageing in a conspiracy theory. Nobody is suggesting that you have to be batshit to believe that anyone has ever conspired with anyone else ever. Conspiracy theorise seek to provide general explanations of social phenomena by reference to hypothetical conspiracies. It is up to you to decide whether this is a batshit way of trying to make sense of the world.

 

[butchersapron]

Here we go again. A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory about conspiracies at all. Oh noes, how but could it be? It really means "A theory we deign to be stupid unless and until it actually turns out to have been true"

Butchers - thank you for the kind invitation to let my inner loon run free, but there is really no need for me to bother expressing my often vague opinions when I have you around to tell me what I think.

Oh please,we've all seen you struggling unsuccessfully to keep it under wraps the last few years.

 

[eoin_k]

.. Those who questioned the Met over the killings of De Menezes, Tomlinson, Duggan...

you are really trying to muddy the waters here.

I was directly involved in the early days of the response to the Tomlinson killing. I stepped back when the family got independent legal advice and broke links with the Met. What we did was the opposite of conspiracy theory. We avoided indulging in idle speculation about what might have happened and focused instead on calling for a transparent process and encouraging witnesses to come forward. While we had serious doubts about how the Met were spinning things we were very careful not to attempt to construct an alternative narrative, but rather to see what came out in the wash. This was both a practical issue in terms of keeping the campaign credible but also a matter of respect to people who had lost a loved one, especially at the stage when they family were still being sold a line by the police.

 

[editor]

Who are "they"? People who think the WMD were a phoney construct from the off? Those who questioned the Met over the killings of De Menezes, Tomlinson, Duggan?

That'll be the cases that were plastered all over the newspapers from the off, and needed the input of no web-based "troof-seekers" to establish the facts.

In the case of Tomlinson, the main source that established the events of his demise came from the mobile camera of a passer by, which was then published by a national newspaper. No troof seekers required, again.

Interestingly, the guy who took the footage was an American investment fund manager. You know, the kind of person that conspiraloons are always insisting must be involved in cabals/shady deals/Illuminati/lizards/9/11 cover ups etc.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Here we go again. A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory about conspiracies at all. Oh noes, how but could it be? It really means "A theory we deign to be stupid unless and until it actually turns out to have been true"

Butchers - thank you for the kind invitation to let my inner loon run free, but there is really no need for me to bother expressing my often vague opinions when I have you around to tell me what I think.

Deem, not deign.

 

[butchersapron]

Here we go again. A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory about conspiracies at all. Oh noes, how but could it be? It really means "A theory we deign to be stupid unless and until it actually turns out to have been true"

Or...a series of connected conclusions not supported by the evidence and not derived at by acceptable methods of inquiry.

Hows that sound taffers?[/quote]

 

[8ball]

Or...a series of connected conclusions not supported by the evidence and not derived at by acceptable methods of inquiry.

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, you don't need a series of conclusions, just one (eg. Kennedy was done in by the CIA). Secondly, this definition would have it that homeopathy and the Loch Ness Monster are conspiracy theories.

 

[butchersapron]

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, you don't need a series of conclusions, just one (eg. Kennedy was done in by the CIA). Secondly, this definition would have it that homeopathy and the Loch Ness Monster are conspiracy theories.

Don't agree. To be a theory you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how). Your example is just belief in one conclusion of a conspiracy theory - it's not the conspiracy theory itself. Secondly, my definition doesn't mean that everything that fits is a conspiracy theory, but that conspiracy theories fit that definition. You're looking at it backwards.

 

[8ball]

To be a theory you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how).

No, that's not what a theory is. Do mean to be a conspiracy theory you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how). Which I don't agree with either, though it fits a lot of cases.

Secondly, my definition doesn't mean that everything that fits is a conspiracy theory, but that conspiracy theories fit that definition.

So it's not a definition, then. Just a characteristic that the members of the set have in common with each other, which is shared by plenty of other things too. It's looks rather like saying that the definition of 'grass' is 'green'.

I think you're going to have trouble shoehorning 'conspiracy theories' into a definition simply meaning 'a subset of things which are demonstrably not true'.

If that's what you're trying to do.

 

[butchersapron]

No, that's not what a theory is. Do mean to be a conspiracy theory you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how). Which I don't agree with either, though it fits a lot of cases.

I just said that to be a conspiracy theory you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how)

So it's not a definition, then. Just a characteristic that the members of the set have in common with each other, which is shared by plenty of other things too. It's looks rather like saying that the definition of 'green' is 'grass'.

I think you're going to have trouble shoehorning 'conspiracy theories' into a definition simply meaning 'a subset of things which are demonstrably not true'.

If that's what you're trying to do.

It's not a rigourous definition no, it was quick off the top of the head polemical counter-defintion (or loose set of characteristics if you prefer) to this nonsense:

A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory about conspiracies at all. Oh noes, how but could it be? It really means "A theory we deign to be stupid unless and until it actually turns out to have been true".

