So this came up in the Coronavirus thread and made for interesting exchanges. To prevent derailing, started this thread.
What is it I’m looking to discuss? Well, not so much a specific a conspiracy theory. And this isn’t an effort to ‘name and shame’ or point and laugh at specific individuals. Rather, I want to discuss the far more interesting question of why people can come to believe in even the most insane of conspiracy theories. For example, Flat Earth. We know beyond the shadow of any doubt at all that’s utter bobbins. The earth is round, we’ve been to space, and have the pictures to prove it.
Yet, not all conspiracy theories are completely mental - and some even turn out to have more than just a grain of truth, but to have been absolutely on the money. And that’s what makes them an interesting topic of discussion in my book.
Example? Well, the readily findable examples may be a bit too political to be kicking off with. So I’ll trust you to Google them yourself rather than me start the thread off on the wrong foot and hamstring the discussion. But they do exist, 100%.
Turns out, there are those with a recognised, psychological predilection to believe in conspiracy theories. In essence, it causes an inherent distrust of any research and opinion other than one’s own. And in some cases, an absolute unshakeable faith that You Are Right, regardless of any actual knowledge on a given subject. Their opinion is the Be All And End All.
And for the avoidance of rank hypocrisy on my behalf - this is just my own, loose understanding that has been garnered having had a casual interest. I am perfectly happy to be educated, and who knows depending on need, re-educated about this!
Now to get into more interesting things. For many (not all) conspiracy theories, a common strand is Selective Evidence. The conspiracy theorist discounts any and all evidence against their take. The reasons given will vary - it’s a lie, its a shill, the person questioning them is working for The Man etc.
Let’s take a common bit of long debunked tripe. Jet Fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. Ultimately, correct. But it’s application ignores entirely that it need only burn hot enough to damage structural integrity. And that a building collapsing in any given way will depend up its method of construction. It also completely discounts any prior physical damage to the structure.
They also often struggle to provide a solid, rational answer to ‘yeah.....but why?’. Example here? Those that believe Kurt Cobain was murdered. Sure, the evidence there far from rules it out. The ‘yeah, but why?’ element in this case is that it implies a cover up. What’s the point? If as some would have you believe Courtney Love murdered him, what’s the reason for Police protecting her? What’s the motivation to get her off Scot Free? Compare to Conspiracies proven true - those typically had a clear advantage to be had from them.
They also tend to be implausible in execution. Some of the more bizarre ones would require a huge number of people to be complicit, and seemingly utterly without qualms or morals. Even more so when it’s a widely accepted fact that most/all Governments have shown absolutely nowhere near the competence required to pull such things off.
So that’s my opener. Before I hit submit, please remember this is a discussion, and intended to be friendly and open minded. If you feel things getting a bit heated, please give yourself a breather before your next post.
The thing you mentioned regarding "A lot of people have to be involved " also often strikes me as odd. Especially since I think one of the main risks for keeping something secret is the "frustrated ex-employe. The more people have to be in on it - especially if a lot of average joes are amongst them - the higher the chance that someone suddenly discovers their conscience, wants his 15 minutes of fame or just some nice little vengance after being fired or not promoted for some completely different reason. And ex-employes other than the average investigator, tend to already know where the juicy evidence is and how to get it.
That's what - in my opinion at least happened with Snowden or Manning and those where secrets with relatively few people involved. And that's one thing that makes things like chemtrails or flat earth highly unbelievable in my opinion.
For anyone that’s played DnD over the years, it’s the hallmark of a “Chaotic” alignment.
They inherently distrust authority, sometimes to the point that if authorities say it is so, then it *must* be a lie, in their eyes. At that point they create a story based on whatever non-authority evidence or ideas are available and because it then implies wickedness or villainy on behalf of a “Lawful” authority it *must* be true, as it confirms their own biases.
For the record, I identify as Chaotic on the alignment wheel. I recognize that authority systems are needed for our society to function, but I have absolutely no qualms acting outside them if I am even vaguely inclined. While somewhat of an ironic appeal to authority, I find that true “Chaotics” are a rare find, not least because we have no drive to organize into groups.
I myself am distrustful of authority, and engage with information from any source in a critical manner, to decide if it is good info, or if it’s misleading. I’m aware of my own filtering process, and can see where a more... extreme... filtration process could lead to crazy town. Key export is crazy, of course, some of which is conspiracy theory.
Questioning stuff is of course important. It’s literally the heart of my career. It’s when people believe any and all evidence which contradicts them must be false that it becomes a problem.
I’ve (utterly unfounded) suspicions that the relatively recent dawn of the Internet has given too many people too many info sources. Up to and including my generation (40 in a few weeks), education simply didn’t involve learning how to parse this much information. Given man’s general preference for Confirmation Bias, it doesn’t take long for people to disappear down ever more bizarre rabbit holes.
We’ve then the problem of deeply unscrupulous people who’ve gone full on Snake Oil. Again, not gonna name names, but I’m sure at least two have popped up into your mind.
Their main thing is ‘Big Pharma Only Want Munneh’, despite selling freakish cures (such as salt lamps) and charging through the nose for the privilege.
They feed off and into the Conspirasphere, solely because it makes them huge profits.
Given I lost my my Mum to incurable cancer last year, I’ve a special loathing for such folk. Desperate people will try anything to cure what ails them (and not just in terms of disease). And these......Insert Strong Words Here, are the worst kind of parasite.
They know it won’t work. They know what they’re selling is worthless. Yet they prey upon the vulnerable and the desperate, and do their best to peddle myth after myth after myth.
Taking my own advice at this point to have a wee breather! Whilst Dear Old Mumsie was a sensible sort, and just accepted It Was What It Was, there are others not so accepting of their fate. And it’s them I feel angry for.
Eg humans tend to accept the first bit of information on a subject. All other information then gets filtered past this "first impression" level of understanding.
Now this isn't stupid, its a good survival trait to be fast accepting new information and to process and be ready to use it. However it falls down if the first bit of information is wrong or is incorrectly interpreted by the person (ergo the information is correct just understood wrongly).
Add to that the fact that for the majority of people if they are ignorant of a subject, then they lack even the basic understanding of that subject to know how badly they don't know it.
Finally add the internet - a fantastic tool, but where search-engines (mostly google) don't authenticate the content they search through. Furthermore there's no peer review for making a website. As a result you can make a pack of lies and so long as it gets lots of hits it will rank well in Google and thus you can spread miss-information far more readily. Once new people take on that first impression of information, the lies on the website have now created a subset of the exposed community who believe them and filter all other information on that subject through that understanding.
I would also say that there's also a huge pitfall in that any form of self-learning is very open to abuse at the information source. The internet makes this very easy in how its possible to produce lies or misstruths or genuine misunderstandings all wrapped up in a website.
Appears on the first page for searching a number of hybrid keys in google (7 for dog-tiger hybrid - 2 for fox-dog hybrid)*.
Sifting truth from lies; theory from theory and hypthis etc.... you actually have to learn a considerable amount of the subject in order to be able to sift this information out. Something that requires a big time investment if you're not already an evolutionary biologist or in a related field. So its no shock that people can get missled when their understanding on many subjects is only very casual at best.
I've also noticed that a lot of people within conspiracy theories are very much like those who are involved in larger cult groups. There's often a very powerful social need from those people and a desire to connect with others and have value within a community. With the massive break down of local communities in general in society today, I think some start to seek out that communal element within fringe groups. You can see this a lot with the flat-earth movement videos, but you can also see it in interviews with inner city gang members and the whole gang culture.
Basically a part of the reason people join and keep coming back is purely social. The actual "cause" is, for them, a secondary element. However because it reinforces the social links that they enjoy the cause because their own and they protect it - often without much sanity behind their actions, because what they are actually trying to protect is their social group and the rewards that brings to them.
This is where you can get some intelligent people who start to make rather abnormal deductions and conclusions and claims relating to their group just to protect it. Some of them can even be self-aware that what they are repeating is fake, but they continue to preserve the group.
I think there's lots of different elements and likely for most within a conspiracy theory group there will be variation between people and also through time for the individuals as to their motivations and reasoning for being part of it and remaining as part of it.
*Accepting that google does filter based on your local search history, region and a billion other things.
The greatest and only argument worth putting toward conspiracy theroists:
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were the only people on Earth aware of a certain sexual act and they couldn't keep it a secret.
If that doesn't get their head out of their ass, nothing will and you're wasting your time.
Sure most of them contain kernals of truth, otherwise no one would be able to peddle them (and at this point peddling conspiracy theories is a business). Most of what we'd call conspiracy theories are just the dunning-krueger effect running wild. It's the product of people trying to act 'smart' while not actually being smart.
Are you guys actually interested in having this conversation, or is this just a thread to laugh and point at the conspiracy theorists?
Because what I'm seeing are a bunch of people mocking these theories without ever having really delved deep into them. You find the idea of a flat earth preposterous - and it is (it is second only to secret lizard people in my book) - but if you don't go down that rabbit hole, you can't possibly represent their viewpoint well enough to do anything deeper than laugh at memes (jet fuel can't melt steel beams, giggle). And that's fine, if that is what you want to do - such a thread has no appeal for me though.
But if you do want to go down the rabbit hole - like, you want to have an actual discussion about this stuff - I've been down those rabbit holes in the past and I can explain them (relatively well). I think if you do learn more about what they believe you'll find that even if they are wrong, they aren't necessarily stupid or beholden to "the dunning-krueger effect".
Take the jet fuel can't melt steel beams meme. The meme sounds silly, but then you realize that WTC 7 also collapsed despite not being hit by any planes or even debris. The official NIST report, which had hidden methodology, stated that the official reason for WTC 7's collapse was a simple office fire - despite not a single steel skyscraper in history collapsing due to a simple fire (they are literally designed so that doesn't happen). The effect of this being true would be a complete reevaluation of every safety standard for every tall building in the world - which never happened.
Late last year, the University of Alaska released an intensive, multi-year study that used every model they could think of in order to explain the collapse of WTC7. Their conclusion was:
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
Unlike NIST's secretive data, they actually released the models they used so that their research could be peer reviewed by others. The end result of their efforts is the conclusion that the building fell due to simultaneous failure on every column in the building - stopping just short of saying controlled demolition did it. This then begs the question, why was WTC7 wired to blow in the first place?
And that's the rabbit hole. You follow the various leads - the secrecy surrounding the NIST study, the ex-NIST whistleblower, the University of Alaska study, heck, the entirety of WTC7 in general - and you'll end up in a very different place on 9/11.
Where the conspiracy theorists get it wrong, however, is in the leaps of logic they do to piece together all of it together. Knowing that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition and knowing who did it or why is two different things. There's a bunch of different theories on this, and they range from plausible but unlikely to completely absurd.
As for the idea that conspiracies are too big to keep secret, you'd be surprised how often conspiracies aren't secret. For instance, the US public education system was essentially championed by the John G Rockefeller to create a pliable workforce that didn't question authority - and he admitted as much publicly. Rockefeller created the General Education Board and lobbied the US government to adopt the Prussian education system, and here is their mission statement:
"In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into men of learning or philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters, great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, statesmen, politicians, creatures of whom we have ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in an perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way".
You don't need to keep things secret if nobody is listening.
I recently meet a flat-earther in person for the first time, and got to talk to him for almost an hour. It was fascinating hearing how he came to believe it, his ready justifications for some of my basic questions, and just the whole thing.
Also quite a bit crazy of course, but it was nice to see the humanity / put a face on something I could never relate to at all previously.
BBC The Inquiry had an episode on why we don't care about facts recently. One of the interesting things that came up was that most people believe that they think like scientists, when in fact most of us think like lawyers; i.e. an idealised scientist looks at the facts and draws a conclusion wheras lawyers collect and arrange facts to support their desired conclusion.
They said that well educated people are actually worse for this, because they have the intellectual tools to collect evidence and construct arguments to support their conclusion!
So I think your selective evidence thing applys to us all to a greater or lesser degree.
One other thing they said was that you can 'innoculate' people against misinformation to an extent by presenting the arguments to them beforehand but without all the storytelling, drama and innuendo that usually comes with consiricy theories. I don't now how effective it is, but it's an interesting concept.
LordofHats wrote: The greatest and only argument worth putting toward conspiracy theroists:
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were the only people on Earth aware of a certain sexual act and they couldn't keep it a secret.
I'm not sure what you mean here. The White House is a very busy building with lots of people and also an old building with doors that don't block sound very well. From personal experience, the place echoes.
The idea that they were 'they only people on Earth aware' is very much a bizarre conspiracy theory in itself. They did it during the day with other people around. There were almost certainly secret service guys right outside the door, or if not, slightly down the hall. Of course people knew.
Voss wrote: They did it during the day with other people around. There were almost certainly secret service guys right outside the door, or if not, slightly down the hall. Of course people knew.
That's my point.
They were the only two people in the room, and that wasn't enough to keep it a secret. Context and other people exist. If two people alone in a room can't keep something a secret, the idea that vast conspiracies are out there involving hundreds of thousands of people is patently absurd on its face.
As for the idea that conspiracies are too big to keep secret, you'd be surprised how often conspiracies aren't secret.
Yeah, but most conspiracy theories are predicated on absurdist notions about secrets and how the theorist themselves is 'in the know' and 'sees the truth' and other such empty platitudes.
A semantic debate about the meaning of the word 'conspiracy' I think holds little real meaning to a discussion of 'conspiracy theories' which pretty much universally involve notions of vast secret keeping by absurdly large groups that couldn't possible keep such things secret.
As for the rest, I think the issue is down to 1984 vs Brave New World. Even non-conspiracy theorist are willing to indulge the notion of vast secret keeping despite it's clear absurdity. As you point out, most agendas aren't all that secret because the world functions much more like Huxley than Orwell. Smart people with agendas don't bother trying to hide them because they can't, and simply bombarding people with alternative facts is more effective at keeping consequences at bay and muddling truth than trying to hide it away.
LordofHats wrote: Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were the only people on Earth aware of a certain sexual act and they couldn't keep it a secret.
Monica Lewinsky wasn't trying to keep is a secret though. She was recorded in a phone conversation admitting to it and even kept evidence. If she didn't tell anybody, nobody would've known - or at least, been able to prove it. There's been many accusations against Bill Clinton that went nowhere because a lack of proof. Verification is generally the difference between a conspiracy theory and public acceptance.
For instance, there was a book written about the secret service last year that has secret service members, speaking on the condition of anonymity, that Biden liked to swim naked in his pool and make the female secret service agents watch him. And they said they would intentionally not leave any female secret service agents in Biden's presence alone. They'd come up with excuses to call them away or switch them out with a male member. While I do believe that a secret service agent told the book's author this (the book had gossip about multiple presidents and was written before Biden decided to run for president), we can't know their motivation for it nor can we verify its authenticity, so we can't just assume it is true. It basically amounts to gossip.
So even if everybody else in the White House knew about Lewinsky and Clinton, without the proof that she had, it would've just remained as gossip. And there is a LOT of gossip about Bill Clinton's proclivities. For instance, the National Enquirer wrote an article saying that Bill Clinton once confided in someone that he was sterile due to having measles as a child. Chelsea Clinton isn't his daughter and is actually the daughter of Webb Hubbell. The New York Post wrote about how Clinton has a bachelor pad penthouse on his presidential library, which he often invites girls back to and basically lives at, apart from Hillary. We can verify that the presidential library indeed has a residence in it, that Clinton frequently stays at, but there's no way to verify what he does there aside from hearsay from the women who say he invited them up. Are these things true? No idea.
So, we've got gossip about Clinton, little heard and seldom believed, and that's all Lewinsky would've been if not for the evidence she left behind. That actually makes the Lewinsky case somewhat unusual compared to all the other gossip.
I think it actually is far simpler to figure out. I think it consists of two simple human mental processes which are fairly common.
1) Regardless if people admit it...everyone wants to know something that other people don't. At its most base level, it's about being part of a smaller, special group; in this case a group which possesses special knowledge. For most people it's a simple slight buzz they get from being knowledgeable about something which comes up in a simple conversation at a party. It's why we enjoy trivia games, gameshows like Jeopardy, etc. We love to be "in on something". It ties into exclusivity as a whole. We like owning limited edition things, so we also enjoy "knowing" limited edition things. At the extreme end is the desire to know a truth that only you and a small group of other people "know" or believe. This is a part of human nature - some people just take it far more extreme than others. In the end, people want to feel special - particularly if they're not special in other ways.
2) Again, whether people will admit it...victim mentality is comforting to a lot of people. It doesn't have to be genuine persecution but even the vaguest feeling of "us vs. them", or "we're the resistance" is a comforting feeling for many people. It might be used as justification, or again, to feel a weird type of community or camaraderie with a select group of people. Sometimes this is used as justification for ones' failures (read: "The man is putting me down!") etc. For some people the idea that their future and their destiny is in their hands...and they may not know what to do with it, can be scary. It's actually easier to believe everyone and every thing is against them. It's easier to blame your failures when you believe an all powerful oppressive boogey man is carefully manipulating your existence.
So, combine these two and you essentially end up with a "Special" person who is "fighting the good fight against the system", etc. etc.
________________________________________________
Regarding the term 'conspiracy', it is of course frequently misused. The most amusing parts to me are when people bring up a common function (perhaps one that's not advertised, and for good reasons) and claim it's a conspiracy. Every capable government in the world engages in espionage. These are facts. Well known, well studied, etc. Both cyber and physical espionage is a thing, and has been for decades..if not centuries, really. It's part of doing business as a country. Espionage does include spying, occasional abductions and assassinations, etc. That's not a conspiracy, it's just business. These are candid conversations at the top level of most pertinent countries. Most of it is kept behind certain levels of security, but it's just...a thing, a part of life. Will we bribe, abduct or remove state players who are threatening our national interests, and vice versa? Yes, when feasible and necessary. Are we black-bagging and assassinating ignorant bloggers with conspiracy theories? No.
RiTides wrote: I recently meet a flat-earther in person for the first time, and got to talk to him for almost an hour. It was fascinating hearing how he came to believe it, his ready justifications for some of my basic questions, and just the whole thing.
Also quite a bit crazy of course, but it was nice to see the humanity / put a face on something I could never relate to at all previously.
I did like the Flat Earth website boasting they had followers all around the world, and anyway they are wrong its banana shaped just like Sir Bedivere says
And anyhoo its all Nietzsche's fault for killing God allowing folks to replace it with shadow cabals, lizards from space etc, you know proper thinking
Sqorgar wrote: Verification is generally the difference between a conspiracy theory and public acceptance.
Plausibility is generally the difference between a conspiracy theory and public acceptance. Sandy Hook false flag, PizzaGate and QAnon are fringe conspiracy theories even by conspiracy theorist standards. If the internet didn't exist, they probably wouldn't be things at all because there's too few people willing to buy into their plausibility, let alone everything else they entail. 9/11, the JFK assassination, and Epstein didn't hang himself on the other hand, have a certain plausibility to them even at their most silly. There's a reason the most well known and widely acknowledge conspiracy theories are also the most 'plausible' on their face.
Then further on that scale, you have things that just plain aren't conspiracy theories, but still struggle with public acceptance because of plausibility. There is zero doubt at this point that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russian Federation backed separatists in Ukraine operating with Russian provided equipment and advisors. Facts confirming this have been verified forwards and backwards and yet still there are conspiracy theories around the event that offer alternate explanations.
Verification has zero to do with it, least of all because conspiracy theories by their own nature defy the very notion of verification. They most importantly thrive on their unverifiable nature. The "prove me wrong" fallacy is the first defense of every conspiracy theory.
I feel like there's this pit here that needs to be cleared up. Conspiracy theories are nothing like normal bodies of information. They run on leaps of logic, innuendo, and unverifiable or patent false claims that even when undeniably refuted will continue to be repeated as if fact. A conspiracy theory is nothing like the fringe beliefs but unverified. Conspiracy theories operate solely on their own internal made up logic and circular reasoning, and thrive most in places where contradictory information is widespread (politics and foreign affairs being the best examples).
Plausibility is generally the difference between a conspiracy theory and public acceptance. Sandy Hook false flag, PizzaGate and QAnon are fringe conspiracy theories even by conspiracy theorist standards. If the internet didn't exist, they probably wouldn't be things at all because there's too few people willing to buy into their plausibility, let alone everything else they entail. 9/11, the JFK assassination, and Epstein didn't hang himself on the other hand, have a certain plausibility to them even at their most silly. There's a reason the most well known and widely acknowledge conspiracy theories are also the most 'plausible' on their face.
PizzaGate, at least, is not only plausible, but more or less proven to be true by the Epstein thing. Maybe not the idea that Comet Pizza is doing human trafficking in its basement, but the idea that the elite are facilitating, if not actively engaging in, human trafficking of minors for sexual purpose. With Epstein, Jimmy Saville, Prince Andrew, Nicole Kidman's father, the Finders, the Catholic Church, and whatever that thing was in France where the police covered up for a guy who admitted to kidnapping children for rich and powerful clients (Dutroux affair, maybe? Ducolax? Something like that) - it is becoming increasingly obvious how plausible it all really is. As far as Comet Pizza and the involvement of the Podesta brothers, who can say? But all of them do have terrible taste in art.
The Sandy Hook false flag thing has some things that I find to be credibly strange. When I first started looking into it (I first started looking into conspiracy theories because I was working on a story about a conspiracy theorist), I was expecting it to be similar to flat earthers and to come away thinking they were all nuts. What I've found is not enough to convince me that it was a false flag (and I don't think "gun control" is sufficient to explain why they would bother), but there's things which don't have easy answers - there's a lot more to the conspiracy theory than I originally expected. I was actually surprised at how extensive the theory was. I think the documentary I watched was called We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook. It was enough to make me go "huh, weird" but not enough to make be go "OMGWTF".
I can't speak of QAnon because I don't follow it. Everything I've seen is like psychic cold reading - say a bunch of stuff is happening in secret, take credit for coincidences, then vague predictions that could mean anything. I think that most people, even in the conspiracy theory groups, put QAnon up there with flat earthers.
Verification has zero to do with it, least of all because conspiracy theories by their own nature defy the very notion of verification. They most importantly thrive on their unverifiable nature.
I think it is the opposite. It is the lack of verification that drives conspiracy theories. For instance, the easiest and quickest way to shut down the Sandy Hook deniers would be to simply show them crime scene pictures of the dead children. I understand why it might seem morally unpleasant to do so, but it would immediately end the whole thing in about 30 seconds. But because all attempts to dig into that situation is met with swift and extreme legal punishment - even for things which should otherwise be publicly available information - it creates an air of "these people are hiding the truth".
One thing I've learned about conspiracy theorists is that they love doing research. All of it is tempered by a certain amount of confirmation bias, but their skills are extremely impressive. As 4chan used to call it, it is weaponized autism. Most of the things they find are independently verifiable - but it is a bunch of half truths and hazy connections don't build a complete picture. For instance, when I was looking into conspiracy theories, they all knew about Epstein's island for years before the Miami Herald published their expose. They had photos of his island, including the weird temple there with painted on doors. They knew about the rich people in the flight logs. Epstein's arrest for sex trafficking that was a slap on the wrist. They had all the pieces, but not the full picture. In fact, there wasn't anything in the Miami Herald piece that wasn't old news - but it connected the dots and verified things which they had only assumed. And after the expose, more people started coming out about Epstein and more dots started getting connected. But for Epstein the go down, it needed something with the gravitas and public respect like the Miami Herald to do more than post Google Maps pictures and publicly available flight logs.
I feel like there's this pit here that needs to be cleared up. Conspiracy theories are nothing like normal bodies of information. They run on leaps of logic, innuendo, and unverifiable or patent false claims that even when undeniably refuted will continue to be repeated as if fact. A conspiracy theory is nothing like the fringe beliefs but unverified. Conspiracy theories operate solely on their own internal made up logic and circular reasoning, and thrive most in places where contradictory information is widespread (politics and foreign affairs being the best examples).
Yes, and no. Like I said, I think conspiracy theorists are actually rather impressive with their ability to research. 9/11 truthers, originally believed to be nutters of the highest order, eventually started to reverse public sentiment over decades by coming out with increasingly compelling evidence. By the time I saw a documentary on it - I think it was called something like The Second Pearl Harbor - it was a five hour long epic filled with more than enough compelling evidence to convince even the most die hard non-truther.
That being said, while conspiracy theorists are amazing at verifying publicly available information, they end up dropping the ball 10 yards from the goalpost because they make incredible leaps about what it means. So there's all this evidence that the World Trade Center didn't collapse due being hit by planes, you've got evidence of people knowing about it ahead of time (Lucky Larry), you've got an incredibly complicated and unlikely series of coincidences that allowed it to happen, and you've got evidence that the media was building a particular narrative before even the second plane hit a building - but what does it mean? Going from "this stuff ain't right" to "this is a zionist conspiracy to involve the US military in the middle east" seems like they are skipping steps on their homework. It's like having a dozen puzzle pieces and just guessing that the picture is of a sailboat.
And that I can't really align myself with. I can get behind the things I can verify or have compelling evidence for, but interpolating it out into something without evidence leaves me a little cold. The end result is that I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that conspiracies exist - if for no other reason than the conspiracies from 50-100 years ago being found to be true - but I can't tell you why or to what end.
Where conspiracy A is proven true, conspiracy theorists (not including Sqorgar in that lump them, for clarity) will take that as confirmation conspiracies B-Z must also be true.
Now, there’s no doubts that Governments the world over do seriously shady things. Likewise privilege for the wealthy in the purist meaning of the word (private law) is genuinely a thing. Stacks of evidence for both of those.
But, that doesn’t mean they’re entirely without morals or limits.
Let’s take 9/11 as the example again. There are absolutely things which The Man In The Street cannot readily explain. And it’s almost certainly true that some stuff has been deliberately obscured. But here, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. They don’t mean the whole thing was a false flag.
Consider that up until that horrifying day, whilst Terrorist Hijackongs were nothing new, the end result was. It was an attack of astounding audacity. When every other hijacking tuned into ransom demands, who’d have guessed those ones would be any different?
The collapse of the Towers has a simple explanation, based on the design of them. Essentially a central pillar, with the floors suspended by cables. That was why they collapsed in the manner some would claim is solid evidence of a controlled demolition. As the structural integrity of the damaged floors failed, and the fire spread? They’d land on the next floor down, adding strain. Eventually it becomes inevitable.
The ‘detonations’ floors below? Simply a pressure wave doing what pressure waves do.
WTC-7? Well, I’m not an expert, and I haven’t looked into it myself. But the important difference between ‘The Man In The Street’ and a Conspiracy Theorist is the acceptance that just because I cannot explain it, doesn’t mean it cannot be explained.
We see the same things with UFO’s. First, what actually is a UFO? It’s an ‘Unidentified Flying Object’. Strictly speaking, everything in the sky to a given observer starts out as a UFO, until we’ve looked at it long enough to say ‘oh it’s just a plane/ bird/balloon” etc, to use common stuff.
But sometimes they defy identification, and can do for any number of reasons. That does not mean anything that remains unidentified must therefore be Alien in origin. It also doesn’t preclude it being extraterrestrial in origin of course.
And this is why I’m so interested in why people so blindly believe certain things.
Pizzagate? Obviously utter, utter nonsense. Yet still some utter fruitloop rocked up with a rifle...
That bloke must’ve had some kind of mental illness. No reasonably minded person could look at that tripe and believe it so wholeheartedly.
But equally, it’s unfair, inaccurate and almost certainly counterproductive and dangerous to conclude that because one is a nutter, all must be nutters. That’s simply not how you go about things constructively.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There’s also the question of ‘why has nobody blown the whistle’.
That’s been touched on before. But consider the US’ broadly two party system. Do you really believe that if Party A found or had access to evidence, via one of there’s being President, that Party B had conducted covert attacks on US Citizens on US soil, they wouldn’t leverage that?
Same with the Moon Landings. Remember it was a Space Race. A bit of genital waving between two world Super Powers to one up each other. If they really were shot on a sound stage? Russia would’ve exposed that quick as you like. Because of course they would.
When it comes to Flat Earth? We have photos from space, yet Flat Earth exponents just hand wave it away as ‘CGI’....despite the mountains of irrefutable evidence (including that reflector on The Moon).
One thing that plays a huge (though not exclusive) role is that it's often much more comforting to think there's some big bad out there, that things happen for a reason, and that *someone*, or at least *something*, is in control.
People don't like change. They don't like not being in control. They don't like not knowing whats going on. So they invent stuff. They create a narrative that fits their worldview. Having structure and a reason for things, no matter how strange or convoluted, really is something people need, there's a reason Religion is a thing and continues to stick around.The idea that a deep sinister cabal is behind something works a whole lot better for a whole lot of people more than "gak happened". Once that worldview is set, it is incredibly difficult to change, even with unlimited direct evidence of all kinds.
greatbigtree wrote: For anyone that’s played DnD over the years, it’s the hallmark of a “Chaotic” alignment.
They inherently distrust authority, sometimes to the point that if authorities say it is so, then it *must* be a lie, in their eyes. At that point they create a story based on whatever non-authority evidence or ideas are available and because it then implies wickedness or villainy on behalf of a “Lawful” authority it *must* be true, as it confirms their own biases.
This is has been my mindset most of my life. Bitterly cynical and anti-authoritarian. Anything coming from someone in a suit/position of authority is automatically suspect, probably sinister, almost certainly meant to control me in some way.
In an many ways that was actually true, but not really in the malevolent ways I was imagining, and a lot of what I saw as malevolence was simply due to stupidity/ignorance/miscommunication (on both their part and my own in many instances). As I have aged, I have chilled out, though that said, it didn't mean I was always wrong
By it's very nature, a conspiracy theory benefits from a lack of proof. If you could just look it up, it would be what THEY want you to think, right?
The other powerful motivator for it are the actual conspiracies that have come to light. Sure, the fluoride mind control and chemtrails to keep us docile people are wrong- but then there's project MKULTRA, where the American government was attempting to mind control the population.
Bigfoot, the skunk ape, the loch ness monster are ridiculous- but, so was the idea of extinct animals, until we verified the existence of the Coelacanth?
Essentially every time that modern science is wrong about something, it leaves the door open to question everything else, and lends support to the idea that there's more out there that we don't know.
Certainly, once you get a hold of some of the actual crazy conspiracies, it seems more plausible. For instance, carrots are good for your eyes. It's a government created lie, crafted by the British to keep radar secret from Germans that has since just become an axiom of our culture.There was just never any real reason to correct it, so it kept on living.
True, governments do leak information like sieves when they're genuinely at odds with each other- but how many years did everyone know that black people were closer to monkeys than humans? How many years did people spend believing that women were unfit to lead, despite the numerous powerful queens, pharaohs, and others?
When it's in powers best interest, a government is definitely capable of perpetuating blatant lies.
They also often struggle to provide a solid, rational answer to ‘yeah.....but why?’. Example here? Those that believe Kurt Cobain was murdered. Sure, the evidence there far from rules it out. The ‘yeah, but why?’ element in this case is that it implies a cover up. What’s the point? If as some would have you believe Courtney Love murdered him, what’s the reason for Police protecting her? What’s the motivation to get her off Scot Free? Compare to Conspiracies proven true - those typically had a clear advantage to be had from them.
This is one that I did read about some time ago. If She did or didn't Kill him we'll likely never know. Part of the reason there is a conspiracy there is due to Eldon Wayne Hoke coming out in interviews saying that Courtney offered to pay him 50,000 to kill Kurt and he passed a lie detector test. (Apparently.) Stack that with everything people who know her have said about her and it's a conspiracy theory shake and bake. Is it possible he was just looking for press, sure. If I recall the investigation and crime scene were mismanaged as well.
