Answering Conspiracy Theorists

Gary

I know we have at least a few conspiracy theorists on soulstrut. Harvey is most vocal, but I'm sure there are others.

I was just wondering what your reaction to an article like this is, and how you would address the points made:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/answering-conspiracy-theorists/


"This cuts to the heart of the logical fallacies at the core of conspiracy thinking. The conspirators in grand conspiracies have as much power, control, and reach as they need to pull off the conspiracy. Any missing evidence was covered up by the conspiracy. Any evidence against the conspiracy or for a more prosaic explanation was planted. Any events that would seem to undermine the conspiracy theory were clearly false flag operations.

Conspiracy theories are therefore immune to evidence. They are closed, self-contained belief systems that resist their own critical analysis. That is why they are a mental trap."

Not looking to start an argument, but genuinely interested in how you process and respond to arguments like this.

Thanks!

twoply

I think the alleged conspiracy, as evidenced by leaked Snowden docs, to spread bogus conspiracy theories might be relevant here:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/

Rockadelic

Humans are some strange fuckers. Because we are convinced we are the worlds smartest animal we need to have an answer and explanation for everything. When we don't have an answer we start looking to things like religion, ghosts, space aliens and conspiracy theories. This was very evident with the recent airliner disappearance where immediately people were talking about blackholes and alien spaceships.

Jimster

For the believer, no proof is necessary.
For the doubter, no proof will suffice.
- Anon.

I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Superman.
All I wanna do is bicycle.
- Mercury

Man was hella wrong with that tash and ting, but that has been my mantra since like, whole seconds.

batmon

HarveyCanal

Yes, "conspiracy theorists" are just one monolithic type and every single one not only exhibits identical traits across the board but they all got there the exact same way.

Seriously though, enough official history has been revised in the direction of "conspiracy theory" over the past 50 years that any talk of conspiracy theorists being inherently insane is clearly propaganda by either the "establishment" itself or by people as crazy as anyone could be in representing the establishment view as the end-all- be-all for everything.

HarveyCanal

Also, to my knowledge conspiracy theorists aren't lying, thieving, murderous perverts like the people on the official side of the story wind up being time after time after time.

Who is it that's crazy again? Somebody who sits at home and says the US has started 20 wars in a row under false, often completely fabricated pretenses, so they are likely doing that again in this case? Or is it the silver spoon, bomb-wielding, sell-out with clear associations to career criminals who screams at every chance that anyone who doesn't agree with him 100% is a lunatic terrorist who needs to be silenced, if not jailed or exterminated?

Point being, y'all are routinely sticking up for the wrong side. Of course this is nothing new.

LazarusOblong

Rockadelic said:

Humans are some strange fuckers. Because we are convinced we are the worlds smartest animal we need to have an answer and explanation for everything. When we don't have an answer we start looking to things like religion, ghosts, space aliens and conspiracy theories.

Who is this "we"?

Not all humans indulge in this sort of nonsense.

b/w

Alex Jones makes a sumptuous living off of the fears and stupidity of mentally ill, lonely, frustrated basket cases.

Lyndon LaRouche did, too.

HarveyCanal

We are long past the days where "conspiracies" are supposedly hidden and miraculously kept secret for decades at a time. Often, we know exactly what conspirators are up to because they so frequently publish their plans through their think tanks and foundations and such. They just do their evil right out in the open knowing full well that 1. the public is too emaciated with junk food and tv to ever want to believe that such blatant evil could be purposefully administered, and 2. that their public relations wizardry can steer anyone away from taking an oppositional stance against their evil. The public doesn't want to believe that Harry Reid is trying to sell Nevada ranch land to the Chinese for solar power facilities. Instead, the public wants to believe that the federal government is out to save a tortoise.

DOR

Rockadelic said:

Humans are some strange fuckers. Because we are convinced we are the worlds smartest animal we need to have an answer and explanation for everything. When we don't have an answer we start looking to things like religion, ghosts, space aliens and conspiracy theories. This was very evident with the recent airliner disappearance where immediately people were talking about blackholes and alien spaceships.

The problem is when organizations/corporations/governments try to not only control the output of information, but manipulate it. It breeds the ability for people who have honest questions to start running with things. And while there are some who take it too far, there can also just as easily be truth to a theory. It's not ridiculous to have the belief that something happened not the way it's been explained. Either in the need to coverup liability, crime, secret, etc etc etc.