No it's not like saying that the definition of green is grass - it's like saying that grass is often green. You're still looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

 

[Pickman's model]

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, you don't need a series of conclusions, just one (eg. Kennedy was done in by the CIA). Secondly, this definition would have it that homeopathy and the Loch Ness Monster are conspiracy theories.

whatever happened to the holy trinity of means, motive and opportunity?

 

[8ball]

I just said that to be a conspiracy theory you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how)

Yes - you didn't use the word 'conspiracy' at that crucial point in your original post. So I thought I could still use the strict definitions of terms like 'conspiracy' and 'theory'.

It's not a rigourous definition no, it was quick off the top of the head counter-defintion (or loose set of characteristics if you prefer).

Yes, not a definition. As I said.

I agree with your feelings about conspiracy theories (using your definition for a moment), but I think using very wonky definitions makes it really easy to discredit perfectly sensible enquiry about things like the route to war in Iraq, the Government being in the pockets of big finance etc.

 

[8ball]

No it's not like saying that the definition of green is grass - it's like saying that grass is often green. You're still looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

Indeed - I meant the other way round (edited it a while back).

 

[laptop]

Conspiracy-theory is the opposite of rational-inquiry.

Rational-inquiry starts with the question: "how did this happen?"

Conspiracy-theory starts, however much its proponents may try to disguise this, with "who conspired to make this happen?"

All sorts of things follow. For example:

Rational-inquiry is perfectly happy with there being all sorts of things that we do not know - yet. It proceeds from the things we do know.

Conspiracy-theory is angry that what we do not know is being kept a secret. It proceeds by inserting "what ifs" into the blanks.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

That'll be the cases that were plastered all over the newspapers from the off, and needed the input of no web-based "troof-seekers" to establish the facts

Wrong. The lies appeared in newspapers from the off, it took subsequent facts and often digging to out the lies.

In the case of WMD it was the likes of Scott Ritter blowing the whistle. He had spurious sex charges put against him round about the same time. Funny that.

In the case of De Menezes the lies were propagated by senior Met sources (as with the other mentioned killings) and the press went along for the ride.

With De Menezes, Tomlinson and Duggan there were lies from the top each time. If I were to say there strongly appears to be a PR team that constructs lies for the press in the Met I would, till it were fully be proved in court, be considered and derided as a "conspiracy theorist".

But it seems by far the most rational explanation.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Or...a series of connected conclusions not supported by the evidence and not derived at by acceptable methods of inquiry.

Hows that sound taffers?

[/quote]

A theory is not a conclusion.

People who act like it is, on either side, are kneejerkists.

There are plenty of them.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

(Source: wikipedia)

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that [actual] important political, social or economic events are the products of [hypothetical] secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

I would have gone for the OED or some other sources, but I am not at home.

Now I appreciate that dictionary deffinitions or references to wikipedia can't settle these sort of disagreements. Nor should they. But, it is interesting that this deffinition is not simply:

conspiracy theory: a theory about a conspiracy

Obviously the wikipedia deffinition avoids being partisan so there is less emphasis on them being batshit batshit. But, otherwise it is closer to what the rest of us are saying than your perspective. Clearly all batshit theories aren't conspiracy theories, take intelligent design as an example. Intelligent design as a pseudo scientific 'theory' in the 21st century seems pretty batshit to me but it clearly isn't a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are theories about events that rely on hypothetical conspiracies. The point is that you don't need a conspiracy to have a conspiracy theory.

Likewise, just because you seek to explain events which involve a conspiracy it doesn't follow that you are engageing in a conspiracy theory. Nobody is suggesting that you have to be batshit to believe that anyone has ever conspired with anyone else ever. Conspiracy theorise seek to provide general explanations of social phenomena by reference to hypothetical conspiracies. It is up to you to decide whether this is a batshit way of trying to make sense of the world.

"An event as being the result of an alledged plot"

Not so different from "a theory about a conspiracy" at all really. Except the article again confuses "explanation" with "hypothesis". No one can demonstrate Conspiracy Theory X without substantial proof, anyone who says they can is arrogant and deluded. Plenty of it about. But some theories are clearly more plausible than others.

You are mixing up what I pupport to be a conspiracy theory around Tomlinson's death I think, though it is probably my fault. My pupport is related to the lie and the attempt to cover up rather than the death itself.

 

[TruXta]

What exactly are you trying to argue taffboy? That sometimes a group of people will attempt to get away with stuff they've planned in secret? Welcome to the wonderful world of business and politics!

 

[elbows]

Problem is that people often tend to get rather passionate with their theories, it becomes personal, and with their words they demonstrate that they have bought into the theories far too strongly given the amount of actual evidence available.

There are those who would use the negative labels of conspiracy theory to close down certain avenues of discussion and exploration. Plenty of times their actions are well justified by those who form conclusions without proper evidence. To avoid being caught in such a trap requires a sensible approach to evidence.

People with a wide variety of beliefs etc would benefit from continually challenging their own beliefs. If you like a certain theory, if it appeals and rings true, thats all the more reason to subject it to hard testing in order to safeguard against sloppy mistakes that lead you down a fruitless path.