The recipe here seems to be a guy wanting press for his band and we'll say police incompetence. (Assumed for the example.) Oh and known behavior and personality of Courtney Love as reported by ....all the bands she's tried to be in and all the Music industry people she's not gotten along with. (Lots of personality conflicts.) Did you know she was in faith no More at one point, although not really.
Hopefully that illustrates what people who care about that particular would grab onto when looking for the "what really happened."
I think it might have been from JRE, People want a conspiracy to be true because it means some one is in charge and that things happen for a reason. This means they don't have to really think about how chaotic the world is.
Something along those lines.
Another problem with conspiracy theories is when it really is a theory but the whoever does the thing that lines up or proves the theory. Although that's more likely just a number of conditions being met more than some insidious plan.
There's a quote about malice and stupidity.
Where conspiracy A is proven true, conspiracy theorists (not including Sqorgar in that lump them, for clarity) will take that as confirmation conspiracies B-Z must also be true.
I've seen this happen on occasion, so I won't say it can't happen. But I think the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a normal person is that the conspiracy theorist has come to the realization that there are people out there who will do immoral, monstrous things and think "this is happening everywhere", while a normal person might see something like the Enron scandal and think, "well, that's just Enron".
Now, there’s no doubts that Governments the world over do seriously shady things. Likewise privilege for the wealthy in the purist meaning of the word (private law) is genuinely a thing. Stacks of evidence for both of those.
But, that doesn’t mean they’re entirely without morals or limits.
I'd like you to look into something called Operation Northwoods (in which the US military proposed a false flag attack against American military and civilian targets in order to get the US into war with Cuba - JFK turned it down, luckily) and MKUltra. There's also stuff like trying to sterilize the population of India through fake vaccinations. Trust me. They are without morals or limits.
Let’s take 9/11 as the example again. There are absolutely things which The Man In The Street cannot readily explain. And it’s almost certainly true that some stuff has been deliberately obscured. But here, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. They don’t mean the whole thing was a false flag.
I think there is sufficient evidence to indicate that 9/11 was, at the very least, partly or wholly an inside job which had elements covered up by the US government. Whether it was a false flag or not, I couldn't say, but at the very least, the US government did not skip a beat trying to parlay that disaster into a war with Iraq (which never had weapons of mass destruction and weren't involved in 9/11 in the first place).
The collapse of the Towers has a simple explanation, based on the design of them. Essentially a central pillar, with the floors suspended by cables. That was why they collapsed in the manner some would claim is solid evidence of a controlled demolition. As the structural integrity of the damaged floors failed, and the fire spread? They’d land on the next floor down, adding strain. Eventually it becomes inevitable.
Not quite. That would indicate that the central pillar collapsed from the bottom rather than being damaged on a higher floor - which would cause the building to fall like a stack of pancakes and probably tilt due to uneven damage caused by the planes, where the WTC fell at free fall speed from the bottom collapsing into the exact footprint of the building.
WTC-7? Well, I’m not an expert, and I haven’t looked into it myself. But the important difference between ‘The Man In The Street’ and a Conspiracy Theorist is the acceptance that just because I cannot explain it, doesn’t mean it cannot be explained.
But they did explain WTC7. The University of Alaska ran many, many different models trying to account for every possible explanation, and the only one which came close to explaining the manner in which WTC7 collapsed was one in which all support beams failed simultaneously.
Pizzagate? Obviously utter, utter nonsense. Yet still some utter fruitloop rocked up with a rifle...
Even that situation was extremely bizarre. This guy goes into Comet Pizza waving a gun around and fires one bullet which manages to go through a door into the hard drive of the computer in another room. Conspiracy theorists like to describe themselves as "Coincidence Skeptics".
There’s also the question of ‘why has nobody blown the whistle’.
That’s been touched on before. But consider the US’ broadly two party system. Do you really believe that if Party A found or had access to evidence, via one of there’s being President, that Party B had conducted covert attacks on US Citizens on US soil, they wouldn’t leverage that?
Well, that's what brought down Nixon, after all. However, I think that since that time, due to the consolidation of the media into just a few corporations means that the ability to control the narrative of this kind of stuff is easier than ever. For instance, there was this leaked video of an ABC anchor talking about how she had the scoop on Epstein first. She had interviews with his victims and everything. But ABC spiked the story and wouldn't tell her why. She was rather upset that the Miami Herald was getting all the praise when she felt like she had it first.
The media is really good a branding various situations. I mean, for a famous example, the term "conspiracy theorist" was originally coined by the CIA as a way to discredit people questioning the JFK assassination. But there's all sorts of examples. For instance, there were numerous whistleblowers in the game industry about the corruption in games journalism, but they were lumped together as "gamergaters" and said to just be jealous of women. The vaccine skepticism movement has a lot of valid issues (not on whether vaccines cause autism, but genuine concern over how vaccines are safety tested - or lack thereof) that have all been lumped together with Jenny McCarthy as anti-vaxxers. I mean you have to have seen the glut of labeling that has gone on in the past few years where people have been called white supremacists, misogynists, incels, racists, sexists, whatever - all of these have been attempts to associate people with negative stereotypes in order to downplay or dismiss their voices.
I think more than anything, the reason why even the most minor and most improperly executed conspiracy is never really exposed is because the media is an active co-conspirator. Maybe it is because they are beholden to their advertisers, or because they are owned by corporations with their own interests, or maybe it is because they forgot how to do actual journalism and just retweet idiots on Twitter. But having a compromised avenue for critical information makes it impossible for the truth to get out there. That's why I was always a fan of WikiLeaks, and what they've done to it and Julian Assange is the biggest evidence of a conspiracy there is.
Same with the Moon Landings. Remember it was a Space Race. A bit of genital waving between two world Super Powers to one up each other. If they really were shot on a sound stage? Russia would’ve exposed that quick as you like. Because of course they would.
When it comes to Flat Earth? We have photos from space, yet Flat Earth exponents just hand wave it away as ‘CGI’....despite the mountains of irrefutable evidence (including that reflector on The Moon).
I've only briefly looking into faking the moon landing, but didn't see anything that I would consider compelling evidence. And flat earthers are weird - like, there's a billion ways to show the earth is round that you can easily check for yourself. The moon landing one I get. The importance of that event and need to film it perfectly could lead to faking the footage (even if they didn't fake the moon landing itself, I could see the temptation of having a backup plan). But like, you can go out in the yard and measure the circumference of the earth using shadows and math.
There’s also the odd binary outcomes in any kind of conspiracy theory, and we also see it in evolution denial.
In short, the contentious view is ‘if I can disprove Them, I am therefore correct’, despite their not necessarily being anything to back their version up.
Remember, this isn’t about trying to debunk specific conspiracy theories. It’s acknowledged that some do turn out to be correct. Instead I’ve asked people to believe why some are so set on believing certain things above all others.
Let’s take WTC7 again. I’ve no reason to doubt your claim about the University of Alaska’s findings. Or indeed the findings themselves. But what I’d want to do here, whilst acknowledging I do not know anywhere near enough about the subject matter to make head nor tail of any given academic paper, is to look for any contradictory information from similar sources, I’d also be wanting to read potted versions of both their findings, and any critiques of their findings.
For me, one of the most interesting things is that those that believe in conspiracy theories, and those that discount them out of hand are probably two sides of the same coin.
Wikileaks? My concern there is someone with an agenda could easily insert utter falsehoods amongst genuine documentation. Once unleashed, chaos could ensue. And personally, I don’t consider Mr Assange at all trustworthy in that respect, based on his run and hide behaviour. But that’s an entirely separate topic, and I fear one far too inherently political for a Dakka discussion
Well, my number 1 ridiculous conspiracy theory I've challenged people on is the one about hillary clinton deliberately causing the deaths of americans at ben ghazi.
I ask people who espouse this "What would hillary possibly gain by doing this even if she was capable of doing it?"
Asides from insults, threats, etc the openly answer I got was "Someone there knew too much!"
I ask "What could anyone there have known that they didn't already have a chance o tell?"
I get insults for my reply.
Yes, a lot of conspiracy theories seem to be a case of someone doing something that cannot benefit them in any way and only end up harming them, for....some reason no one can say.
Also a lot of these theories have a severe dichotomy built into therm in that they a person is intelligent, resourceful and powerful enough to pull off a major action and leave no evidence they did it, yet stupid enough to do something that has absolutely no positive effects for them and a lot of negative ones.
And hey, overall, I’m prepared to believe that it’s entirely possible Intelligence Agencies aren’t beyond manipulating the Conspirasphere for their own ends.
I’m not for a second gonna try to parse or what have you which may and may not be deliberate misinformation. And for the Mod’s sake I am certainly not going to cite specific governments or agencies.
But, purely hypothetical and to stick with the current example? Would it take a great deal of effort to make up their own Loose Change type nut? If you are indeed trying cover something up, not matter how small or large, playing both sides would, in (ahem) theory, make muddying the waters incredibly easy.
I actually wonder if one of the writers of Newsthump hangs out on here. Firstly, they frequently mention Warhammer / Games Workshop. Secondly, the very same day as this thread crops up, they publish this...
Crispy78 wrote: I actually wonder if one of the writers of Newsthump hangs out on here. Firstly, they frequently mention Warhammer / Games Workshop. Secondly, the very same day as this thread crops up, they publish this...
Ok, let's post a theory that the current series of disasters in the world is actually the emperor of mankind trying to cause social collapse that will lead to the eventual failure of all governments and make it easier from him to create a global empire with him as absolute rulers and see if it turns up on newsthump later?
Sqorgar wrote: PizzaGate, at least, is not only plausible, but more or less proven to be true by the Epstein thing.
There's that circular leap of logic.
Maybe not the idea that Comet Pizza is doing human trafficking in its basement, but the idea that the elite are facilitating, if not actively engaging in, human trafficking of minors for sexual purpose.
PizzaGate is a specific narrative of events. It isn't some vague claim about the wealthy and their ability to get away with murder that can be turned around like "see, I was sort of right." This is just naked apologism for something that harmed people's lives.
I was actually surprised at how extensive the theory was.
Conspiracy theories function like 'the god of the gaps." There's nothing extensive about them. Their lack of verifiability and internal incoherence is a self-feeding loop. Extensive, yes in the sense that they usually try to cover all their bases on the most basic of levels. Not so much in their ability to stand up to basic scrutiny.
I understand why it might seem morally unpleasant to do so, but it would immediately end the whole thing in about 30 seconds.
The first mistake with conspriacy theorists is thinking you can change their mind with evidence. Their notions are not evidence based so much as faith based and then they cherry pick the facts that suit their conclusion. Just take Anti-Vaxxers. We're in the middle of a global pandemic and they're using it as evidence to support their claim that vaccinations are harmful because they causes disease and look at what disease is doing right now.
One thing I've learned about conspiracy theorists is that they love doing research.
I think they like to think this, and they frequently claim it, but indeed it is weaponized autism. Conspiracy theorists don't actually know what research entails. As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, conspiracy theorists like to think they're behaving scientifically when they're really more like cultists. They will eat up material of a specific type from specific sources, and they'll call that doing research, but it's really just regurgitation of information. It's not research so much as memorization of vague overarching details and then inventing new facts to string together an incoherent narrative.
Case and point, you entered this thread with a link and you very evidently did not research it and don't even understand it. It is not a peer reviewed article. If it were it would be published as such, not as a project for public comment which is what it actually is. Throw in that it was funded by truthers and conducted by a man who's publishing history is mostly about bridges and concrete. Then you get to reading the actual project and make it about half way through before noticing it cannot support its principle conclusion. There is no fire analysis in the study. Literally none. Its contents are simply explanations of various model methods and a listing of statistics for build materials who no actual analysis, but it dismisses that fire could have caused a total collapse of the structure as its principle conclusion. I went ahead and looked up the NIST report, which to my shock (sarcasm) includes a detailed fire analysis for 7 floors of the building with models and physical evidence backing those models up. The project by Husley on the other hand contains no physical evidence outside listing building materials and uses the NIST's fire analysis rather than do its own, but only for 2 of the 7 floors the NIST study covered. It's a very odd omission to make for a man with multiple publications on thermal expansion and contraction according to google scholar. I have no idea how he planned to refute the NIST's conclusions while ignoring more than two thirds of its analysis which is probably why it was published as a project for public comment rather than a peer reviewed study cause that's such a glaring mistake even someone who isn't an engineer can notice it. This project would never make it past peer review, assuming anyone tried.
EDIT: And because I'm expecting it, there are two men listed in the paper as "peer reviewers." Robert Korol is a 9/11 Truther, and a fairly well known one cause I recognized his name on sight. He's also an active member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (in so far as he has been writing material for them for over a decade), who funded this project. I have never seen Gregory Szuladzinski name before, but according to research gate he's quite the publisher of engineering subjects for a Professor of Philosophy (and I'm going to openly doubt that that is even true, cause he has no publication history before the 90s and the man is 80 years old).
And yet, this incomplete analysis that was never peer reviewed is evidence that the building was demolished in a controlled way because they "stopped just short of saying it."
And all of that will ultimately be a waste of time, because to a conspiracy theorist it's just an invitation to start a circular argument that is designed less to prove a case and more to exhaust opposition.
9/11 truthers, originally believed to be nutters of the highest order, eventually started to reverse public sentiment over decades by coming out with increasingly compelling evidence.
Source.
That being said, while conspiracy theorists are amazing at verifying publicly available information
The U.K. may soon ban anti-vax stuff on social media. How they implement that? I dunno. But I’m guessing some colloidal-Silver and mms flogging cretins will soon be seizing on this.
Never mind that the main claim behind anti-vax is ‘big pharma want munneh’, and that a vaccine injection is a limited cost prevention, compared to weeks of hospitalisation in many cases....
The U.K. may soon ban anti-vax stuff on social media. How they implement that? I dunno. But I’m guessing some colloidal-Silver and mms flogging cretins will soon be seizing on this.
Never mind that the main claim behind anti-vax is ‘big pharma want munneh’, and that a vaccine injection is a limited cost prevention, compared to weeks of hospitalisation in many cases....
I wish the incident in American Somoa last year had gotten more press coverage. Flat earthers don't really offend me cause they're quite harmless. Anti-vaxxers on the other hand are actively causing human deaths.
I actually think LordofHats illustrated the answer to the OP quite well:
Conspiracy theories exist because they're easily summarized in a attractive package to appear intuitive. The refutation of the theory is much more complex and takes time to analyze.
It's easy for someone to latch onto "9/11 was an inside job", it's much more time consuming to break down why all the assumptions in the conspiracy theory are flawed.
Then once someone latches onto it the other elements discussed - the narcissism, the cherry picking of evidence, etc etc really cements it and makes it much harder to convince the person otherwise.
ScarletRose wrote: It's easy for someone to latch onto "9/11 was an inside job", it's much more time consuming to break down why all the assumptions in the conspiracy theory are flawed.
Even more so when the refutation requires specialized knowledge or training most people won't have. By the time you've even refuted the initial claims, the theorists will have a dozen new ones because making stuff up is faster than explaining why it's wrong.And that's assuming the claims are trying to pass themselves off as logical or scientific. Not all conspiracy theories are.
Another good example is the Sovereign Citizens movement. Just try and make sense of this;
citizens have civil rights, legislated to give the freed black slaves after the Civil War rights comparable to the unalienable constitutional rights of white state citizens. The benefits of U.S. citizenship are received by consent in exchange for freedom. State citizens consequently take steps to revoke and rescind their U.S. citizenship and reassert their de jure common-law state citizen status. This involves removing one's self from federal jurisdiction and relinquishing any evidence of consent to U.S. citizenship, such as a Social Security number, driver's license, car registration, use of ZIP codes, marriage license, voter registration, and birth certificate. Also included is refusal to pay state and federal income taxes because citizens not under U.S. jurisdiction are not required to pay them. Only residents (resident aliens) of the states, not its citizens, are income-taxable, state citizens argue. And as a state citizen landowner, one can bring forward the original land patent and file it with the county for absolute or allodial property rights. Such allodial ownership is held "without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof" (Black's Law Dictionary). Superiors include those who levy property taxes or who hold mortgages or liens against the property. ~ borrowed quote from Wikipedia
You literally can't make sense of it. It's hard to even fathom where to begin to refute the consequent nonsense sovereign citizens spout and espouse. It's so out there even experts in the field of law struggle to come up with cohesive refutations, cause when something is basically just word soup it can be hard to even figure out where to start refuting it. Then try to imagine that this insanity is actually being exported to other countries that don't have a constitution or a federal government.
People cling to conspiracy theories because they can't reconcile with themselves that some things in the world just suck, and that random things just happen.
It's their safe place to make it feel like they personally have an understanding of things, and that they aren't just adrift like "those other sheep".
LordofHats wrote: Conspiracy theorists don't actually know what research entails.
This is the thing about conspiracy theorists in a nutshell.
I can sit here and go, 'Hmm, did 9/11 happen as popularly described?' I can follow that up with investigating stuff by several dozen people; all of which claim to be accredited or to understand what they're talking about. They'll build models, talk about laws of physics, how it had to happen one way or the other. They'll scoff at people saying something different to them and say very intelligent sounding things about subjects I know nothing about; leading me on with carefully chosen facts in a carefully constructed way until I have no choice but to agree with them.
The thing is though, I've no fecking idea. I'm not a materials engineer, or a skyscraper architect, or a demolitions experts. Whoever they chuck up on that screen? I've no idea if they have any idea what they're talking about and my base of knowledge is so very very low that I cannot distinguish between someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who sounds like they do.
So what can I do? Well, I could turn to the computer, and spend a few days googling. What I read might match well enough with what one of the 'experts' says that I believe them. But really, it's just confirmation bias. Whatever I tap in to the search bar will be guided by what I want to read. And whatever I think sounds right will be whatever goes best with what I thought I understood from all those experts babbling at me.
The problem is, what if I misunderstood one of them? What if one side was bull gaking, but did it more convincingly? I haven't got a clue and wouldn't detect it, I don't know anything about this stuff. My 'research' is based on the entirely flawed idea that a few days on google will educate me well enough to discern the arguments, mechanical laws, and physical properties involved and make a rational judgement. But that makes no provision for me not understanding something or missing relevant facts due to my inexperience in the field.
Take Sqorgar above, for example. Unless he is a highly trained architect with direct experience in demolitions and materials management (if he is, I withdraw this remark); he has no idea if what he's seen or read people saying was accurate or not. But he's convinced that he does. And therein lies the root problem for all conspiracy theorists and the wider population more generally.
The mistaken widespread belief that nothing is so complicated a layman cannot comprehend it well enough to sort fact from fiction after a few days of self-led 'research'.
Me? I have no idea of 9/11 happened as is commonly postulated. But then again, I never will. Just like I'll probably never really know the recipe for Marmite or if the British Admiralty was aware of the profits of the armour plate ring in 1910. I'm happy to say the world is full of things that have happened, are happening, and will happen that I will never really comprehend or irrefutably 'know'. And....that's okay. I can deal with that. I have no choice when operating in this world but to take the assumed majority opinion for most things; why should 9/11 be any different in that regard?
The more one does actual research, the more one comes to terms with one's own ignorance in the cosmos.
Generally i do cut the antivax crowd a little slack because they believe that vaccines are an evil corporate conspiracy to profit themselves at the expense of the public.
I do not support antivaxxers and agree that vaccines save a lot of lives and are generally good, get that straight right now.
But i do have some sympathy for antivaxxers as I can understand their inability to see corporations as anything good and as doing anything without a profit motive. I give them a little tolerance for that as I can relate to that view but still see parents who don't vaccinate children as nearly criminal.
One problem with conspiracy theories is that they often do have some plausibility to them, yet that plausibility could also be a natural, non conspiratorial thing too.
Take covid. Some claim that it's spreading so rapidly because it was deigned to with it's 2 week eclipse phase period where people do not appear infected or infectious but are. Yes, that could be part of a conspiracy...
Or it could reflect the fact we've gotten good at dealing with routine transmission model pathogens and if one was going to spread rapidly it would have to be something different, and by definition anything spreading would be different than the normal viral model.
PizzaGate is a specific narrative of events. It isn't some vague claim about the wealthy and their ability to get away with murder that can be turned around like "see, I was sort of right." This is just naked apologism for something that harmed people's lives.
PizzaGate started happening around the same time I started researching conspiracy theorists (during the 2016 election), and it initially started off based on some weird phraseology in the Podesta email leaks (pizza related hankerchief, something about walnut sauce). I think it then moved to Comet Pizza from there - I forget the exact way they got there, but I guess somebody noticed that the logo of the place had the boy lover symbol from some FBI report from a while ago. People started noticing that everything on that block had these symbols and were owned by the same people. They did digging into underground tunnels that went nearby and so on. This was about the time that Reddit banned the pizzagate community and they moved to voat and 8chan.
But they didn't stop digging there. They kept looking up all sorts of connections on political leaders, digging up stuff from the past like the Dutroux Affair, Bohemian Grove, and the Finders. Epstein came up repeated, as did Jimmy Saville. They found compounds in Nevada which they reported to the police, and tracked potential cult activity. There were people that found kindergartens that apparently had no children coming or going and barred windows, and all sorts of stuff. Articles about the FBI running the largest child porn website on the internet were posted. Every time there was a bust that resulted in arrests, this news was posted. I do think the pizzagate community is what laid the grounds for QAnon.
I think it is unfair to say that the pizzagate community was just about comet pizza. That's just when the community was forced off reddit. They kept going. They might even still be going, honestly.
Conspiracy theories function like 'the god of the gaps." There's nothing extensive about them. Their lack of verifiability and internal incoherence is a self-feeding loop. Extensive, yes in the sense that they usually try to cover all their bases on the most basic of levels. Not so much in their ability to stand up to basic scrutiny.
That's what I thought about Sandy Hook too, initially. The purpose of my research was not really to go into the conspiracies themselves, but to get a handle on the mindset of a conspiracy theorist - and the main guy for Sandy Hook (Wolfgang Halbig) made a quintessential model.
This guy was an ex-cop from Florida who, for some reason, made it his life's mission to disprove Sandy Hook. The amount of effort he put into it was rather substantial. For instance, to prove that Sandy Hook was not a functional school at the time of the shooting, he went and procured the financial records for the company that supplies food to school cafeterias to show that no food had been sent to the school in the previous year. He do FOIA requests to get documents that should be public record, and then when he was denied, he physically went to city hall personally to get them (where he was escorted off the premise).
At least for Sandy Hook, which your quote was talking about, it is not the lack of verifiability of the conspiracy theory which drives it, but rather the lack of verifiability of the the event itself. Halbig was relentless in his efforts to verify even basic information of the event, and upon getting stonewalled or threatened arrest, went even harder. He's been trying to verify his theory for years, and if I'm being honest, I feel like he should've found conclusive evidence one way or another by now. I wonder what's been going on there. Most likely, he's still in a legal battle with that Leonard Pozner guy.
The first mistake with conspriacy theorists is thinking you can change their mind with evidence. Their notions are not evidence based so much as faith based and then they cherry pick the facts that suit their conclusion. Just take Anti-Vaxxers. We're in the middle of a global pandemic and they're using it as evidence to support their claim that vaccinations are harmful because they causes disease and look at what disease is doing right now.
The vaccine thing was another thing that I went into thinking it would go one way and ended up coming out the other side totally convinced. The thing is, I never approached the subject from a perspective of whether vaccines worked - they do work - but the discussion about vaccines is so much larger than that. There are very serious concerns with how safe vaccines are (vaccines are not classified like other medicines and do not require the rigorous testing and human trials that most medicine does, largely as a result of wanting to get an anthrax vaccine out to the people as quickly as possible). There's human rights concerns (do we, as a society, have the right to tell the unvaccinated to stay out of public, like they did in New York a few years ago? Can we make vaccines mandatory? What right do people have to decide what goes in their children?). There's concerns over how Big Pharma makes these vaccines (because they have no liability for vaccine injuries, and because of near universal adoption, these become low risk, big money makers for them). There's concerns about effectiveness (vaccines wane over time, with the measles vaccine losing effectiveness after about 20 years). There's concerns about side effects (the HPV vaccine actually increases the chance of cervical cancer by 30% if the vaccine is given after the child has already been exposed to HPV). There's concerns about the history of vaccinations (check out the cutter incident, in which the original polio vaccine actually gave thousands of children polio, or how the polio vaccine was contaminated by SV-40, a simian virus which is highly carcinogenic).
Basically, even if you start from the position that vaccines work and prevent disease, there is a whole load of stuff beyond that, frankly, deserves some recognition. To sum up anti-vaxxers as a bunch of crazy middle class moms would be doing a disservice to the discussion that is desperately needed.
Case and point, you entered this thread with a link and you very evidently did not research it and don't even understand it. It is not a peer reviewed article. If it were it would be published as such, not as a project for public comment which is what it actually is.
I think you might have some outdated information. The initial version of this report was released in September 2019. The final version of this report, which added material to cover public comments, was released only ten days ago. I admit that I haven't read it, and not being a structural engineer, my ability to understand it might be limited. But I might make an attempt later.
I can not get into the rest of your commentary right now (and probably shouldn't as it would derail the thread), but I don't consider being a truther to be a particularly damning claim against somebody's credibility. But your comments about the fire model, I can't really dispute. I know it was a topic of debate during the initial public comment release, but I don't know if it has been addressed in the final report or not.
9/11 truthers, originally believed to be nutters of the highest order, eventually started to reverse public sentiment over decades by coming out with increasingly compelling evidence.
Source.
To which statement? The fact that public sentiment is starting to reverse or that there is compelling evidence? I admit that both statements are largely subjective. For public sentiment starting to reverse, I've definitely seen more people being open about being a truther in the past few years. For compelling evidence, I did mention a five hour documentary that I watched. I considered it to be compelling.
AegisGrimm wrote: People cling to conspiracy theories because they can't reconcile with themselves that some things in the world just suck, and that random things just happen.
It's their safe place to make it feel like they personally have an understanding of things, and that they aren't just adrift like "those other sheep".
It's also impacted by the "town idiot" issue.
Pre-internet, if you were fething stupid...the impact of your stupidity was generally limited to your immediate family, friends, occasional people in your town, and co-workers. Short of writing in letters to editors of magazines and newspapers (which, thankfully are filtered), your ability to spread your stupidity was pretty minimal. When the internet arose, it allowed every person the ability to spread their nonsense and even worse...find communities of similarly stupid people with which to congregate. The old saying "None of us is as dumb as all of us." is particularly true certain communities where it's just a circle jerk of misinformation, ignorance, and desperation.
Sqorgar wrote: it is not the lack of verifiability of the conspiracy theory which drives it, but rather the lack of verifiability of the the event itself.
Reliable source questioning whether or not Sandy Hook happened.
And feth you for even indulging the idea 26 people didn't die. Alex Jones is being destroyed by the lawsuit brought by the families for even suggesting it and I wish that destruction was visited on everyone who engages in it because it's inhumanly disgusting. Report me to the mods for rule violation. Don't give a gak. This nonsense should be shouted down at ever corner and given the only level of respect it deserves.
Basically, even if you start from the position that vaccines work and prevent disease, there is a whole load of stuff beyond that, frankly, deserves some recognition.
Source questioning the efficacy and safety of vaccinations and their value in preventing preventable diseases that isn't the one from the 90s.
disservice to the discussion that is desperately needed.
Indulging apologetic garbage is doing a disservice to the very notion of intelligent discourse.
The initial version of this report was released in September 2019.
And this is just where I'm going to stop pretending. This has nothing to do with the criticism I leveled at the project. I also have read the public comments. There's 4 of them and all of them were clearly not written by engineers and two of them I don't think even relate to projects analysis. No one read this, lest of all the 300+ engineers, chemists, and architects who produced the consensus view on why the tower went down. I doubt most people went past the summary, where they immediately decided what they thought about it and didn't bother to even read the first few dozen pages. I would in fact not be shocked if I were the first person on Earth to do it. And that still has nothing to do with my actual criticism, which is that conspiracy theories are not research or evidence based. They in fact fall apart when subjected to real scrutiny, and their flimsy attempts at trying to appear as scientific and "peer reviewed" are transparently empty to anyone with actual experience in academia and subject expertise.
don't consider being a truther to be a particularly damning claim against somebody's credibility
It in fact is, especially if they happen to be from the field of engineering and they have no real evidence to back up their claims. This is not Galileo pushing a fringe view on scientific methods in an era of academic oppression. It's holocaust denial with extra math.
Now, I suspect that project was just a grad-student project. It looks like one. It reads like one, at least to me but I'm not an engineer. Lots of STEM courses require grant-based or similar research for students to earn their PHD, so the people who did that project might just have taken the grant they could get and ran with it (which would explain why the whole thing reads like an overview of structural models more so than an analysis of a building's collapse). In that case, Husley would just be their advisor and it would not be right imo for him to stifle his students on the basis of topic and he should do his job in helping their academic pursuits. It would also conveniently explain why someone who clearly should have some subject expertise would make such a glaring error. His students probably couldn't research the full analysis in the first place and picked the two floors because that's what they could do with the time had.
Robert Korol on the other hand has been pushing 9/11 crap most of his career and indeed it should be (and has been) damaging. Outside of being a truther he really has no career. That guy has been doing this since I was in high school. I have no idea who the other guy is, but he's credited as a consultant, which is pretty frequently code for "didn't read it, has no idea what the subject is about but we're gonna sell his name to go on it to lend it an air of credibility" in academics, especially garbage academics.
To which statement?
It's a self explanatory request.
I admit that both statements are largely subjective.
So you don't have a source and you're engaging in literal faith based reason (making stuff up) to make that claim? Well, it serves as a wonderful example of what I'm talking about at the very least, which is probably where this should end.
Sqorgar wrote: That's what I thought about Sandy Hook too, initially. The purpose of my research was not really to go into the conspiracies themselves, but to get a handle on the mindset of a conspiracy theorist - and the main guy for Sandy Hook (Wolfgang Halbig) made a quintessential model.
This guy was an ex-cop from Florida who, for some reason, made it his life's mission to disprove Sandy Hook. The amount of effort he put into it was rather substantial. For instance, to prove that Sandy Hook was not a functional school at the time of the shooting, he went and procured the financial records for the company that supplies food to school cafeterias to show that no food had been sent to the school in the previous year. He do FOIA requests to get documents that should be public record, and then when he was denied, he physically went to city hall personally to get them (where he was escorted off the premise).
At least for Sandy Hook, which your quote was talking about, it is not the lack of verifiability of the conspiracy theory which drives it, but rather the lack of verifiability of the the event itself. Halbig was relentless in his efforts to verify even basic information of the event, and upon getting stonewalled or threatened arrest, went even harder. He's been trying to verify his theory for years, and if I'm being honest, I feel like he should've found conclusive evidence one way or another by now. I wonder what's been going on there. Most likely, he's still in a legal battle with that Leonard Pozner guy.
More likely, the evidence all points to the outcome that doesn't fit his narrative, and so he can't very well tell everyone.
The problem with these sorts of cases is that you generally wind up taking this one guy's word for it that all that shady stuff was going on. Is there corroboration for his 'research'?
This is where most of those who buy into conspiracy theories come unstuck. Unless you can point to actual, verifiable evidence that is backed up by multiple sources, you don't have proof, you just have 'this guy says'... and you're believing it because it fits the narrative in your head, not because it's actual evidence.
And feth you for even indulging the idea 26 people didn't die....I wish that destruction was visited on everyone who engages in it because it's inhumanly disgusting. Report me to the mods for rule violation. Don't give a gak.
Yeah, I'm out. I think we could've had an interesting discussion, but I'm not interested in whatever this is.
