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.
Except that shows like "Ancient Aliens" and "Ghost Hunters" and "In search of bigfoot" are pretty popular right now. I don't know if they are more popular now than they were in the 80s, nor do I know how many people who watch these shows actually take them seriously. But they certainly wouldn't be so popular if this type of thinking were a relic of the past.
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:
"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.
Personally, I don't think it takes much these days to trigger people's imaginations into doing most of the work. A pinch of misinformation here, a dash of misdirection there, and people will carry the message as far as they can. But to give an example, I am highly suspect of the 9/11 "truther" movement. There has been a lot of money thrown behind it via films, websites, and other media.
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.
In this country, sure. And it's probably a high percentage in just about all of them. But it's going down.
Stop stereotyping people!
By the way, which of those things do you believe in?
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:
"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.
Personally, I don't think it takes much these days to trigger people's imaginations into doing most of the work. A pinch of misinformation here, a dash of misdirection there, and people will carry the message as far as they can. But to give an example, I am highly suspect of the 9/11 "truther" movement. There has been a lot of money thrown behind it via films, websites, and other media.
Did you see the south park episode about this? It was pretty awesome.
Conspiracy theorists who themselves are the victims of conspiracy to make them think that everything is a conspiracy.
If this was the plan, then its not a very good one because it assumes that 9-11 truthers would be busy exposing real government secrets except they were too distracted. Just thinking out loud here... how many actual conspiracies have revealed by conspiracy theorists, as opposed to real journalists or just by good old fashioned clumsiness on the part of the conspirators?
For example, suppose an investigative reporter breaks some story like watergate. Is it plausible to think that had they been fed fake conspiracy theories they would have chased those down instead of doing actual investigation about real things? Maybe... but it seems to me that the people who reveal real conspiracies (i.e. journalists or congressional aides, or whistleblowers, or whatever) aren't usually conspiracies theorists who finally stumbled on to something real.
I could of course be wrong. But if that was their idea it seems... kind of stupid
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.
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:
"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.
Personally, I don't think it takes much these days to trigger people's imaginations into doing most of the work. A pinch of misinformation here, a dash of misdirection there, and people will carry the message as far as they can. But to give an example, I am highly suspect of the 9/11 "truther" movement. There has been a lot of money thrown behind it via films, websites, and other media.
Did you see the south park episode about this? It was pretty awesome.
Conspiracy theorists who themselves are the victims of conspiracy to make them think that everything is a conspiracy.
If this was the plan, then its not a very good one because it assumes that 9-11 truthers would be busy exposing real government secrets except they were too distracted. Just thinking out loud here... how many actual conspiracies have revealed by conspiracy theorists, as opposed to real journalists or just by good old fashioned clumsiness on the part of the conspirators?
For example, suppose an investigative reporter breaks some story like watergate. Is it plausible to think that had they been fed fake conspiracy theories they would have chased those down instead of doing actual investigation about real things? Maybe... but it seems to me that the people who reveal real conspiracies (i.e. journalists or congressional aides, or whistleblowers, or whatever) aren't usually conspiracies theorists who finally stumbled on to something real.
I could of course be wrong. But if that was their idea it seems... kind of stupid
You're kind of twisting what I'm saying here. I'm not implying that "truthers" would otherwise be solving conspiracies. I'm saying that the existence of such a movement does detract from political conversations about the tragedy. People who believe that the issues bears more investigation need public support in order to instigate further investigation. If that public support is partly tied up in conspiracy theory, it has the dual purpose of siphoning support, while simultaneously silencing those who do not want to speak out for fear of being aligned with the conspiracy theorists.
As for your assertion that journalists who reveal real conspiracies aren't usually conspiracy theorists, I completely agree. The article I linked was written by Glenn Greenwald, and in it he asserts exactly what I'm talking about: security agencies are using subversive tactics to derail conversations about real conspiracies by fueling the fire of rampant conspiracy theorizing on the internet.
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?
I look into some conspiracy theories out of curiosity occasionally. Many are clearly bullshit, like the Sandy Hook one. 9/11 is more difficult to disprove, I don't know really. Maybe the official version of events is true, athough I have my doubts.