Frank

Conspiracies are so 1980s... with the wealth (probably the wrong word here) of news and information available today, most people stopped giving much of a shit about anything a long time ago. OK, they still cultivate some conversational, recreational outrage to be indulged in at social events or more likely within their social media of choice but the topics come and go and nothing really means all that much anymore.

The amount of dirt our governments are doing right in the open is so staggering, nobody can even process it all. And who would want to? It immediately all feels like a waste of time anyway cause 3 days later it's all ancient history. Why do anything in secret when you can drone-bomb whoever you want (or occasionally bomb the wrong people -but who gives a shit) right in the open. I recently watched that (relatively poor and boring) Wikileaks movie and constantly was thinking "yeah... right, that also happened...". Give people their shitty little life, let them worry about their mortgage and proceed to shit in their face 24/7, they'll get used to it.

Conspiracy theories are like vinyl records. A thing of the past that some still keep around to remind themselves that the world was once a better place, except it wasn't.

Gary

HarveyCanal said:

any talk of conspiracy theorists being inherently insane is clearly propaganda by either the "establishment" itself or by people as crazy as anyone could be in representing the establishment view as the end-all- be-all for everything.

I can't tell if this is ironic on purpose (as a joke) or if it was written sincerely.

The idea that conspiracy theorists' theories seem crazy because there is a conspiracy to make them look that way is in itself another conspiracy theory which looks crazy. But maybe there is a conspiracy to make the theory that there is a conspiracy to make conspiracy theorists look crazy. A meta-conspiracy theory. If it is satire, it is brilliant. If not, then surely you recognize the irony, right?

Also, I was hoping that you (or somebody who generally believes in conspiracy theories) would address the actual point made in the article.

The biggest sign of a conspiracy theory is the part that I quoted above. Namely, that they are self-contained belief systems. Any shred of evidence that might support the conspiracy is considered proof of the conspiracy. But the lack of evidence (or evidence that contradicts the theory) is also considered proof of the conspiracy. Thus, the conspiracy feeds upon itself. It is self-sustaining.

To say it another way, to the rationalist skeptic, any idea or theory for which there is little or no evidence is dismissed. The burden of proof will always be on the person making the claim. The conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, shifts the burden of proof to those who deny the claim based on lack of evidence. To understand why this is fallacious, consider the claim that "Harvey once had sex with his cousin. He'll deny it of course, wouldn't you?"

Any rational person would immediately greet this claim with skepticism, and demand proof of such an accusation. Suppose I say that the burden of proof is on Harvey and that he can't prove that he didn't have sex with his cousin. Now I claim that since he can't prove that he didn't then we should all entertain the notion that he did in fact have sex with his cousin. Furthermore, that he keeps denying it is proof that he has something to hide. He says he doesn't even have a cousin -exactly what you would expect from somebody trying to hide the fact that they slept with their cousin.

And on and on. It is a ridiculous example, meant to highlight how conspiracy theories work. All conspiracy theories follow this same pattern. They shift the burden of proof and cite lack of evidence as proof of a conspiracy.

This is not to say that conspiracies don't happen. They do- and quite often, I would imagine, in business, and even in government. But it does not follow that everything is therefore a conspiracy, or that all conspiracy theories are valid. This is why the rationalist demands evidence. The question of "But isn't it possible...?" can always be answered with "Yes". Because anything is "possible" as long as it obeys basic laws of nature. It is possible that pink unicorns live in a cave system underneath my house. I can't prove that they don't, and it doesn't break any laws of nature. So the question of "Is it possible" isn't the question at the heart of a claim. The question is "Is it probable?" which is much more difficult to answer.

And how do we answer the question "Is it probable?" By what measure do we base this answer? Evidence, of course!

The conspiracy theorist claims that those who dismiss conspiracy theories because of lack of evidence are "sheep", or that they themselves are the victims of a conspiracy to keep them in the dark. But demanding evidence of a claim - in other words being skeptical, does not make you a sheep. It makes you rational. It makes you a critical thinker.