Sqorgar wrote: ...I think we could've had an interesting discussion, ...
No, I don't think you could.
People have strong feelings about kids being massacred. When even the most cursory reading of the 'evidence' of the supposed staging of Sandy Hook shows it to be blatantly absurd, you're pretty much guaranteed to elicit an emotional response if you present it as something worthy of actual consideration.
Sqorgar wrote: Yeah, I'm out. I think we could've had an interesting discussion
I knew we wouldn't from your first post.
I'm going to spell this out, not because I think it'll get to you but in the hope that people who aren't shills might take a note.
It's one thing to peddle truther gak like it's worth anyone's time, especially when I can spend a few hours reading and researching names to make a half-effort what it is. It's another to act like the ruining of already ruined lives deserves anything but the deepest of scorn and immediate dismissal for the human filth that it is. Truthers might be ignorant fools pissing on the dead so they can feel special about themselves or turn a quick buck on ignorance, but they're not actively ruining anyone's life. They're just insensitive. At Sandy Hook children died. Their parents and families were immediately bombarded afterwards by 'researchers' mailing them death threats, stalking them, and proclaiming on national television that their dead children never existed. Family photos were put up with little red circles for pure donkey-caves to point at and scream it was photo shopped.
feth that, and the shills who defend it. It's not worthy of respect or consideration and it sure as hell doesn't make of interesting discussion.
I think anti-vaccination stuff is probably my biggest hate in the world.
As everyone knows, it stems from a single, discredited and withdrawn study. The conclusion of which was that a single vaccine (combined MMR) was less safe than three separate vaccinations for Measles, Mumps and Rubella. And who paid for that study? The firm selling, you guessed it......the three separate vaccinations.
Since then, it’s become utterly twisted. It also confuses correlation with cause. Autism isn’t on the rise because ‘medicine’. It’s on the rise because we’re getting better and better at recognising it’s traits.
And the thought that some parents would prefer their child dies, rather than be autistic frankly turns my stomach :(
We know it happened. There are stacks of evidence to support the numbers murdered.
Ugh.
knowing that it happened isn't enough though.
Knowing that occupied countries and satelite states (even neutral countries) have participated in it and the correct depth of it are an even deeper and greyer /darker area.
There is a thing about people drawn to believe conspiracies, and another for those who make them.
I believe they are two different things : for the first category, to me it is more about validating your opinion by having something that conveniently builds into your narrative, and making you feel you're the smartest one in comparison to others "not seeing the truth". For the second, I think it's more about a tool being used for their own interests - not especially always about actually believing it and making it a principle, but also as a way to make money (youtube channels that can attract a lot of views / memberships that way) or just spread confusion and doubt for their own political interests.
I think conspiracy theorists have benefitted from the internet more than many other groups. Previously, some random guy down the street who believed the Earth was flat was just mildly ridiculed as the local crazy guy and they'd often come to realise they were wrong after much peer pressure and ridicule or they'd withdraw into the crazy old hermit stage of conspiracy theorists. In either case it was difficult for their particular theory to gain any traction outside of a small group. The internet allows these groups of people that one thing they lacked previously: social acceptance for their ideas. Now you get these people thinking they are part of some greater movement because they can see people form all over the world sharing their beliefs in a self-sustaining web of confirmation bias. Often these groups are still very small but people can make themselves well known within these small groups and attain some level of power even in a very limited way. Conspiracy theorists often also seem to like the idea that they know something nobody else does, often also believing they've "figured it out" themselves, thereby elevating them above the rest of society. Again, this self-congratulatory state of affairs is then backed up by communities online.
I knew a 9/11 Truther (God how I hate that term) at uni. He was intelligent and persuasive but essentially uneducated in the sciences - having no real grounding in any science and engineering discipline and also no real appreciation for how research worked in those fields. One thing he was very good at was finding information that seemingly didn't match the official narrative. This would then be presented as proof of a conspiracy, which always seemed really odd to me. As others have pointed out, there's a huge difference between something not quite lining up with established facts and being proof that everything was orchestrated by the government. Combine that with confirmation bias and you end up with multiple "facts" being regurgitated over and over, often with no way to really disprove much of anything on the spot. That's another common thing with conspiracy theorists, they'll pose a question or present some evidence to be refuted and if you can't do it there and then they seem to count that as a victory. They seem to equate volume of data with quality of data which skews their "research". So instead of thinking about what any data means they just gather it up like some sort of conspiracy magpie and try to make as much of it fit into their narrative as possible. For example, I remember my friend arguing that a picture of a steel beam in the WTC wreckage that had been cut at a 45-degree angle was proof that the towers had been demolished using thermite. There were two problems with this which I found out literally by doing a 1-minute Google search. Firstly, that's not how thermite works (turns out the thermite thing was adapted from a whole different set of conspiracy theories about the WTC, which is interesting in itself - these theories tend to mutate and consume each other to form vast, often mutually exclusive sets of theories that people somehow believe simultaneously). Secondly the picture was actually taken during the clean-up of the site and showed a beam that had indeed been cut rather than destroyed in the initial attack. It had been cut by the clean-up crews themselves. You'd think that presenting this evidence would make my friend then question his own evidence, but instead it was just met with various attempts to fit this new information into their pre-conceived ideas. Ultimately, anything that didn't fit into their theory was too difficult to disprove just became something "they wanted you to believe". I note that "they" is often a difficult group for conspiracy theorists to define. It's a very powerful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect at work, which is even more obvious if you ever encounter any flat earth "proofs" online.
There's also an element of not being in control and not realising the world is complicated that many conspiracy theorists refuse to accept. It's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread but understanding something like the series of events in the WTC collapse is not a simple thing and the layman is not going to comprehend all of it. The same applies to a lot of the more complex physics surrounding the globe/flat earth "debate". The consequence of this is often that people misinterpret or misunderstand one thing and extrapolate that to a whole host of bullgak. The most dangerous word in conspiracy theories is probably "therefore" because it's almost invariably preceded by an unsupported assumption. This lack of understanding of how the world actually works and the expectations of some people that everything can be fully explained to even the most ignorant observer has even led to problems in law courts. I remember reading a while ago about some research that showed juries were possibly failing to convict people who perhaps would have been found guilty in other circumstances because shows like CSI made it seem like you could definitively link a person to a crime using "science" and if the prosecution failed to do that it must be because the person was innocent.
Then there's the question of both how and why a conspiracy exists in the first place. For example, if 9/11 was some kind of government conspiracy there'd be an astronomical number of people involved, up to and including the various scientists writing the reports. If the conspiracy were true there is precisely zero chance that not a single one of those involved would have blown the whistle by now. Then there's the why. Flat Earth is my big "why?" conspiracy. Apart from being obviously complete bullgak it's also a conspiracy without any reason. I don't understand who benefits from claiming a flat Earth is actually a globe other than a bunch of vague assertions that "NASA does...for some reason".
Finally, another +1 for pointing out anyone who believes in a Sandy Hook conspiracy is worthy of the deepest scorn and ridicule. If your little pet theories mark you out as a bit weird and eccentric then fair enough, you do you, but when they encroach on the very real grief and suffering of families going through the devastation of losing their children you can feth right off.
Dunning-Kruger Effect, for those new to the wonderful world of the Conspirasphere.
Wikipedia - yes, I am aware wrote:
Part of a series on
Psychology
Outline History Subfields
Basic types[show]
Applied psychology[show]
Lists[show]
Psi2.svg Psychology portal
vte
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]
As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]
Felt it useful to provide a snippet of info. Feel free to follow up with your own searches
Automatically Appended Next Post: And on ‘why no whistle blowers’? Add in the sheer, vast amounts of money one could make if you had genuine, verifiable insider evidence that a given Conspiracy was true?
Consider how many rival governments would offer you safe haven for embarrassing and seriously undermining the integrity of a rival on the world’s stage?
That appeal only grows as the impact grows. I mean, 9/11 was and is still used as a justification for war, and even local Islamophobia. How many lives have been wrecked and upended by the aftermath?
Yet? Not. One. Person. Has. Squealed.
Given people report all sorts of trivial nonsense to the press that no-one in their right mind particularly cares about (OMG I SAW SLEBS AND THEY WAS HOLD HAND!, thank you that’ll be £299, invoice enclosed)...yet total silence and solidarity? Sorry, that’s simply not how human beans work!
Automatically Appended Next Post: For a very, very modern Conspiracy Theory?
5G is the cause of Covid-19.
OK. Let’s run with that for a brief moment. Let’s assume there is something to it.
Except....I live in Royal Tunbridge Wells ( just off The Historic Pantiles. Oh yes, its a-very nice!). People in town have contracted and even died with Covid-19.
Yet......the town is not covered by 5G. Towns nearby? Let’s say Tonbridge, East Grinstead, Crowborough. They’re the main ones.
Tonbridge?Nope.
East Grinstead? Nope.
Crowborough? Nope.
So how could 5G have any possible link? I don’t need scads and scads of ‘research’. I don’t need to quote possibly unverifiable reports from ‘a scientist who’s chosen to remain anonymous’, or even A Quack. This was the work of mere seconds, and I’ve reasonably debunked it.
This guy was an ex-cop from Florida who, for some reason, made it his life's mission to disprove Sandy Hook. The amount of effort he put into it was rather substantial. For instance, to prove that Sandy Hook was not a functional school at the time of the shooting, he went and procured the financial records for the company that supplies food to school cafeterias to show that no food had been sent to the school in the previous year. He do FOIA requests to get documents that should be public record, and then when he was denied, he physically went to city hall personally to get them (where he was escorted off the premise).
At least for Sandy Hook, which your quote was talking about, it is not the lack of verifiability of the conspiracy theory which drives it, but rather the lack of verifiability of the the event itself. Halbig was relentless in his efforts to verify even basic information of the event, and upon getting stonewalled or threatened arrest, went even harder. He's been trying to verify his theory for years, and if I'm being honest, I feel like he should've found conclusive evidence one way or another by now. I wonder what's been going on there. Most likely, he's still in a legal battle with that Leonard Pozner guy.
You know that Halbig was arrested for somehow having Leonard Pozner's ID, who is not some guy, but a father of a victim. Halbig has also repeatedly doxxed Pozner. This isn't some petty legal spat. This is exactly the sort of highly stilted presentation of facts which is classic conspiracy theorist behavior.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think anti-vaccination stuff is probably my biggest hate in the world.
As everyone knows, it stems from a single, discredited and withdrawn study. The conclusion of which was that a single vaccine (combined MMR) was less safe than three separate vaccinations for Measles, Mumps and Rubella. And who paid for that study? The firm selling, you guessed it......the three separate vaccinations.
Since then, it’s become utterly twisted. It also confuses correlation with cause. Autism isn’t on the rise because ‘medicine’. It’s on the rise because we’re getting better and better at recognising it’s traits.
And the thought that some parents would prefer their child dies, rather than be autistic frankly turns my stomach :(
Not just discredited, the guy who wrote it lost his medical license because of it. In addition to the better diagnosis (part of which is also stricter diagnosis - I'm fairly sure that were I to go to school today I too would be pegged as heading to the autism side of the scale and might need testing), the age at which children receive vaccines is about the age at which the first symptoms of autism start to appear - regardless of vaccinations. It's the absolute perfect model case for correlation \= causation.
There may be an actual rise in autism as well (I'm no expert), but it's not due to vaccines. Autism is an information processing error in the brain to use a fairly unclinical term. How much more information (and I'm talking pure volume of data) is being thrown at people (and children especially) now than a generation ago? I can easily believe that the sheer volume is overwhelming more still-developing brains now than a generation or so ago. But I'm not a medical professional or a psychologist, so this is all speculation on my part.
Which is another disadvantage science has in these debates. Science is by its very nature never absolute, and tends to point out the weak points in its structure (because that's literally how the scientific method works). People, on the other hand, like absolutes.
All the other stupid arguments against vaccines (and indeed, conspiracy theories in general) are similar in that they sound reasonable, but are often factually incorrect, or the underlying data is true but does not in any way support the conclusions being drawn and nevertheless sounds very scary or, respectively, reasonable (but held together by may bes, what ifs, and possiblys - with the next sentence subtly changing "may be" to "is" - and an assumption has now magically become a "fact"). A very common tactic in all conspiracy theories, going all the way back to Erich von Daniken in the 70s and 80s, and if you're anti-religious, all the way to the beginning of that.
In addition, they have a very disturbing habit of making all these outlandish claims, and then reversing Russell's Teapot and say "prove me wrong". Which is a logical impossibility, you can't prove a negative. At best you can disprove a positive. Plus, the burden of proof in any scientific debate always lies with the person making the claim, not the person refuting them.
There are whole studies devoted to logical fallacies (which conspiracy theorists make more than liberal use of), and many arguments on these boards are rife with them - strawman fallacies, ad hominems, and circular reasoning being particularly common, but reversing the burden of proof happens a lot as well.
"There's mercury in it." No, there used to be an organic compound with a mercury atom in its atomic structure (the technical term is organo-metallic complex, and they exist with all kinds of metals) in the solvent, and even that is no longer in use. (Factually incorrect.)
"But sometimes it goes wrong." 1) That very, very rarely happens. 2)Even with the best of safeguards, things can and will still go wrong, because, well, people make mistakes, and the universe is a harsh and uncaring place. 3) When something does go wrong with for example a vaccine, it gets pulled, and fast. If it doesn't, that's a problem with industry regulation, not vaccines themselves. Looking over the approval system, it looks pretty solid and robust to me. (Alarming fact with a perfectly logical explanation which is never mentioned.)
"Forcing parents to vaccinate is infringing on their freedoms". Forcing your unvaccinated health hazard on someone who's immunocompromised or simply too young to be vaccinated is infringing on not only their freedom (they can't go anywhere anymore), but also their right to live. Guess which one I rate higher? (False equivalency)
"Pyramids all over the world are the same shape. They must have been inspired by the same independent outside source." Well, yeah I guess, but that outside source was not "aliens", it was basic math. A pyramid is a very stable structure - to the point that the first structure many toddlers manage to build succesfully with (lego) blocks is often a pyramid-like pile. (Basic fact is true, but in no way supports the conclusion being drawn.)
"Some studies disagree with man-made climate change." Some studies always disagree with something, but when the overwhelming body of studies points one way, disagreeing studies are probably flawed in some way - or worse, funded by people with a vested interest in denying said body of evidence. Since climate science has a very large statistical component, and statistics are easy to manipulate by for example massaging the underlying data or choosing incorrect selection parameters, I'd start by looking at that.
Entire books have been written on basically each these claims, a final tactic being to obscure the holes in the arguments by way of word soup and using long, important sounding words, and throwing so many unverifiable claims or arguments in there it would take peer review process literally decades to unravel them all - and serious scientists have much better things to do with their time.
And Doc, I've been using your final sentence myself for years now whenever the debate comes up prefaced by "even if vaccines did cause autism, and they don't". Couldn't agree more.
Well, this turned out to be a much longer post than I intended. I've always disliked disingenuous reasonings, and I guess this one struck a nerve, especially since stupid arguments like this keep invading the public debate on some very serious matters - like vaccinations, creationism vs evolution in schools and climate change.
Two pages and 53 posts in, genuine pat on the back to the participants for keeping things pretty much civil. Heated, sure. But not flamey. Well done all. And double thanks for people entering into the spirit of the thread (though that’s probably easy to say when we’re all pretty much in agreement)
But despite the broad agreement, quite a lot of food for thought, even for someone who considered themselves an old hand when it comes to Conspiracy Theories.
Now I’d like to take the chance to ask people to nominate and link to their favourite ‘erm.....whaaaaaaaaaaa?’ Conspiracy Theory. Ideally, looking for the fringe of the fringe. One you suspect most people aren’t aware even exists. Because I want initial ‘yeah, but, what about X, Y, Z and Pigeon’ responses. I reckon that us essentially being a group of layman with different skill sets might prove an interest test group for such an endeavour.
OK. Let’s run with that for a brief moment. Let’s assume there is something to it.
I just looked this up after you mentioned it and I have got to say this is easily the most WTF thing I've seen, and I've gone deep into the Sovereign Citizen stuff in the past for a research paper. That's taking the old yellow fear to a new level.
Heated, sure. But not flamey.
Technically I'm the only person who got snippy, so you know. Everyone else did great.
Ketara wrote: This is a recent classic for anyone who might be interested in one particular type of conspiracy-peddling.
Something I only appreciated many years after seeing it is the very first displays of the Holocaust Museum in DC. The first thing you see stepping off the elevator are pictures of the camps and a quote by Eisenhower:
“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.”
And Holocaust denial is a particular brand of conspiracy that has had a disturbing rise in prevalence over the past decade.
It gets easier to deny something like the Holocaust because the further from the event you get the fewer people directly were present until there's no one left alive. Information gets lost or missplaced; it becomes simpler to cast doubt upon record. It also becomes less of a major event in current lives so opposition gets a bit weaker at large. Attention shifts to more recent events which means any group denying it can get more strength under itself and establish itself before it gets a powerful counter action against it.
And this is even with more modern recording of history where archives and information can be stored and accessed more readily and degrades far less than old paper records stuffed in a building that rotted away. Or an old play that doesn't even have "the events depicted here are works of fiction" at the start. Many a history book was based on the plays of Shakespeare only later to be found that they were likely more propaganda works of their day and might well bare little to no resemblance to the reality of their time (much like Hollywood films are today for many real world events).
Oh yeah, forgot to touch on ‘Sovereign Citizen’ stuff, or as they refer to themselves in the U.K., ‘Freemen on the Land’.
Same drivel, different name. And still no legal basis whatsoever. And thanks to my job, one I’m kinda familiar with (I stop short of claiming knowledge, but I say with some confidence that I know more about it than the next person.
A classic example? WeRe Bank.
This is just some nutter who claims to have started his own currency, called Re. The claim is that Re is a unit of energy, and as energy cannot be destroyed, therefore has value.
No. Really. I’m not the one making this up!
The theory then goes, not entirely inaccurately that any given debt need not be settled with actual Currency. Provided the payment is agreed between the two parties, the debt is expunged.
Example I’m familiar with is that a Gardener landscapes my front garden ( stop tittering, dirty sods). He involves me for say, £200.00. I agree that price, but instead, offer a hallmarked Gold Watch instead of cash. If he accepts, the debt is paid and everyone moves on.
But where WeRe goes wrong is confusing payment tendered with payment accepted.
So to go back to the first example? The Gardener is not obliged to accept the Gold Watch as payment. And their refusal of that payment does not end the debt. I’d still owe them £200.00
So when some crackpot comes up with a ridiculous, new, non-existent currency? Simply depositing a cheque for say, 50,000 Re, does not mean the bank has therefore accepted it, and the debt remains. Indeed, the entire fact they go ‘yeah, how about you pays us in proper munneh, yeah?’ Is a refusal of the payment.
With that established, oh my does WeRe nick off down a deep and utterly insane rabbit hole. Like, proper proper not just pants on head but tin foil pants you’ve been wearing for a month on head mental.
Absolute worst thing? Person behind this drivel will only provide the ‘cheque book’ once you’ve given him a Promissory Note for £150,000.
Why’s that bad? Promissory Notes are legally binding.
Yep, for his nonsense and drivel, you’ve genuinely, 100%, very hard if at all possible to get of, promise to pay him £150,000, whenever he wants to call it in....oh, and that’s on top of whatever debts still remain his insane promises utterly failed to pay off.....
Overread wrote: It gets easier to deny something like the Holocaust because the further from the event you get the fewer people directly were present until there's no one left alive.
I think people also just struggle to fathom the scale of it. There's holocaust denial, but there's also what I think is more appropriately termed holocaust doubt. I've encountered and observed a common thread where it's pretty common to meet people who don't deny the holocaust, but doubt its scale. I'm not convinced those people deserve to be lumped in with deniers because they often seem to have legitimate struggles to appreciate the event and I can definitely say my education glossed over it in a way that did not well contextualize the industrialized murder of millions. Its very easy to go from doubt to denial.
Wait the guy makes nuts claims and then you have to pay him £150 to get your £200 in a cheque?
Why do I get the feeling the bailiffs know him quite well.
Overread wrote: It gets easier to deny something like the Holocaust because the further from the event you get the fewer people directly were present until there's no one left alive.
I think people also just struggle to fathom the scale of it. There's holocaust denial, but there's also what I think is more appropriately termed holocaust doubt. I've encountered and observed a common thread where it's pretty common to meet people who don't deny the holocaust, but doubt its scale. I'm not convinced those people deserve to be lumped in with deniers because they often seem to have legitimate struggles to appreciate the event and I can definitely say my education glossed over it in a way that did not well contextualize the industrialized murder of millions. Its very easy to go from doubt to denial.
That's very true indeed and I would agree that the scale is often underplayed. That and a lot of people don't have the real world relation to values into the millions to really visualise those kinds of numbers. They can understand them, but they can't mentally visualise a million. So that in turn also hides the real meaning of the words and numbers.
Now I’d like to take the chance to ask people to nominate and link to their favourite ‘erm.....whaaaaaaaaaaa?’ Conspiracy Theory. Ideally, looking for the fringe of the fringe. One you suspect most people aren’t aware even exists. Because I want initial ‘yeah, but, what about X, Y, Z and Pigeon’ responses. I reckon that us essentially being a group of layman with different skill sets might prove an interest test group for such an endeavour.
I'll bite. Have a conspiracy a hundred years old and still going that you've likely never heard of. It revolves around the role of armaments companies in the First World War.
In 1912 there was a massive public shock in Germany at the discovery that Krupp (the premier armaments firm there) was paying off German state officials to favour his product, advertise for him, and pass on intelligence. All very corrupt and nasty. This quickly got jumped upon in Britain by a lot of left-wing commentators -many of whom had been hoping/looking for a corrupt connection between big business and the State since the Boer War over a decade beforehand. Casting around for evidence here in the UK to demonstrate a similar connection, they stumbled upon a few interesting facts. They boiled down to the following:-
- Lots of domestic armaments companies had the same directors.
- There appeared to be many licensing agreements shared between armaments firms internationally.
- Many M.P.'s and members of the aristocracy were shareholders in arms firms.
- It was a well known secret that in certain fields (such as armour plate production), there were oligopolistic / cartel arrangements.
- Many officers and civil servants became directors at armaments firms after retiring.
From these associated facts, it became clear that there was a massive conspiracy wherby the State was either (a) directly controlled by or (b) at the tender mercy of a cabal of shadowy international armaments merchants. The conspiracy theorists effectively took the above facts, and drew their own conclusions about what it must mean. They were completely and utterly wrong (I have the paperwork to prove it), but they believed their new theory with a passion (after all, hadn't it happened in Germany!?). They pored over lists of directors, over amounts paid on debentures, gathering every little nitty gritty piece of publicly available information they could in their desperate attempts to prove their theories true. There were speeches in Parliament and many books published ranting about these links, and so forth.
But they never did find the smoking gun, the one bit of proof which would tie it all together. It all remained circumstantial. Then WW1 kicked in, and they were largely forgotten about. Being a hard left wing peace advocate doesn't pay much in wartime.
Once WW1 was past, everyone was horrified at what had resulted. They cast around looking for a scapegoat, and who did they find? The arms firms again. Given that arms spending had ramped up ridiculously prior to the War and the arms firms all shared technological information; there clearly must have been a conspiracy to orchestrate elevated amounts of military spending! And this took all the countries to a precipice of war which they eventually fell into.
Now the various writers through the 1920's and 1930's quoted and referenced each other in great quantities to give a veneer of respectability; raking through all the old pre-war circumstantial evidence and building it to support the new accusation. They added a few new pieces (a dicey sounding letter from the Chairman of Vickers, for example), and the whole thing escalated and escalated. It actually got so bad that there was a Royal Commission put together in the early 1930's to investigate and see if it was true.
But....it wasn't. Again, there was no smoking gun. There were a few uncomfortable facts drawn out of it which certain firms would rather other people didn't know, but they certainly weren't controlling or orchestrating anything. Then re-armament for WW2 started, which eventually hit and shut everyone up again. But that wasn't the end of it. Various historians (such as respected naval historian Arthur Marder) continued to cast a leery eye at the whole affair. Whilst Clive Trebilcock eventually smashed the theory to pieces back in the 1970's/80's (and it has taken academic blow after blow since then), it's still not dead. Why?
Because left-wing beliefs in the dangers of military-industrial combines which kicked in from the 1960's still prevail to this day and need a punching bag (which the arms firms provide nicely). But they need to look respectable. And so they quote all these old sources of circumstantial and ill-informed evidence from a century ago as if they were gospel, warning of the dangers of letting arms firms make money on the public dime. The role of the arms firms in the First World War is preached as being the 'hidden history', a perfect example of the dangerous links between capitalism and business which results in tragedy and war for the working man.
Take a look at this site, sponsored by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade:-
It advertises 'research' and books by two elderly left wing Irishmen who are determined to prove that Britain (of all people) was responsible for start of the First World War. Speaking as an actual academic specialist/authority on the subject with regards to armaments, their work there is crap. Balderdash. Citations to people who barely knew what they were talking about, misconstrued sources, and massive leaps of faith in their conclusions. But to the amateur, it seems authentic. And the writers insist that they are telling the real history, the real truth, the one which is hidden from normal people and passed over by bog standard corrupt historians. To seize from the website, here's a very telling quote:-
The distressing reality is that brave revisionist historians are a very rare breed indeed. Academic historians of all colours need to muster their courage to speak truth to power and stop toeing the Establishment line. The fact that it is not historians but ordinary men and women who are at the vanguard of the historical truth movement today brings shame to their profession. The verdict of history itself will surely judge them harshly.
Holocaust denial can also be considered an extension of the almost universal (throughout history) persecution of Jews. which is an entire subject in and of itself.
Hey folks. Polite request, but could we move away from using the Holocaust as an example?
Because of all the inane and downright dangerous conspiracy theories, that one is the hot potato. Not just for our lovely friendly mods, but because it genuinely is.
Not that anyone who denies it isn’t a scumbag of the very, very highest order (higher even than the clearly planted bum face in a reality TV show), but it’s too recent, too real, and too politically charged
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Wait the guy makes nuts claims and then you have to pay him £150 to get your £200 in a cheque?
Why do I get the feeling the bailiffs know him quite well.
Overread wrote: It gets easier to deny something like the Holocaust because the further from the event you get the fewer people directly were present until there's no one left alive.
I think people also just struggle to fathom the scale of it. There's holocaust denial, but there's also what I think is more appropriately termed holocaust doubt. I've encountered and observed a common thread where it's pretty common to meet people who don't deny the holocaust, but doubt its scale. I'm not convinced those people deserve to be lumped in with deniers because they often seem to have legitimate struggles to appreciate the event and I can definitely say my education glossed over it in a way that did not well contextualize the industrialized murder of millions. Its very easy to go from doubt to denial.
That's very true indeed and I would agree that the scale is often underplayed. That and a lot of people don't have the real world relation to values into the millions to really visualise those kinds of numbers. They can understand them, but they can't mentally visualise a million. So that in turn also hides the real meaning of the words and numbers.
Oh good sir, you misread.
You promise him £150,000.
One Hundred And Fifty Thousand Pounds. Six digits......
The distressing reality is that brave revisionist historians are a very rare breed indeed. Academic historians of all colours need to muster their courage to speak truth to power and stop toeing the Establishment line. The fact that it is not historians but ordinary men and women who are at the vanguard of the historical truth movement today brings shame to their profession. The verdict of history itself will surely judge them harshly.
Another trend that I find is common among conspiracy theorists and their low understanding of subject matter.
Revisionist historians are not rare. Every time a historian publishes a new work on a subject they're 'revising' history. I don't know how it is across the pond, but historians here rarely employ the term 'revisionist' as an adjective to describe themselves today. In the wake of cooks and cranks who simply try to appropriate the label to lend themselves an faux air of credibility, they don't even much use it as a word to describe accounts or works anymore either (we call it a 'new look' or a 'new vision' instead). Someone who goes around saying 'I'm not a nutter, I'm a revisionist" is more likely than not a nutter. Professionals working to avoid the word have effectively relegated it to the realm of conspiracy theories.
Another trend that I find is common among conspiracy theorists and their low understanding of subject matter.
Revisionist historians are not rare. Every time a historian publishes a new work on a subject they're 'revising' history. I don't know how it is across the pond, but historians here rarely employ the term 'revisionist' as an adjective to describe themselves today. In the wake of cooks and cranks who simply try to appropriate the label to lend themselves an faux air of credibility, they don't even much use it as a word to describe accounts or works anymore either (we call it a 'new look' or a 'new vision' instead). Someone who goes around saying 'I'm not a nutter, I'm a revisionist" is more likely than not a nutter.
As someone with more than a passing interest in history, I suspect you particularly will appreciate the way they try and argue that primary source material isn't needed and that enough secondary sources and guesses are just as good:-
Overread wrote: Wait the guy makes nuts claims and then you have to pay him £150 to get your £200 in a cheque?
Why do I get the feeling the bailiffs know him quite well.
Oh good sir, you misread.
You promise him £150,000.
One Hundred And Fifty Thousand Pounds. Six digits......
I, wait... what?
So wait you do a job for him
Get offered a daft amount of Monoploy money
Spend a few weeks arguing over it
He then demands £150,000 in note form
In order for you to then get £200 from him?
So I guess I was right about the bailiffs then. Or is he just the kind who likes to string things along until the final final deadline and then pays up before things escalate to the next level (like those people who never ship your product until you raise a Paypal report on the payment)
So you pay the promissory note and a subscription fee and a monthly fee to join the bank that doesn't pay your debts for you. Soo isn't this just one of those Pyramid schemes where he sits at the top and rakes off the cash whilst those below get into sticky waters because their "WeRe" doesn't actually pay anything out and thus all they get is increased fees, bailiffs and made to feel an utter fool
There is a statement I often make that modern politics is the death of all good humor because humor requires trust. Conspiracy theories require its absence.
Overread wrote: Wait the guy makes nuts claims and then you have to pay him £150 to get your £200 in a cheque?
Why do I get the feeling the bailiffs know him quite well.
Oh good sir, you misread.
You promise him £150,000.
One Hundred And Fifty Thousand Pounds. Six digits......
I, wait... what?
So wait you do a job for him
Get offered a daft amount of Monoploy money
Spend a few weeks arguing over it
He then demands £150,000 in note form
In order for you to then get £200 from him?
So I guess I was right about the bailiffs then. Or is he just the kind who likes to string things along until the final final deadline and then pays up before things escalate to the next level (like those people who never ship your product until you raise a Paypal report on the payment)
So you pay the promissory note and a subscription fee and a monthly fee to join the bank that doesn't pay your debts for you. Soo isn't this just one of those Pyramid schemes where he sits at the top and rakes off the cash whilst those below get into sticky waters because their "WeRe" doesn't actually pay anything out and thus all they get is increased fees, bailiffs and made to feel an utter fool
Sorry, crossed wires!
The Gardener thing is purely an example. If someone does £200 of work, and accepts a high value item in place of cash, the debt is paid.
But, and Re’s fatal (well one of many) is that payment tendered is not payment accepted. As the debtor, it’s for me and me alone to decided what is a reasonable exchange. If you tried to pay me way Re, or Donkey Dung, or Tiger Repelling Stones, if I reject that, you still owe £200.
The sinister thing about Re is that in order to access his Magic Currency? You have to issue him with a (legally enforceable) Promissory Note for £150,000.......payable after 20 years.