But politics are conspiratorial in their nature. Take the Arab Spring for example. The US had major interests in removing the Gaddafi regime, thereby weakening the main financial source behind the African Union and taking out one major competitor in the oil and gas markets.
So the conspiracy theory goes as follows: the US and Qatar (the 3rd biggest gas producer worldwide after US & Russia) secretly supported and provided weapons to separatists in Libya and ordered them to rise up against the Libyan government. These separatists or rebels started by taking over Libyan cities one by one in the east of that country and then proclaiming an independent republic. Soon after that the Libyan army responded and called these separatists 'terrorists' and the government vowed to clear these cities from the 'terrorists'. Then the first defections in the Libyan army started, when army officers went over to the side of the separatists. When the Libyan government responded with even more force, outside military forces threatened they would invade in order to help the separatists against the Libyan government, of course the outside forces (NATO & Qatar) would do this in order to safeguard their own strategic and economical interests.
Now you might think, that's crazy! America would never cook up such a devious cunning and elaborate scheme! Right?
But turn on the TV and take a look at what's happening in the Ukraine....
In good Cold War fashion, Putin copy-pasted the American strategy of asymmetrical and hybrid warfare strategy they did in Libya, and enforced it in the Ukraine. As further proof to how similar Putin's Ukraine strategy is to the alleged conspiracy theory of 'US-staged revolution in Libya', I will explain what we all know is happening in the Ukraine with almost the same terms as I did in explaining the Libyan conspiracy theory above:
So Putin strategy goes as follows: Russia secretly supported and provided weapons to separatists in East Ukraine and ordered them to rise up against the Ukrainian government. These separatists or rebels started by taking over Ukrainian cities one by one in the east of that country and then proclaiming an independent republic. Soon after that the Ukrainian army responded and called these separatists 'terrorists' and the government vowed to clear these cities from the 'terrorists'. Then (today this actually happened!) the first defections in the Ukrainian army started, when army officers went over to the side of the separatists. If in the near future the Ukrainian government responds with even more force, outside military forces will threaten to invade in order to help the separatists against the Ukrainian government, of course the outside forces (Russia) would do this in order to safeguard their own strategic and economical interests.
Many here on Soul Strut called me 'crazy' and a 'conspiracy theorist' when I said the whole so-called 'Libyan revolution' was STAGED by the good ole US of A.
I am simply laughing my ass off.
The brilliant strategists in the US and Russian government know otherwise then to think these are all mere conspiracy theories.
Believing in some of these 'theories' is what separates the chess players from the checker players.
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?
I look into some conspiracy theories out of curiosity occasionally. Many are clearly bullshit, like the Sandy Hook one. 9/11 is more difficult to disprove, I don't know really. Maybe the official version of events is true, athough I have my doubts.
But politics are conspiratorial in their nature. Take the Arab Spring for example. The US had major interests in removing the Gaddafi regime, thereby weakening the main financial source behind the African Union and taking out one major competitor in the oil and gas markets.
So the conspiracy theory goes as follows: the US and Qatar (the 3rd biggest gas producer worldwide after US & Russia) secretly supported and provided weapons to separatists in Libya and ordered them to rise up against the Libyan government. These separatists or rebels started by taking over Libyan cities one by one in the east of that country and then proclaiming an independent republic. Soon after that the Libyan army responded and called these separatists 'terrorists' and the government vowed to clear these cities from the 'terrorists'. Then the first defections in the Libyan army started, when army officers went over to the side of the separatists. When the Libyan government responded with even more force, outside military forces threatened they would invade in order to help the separatists against the Libyan government, of course the outside forces (NATO & Qatar) would do this in order to safeguard their own strategic and economical interests.
Now you might think, that's crazy! America would never cook up such a devious cunning and elaborate scheme! Right?
But turn on the TV and take a look at what's happening in the Ukraine....
