Iambiguous,
Let’s put this in terms of this thread, back on topic and all that. What is KT doing? KT has a skepticism about what governments (and corporations for that matter) say they are doing in relation to what they are doing. I see a history where in fact governments can do really quite horrible things – I mean, the Holocaust was at one time a conspiracy theory. I am sure even very aware Jewish people in Germany – iow aware of systemic German anti-semitism – poo pooed the idea the idea that genocide was on the way. Especially vulnerable were likely well assimilated Jews who identified as German first. Any idea moving in the direction of the conclusion that they might be herded into slaughterhouses was dismissed by many. We know this. That there was much to fear, sure, but not anything like that.
The idea that a supposed Western democracy – in fact in general oligarchies – would not do such a thing is a conclusion based on intuition.
I think in general it is good to consider the possibility that a conspiracy is present, for example, in situations where massive power shifts are taking place: wartime, the various wars, like the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the rise of surveillance capitalism and government (NSA), and now in a pandemic. I have a preference for being very open-minded and not letting people dismiss things out of hand. The whole WOMD into gulf war two is a fairly wrapped up conspiracy, iow the MSM has more or less acknowledged the core of it. They haven’t paid much attention to the way it privitized the military and reconstruction. Wikileaks and Snowdon demonstrated a vast unconstitutional conspiracy or really a couple, and one guy has to live in Russia and the other will likely die in prison.
So, when I read someone say that China is an ally as part of a reasoning process that thinks there is nothing odd with the US funding what was illegal research at the time (gain of effect research on diseases) in a lab in China (a country considered to be a significant world threat by the mainstream media, by the US government, by all intelligence services in the US) where the research is on the precise type of illness and on the precise species of bat that is said to be the original host of the disease AND that the lab was said by US officials to be unsafe AND yet more money was approved for that lab to do even MORE dangerous research AND that the person who sent the money to this lab ALSO predicted that Trump would face a Pandemic,
I think this is an example of a glitch. The part of framing China as an ally. I tried to make this clear here…
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=195585&p=2765698&hilit=homeland#p2765698
especially after finding us relations with china being compared to Norway’s relations to Canada. (it was after a specific argument about a specific kind of tension, but seemed to me, so hysterically disconnected to reality as presented in mainstream media that I felt it showed a serious glitch. And since mainstream media was considered the source to be trusted as opposed to other sources.)
Do I know that the lab leaked or was used to leak the virus? No.
But when I see someone say that China is a US ally as part of their debunking, I know they are reaching for something due to the discomfort of the possibility. We all do this. And it certainly does not mean I am right. But it is precisely these glitches I want to look at. Where ideas are dismissed out of hand (though Carleas does not do that in general on this issue) and by others it is considered evil to even question dominant narratives.
And especially in a society that compared to when you and I were young has a highly centralized news media. It is much easier now to marginalize or even shut down stuff. And it is not just conspiracy theories that get labelled such. This includes Chomsky-type positions and everything Project Censored tries to get into public view. It takes place at local levels and at national levels.
I am interested in general in this issue, the irrational dismissal. How the mind suddenly makes a detour and assumes it is rational, when it is really about something else.
Which is often taken as meaning that the MSM is always wrong or everything is a neat little conspiracy according to me, because everyone is so damn binary. If you disagree with them or point out problems in their thinking then you must believe the opposite is true, for example.
Now in truth Carleas is a great interlocutor because he really tries to keep track of his own biases. I don’t think he succeeds all the time, but I think he genuinely tries. That’s very rare when you positions are supported by the mainstream. Let me say that again. It’s very rare when your positions are supported by the mainstream . Now of course conspiracy theories are often very intransigent also. But that’s actually good.
Minority positions have never been under so much fire as they are now. Freedom of speech and rhetorically violent marginalization of ideas have never been so strong in my lifetime. We have active censorship, whereas before it was more like Chomsky’s manufacturing of consent only. Now we have that manufacturing of consent PLUS direct censorship. And given that the media is run by fewer and fewer companies, this also limits what we even get to look at
before using our intuition. Most people do not seem to like admitting how much intuition affects their positions.
So people who are labeled antisemitic evil killers crazy the moment they question the mainstream, need to hang tight. It’s good if some of them show a more open, flexible position also, but these more flexible people do exist. However it is necessary that very stubborn people also hang on to minority positions with the same tenacity official narratives are believed in (like the Bible, they are believed in tenaciously), or they will simply disappear. And some of them are going to be right. And this marginalization benefits those will every increasing power. These people are certainly wrong sometimes. But, gosh, I prefer a society that can have a diversity of opinions. Especially when there has been a radical shift toward an even clearer oligarchy in the last few decades.
So my preferences related to privacy, less centralized power, less exceptional powers for law enforcement and government, freedom to express and explore, more gap in power, lead to me striving on the small scale I strive in. My preferences.
Would a panopticon Brave New World society be objectively wrong?
Not what I am saying. I’d hate it. And actually, I find much of it present to already hate.
There, now I have recently, a couple of times, laid out how I approach things, with specific not up in the clouds examples. In three different posts. Don’t ever ask me again to do this or forget that I have. If you need a little clarification, well, go for it.
It seems to me your recent posts imply that if people were more like you - non-objectivist - things would be better.
Demonstrate that so all rational people will agree. And if you can’t demonstrate that to all rational people, why do you allow yourself to do it?
Oh, look, Iamb can engage in long projects without being able to convince every rational person, and hence himself, that his course is the right one.
How did that happen?
And yes, I know, you are not saying that everyone should do what you do: but here’s the rub: you have strongly implied that there is no reason for you to try things unless someone can convince you that every rational person should. Well, who did this to you about posting online? How did you manage to convince yourself?