One thing the conspiracy theorists have do draw on is that governments do get involved in just plain crazy, wrong and illegal stuff from time to time (or more often) and despite the fact that many people are involvepd very few of them stop to think of the wider implication of what their jobs involve
if they did they'd either complain to their higher ups who might well stop and think and quietly kill the project or talk to the press who get a story and exert pressure to stop things
just plain wrong even when it was started, but by the time WWII was over totally unnessesary too as we had penicillin but it still took to the 70s to be stopped
Not that I think there is anything to the vast majority of conspiracy theories (especially any of them where the theorists spreading them have a financial stake in things).
Humans like answers, and if we don't get them we tend to make things up and some of us are more reluctant than others to let go of our home grown explanations when more evidence arrives, and try and bend it to fit what we've already decided
Ketara wrote: As someone with more than a passing interest in history, I suspect you particularly will appreciate the way they try and argue that primary source material isn't needed and that enough secondary sources and guesses are just as good:-
There's so many more red flags there. The primary source one is actually funny, cause they spend a whole bit (quoting economicist and SCOTUS of all things) on why primary sources can't be trusted and then cite primary sources. And they cite them without quotes which immediately makes me question the veracity of their claims cause when you've got a strong source that overturns established narratives, you put it up front and center. And that's just the hypocritical and self-serving dismissal of primary sources if they don't agree with them while pandering out ones that they say do.
There's also (list of red flags); A clear lack of any knowledge about archival practice and theory. Name dropping a historian and then attributing to them an opinion they 'secretly' hold with no evidence to suggest they hold it. Weak ass court of law analogies as if the procedures of the courts are the golden model of fact finding and not the imperfect rules and regs for resolving messy and unclear disputations of fact where lives are immediately on the line and no one has 50 years to study the subject. Mountains of assuming their own conclusion. Citing George Orwell. The word educated in air quotes. Fallacious attacks on grade school education curriculum not turning elementary children into subject matter experts. Citing George Orwell (it's worth two red flags). Accusation of vast secret keeping (even though they try to caveat it) among a field of tens of thousands of people, all of whom are willfully producing a 'fake' history for no apparent reason (failing to ask their own question of 'cui bono' of their own presumption).
EDIT: Though, I am baffled by the theme of 'Imperial Germany did nothing wrong.' I can get 'Nazi Germany did nothing wrong' cause neo-Nazis are a thing. Of course they want to engage in apologism for Nazi Germany. But I just don't get that with Imperial Germany. Is there some great ground swell of Imperialist Germans throughout the world? That's just weird.
This is an amazing example of how conspiracy nuts twist things into incoherence and rely on both their own apparent ignorance and the ignorance of the audience. Which is maybe a great path into another 'but why?'
Cui bono? Who benefits from the peddling of conspiracy theories? Nut jobs, academic rejects, and con artists who prey on ignorance for profit like leeches.
Completely agree with the theory they originate with those who think they are smarter than the average person and can see past the lie or bs. Also that they continue living on in those people who want to pick up that conspiracy for their benefit in some form or fashion.
I argued quite a bit against vaccination causing autism on several Facebook groups and the lengths those people will go to try to find a culprit is incredible. That particular conspiracy was in my mind fueled by parents who couldn't accept that their children were 'different' without someone to blame external to themselves. You could stack a hundred different arguments against the theory and their belief trumped all of it.
Unfortunately there has now been millions possibly billions of dollars to research the link between the two when that money could have been invested in treatments or technology to assist those children who have autism.
There's so many more red flags there. The primary source one is actually funny, cause they spend a whole bit (quoting economicist and SCOTUS of all things) on why primary sources can't be trusted and then cite primary sources. And they cite them without quotes which immediately makes me question the veracity of their claims cause when you've got a strong source that overturns established narratives, you put it up front and center. And that's just the hypocritical and self-serving dismissal of primary sources if they don't agree with them while pandering out ones that they say do.
...This is an amazing example of how conspiracy nuts twist things into incoherence and rely on both their own apparent ignorance and the ignorance of the audience.
I know, right? I mean, take this one section:-
Website wrote:In the early 1970s, Canadian war historian Nicholas D’Ombrain began researching British War Office records. He noted: ‘The Registry Files were in a deplorable condition, having suffered the periodic ravages of the policy of “weeding”. One such clearance was in progress during my foray into these files, and I found that my material was being systematically reduced by as much as five-sixths.’ [5] Astonishingly, a large amount of ‘sensitive’ material was actually removed as the researcher went about his business. Where did it go? He accused the establishment of systematic withdrawal of evidence. Who authorised its removal? In addition, D’Ombrain noted that minutes of the Committee of Imperial Defence and ‘circulation and invitation lists’ together with much ‘routine’ correspondence had been destroyed. [6] That D’Ombrain found five-sixths of the total files melting away in front of him demonstrated clearly that unnamed others still retained a vested interest in keeping hidden, genuine evidence of historical record.
Conveniently, I have the book in question next to me. The relevant section reads:-
D'Ombrain's actual book wrote:The War Office records, especially its registry files, are in a deplorable condition, having suffered the periodic ravages of 'weeding'. One such clearance was in progress during my foray into these files, and I found that my material was being systematically reduced by as much as five sixths. The Admiralty files are, on the whole, in far better shape and are organised with at least a modicum of attention to subject matter. The papers of the C.I.D. have received special attention from the officials of the P.R.O. Unfortunately, however, such items as circulation and invitation lists, together with much 'routine' correspondence, have been destroyed.
In other words, our wonderful authors have neglected to mention (a) that weeding was a routine archival activity to remove papers judged of low value (ascribing far more nefarious motivations), (b) that the Admiralty records did survive to a much more thorough degree (a very strange thing for our mysterious conspirators to miss), and (c) that the staff at the P.R.O. deliberately selected high-value C.I.D. papers as being worth preserving.
That's the sort of perverse and malicious omission that these conspiracy authors rely on. They bank on your average person not having d'Ombrain's book half a metre to their left on an easily accessible shelf; because if everyone did, they'd be laughed out of town.
LordofHats wrote: EDIT: Though, I am baffled by the theme of 'Imperial Germany did nothing wrong.' I can get 'Nazi Germany did nothing wrong' cause neo-Nazis are a thing. Of course they want to engage in apologism for Nazi Germany. But I just don't get that with Imperial Germany. Is there some great ground swell of Imperialist Germans throughout the world? That's just weird.
They're more interested in proving that a secret cabal of capitalists control the West. But given that such a thing isn't intrinsically bad, they need to ascribe a great moral crime to that cabal, and what better crime than the World Wars? It's less about extricating Germany than it is incriminating this mysterious cabal.
Given that Imperial Germany literally declared war and invaded Belgium first however, it really takes some genuinely spectacular leaps in logic to make it Great Britain's fault.
I think one I got this morning provides good insight into the Whys of conspiracy thought.
I recently wrote a blog article for my company relating to coronavirus, and my previous article was about biosafety levels, written in february. I get to my company email all questions sent in thru the "Contact us" link, and I got a question that was basically
"What biosafety level would be required to research Ebola?"
To which I responded, thinking this was a question like any other, that the CDC lists that disease as an extreme risk pathogen and it would require BSL-4.
I then got a long response email that this person was doing a bunch of research and they had found a BSL-2 lab in sierra leone doing research illegally using ebola, that lab was funded by the George Soros fund, who was also funding a russian laboratory staffed by american scientists who in 2015 had created a "chimeric hybrid" of ebola and coronavirus.
she then asked if I was looking into that and if I was concerned that these people might have orchestrated the coronavirus.
now, I've been talking to scared seniors a lot this past week, since a lot of people are finding the blog post intended as an info dump for medical professionals and trying to apply it to their homemade masks they're using. But this person was clearly after some other things: namely, a face to put on the thing that scared them, knowledge that other people didn't have, and a person who would talk to them about it.
I think that's the primary reason behind most conspiracy enthusiasts' obsession. They want a clearly defined villain, secret knowledge, and a community. And at a certain point, it doesn't matter what two unrelated topics they start with, they construct extremely similar narrative beats of vast far-reaching conspiracies secret enough to fool everyone but easy enough to crack with an hour or so of google research. It doesn't matter what Biosafety levels are, or what a coronavirus actually is, you just have to find enough things that don't seem to "add up" and a villain to pin it on, and you've got what you need to get.
It's probably easier in that people with no experience have no idea how much paper the state can produce. How long is your tax form? How many people live in your country? Multiply the first number by the second.
Example: (using google) the US has about 230,000,000 tax filings a year. Typical taxes for most Americans will be the basic form 1040 (which is 3 pages). Private citizens in the US thus file no less than 690,000,000 pages every year for a routine state function. That does not include all the paper your employer sends to the government, which is many many more pages.
In total the IRS, just to do the basic task of taxation annually, generates billions of pages of information. And that's just the routine functions of one government agency.
On its whole the United States federal government generates tens of trillions of pages of paper every year. There is no place on earth to store that, physically, digitally, or otherwise. By necessity, archives destroy records because they cannot feasibly store everything, and frankly the taxes of Joe from Salt Water Michigan are likely to be of zero historical value anyway, so why would anyone even want to store them? That he had a payroll tax of 4 dollars and 14 cents in the year 1976 is unlikely to matter to anyone at any point in the future and there are better sources of aggregate data for large numbers of people elsewhere so you wouldn't ever need the information as a sample either.
This is a somewhat weak example because the IRS is not an archival institution, but I think it's an effective practical example that people can easily relate to. All records in archival storage are subject to triage. They'll be retained in whole for a time, then weeded down. The weeded down collection would be held for a time and then weeded down again. As time goes on and it become increasingly apparent the records aren't relevant to anyone they are completely destroyed. There's nothing nefarious in the process, even before we go into the absolute mess of bad practices and poor training many archives were in the early 20th century.
Also missing that Country A’s safety standards might well be more or less stringent than Countries B, C and D - and that does not mean anyone is being overly lax, or over strict?
I’m guessing here, hence the question mark! And I suspect no safety standards start at ‘inject it into your Herman Gelmet, see what happens’ type risk?
I think this is apt in this discussion, many people were called tin foil hat conspiracy theorists for saying the current crisis was coming, now here we are and it was also caused by the very people these oft maligned people warned us about.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As already covered, just because something is regarded as a Conspiracy Theory, doesn’t mean it’s wrong!
I mean, on average the chances are pretty high that it’s wrong, but it’s far from a universal constant
I think a clear distinction can be drawn between "the moon landing was fake" and "in hindsight we really should have listened." The later can have evidence and rationales that back up their claims. It's not a conspiracy theory to say "the world is ill prepared for a viral epidemic.' It is a conspiracy to say "the government has purposefully left itself unprepared for a viral epidemic so as to cull the poor from the population."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jjohnso11 wrote: Historical examples - Crazy people thought the Earth was round.
Actually a case of historical myth. The idea sprouted in the Enlightenment, when many scholarly gentlemen viewed previous ages as intellectually backwards and incapable of the great feats of simple geometry and observation based learning.
The Earth's circumference was calculated independently in ancient Egypt, China, Greece, and even the Maya manage to know the Earth was a sphere. There is in fact, no point in time where it was 'crazy' to say the Earth was round. Typical farmers and everyday people probably didn't know, but they also probably didn't care. Too busy trying to grow enough food to pay their taxes and not starve in winter to bother with celestial geometry
Jjohnso11 wrote: Would it be a conspiracy to say the Chinese Government engineered a virus in an attempt to damage capitalism and convert more countries to socialism?
I mean, no, that in itself would not be a conspiracy unless you were to work with some larger organization to propagate the idea online, maybe through the use of dedicated trolls or bots.
it would definitely be a conspiracy THEORY to say that, though
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As already covered, just because something is regarded as a Conspiracy Theory, doesn’t mean it’s wrong!
I mean, on average the chances are pretty high that it’s wrong, but it’s far from a universal constant
I think a clear distinction can be drawn between "the moon landing was fake" and "in hindsight we really should have listened." The later can have evidence and rationales that back up their claims. It's not a conspiracy theory to say "the world is ill prepared for a viral epidemic.' It is a conspiracy to say "the government has purposefully left itself unprepared for a viral epidemic so as to cull the poor from the population."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jjohnso11 wrote: Historical examples - Crazy people thought the Earth was round.
Actually a case of historical myth. The idea sprouted in the Enlightenment, when many scholarly gentlemen viewed previous ages as intellectually backwards and incapable of the great feats of simple geometry and observation based learning.
The Earth's circumference was calculated independently in ancient Egypt, China, Greece, and even the Maya manage to know the Earth was a sphere. There is in fact, no point in time where it was 'crazy' to say the Earth was round. Typical farmers and everyday people probably didn't know, but they also probably didn't care. Too busy trying to grow enough food to pay their taxes and not starve in winter to bother with celestial geometry
Depends upon the example.
From my initial ‘maybe I’ll let other do their own searches, these just seem to be confirmation bias for my political leanings’ search, there are various, confirmed examples of a Government (can you tell I’m being very, very careful here!) manufacturing or outright fabricating a ‘Casus Belli’.
Those ones are real. But the trouble with the Conspirasphere, is that one being true is taken as solid evidence that all must therefore be true. And often, that’s the first stumbling block of many conspiracy theories (as we saw earlier. I won’t quote because hopefully peeps will know which post).
It’s also why, true to my own Fortean mindset, I will always remain a Willing Skeptic. Now that doesn’t mean I go so far as to rely on ‘absence of evidence not being evidence of absence’. Because most Conspiracy Theories instead provide ludicrous, poorly applied and deliberately twisted evidence. And that far more fun to play with and pick apart!
Alan Moore had a wonderful point about conspiracy thinking:
“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory.
The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control.
I agree its a myth that the planet was discovered to have been a sphere in 1492 by Cristopher Columbus, but to say that Homer, Hesiod, the ancient Israelites, early Egyptians and Meopotamians didn't believe the earth was flat is wrong. Just moving the goal posts.. nothing to see here.
Jjohnso11 wrote: I agree its a myth that the planet was discovered to have been a sphere in 1492 by Cristopher Columbus, but to say that Homer, Hesiod, the ancient Israelites, early Egyptians and Meopotamians didn't believe the earth was flat is wrong. Just moving the goal posts.. nothing to see here.
You know that it can be simultaneously true for scholars within those societies to have discovered that the earth was not flat while it was still an incredibly widely held view among the general population, right?
"The Ancient X knew Y" is always a silly way to put things, because obviously what some random peasant or writer or even the head of state believes could be different from what the top scholar believed.
Jjohnso11 wrote: I agree its a myth that the planet was discovered to have been a sphere in 1492 by Cristopher Columbus, but to say that Homer, Hesiod, the ancient Israelites, early Egyptians and Meopotamians didn't believe the earth was flat is wrong. Just moving the goal posts.. nothing to see here.
You know that it can be simultaneously true for scholars within those societies to have discovered that the earth was not flat while it was still an incredibly widely held view among the general population, right?
"The Ancient X knew Y" is always a silly way to put things, because obviously what some random peasant or writer or even the head of state believes could be different from what the top scholar believed.
Right. I'm agreeing with you. I said I was moving the goal posts to fit the narrative that I started with.
I also like the novel In the Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco where the reductionist approach to a series of seemingly connected disasters is to posit some underlying principle or cause when it's really just random.
Phantom time hypothesis is my personal favourite one.
Almost seems plausible -- there's a long tradition in fiddling dates a little bit to make things "neater" and we did indeed "lose" 10 days or so when we switched to the Gregorian calendar.
But the major glaring issue with the idea is that it glosses over the minor detail of THE REST OF THE WORLD and how they, funnily enough might've noticed if we just magically inserted 300 odd years of fake history into being.
I have friends that are fairly in with conspiracies quite often. I entertain them by listening and then will fairly often do my own research.
I'm an open minded guy, if you can bring legitimate evidence to the table I will weight up the plausibility then.
The 5G towers thing in the UK is next level nonsense though, I mean it's making anti-vaxers look sane.
Some of my favourite conspiracies that I believe have some plausibility:
*JFK there was more than one shooter
*9/11 was an inside job in part - this probably needs some explanation, I'll type it below.
*Epstein was murdered (almost proven I'd say)
So my 9/11 theory - Firstly I don't necessarily believe it was a true false flag... I must say the theories on tower 7 and it being a controlled explosion are very very intriguing though. Anyway, my main theory and this isn't that wide spread as far as I know is quite simple. The government or people high up in the NSA and CIA got wind that this attack was going to happen, and they let it happen. It was still Al Qaeda that performed the attack, but the authorities let them.
Another aspect to this that is interesting is the response from the US air force on the day, there were fighters on runways that were not armed and took to the air, other jets that were in the vicinity of NY were not redirected at first, between the first and second plane hitting. Just weird stuff. Someone in the US Air force who wants to counter my thinking here I would be really interested. I also accept it was an exceptional event that no one had foreseen and planned for, so a response would be confused.
You could watch any of the dozens of documentaries on the subject of the day, where the USAF actually has said "It's normal for us to have fighters on runways that are not armed and will fly"...and the common sense reasoning that literally cannot be refuted by anything but tinfoil hattery is "when we move equipment from base to base domestically, we don't arm it".
And really, what are the jets supposed to do in a hijacking? This is something another mentioned earlier but hijackings had never been seriously considered as a mechanism for something like that before.
And it's not "theories on tower 7", it's them trying to make the situation fit a narrative.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I have friends that are fairly in with conspiracies quite often. I entertain them by listening and then will fairly often do my own research.
I'm an open minded guy, if you can bring legitimate evidence to the table I will weight up the plausibility then.
The 5G towers thing in the UK is next level nonsense though, I mean it's making anti-vaxers look sane.
While I'm not saying that I am in that camp. I have my reservations about the amount of waves that are constantly flowing through our bodies all at once. I have had multiple conversations with colleagues(I work in communications for the government) about the amount of power and frequencies in constant circulation. My cell phone receives constant communications with an extremely powerful tower that is flooding our immediate area with frequencies and wavelengths. I haven't been able to find any research on the impact this has on infants in utero, developing brains, cell structure, nothing...
Kanluwen wrote: You could watch any of the dozens of documentaries on the subject of the day, where the USAF actually has said "It's normal for us to have fighters on runways that are not armed and will fly"...and the common sense reasoning that literally cannot be refuted by anything but tinfoil hattery is "when we move equipment from base to base domestically, we don't arm it".
And really, what are the jets supposed to do in a hijacking? This is something another mentioned earlier but hijackings had never been seriously considered as a mechanism for something like that before.
And it's not "theories on tower 7", it's them trying to make the situation fit a narrative.
Hey dude, I'm open minded like I said, and your reasoning is very just, of course it makes sense not to arm a jet that is travelling between bases.
However, it's my understanding (could be the wrong understanding) that some of the jets on the runways were there too run interceptions if needed. Maybe it's just others saying those jets were to fit their own narrative though.
I think the main issue with planes being hijacked and used as a weapon had been explored before, the specific issue on 9/11 in terms of the response was they had never considered it could be a domestic flight which I get, it wouldn't really cross your mind in ways now would it? If jets are going to be used as a weapon, it's going to be from international flights.
It's fairly obvious what I am implying they would do.
Think about it the other way, jet are in the air capable of intercepting and they don't because they don't know how to react like you say.... Someone would surely have the thought that they should intercept and shoot? 2 f-16's were in the air unarmed and were planning on ramming Flight 93 so it would certainly be a thought.
Now in terms of the first plane, then yeah, I agree with your sentiment, but the flights following if interception was capable, you think they wouldn't have pulled the trigger?
BTW, I am talking about intercepting all flights after Flight 11, it is unreasonable for anyone to expect that flight to have been intercepted on that day. It's probably unreasonable for flight 175 to be as well due to being only 20 minutes behind flight 11.
Flight 77 hit the pentagon 45 minutes later than flight 11 though, and only jets were scrambled after the pentagon was hit, and it was those jets that were unarmed... They didn't have armed jets on standby to cover Washington D.C?? That absolutely does not make sense to me whatsoever personally.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: They didn't have armed jets on standby to cover Washington D.C?? That absolutely does not make sense to me whatsoever personally.
Why should they? The USA wasn't at war with any nation willing/capable of mounting a military operation to attack Washington with jets. It's also far enough within their own boarders that any "jet flyby", such as as the UK gets with Russia every so often, just isn't on the cards for Washington.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: They didn't have armed jets on standby to cover Washington D.C?? That absolutely does not make sense to me whatsoever personally.
Why should they? The USA wasn't at war with any nation willing/capable of mounting a military operation to attack Washington with jets. It's also far enough within their own boarders that any "jet flyby", such as as the UK gets with Russia every so often, just isn't on the cards for Washington.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: They didn't have armed jets on standby to cover Washington D.C?? That absolutely does not make sense to me whatsoever personally.
Why should they? The USA wasn't at war with any nation willing/capable of mounting a military operation to attack Washington with jets. It's also far enough within their own boarders that any "jet flyby", such as as the UK gets with Russia every so often, just isn't on the cards for Washington.
I'm an overly cautious person obviously
Meh, you'd Fall under normal here but then again collective paranoia is a defining trait of beeing swiss.
You've just reminded me of another of my favourites.
The problem is too many people (myself included above talking about the US Air force) think they are putting two and two together to get their four, they don't understand one of the two's is actually a seven though...
Yeah, lots of strange goings on before her death, it looks like she could have been killed, but was she? I'm not sure, and certainly it wouldn't have been by the SAS.
I don't go into conspiracy theory much, but I do listen to prophecy, which now sounds very much like the same thing to casual observers.
We are living in the End Times, this much is certain, and are thus now living on the End Times religious clock. Expect major events in sequence from this point onwards. How far along the eschatological path we are varies from opinion. However many are called to be Watchmen, and some of them are repeatedly reliable. I and many others prepped on account of the warnings received, and the current changes do not surprise me as I can check them off the list as they occur.
It has 'surprised' me as to how many of the changes have occurred, as they require a systemic deletion of our rights and freedoms and radical changes to our circumstances, and people will want to see them gone. We are on the slippery slope to a one world government and final dictatorship, which will be followed by the apocalypse. I am now certain that we are in the early stages of this happening, before I was not sure of the timing or whether it was due in my generation.
A lot of Prophesies rely on known repeat patterns.
Prophesying a great war; there's always potential for another massive war and with technology always marching on they get worse; floods and disasters have always happened; same as for things like plagues - heck Cornoa is nothing near as bad as something like the Black Death.
In addition there's aspects of reporting people forget about. People think there's way more earthquakes and floods and fires today, but they forget that such things happened in the past. Heck the Aztecs and Myans of South America were wiped out heavily by massive droughts that ended much of their civilization before a great war against disease and Spanish invaders destroyed them. For them it was the "end times disaster" yet we know it was but one chapter in the history of the world.
The second such a prediction is made, human beans human bean, and look for connections?
This can be true, but that was then this is now.
You can have secular or religious predictions that are effected by how we react to them. I have seen this in my own life, but now decades later I have found that we have stumbled into the Book of Revelations. This is a whole different scale, much of what is about to happen cannot be stopped.
Some of the early signs are now here. I was warned in mid through to late 2019 there was a plague coming from the same source that told the Christian community other things that came true. Pandemics are rare, less than once a century events there was no guarantee on e would occur anytime soon. Yet it happened.
A lot of the advice is practical on one sense and esoteric on others. We were told to prepare, and this we can do; but we also know that things will go rapidly downhill from there and ultimately be entirely reliant on faith for survival.
Got to say, if there was a time to think the world was ending I'd have put my money on the first half of the 20th Century. War, Famine (Global depression), Plague etc etc.
Compared to then, we're almost looking in pretty good shape.
r_squared wrote: Got to say, if there was a time to think the world was ending I'd have put my money on the first half of the 20th Century. War, Famine (Global depression), Plague etc etc.
Compared to then, we're almost looking in pretty good shape.
Na , personally we are at a point where we got multiple powerhungry political entities which are all capable of blowing us into the Next stone age.
In other words i assume we are Long past the bottleneck for getting past the great Filter for out Development Level as a species.
Jjohnso11 wrote: I agree its a myth that the planet was discovered to have been a sphere in 1492 by Cristopher Columbus, but to say that Homer, Hesiod, the ancient Israelites, early Egyptians and Meopotamians didn't believe the earth was flat is wrong. Just moving the goal posts.. nothing to see here.
Just as an aside since I've actually written a PhD on Iron Age Levantine and Bronze Age Mesopotamian perceptions of landscape: both are very complex and whilst elite cosmologies depict flat earths in water there is no tradition of rendering land with any realism in art not describing it in cartographic terms in literature. Consequently, it is problematic to take these symbolic reconstructions (generally from cult-loaded contexts) as representations of how people understood the actual physical properties of earth.
Not Online!!! wrote: Faith for survival ehh , like the selfflagelating idiots that spread the plague instead of removing it ?
Plague is only the beginning, in fact it isn't even the beginning its just the first thing to hit us all noticably hard.
Faith for survival is something more drastic. Namely the Rapture, and if you miss that holding out for the Second Coming.
For me the first warning was Brexit, because I wasn't expecting it to happen, yet Bible scholars were saying that for the UK to be in the correct position for the Apocalypse it has to be outside the EU. I wouldn't not have considered Brexit in any way likely back when I heard this in about 2010. When Brexit happened in 2016 I was told by a friend in the World Bank that it would not go ahead, it was being blocked indirectly and it looked like this was the case, but I was not concvinced that would work, we were on the eschatological clock and thus things would occur in their proper order.
There will be an economic collapse and the rise of a very plausible man who seems to have all the answers and will unite the planet in 'peace', who will restart the global economy under an electronic currency. This much was known, but the immediate framework is now in place. However COVID-19 is not the direct catalyst. Most sources hearing from the Lord are saying it is a precursor to something worse. What that is I cannot say.
Basically about all 100 years (mostly on the 20's ) we get a pandemic killing a bunch of Millions Of us off.
Generally the only real impact These had were improved living conditions and a boost in medical understanding.
Here is a General list .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics So no, infact this one here will probably not even get close to challanging the status quo of nationstates unless it really really get's it's game up which we all hope it doesn't.
Well, when something terrible happens, you sure see prophecies of doom / end times coming back in mind. It's easy to connect the dots when your brain is set to look for them at all costs.
It's not really different from conspiracy theories, actually.
Not Online!!! wrote: Faith for survival ehh , like the selfflagelating idiots that spread the plague instead of removing it ?
Plague is only the beginning, in fact it isn't even the beginning its just the first thing to hit us all noticably hard.
Faith for survival is something more drastic. Namely the Rapture, and if you miss that holding out for the Second Coming.
For me the first warning was Brexit, because I wasn't expecting it to happen, yet Bible scholars were saying that for the UK to be in the correct position for the Apocalypse it has to be outside the EU. I wouldn't not have considered Brexit in any way likely back when I heard this in about 2010. When Brexit happened in 2016 I was told by a friend in the World Bank that it would not go ahead, it was being blocked indirectly and it looked like this was the case, but I was not concvinced that would work, we were on the eschatological clock and thus things would occur in their proper order.
There will be an economic collapse and the rise of a very plausible man who seems to have all the answers and will unite the planet in 'peace', who will restart the global economy under an electronic currency. This much was known, but the immediate framework is now in place. However COVID-19 is not the direct catalyst. Most sources hearing from the Lord are saying it is a precursor to something worse. What that is I cannot say.
There are better places than Dakka to continue that discussion, however.
Interesting conspiracies....hmmm. I'm pretty sure we've all heard of the conspiracy about hitler not committing suicide but ending up in a latin American colony for the rest of his life. I've heard people legit believe in that one.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Interesting conspiracies....hmmm. I'm pretty sure we've all heard of the conspiracy about hitler not committing suicide but ending up in a latin American colony for the rest of his life. I've heard people legit believe in that one.
While it is rather silly now, at the time it wasn't really all that crazy. Lots of Nazi big wigs did indeed flee to south america, those who weren't immediately rounded up for Nuremberg anyway. The Soviets were the ones who captured the area around the bunker and they weren't exactly open and forthright with information. It wasn't really inconceivable that Hitler could have faked his death and escaped. There were actually plans in place for him to escape, he simply chose not to use them and offed himself. Which is just enough fodder for people to maybe consider if he actually did.
So its a conspiracy theory now, but its rooted in the post-ww2 murkiness that shrouded the actual events that took place then. Information that never came to light till after the Soviet Union collapsed was the missing half of the equation.
reds8n wrote: Phantom time hypothesis is my personal favourite one.
Almost seems plausible -- there's a long tradition in fiddling dates a little bit to make things "neater" and we did indeed "lose" 10 days or so when we switched to the Gregorian calendar.
But the major glaring issue with the idea is that it glosses over the minor detail of THE REST OF THE WORLD and how they, funnily enough might've noticed if we just magically inserted 300 odd years of fake history into being.
Probably.
This one is actually a little more interesting, simply because its a bit more complicated than that. The Gregorian change had some weird effects in how people handled it- for decades people were often writing New Style and Old Style dates on correspondence and journals. I was a bit baffled when I first came across this in archival records, as time went out people were simply writing 'March/April, 1855' or something similar. It gives the overall impression that many people generally did not know what the actual date was, and weren't sure which convention they were 'supposed' to use. It particularly persisted with people who grew up with the old style, but were told they had to adapt to the new, and only really faded out when their kids (who'd only known the new style) were the ones making records- especially for church records, which is where I first came across it. So you had lots of people who knew something had changed, but didn't understand (or were never even told) why, but something was clearly Going On, and even a minority thinking there was something sinister involved would have passed that attitude on.
As for the rest of the world angle, you've run headlong into a problematic aspect of history, particularly western history- that non Westerners (particularly non-Christians) don't count and don't have history- they only exist to be challenges to test the faithful. This started all the way back in the 400s with Orosius and his Seven Books of History against the Pagans, and continued all the way up to political theorists like Marx (who referred to the 'People without History,' ie, everyone else), and the anthropologist Eric Wolf, writing as recently as 1982. So from an institutionalized perspective, the rest of the world's history doesn't matter, as they don't have meaningful history except when they interact with Europeans- so if the dates don't match up, it'd be their fault for not keeping a proper calendar anyway. It is, of course, a super creepy and offensive attitude now, but something that any serious study of historiography has to deal with, because it was a dominant attitude for 1500 years.
Where the idea of inserting years of history falls apart is the various independent ways we have of dating materials. Archaeology, carbon dating, tree ring dating (we've got a huge library of tree data we can match wooden construction against, as long as we can pinpoint the region the tree came from). There's too much that can't be reasonably faked anymore. So when someone claims there are ancient Scottish cairns on the Gettysburg battlefield (yes, this actually happened, that was a fun call to listen to) from an early wave of colonization, we can just point, laugh and not take it seriously.
The whole Western History is a very interesting angle on other bizarre theories.
Such as ‘Aliens built the Pyramids’. Because what is often meant is ‘they didn’t have the technology’ actually boils down to ‘people in Europe didn’t have that technology at the time’. AKA ‘well, if white folk couldn’t do it, nobody could’. And ultimately that all stems from the colonial/Imperial era.
Never mind that we’ve found literal instructions on how they did it. It’s apparently still a mystery.
And as for ‘but Pyramids appear the world over, therefore Angels/Aliens/Little Blue Blobs’? Someone nailed it earlier in this thread. Not only are Pyramids an inherently stable shape, they’re actually pretty easy to build due to that inherent stability.
Precision? Not as if each was exactly a rush job, is it? When you’ve pots and pots of cash, and slave labourers you don’t actually have to like, pay because y’know, they were slaves....
From Sean Hross, That the pharaos settled in switzerland somehow joined the knights templar, and with the money of the treasury of them and the Pharaos started the swiss banking sector.
Called it i believe the Pharaoh show?!