In good Cold War fashion, Putin copy-pasted the American strategy of asymmetrical and hybrid warfare strategy they did in Libya, and enforced it in the Ukraine. As further proof to how similar Putin's Ukraine strategy is to the alleged conspiracy theory of 'US-staged revolution in Libya', I will explain what we all know is happening in the Ukraine with almost the same terms as I did in explaining the Libyan conspiracy theory above:
So Putin strategy goes as follows: Russia secretly supported and provided weapons to separatists in East Ukraine and ordered them to rise up against the Ukrainian government. These separatists or rebels started by taking over Ukrainian cities one by one in the east of that country and then proclaiming an independent republic. Soon after that the Ukrainian army responded and called these separatists 'terrorists' and the government vowed to clear these cities from the 'terrorists'. Then (today this actually happened!) the first defections in the Ukrainian army started, when army officers went over to the side of the separatists. If in the near future the Ukrainian government responds with even more force, outside military forces will threaten to invade in order to help the separatists against the Ukrainian government, of course the outside forces (Russia) would do this in order to safeguard their own strategic and economical interests.
Many here on Soul Strut called me 'crazy' and a 'conspiracy theorist' when I said the whole so-called 'Libyan revolution' was STAGED by the good ole US of A.
I am simply laughing my ass off.
The brilliant strategists in the US and Russian government know otherwise then to think these are all mere conspiracy theories.
Believing in some of these 'theories' is what separates the chess players from the checker players.
Let's distinguish between "conspiracy theories" like those (which are in no way arcane or absurd) and those of the "Obama has a weather machine" or "AIDS was invented by the Bilderbergers" sorts.
You're kind of twisting what I'm saying here. I'm not implying that "truthers" would otherwise be solving conspiracies. I'm saying that the existence of such a movement does detract from political conversations about the tragedy. People who believe that the issues bears more investigation need public support in order to instigate further investigation. If that public support is partly tied up in conspiracy theory, it has the dual purpose of siphoning support, while simultaneously silencing those who do not want to speak out for fear of being aligned with the conspiracy theorists.
As for your assertion that journalists who reveal real conspiracies aren't usually conspiracy theorists, I completely agree. The article I linked was written by Glenn Greenwald, and in it he asserts exactly what I'm talking about: security agencies are using subversive tactics to derail conversations about real conspiracies by fueling the fire of rampant conspiracy theorizing on the internet.
No twisting was done on purpose, I think I just misunderstood your intent. I'd like to address a couple of your points...
"I'm saying that the existence of such a movement does detract from political conversations about the tragedy."
People say this alot, about how reality TV, video games, etc. are a distraction from real issues. The implication here is that if it weren't for these distractions that people would focus on 'real world problems'. I hear this alot from science enthusiasts, who say that people aren't interested in science because they are too distracted by reality tv, videogames, iphones, etc. It seems that you could take any topic that you feel is important and say that the majority of people don't care because they are being distracted. But I don't think it follows that if you got rid of all of things that the average person would take a sudden interest in politics, or science, or climate change, or the economy, etc...
Also, I don't believe that these things distract to the point that people who would otherwise be active in politics or science are so easily distracted by nonsense. Science and journalism and politics continues right along, despite all these so-called distractions.
In reality I think it isn't so cut and dry (not that you were implying that it were). I used science books to distract myself from reality. I would imagine people follow politics for something of the same reason- escapism... as strange as it sounds.
"People who believe that the issues bears more investigation need public support in order to instigate further investigation."
I would agree to this with the caveat that not every theory needs investigating. Not every crackpot idea deserves public support. Just because I think an issue bears more investigation, doesn't actually make it so if I can't provide any plausible justification.
If anything, conspiracy theories muddy the water, and make it harder for the average person to tell what is legitimate and what is just imagination. Which I think is essentially what you are saying here:
"If that public support is partly tied up in conspiracy theory, it has the dual purpose of siphoning support, while simultaneously silencing those who do not want to speak out for fear of being aligned with the conspiracy theorists."
In which case I think we pretty much agree. Anybody with evidence to back up their claims should not be worried about being confused for a conspiracy theorist. Overall I would agree that it has a negative effect to where you have climate change denialists and anti-evolutionist calling themselves "skeptics" and dismissing evidence in favor of conspiracy...
Jonathon Swift said "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out a thing he was never reasoned into," and I'm inclined to agree. But that's what has me so curious in the first place. If you hold a mirror up to the conspiracy theory using cold hard logic what happens? Harvey admitted that his beliefs were not based on evidence. In other words, he was never reasoned into them. So how does somebody come to believe in a conspiracy in the first place? I've read a lot of theories and ideas, but I've never gotten it from the horse's mouth. And now that I've angered Harvey I don't think I ever will.