I understand that the TL;DR means that most of this will not get read but I don't know any conspiracy theorists in the 'real world'. When faced with rationalism, how do you respond? Can you respond to what I just wrote with a well-reasoned argument, or with more conspiracy theories?

Brian

jesus that really is tl;dr though

thought it was a copy and paste job but nope

HarveyCanal

Gary said:

HarveyCanal said:

any talk of conspiracy theorists being inherently insane is clearly propaganda by either the "establishment" itself or by people as crazy as anyone could be in representing the establishment view as the end-all- be-all for everything.

I can't tell if this is ironic on purpose (as a joke) or if it was written sincerely.

The idea that conspiracy theorists' theories seem crazy because there is a conspiracy to make them look that way is in itself another conspiracy theory which looks crazy. But maybe there is a conspiracy to make the theory that there is a conspiracy to make conspiracy theorists look crazy. A meta-conspiracy theory. If it is satire, it is brilliant. If not, then surely you recognize the irony, right?

Also, I was hoping that you (or somebody who generally believes in conspiracy theories) would address the actual point made in the article.

The biggest sign of a conspiracy theory is the part that I quoted above. Namely, that they are self-contained belief systems. Any shred of evidence that might support the conspiracy is considered proof of the conspiracy. But the lack of evidence (or evidence that contradicts the theory) is also considered proof of the conspiracy. Thus, the conspiracy feeds upon itself. It is self-sustaining.

To say it another way, to the rationalist skeptic, any idea or theory for which there is little or no evidence is dismissed. The burden of proof will always be on the person making the claim. The conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, shifts the burden of proof to those who deny the claim based on lack of evidence. To understand why this is fallacious, consider the claim that "Harvey once had sex with his cousin. He'll deny it of course, wouldn't you?"

Any rational person would immediately greet this claim with skepticism, and demand proof of such an accusation. Suppose I say that the burden of proof is on Harvey and that he can't prove that he didn't have sex with his cousin. Now I claim that since he can't prove that he didn't then we should all entertain the notion that he did in fact have sex with his cousin. Furthermore, that he keeps denying it is proof that he has something to hide. He says he doesn't even have a cousin -exactly what you would expect from somebody trying to hide the fact that they slept with their cousin.

And on and on. It is a ridiculous example, meant to highlight how conspiracy theories work. All conspiracy theories follow this same pattern. They shift the burden of proof and cite lack of evidence as proof of a conspiracy.

This is not to say that conspiracies don't happen. They do- and quite often, I would imagine, in business, and even in government. But it does not follow that everything is therefore a conspiracy, or that all conspiracy theories are valid. This is why the rationalist demands evidence. The question of "But isn't it possible...?" can always be answered with "Yes". Because anything is "possible" as long as it obeys basic laws of nature. It is possible that pink unicorns live in a cave system underneath my house. I can't prove that they don't, and it doesn't break any laws of nature. So the question of "Is it possible" isn't the question at the heart of a claim. The question is "Is it probable?" which is much more difficult to answer.

And how do we answer the question "Is it probable?" By what measure do we base this answer? Evidence, of course!

The conspiracy theorist claims that those who dismiss conspiracy theories because of lack of evidence are "sheep", or that they themselves are the victims of a conspiracy to keep them in the dark. But demanding evidence of a claim - in other words being skeptical, does not make you a sheep. It makes you rational. It makes you a critical thinker.

I understand that the TL;DR means that most of this will not get read but I don't know any conspiracy theorists in the 'real world'. When faced with rationalism, how do you respond? Can you respond to what I just wrote with a well-reasoned argument, or with more conspiracy theories?

I could only read enough to know that you are talking out of your ass.

For instance, you don't know any "conspiracy theorists" in real life.

I don't know about all of these imaginary people that you've never met, but whenever I'm shown actual evidence that contradicts what I formerly thought happened, I change my belief to match that actual evidence.

For instance, I'm fairly certain Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11. And thus, I think his assassination a decade later was nothing but a staged hoax. But if I was somehow shown actual evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't just stick to something that clearly isn't true. Of course the body was inexplicably dumped at sea, so at this point I am sticking with my original hunch.

This is a gay conversation though. You are clearly trolling and I'd also say you are stuck in talking about this ish like it's still 2002. Evolve already.

