I agree. My issue isn’t with denying that conspiracies go on, it’s with which conspiracy theories to believe–I mean, the great majority of them that I come across don’t strike me as overwhelmingly convincing (although I realize that’s no reason to dismiss them as untrue). I would think that if the conspirators were any good at conspiring, not even you would know about it.
Did Bush rig the 2000 election? Probably. Did he plan 9/11? I doubt it.
Now, I’d like to focus on this statement here. I don’t know how you could possibly know this–I mean, in the sense that this is a standard procedure that politicians and men in power follow. It makes sense–sure it does–and that’s why it’s alluring to believe in it, but as I don’t think you got this from any direct and reliable source, you must be coming up with it off the top of your head. I wonder how many conspiracy theorists realize this–what their own minds are doing–and how much of their conspiracy theories only cling together because of their bright imaginations. Doesn’t make the theory wrong, of course, but I think a lot of conspiracy theorists don’t realize the implications of this (namely, that they believe in it for reasons other than that they know it’s true).
But what are we supposed to do? Act on things we don’t know to be true?
Yeah, but you’re talking as if these sheep ought to be clairvoyant–if they receive mixed signals, what else are they supposed to do but watch for what the crowd does? You can’t just expect them to “know” what the truth is. That’s like telling someone who’s looking around at all the world’s religions, trying to decide which one’s the right one, and telling him: “You ought to know that Christianity is the right religion–it says so in the Bible!”
It’s not the numbers, it’s the quality of their arguments and evidence. Most ILP members flailing around conspiracy theories don’t strike me as very rational thinkers or mature in philosophical debate–their arguments are sloppy and reek of personal security issues, and the evidence for their theories is second to none. Just because they’re all singing the same tune doesn’t make the tune true–it probably just means they’re young, new to being disillusioned to the harsh ways of the world, and a tad bit distrustful of people (not to mention probably victims of their own self-administered drug-induced delusions–it’s not really a surprise that this mass paranoia of the government started in the sixties). It’s not uncommon for their to be widespread mimetic themes that congeal large groups of people together in such a way that they become united in their beliefs and values–it’s called religion–and if numbers were what mattered, atheists would be in big trouble.
(Note that I don’t mean any disrespect towards you–you may be a conspiracy theorist, and a wee bit paranoid, but I don’t think you’re unintelligent, which is why I respect you more than some of the others).
Yes, I agree with this–it’s one of the scary things about how people behave in modern democracies. I’m not oblivious to the fact that government conspiracies, or even publicly visible transgressions on people’s freedoms and rights on the part of the government, have been exposed in the past without anybody batting an eye. The Patriot Act, government bail outs, etc… these are all mind-blowing examples of how paralyzed the people are. I’m not sure what the cause is. My guess is that Americans lead a very comfortable lifestyle–they enjoy their Hollywood, their SUVs, their drinking nights, their comfy warm houses in the suburbs, etc.–and so simply observing corruption within their government is not enough to stir them to action. This is sort of the point I was making to Arminius about the French Revolution: the reason it ignited action had to do, partly, with the prospect of starvation–the awareness that their comfort was going to be taken away from them, and that they would feel the pangs of this withdrawal quite physically. But take away these comforts little by little and you get the frog-in-boiling-water effect.
To a point, yes, but don’t take me for a blind ignoramus. I think people should always demand evidence–I think that’s healthy–but there comes a point for me when I can call a spade a spade. You’re videos (the William Benny one I haven’t watched in full–will probably take some time during the weekend–but I saw the introduction) are fairly convincing. But they’re also mixed with a fair bit of Republican propaganda. The Patriot Act I’ve been aware of for a while. This NDAA Martial Law is new to me (and if I understand it correctly–authorizing the military to function as domestic law enforcement?–it is quite a shock). But Obama’s quote about the Constitution being an imperfect document seems taken out of context (and frankly, I agree that it’s an imperfect document), and showing clips of little kids getting frisked at airport security shouldn’t alarm anyone (they make it out to seem like child abuse). So there’s elements in these videos that strike me as truthful, others that seem distorted to serve propagandist agendas. Point is, James, I’m a very discerning person, and I react with extreme skepticism to anyone trying to paint me a black and white picture. Note that I’m not rejecting your videos–I’m saying that I’m a reasonable man and will allow myself to be convinced to a certain point, but I’m going to pick and choose what, to me, seems like evidence and what doesn’t, and some of what you present is fairly decent evidence.
What do you do?
I never said that.
Agreed.
What do you mean by “social engineer”? You mean politicians? They manage huge masses of people.
Of course it isn’t real for me. Why should it be? Because I heard it from you? OH said it better than I can. Give me evidence, like your other videos, and maybe you’ll persuade me, but don’t tell me to believe you just because you said so.