Jonathon Swift said "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out a thing he was never reasoned into," and I'm inclined to agree. But that's what has me so curious in the first place. If you hold a mirror up to the conspiracy theory using cold hard logic what happens? Harvey admitted that his beliefs were not based on evidence. In other words, he was never reasoned into them. So how does somebody come to believe in a conspiracy in the first place? I've read a lot of theories and ideas, but I've never gotten it from the horse's mouth. And now that I've angered Harvey I don't think I ever will.
People who hold such beliefs are like cultists. Expressing the beliefs is a way of identifying themselves to other cult members.
But if you go among them as an outsider and question them about the origins and veracity of those beliefs they get angry and clam up about them. In group settings (think Tea Party rallies) they'll get belligerent. Try going to one of those clown shows and asking them why they think Obama is a socialist or a native Kenyan, or why they're so upset about the bogus IRS scandal. They don't have any real answers, but they will shout you down if you persist.
Harvey'll just whip out the word "gay," because that's his style.
The implication here is that if it weren't for these distractions that people would focus on 'real world problems'. I hear this alot from science enthusiasts, who say that people aren't interested in science because they are too distracted by reality tv, videogames, iphones, etc. It seems that you could take any topic that you feel is important and say that the majority of people don't care because they are being distracted. But I don't think it follows that if you got rid of all of things that the average person would take a sudden interest in politics, or science, or climate change, or the economy, etc...
To me, it's less about what people would do without distractions, and more about the general direction of public opinion, which is always what propaganda on a national or global level seeks to sway. As Rock pointed out, people will always escape into fantasy to deal with the harsh realities of life. But now, with media consolidation and global communication at our fingertips, finding a flavor of escapism for everyone is easier than ever.
If anything, conspiracy theories muddy the water, and make it harder for the average person to tell what is legitimate and what is just imagination. Which I think is essentially what you are saying here:
That is partly what I'm saying. I think that promoting personal retreat into imagination is a powerful tool that has been used to control populations since populations were large enough to control. We're not seeing anything new there, but we're seeing newer methods for doing so.
It is about false pattern recognition or apophenia. We seek order in the chaos of the universe.
I suspect that we have evolved to seek a certain sort of order within the chaos, meaning that it should not necessarily be dismissed as an unnecessary factor in achieving sustainable social orders. But tools that can be used to build can also be used to demolish.
I believe is was Farrakhan who said it's not a conspiracy, they meet on Wall Street everyday.
There are some awful people out there and they lie an cover up stuff but if you have your eyes open it's all in plain sight.
Clearly there is an effort by few to stay ultra rich and keep the majority working for them. This has been going on for thousands of years, it's no secret. It's just the middle ages with more toys.
If you had half a brain you know the government was spying on everybody. They just built a massive data center in Utah to store all the info there is so much of it. Illegal spying stories come out all the time, but they are 5 year old events or more. You don't know what's going on now, but it's still going on.
The History channel has shows on underground bases and are 51 all the time. Your and idiot to think there aren't 100 more you don't know about.
People distract themselves. You don't have to ignore what's going on.
I always thought Richard Hogland was a kick. Totally pissed at "we didn't go to the moon" people because he wants to say we went and found alien structures.
I'd be interested to know how what any of you believe or don't believe impacts your day-to-day lives.
Other than how you vote and arguing on the interwebs.
Serious question.
I always thought Richard Hogland was a kick. Totally pissed at "we didn't go to the moon" people because he wants to say we went and found alien structures.
So the conspiracy theory goes as follows: the US and Qatar (the 3rd biggest gas producer worldwide after US & Russia) secretly supported and provided weapons to separatists in Libya and ordered them to rise up against the Libyan government. These separatists or rebels started by taking over Libyan cities one by one in the east of that country and then proclaiming an independent republic. Soon after that the Libyan army responded and called these separatists 'terrorists' and the government vowed to clear these cities from the 'terrorists'. Then the first defections in the Libyan army started, when army officers went over to the side of the separatists. When the Libyan government responded with even more force, outside military forces threatened they would invade in order to help the separatists against the Libyan government, of course the outside forces (NATO & Qatar) would do this in order to safeguard their own strategic and economical interests.