Complete and utter nutjob.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The whole Western History is a very interesting angle on other bizarre theories.
Such as ‘Aliens built the Pyramids’. Because what is often meant is ‘they didn’t have the technology’ actually boils down to ‘people in Europe didn’t have that technology at the time’. AKA ‘well, if white folk couldn’t do it, nobody could’. And ultimately that all stems from the colonial/Imperial era.
Never mind that we’ve found literal instructions on how they did it. It’s apparently still a mystery.
And as for ‘but Pyramids appear the world over, therefore Angels/Aliens/Little Blue Blobs’? Someone nailed it earlier in this thread. Not only are Pyramids an inherently stable shape, they’re actually pretty easy to build due to that inherent stability.
Precision? Not as if each was exactly a rush job, is it? When you’ve pots and pots of cash, and slave labourers you don’t actually have to like, pay because y’know, they were slaves....
anything in ancient egypt is mysterious though, for example, if you see the perfection of their temple carvings, despite having no hard metal tools. but its just hard work and perfectionism I guess.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The whole Western History is a very interesting angle on other bizarre theories.
Such as ‘Aliens built the Pyramids’. Because what is often meant is ‘they didn’t have the technology’ actually boils down to ‘people in Europe didn’t have that technology at the time’. AKA ‘well, if white folk couldn’t do it, nobody could’. And ultimately that all stems from the colonial/Imperial era.
Never mind that we’ve found literal instructions on how they did it. It’s apparently still a mystery.
And as for ‘but Pyramids appear the world over, therefore Angels/Aliens/Little Blue Blobs’? Someone nailed it earlier in this thread. Not only are Pyramids an inherently stable shape, they’re actually pretty easy to build due to that inherent stability.
Precision? Not as if each was exactly a rush job, is it? When you’ve pots and pots of cash, and slave labourers you don’t actually have to like, pay because y’know, they were slaves....
anything in ancient egypt is mysterious though, for example, if you see the perfection of their temple carvings, despite having no hard metal tools. but its just hard work and perfectionism I guess.
Enough time and practical education do help though.
If you have a trained and propperly taught plumber your plumbing will be vastly better then when you send in a laymen especially when precision is required due to circumstance.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The whole Western History is a very interesting angle on other bizarre theories.
Such as ‘Aliens built the Pyramids’. Because what is often meant is ‘they didn’t have the technology’ actually boils down to ‘people in Europe didn’t have that technology at the time’. AKA ‘well, if white folk couldn’t do it, nobody could’. And ultimately that all stems from the colonial/Imperial era.
Never mind that we’ve found literal instructions on how they did it. It’s apparently still a mystery.
And as for ‘but Pyramids appear the world over, therefore Angels/Aliens/Little Blue Blobs’? Someone nailed it earlier in this thread. Not only are Pyramids an inherently stable shape, they’re actually pretty easy to build due to that inherent stability.
Precision? Not as if each was exactly a rush job, is it? When you’ve pots and pots of cash, and slave labourers you don’t actually have to like, pay because y’know, they were slaves....
anything in ancient egypt is mysterious though, for example, if you see the perfection of their temple carvings, despite having no hard metal tools. but its just hard work and perfectionism I guess.
Enough time and practical education do help though.
If you have a trained and propperly taught plumber your plumbing will be vastly better then when you send in a laymen especially when precision is required due to circumstance.
Yeah of course, I'm not saying I believe those things, but you can forgive those in older times who were less educated in comparison to today.
I think ancient Egypt is an incredible example of just humanity in general. I've always loved the subject and was lucky enough to visit in 2009
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The whole Western History is a very interesting angle on other bizarre theories.
Such as ‘Aliens built the Pyramids’. Because what is often meant is ‘they didn’t have the technology’ actually boils down to ‘people in Europe didn’t have that technology at the time’. AKA ‘well, if white folk couldn’t do it, nobody could’. And ultimately that all stems from the colonial/Imperial era.
Never mind that we’ve found literal instructions on how they did it. It’s apparently still a mystery.
And as for ‘but Pyramids appear the world over, therefore Angels/Aliens/Little Blue Blobs’? Someone nailed it earlier in this thread. Not only are Pyramids an inherently stable shape, they’re actually pretty easy to build due to that inherent stability.
Precision? Not as if each was exactly a rush job, is it? When you’ve pots and pots of cash, and slave labourers you don’t actually have to like, pay because y’know, they were slaves....
anything in ancient egypt is mysterious though, for example, if you see the perfection of their temple carvings, despite having no hard metal tools. but its just hard work and perfectionism I guess.
Enough time and practical education do help though.
If you have a trained and propperly taught plumber your plumbing will be vastly better then when you send in a laymen especially when precision is required due to circumstance.
Yeah of course, I'm not saying I believe those things, but you can forgive those in older times who were less educated in comparison to today.
Must've been aliens/white folks is actually quite a new idea. Early antiquarians had little problem believing that the monumental architecture of West Asia and North Africa were achieved by indigenous communities. Desperation to attribute them to other agents largely came after we'd started arranging humans into levels of evolution (with good old white folks at the peaks, obvs). Bearing in mind that earlier scholarship placed considerable trust in biblical narratives and classical literature, which cheerfully talk about massive engineering feats being accomplished by people in Egypt and the Levant.
If my memory serves ( and happy to report yet again for re-education if not), the nation’s stability was down to the Nile, and how it would flood. Meant ready harvests, supporting ever larger population. And as we saw again during the Agricultural Revolution in Europe (certainly within the U.K., yep, GCSE history!) it meant certain folk who were higher in the pecking order had more time on their hands, which was spent learning new things.
After all, arguably anyone can be a stone mason. But when your stone masons don’t need to worry about their own farming etc, they’ve more time to learn their art. And with writing, what’s learned tends to stay learned. Rinse and repeat a few generations, and serious skill and ability is soon demonstrated.
Also, farmers can't farm the flood plains when the flood plains are flooded, so get up to other stuff like piling blocks of stone on top of eachother instead...
Yeah thats it. they were definitely a remarkable civilisation. I'd recommend anyone visit (once the world levels out) the temples at luxor and karnak, the valley of the kings, the temple of hatsheptsut and abu simbel were my personal highlights. you can visit them all on a cruise which takes you down the nile.
As part of my re-education (and because when you remote work, nobody can tell what you’re watching on your iPad! So long as your work gets done. Which it does) I’m watching this via on YouTube.
To be honest, I'm a little bit disappointed in the conspiracy theory community. I'd half expected that by now there would be a conspiracy to conceal the truth that Corona virus is actually far deadlier than officially reported, and that the whole "social distancing and lockdown" scams are the government's way of hiding from the populace that, well, half or more of the population is dead or dying and we're ALL DOOMED! DOOMED I SAY!
Also, on a tangentially related note to this thread, this song cracks me up. It's a long way to go for a joke, but it does pay off.
If you remember, back on the first page I expressed my disgust about people peddling ‘miracle cures’, claiming Big Pharma only want munneh? Despite charging through the nose?
You know the post. When I had to go sit on the Chill Out Step for a bit, given Dear Old Mumsy’s fate?
There is a huge consequence in regards to what you are stating. I’m a sport scientist (currently lecture in it) and some of the absolute moronic crap I hear about diet and nutrition is infuriating. It’s purely epidemic misunderstanding, and crucially an inability to objectively dissect a subject.
In a similar vain to your hate of ‘fake’ treatments (and that is what it is), I also have gripes elsewhere... There’s so much fake bull**** in martial arts that is absolutely 100% dangerous, when you see people throwing other people over a room with touching them, come on... You are going to get someone killed.
The worst thing you can do is give a naive person confidence in some situations, they are prime sheep.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If you remember, back on the first page I expressed my disgust about people peddling ‘miracle cures’, claiming Big Pharma only want munneh? Despite charging through the nose?
You know the post. When I had to go sit on the Chill Out Step for a bit, given Dear Old Mumsy’s fate?
Nurglitch wrote: Alan Moore had a wonderful point about conspiracy thinking:
“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory.
The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control.
The world is rudderless.”
I think that's definitely a factor.
'Rudderless' overstates it IMO. I envision it as gross movements being steered by the actions of countless individuals together in a very messy, inefficient process. Sometimes certain small groups or individuals can influence these gross movements somewhat, but that's usually very fleeting.
Bran Dawri wrote: To be honest, I'm a little bit disappointed in the conspiracy theory community. I'd half expected that by now there would be a conspiracy to conceal the truth that Corona virus is actually far deadlier than officially reported, and that the whole "social distancing and lockdown" scams are the government's way of hiding from the populace that, well, half or more of the population is dead or dying and we're ALL DOOMED! DOOMED I SAY!
I'm honestly surprised by the lack of death cults so far. They usually crawl out of the wood-work during epidemics.
insaniak wrote: The Egyptian pyramids weren't built by slaves.
*duly reports for re-education*
It's murky, because Egypt didn't have a a system where people owned other people. Egypt did adopt chattel slavery, but it was after the Pyramids were built (way after) toward the end of Pharonic Egypt and it was a practice mostly reserved for non-Egyptians captured in wartime. It wasn't really a big thing until the Greeco-Roman era either.
Egypt had a caste system of sorts that was strictly hierarchical, but also loosely defined. The running theory for the labor force that guild the Giza Pyramid complex was a mix of bonded and corvee labor. More skilled craftsmen (masons, carpenters, the like) sold their services for periods of time in a patronage like system, so they'd basically be under contract. These guys would have been performing the complex tasks needed to cut the stone, support the worker village, and such. The bulk of the workforce would have been corvee laborers, peasants drafted to do the work during the flood season when they couldn't work the fields. This could be called 'slavery' because it was a form of forced labor but it's not really what most people mean when using that word these days cause. Corvee laborers didn't lose their rights or anything. Their labor was a sort of 'tax' the Egyptian state could levy on the peasantry. I'm actually not sure if they got paid. There's a lot of guess work and inference in Egyptian history.
I think it's less "Rudderless" and more "There are so many factors influencing everything else that, no matter how much humans try, there is always some random wrench thrown into the gears that we could not even begin to account for everything."
That being said my favourite conspiracy, and the one I honestly do somewhat believe, is that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare.
Now William Shakespeare the man DID exist. There are at least 20 documents that still exist from that time period to show that he was an actual person. However, of those 20 signed documents about half of them were signed with an X. The remaining 10 have his signature written, but it is spelled wrong on each of them.
In fact, there is no evidence Shakespeare even knew how to read, let alone write. Even if he could, in order to write all the plays and Sonnets he's famous for he would have to be:
A Doctor
A Lawyer
A Sailor
A Soldier
He would also have to have at least some knowledge of speaking French, Italian, Arabic, Dutch, Latin and Greek.
Now, the conspiracy goes that Shakespeare was just a Nom-Du-Plume used by other writers to get around some of the religious restrictions at the time. After all God made man in his image, and if that is the case then standing on stage pretending to be someone else was the equivalent of idolatry. There were also many attempts by puritans to get theaters closed and such, so being associated to those seedy establishments was something to be avoided.
Most likely the plays hes famous for were probably written by 3 people. Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and, in the case of Hamlet, Written by an English Noble (who's name escapes me right now) who had his father killed by his mothers lover.
The case of Christopher Marlowe is interesting because it kind of sounds like a damn Monty Python sketch. He was supposedly killed in a drunk bar fight by his friends who acted in self defense after Marlowe attacked them. Most likely he skipped town and ran off to Italy, which is why many of Shakespeare's later plays take place there. Because Christopher Marlowe wrote them and used "Shakespeare" as a stand in because he was "dead".
The reason it's a conspiracy is because, well, Shakespeare the man is worth a lot of money. Especially in Stratford and all the Stratford festivals everywhere that still do his plays. If this singular genius William Shakespeare was actually a bunch of different people, well, then its not all that much of a money maker now is it? So no one looks too deeply into it for risk of being called out by "Big Shakespeare".
Anyway that's roughly how I heard the conspiracy. I'll be honest it's been years since I read it and am probably missing details.
English wasn’t particularly standardised at the time. This is seen in English place names when you look at the entomology. Many places with different words for the same thing. And the roots can be traced.
With no strictly standardised spelling, it’s entirely possible a single person might spell their name different ways on different days.
English wasn’t particularly standardised at the time. This is seen in English place names when you look at the entomology. Many places with different words for the same thing. And the roots can be traced.
With no strictly standardised spelling, it’s entirely possible a single person might spell their name different ways on different days.
Yes of course! It could also be that he did that intentionally to throw people off that is was him doing it too. After all this unique genius who "supposedly" wrote all these works certainly would be able to have a standard way of writing his name no? But its just a silly conspiracy theory. Is it true? Probably not. But like most of these theories it, in many ways, is just a thought experiment. People hoping against hope that all things in the world are controlled by some grand plan or intelligence. When in reality we are all just a bunch of random atoms spinning around in the void banging into each other.
Eh. I always thought the Shakespeare conspiracies showed all the worst kinds of conspiracy thinking.
That it's impossible for the plays to have been written by a guy we don't know much about. They had to have been written by someone MORE FAMOUS and better catalogued in the historical record. See 1,957 Jack the Ripper theories. And how many serial killers end up being already famous or prominent individuals?
Goes back to humanity's desire for structure/sense/shortcuts/easy solutions IMO. Hell, look at C-3PO, LOL.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Interesting conspiracies....hmmm. I'm pretty sure we've all heard of the conspiracy about hitler not committing suicide but ending up in a latin American colony for the rest of his life. I've heard people legit believe in that one.
While it is rather silly now, at the time it wasn't really all that crazy. Lots of Nazi big wigs did indeed flee to south america, those who weren't immediately rounded up for Nuremberg anyway. The Soviets were the ones who captured the area around the bunker and they weren't exactly open and forthright with information. It wasn't really inconceivable that Hitler could have faked his death and escaped. There were actually plans in place for him to escape, he simply chose not to use them and offed himself. Which is just enough fodder for people to maybe consider if he actually did.
So its a conspiracy theory now, but its rooted in the post-ww2 murkiness that shrouded the actual events that took place then. Information that never came to light till after the Soviet Union collapsed was the missing half of the equation.
True but there were far too many people wanting Hitler dead. I mean where would he have gone. One of the most notorious dudes of the time somehow manages to hide from the world in south America without someone finding out and getting a bounty on his head. Yeah I don't think so. He probably weighed the options and realized they were bleak and there was no point to continue. He was too well known to just hide so easily.
Not gonna lie though there were some post-war Nazis that took on a fake identity with some even hiding in the usa. I even think I knew a guy whose grandparents never shared their lineage and I saw his last name looked german or similar and I guessed his grandparents may have been Nazis. He said it's possible but he doesn't know. The guy in question was nice and I don't think he was mixed up in anything. Whether his grandparents did something or not it's clear it was never brought up again. At least it didn't make it's way down to the kids and grandkids far as I know.
gorgon wrote: Eh. I always thought the Shakespeare conspiracies showed all the worst kinds of conspiracy thinking.
That it's impossible for the plays to have been written by a guy we don't know much about. They had to have been written by someone MORE FAMOUS and better catalogued in the historical record. See 1,957 Jack the Ripper theories. And how many serial killers end up being already famous or prominent individuals?
Goes back to humanity's desire for structure/sense/shortcuts/easy solutions IMO. Hell, look at C-3PO, LOL.
Depends where one goes with it. There are reasonable arguments the portfolio isn’t the work of one man.
The whacko stuff comes in that already well known people did it. The simple question there being ‘but why wouldn’t they take the credit? None of it was exactly seditious or likely to upset Queen Elizabeth?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Interesting conspiracies....hmmm. I'm pretty sure we've all heard of the conspiracy about hitler not committing suicide but ending up in a latin American colony for the rest of his life. I've heard people legit believe in that one.
While it is rather silly now, at the time it wasn't really all that crazy. Lots of Nazi big wigs did indeed flee to south america, those who weren't immediately rounded up for Nuremberg anyway. The Soviets were the ones who captured the area around the bunker and they weren't exactly open and forthright with information. It wasn't really inconceivable that Hitler could have faked his death and escaped. There were actually plans in place for him to escape, he simply chose not to use them and offed himself. Which is just enough fodder for people to maybe consider if he actually did.
So its a conspiracy theory now, but its rooted in the post-ww2 murkiness that shrouded the actual events that took place then. Information that never came to light till after the Soviet Union collapsed was the missing half of the equation.
True but there were far too many people wanting Hitler dead. I mean where would he have gone. One of the most notorious dudes of the time somehow manages to hide from the world in south America without someone finding out and getting a bounty on his head. Yeah I don't think so. He probably weighed the options and realized they were bleak and there was no point to continue. He was too well known to just hide so easily.
Not gonna lie though there were some post-war Nazis that took on a fake identity with some even hiding in the usa. I even think I knew a guy whose grandparents never shared their lineage and I saw his last name looked german or similar and I guessed his grandparents may have been Nazis. He said it's possible but he doesn't know. The guy in question was nice and I don't think he was mixed up in anything. Whether his grandparents did something or not it's clear it was never brought up again. At least it didn't make it's way down to the kids and grandkids far as I know.
"Hiding"? The US government literally gave them fake identities and jobs.
gorgon wrote: Eh. I always thought the Shakespeare conspiracies showed all the worst kinds of conspiracy thinking.
That it's impossible for the plays to have been written by a guy we don't know much about. They had to have been written by someone MORE FAMOUS and better catalogued in the historical record. See 1,957 Jack the Ripper theories. And how many serial killers end up being already famous or prominent individuals?
Goes back to humanity's desire for structure/sense/shortcuts/easy solutions IMO. Hell, look at C-3PO, LOL.
Depends where one goes with it. There are reasonable arguments the portfolio isn’t the work of one man.
The whacko stuff comes in that already well known people did it. The simple question there being ‘but why wouldn’t they take the credit? None of it was exactly seditious or likely to upset Queen Elizabeth?
The comedies and tragedies were fairly innocuous, true.
I believe the issue was that some of the history plays did exactly that. Richard II is the most notorious- but even Caesar, which we teach in high school, has monarchs being betrayed and murdered.When the monarch in the play is a literal ruler of England, it becomes much more questionable. If the author was not a powerless playwright/actor/director but was in fact a high ranking government official, writing about high ranking officials overthrowing a corrupt ruler of England well, then it becomes about as innocent as Carol Baskins stating that to get a tiger to eat someone you'd have to cover them in sardine oil.
Here's some lovely context of Richard II, and it's possible ties to the Essex rebellion. It definitely fits a conspiracy theory mold.
With no strictly standardised spelling, it’s entirely possible a single person might spell their name different ways on different days.
My mother does this all the time. Her first name might start with a C on some days and a K on others. Both are legitimate spellings and she flicks between them.
With no strictly standardised spelling, it’s entirely possible a single person might spell their name different ways on different days.
My mother does this all the time. Her first name might start with a C on some days and a K on others. Both are legitimate spellings and she flicks between them.
I'm sure in an earlier age others did the same.
My brother in law did similar as a teenager, switching between a V and PH at whim.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Interesting conspiracies....hmmm. I'm pretty sure we've all heard of the conspiracy about hitler not committing suicide but ending up in a latin American colony for the rest of his life. I've heard people legit believe in that one.
While it is rather silly now, at the time it wasn't really all that crazy. Lots of Nazi big wigs did indeed flee to south america, those who weren't immediately rounded up for Nuremberg anyway. The Soviets were the ones who captured the area around the bunker and they weren't exactly open and forthright with information. It wasn't really inconceivable that Hitler could have faked his death and escaped. There were actually plans in place for him to escape, he simply chose not to use them and offed himself. Which is just enough fodder for people to maybe consider if he actually did.
So its a conspiracy theory now, but its rooted in the post-ww2 murkiness that shrouded the actual events that took place then. Information that never came to light till after the Soviet Union collapsed was the missing half of the equation.
True but there were far too many people wanting Hitler dead. I mean where would he have gone. One of the most notorious dudes of the time somehow manages to hide from the world in south America without someone finding out and getting a bounty on his head. Yeah I don't think so. He probably weighed the options and realized they were bleak and there was no point to continue. He was too well known to just hide so easily.
Not gonna lie though there were some post-war Nazis that took on a fake identity with some even hiding in the usa. I even think I knew a guy whose grandparents never shared their lineage and I saw his last name looked german or similar and I guessed his grandparents may have been Nazis. He said it's possible but he doesn't know. The guy in question was nice and I don't think he was mixed up in anything. Whether his grandparents did something or not it's clear it was never brought up again. At least it didn't make it's way down to the kids and grandkids far as I know.
Argentina actually has a surprisingly large German minority population today and at the time of WW2. Even a couple of towns that are almost completely ethnic Germans.
It was also a pre-internet timeframe. Information was slow to get around. And really, if you shave the mustache and do a different haitcut Hitler could have easily been overlooked. That is basically his only defining feature, and we are only intimately familiar with his face because it gets thrown around in pop culture as the literal face of evil. At the time, that wasn't the case.
Seriously, google "Hitler without a Mustache" and show the pictures to someone with no context. They'll probably find it difficult to identify who it is.
There are also quite a lot of Brazilians with German grandparents or great-grandparents (depending on their age).
With regards to Shakespeare's "impossible" skillset, I always find it baffling that people cannot seem to accept geniuses exist, when there are so many examples of them. Da Vinci, Archimedes, Newton, Homer (whose existence or at least literary talent is also being called into question). The list goes on.
For me, the Shakespeare question is one more about historical accuracy, and academic integrity.
After all, there are many, many famous writers, artists and sculptors. Their original works now considered more or less priceless. So the Shakespeare debate is an accessible way to show Us Plebs exactly why works can be attributed with pretty decent accuracy.
In the art world (and hey, here I go simplifying, again) it’s stuff like the brush strokes, patina and chemical make up of the paints. Whilst not always definitive for finding a genuine work, I understand they’re accurate enough to spot a fake.
I’m sure some take it too far, because that’s just human nature. But it’s an interesting case study for the wider world of authentication
gorgon wrote: Eh. I always thought the Shakespeare conspiracies showed all the worst kinds of conspiracy thinking.
That it's impossible for the plays to have been written by a guy we don't know much about. They had to have been written by someone MORE FAMOUS and better catalogued in the historical record. See 1,957 Jack the Ripper theories. And how many serial killers end up being already famous or prominent individuals?
Goes back to humanity's desire for structure/sense/shortcuts/easy solutions IMO. Hell, look at C-3PO, LOL.
Depends where one goes with it. There are reasonable arguments the portfolio isn’t the work of one man.
The whacko stuff comes in that already well known people did it. The simple question there being ‘but why wouldn’t they take the credit? None of it was exactly seditious or likely to upset Queen Elizabeth?
The comedies and tragedies were fairly innocuous, true.
I believe the issue was that some of the history plays did exactly that. Richard II is the most notorious- but even Caesar, which we teach in high school, has monarchs being betrayed and murdered.When the monarch in the play is a literal ruler of England, it becomes much more questionable. If the author was not a powerless playwright/actor/director but was in fact a high ranking government official, writing about high ranking officials overthrowing a corrupt ruler of England well, then it becomes about as innocent as Carol Baskins stating that to get a tiger to eat someone you'd have to cover them in sardine oil.
Here's some lovely context of Richard II, and it's possible ties to the Essex rebellion. It definitely fits a conspiracy theory mold.
Bran Dawri wrote: There are also quite a lot of Brazilians with German grandparents or great-grandparents (depending on their age).
With regards to Shakespeare's "impossible" skillset, I always find it baffling that people cannot seem to accept geniuses exist, when there are so many examples of them. Da Vinci, Archimedes, Newton, Homer (whose existence or at least literary talent is also being called into question). The list goes on.
The difference between Shakespeare and Homer is that very, very few, if any, serious scholars doubt that Shakespeare wrote his canon (albeit with many works lifted from classical authors). The Iliad and the Odyssey, by contrast, are widely accepted by to be the result of long traditions of oral recitation and adaptation by many, many people - though there remains debate as to the degree to which the final documenter(s) formed the specific surviving versions. Very few people hold that they are original works by a single individual.
- Freemasonic swiss pharaos governing the world through bankingsector.
-Shakespears conspiracy.
- Phantom time
- Wonderdrug peddlers. (i'd like to put wealthgospel preachers and sects of the doomsday variation aswell as scientology there aswell.)
-Sandy hooks as a false flag for whatever reason
-Anti-Vaxxers.
-Holocaust deniers and all the following incessant nutjobbery.
Have i missed something?
Out of these i can personally deny the Freemasonic swiss pharaos lizard people There are other more funny things we did then this, like establishing an armory that is warcrime galore. Also alpine climate isn't that great for lizards.
Holocaust deniers, bcause go visit croatia and bosnia, theres still a KZ standing and that is just the one i visited. Furhter following the jews supposedly controlling the world government via swiss banking (comparatively swiss jews are working in what you'd call education and educated citizen jobs, aka Doctors, professors , relatively few are in the banking sector and even less have achieved a political position in the government. )
Wonderdrugs / snakesoil salesman/ Religious doomsday cults / Scientlogy.
Basically do what historians do, follow the money. And brush up on your basic knowledge on imune system. Not that difficult to do. Both ways lead to clear results against them.
Damn! Forgot to read up on the Pharoah Swiss Cheese thing!
Currently watching Pt2 of Wrestlemania. When that’s done, should be lunch break and I can dangle the carrot of knowledge down the rabbit hole, see what bites!
David Icke's been banned from YouTubing his dangerous 5G lies.
If you want a belly load of laughs read up on this guy. Former professional footballer who hasn't met a conspiracy theory that he wouldn't spaff all over. His GMTV interview from the 90s was a glorious train wreck. Oh, and the Queen's a lizard.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What about the moom landing? surely that mustve come up in here? or is that just old cheese, put to bed?
Forgot that one.
TBF, considering there are industries here not too far from me that work as precision part delivery for space programms and the fact that the ETH is attempting to clean up our satelite mess, like the stereotypical OCD swiss institution it is, i fail to see how the moonlanding could be fake, allbeit as mentioned it's quite possible that the pictures were crafted due to propaganda.
One only has to remember stalin picture with inner circle members that got purged and then suddendly disapeered from them.
Currently watching Pt2 of Wrestlemania. When that’s done, should be lunch break and I can dangle the carrot of knowledge down the rabbit hole, see what bites!
For those that are interested in that particular branch off insanity. (ohh also forgot the fact that supposedly we also founded the legion etrangere? like yeah alot of these were swiss because france allways relied on swiss mercs to do their dirty work and others and it conveniently bypass swiss legislature due to offering citizenship for legionaires but founding it? )
Henry wrote: David Icke's been banned from YouTubing his dangerous 5G lies.
If you want a belly load of laughs read up on this guy. Former professional footballer who hasn't met a conspiracy theory that he wouldn't spaff all over. His GMTV interview from the 90s was a glorious train wreck. Oh, and the Queen's a lizard.
The scary thing is when you search for his, or other conspiracy videos, and read through the comments below them. That's the real danger. A single video series is nothing, but once its got a community behind it believing and spreading further confusion you can get a population. The problem with the net is that there are a lot of trolls. So you can get a conspiracy video going and you can bet some of the "Oh its true my mother also revealed she was a lizard this morning to me" replies are purely from trolls - but it feeds into that community that are believers.
Why do they favour such long, boring, dull intros with overly dramatic music?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’m sorry, I’m sorry.
I tried. That Pharoah video. I did, I really did. But I got as far as ‘holy stones, from Egypt, eh, eh, eh’ and I could feel parts of my brain, falling away like a wet cake.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why do they favour such long, boring, dull intros with overly dramatic music?
Because they took lessons in TV from America.
Seriously compare shows that get UK and US versions and there's a marked difference. Hell's Kitchen UK style is far more sedate whilst in the US versions almost every early scene is accompanied with heavily dramatic music - which doesn't go away until the happy "its all fixed" music comes in - unless the people reject it of course. It's all mood theory and such; the same reason that Hollywood is currently* obsessed with colourfilters to the point where some films look really daft - eg Twilight is BLUE.
*they've been used for years but I've noted a marked increase over the last 5-10 or so years in very heavy overt use rather than more subtle and sparring application
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why do they favour such long, boring, dull intros with overly dramatic music?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’m sorry, I’m sorry.
I tried. That Pharoah video. I did, I really did. But I got as far as ‘holy stones, from Egypt, eh, eh, eh’ and I could feel parts of my brain, falling away like a wet cake.
Maybe once I’ve had a few beers tonight?
I recall one I saw a while back which harped on about interlinked religions and how it was all a conspiracy. Interestingly they made a huge deal about the date of Christmas - without even once acknowledging that the date has moved several times.
There's also aspects of monetisation as well, a video has to be a certain length and have a certain amount of watch time/interaction.
If you can click bait an audience in, then have them watch 10 minutes of drivel at least waiting for your 'knowledge' drop, you will earn more money basically.
It's way more complicated than that, and comments and likes also play a part, but the longer the video is, the more chance you will get comments etc as well.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why do they favour such long, boring, dull intros with overly dramatic music?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’m sorry, I’m sorry.
I tried. That Pharoah video. I did, I really did. But I got as far as ‘holy stones, from Egypt, eh, eh, eh’ and I could feel parts of my brain, falling away like a wet cake.
Maybe once I’ve had a few beers tonight?
Don't bother, me and my mates attempted to watch some during a night of binge drinking, wasn't even funny when we probably were in dangerous blood alcohol level terrain.
TL: DR / TL: DW because
Swiss people are all of the following and the swiss state of course:
Nazi, SS, Demonologists, Bloodmoney bankers, Templars, Nazitemplars, Fascist state, Fascists, Childeaters, Satanists, Anti- BLM, Anti american (even though we literally are historically the Sister republic hence the similarity in the basc system off our state) , Rascist, founders and controllers of the KKK, demonically possessed shapeshifters, Anti-freespech, our space industry (focused on parts for satelites) is the all seeing eye and total observation state, Child abusers, Responsible for the MH17 incident, Pharonic lizard people, Killercop in saint louis was swiss suposedly, we killed Sisi the empress of A-H Monarchy not an italian anarchist,etc etc.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So.....do you roll for your stats at birth, or get to choose them when you start school?
Spoiler:
No, it goes through our dual educational system.
F.e. jobs requiring higher knowledge f.e. daemonologists like me soon to be (joke due to beeing a catholic philosophy student, pls no ex comunicate me petty please great lizard pope), you visit our universities which are elite state church satanist institutions cabales.
The fascist state also evaluates your capability to become a Templar in the legion etrangeré via the mandatory conscription thing. It also provides you with ample weaponry in defense of the leading Families with warcrime weapons such as Phospor shells, cluster bombs, and any other nice desings.
Further lower knowledge and intelect requiruing proffesions you learn in a combination of practical and theorethical schooling in combination with the big conglomerates of industry and banking we own. Sadists f.e. learn it in all lower class schooling.
Childabusers only learn in practical organisations.
Further you are all part of official non states organisation which serve as hidden fascisct party state paramilitaries to at any moment purge any person deemed unfit. Whilest Landsgemeinde are the great communion with the great beast from beyond the ground.
Alternatively those inclined to roleplay are indeed allowed to roll their charachters, what do you think off us! beeing petty tyrants, we allready controll the world!
Jokes aside, it probably would be a great basis for a completly fethed up RPG the likes of which would even put RaHoWa and FATAL too shame in how messed up it would be.
Now i kinda want to make one in the toungue in cheeck but darker munchkinstyle of this
Henry wrote: ...hasn't met a conspiracy theory that he wouldn't spaff all over.
