Why Conspiracy Theorists are so prevalent.
- Thread starter Gnome Chompsky
- Start date
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
That's definitely a phenomena - the way I put it is that some people can barely open a bag of crisps without suspecting the hand of MK Ultra in the event.
But again, motive of the observer to believe X about event Y is detached from the facts about event Y, unless we start theorising about quantum stuff, which it's probably best not to.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Anything? What you got?
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
I re-read the post which you were responding to. It's clear what I'm saying, whether or not you agree. I know you may be used to thinking such a dismissive post equates with rebuttal. Could it be some kind of confirmation bias of your own?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I don't think there can be any common ground between people like spivey and anyone that calls themselves a marxist.
i'm not talking about people who watch these videos and think there may be something in them i'm talking about the spivey's and icke's and alex jones's who make money off of this shit, who make money off of promoting this stuff
It's nothing to do with confirmation bias they propagate a racist and anti-working class philosophy, fuck thinking they have anything to do with the left, if they do maybe it's time to re examine the whole nature of the left itself.
sorry.
i'm not talking about people who watch these videos and think there may be something in them i'm talking about the spivey's and icke's and alex jones's who make money off of this shit, who make money off of promoting this stuff
It's nothing to do with confirmation bias they propagate a racist and anti-working class philosophy, fuck thinking they have anything to do with the left, if they do maybe it's time to re examine the whole nature of the left itself.
sorry.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What? Just what?
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
In the way that when people purport that an event may not have been exactly as described via establishment channels they can be derided as conspiracy theorists. The term is used as pejorative, and is a pretty handy tool to bandy about in defence of possible / probable corruption and maybe worse.
Here's something I wrote on CTs some time ago, C and P'd to save re-typing some basic ideas:
I blew my lid the other night at some unsuspecting anarchist in cyberspace.
I was responding to a well worn and superficially attractive argument. To paraphrase: Anarchists are different from (and implicitly superior to) “Conspiracy Theorists” – they don’t need a fanciful, elaborate story to explain how bad the state is. They know the state is bad anyway. He put it better than that, but that’s the gist.
Here’s the thing: Conspiracies happen (without reaching for a dictionary, let’s just say a conspiracy is a “clandestine plot”). They happen all the time, big and small, private and public.
Theorising about them is perfectly reasonable. Some such theories turn out to be true. Many turn out to be false. Many more stay in an unproven state, somewhere on the long line between those 2 points.
By equating “conspiracy theory” with “nonsense” this anarchist was ironically being an elitist’s dupe.
For as long as I can remember “conspiracy theory” has not meant ” a theory about a conspiracy” at all.
I accept that language evolves but “conspiracy theory” has evolved to mean “theory about a conspiracy which can be commonly considered absurd”. It smacks almost of doublespeak and is an evolution that is not helpful.
The anarchist in question derided conspiracy theorists as “insane” along with some other unflattering descriptions.
Who might that definition serve? According to him, and many others, the following were / are all “insane”
- Anyone questioning the Met account of the deaths of De Menezes, Tomlinson, Duggan.
- Anyone who suspected (shock horror) that the corporate media were routinely breaking the law in spying on people and paying off police
- Anyone who thought the WMD claims prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq were more or less bollocks (this would include 2 chief weapons inspectors – Ritter and Blix)
- Anyone who thought the Bologna railway bombing and other terrorist acts carried out in the 1970s as part of Gladio weren’t as purported (they were originally blamed on the left to discredit them, as was the plan)
- Anyone who said that the Bilderberg Group even existed.
- Anyone who said that Operation Paperclip (extraction of Nazi scientists and war criminals to the US to serve various purposes) was nonsense
The list is potentially endless as you can imagine.
Any time someone suggests skulduggery is afoot in high places the establishment apologist need only scoff that it is a “conspiracy theory” as a substitute for counter argument.
- “Ah” comes the retort – “but all those things in that list are known to be true, they are no longer theories”.
Up to the point of being proved conclusively true these ideas were dismissable. Then suddenly everyone accepts them and we move on to scoff at someone else and their absurd “theories”.
Again – “conspiracy theory” has evolved to mean “conspiracy theory that is laughably untrue”
Thanks to such misuse of language all theories about conspiracies can be shrugged off as risible nonsense till fully proved. A simple black/white analysis to suit our busy minds and perhaps some interests beyond them.
But what of the legions of people who see conspiracy where there really isn’t any, or immediately assume the worst of the establishment when something bad happens?
It’s not just major global incidents that can’t occur without a dazzling array of explanations flooding the internet. Some people can scarcely open a packet of crisps without speculating that MK Ultra mind control was behind it (had the shop REALLY run out of Cheese and Onion like they said?)
This is what I call “knee jerk” conspiracism. It is at least as unhealthy as knee jerk anti-conspiracism. Some speculate that people are paid to put stuff like that out there to confuse us all the more (Counter Intel Pro).