And France.
This is story that was in the mainstream media at the time. I don't see the conspiracy.
I'd be interested to know how what any of you believe or don't believe impacts your day-to-day lives.
Other than how you vote and arguing on the interwebs.
Serious question.
According to Princeton it totally impacts my daily life and I can't do much to change it. Even if you take it to illuminati levels you believe you are helpless and you are controlled.
I prefer to believe that there s a bigger picture at work in the universe and as long as I continue to be a good person and contribute to the world as best as possible I'm not being controlled by the powers that be.
I'm sure most of you are aware of them already but the Adam Curtis documentaries are probably the best thing I've watched that touch on the sort of topics that attract conspiracy theories, all without falling into flights of paranoid fantasy.
I think it's definitely a human nature to seek comfort from the cruel chaotic failures that life offers, on both a micro and macro level. Religion, science, conspiracy theories, take your pick. Even the 'realist' belief that 'we're just genetic machines with little power to shape the world at large so it's best to just try and be a good person' is a construct to help us deal.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
bassie said:
I'd be interested to know how what any of you believe or don't believe impacts your day-to-day lives.
Other than how you vote and arguing on the interwebs.
Serious question.
How you work. How you eat. How and where you shop. How you dress. How you exercise. How you deal with your health issues. What you choose to subject yourself to media-wise. Who you interact with and on what levels. Who you make a point to stand up for in public. Who you make a point to deride in public.
Comments
Except that shows like "Ancient Aliens" and "Ghost Hunters" and "In search of bigfoot" are pretty popular right now. I don't know if they are more popular now than they were in the 80s, nor do I know how many people who watch these shows actually take them seriously. But they certainly wouldn't be so popular if this type of thinking were a relic of the past.
Personally, I don't think it takes much these days to trigger people's imaginations into doing most of the work. A pinch of misinformation here, a dash of misdirection there, and people will carry the message as far as they can. But to give an example, I am highly suspect of the 9/11 "truther" movement. There has been a lot of money thrown behind it via films, websites, and other media.
In this country, sure. And it's probably a high percentage in just about all of them. But it's going down.
Stop stereotyping people!
By the way, which of those things do you believe in?
Did you see the south park episode about this? It was pretty awesome.
Conspiracy theorists who themselves are the victims of conspiracy to make them think that everything is a conspiracy.
If this was the plan, then its not a very good one because it assumes that 9-11 truthers would be busy exposing real government secrets except they were too distracted. Just thinking out loud here... how many actual conspiracies have revealed by conspiracy theorists, as opposed to real journalists or just by good old fashioned clumsiness on the part of the conspirators?
For example, suppose an investigative reporter breaks some story like watergate. Is it plausible to think that had they been fed fake conspiracy theories they would have chased those down instead of doing actual investigation about real things? Maybe... but it seems to me that the people who reveal real conspiracies (i.e. journalists or congressional aides, or whistleblowers, or whatever) aren't usually conspiracies theorists who finally stumbled on to something real.
I could of course be wrong. But if that was their idea it seems... kind of stupid
if there's a d next to their name, treat word as gospel
if there's a r next to their name, attack everything said, call it crazy made up nonsense
any other letter, do not know how to process outside of very strict b/w mentality
Can't we just blame the Mossad for everything?
It's such a cool word and they're wicked smart.
Which "d" conspiracy theory do you think I believe in, you lying motherfucker?
You're kind of twisting what I'm saying here. I'm not implying that "truthers" would otherwise be solving conspiracies. I'm saying that the existence of such a movement does detract from political conversations about the tragedy. People who believe that the issues bears more investigation need public support in order to instigate further investigation. If that public support is partly tied up in conspiracy theory, it has the dual purpose of siphoning support, while simultaneously silencing those who do not want to speak out for fear of being aligned with the conspiracy theorists.
As for your assertion that journalists who reveal real conspiracies aren't usually conspiracy theorists, I completely agree. The article I linked was written by Glenn Greenwald, and in it he asserts exactly what I'm talking about: security agencies are using subversive tactics to derail conversations about real conspiracies by fueling the fire of rampant conspiracy theorizing on the internet.