This was touched on earlier but this particular phenomenon is probably all the proof anyone would need that belief in conspiracy theories is not anything to do with "evidence" or "facts" (yes, those two words really do need the inverted commas in this context) and everything to do with some sort of character or personality type. It's always seemed weird to me that a very large number of people who believe in one conspiracy theory also believe in a whole host of completely unrelated ones too. One of the posters from earlier in this thread basically displayed the same sort of attitude.
Henry wrote: ...hasn't met a conspiracy theory that he wouldn't spaff all over.
This was touched on earlier but this particular phenomenon is probably all the proof anyone would need that belief in conspiracy theories is not anything to do with "evidence" or "facts" (yes, those two words really do need the inverted commas in this context) and everything to do with some sort of character or personality type. It's always seemed weird to me that a very large number of people who believe in one conspiracy theory also believe in a whole host of completely unrelated ones too. One of the posters from earlier in this thread basically displayed the same sort of attitude.
I still think the issue lies within the educational system and the lack of actual political education (NOT INDOCTRINATION) in a sense of a baseline understanding of how a state governs, functions and in terms what the specific states points of existence are.
Ooh, I remember from the mid 00s, everyone went bananas for the Zeitgeist videos on YouTube. All the folk I worked with were "its so informative", "it's scary what they're hiding from us", "OMG, the conspiracy is real".
This wasn't just fringe stuff. A great deal of the people I worked with (engineers and highly skilled technicians - supposedly intelligent people) believed this stuff. It was mainstream. And just five minutes of thinking exposed it all as complete bollocks. The Zeitgeist hoax made me realise that it's not just the fringe and people with personality issues that were susceptible to this stuff.
Henry wrote: Ooh, I remember from the mid 00s, everyone went bananas for the Zeitgeist videos on YouTube. All the folk I worked with were "its so informative", "it's scary what they're hiding from us", "OMG, the conspiracy is real".
This wasn't just fringe stuff. A great deal of the people I worked with (engineers and highly skilled technicians - supposedly intelligent people) believed this stuff. It was mainstream. And just five minutes of thinking exposed it all as complete bollocks. The Zeitgeist hoax made me realise that it's not just the fringe and people with personality issues that were susceptible to this stuff.
Ahh that was the one I was thinking of where they went on and on about the inter-connectivity of important religious dates and Christmas.
Overread wrote: Ahh that was the one I was thinking of where they went on and on about the inter-connectivity of important religious dates and Christmas.
Yeah, that was what reminded me. This stuff was Fox News levels of fabricated rubbish, and it was lapped up by everyone.
- Freemasonic swiss pharaos governing the world through bankingsector.
-Shakespears conspiracy.
- Phantom time
- Wonderdrug peddlers. (i'd like to put wealthgospel preachers and sects of the doomsday variation aswell as scientology there aswell.)
-Sandy hooks as a false flag for whatever reason
-Anti-Vaxxers.
-Holocaust deniers and all the following incessant nutjobbery.
Have i missed something?
Out of these i can personally deny the Freemasonic swiss pharaos lizard people There are other more funny things we did then this, like establishing an armory that is warcrime galore. Also alpine climate isn't that great for lizards.
Holocaust deniers, bcause go visit croatia and bosnia, theres still a KZ standing and that is just the one i visited. Furhter following the jews supposedly controlling the world government via swiss banking (comparatively swiss jews are working in what you'd call education and educated citizen jobs, aka Doctors, professors , relatively few are in the banking sector and even less have achieved a political position in the government. )
Wonderdrugs / snakesoil salesman/ Religious doomsday cults / Scientlogy.
Basically do what historians do, follow the money. And brush up on your basic knowledge on imune system. Not that difficult to do. Both ways lead to clear results against them.
Alien pyramid builders were mentioned in passing a few times, but we're missing out on some classics though:
There are also numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the UN and/or the EU. One particularly alarming one is that the UN and EU are trying to replace the indiginous European populace (boreal is a word often used as a euphemism for white in this context) with African, Middle Eastern and Asian people. We actually have someone in the Dutch parliament who believes this.
ahh the great replacement theory, yeah that one, that is only an issue though for nations that have an "Ethnic nationalism" over one that is "Civic" .
Then again both off these are iffy ideas.
Not to mention is hillariously uninformed about historic facts, like Roman empire especially legions beeing everything but homogenus in their decent. Or in the case of switzerland the helveti, which were not a tribe but a confederation with atleast one of the 5 tribes supposedly beeing germanic not celtic.
Or the fact that the Allemani didn't wipe out the gallo romanic population.... (or even were a homogenus tribe...)
Turns out dead people are not generating money and replacing is overly expensive....
Yeah, I meant alarming in that it plays neatly into extremist white supremacist ideology and is actually gaining poltical traction in some places, not in that it's in any way to be taken seriously as a theory.
Bran Dawri wrote: Yeah, I meant alarming in that it plays neatly into extremist white supremacist ideology and is actually gaining poltical traction in some places, not in that it's in any way to be taken seriously as a theory.
TBF, i have a feeling alot of this comes down to the census of the states, which btw is hillariously lopsided. F.e. Caucasian? Really? Like yea i guess if you want to throw azerbajian, gerogia and consorts into 1 Pot. But also for germans, swedes, poles, russians, etc?
Funnily enough spain doesn't count into that category? Why? I thought that'd be a catch all term for whiteskinned non middle easterners?
etc etc.
It's also even funnier when you contrast it to some of the really homogenising cultural civic nationalisms, because about 30 % of swiss citizens got their passes and nationality through forced citizenship at the outbreak of WW1, predominantly germans and italians and french.
(no i not of these groups but also fall under innerswiss region, which basically is the stubborn bunch of not movers and grumble at anything outside of ones Kanton.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: All your secrets are belong to us! The truth shall be reviled!
No, au contraire, roll3 d100 for cirumference and 5 d100 for choosing your class
My college had an original copy of Robison's "Proofs of a Conspiracy" in their special collection. So I read it. It's pretty wild...considering it was this very fragile book written in the style of the day (and the long S takes some getting used to so that you aren't reading with some ridiculous lisp), it struck me how sensationalist it was. I mean, it was clearly a hit job. And it therefore felt kinda like a modern political bestseller serving up red meat to its prechosen audience.
I mean, 200+ years later and we're still talking about the Illuminati. It's kind of crazy.
Alien pyramid builders were mentioned in passing a few times, but we're missing out on some classics though:
I feel like in the same vein that someone saying "the world is ill prepared for a viral epidemic" isn't a conspiracy theory, fringe science/scholarship isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory either (until it starts accusing groups of vast secret keeping, then it's a conspiracy theory). Honestly I feel like the central hallmark of a conspiracy theory is the secret keeping aspect, the idea of 'hidden' groups with 'hidden' agendas and uncovering 'hidden' information reveals them. Fringe science is almost this whole other thing with its own set of characteristics, errors, and dangers. Outside of the medical field, it's generally harmless nonsense not something that actively ruins lives like some of the more extreme garbage conspiracy nuts engage in. I'd honestly put it a step up from conspiracy theories, because while fringe academics do employ fact twisting, unverifiable claims hinged on ignorance, and leaps of logic, it does (most of the time) restrain itself from taking the extra leaps of inventing evidence where it is lacking or assigning nefarious goals.
Ancient aliens thing is as nonsensical as anything a conspiracy theorist has put out, but at least it can be entertaining in its harmlessness. It's not pissing on the dead, causing collateral damage (usually) or taking advantage of human suffering for profit. Most of it is built on evidence that actually exists and just drawing nebulous conclusions about that evidence. A classic example is Gavin Menzies and his fringe idea that Chinese admiral Zheng He circumnavigated the globe between 1421 and 1434, discovering Europe and the Americas (with not a single written record to support such a monumental event anywhere to be seen). He brings up pieces of evidence that do exist, but he strings them together incoherently with leaps of logic and hand waves away the obvious questions suggesting his evidence doesn't say what he says it says. He never makes the leap to accusing anyone of nefarious goals, keeping secrets for some sinister intent, or alleging any sort of 'conspiracy.'
He's a gak scholar who doesn't realize he's a gak scholar. But he's harmless for the most part.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:What about the moom landing? surely that mustve come up in here? or is that just old cheese, put to bed?
Conspiracy thinking comes from the parts of the human brain that are there to either save us time or to allow us to smooth over minor inconsistencies in perception. Without going too deep down the "perception/reality" rabbit hole, our understanding of reality is a mix of our own senses and the stuff our brain provides to fill in the rest. Have you ever wondered why you can so easily spot some minor change in your environment? It's because your subconscious handles all the visual information it gets, and mostly just says "work, home, commute... wait, something new!"
what does this have to do with conspiracies? Everything! Basically, our brains work really hard to fill in gaps, so that stories make sense. See, our brains know that between flaws in our perception, and our willingness to add information gained from others, basically everything we think we know probably has some level of inconsistency in it. What happens for some people is that their brains smoothing doesn't kick in for something, and they can't let it go. We've all done this, but for conspiracy theorists, it's about the "official story."
So, you've got people who are fixated on inconsistencies or patterns they see, and then decide that they mean something. Now, most of the time when two stories don't match, it's because somebody misspoke. And when two things happen the same way, it's a coincidence. Again, that's what most people think. Some people assume it' can't be. Or they "just ask questions."
Finally, add in the fact that we know that our world is manipulated by forces beyond the transparent ones. Like, we know deep down that oligarchs and industrialists and all form of powerful figures manipulate our governments. Of course, most people understand, at least hazily, the difference between influence and control. some people don't.
If you take a healthy brain, regardless of education or intelligence, and just tweak a few things, you end up with somebody primed to really seek out conspiracy theories.
Ancient aliens thing is as nonsensical as anything a conspiracy theorist has put out, but at least it can be entertaining in its harmlessness. It's not pissing on the dead, causing collateral damage (usually) or taking advantage of human suffering for profit.
It's fundamentally racist and pissing on the cultures really responsible.
And feth you for even indulging the idea 26 people didn't die....I wish that destruction was visited on everyone who engages in it because it's inhumanly disgusting. Report me to the mods for rule violation. Don't give a gak.
Yeah, I'm out. I think we could've had an interesting discussion, but I'm not interested in whatever this is.
Help me out with this:
At least for Sandy Hook, which your quote was talking about, it is not the lack of verifiability of the conspiracy theory which drives it, but rather the lack of verifiability of the the event itself.
How is that not verified? It occurred. Children and people died. They were alive. The police were there. The functioning school was there. Its a poster boy for verification.
nfe wrote: It's fundamentally racist and pissing on the cultures really responsible.
This is oftentimes true though I don't think it's always so. Ancient alien stuff seem to me to come from other places. They're more casually racist than purposefully so imo. Many European sites are also typically attributed to aliens by them (Stonehenge, Roman roads, and the Parthenon have all be targets of ancient alien claims). I do think there's roots in racist notions though, particularly the notions of 'noble savages' who were close to nature and not technologically advanced and the innate 'mysticism' of the lands Europeans were going to in the Age of Discovery. We've simply inserted aliens in the place of magic. The ancient aliens concept I think has largely evolved past that in more recent decades to become a more equal opportunity offender.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but how about the so-called 'Mandela effect'? I'm fascinated by the ego it must take to believe you may be from another dimension just because something is different than how you remember it.
Frazzled wrote: How is that not verified? It occurred. Children and people died. They were alive. The police were there. The functioning school was there. Its a poster boy for verification.
Somewhat counterintuitively, Frazz...that makes it a better and more powerful conspiracy to those who are predisposed to believe something like that. Because "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and "THE POWERFUL FORCES ALIGNED" and so on. It's a more dramatic narrative, and human beings always seek narratives.
Also lets not forget that a huge amount of information about the world around us comes purely from the TV reports. You have to put a lot of faith that what they report is actually true. If they wanted they could produce huge programs of lies about countries, places, continents and the average person would never be able to tell it apart from the real.
Of course I'd also argue that this viewpoint becomes more entrenched in those who travel a lot less. Who basically have a reduced chance of actually seeing and experiencing the world that they see through the TV. Wheras the more you travel, whilst you might well develop a wider awareness of situations than the media reports; you'd at least have a better potential to grasp the enormity of the world and also the reliability on what gets reported to us day by day.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Interesting conspiracies....hmmm. I'm pretty sure we've all heard of the conspiracy about hitler not committing suicide but ending up in a latin American colony for the rest of his life. I've heard people legit believe in that one.
While it is rather silly now, at the time it wasn't really all that crazy. Lots of Nazi big wigs did indeed flee to south america, those who weren't immediately rounded up for Nuremberg anyway. The Soviets were the ones who captured the area around the bunker and they weren't exactly open and forthright with information. It wasn't really inconceivable that Hitler could have faked his death and escaped. There were actually plans in place for him to escape, he simply chose not to use them and offed himself. Which is just enough fodder for people to maybe consider if he actually did.
So its a conspiracy theory now, but its rooted in the post-ww2 murkiness that shrouded the actual events that took place then. Information that never came to light till after the Soviet Union collapsed was the missing half of the equation.
True but there were far too many people wanting Hitler dead. I mean where would he have gone. One of the most notorious dudes of the time somehow manages to hide from the world in south America without someone finding out and getting a bounty on his head. Yeah I don't think so. He probably weighed the options and realized they were bleak and there was no point to continue. He was too well known to just hide so easily.
Not gonna lie though there were some post-war Nazis that took on a fake identity with some even hiding in the usa. I even think I knew a guy whose grandparents never shared their lineage and I saw his last name looked german or similar and I guessed his grandparents may have been Nazis. He said it's possible but he doesn't know. The guy in question was nice and I don't think he was mixed up in anything. Whether his grandparents did something or not it's clear it was never brought up again. At least it didn't make it's way down to the kids and grandkids far as I know.
"Hiding"? The US government literally gave them fake identities and jobs.
I mean, it's still hiding if the government helps you do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This thread frustrates me, because I have a large collection of the cards from the excellent old Steve Jackson Illuminati card game, and I can't play with anyone because of covid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This thread frustrates me, because I have a large collection of the cards from the excellent old Steve Jackson Illuminati card game, and I can't play with anyone because of covid.
One of the things I've always found interesting is how there are some conspiracy theorist leaning folks who can/will use other actual events to prop up their gakky views.
For instance, some/many of you may have heard/read about the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Basically, over the course of decades, many, predominately black African Americans in The South, particularly around the Tuskegee, Alabama area were intentionally infected with Syphilis. Further to this study, many who were intentionally infected (and many who unintentionally got it) went untreated for years because, reasons.
Now, I bring up that black mark in US history for a reason: its not to point out that the US government is capable of such an act. Nor that it was kept "secret" for so many years (truth is, it wasn't so much a secret as it was unpublished). . . however, I have seen many a conspiracy theorist latch on to misinterpreted portions of this whole episode as "proof" of some other, grander conspiracy
gorgon wrote: Not sure if it's been mentioned, but how about the so-called 'Mandela effect'? I'm fascinated by the ego it must take to believe you may be from another dimension just because something is different than how you remember it.
Frazzled wrote: How is that not verified? It occurred. Children and people died. They were alive. The police were there. The functioning school was there. Its a poster boy for verification.
Somewhat counterintuitively, Frazz...that makes it a better and more powerful conspiracy to those who are predisposed to believe something like that. Because "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and "THE POWERFUL FORCES ALIGNED" and so on. It's a more dramatic narrative, and human beings always seek narratives.
Indeed. It's verified by the media, who are clearly in on the conspiracy. The ravings of some random ex-cop with an agenda are clearly more trustworthy than multiple media organisations, law enforcement agencies, paramedics and local residents.
gorgon wrote: Not sure if it's been mentioned, but how about the so-called 'Mandela effect'? I'm fascinated by the ego it must take to believe you may be from another dimension just because something is different than how you remember it.
Frazzled wrote: How is that not verified? It occurred. Children and people died. They were alive. The police were there. The functioning school was there. Its a poster boy for verification.
Somewhat counterintuitively, Frazz...that makes it a better and more powerful conspiracy to those who are predisposed to believe something like that. Because "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and "THE POWERFUL FORCES ALIGNED" and so on. It's a more dramatic narrative, and human beings always seek narratives.
Indeed. It's verified by the media, who are clearly in on the conspiracy. The ravings of some random ex-cop with an agenda are clearly more trustworthy than multiple media organisations, law enforcement agencies, paramedics and local residents.
The whole "Media in on it" is btw utter nonsense.
F.e. most Swiss Papiers are owned by one single entity yet the overarching entity does not influence the Papers itself due to the Papers having their own audience. Influencing them automatically Leads to lower abonments meaning losses,which means that the papers Run basically independently except for printing and distribution.
Jokingly also if you want unbiased Paper Info you just a leftleaning Tagesanzeiger and a more right leaning NZZ.(both high quality papers.) Or better , buy your local one instead .
One thing about me is I do tend to play "Devil's Advocate" a lot. I often express views that, while not too popular, are nevertheless valid or at least have valid elements to them.
Needless to say I am not always a popular person. I do get a lot of over what I do. (When i got death threats in the mail and someone tried to set fire to my property I stated taking measures to make it harder for people to track me down.)
So let me say something on the subject of conspiracies that may seem like i'm defending or advocating them, when in fact I'm just pointing out something most people may see but not wish to discuss despite the fact it's relevant and deserves mention.
In some cases conspiracy theories are strengthened by the way people react to the events behind them and in these cases the theories gain a lot of traction.
Let's look at the 911 CS that held the government knew about the attacks and either caused or allowed them for it's own reasons.
Well, the government used 911 to vastly expand its powers, especially with the 'patriot act" which we still have. It increased police powers with no knock warrants, FISA courts issues search warrants, the ability of the government to try people without presenting the evidence against them for national security, etc.
It was also used as a pretext to invade and conquer iraq which we all know the guy in the white house at the time wanted to do and was looking for an excuse to do since his first day in office.
Now, looking at how the government at the time reacted reacted to 911, it's obvious they capitalized on it and exploited it for their own ends to a vast degree.
When people react to a crisis in a way that sure looks like they wanted to exploit and capitalize on it, it's natural to start wondering if maybe they had something to do with it happening.
That's what happened with 911. Whether the government had something to do with it beforehand or not it certainly used it to do things that would have been unthinkable on 9-10. They practically became accessories after the fact to terrorizing america and using that fear to get what they wanted.
So, sometimes people who buy into CS are not stupid, insane, paranoid, etc. They simply look at a situation for a POV that while may be different from the majority's is not without merit. The administration at the time did absolutely use 911 to get what it wanted and exploited it shamelessly. It's not that unreasonable to wonder if they might have had something to do with it even if some of the 'evidence' p[resented doesn't stand up to scientific review.
Yes there are a lot of CS that are flying mammal excrement level insane, stupid, ignorant, etc. But some of them do have some merit or at least an understandable rational to them so let's not dismiss them all out of hand.
Well, yes, of course it is. It comes back to the whole 'the more people are allegedly involved, the less likely it is to be true' thing. Particularly when it involves something horrible... the chances of someone not blowing the whistle become increasingly remote the more people are in on it.
The problem is that such a large chunk of the media has spent the last several decades showing themselves to not be entirely trustworthy through both sloppy and deliberately misleading reporting in order to sell headlines, leading to a general mistrust. When people are already looking at the news through a skeptical lens, some nut coming along and screaming 'The media are lying to you!' on a given subject is easier to believe.
Well, yes, of course it is. It comes back to the whole 'the more people are allegedly involved, the less likely it is to be true' thing. Particularly when it involves something horrible... the chances of someone not blowing the whistle become increasingly remote the more people are in on it.
The problem is that such a large chunk of the media has spent the last several decades showing themselves to not be entirely trustworthy through both sloppy and deliberately misleading reporting in order to sell headlines, leading to a general mistrust. When people are already looking at the news through a skeptical lens, some nut coming along and screaming 'The media are lying to you!' on a given subject is easier to believe.
Fully agree that quite a lot of the papers have gone to the gutter never to be Seen again. (In regards to their nieveau) the Problem Here is though that that strategy just seems to not work to expand your reach which i assume has to do with the highly fractured and localized society which is also the point of the joke i Made.
It's not just those that go full gutter, though. Even supposedly reputable papers are guilty of exaggeration, or of getting details wrong. And it's only gotten worse as news reporting moved online, as the focus went from getting the paper out tomorrow morning or the news headline ready for this evenings' bulletin to being the first to get the news online. The emphasis is on speed and clicks, these days, instead of quality journalism.
And that the media cannot simply stick to telling you WHAT happened; everything has become a thinly disguised op-ed piece today. The line between journalism and opinion has been completely nuked.
Meanwhile, I miss a good old fashioned game of Steve Jackson's Illumnati...as long as you could get 4 or more players, it was usually a lot of fun.
The best one I have heard lately is the double-down on the "Covid19 is caused by 5g towers" is how to "solve" the pandemic the government is going to use nanotech RFID chips placed in the vaccines to track all the citizens. It's quite awesome in it's craziness.
AegisGrimm wrote: The best one I have heard lately is the double-down on the "Covid19 is caused by 5g towers" is how to "solve" the pandemic the government is going to use nanotech RFID chips placed in the vaccines to track all the citizens. It's quite awesome in it's craziness.
Dear god it's like a whole bunch of different conspiracy theories came together and decided to form a hive mind.
Ok, let's take a look at conspiracy theories and why people fall for them in scientific and evolutionary terms.
First we hop in the TARDIS, or step thru the time tunnel, or just fly close to the sun at warp 8, whichever time travel method you prefer.
We look at the origins of humanity, and our pre human hominid ancestors who had to survive in a sticks and stones era world.
Each has brains wired a little differently due to Genetic variance.
So you've got the little hominid the rest may call names like chicken charlie or jumpy jerry. He hears a rustle in the grass near him. He shrieks and jumps for his life. A couple seconds later a rabbit or possum comes out of the grass. (We're talking like 3-4' high grass here, fellas.)
His buddies laugh at him. He's alive, tho, he's still in the gene pool.
Now we have the guy they call fearless fodsick. (Look it up) He ain't afraid o' nuffin'! Everyone thinks he's so brave and tough. Grass rustles near him. He ignores it, probably just a rabbit.
A tiger jumps out of the grass and eats him. He's not in the genepool anymore. Chicken charlie is.
There are very sound reasons why being fearful, seeing danger where there is none, jumping at shadows,etc are positive survival traits especially in our pre-human hominid ancestors, and being positive survival traits they get reinforced in their DNA and are passed up the evolutionary ladder to what would later call itself the human race.
So, yeah, some people see dangerous things, like conspiracies, even where there's nothing there. It's an ancient survival trait that got hardcoded into our DNA thanks to evolution.
I know conspiracy nuts may be annoying, irritating, occasionally amusing and at times dangerous if organized and lead by a bad guy, but when you shine the clear light of science and reasoinl on them, you can see them for what they really are, just products of the same evolutionary process that created you and I.
We call them panzersperre,or panzerzahn schoggi sometimes.
Meaning Tank trap, or tankteeth due to it's rather Hard nature for chochlate and form.
Yeah! the best bit is when they cut the top of your mouth open when you try to eat a whole triangle. although I believe theyve started rounding the tops now?
insaniak wrote: It's not just those that go full gutter, though. Even supposedly reputable papers are guilty of exaggeration, or of getting details wrong. And it's only gotten worse as news reporting moved online, as the focus went from getting the paper out tomorrow morning or the news headline ready for this evenings' bulletin to being the first to get the news online. The emphasis is on speed and clicks, these days, instead of quality journalism.
Ahh sensationalism i guess you'd call that?
I honestly think it has more to do with the classic news makret slowly drying up whilest online news take over and the Clickbait title and circles are prefered by algorithms, which is incidentally something they can't influence, unless of course they go after their own plattform in many cases.
To put it bluntly, it's google skewing the playingfield into the gutter.
generally though i feel like wait and see aproaches aka patience are out of the mode. However i'd remind some that they maybee should look at the papers from 100 years ago and tell me that they weren't even more sensationalist.
Infact we had an unprecedented lowering of that behaviour in the 90- 2000s of the tone and sensation seeking atleast over here.
We call them panzersperre,or panzerzahn schoggi sometimes.
Meaning Tank trap, or tankteeth due to it's rather Hard nature for chochlate and form.
Yeah! the best bit is when they cut the top of your mouth open when you try to eat a whole triangle. although I believe theyve started rounding the tops now?
We could give a special customizable one just for you with a hint of razorwire in it
Na but Toblerone is the only "export" swiss choclate that actually tastes decentish.
Ok, let's take a look at conspiracy theories and why people fall for them in scientific and evolutionary terms.
First we hop in the TARDIS, or step thru the time tunnel, or just fly close to the sun at warp 8, whichever time travel method you prefer.
We look at the origins of humanity, and our pre human hominid ancestors who had to survive in a sticks and stones era world.
Each has brains wired a little differently due to Genetic variance.
So you've got the little hominid the rest may call names like chicken charlie or jumpy jerry. He hears a rustle in the grass near him. He shrieks and jumps for his life. A couple seconds later a rabbit or possum comes out of the grass. (We're talking like 3-4' high grass here, fellas.)
His buddies laugh at him. He's alive, tho, he's still in the gene pool.
Now we have the guy they call fearless fodsick. (Look it up) He ain't afraid o' nuffin'! Everyone thinks he's so brave and tough. Grass rustles near him. He ignores it, probably just a rabbit.
A tiger jumps out of the grass and eats him. He's not in the genepool anymore. Chicken charlie is.
There are very sound reasons why being fearful, seeing danger where there is none, jumping at shadows,etc are positive survival traits especially in our pre-human hominid ancestors, and being positive survival traits they get reinforced in their DNA and are passed up the evolutionary ladder to what would later call itself the human race.
So, yeah, some people see dangerous things, like conspiracies, even where there's nothing there. It's an ancient survival trait that got hardcoded into our DNA thanks to evolution.
I know conspiracy nuts may be annoying, irritating, occasionally amusing and at times dangerous if organized and lead by a bad guy, but when you shine the clear light of science and reasoinl on them, you can see them for what they really are, just products of the same evolutionary process that created you and I.
See, I think that's giving your average conspiracy theorist far too much credit, not to mention being a gross oversimplification of how evolution works. Trying to paint this as some sort of evolutionary quirk ignores the much more likely possibility that most beliefs in conspiracy theories are rooted in narcissism. The idea you're special and different because you know something the sheeple don't seems to be at the heart of most conspiracy beliefs and I think it's a huge stretch to claim that's just an over-active survival instinct.
There was talk earlier about how the Lewinsky affair stands as testament that keeping secrets is really sodding hard to do.
It’s a valid point, and according to the BBC, the woman who exposed it by secretly recording conversations with Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp has passed away at 70 from pancreatic cancer.
Thoughts and wishes with her family at this time.
Her actions go to show just how implausible the claim that ‘the greater the scale, the greater the silence’ is.
I mean, whilst it was an abuse of position, it was ultimately between two consenting adults, so in terms of ‘how’s your father’ dodginess, it was relatively low key. Yet still, someone piped up and exposed the whole thing to the point a President was impeached.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Right, back a bit more on topic from my last post!
Known hoaxes, and how they inspire the Conspirasphere.
Here, let’s consider Piltdown Man. The village of Piltdown is a short drive from my front door. And it’s best known for being the finding place of Piltdown Man.
At the time, and for quite a while, it was touted as evidence of a missing link, as predicted by Evolutionary Theory. But come 1953, the fraud was exposed.
To those who have it in for evolution in general, it’s held up as ‘one fake, all fake’ evidence. Sure, it’s a welcome change to their wilful misinterpretation of what evolution actually predicts, and indeed works. But it’s still intellectually dishonest.
For instance, survival of the fittest isn’t an accurate statement. It’s not about physical strength, speed etc. Instead, it’s about how well adapted a creature is to its environment. So in an arid environment, efficient body heat and water use is beneficial. In the climes of Northern Europe, lighter skin was beneficial, as we can better absorb sunlight to synthesise vitamin D. But in far sunnier climes, it’s a significant drawback as it leaves us more prone to skin cancer.
The whole "the media is in on it" thing shows a complete lack of understanding of how the media works. I was trained as a journalist (not working in that field now) and I have to say journalists are easily the most cynical group of people I've ever met. They also love nothing more than getting one over their fellow reporters (often in a good-natured professional rivalry kind of way, but sometimes in a very personal kind of way too). More importantly, the pinnacle of any journalistic career would be revealing some sort of Watergate-style conspiracy. That's pretty much what every reporter dreams of and it's precisely because it doesn't matter whether you're a massively experienced Reuters reporter or a fresh-faced guy working a local beat there's always that chance you stumble on something that's so big it changes the way we think about the world.
Things like government false flag operations, the Earth actually being flat, 5G causing coronavirus and so on would, if true, be far too juicy a story for any journalist to sit on so the idea that the media are in on it just makes no sense. As is the idea that there's some sort of global censorship going on that prevents these things being published. All it takes is one organisation to step out of line and the whole thing comes crashing down. By my estimation it would take approximately 0.001 seconds for any editor to decide to do that rather than toe the global censorship line.
Yeah, the media is in on it assumes no journalist wants a Pulitzer. Like climate change is a hoax demands that no environmental scientist wants a Nobel.
Not to say that there aren't journalists and media outlets that are government/elite mouthpieces, or that there aren't scientists in the pay of interested parties, but everyone, all the time, for years/decades/centuries? Nah mate.
For instance, survival of the fittest isn’t an accurate statement. It’s not about physical strength, speed etc. Instead, it’s about how well adapted a creature is to its environment. So in an arid environment, efficient body heat and water use is beneficial. In the climes of Northern Europe, lighter skin was beneficial, as we can better absorb sunlight to synthesise vitamin D. But in far sunnier climes, it’s a significant drawback as it leaves us more prone to skin cancer.
Survival of the Fittest often gets combined with "I'm an Alpha" arguments as well.
You've already noted that the first is based on a gross missunderstanding of the statment; the latter is based on science that was poorly produced on captive wolves which was later, by the same scientist, debunked. Sadly the whole Alpha thing struck a cord with a segment of the population who like to promote themsleves with it and defend their attitude and manners with it. In reality it was found not to be alpha,beta, gammer but more a case of one wolf rising to bully all the others whilst engaged within the original study. So all they are doing is defending their own bullying behaviour.
nfe wrote: Yeah, the media is in on it assumes no journalist wants a Pulitzer. Like climate change is a hoax demands that no environmental scientist wants a Nobel.
Not to say that there aren't journalists and media outlets that are government/elite mouthpieces, or that there aren't scientists in the pay of interested parties, but everyone, all the time, for years/decades/centuries? Nah mate.
Worst bit for me about climate denial is that as far as I’m aware, the main dissent amongst the scientific community isn’t whether or not it’s actually happening, but the why, and the level man’s actions are impacting it.
My favourite counter argument? But what if we provide clean air and sustainability for nothing? Seriously. What’s the actual down side?
nfe wrote: Yeah, the media is in on it assumes no journalist wants a Pulitzer. Like climate change is a hoax demands that no environmental scientist wants a Nobel.
Not to say that there aren't journalists and media outlets that are government/elite mouthpieces, or that there aren't scientists in the pay of interested parties, but everyone, all the time, for years/decades/centuries? Nah mate.
Worst bit for me about climate denial is that as far as I’m aware, the main dissent amongst the scientific community isn’t whether or not it’s actually happening, but the why, and the level man’s actions are impacting it.
My favourite counter argument? But what if we provide clean air and sustainability for nothing? Seriously. What’s the actual down side?
See I can totally understand debate on the degree to which humanity does affect the climate and honestly I suspect we don't know the answer and might never know it for many more generations. The data processing for climate models is insanely huge and that's before you get to the fact that we've only direct recordings of climate going back a very short period in human history; let alone geological. So everything on ancient climates is always open to adjustment due to finding new proxy data; new types of proxies and new interpretations of existing proxy data.