Gary

HarveyCanal said:

Gary said:

HarveyCanal said:

any talk of conspiracy theorists being inherently insane is clearly propaganda by either the "establishment" itself or by people as crazy as anyone could be in representing the establishment view as the end-all- be-all for everything.

I can't tell if this is ironic on purpose (as a joke) or if it was written sincerely.

The idea that conspiracy theorists' theories seem crazy because there is a conspiracy to make them look that way is in itself another conspiracy theory which looks crazy. But maybe there is a conspiracy to make the theory that there is a conspiracy to make conspiracy theorists look crazy. A meta-conspiracy theory. If it is satire, it is brilliant. If not, then surely you recognize the irony, right?

Also, I was hoping that you (or somebody who generally believes in conspiracy theories) would address the actual point made in the article.

The biggest sign of a conspiracy theory is the part that I quoted above. Namely, that they are self-contained belief systems. Any shred of evidence that might support the conspiracy is considered proof of the conspiracy. But the lack of evidence (or evidence that contradicts the theory) is also considered proof of the conspiracy. Thus, the conspiracy feeds upon itself. It is self-sustaining.

To say it another way, to the rationalist skeptic, any idea or theory for which there is little or no evidence is dismissed. The burden of proof will always be on the person making the claim. The conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, shifts the burden of proof to those who deny the claim based on lack of evidence. To understand why this is fallacious, consider the claim that "Harvey once had sex with his cousin. He'll deny it of course, wouldn't you?"

Any rational person would immediately greet this claim with skepticism, and demand proof of such an accusation. Suppose I say that the burden of proof is on Harvey and that he can't prove that he didn't have sex with his cousin. Now I claim that since he can't prove that he didn't then we should all entertain the notion that he did in fact have sex with his cousin. Furthermore, that he keeps denying it is proof that he has something to hide. He says he doesn't even have a cousin -exactly what you would expect from somebody trying to hide the fact that they slept with their cousin.

And on and on. It is a ridiculous example, meant to highlight how conspiracy theories work. All conspiracy theories follow this same pattern. They shift the burden of proof and cite lack of evidence as proof of a conspiracy.

This is not to say that conspiracies don't happen. They do- and quite often, I would imagine, in business, and even in government. But it does not follow that everything is therefore a conspiracy, or that all conspiracy theories are valid. This is why the rationalist demands evidence. The question of "But isn't it possible...?" can always be answered with "Yes". Because anything is "possible" as long as it obeys basic laws of nature. It is possible that pink unicorns live in a cave system underneath my house. I can't prove that they don't, and it doesn't break any laws of nature. So the question of "Is it possible" isn't the question at the heart of a claim. The question is "Is it probable?" which is much more difficult to answer.

And how do we answer the question "Is it probable?" By what measure do we base this answer? Evidence, of course!

The conspiracy theorist claims that those who dismiss conspiracy theories because of lack of evidence are "sheep", or that they themselves are the victims of a conspiracy to keep them in the dark. But demanding evidence of a claim - in other words being skeptical, does not make you a sheep. It makes you rational. It makes you a critical thinker.

I understand that the TL;DR means that most of this will not get read but I don't know any conspiracy theorists in the 'real world'. When faced with rationalism, how do you respond? Can you respond to what I just wrote with a well-reasoned argument, or with more conspiracy theories?

I could only read enough to know that you are talking out of your ass.

For instance, you don't know any "conspiracy theorists" in real life.

I don't know about all of these imaginary people that you've never met, but whenever I'm shown actual evidence that contradicts what I formerly thought happened, I change my belief to match that actual evidence.

For instance, I'm fairly certain Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11. And thus, I think his assassination a decade later was nothing but a staged hoax. But if I was somehow shown actual evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't just stick to something that clearly isn't true. Of course the body was inexplicably dumped at sea, so at this point I am sticking with my original hunch.

This is a gay conversation though. You are clearly trolling and I'd also say you are stuck in talking about this ish like it's still 2002. Evolve already.

OK. I swore just the other day that I thought you said that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation created in order to take our guns and I seem to recall something about the Boston Marathon as well.

So is it safe to say that you do not beleive in any conspiracies about Sandy Hook or the Boston Marathon?

HarveyCanal

Yep, just keep the trolling rolling...

I believe that both of those were staged events, yes.