I look into some conspiracy theories out of curiosity occasionally. Many are clearly bullshit, like the Sandy Hook one. 9/11 is more difficult to disprove, I don't know really. Maybe the official version of events is true, athough I have my doubts.
But politics are conspiratorial in their nature. Take the Arab Spring for example. The US had major interests in removing the Gaddafi regime, thereby weakening the main financial source behind the African Union and taking out one major competitor in the oil and gas markets.
So the conspiracy theory goes as follows: the US and Qatar (the 3rd biggest gas producer worldwide after US & Russia) secretly supported and provided weapons to separatists in Libya and ordered them to rise up against the Libyan government. These separatists or rebels started by taking over Libyan cities one by one in the east of that country and then proclaiming an independent republic. Soon after that the Libyan army responded and called these separatists 'terrorists' and the government vowed to clear these cities from the 'terrorists'. Then the first defections in the Libyan army started, when army officers went over to the side of the separatists. When the Libyan government responded with even more force, outside military forces threatened they would invade in order to help the separatists against the Libyan government, of course the outside forces (NATO & Qatar) would do this in order to safeguard their own strategic and economical interests.
Now you might think, that's crazy! America would never cook up such a devious cunning and elaborate scheme! Right?
But turn on the TV and take a look at what's happening in the Ukraine....
In good Cold War fashion, Putin copy-pasted the American strategy of asymmetrical and hybrid warfare strategy they did in Libya, and enforced it in the Ukraine. As further proof to how similar Putin's Ukraine strategy is to the alleged conspiracy theory of 'US-staged revolution in Libya', I will explain what we all know is happening in the Ukraine with almost the same terms as I did in explaining the Libyan conspiracy theory above:
So Putin strategy goes as follows: Russia secretly supported and provided weapons to separatists in East Ukraine and ordered them to rise up against the Ukrainian government. These separatists or rebels started by taking over Ukrainian cities one by one in the east of that country and then proclaiming an independent republic. Soon after that the Ukrainian army responded and called these separatists 'terrorists' and the government vowed to clear these cities from the 'terrorists'. Then (today this actually happened!) the first defections in the Ukrainian army started, when army officers went over to the side of the separatists. If in the near future the Ukrainian government responds with even more force, outside military forces will threaten to invade in order to help the separatists against the Ukrainian government, of course the outside forces (Russia) would do this in order to safeguard their own strategic and economical interests.
Many here on Soul Strut called me 'crazy' and a 'conspiracy theorist' when I said the whole so-called 'Libyan revolution' was STAGED by the good ole US of A.
I am simply laughing my ass off.
The brilliant strategists in the US and Russian government know otherwise then to think these are all mere conspiracy theories.
Believing in some of these 'theories' is what separates the chess players from the checker players.
In other words you have absolutely nothing, as always. Silly little Randian jerkoff.
Yeah, I was checking to confirm that he was poasting it... :lol:
Let's distinguish between "conspiracy theories" like those (which are in no way arcane or absurd) and those of the "Obama has a weather machine" or "AIDS was invented by the Bilderbergers" sorts.
No twisting was done on purpose, I think I just misunderstood your intent. I'd like to address a couple of your points...
"I'm saying that the existence of such a movement does detract from political conversations about the tragedy."
People say this alot, about how reality TV, video games, etc. are a distraction from real issues. The implication here is that if it weren't for these distractions that people would focus on 'real world problems'. I hear this alot from science enthusiasts, who say that people aren't interested in science because they are too distracted by reality tv, videogames, iphones, etc. It seems that you could take any topic that you feel is important and say that the majority of people don't care because they are being distracted. But I don't think it follows that if you got rid of all of things that the average person would take a sudden interest in politics, or science, or climate change, or the economy, etc...
Also, I don't believe that these things distract to the point that people who would otherwise be active in politics or science are so easily distracted by nonsense. Science and journalism and politics continues right along, despite all these so-called distractions.
In reality I think it isn't so cut and dry (not that you were implying that it were). I used science books to distract myself from reality. I would imagine people follow politics for something of the same reason- escapism... as strange as it sounds.
"People who believe that the issues bears more investigation need public support in order to instigate further investigation."
I would agree to this with the caveat that not every theory needs investigating. Not every crackpot idea deserves public support. Just because I think an issue bears more investigation, doesn't actually make it so if I can't provide any plausible justification.
