Here is a phiosophy, Conspiracy "theorists" do harm
- Thread starter charface
- Start date
Commander Strax
Well-Known Member
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Amen...
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
But you can't say "conspiracy theorists are bad," because that would mean you believe everything the government tells you is true.
Some conspiracy theorists are quite skilled at discovering and disseminating disturbing truths meant to remain hidden.
Bad x is bad. Good x is good.
Not all X are Y.
However, i agree: spreading "conspiracism," or disinformation, is bad, regardless of which "side" is doing it.
I would argue that "conspiracy theorists" actually are held to a much higher and more stringent information standard. The government lies constantly, and blatantly. Even when the majority of the populace knows the gov't is lying, they'll do it anyway, and act like "only crazy people would think otherwise." A conspiracy theorist misses ONE fact, or makes ONE mistake, and everyone calls them a "tinfoil hat nut job."
The difference: the "conspiracy theorist" is at least trying to tell the truth (without initially knowing it); the government is the exact opposite. They start off knowing, and will try as hard as they can to never reveal it.
So who's the real danger?
Some conspiracy theorists are quite skilled at discovering and disseminating disturbing truths meant to remain hidden.
Bad x is bad. Good x is good.
Not all X are Y.
However, i agree: spreading "conspiracism," or disinformation, is bad, regardless of which "side" is doing it.
I would argue that "conspiracy theorists" actually are held to a much higher and more stringent information standard. The government lies constantly, and blatantly. Even when the majority of the populace knows the gov't is lying, they'll do it anyway, and act like "only crazy people would think otherwise." A conspiracy theorist misses ONE fact, or makes ONE mistake, and everyone calls them a "tinfoil hat nut job."
The difference: the "conspiracy theorist" is at least trying to tell the truth (without initially knowing it); the government is the exact opposite. They start off knowing, and will try as hard as they can to never reveal it.
So who's the real danger?
Hookabelly
Well-Known Member
Taken from Science magazine:
And scientists are beginning to understand the types of personalities that buy into more extreme and unlikely theories. Research reveals that conspiracy theorists tend to share a core set of traits, regardless of their conspiracy of choice. Low self-esteem, for example, may characterize both those who believe that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and those who think that Britain’s royal family consists of reptilian aliens.
I am not saying to just accept everything at face value, but I suscibe to the Occam's Razor approach. (the simplest answer is most likely correct)
Besides, especially now with all the access everyone has to instant information and the fact that we're all linked by technology, makes all the secrecy hard to fathom. Someone will always have a big mouth and talk. Roswell, JFK, etc. NO way there would be absolute secrecy. People, SOMEONE would talk.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
But that's just it: people HAVE talked, but the propaganda machine can also use that same "information superhighway" for disinformation.
As for Occam's Razor... i think it's even more important to Disregard "Hanlon's Razor," which far too many people apparently take seriously: "Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
I've explained this numerous times in various places. The incompetent would never have reason or motivation, or perhaps even capacity to feign malice; the malicious would almost always have motive and capacity to feign incompetence (i.e. "play dumb," and "plausible deniability").
Edit: after all, who do you think built that information superhighway? Could the internet itself be the result of a huge conspiracy to facilitate propaganda?
charface
Well-Known Member
Like hell they aint.
lol
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Not at all. There's a difference between the gov not telling the truth and a conspiracy. The problem with conspiracy theorists is they think they know WHY the gov is lying, when there is usually ZERO evidence to support their claims. Lack of evidence is not evidence, e.g. saying "No one is allowed in Area 51, therefore it must be where they keep aliens" is not a valid argument.
Eh? What is this supposed to mean? All X's are good, all Y's are bad, no all X's are Y's? I don't follow the logical structure of this statement.
I'd argue that believing anything without evidence is bad. Let's look at 9/11;
People believe 9/11 was in inside job, but what is their evidence?
Supposed 'squibs' going off? An insurance policy taken out shortly before the accident? Pictures of rubble/beams that appear to be cut?
None of things are evidence of an inside job. Not only could all of things be coincidental, but there's no way to tell if these are even 'facts'. The "squibs/small 'explosions' " could be explained by various other things, the cut metal could have easily been cut after the building fell, and the insurance policy is no more proof that it was planned than the leasers NOT getting a policy would be proof it WASN'T an inside job.
Not at all, IMO. Conspiracy theorists believe a LOT of shit from uncredited sources, and often believe things at face value without doing their own research. You watched a 2 hour propaganda film on 9/11 or GMO's and now you're an expert? Right......
From what I've seen, conspiracy theorists don't 'miss' facts. They take holes and unknowns and turn them into 'facts', or at least what they call facts....