Yippee! Now, what's your point?

Gary

I'd like to hear from people who genuinely beleive in conspiricies about Sandy Hook, or the Boston Marathon, or even these Bundy Ranchers.

I guess Harvey isn't my guy- he's developed an evidence based belief system and is therefore not the person to whom I should be asking my questions.

So... to those left who still subscribe to these false flag theories and stuff, tell me about it. I'm interested. How do you falsify your theories?

Gary

HarveyCanal said:

Yep, just keep the trolling rolling...

I believe that both of those were staged events, yes.

Yippee! Now, what's your point?

So my question is how would you falsify these beleifs? Being that it is impossible to prove a negative, what possible evidence would convince you that these events were not staged? I think that is the core of my questions. If you truly have an evidence based belief system, what actual evidence do you have that this was staged, and what possible evidence could convince you otherwise?

HarveyCanal

Gary said:

HarveyCanal said:

Yep, just keep the trolling rolling...

I believe that both of those were staged events, yes.

Yippee! Now, what's your point?

So my question is how would you falsify these beleifs? Being that it is impossible to prove a negative, what possible evidence would convince you that these events were not staged? I think that is the core of my questions. If you truly have an evidence based belief system, what actual evidence do you have that this was staged, and what possible evidence could convince you otherwise?

I have the same evidence in my possession that you have...none.

And maybe you don't even realize it, but all you are doing here is being a dick. So I'm out.

Gary

HarveyCanal said:

Gary said:

HarveyCanal said:

Yep, just keep the trolling rolling...

I believe that both of those were staged events, yes.

Yippee! Now, what's your point?

So my question is how would you falsify these beleifs? Being that it is impossible to prove a negative, what possible evidence would convince you that these events were not staged? I think that is the core of my questions. If you truly have an evidence based belief system, what actual evidence do you have that this was staged, and what possible evidence could convince you otherwise?

I have the same evidence in my possession that you have...none.

And maybe you don't even realize it, but all you are doing here is being a dick. So I'm out.

I apologize for coming across like an asshole. I'm genuinely curious but I don't know how to phrase my questions so that they don't sound confrontational.

For example, given that you hold beliefs that are not based on evidence, would you then ackowledge that these beleifs are irrational? Or would you hold that they are rational despite not being based on evidence, and if so how would you justify that?

Again, I apologize if these questions sound mean spirited. I didn't mean to offend but I really really really want to know.

twoply

Gary said:

The idea that conspiracy theorists' theories seem crazy because there is a conspiracy to make them look that way is in itself another conspiracy theory which looks crazy.

I really think this is worth taking a look at, Gary:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

"Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable."

If one were to consider this information to be fake, wouldn't that be akin to accusing the Snowden releases themselves as being conspiratorial in nature?

vintageinfants

this is like a cyclical argument about a cyclical argument.

like how a guy who fakes insanity to avoid a murder wrap could easily be diagnosed as insane for his decision to do so.

Gary

twoply said:

Gary said:

The idea that conspiracy theorists' theories seem crazy because there is a conspiracy to make them look that way is in itself another conspiracy theory which looks crazy.

I really think this is worth taking a look at, Gary:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

"Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable."

If one were to consider this information to be fake, wouldn't that be akin to accusing the Snowden releases themselves as being conspiratorial in nature?

That page wouldn't load for me, but I googled it and I think I get the general idea. But I'm not sure what the implication is... that JTRIG was behind Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon?

twoply

Gary said:

twoply said:

Gary said:

The idea that conspiracy theorists' theories seem crazy because there is a conspiracy to make them look that way is in itself another conspiracy theory which looks crazy.

I really think this is worth taking a look at, Gary:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

"Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable."

If one were to consider this information to be fake, wouldn't that be akin to accusing the Snowden releases themselves as being conspiratorial in nature?

That page wouldn't load for me, but I googled it and I think I get the general idea. But I'm not sure what the implication is... that JTRIG was behind Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon?

No, and I'm not even familiar with conspiracy theories regarding those events. I'm just pointing out that there are very clear indicators that some security agencies do have a hand in disseminating and pushing more "out there" theories as a method of obfuscating real issues and diverting attention which might otherwise be directed towards more constructive social and political conversations.