It’s a hall of mirrors if you care to look into it. But in my opinion each of the many “conspiracy theories” needs to be taken on it’s own merits, if one has the time to investigate.
Just because someone is fishy about the official story of JFK nearly 50 years on, it does not follow that they do or should conclude that Diana was kidnapped by aliens working for Cheney while he carried out Sumerian rituals in a bunker under the grassy knoll.
Some say “conspiracy theories” arise from a wish to make the world more exiting or less confusing than it is. This is, to be frank, cod psychology. It has no bearing on the merits of any one case.
One could just as easily say that kneejerk counter conspiracism fulfills psychological needs, and be just as devoid of true substance in saying it.
There is such a thing as nuance. Maybe people find less time for this particular “n” word these days. There is certainly little room for it in 140 characters.
What is the point of this piece? I guess to ask the reader to be a little bit more circumspect next time they hear the term “Conspiracy Theory” used to belittle someone, to remain mindful that conspiracies are an absolute fundamental of politics, and to not stop theorising about them
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why don't you lock yourself in a cupboard?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
I have a knee jerk reaction to conspiracy theorists, when I think I meet a 9/11 conspiracy theorist my knee jerks and i want to slam into their bollocks.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Oh, do fuck off, there's a good little idiot.
ETA: you're hoping it's going to be you, aren't you? All that attention, you must envy him...
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Christ, don't you fucking start!
As for choices, I'm just going to carry on as I am. If you have a problem with that, get over it.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
This is absolute bollocks. Let's take the way that the death of Ian Tomlinson was covered on here. I expect the thread is still available. It includes dozens of posters discussing the the flaws in the coverage of the event by "establishment channels" and the police version of events.
The difference is that the discussion didn't tip over into loony speculation (in the main). It stuck to the evidence and tried to build up a picture of what had happened and the different roles/motivations of the various individuals and agencies involved. It did not invoke a huge meta-narrative involving a global conspiracy (which it could easily have done given the link between the protest and the G8). It did not ask pointless smug questions.
There are other discussions on here about the bullshit coverage in establishment channels of benefit claimants too.
The issue is not sheeple who believe everything the media tells them vs brave people who have the courage to question everything.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
And the "bravery" of the CTer rings rather hollow when a) the narratives they're claiming to be exposing appear to be nonexistent, and b) for all that they're blowing open some Grand Overarching Conspiracy that frequently seems to involve the secret liquidation of hundreds or even thousands of people, they - all of them - fail to disappear, die of strange or suspiciously contracted diseases, or even lose their jobs (barring some of the more certifiable types who probably got the sack for spending too much time making interminable YouTube videos and not doing their jobs).
8ball
AV REFUGEES WELCOME
Pointing the finger at capitalism struck me as fine. I just found it to be a bit pre-digested in its conclusions which reminded me a bit of a religious tract.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the most annoying thing for me is that the disciples of CT stuff very rarely go "Full Conspiracy Theory". They quote from and allude to all manner of batshit stuff but then if questioned on it they retreat into "just asking questions", "finding it interesting", "weighing up the options" etc.
This means that all the vile anti-semitic stuff (for example) continues to circulate, but it gets covered with a layer of wishy-washy cop-outs and excuses.
Perhaps another thing that differentiates conspiracy theorists from commies is their refusal to take a position on stuff.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
If it had said ...this is why you should join our group and only our group has the answers then i think you may have something, but i think it was pretty clear that it was pushing a way of seeing the world, of interpreting things based on wider collective activity so leaving ample room for varying approaches and positions within that broader framework. And frankly, i can forgive a bit of over-eagerness or clumsiness in interventions like this, esp when there appears to be so little comparable activity taking place.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Also you would hope that the audience would already have an apetite for explanations of the way the world works. So I think not talking down to people is a good approach.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Indeed, they adapt their tactics to the ground they're fighting on. We see that with a number of Cters on here who have learnt to hide the depth of their loonery and developed a range of methods designed to make exposing this appear as motivated by unjustified personal malevolence rather than knowing exactly what their game is.
8ball
AV REFUGEES WELCOME
Yeah, I agree with that - just would have preferred something with those elements smoothed out a little.
It's aimed at CTers rather than me anyway - they're used to reading websites written in lime green 24 pt Comic Sans so I'm sure they'll manage.
eoin_k
Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music
Who is this putative cyber anarchist? This is a straw man argument.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
It's also not even an argument. It's a monologue about a straw man argument.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That sort of argument quoted above is just the flip-side of those of the elites really. It attempt to bully people into agreeing with them via oh so you support the murder of a million Iraqi children do you? That post above openly does exactly that. I didn't support the invasion of iraq or the occupation and i don't want to be corralled into your anti-semitic compound thanks very much CTers. And it's this which is what i was talking about above, about their pretty transparent tactics.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
They Have Become What They Oppose
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
c) guess who it always ends up being the plot by
8ball
AV REFUGEES WELCOME
Similar threads