That said I agree, and most do, that improving air, soil, water quality only leads to a net gain for us. I think that things such as heavy metals in the seas are something we've got our "heads in the sand on" as things that affect the population. Conspiracies that MMR jabs are giving people autism might be closer to the mark just finding the wrong cause - rising heavy metals; other pollutants could be far more critical aspects to any increase in medial problems we experience as a population. Heck I recall in Japan they were trying to dump excess dolphin meat into the school system until several officials sacrificed their jobs and came out about it because of the high heavy metal content in dolphin meat and the risk that it could cause when eaten (esp in more vulnerable youth).
That said when you look at many of the biggest and loudest opposition to climate change in the science world you notice that a lot of it is paid for by big firms. Big firms who would have big costs to be more environmentally friendly. Of course the biggest issue right now is the west is pushing for more environmentally friendly practice - which drives up cost. So companies simply jump ship to nations without those restrictions which promotes an even bigger rise in pollutants just in another part of the world.
nfe wrote: Yeah, the media is in on it assumes no journalist wants a Pulitzer. Like climate change is a hoax demands that no environmental scientist wants a Nobel.
Not to say that there aren't journalists and media outlets that are government/elite mouthpieces, or that there aren't scientists in the pay of interested parties, but everyone, all the time, for years/decades/centuries? Nah mate.
Worst bit for me about climate denial is that as far as I’m aware, the main dissent amongst the scientific community isn’t whether or not it’s actually happening, but the why, and the level man’s actions are impacting it.
My favourite counter argument? But what if we provide clean air and sustainability for nothing? Seriously. What’s the actual down side?
Economics.
Simple as.
Depending on the way we go, everything has an associatable cost. The question is and allways was are we willing to pay the bill of our decision. Respectively are we willing to pay the bill for the sins off our fathers or do we just kick the can further down?
That is a question defining living standards and livelyhoods. The worst part is, a turnaround now, will have immediate economic impact. (f.e. hgiher standards for industrial manufacturing increasing airquality but also production cost might very well kill off workplaces in a region entirely. there is a reason why the Rust belt votes as it does with alot of small to medium towns beeing dominated by single industrial manufacturing companies and places with the very real threat of just moving away.)
I think one bonus of the shutdown many nations are having right now is that there's quite a rapid display of recovery and reduction in pollutants in a way people can see and experience. One of the main issues with pushing for more environmentally friendly approaches has been that the benefits are often seen as "invisible" or as something that might not appear for generations. Ergo you take a big economic hit now, but the gains are not seen for generations.
Sometimes you need a big display of clean air around cities and such to actually push forward change. Much like how the banning of coal in the UK for fires in London totally removed the smog hazes that the city used to live with.
Something I admire about conspiracy theorists is how they insist on using ‘science’, collecting their own data to draw their own conclusions, instead of mindlessly accepting the given narrative.
To them you can’t trust data or anecdotes from other institutions or individuals, such as NASA’s results or the stories of ‘round the world’ sailors or pilots. It’s a really interesting mindset to rely on only information you can gather yourself, and I suppose it plays a little into Descartes.
I do have a suspicion that many flat earthers are in fact playing devil’s advocate to make us question what we choose to take for granted, and also our own limits in knowledge of reality.
I'm a big toblergate truther conspiracy theorist myself.
THEY INCREASED THE AIR BETWEEN THE MOUNTAINS I TELL YA. JET FUEL CANT MELT MOUNTAINTOPS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nareik wrote: Something I admire about conspiracy theorists is how they insist on using ‘science’, collecting their own data to draw their own conclusions, instead of mindlessly accepting the given narrative.
To them you can’t trust data or anecdotes from other institutions or individuals, such as NASA’s results or the stories of ‘round the world’ sailors or pilots. It’s a really interesting mindset to rely on only information you can gather yourself, and I suppose it plays a little into Descartes.
I do have a suspicion that many flat earthers are in fact playing devil’s advocate to make us question what we choose to take for granted, and also our own limits in knowledge of reality.
Another fun fact from my work:
I have a lot of random citizens asking me for my recommendations on how best to disinfect cloth masks, and asking me for MY opinion when I send them CDC guidance, which is to launder them.
One person told me that a lot of folks were "just accepting the generic CDC advice."
They'd rather receive advice from me, a single guy with a masters in mechanical engineering who works for a company that makes steam sterilizers, than the entire motherflipping Centers For Disease Control.
I'm a big toblergate truther conspiracy theorist myself.
THEY INCREASED THE AIR BETWEEN THE MOUNTAINS I TELL YA. JET FUEL CANT MELT MOUNTAINTOPS.
HOW DARE THOU, I may be a satanist but i'd never ever, increase the gaps between toblerone mountains !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nareik wrote: Something I admire about conspiracy theorists is how they insist on using ‘science’, collecting their own data to draw their own conclusions, instead of mindlessly accepting the given narrative.
To them you can’t trust data or anecdotes from other institutions or individuals, such as NASA’s results or the stories of ‘round the world’ sailors or pilots. It’s a really interesting mindset to rely on only information you can gather yourself, and I suppose it plays a little into Descartes.
I do have a suspicion that many flat earthers are in fact playing devil’s advocate to make us question what we choose to take for granted, and also our own limits in knowledge of reality.
Another fun fact from my work:
I have a lot of random citizens asking me for my recommendations on how best to disinfect cloth masks, and asking me for MY opinion when I send them CDC guidance, which is to launder them.
One person told me that a lot of folks were "just accepting the generic CDC advice."
They'd rather receive advice from me, a single guy with a masters in mechanical engineering who works for a company that makes steam sterilizers, than the entire motherflipping Centers For Disease Control.
Why 'd they want your opinion on that matter?
That's like if I ask as a plumber the gardener about planning a hydroelectricity damn?
People are personable and trust their close allies rather than distant, impersonable organisations of unknown motivations.
It makes sense to seek advice from someone they know they can trust than an alien organisation. It’s like how facebook mums ask each other for advice to fact check medical recommendations.
You should be flattered they regard you so highly as to implicitly trust you on such important matters. You’re their peer review group for cdc advice.
Also a lot of people ask what seem like stupid questions to give them confidence and to reinforce that their interpretation is correct.
It's just like how a supermarket can have dozens of 50% off banners and yet people will still ask "this is 50% off right?". For many its simply a "doublecheck". Often when a situation is new/different from the normal to them. Remembering that a lot of people run in a sort of auto-pilot a lot of the time and have preconceptions on how things they plan out will happen. So things that change it up start to make them a touch unsure and want to confirm with others.
It's probably linked to some herd thinking/community/group theory or somesuch.
nareik wrote: Something I admire about conspiracy theorists is how they insist on using ‘science’, collecting their own data to draw their own conclusions, instead of mindlessly accepting the given narrative.
To them you can’t trust data or anecdotes from other institutions or individuals, such as NASA’s results or the stories of ‘round the world’ sailors or pilots. It’s a really interesting mindset to rely on only information you can gather yourself, and I suppose it plays a little into Descartes.
I do have a suspicion that many flat earthers are in fact playing devil’s advocate to make us question what we choose to take for granted, and also our own limits in knowledge of reality.
That would be admirable if it were actually the case. I think that's giving your average conspiracy theorist entirely too much credit. The problem is in a lot of cases what they actually do is ignore facts and evidence that contradicts their own while they're "gathering data". They'll also automatically reject any data from any authority purely because of where it comes from, which is dumb for a number of reasons. The main problem, though, is that the overwhelming majority (I'd hazard a guess and say 100%) are utterly ill-equipped to properly analyse the data they're gathering, even assuming they're not just horrifically biased towards their pre-supposed conclusion.
nfe wrote: Yeah, the media is in on it assumes no journalist wants a Pulitzer. Like climate change is a hoax demands that no environmental scientist wants a Nobel.
Not to say that there aren't journalists and media outlets that are government/elite mouthpieces, or that there aren't scientists in the pay of interested parties, but everyone, all the time, for years/decades/centuries? Nah mate.
Worst bit for me about climate denial is that as far as I’m aware, the main dissent amongst the scientific community isn’t whether or not it’s actually happening, but the why, and the level man’s actions are impacting it.
My favourite counter argument? But what if we provide clean air and sustainability for nothing? Seriously. What’s the actual down side?
Er, what? That counter argument comes from companies that will have monetary costs to switch, or industries that won't exist anymore if a switch happens. The down side for them is obvious.
There are a lot of good and necessary reasons to become more sustainable, but it will cost money, time and jobs to do it. They're not resisting a changeover solely because they're jerks for no reason. (though many of the big execs at those companies are also jerks)
Overread wrote: Also a lot of people ask what seem like stupid questions to give them confidence and to reinforce that their interpretation is correct.
It's just like how a supermarket can have dozens of 50% off banners and yet people will still ask "this is 50% off right?". For many its simply a "doublecheck". Often when a situation is new/different from the normal to them. Remembering that a lot of people run in a sort of auto-pilot a lot of the time and have preconceptions on how things they plan out will happen. So things that change it up start to make them a touch unsure and want to confirm with others.
It's probably linked to some herd thinking/community/group theory or somesuch.
my favourite one is when people ask you if the train is going to such and such a destination, once theyre already on, and the doors have closed...
insaniak wrote: The problem is that such a large chunk of the media has spent the last several decades showing themselves to not be entirely trustworthy through both sloppy and deliberately misleading reporting in order to sell headlines, leading to a general mistrust. When people are already looking at the news through a skeptical lens, some nut coming along and screaming 'The media are lying to you!' on a given subject is easier to believe.
nareik wrote: Something I admire about conspiracy theorists is how they insist on using ‘science’, collecting their own data to draw their own conclusions, instead of mindlessly accepting the given narrative.
To them you can’t trust data or anecdotes from other institutions or individuals, such as NASA’s results or the stories of ‘round the world’ sailors or pilots. It’s a really interesting mindset to rely on only information you can gather yourself, and I suppose it plays a little into Descartes.
I do have a suspicion that many flat earthers are in fact playing devil’s advocate to make us question what we choose to take for granted, and also our own limits in knowledge of reality.
That would be admirable if it were actually the case. I think that's giving your average conspiracy theorist entirely too much credit. The problem is in a lot of cases what they actually do is ignore facts and evidence that contradicts their own while they're "gathering data". They'll also automatically reject any data from any authority purely because of where it comes from, which is dumb for a number of reasons. The main problem, though, is that the overwhelming majority (I'd hazard a guess and say 100%) are utterly ill-equipped to properly analyse the data they're gathering, even assuming they're not just horrifically biased towards their pre-supposed conclusion.
I think the 'behind the curve' documentary was already mentioned, but it destroys the devil's advocate argument.
They preform tests themselves that prove the world is round (in their understanding of what it would require in evidence, its simple but works) and are in complete denial about the results. They blame it on faulty equipment and such. Plus the infighting is insane, any hint of them suspecting you to be a 'plant' and here comes the hate train. So these people accidentally prove the world is round, can't accept it and yet still get attacked for being CIA/NASA etc. agents by the others.
The only thing that I really came away with is that Flat Earthers are lonely or sad people and Flat Earth actually gives them a community to belong too. It seems to be driven as more of a social support group and it gets viciously defended because disproving it means the end of the group they belong too. Its companionship dogma.
Overread wrote: Also a lot of people ask what seem like stupid questions to give them confidence and to reinforce that their interpretation is correct.
It's just like how a supermarket can have dozens of 50% off banners and yet people will still ask "this is 50% off right?". For many its simply a "doublecheck". Often when a situation is new/different from the normal to them. Remembering that a lot of people run in a sort of auto-pilot a lot of the time and have preconceptions on how things they plan out will happen. So things that change it up start to make them a touch unsure and want to confirm with others.
It's probably linked to some herd thinking/community/group theory or somesuch.
my favourite one is when people ask you if the train is going to such and such a destination, once theyre already on, and the doors have closed...
I've done that more than once - often when you just get to the station in time to make the train* and when there's no on on-route to check. Sometimes its just good to hear the double-check so you can flop into a chair (if there is one); other times its making darn sure in those last few moments before the doors lock fully shut. Or at least to then be aware to either replan the route/pester the guard (who might be at the other end of the train etc...
That said at least the train network puts big signs up regularly on the platforms so you know where you are. Busses are heckconfusing because they don't and they stop at more places than the rout suggests; or miss out places on the route if there's no one standing there and no one presses the buzzer. So you can't even stop count to find out where you are
*sometimes because your connecting train just got in moments before and you had 10 platforms to rush through to make it to your connecting train
Ok, let's take a look at conspiracy theories and why people fall for them in scientific and evolutionary terms.
First we hop in the TARDIS, or step thru the time tunnel, or just fly close to the sun at warp 8, whichever time travel method you prefer.
We look at the origins of humanity, and our pre human hominid ancestors who had to survive in a sticks and stones era world.
Each has brains wired a little differently due to Genetic variance.
So you've got the little hominid the rest may call names like chicken charlie or jumpy jerry. He hears a rustle in the grass near him. He shrieks and jumps for his life. A couple seconds later a rabbit or possum comes out of the grass. (We're talking like 3-4' high grass here, fellas.)
His buddies laugh at him. He's alive, tho, he's still in the gene pool.
Now we have the guy they call fearless fodsick. (Look it up) He ain't afraid o' nuffin'! Everyone thinks he's so brave and tough. Grass rustles near him. He ignores it, probably just a rabbit.
A tiger jumps out of the grass and eats him. He's not in the genepool anymore. Chicken charlie is.
There are very sound reasons why being fearful, seeing danger where there is none, jumping at shadows,etc are positive survival traits especially in our pre-human hominid ancestors, and being positive survival traits they get reinforced in their DNA and are passed up the evolutionary ladder to what would later call itself the human race.
So, yeah, some people see dangerous things, like conspiracies, even where there's nothing there. It's an ancient survival trait that got hardcoded into our DNA thanks to evolution.
I know conspiracy nuts may be annoying, irritating, occasionally amusing and at times dangerous if organized and lead by a bad guy, but when you shine the clear light of science and reasoinl on them, you can see them for what they really are, just products of the same evolutionary process that created you and I.
See, I think that's giving your average conspiracy theorist far too much credit, not to mention being a gross oversimplification of how evolution works. Trying to paint this as some sort of evolutionary quirk ignores the much more likely possibility that most beliefs in conspiracy theories are rooted in narcissism. The idea you're special and different because you know something the sheeple don't seems to be at the heart of most conspiracy beliefs and I think it's a huge stretch to claim that's just an over-active survival instinct.
Well, it's a simplification of evolution, yes, but I can't say it's a gross simplification. The bare essence of evolution is if a random genetic quirk has a positive survival value it tends to stay in a population and get reinforced over time. When you're a 4' tall primate who just came down from the trees and evolved upright posture (Another act of evolution) you're slower, smaller and weaker than a lot of the predators roaming the grasslands. Being fearful and assuming all unknown sounds are dangers is a survival plus for you.
It's not the only reason we have conspiracy theory nuts, of course, it's just part of it,
Narcissism has its role to play. But like I said in my earlier post, all human beings tend to be attracted to dramatic narratives, and conspiracy theories provide those. There's lots of work in the field of rhetoric involving dramatism and narrative theory. And those of us in the field of advertising use that gak all the time to persuade people. It scratches an itch that all human beings have, not just the narcissists.
Just been watching some David Ickes ( as mentioned on here) quite hilarious stuff at times . Reading through the comments on his latest video was quite worrying though , always thought conspiracy theorists where quite amusing/ annoying but some of the stuff in there is pretty scary , glad these guys can’t get guns (over here at least)
Bellow is a "conspiracy theory" (i think?) thats popped up on my facebook , honestly i think a lot of them are just thick as pig muck and being "in the know" and not a "sheeple" makes them feel clever
Are you awake yet?
Megan and Harry leave royal family.
Prince Andrew is a convicted pedophile and was close with Jeffrey Epstein.
Research Epstein Island if you have a strong stomach.
Wiki leaks exposed Clinton and she deletes 340,000 emails.. Trump gets elected.
Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood’s biggest germ was arrested 3 weeks ago.. all of a sudden he got the virus?
Prince Charles & now the Queen have the “virus”, the queen fled the palace to isolate weeks ago...
All of your Hollywood favourites have the virus. Adrenochrome is your topic here.
Bill gates is pushing vaccines and he owns 15% of the WHO, which are owned by George Soros and the Rockerfellers. Don’t know them? Research them.
Google is currently uncensored and you can access this information.
Whilst you’re there, google “Adrenochrome” and start to follow the trail.
An Adrenochrome batch was made in Wuhan... how fitting....
US deployed 30,000 troops to Europe. “Oh yeh it’s for training”. Without masks or any hand sanitizer.
600 Mexican drug cartels were arrested, one of the biggest busts by the U.S... why didn’t we hear about that?
298 Saudi’s royals, lawyers and judges were arrested for corruption
3 Chinese including 1 Harvard professor were arrested by the U.S attorney for economic espionage 5 weeks ago.
Today Trump crashed the Fed bank, they bought all of the gold and now hold the keys to creating a gold back currency, removing the fiat. There is no fed banking anymore (privately owned), The fed and treasury were basically merged meaning that Trump is now the Chairman for global banking system with the people’s money. Not the rothschilds, Rockerfellers, Soros, Goldman the list goes on.
For this to be possible, the economy must be crashed. All corrupt coin needs to be drained. A 14-28 day lock down is the best way to do this and even better to distribute the money to people on government grants, pay refunds for businesses and ato offsets.
Believe what you want. But open your eyes beyond the virus.
Some of the worlds most powerful CEO’s have stood down.. why? This was before the crash mind you.
Multiple arrests have been made for child trafficking, human trafficking and sex abuse.. but the media is not telling you that.
What you are seeing is a war. An invisible war that Trump keeps taking about.
It’s a war between Trump and his SS against the elites, bankers and mainstream media.
Pay attention to the bigger picture. Trump has arrested and caught more pedophile and child trafficking rings in the world... but I bet you didn’t know that because the mainstream (George Soros funded media, global elite owned) make out that he’s a moron.
Trump will go down in history in the coming weeks. There is no need to panic or have fear. This whole thing is working out as it needs to for Trump and his team to remove the corruption and power that has taxed your hard earned dollar, loaded your loans and credit cards with interest and pulled wool over your eyes.
You’re going to see some big names get called out, to the point where you won’t want to believe it.
If you still believe that 9/11 was a terrorist attack from Osama Bin Ladin who trained donkeys to fly cessnas, which then magically upskilled into Boeing’s and flew aluminium planes into 580m steel reinforced towers that collapsed like a deck of cards, not to mention tower 7 which was a block away but folded. (Let’s not forget the 6 seals who took Osama down that were killed in a mysterious chopper crash. RIP fellas).... you’re in for a wake up call.
This week, The big banks will go bankrupt, they are already on their knees, Income tax will go away and the elites will no longer rule you or the world.
As an aside, I am kind of amazed that Facebook, such a terrible platform for anything longer than a dozen or so words, is such a damn hot bed. Probably helps actually now that I think of it. I needed a few hours and a couple hundred words to make one comment about one project about WTC 7 that is barely readable in DakkaDakka's format imo. It's probably near impossible to coherent battle conspiracy theories on a place like Facebook relative to how easily conspiracy theories can be summed up.
dalezzz wrote: Just been watching some David Ickes ( as mentioned on here) quite hilarious stuff at times . Reading through the comments on his latest video was quite worrying though , always thought conspiracy theorists where quite amusing/ annoying but some of the stuff in there is pretty scary , glad these guys can’t get guns (over here at least)
Bellow is a "conspiracy theory" (i think?) thats popped up on my facebook , honestly i think a lot of them are just thick as pig muck and being "in the know" and not a "sheeple" makes them feel clever
Are you awake yet?
Megan and Harry leave royal family.
Prince Andrew is a convicted pedophile and was close with Jeffrey Epstein.
Research Epstein Island if you have a strong stomach.
I mean Epstein was iffy, but waiting for the trial propper would be quite a bit more enlightening no?
Wiki leaks exposed Clinton and she deletes 340,000 emails.. Trump gets elected.
Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood’s biggest germ was arrested 3 weeks ago.. all of a sudden he got the virus?
Prince Charles & now the Queen have the “virus”, the queen fled the palace to isolate weeks ago...
All of your Hollywood favourites have the virus. Adrenochrome is your topic here.
Isn't that the whole Biological warfare explanation going around for the whole Wuhan thing?
Bill gates is pushing vaccines and he owns 15% of the WHO, which are owned by George Soros and the Rockerfellers. Don’t know them? Research them.
I mean the whole Soros shtick really?
Google is currently uncensored and you can access this information.
Whilst you’re there, google “Adrenochrome” and start to follow the trail.
An Adrenochrome batch was made in Wuhan... how fitting....
US deployed 30,000 troops to Europe. “Oh yeh it’s for training”. Without masks or any hand sanitizer.
600 Mexican drug cartels were arrested, one of the biggest busts by the U.S... why didn’t we hear about that?
298 Saudi’s royals, lawyers and judges were arrested for corruption
3 Chinese including 1 Harvard professor were arrested by the U.S attorney for economic espionage 5 weeks ago.
Today Trump crashed the Fed bank, they bought all of the gold and now hold the keys to creating a gold back currency, removing the fiat. There is no fed banking anymore (privately owned), The fed and treasury were basically merged meaning that Trump is now the Chairman for global banking system with the people’s money. Not the rothschilds, Rockerfellers, Soros, Goldman the list goes on.
For this to be possible, the economy must be crashed. All corrupt coin needs to be drained. A 14-28 day lock down is the best way to do this and even better to distribute the money to people on government grants, pay refunds for businesses and ato offsets.
Believe what you want. But open your eyes beyond the virus.
Some of the worlds most powerful CEO’s have stood down.. why? This was before the crash mind you.
Multiple arrests have been made for child trafficking, human trafficking and sex abuse.. but the media is not telling you that.
What you are seeing is a war. An invisible war that Trump keeps taking about.
It’s a war between Trump and his SS against the elites, bankers and mainstream media.
Pay attention to the bigger picture. Trump has arrested and caught more pedophile and child trafficking rings in the world... but I bet you didn’t know that because the mainstream (George Soros funded media, global elite owned) make out that he’s a moron.
I doubt that he alone is responsible for the whole catch, and considering what limited things i know about law enforcement but such huge operations take time? (considering the whole thing started 2005 allready?)
Trump will go down in history in the coming weeks. There is no need to panic or have fear. This whole thing is working out as it needs to for Trump and his team to remove the corruption and power that has taxed your hard earned dollar, loaded your loans and credit cards with interest and pulled wool over your eyes.
You’re going to see some big names get called out, to the point where you won’t want to believe it.
If you still believe that 9/11 was a terrorist attack from Osama Bin Ladin who trained donkeys to fly cessnas, which then magically upskilled into Boeing’s and flew aluminium planes into 580m steel reinforced towers that collapsed like a deck of cards, not to mention tower 7 which was a block away but folded. (Let’s not forget the 6 seals who took Osama down that were killed in a mysterious chopper crash. RIP fellas).... you’re in for a wake up call.
This week, The big banks will go bankrupt, they are already on their knees, Income tax will go away and the elites will no longer rule you or the world.
I seriously doubt that Trump wins anything at the moment, much less have i a feeling that his voting promise of helping the economy will be fullfillable, if anything the virus probably significantly lowered his image and his capability of getting re-elected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dalezzz wrote: There were a whole bunch of people commenting with clappy hands and “truth” ... I can’t even tell what it means :p
Mind you it did take me six try’s to type “there” just now, so I’m probably not intelligent enough
I mean this list plays like fething conspiracy bingo:
You got:
-Soros
-deepstate
- Bankers and Elites conspiracy with the media.
- Trump andSS ( i mean yeah he has german ancestry but i highly doubt him to be a candidate for that organisation )
- 9/11 falsflag
- Hillary mails.
I mean that isn't bingo anymore that's more like the lottery ticket major win
The aspect that makes me smile and roll my eyes is how the lack of evidence for a conspiracy makes it just as valid as evidence.
A while ago, I fell down a wiki hole following the 'moral panic' of satanism in gaming in the 80s and how the adherents of this belief (still around too!) have morphed this to a belief of a hidden cabal of satanists that run the world from the shadows.
The fact that there is absolutely bo evidence to back it upa. Well, to its adherents this is even more damning of its truth than if there was evidence, because this simply proves the hidden cabal is so all-powerful and untouchable that they can cover their tracks and manipulate everything to make them essentially invisible.
You can't win against this line of thinking sadly.
Again, this shouldn't be a revelation to anyone. The Sophists knew 2500(?) years ago that being in command of the facts and having evidence may not mean much when it come to what people accept as truth. We all construct our own realities, and the human mind is a very subjective thing. Belief is truth, and belief isn't built on evidence and facts.
Deadnight wrote: The aspect that makes me smile and roll my eyes is how the lack of evidence for a conspiracy makes it just as valid as evidence.
A while ago, I fell down a wiki hole following the 'moral panic' of satanism in gaming in the 80s and how the adherents of this belief (still around too!) have morphed this to a belief of a hidden cabal of satanists that run the world from the shadows.
The fact that there is absolutely bo evidence to back it upa. Well, to its adherents this is even more damning of its truth than if there was evidence, because this simply proves the hidden cabal is so all-powerful and untouchable that they can cover their tracks and manipulate everything to make them essentially invisible.
You can't win against this line of thinking sadly.
The particular variety of religion that I grew up in this belief not only ran rampant, but it morphed to an even more extreme degree. . .
Long story short: there was no "cabal" because basically. . . the "true believers" were the cabal, and literally everyone else were the satanists. . . . Ie, it was this "cabal" of purity and "good religionists" that was fighting the good fight against all of the evil going on in the world. It was flying rodent droppings insane then, and I find it even more insane now.
Deadnight wrote: The aspect that makes me smile and roll my eyes is how the lack of evidence for a conspiracy makes it just as valid as evidence.
A while ago, I fell down a wiki hole following the 'moral panic' of satanism in gaming in the 80s and how the adherents of this belief (still around too!) have morphed this to a belief of a hidden cabal of satanists that run the world from the shadows.
Ah, them. Lived across the street from one when I was... 13? No, 14. We were hanging out with her kids ('we' being the other kids I played D&D with), and found several Jack Chick pamphlets on her coffee table. I dunno if she had them around the house all the time for her kids to read, or passive-aggressively left them out so we'd find them, but flipping through them was a hoot. They were just so poorly informed and childishly argued. What they imagined about Dungeons and Dragons was so far removed from the actual game that it was both funny and sad. We knew it was just a game, but they seemed convinced that magic and demons were real things, just waiting to gobble children and drag our 'souls' into the books to wait for more victims.
Mind you, I was never particularly impressed with this woman and her family anyway. They had two young teenagers and a two year old, and child-proof locks on everything. According to the kids, the two year old was the only one capable of opening the child-proof locks without effort.
Happily that was my only brush with the 'Satanic Panic' despite living through it. The stories always seemed overblown, but the 'literature' is hilarious.
My favorite part of that conspiracy is when the one lady sent out the pamphlet for what to look out for to make sure your kids aren't Satanists, and the Necronomicon was on the list.
They're so bad at research they never even noticed they were looking for a fictional book. And she sent that out in the 60s, before fan made renditions of the book even existed.
Happily that was my only brush with the 'Satanic Panic' despite living through it. The stories always seemed overblown, but the 'literature' is hilarious.
This particular episode of the ongoing "Culture Wars" has seen some interesting changes though. . . . I mean, we've faced no less than 2 major and one minor congressional hearing with the softly unspoken aim of censorship (the famous/infamous PMRC hearing in 85, then there was a senate hearing that played out damn near the same thing over "gangster rap" in 92 or 93, then there was an almost unmentioned house hearing on rap in general in 94/95) . . . The part that hilariously backfired is that once record labels adopted the advisory warning stickers, those labeled album's sales shot through the roof.
It was because of the satanic panic idiots that I ever even heard about all the fun stuff disney animators put into their cartoons (and, as I've gone through university and looked up *why* they did those things, well, I side with the artists)
It was because of the satanic panic idiots that I ever even heard about all the fun stuff disney animators put into their cartoons (and, as I've gone through university and looked up *why* they did those things, well, I side with the artists)
Oh? Colour me intrigued... Going to look that one up when I get back from work.
Happily that was my only brush with the 'Satanic Panic' despite living through it. The stories always seemed overblown, but the 'literature' is hilarious.
This particular episode of the ongoing "Culture Wars" has seen some interesting changes though. . . . I mean, we've faced no less than 2 major and one minor congressional hearing with the softly unspoken aim of censorship (the famous/infamous PMRC hearing in 85, then there was a senate hearing that played out damn near the same thing over "gangster rap" in 92 or 93, then there was an almost unmentioned house hearing on rap in general in 94/95) . . . The part that hilariously backfired is that once record labels adopted the advisory warning stickers, those labeled album's sales shot through the roof.
It was because of the satanic panic idiots that I ever even heard about all the fun stuff disney animators put into their cartoons (and, as I've gone through university and looked up *why* they did those things, well, I side with the artists)
Hey, don't bad mouth the PMRC. They got me into extreme metal. See all those parental warning labels were mostly on major labels, so I couldn't buy Slayer or Guns and Roses albums, but Obituary, Napalm Death, and all the awesome stuff coming out of Norway in the early 90s?
Come to think of it, maybe that was a satanic conspiracy....
- Trump andSS ( i mean yeah he has german ancestry but i highly doubt him to be a candidate for that organisation ))
In the US context this means Secret Service, makes more sense read that way.
In the US it could also be a blatant dog whistle. QAnon has a huge undercurrent in it along these lines. There are elements of that community that all but admit that they think the words "Make American Great Again" really means "Make America White Again." 'Deep state' in the American context, started as a white supremacist conspiracy theory about Jews secretly controlling the world, and QAnon plays a huge part in how George Soros being secretly the Jew controlling American politics was revived from a dead fringe political claim from Bill O'Reilly's tenure on Fox (that almost got him fired in 2008) into mainstream discussion ten later.
I would never dismiss the odd presence of the letters 'SS' in these circles as being coincidental. A big part of conspiracy theory circles in America is white power and victimhood (EDIT: I am not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist), especially when it comes specifically to government conspiracies.
EDIT: Again, not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist. Let's not start that stupid back and forth. Conspiracy theories are like a dumping ground for fringe beliefs and politics, and it's inevitable that lots of hardcore racists wind up there and put their own spin on things.
- Trump andSS ( i mean yeah he has german ancestry but i highly doubt him to be a candidate for that organisation ))
In the US context this means Secret Service, makes more sense read that way.
In the US it could also be a blatant dog whistle. QAnon has a huge undercurrent in it along these lines. There are elements of that community that all but admit that they think the words "Make American Great Again" really means "Make America White Again." 'Deep state' in the American context, started as a white supremacist conspiracy theory about Jews secretly controlling the world, and QAnon plays a huge part in how George Soros being secretly the Jew controlling American politics was revived from a dead fringe political claim from Bill O'Reilly's tenure on Fox (that almost got him fired in 2008) into mainstream discussion ten later.
I would never dismiss the odd presence of the letters 'SS' in these circles as being coincidental. A big part of conspiracy theory circles in America is white power and victimhood (EDIT: I am not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist), especially when it comes specifically to government conspiracies.
EDIT: Again, not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist. Let's not start that stupid back and forth. Conspiracy theories are like a dumping ground for fringe beliefs and politics, and it's inevitable that lots of hardcore racists wind up there and put their own spin on things.