Da Vinylmentalist

Cambridge professors who researched the conspiracy theorist phenomenon concluded that many politicians are actually paranoid conspiracy theorists themselves.

Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?

COMMENTS (1508)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-24650841

By Brian Wheeler
Politics reporter, BBC News
Conspiracy theories
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Is it OK to call someone a conspiracy theorist?
Would you want to be a Freemason?
The evolution of the 9/11 conspiracy theories
The more information we have about what governments and corporations are up to the less we seem to trust them. Will conspiracy theories eventually destroy democracy?

What if I told you I had conclusive proof that the moon landings were faked, but I had been told to keep it under wraps by my BBC bosses acting under orders from the CIA, NSA and MI6. Most of you would think I had finally lost my mind.

But, for some, that scenario - a journalist working for a mainstream media organisation being manipulated by shadowy forces to keep vital information from the public - would seem entirely plausible, or even likely.

We live in a golden age for conspiracy theories. There is a growing assumption that everything we are told by the authorities is wrong, or not quite as it seems. That the truth is being manipulated or obscured by powerful vested interests.

And, in some cases, it is.

'Inside job'
"The reason we have conspiracy theories is that sometimes governments and organisations do conspire," says Observer columnist and academic John Naughton.

It would be wrong to write off all conspiracy theorists as "swivel-eyed loons," with "poor personal hygiene and halitosis," he told a Cambridge University Festival of Ideas debate.

They are not all "crazy". The difficult part, for those of us trying to make sense of a complex world, is working out which parts of the conspiracy theory to keep and which to throw away.

Mr Naughton is one of three lead investigators in a major new Cambridge University project to investigate the impact of conspiracy theories on democracy.

The internet is generally assumed to be the main driving force behind the growth in conspiracy theories but, says Mr Naughton, there has been little research into whether that is really the case.

He plans to compare internet theories on 9/11 with pre-internet theories about John F Kennedy's assassination.

Like the other researchers, he is wary, or perhaps that should be weary, of delving into the darker recesses of the conspiracy world.

"The minute you get into the JFK stuff, and the minute you sniff at the 9/11 stuff, you begin to lose the will to live," he told the audience in Cambridge.

Like Sir Richard Evans, who heads the five-year Conspiracy and Democracy project, he is at pains to stress that the aim is not to prove or disprove particular theories, simply to study their impact on culture and society.

Why are we so fascinated by them? Are they undermining trust in democratic institutions?

David Runciman, professor of politics at Cambridge University, the third principal investigator, is keen to explode the idea that most conspiracies are actually "cock-ups".

"The line between cock-up, conspiracy and conspiracy theory are much more blurred than the conventional view that you have got to choose between them," he told the Festival of Ideas.

"There's a conventional view that you get these conspirators, who are these kind of sinister, malign people who know what they are doing, and the conspiracy theorists, who occasionally stumble upon the truth but who are on the whole paranoid and crazy.


Sir Richard Evans: What constitutes a conspiracy theory?
"Actually the conspirators are often the paranoid and crazy conspiracy theorists, because in their attempt to cover up the cock-up they get drawn into a web in which their self-justification posits some giant conspiracy trying to expose their conspiracy.

"And I think that's consistently true through a lot of political scandals, Watergate included."

'Curry house plot'
It may also be true, he argues, of the "vicious" in-fighting and plotting that characterised New Labour's years in power, as recently exposed in the memoirs of Gordon Brown's former spin doctor Damian McBride.

The Brownite conspiracies to remove Tony Blair were "pathetically ineffectual" - with the exception of the 2006 "curry house" plot that forced Blair to name a departure date - but the picture painted by Mr McBride of a "paranoid" and "chaotic" inner circle has the ring of truth about it, he claims.

And Mr Brown - said to be a keen student of the JFK assassination - knew a conspiracy when he saw one.

"You feel he sees conspiracies out there because he has a mindset that is not dissimilar to the conspiracy theorists," said Prof Runciman.

He is also examining whether the push for greater openness and transparency in public life will fuel, rather than kill off, conspiracy theories.

"It may be that one of the things conspiracy theories feed on as well as silence, is a surfeit of information. And when there is a mass of information out there, it becomes easier for people to find their way through to come to the conclusion they want to come to.