Why do you think the gov lies about everything? What evidence do you have to support this stance? This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Instead of taking individual statements released by the gov and addressing them independently, CT's tend to paint with wide strokes.... e.g., "The gov is always lying", "Big pharma is evil", "Monsanto is trying to poison everyone".... it's ridiculous.
Anyone who propagates false information.
Occam's razor is a great guidline for determining which phenomenon are likely true. While it's not a 100% guarantee, for extraordinary claims it works as designed.
The point isn't that incompetent people would feign malevolence, it's that incompetent people come across as malevolent due to their incompetence.
We already know who designed the net, and why. lol Common knowledge, my man.
With the correct critical thinking faculties the internet is wealth of valuable knowledge. It's people who don't know how to vet sources, or believe things at first glace that are the problem. I guess, the information, regardless of what it is, isn't the problem. It's the people that spread the info all 'willy-nilly' that constitute the problem.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Nope.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
The incompetent may not FEIGN malice, but ime it is the incompetent that are the most genuinely malicious: The dogmatically religious, conspiracy theorists, pseudo-science advocates, the laymen and luddites who have contempt for the scientific method, critical thinking and reason in general. These are the groups from which I consistently view the most hate filled speeches and sentiments...
The internet originated for the purpose of scientists to share data sets at major universities. Of course, like most large projects, it is the government who facilitated and sponsored its growth far beyond this purpose. The Web is a vast tool that consists of both credible information, and perhaps much more often, unbelievable misinformation (just like the world before the internet). It is up to individuals to be able to train themselves in critical thinking to be able to discern the difference between the two and educate themselves accordingly...
Hookabelly
Well-Known Member
Nah, have to disagree with you on that last point Tyler. Everyone knows the internet was invented by ninja spies...
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Nope!
You're doing exactly what i posted to caution against: generalizing "all conspiracy theorists" as if people are literally just inventing stories; because you disregard evidence, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Regarding lizard people and faked moon-landings: while i can't know for certain, i tend to think these types of "theories" (more like hypotheses, actually) are quite incorrect.
However, 9/11 was absolutely "an inside job," no matter which way you slice it. In fact, it would have been impossible for the official story to occur as it is officially stated, without "inside help." The only thing really in question is, to what degree was it "an inside job."
But to insist that there "is no evidence," is clearly blatant disregard of the facts. Evidence and Proof, are not the same thing.
Further, to lump that in with "lizard people" and the like, is as bad, if not worse than, any false conspiracy theory.
I've argued with far too many conspiracy deniers about it, and i'm frankly tired of trying. If "you people" want to believe something ridiculous, go ahead. But i will remind you that not only is our government shown to be repeatedly, repeatably and reliably involved in various atrocities, they are certainly quite capable of many kinds and methods of highly advanced activities, involving a large number of people. They are anything but "incompetent." They are merely maliciously playing dumb.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
What specific evidence for which specific 'theory' are you referring to? This will help in determining if it's actual evidence.
I'd say they're borderline retarded, but lets go with incorrect.
Not according to the majority of experts. So, that 'slice' doesn't point towards 'an inside job'. I've already invalidated your first premise, lets continue.
Impossible? Hardly. On what grounds are you claiming it's impossible? In order to prove something impossible, you would need to repeat the 'event' for infinity. Seeing as how there's only been one 9/11, this premise is false.
See above.
I've seen a lot of circumstantial evidence about 9/11, but nothing solid. Shady shit? Yes. But just because weird or shady things surround the event does not mean it was in inside job. Even if the government is hiding something about 9/11, to feign certainty about what they're withholding (when you can't prove they're even withholding information in the first place) is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
"You people", in the context you're using it, is referring to the vast majority of people in the world that don't prescribe to conspiracy theories.
Even if the government is lying about some "atrocities", that's not proof or evidence that they're lying about other specific events. 'Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus'; 'wrong in one wrong in all'. A common logical fallacy.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Dude i'm not going to argue with you, especially with you fragmenting my comments like that.
All you're really doing is obstructing and impeding the progression of natural discourse. I've seen your tactic used far too many times, and i'm tired of dealing with it.
If you prefer to deny reality, that's your prerogative.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
It's called responding to your statements. It makes it easier to see what I'm replying to, and the fact that you're using that as a cop-out so you don't have to explain is uber weak.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
None of my statements require explanation.
And if i did go ahead and humor you by offering explanation, you'd simply use my offerings to further misrepresent reality, as is typical of those who are so thoroughly entrenched in their love of our oppressive and violent government.
I've encountered your kind many times. There is no reason for me to continue giving you more ammo to shoot at me, but you have every reason to try to twist everything i might say, to attempt to discredit me... because you're apparently terrified that more people will figure out that our government is run by extremely evil people.
So go ahead and keep endorsing your propaganda. I'll let nature take its course.