 

[TruXta]

Not everything is a theory to be put to the test, elbows.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

What exactly are you trying to argue taffboy? That sometimes a group of people will attempt to get away with stuff they've planned in secret? Welcome to the wonderful world of business and politics!

That is pretty much my point. Conspiracy is highly commonplace in politics and life. So having theories about it really isn't remotely loonbat of itself. For sure, some theories are more plausible, some less. And elbows is right, people get highly passionate and perhaps don't challenge their own ideas enough.

 

[elbows]

Not everything is a theory to be put to the test, elbows.

Did I say everything was? Clearly in order to think and feel there are going to be some things that we are going to consider to be facts, the only sane way to look at something, right, just, true etc.Call them what you will, Chomsky has his truisms, others have different ways describing such things.

Unfortunately a side-effect of this is that people can just use this to shield whatever they happen to not want to challenge about their own stance from scrutiny, I don't know exactly where the line can be drawn in a manner which always works. And Im certainly not suggesting that people should blow around in the wind so much that they end up standing for nothing at all. But at the very least people should acknowledge the fundamental foundations upon which the rest of their enquiries into the world and how things should be are built. Declare the areas where for you belief is strong and you will not compromise. Do not attempt to hide them and give people the opportunity to point cynically when the attempts to hide them fail, for they are not really hidden because they will colour other aspects of your worldview and attitude towards facts and evidence. Better to declare your dearly held beliefs for what they are, rather than make a mockery of the concept of evidence by relying on weak or laughable facts to backup something that was actually born from something other than specific, hard proof.

 

[William of Walworth]

That is pretty much my point. Conspiracy is highly commonplace in politics and life. So having theories about it really isn't remotely loonbat of itself. For sure, some theories are more plausible, some less. And elbows is right, people get highly passionate and perhaps don't challenge their own ideas enough.

How about actually analysing the shenanigans people in business and political power get up to then?

Rather than speculating -- so often on the basis of simply, and simplistically, putting the conclusion cart before the evidence horse?

Conspiracists come across as** complete strangers to rationality and to the true nature of evidence.

**NB I said 'come across as' -- not are++

++Though identifying some exceptions to 'are' in the loon spouting world would be nice ....

Conspiraspeculators get right in the way of real analysis and real investigative enquiry and real historical research, that is the real spadework, done by by people who much more often than not, are independent minded anti establishment types.

That is the complete opposites of establishment-dupes.

 

[elbows]

Conspiraspeculators get right in the way of real analysis and real investigative enquiry and real historical research, by people who are the complete opposites of establishment-dupes.

A straightforward and obvious example of this is when the loons attack Chomsky, someone who cares great deal about institutional analysis. Who can take 'truth seekers' seriously when they are such obvious slaves to dogma, when enquiring minds are put to such poor use. Ignore genuine enquiry in favour of sloppy accusations that are more like the Spanish Inquisition than genuine enquiry. Way to go in defeating the horrors of the state by indulging in practices which are of more use in a dictators toolbox than an arsenal that could actually free people.

 

[sihhi]

Icke and others seem to think Queen Elizabeth is a shape shifting lizard or something. Must mean "jewish" - could be the German blood I suppose. Yeah - the queen is actually Jewish, anyone will tell you that.

Gosh this is fun, we can make up any amount of unmitigated paranoid horseshit.

taffboy gwyrdd this post of yours seems to suggest you think Icke is not anti-semitic.

Here is Icke's official unmediated statement on his own website on the David Ward affair

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/...st-bullies-and-censors-tell-liberal-democrats

"'We're so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so sorry that one of our MPs has told the truth about you sir, please, sir, thank you, sir.'

Not good enough, not enough so's. We have to show any other MP what happens when you tell the truth about us so it won't happen again.

'Sorry sir. We are so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so sorry sir, please, sir, thank you, sir.'

Not good enough.

The arrogance of these people knows no limits. How about a response something like this Nick 'is my tongue out far enough, sir' Clegg and the Liberal Democrats:

'The man is entitled to his opinion even if you don't agree with it. Now piss off.'

There, that should do it.

'David is very, very sorry, aren't you, David?'

'If you say so, Nick.'

'But how sorry is very, very sorry, David?'

'Very, very, very, sorry, Nick.'

'But what do you mean by very, very, very sorry, David?'"

Supporting modern conspiracism in any form - even if it's of the soft 'fractional reserve banking is the enemy return to the gold standard', 'there's overwhelming evidence 9-11 was an inside job, this matters hugely' gives antisemites like Icke a sea to swim in.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

My mate has joined the anti vaccination brigade. She's not vaccinated her child. I have some pretty strong views about that.

 

[8den]

My mate has joined the anti vaccination brigade. She's not vaccinated her child. I have some pretty strong views about that.

A few years back over christmas I spent a night in a hotel after a blazing row about vaccination with my mother in law. She was opposed. I was furious. Spent hours arguing, before calling her something unrepeatable and storming off.

Turns out she was winding me up. Yup I was trolled in IRL by my mother in law. And my wife wonders why things are awkward.

 

[William of Walworth]

Was idly wondering how long ago it had been since this thread was last active