Here’s a place people who do not believe in so called conspiracy theories can weigh in.
Note that lizbethrose’s reasons for not believing are not focused on any information about the conspiracies in question, but are psychological and or ad hominim in nature.
Rational people would not do it.
Racism is why people believe X.
No need to actually look at whatever cases are being made.
Then the hypothesis that distrust of the Federal Government came of age in the internet age. (also not focused on any arguments or evidence in favor of any conspiracy theory). I can only say that distrust of the Federal Government has been around since, well, for example, the Civil War, no small phenomenon that, and continued all the way through. And conspiracy theories involving the FG have been around all the way back.
In a sense to say that the internet is responsible is metaphorically a conspiracy theory. IOW she is claiming to have recognized a pattern in human behavior, again a kind of categorical ad hom.
I think it’s incredibly easy to ‘not get it’ because humans think emotionally.
That makes it hard, as some people are like Liz and that’s, for the most part, fine. There will always be people like that. Where the system is clever is it gets those people who -can- think logically but who are also too crippled by the emotional consequences of doing it to continue past a certain point. Those of us who can either have a breakdown and deal with it,
or are too emotionally mastered in the first place to be affected.
Liz is usually not going to be found in these conversations (as she said) because she just dismisses it outright. The latter group is a bit different. They feel the need to fight, and often times do so, to keep their emotional self appeased.
They are the ones for whom people like me tend to be grating, and prone to wear on their nerves. Liz probably just laughs and doesn’t think twice.
Moreno, If i can find what I believe are questionable assumptions or invalid conclusions in any argument, I believe my thoughts deserve at least some respect. I don’t believe I’ve used a personal attack on the proposer of an argument instead of trying answer the argument itself. If anyone thinks I have, I apologize
Skepticism is good and can be used in more than one way. I didn’t believe bin Laden had hepatic disease and needed his circulatory system cleansed periodically through dialysis–while living in a mountain cave. I never believed Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction. I don’t believe that JFK was assassinated by the Mafia, the CIA, Cuba, or LBJ. I don’t believe the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11 was the result of internal incendiary bombs hidden by the CIA. And I don’t believe the Murrah building bombing was anything other than the result of Timothy McVeigh’s homemade bomb inside a rental truck.
On the other hand, I’ll always think Janet Reno’s decision to send armed agents into the Koresh Compound in Waco was most probably the result of an over-reaction to prevalent fears of religious cultism. I believe that the turn of the 20th century saw government interference in Central America and the creation of the Banana Republics in the interests of American entrepreneurship and American capitalism and that interference in all of Latin America in the '80s was the result of President Reagan’s mortal fear of Communism–something he’d inherited as a result of the cold war.
As you can see, if you believe my words, I have no categorical disbelief in ‘conspiracy theories.’ I do wonder about your definition of ad hominen given your OP.
The notion that someone is “for” or “against” all conspiracies is bizzare, as is the notion that all conspiracies are on a par. As if there weren’t some that were true, and some that were downright embarassing to take with any seriousness—and that you can go some way to differentiating these two without actually knowing which one is true. But recognize that your quote goes both ways Gobbo. And since it goes both ways, it really means nothing.
“Here is a place for people who do not believe in conspiracy theories” —what? What conspiracy theory?
Moreno’s question here is a good example of covered emotional thinking. When you ask or say something like, “I believe in conspiracy theories”, (and it’s obvious that you don’t have any particular conspiracy theory in mind)—then what you’re suggesting that you actually believe in is not some set of information, unusual circumstances, certain actors, facts, etc… Well, if it’s not that, then what is it? —Clearly, it’s just this vague more or less intense feeling of paranoia (or some other emotion) about something foggy, unclear, clouded, but surely sinister, involving among other things someone twirling their mustache and cackling wickedly in the night. It’s a feeling, as you’ve admitted before. That’s it.
Some conspiracy theories might be humorous. So, for example, take this stuff about a world takeover by a group that will dominate the world. I mean, that’s hilarious. We call it the United Nations, the group is made up of representatives from nations, they vote on things, and the people who are arguing that this body needs more power are in plain sight—their arguments layed out.
OK. Here is the thing. There is something that all “conspiracy theories” share that should make all rational thinkers turn tail and run.
There is one common and essential element to all conspiracy theories; each and every theory encorporates this component:
Any and all evidence or argument that can be construed as contradicting the theory must have been planted, or paid for, or otherwise surreptitiously introduced by the “conspirators”.
I see this in every single case and it is analogous to creationism - it renders the conspiracy theory unfalsifiable. You will never win if you debate a conspiracy theorist because there is nothing that you could possible say that would change their minds.
What happened to Biggie and Tupac, whether Yetis roam the logging forests of northern Ontario as I suspect they do, whether a powerful group makes decisions about global affairs which may or may not be called “the United Nations”, whether there is a band of villains twirling their moostaches and plotting destruction as was reported in the popular movie “Austen Powers”…what are we supposed to be focusing on… Or are we part of the grand plot because we don’t assume to know what the fuck you’re talking about?
No, no. You got it backwards: conspiracy theorists always assume they know what they’re talking about; I’m the one who’s not so sure they know what the frac (no pun intended) they’re talking about.
Conspiracy theorists just don’t place limits on what is possible. That’s literally the only difference now that I think about it.