"Plus, you don't have to be an especial cynic to believe that, in the age of open government, governments will be even more careful to keep secret the things they want to keep secret.

"The demand for openness always produces, as well as more openness, more secrecy."

Which brings us back to the moon landings. I should state, for the avoidance of any doubt, and to kill off any internet speculation, that I am not in possession of any classified information about whether they were faked or not. My contacts at Nasa are not that good.

But then I would say that wouldn't I?

Rockadelic

LazarusOblong said:

Rockadelic said:

Humans are some strange fuckers. Because we are convinced we are the worlds smartest animal we need to have an answer and explanation for everything. When we don't have an answer we start looking to things like religion, ghosts, space aliens and conspiracy theories.

Who is this "we"?

Not all humans indulge in this sort of nonsense.

"We" is the great majority of humans.

If you add up everyone who believes in a God, the supernatural, space aliens and the range of conspiracy theories I'm pretty sure it would exceed 90% of our population.

vintageinfants

Gary

twoply said:

Gary said:

twoply said:

Gary said:

The idea that conspiracy theorists' theories seem crazy because there is a conspiracy to make them look that way is in itself another conspiracy theory which looks crazy.

I really think this is worth taking a look at, Gary:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

"Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable."

If one were to consider this information to be fake, wouldn't that be akin to accusing the Snowden releases themselves as being conspiratorial in nature?

That page wouldn't load for me, but I googled it and I think I get the general idea. But I'm not sure what the implication is... that JTRIG was behind Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon?

No, and I'm not even familiar with conspiracy theories regarding those events. I'm just pointing out that there are very clear indicators that some security agencies do have a hand in disseminating and pushing more "out there" theories as a method of obfuscating real issues and diverting attention which might otherwise be directed towards more constructive social and political conversations.

Ahh- OK I follow now. I think there is a subtle difference though- in this case its equivocating 'constructive social and political conversations' with moon landing hoaxes and 'sandy hook was a false flag operation'.

Also it brings up the possibility that ideas such as 'Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon were staged by the government' are actually fake conspiracies planted by the CIA or JTRIG in order to distract people who might otherwise find out about REAL conspiracies.

It's an entertaining notion. But then how would you figure out which conspiracy theories are genuinely thought up by conspiracy theorists, and which ones were planted there by covert government operators? For example, what if alex jones's entire catalogue were one giant trick by the CIA? What if infowars was secretly run by MI6? It's a great movie plot, but again, on a case by case basis you would need evidence one way or the other.

LazarusOblong

HarveyCanal said:

The public doesn't want to believe that Harry Reid is trying to sell Nevada ranch land to the Chinese for solar power facilities. Instead, the public wants to believe that the federal government is out to save a tortoise.

What a sad, stupid conglomerate of race-baiting and right-wing agitprop those two sentences are.

Ooh, the Yellow Peril! And some stupid animal!

Jeezus. This is the sort of asshattery that leads to a thieving, rabble-rousing moocher like Cliven Bundy becoming a folk hero among undereducated white supremacist gun nuts.

LazarusOblong

Frank said:

Conspiracies are so 1980s... with the wealth (probably the wrong word here) of news and information available today, most people stopped giving much of a shit about anything a long time ago. OK, they still cultivate some conversational, recreational outrage to be indulged in at social events or more likely within their social media of choice but the topics come and go and nothing really means all that much anymore.

The amount of dirt our governments are doing right in the open is so staggering, nobody can even process it all. And who would want to? It immediately all feels like a waste of time anyway cause 3 days later it's all ancient history. Why do anything in secret when you can drone-bomb whoever you want (or occasionally bomb the wrong people -but who gives a shit) right in the open. I recently watched that (relatively poor and boring) Wikileaks movie and constantly was thinking "yeah... right, that also happened...". Give people their shitty little life, let them worry about their mortgage and proceed to shit in their face 24/7, they'll get used to it.

Conspiracy theories are like vinyl records. A thing of the past that some still keep around to remind themselves that the world was once a better place, except it wasn't.

Exactly.

DB_Cooper

Rockadelic said:

a God, the supernatural, space aliens

One of these things is not like the other. If the universe is as large as we believe it to be, the probability of alien life is actually very high. Whether they have the ability or desire to visit us is another question entirely.