If anything, conspiracy theories muddy the water, and make it harder for the average person to tell what is legitimate and what is just imagination. Which I think is essentially what you are saying here:
"If that public support is partly tied up in conspiracy theory, it has the dual purpose of siphoning support, while simultaneously silencing those who do not want to speak out for fear of being aligned with the conspiracy theorists."
In which case I think we pretty much agree. Anybody with evidence to back up their claims should not be worried about being confused for a conspiracy theorist. Overall I would agree that it has a negative effect to where you have climate change denialists and anti-evolutionist calling themselves "skeptics" and dismissing evidence in favor of conspiracy...
Jonathon Swift said "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out a thing he was never reasoned into," and I'm inclined to agree. But that's what has me so curious in the first place. If you hold a mirror up to the conspiracy theory using cold hard logic what happens? Harvey admitted that his beliefs were not based on evidence. In other words, he was never reasoned into them. So how does somebody come to believe in a conspiracy in the first place? I've read a lot of theories and ideas, but I've never gotten it from the horse's mouth. And now that I've angered Harvey I don't think I ever will.
People who hold such beliefs are like cultists. Expressing the beliefs is a way of identifying themselves to other cult members.
But if you go among them as an outsider and question them about the origins and veracity of those beliefs they get angry and clam up about them. In group settings (think Tea Party rallies) they'll get belligerent. Try going to one of those clown shows and asking them why they think Obama is a socialist or a native Kenyan, or why they're so upset about the bogus IRS scandal. They don't have any real answers, but they will shout you down if you persist.
Harvey'll just whip out the word "gay," because that's his style.
What exactly is your purpose again?
To me, it's less about what people would do without distractions, and more about the general direction of public opinion, which is always what propaganda on a national or global level seeks to sway. As Rock pointed out, people will always escape into fantasy to deal with the harsh realities of life. But now, with media consolidation and global communication at our fingertips, finding a flavor of escapism for everyone is easier than ever.
That is partly what I'm saying. I think that promoting personal retreat into imagination is a powerful tool that has been used to control populations since populations were large enough to control. We're not seeing anything new there, but we're seeing newer methods for doing so.
I suspect that we have evolved to seek a certain sort of order within the chaos, meaning that it should not necessarily be dismissed as an unnecessary factor in achieving sustainable social orders. But tools that can be used to build can also be used to demolish.
There are some awful people out there and they lie an cover up stuff but if you have your eyes open it's all in plain sight.
Clearly there is an effort by few to stay ultra rich and keep the majority working for them. This has been going on for thousands of years, it's no secret. It's just the middle ages with more toys.
If you had half a brain you know the government was spying on everybody. They just built a massive data center in Utah to store all the info there is so much of it. Illegal spying stories come out all the time, but they are 5 year old events or more. You don't know what's going on now, but it's still going on.
The History channel has shows on underground bases and are 51 all the time. Your and idiot to think there aren't 100 more you don't know about.
People distract themselves. You don't have to ignore what's going on.
I always thought Richard Hogland was a kick. Totally pissed at "we didn't go to the moon" people because he wants to say we went and found alien structures.
Other than how you vote and arguing on the interwebs.
Serious question.
We did.
And France.
This is story that was in the mainstream media at the time. I don't see the conspiracy.
http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens homepage materials/Gilens and Page/Gilens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf
According to Princeton it totally impacts my daily life and I can't do much to change it. Even if you take it to illuminati levels you believe you are helpless and you are controlled.
I prefer to believe that there s a bigger picture at work in the universe and as long as I continue to be a good person and contribute to the world as best as possible I'm not being controlled by the powers that be.
I think it's definitely a human nature to seek comfort from the cruel chaotic failures that life offers, on both a micro and macro level. Religion, science, conspiracy theories, take your pick. Even the 'realist' belief that 'we're just genetic machines with little power to shape the world at large so it's best to just try and be a good person' is a construct to help us deal.
How you work. How you eat. How and where you shop. How you dress. How you exercise. How you deal with your health issues. What you choose to subject yourself to media-wise. Who you interact with and on what levels. Who you make a point to stand up for in public. Who you make a point to deride in public.
Pretty much everything.