Non-CTs say things like ‘Well if that were true I would have heard about it’ and other things like that. A limit on what is possible.
You could say CT are simply not satisfied with accepting news at face value.
Basically CT are real thinkers. Not every CT thinks properly, but if you’re not a CT you’re not thinking properly. You are taking shortcuts.
The real question is: are shortcuts bad? Is being wrong about stuff outweighed by not having to soend time looking into a given topic? I guess it depends if you care about being right in the objective. For some reason I do. People like Mo, Faust, Tentative, they are consistently wrong about the things that they say, but they seem to be cool with it. Whereas knowing I’m right isn’t all that fulfilling always.
It’s lines of reasoning like this that usually lead me to play video games. Action instead of epistemological circle jerks.
Real conspiracies have and do happen. Watergate. Enron. Iran Contra. Operation Gladio. The Boston Massacre. The assassination of Julius Caesar. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand, leading to World War 1. Operation Himmler, leading to World War Two. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, leading to the Vietnam war. MI6 and the CIA collaborating to overthrow the governments of a dozen countries. MI5 carrying out bombings in Britain as part of a disinformation campaign. Many many more.
Now, you’re a fan of the scientific method, or claim to be. According to that method, if a certain phenomena (in this case, conspiracy) is proven to be present at least some of the time, in some places, then it is a scientifically valid inquiry to test other times and places to see if the phenomenon is also present there. Indeed, conspiracy is virtually omnipresent - every cheating spouse or girlfriend, every robbery or other crime by more than one person, every time a PR company or a team of spin doctor knowingly lies about something. Every secret service in the world is effectively a set of conspiracies. The world runs on the control of the flow of information, it runs on secrecy being maintained at various times for various purposes.
Now, even a rudimentary knowledge of history and present day events would suffice for anyone to know the above. I didn’t have to look for most of the examples above, and one could find a great many more if only one bothered to look. So, contrary to your espoused scientific methodology, you have formed a strong opinion not just about conspiracy theories but also about people who believe or suspect that they are true, without having tested your assumptions against the available information.
I was in no way denying that there are real conspiracies.
I am talking about the insipient babble that seems to have taken over a good portion of the media and the imagination of the public: not “conspiracy” so much as “conspiracy theory”; all theory and no real evidence. Talk about taking “shortcuts”… credulity becomes no one.
And the predominating feature of this variety of “entertainment” is just as I have stated: an over-riding inability to seriously contemplate any objective fact or argument that runs counter to the “theory”, because it (essentially, by definition) must be part of the conspiracy. I don’t just dismiss any report I see in the news (or from whatever source) of a potential conspiracy out of hand - I look at the evidence presented and the source of both the evidence and the “theory”. Assessing credibility is the key. Think critically but, above all, don’t confuse credulousness with an “open mind”.
Many people have heard the saying and have assumed that they understood the intent, but only born and bread Texans really understand why they say, “Remember the Alamo.”
It had nothing to do with the Mexicans. The actual story involved the orders that Colonel Travis got from the Senate to stop and wait in Tennessee until after the Alamo had fallen. The message was, and still is, “DON’T EVER TRUST the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! REGARDLESS of WHAT THEY TELL YOU, THEY BETRAY ANYONE AND EVERYONE!”
Read: I don’t have the capacity to differentiate one type from the other.
Hey, why not give us an example of a conspiracy you feel is unsubstantiated entertainment instead of repeating your grade 6 reading level comprehension criticism for the 11th time?
This should be good. Nearly every conspiracy that is commonly known is based on some truth.
Anyone else spot the fucking wide open gaping hole in Buffalo’s logic?
That is, the propensity for a conspiracy theorist to remind people that ‘contrary’ evidence (almost always witnessed in propaganda outlets) can and usually is corrupted/disinfo is only indicative of a breakdown in reasoning if we accept the stance that non-CTs take anyways: there is no such thing as disinformation. Lol…brilliant.
This whole distinction depends on the media. Without the media we would have 2 groups of people:
people who are too lazy to come to their own conclusions
people who are not lazy enough to come to their own conclusions.
In my mind, you cannot think properly and not see conspiracies. As Saitd pointed out, they have always existed and to say otherwise is wrong.
That’s how you define a non-CT? That’s just an insult.
Oh, so the rest just accept everything they hear?
One way to deplete anything the might potentially become interesting about this thread, is to define the categories as outlandish caricatures such that nobody actually inhabits them. Here’s an example:
CT: People who fashion theories at odds with everything in the news—just because it is in the news.
non-CT: People who think everything in the news is the precise truth of the matter—just because it is in the news.
Again, as you can see, we’re back to talking about Moreno’s vague, foggy, clouded sense of some emotion for drawing up this conspiracy talk in absolute terms, rather than particularized to any actual context/issue. It strikes me as an exercise in foolishness, if you’re going to talk about conspiracy theories, to talk about it in any other way than an actual, particular, conspiracy theory.
This means it’s ridiculous to say things like: “Conspiracy theorists are real thinkers” …because the person whose theory has Big Foot and Sasquatches at the helm of a Global Domination one world order band of villain and whatever… is clearly a conspiracy theorist, but clearly not a real thinker. That’s not to say that Big Foot isn’t actually at the helm of a plot to control the world—it’s just to say there’s no reason to think he is.