Of course, but in the larger context in the secret Trump war against paedophiles conspiracy the secret service makes more sense. I'm not denying that there is a significant element of racism to certain conspiracy theories. Just that in the larger QAnon craziness I haven't really seen theories about the continued existence of a Nazi German paramilitary unit currently still operating to help Trump fight an imaginary war. QAnon has quite a lot of antisemitism ingrained, I just haven't seen it go to that level yet on the 'mainstream'.
It might just depend on how literal the post was transcribed here on Dakka from FB.
Been giving it all a good think, and done some exploration.
Perhaps one of the main issues is that because we all (well, a decent number) do high school science, there are those that take such as now being science literate.
For example, confusing watching a bunch of YouTube videos, with actually researching.
I’ll be the first to hold my hand up and confirm that is how I look into things. It’s readily accessible and that.
But, I’m also aware of confirmation bias. So much as I like to shoot down Conspiracy Theories? I also like to identify where their confusion comes in.
The confusion that stems from 1+2+3 = Z. The taking known info, and only applying the relevant bits to whatever narrative you’re pushing.
The very ‘best’ go that little bit further and try to paint anything that counters their conclusion as the work of ‘the man’ - despite their incomplete understanding of the whole meaning that whilst they’ve discounted Fact D, it’s actually necessary for their much vaunted Fact A to work...
- Trump andSS ( i mean yeah he has german ancestry but i highly doubt him to be a candidate for that organisation ))
In the US context this means Secret Service, makes more sense read that way.
In the US it could also be a blatant dog whistle. QAnon has a huge undercurrent in it along these lines. There are elements of that community that all but admit that they think the words "Make American Great Again" really means "Make America White Again." 'Deep state' in the American context, started as a white supremacist conspiracy theory about Jews secretly controlling the world, and QAnon plays a huge part in how George Soros being secretly the Jew controlling American politics was revived from a dead fringe political claim from Bill O'Reilly's tenure on Fox (that almost got him fired in 2008) into mainstream discussion ten later.
I would never dismiss the odd presence of the letters 'SS' in these circles as being coincidental. A big part of conspiracy theory circles in America is white power and victimhood (EDIT: I am not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist), especially when it comes specifically to government conspiracies.
EDIT: Again, not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist. Let's not start that stupid back and forth. Conspiracy theories are like a dumping ground for fringe beliefs and politics, and it's inevitable that lots of hardcore racists wind up there and put their own spin on things.
Of course, but in the larger context in the secret Trump war against paedophiles conspiracy the secret service makes more sense. .
No it does not. The secret service has nothing to do with pedophile rings- its completely outside their jurisdiction and mandate. And agents and the media are not shy about reporting when they're misused or behaving out of bounds. The latter was a big issue a decade or so ago.
The Secret Service has primary jurisdiction to investigate threats against Secret Service protectees as well as financial crimes, which include counterfeiting of U.S. currency or other U.S. Government obligations; forgery or theft of U.S. Treasury checks, bonds or other securities; credit card fraud; telecommunications fraud; computer fraud, identify fraud and certain other crimes affecting federally insured financial institutions.
Unless there is a specific threat against the children of a president or former president or the vice president, children do not come up under Secret Service duties or remit.
'SS' as secret service is really odd assertion. Most people have enough social awareness to not use that as an abbreviation for anything.
- Trump andSS ( i mean yeah he has german ancestry but i highly doubt him to be a candidate for that organisation ))
In the US context this means Secret Service, makes more sense read that way.
In the US it could also be a blatant dog whistle. QAnon has a huge undercurrent in it along these lines. There are elements of that community that all but admit that they think the words "Make American Great Again" really means "Make America White Again." 'Deep state' in the American context, started as a white supremacist conspiracy theory about Jews secretly controlling the world, and QAnon plays a huge part in how George Soros being secretly the Jew controlling American politics was revived from a dead fringe political claim from Bill O'Reilly's tenure on Fox (that almost got him fired in 2008) into mainstream discussion ten later.
I would never dismiss the odd presence of the letters 'SS' in these circles as being coincidental. A big part of conspiracy theory circles in America is white power and victimhood (EDIT: I am not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist), especially when it comes specifically to government conspiracies.
EDIT: Again, not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist. Let's not start that stupid back and forth. Conspiracy theories are like a dumping ground for fringe beliefs and politics, and it's inevitable that lots of hardcore racists wind up there and put their own spin on things.
Of course, but in the larger context in the secret Trump war against paedophiles conspiracy the secret service makes more sense. .
No it does not. The secret service has nothing to do with pedophile rings- its completely outside their jurisdiction and mandate. And agents and the media are not shy about reporting when they're misused or behaving out of bounds. The latter was a big issue a decade or so ago.
The Secret Service has primary jurisdiction to investigate threats against Secret Service protectees as well as financial crimes, which include counterfeiting of U.S. currency or other U.S. Government obligations; forgery or theft of U.S. Treasury checks, bonds or other securities; credit card fraud; telecommunications fraud; computer fraud, identify fraud and certain other crimes affecting federally insured financial institutions.
Unless there is a specific threat against the children of a president or former president or the vice president, children do not come up under Secret Service duties or remit.
'SS' as secret service is really odd assertion. Most people have enough social awareness to not use that as an abbreviation for anything.
Uhh... i think you missed the overall point that started this. Of course the real secret service has nothing to do with the above. I'm saying that in the world of QAnon conspiracy theories of a Trump shadow war with his SS against powerful paedophile rings, 'his SS' seems to stand for secret service as opposed to schützstaffel. Its a world of crazy conspiracies, concern over real jurisdiction doesn't really feature in the QAnon stuff.
As for social awareness, I see Americans often using SS as referring to social security.
Hey, don't bad mouth the PMRC. They got me into extreme metal. See all those parental warning labels were mostly on major labels, so I couldn't buy Slayer or Guns and Roses albums, but Obituary, Napalm Death, and all the awesome stuff coming out of Norway in the early 90s?
Come to think of it, maybe that was a satanic conspiracy....
Lol, my final history project for undergrad was on metal and the PMRC incident, I know quite well, down to having printed off literally the entire senate transcript from the day when Tipper, Frank Zappa, John fething Denver, and Dee Snyder all testified at capitol hill.
There is a Facebook group where tons of people are claiming Google is working on a program for the state and federal government to enable the government to track every individual during this pandemic lockdown. Then they can supposedly go to your house and fine you for any unnecessary travel, and/or forcibly quarantine you.
So the group is encouraging people to turn their phones off when they get in the car so they can drive to any location or distance that they wish.
I assume they would still like to get rescued if their courageous act of civil disobedience gets them into trouble, hence taking it with?
Resisting the deep state is hard if you can't listen to Alex Jones podcasts and tweet racist abuse at black senators when you're sat in the woods with your bug out bag.
I assume they would still like to get rescued if their courageous act of civil disobedience gets them into trouble, hence taking it with?
Resisting the deep state is hard if you can't listen to Alex Jones podcasts and tweet racist abuse at black senators when you're sat in the woods with your bug out bag.
Wait why are conspiracy theorists racist now? Sides who needs a phone for podcasts when I still have a gen 1 ipod with no gps capability.
portugus wrote: Wait why are conspiracy theorists racist now? Sides who needs a phone for podcasts when I still have a gen 1 ipod with no gps capability.
To quote myself:
A big part of conspiracy theory circles in America is white power and victimhood (EDIT: I am not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist), especially when it comes specifically to government conspiracies.
EDIT: Again, not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist. Let's not start that stupid back and forth. Conspiracy theories are like a dumping ground for fringe beliefs and politics, and it's inevitable that lots of hardcore racists wind up there and put their own spin on things.
The crackpot Facebook anti-quarantine group tons of conservative are following here in Michigan has many claims about how the quarantine is being racist against white people, by forcing us to stay home from traditionally white hobbies, like boating and golfing. It's like half of them are masturbating to who can compare the government members to Nazis or Hitler himself, and the other half are wringing their hands at their victimhood.
Metaphorically, I would not want to have to look a citizen from 1918 in the eye right now, with what they went through in that flu pandemic. Or during WW2 on the homefront.
portugus wrote: Wait why are conspiracy theorists racist now? Sides who needs a phone for podcasts when I still have a gen 1 ipod with no gps capability.
To quote myself:
A big part of conspiracy theory circles in America is white power and victimhood (EDIT: I am not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist), especially when it comes specifically to government conspiracies.
EDIT: Again, not saying all conspiracy theorists are racist. Let's not start that stupid back and forth. Conspiracy theories are like a dumping ground for fringe beliefs and politics, and it's inevitable that lots of hardcore racists wind up there and put their own spin on things.
I recently have run in an Holodomor denier and a soviet Purge denier. Nutjobs beeing nutjobs is something you'll find on all scales of the bar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote: The crackpot Facebook anti-quarantine group tons of conservative are following here in Michigan has many claims about how the quarantine is being racist against white people, by forcing us to stay home from traditionally white hobbies, like boating and golfing. It's like half of them are masturbating to who can compare the government members to Nazis or Hitler himself, and the other half are wringing their hands at their victimhood.
Define "white"hobbies. Or "black" hobbies for that matter? A spaniard might regard bullfighting as a hobby, i do Hornussen, i also ain't golfing or boating. 0 similarity. it's as if the local region and people and availability decide about the hobbies practiced.... I also like the Nazi comparison, because if anything i^'d assume that if you call a clown that you are probably the superior clown, just not a funny one.
Metaphorically, I would not want to have to look a citizen from 1918 in the eye right now, with what they went through in that flu pandemic. Or during WW2 on the homefront.
The times weren't that diffrent, it's just you have to replace Social media with regular media. I do a paper atm about the reaction torwards a emergency law during WW1 that tangents cantonal authonomy, let me tell you some off the paper headlines have aged not one bit if you'd use it online
Specifically around Covid-19, Baldy Cats on YouTube has a snippet of a woman claiming ‘black People can’t get it’.
Which is...well, 100% wrong. Indeed, in the U.K. they seem to be disproportionately affected as a percentage of cases compared to percentage of populace.
Now, the ins and outs of the Established Fact aren’t relevant to this thread, and something of a political rabbit hole. So let’s not.
But it serves to show that race can be weaponised in all sorts of incredibly bizarre ways.
Here’s the video I mentioned. It makes for interesting viewing. It’s kind of a clip show, and has a common theme of people claiming to be right about what a Virus is. Say what you like about Gwyneth Paltrow, she’s not quite as nutty as this lot....
Here’s the video I mentioned. It makes for interesting viewing. It’s kind of a clip show, and has a common theme of people claiming to be right about what a Virus is. Say what you like about Gwyneth Paltrow, she’s not quite as nutty as this lot....
See, that is why i called it out as beeing an issue with the education of people in the Coronoavirus thread initially.
Propper general education could've easily cut down that nonsense fast.
The willfully ignorant though will be morelikely to be called out.
Which in term leads to a lot less credit given to them and their often inane "theories"
Jjohnso11 wrote: Would it be a conspiracy to say the Chinese Government engineered a virus in an attempt to damage capitalism and convert more countries to socialism?
No, it would be a hypothesis (barely), that requires evidence before belief is justified.....and definitely before retelling as fact (hidden by the standard excuse of "I am just asking questions").
Jjohnso11 wrote: Would it be a conspiracy to say the Chinese Government engineered a virus in an attempt to damage capitalism and convert more countries to socialism?
No, it would be a hypothesis (barely), that requires evidence before belief is justified.....and definitely before retelling as fact (hidden by the standard excuse of "I am just asking questions").
Then there's the fact that the highest members of the Chines Peoples republic themselves are large buisness owners with vested interests in a healthy capitalistic market envirnoment?
Welcome to Q-Anon! They also think JFK Jr. will be Trump's running mate in 2020. Yes, the dead guy.
Q posts are the modern versions of Nostradamus quatrains.
Vague and broad enough to be (re)interpreted as really specific in hind sight, but utterly useless to actually predict anything.
As with Nostradamus, those crumbs that doesn't pan out are simply ignored.
Those who doesn't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Any predictions/claims tend to be wide, and sometimes loony, enough that sooner or later, if one squints in the right way, parts look to be correct.
That of course, as explained earlier, is interpreted as the whole thing being correct. And as always, all evidence against is either outright ignored and not acknowledged, or claimed as proof of a cover up.
A ‘good’ conspiracy theory is generally self sustaining in terms of nonsense, misinterpretation and misapplication of evidence.e
Welcome to Q-Anon! They also think JFK Jr. will be Trump's running mate in 2020. Yes, the dead guy.
Q posts are the modern versions of Nostradamus quatrains.
Vague and broad enough to be (re)interpreted as really specific in hind sight, but utterly useless to actually predict anything.
As with Nostradamus, those crumbs that doesn't pan out are simply ignored.
Those who doesn't know history are doomed to repeat it.
TBF i'd vote for the dead JFK. However if he'd find out he'd be running mate to trump i rekon he'd shoot himself again.
Any predictions/claims tend to be wide, and sometimes loony, enough that sooner or later, if one squints in the right way, parts look to be correct.
Remember "the Bible code" from the 90s? You put the Bible through an algorithm and it pumped out predictions about all events in human history.
What wasn't explained at the time was that the Bible in English is a bastardised affair that was deliberately misspelled with poor grammar to give it unwarranted gravitas, making it less divinely inspired and more manufactured gibberish, and that you got identical results regardless of which version of the Bible you used.
You would get the same results whether you used a Bible, the collected works of Shakespeare or the combined Flashman chronicles.
Then there was the ley-lines skit on QI which proved how magical and mystical the positioning of Woolworths shops were.
For the sheer randomness of it, I rather like how the number of people drowning by falling into a pool correlates with the number of films Nicholas Cage appeared in...
Steelmage99 wrote: No, it would be a hypothesis (barely), that requires evidence before belief is justified.....and definitely before retelling as fact (hidden by the standard excuse of "I am just asking questions").
Indeed, here I believe you are on the "right track." To me, I think I'd generally take the same sort of approach that Cass Sunstein does in Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas (you can read the initial paper here which is a bit lighter on the details), which goes something like this (I'll quote the book, but the paper has similar parts):
Start with what he refers to as a sort of crippled epistemology: "In some domains, people suffer from what Professor Russell Hardin has called a crippled epistemology, in the sense that they know relatively few things, and what they know is wrong."
Add to that the fact that there is a sort of economy to what he called "conspiracy entrepreneurs:" "Some conspiracy entrepreneurs are entirely sincere; others are interested in money or fame, or in achieving some general social goal. In the context of the AIDS virus, a diverse set of people have initiated rumors, many involving conspiracies, and, in view of the confusion and fear surrounding that virus, several of those rumors spread widely"
Then, consider how people find themselves within "information cascades:" "Conspiracy cascades arise through more complex processes in which people’s diverse thresholds are important. In the standard pattern, the conspiracy theory is initially accepted by people with low thresholds for its acceptance; as we have seen, some people do have such thresholds. Perhaps the theory will be limited to such people. But sometimes the informational pressure, based on the shared judgments of those people, builds to the point where many other people, with somewhat higher thresholds, begin to accept the theory too. As those with higher thresholds accept the theory, the pressure continues to build, to the point where a large number of people end up accepting it. As we shall see, this outcome is especially likely in close-knit or isolated social networks." For more on this, consider part of his source material here.
Next, within the information cascade, he has us consider the role of reputation in there: "Conspiracy theories do not take hold only because of information. Sometimes people profess belief in a conspiracy theory, or at least suppress their doubts, because they seek to curry favor or to avoid disfavor. Reputational pressures help account for conspiracy theories, and they feed conspiracy cascades. In a reputational cascade, people think that they know what is right, but they go along with the crowd in order to maintain the approval of others."
Follow that with notions about the "availability" of the theory: "Informational and reputational cascades can occur without any particular triggering event. But a distinctive kind of cascade arises when such an event is highly salient or cognitively “available,” in the sense that it comes readily to mind. In the context of many risks, such as those associated with terrorism, crime, economic catastrophe, and environmental disasters, a particular event initiates a cascade. It works as a trigger, an icon, or a symbol justifying public concern, whether or not that concern is warranted. Availability cascades occur through the interaction between a salient event and social influences, both informational and reputational. [...] A terrible event becomes “available,” in the sense that everyone knows about it, and conspiracy theories are invoked both to explain it and to use it as a symbol for broader social forces. Within certain nations and groups, the claim that the United States or Israel was responsible for the attacks of 9/11 fits well within a general narrative about who is the aggressor, and the liar, in a series of disputes—and the view that Al Qaeda was responsible raises questions about that same narrative. Conspiracy theories are frequently a product of availability cascades."
Finally, within the cascade(s) consider the role of emotion: "But it is clear that emotions, and not merely information, play a large role in the circulation of rumors of all kinds. Many rumors persist and spread because they serve to justify or rationalize an antecedent emotional state produced by some landmark event, such as a disaster or a war. When people are especially angry or fearful, they may be more likely to focus on particular sorts of rumors and spread them to others. And when rumors trigger intense feelings, they are far more likely to be circulated."
Now, consider the effect of "group polarization" upon all that: "There are clear links between cascades and the well-established phenomenon of group polarization, by which members of a deliberating group typically end up taking a more extreme position in the same direction as their inclinations before deliberation began. [...] For purposes of understanding how conspiracy theories spread, it is especially important to see that group polarization is particularly likely, and particularly pronounced, when people have a shared sense of identity and are connected by bonds of solidarity. Social networks matter greatly, and tightly connected networks are more likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories. These are circumstances in which arguments by outsiders, unconnected with the group, will lack much credibility and fail to have much effect in reducing polarization. In such circumstances, direct government rebuttals of the reigning conspiracy theory are especially likely to prove ineffective."
And then, enter in selection effects: "A crippled epistemology can arise not only from informational and reputational dynamics but also from self-selection of members into and out of groups with extreme views. Once cascades arise or polarization occurs, and the group’s view begins to move in a certain direction, skeptics and partial believers will tend to depart, while intense believers remain. [...] Group members may segregate themselves in order to protect their beliefs from challenges by outsiders. Group leaders may enforce such segregation in order to insulate the rank and file from information or arguments that would undermine the leaders’ hold on the group. Even if contrary information and arguments are in some literal sense heard, they will be ridiculed and made a subject of contempt—and, if at all possible, used as further confirmation of the conspiracy theory. As a result, group polarization will intensify."
All of that likely forms a sort of "loop" feeding back into itself, sort of, to increasingly "radicalize" the conspiratorial thinking of all members. In a sense, it could even be sort of (in my own thinking) tied to this as well, the "Gamification" of public discourse. In what way? Well, here is a sort of summary I wrote of that video I wrote elsewhere:
"A sort of initial thesis presented that we might be using, as a society, simplified morals as "pleasure." That is, complex or nuanced morality is uncomfortable, so simplified, or clear morality has the pleasure of making us feel more secure and confident. The speaker's concern though is that if this is the case, it does allow for the "gaming" of this system, where agents could present simplified moral stances to essentially manipulate people. And, (maybe, possibly) since people enjoy the clarity, they are more than willing to accept the manipulation, even were it exposed as manipulation [my editorialized stance here].
A distinction, credited to the book Echo Chambers, by Jamieson and Campbell, between filter bubbles and echo chambers. Filter bubbles as the case where you do not hear the "other side" and an echo chamber where you are informed to essentially not trust the "other side." The speaker wants to note that we seem to be, as a society, much more in the latter than the former. This is an interesting distinction and I would tend to agree, it is less of a non-hearing, and far more of a blanket mistrust of the "other side.""
Clarity appeals to us because we need to sort of ration out our time and attention. So we develop heuristic methods to give us a sense of when to begin and end investigations. The sort of aesthetic quality is maybe one those those sort of heuristic method, so when things are clear we "feel" like an investigation has been sufficiently done. Appeals to quantitative results, i.e. numbers, often give us this feeling of clarity because they eschew all the contextual details and relate, essentially, extremely well to themselves (i.e. makes comparison easy)."
Now, mind you, the video is much better than my summary, and while he is talking about morality, I think the notion of "clarity for pleasure" is useful to understand what is going on. In light of sort of crippled epistemologies, and within informational cascades, the aim is to induce clarity, to make one feel that the unknown, chaotic, is really just structured, ordered, design on some nebulous agent(s) behalf. Not to mention, the fact that social media (and just money in-itself) "gamifies" the information process by it's very nature, since it rewards with more attention and more money, the ideas which, not necessarily are "most true" but which people most want to hear.
Let me note that I am not an epistemologist, I am not a sociologist or anything of the like, so take whatever I say with a huge grain of salt. I am not trying to be definitive, but rather just sketching a rough frame of my thinking. In any case, let me get down off my
Sorry for it being such a huge info dump of sorts, but I've been meaning to post something like since the thread started, I just didn't have the time before. It's still rather rough and I wish Sunstein's book was a little better than it actually comes across to me as being, but I think it does put one on a decent path to framing the phenomenology of conspiratorial thinking, but it definitely does not "full explain it" in all likelihood though.
Sorry for it being such a huge info dump of sorts, but I've been meaning to post something like since the thread started, I just didn't have the time before. It's still rather rough and I wish Sunstein's book was a little better than it actually comes across to me as being, but I think it does put one on a decent path to framing the phenomenology of conspiratorial thinking, but it definitely does not "full explain it" in all likelihood though.
well you pretty much nailed it down from a theorethical standpoint.
Not Online!!! wrote: well you pretty much nailed it down from a theorethical standpoint.
Well, that's probably the best I could ever do, haha. Theory is my wheelhouse, I don't really want to get involved in dirty actual things,
But seriously, I think the issue at hand is that, probably like most human behavior, to fully excavate the actuality of it, you'd need full expositions of (at least), epistemology, psychology, sociology, information theory, and history. And likely even more (like notions of causality and so on)! Who can realistically be anything like an expert in all that? Let alone be able to take in and synthesize something understandable all the connections, permutations and combinations there-in. Plus, then consider external influences on all of those.
Human behavior might well be the most complex thing we readily interact with, the only exception probably being the universe as a whole. But I think Sunstein's overall sort of "heuristic" approach is fairly spot on as a way to at least make sense of what we observe, even if we can't readily say why it would be the case, or when it might only be the case to certain relative degrees.
Not Online!!! wrote: well you pretty much nailed it down from a theorethical standpoint.
Well, that's probably the best I could ever do, haha. Theory is my wheelhouse, I don't really want to get involved in dirty actual things,
But seriously, I think the issue at hand is that, probably like most human behavior, to fully excavate the actuality of it, you'd need full expositions of (at least), epistemology, psychology, sociology, information theory, and history. And likely even more (like notions of causality and so on)! Who can realistically be anything like an expert in all that? Let alone be able to take in and synthesize something understandable all the connections, permutations and combinations there-in. Plus, then consider external influences on all of those.
Human behavior might well be the most complex thing we readily interact with, the only exception probably being the universe as a whole. But I think Sunstein's overall sort of "heuristic" approach is fairly spot on as a way to at least make sense of what we observe, even if we can't readily say why it would be the case, or when it might only be the case to certain relative degrees.
If my studies in philosophy have taught me anything, it's like with war: "Kein Operationsplan reicht mit einiger Sicherheit über das erste Zusammentreffen mit der feindlichen Hauptmacht hinaus" von Moltke.Theory is fine and dandy and might give you something akin to a workable approach, but that's that.
Oddly, Conspiracy Theorist are awfully fond of taking nobody being an expert in all their nonsense is, again, just proof they’re right, and smarter than everyone else.
That could be their audience being literally dumbfounded, and unable to process the sheer amount of twaddle.
It can also be An Actual Expert, in a specific field, not being able to answer questions outside of that field. This is seemingly prevalent where the theory claims all Science to be wrong, and somehow, a single subject.
I mean, consider the photo of a black hole, from around this time last year (conveniently enough!). Now, whilst I lack any real knowledge as to the whys and hows, I do understand it was the sum knowledge of many, many people. A Conspiracy Theorist however, would demand that Team Member A be able to field any and all questions - and any hesitation is taken as a sign of deceit etc.
This is often down to the Dunning Kruger, so far as I can make out. Because the CT has no idea just how little they know, but genuinely think they know everything? They just cannot conceive there’s so much to know that no one person can know it all - because they’re utterly convinced they do indeed know it all themself.
-Asking questions counts as research.
-Not being able to find evidence is proof of a cover up.
-If one single part of a conspiracy is true, that all parts of a conspiracy must also be true.
-If questioned, Gish Gallop on to the next issue.
-Place special weight on corroborating evidence.
-Ignore conflicting evidence.
-Keep everything unfalsifable.
-If you hear it repeated a lot, it must be true.
-NEVER name studies or experts. Keep it nice and vague.
-Ignore all previously made failed predictions.
-Asking questions counts as research.
-Not being able to find evidence is proof of a cover up.
-If one single part of a conspiracy is true, that all parts of a conspiracy must also be true.
-If questioned, Gish Gallop on to the next issue.
-Place special weight on corroborating evidence.
-Ignore conflicting evidence.
-Keep everything unfalsifable.
-If you hear it repeated a lot, it must be true.
-NEVER name studies or experts. Keep it nice and vague.
-Ignore all previously made failed predictions.
If it wasn't for forum rule #1 we could apply that list to a bunch of topics that people hold dear. But somehow it's ok to point at conspiracy theorists and ask why do they believe crazy things, as though they are an exception.
-Asking questions counts as research.
-Not being able to find evidence is proof of a cover up.
-If one single part of a conspiracy is true, that all parts of a conspiracy must also be true.
-If questioned, Gish Gallop on to the next issue.
-Place special weight on corroborating evidence.
-Ignore conflicting evidence.
-Keep everything unfalsifable.
-If you hear it repeated a lot, it must be true.
-NEVER name studies or experts. Keep it nice and vague.
-Ignore all previously made failed predictions.
If it wasn't for forum rule #1 we could apply that list to a bunch of topics that people hold dear. But somehow it's ok to point at conspiracy theorists and ask why do they believe crazy things, as though they are an exception.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Oddly, Conspiracy Theorist are awfully fond of taking nobody being an expert in all their nonsense is, again, just proof they’re right, and smarter than everyone else.
That could be their audience being literally dumbfounded, and unable to process the sheer amount of twaddle.
It can also be An Actual Expert, in a specific field, not being able to answer questions outside of that field. This is seemingly prevalent where the theory claims all Science to be wrong, and somehow, a single subject.
I mean, consider the photo of a black hole, from around this time last year (conveniently enough!). Now, whilst I lack any real knowledge as to the whys and hows, I do understand it was the sum knowledge of many, many people. A Conspiracy Theorist however, would demand that Team Member A be able to field any and all questions - and any hesitation is taken as a sign of deceit etc.
This is often down to the Dunning Kruger, so far as I can make out. Because the CT has no idea just how little they know, but genuinely think they know everything? They just cannot conceive there’s so much to know that no one person can know it all - because they’re utterly convinced they do indeed know it all themself.
Makes them hecka difficult to reason with!
Another thing that makes them difficult to reason with is they are often so very, very wrong it can be difficult for someone with even a passing interest and knowledge of an area to process what they're arguing, often because the CT themselves has no real idea. My few brushes with Flat Earthers mostly fall into this category - they take some simple scientific principle, misunderstand it so badly it's quite easy to miss their screw-up because even the semi-informed would never assume someone could be that stupid, then build a whole skyscraper of cards on this shaky foundation. Another great example of this is evolution deniers and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The point about people not being able to answer questions goes back to an earlier discussion in here about the God of the Gaps approach to "research". Any failure to answer is seen as an admission the CT is automatically correct. It also ignores the fact that the world is very complicated and most scientific models that measure complex real-world things often make some assumptions that allow the models to have powerful predictive properties but not always 100% accuracy. 9/11 CTs work like this. The events of that day created a lot of confusion and the collapse of the towers is something that's well understood in principle but there are still some gaps/inconsistencies in some places because it's the very definition of a chaotic event. Maybe there's a beam that you would expect to have snapped that actually didn't, for example. To an engineer or a scientist these gaps are an opportunity to refine their models, to a conspiracy theorist it's proof the entire official story is wrong.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Oddly, Conspiracy Theorist are awfully fond of taking nobody being an expert in all their nonsense is, again, just proof they’re right, and smarter than everyone else.
That could be their audience being literally dumbfounded, and unable to process the sheer amount of twaddle.
It can also be An Actual Expert, in a specific field, not being able to answer questions outside of that field. This is seemingly prevalent where the theory claims all Science to be wrong, and somehow, a single subject.
I mean, consider the photo of a black hole, from around this time last year (conveniently enough!). Now, whilst I lack any real knowledge as to the whys and hows, I do understand it was the sum knowledge of many, many people. A Conspiracy Theorist however, would demand that Team Member A be able to field any and all questions - and any hesitation is taken as a sign of deceit etc.
This is often down to the Dunning Kruger, so far as I can make out. Because the CT has no idea just how little they know, but genuinely think they know everything? They just cannot conceive there’s so much to know that no one person can know it all - because they’re utterly convinced they do indeed know it all themself.
Makes them hecka difficult to reason with!
Another thing that makes them difficult to reason with is they are often so very, very wrong it can be difficult for someone with even a passing interest and knowledge of an area to process what they're arguing, often because the CT themselves has no real idea. My few brushes with Flat Earthers mostly fall into this category - they take some simple scientific principle, misunderstand it so badly it's quite easy to miss their screw-up because even the semi-informed would never assume someone could be that stupid, then build a whole skyscraper of cards on this shaky foundation. Another great example of this is evolution deniers and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The point about people not being able to answer questions goes back to an earlier discussion in here about the God of the Gaps approach to "research". Any failure to answer is seen as an admission the CT is automatically correct. It also ignores the fact that the world is very complicated and most scientific models that measure complex real-world things often make some assumptions that allow the models to have powerful predictive properties but not always 100% accuracy. 9/11 CTs work like this. The events of that day created a lot of confusion and the collapse of the towers is something that's well understood in principle but there are still some gaps/inconsistencies in some places because it's the very definition of a chaotic event. Maybe there's a beam that you would expect to have snapped that actually didn't, for example. To an engineer or a scientist these gaps are an opportunity to refine their models, to a conspiracy theorist it's proof the entire official story is wrong.
The whole tower simulation thing is also just that, a SIMULATION.
Often we just pick the most idealized data points for material, etc. (and not just the more mathematical minded sciences make that idealized simulation, the worst offenders of this are actually philosophers like me, working basically just with in most cases idealized scenarios for ethics or theory etc.)
Now imagine if the steel weas subpar, the cement was shoddy, or worse the mafia got involved and you got sand and other random junk in the cement? (cue a certain bridge in genoa.)
To skirt the religious side of things, without knocking any specific religion? A common thread is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Evolution actually predicts.
For instance, there’s often an insistence along the lines of. ‘Show us a crocaduck then’, and harping on about Kinds, and Macro Evolution etc. To the casual observer, what they’re saying sounds plausible. They’re using big words. (Or at least, big enough words. And in common with other CT, their own ‘evidence’ is wide enough to be really poorly defined, giving them wiggle room to apparently ‘gotcha’.
Yet, it takes only a modicum of reading to learn enough about Evolutionary Theory to see they’re talking nonsense.
I mean, why have we seen few examples of Evolution in the world as it is, outside of microbial? Simple. Evolution predicts such changes take a long, long time. And, ideally, new niches for a given species to exploit. Currently, all niches are occupied, which acts as a resistance to evolution.
Now, if we see a mass extinction event again? Or even just a significant environmental change? That removes much of the resistance. In short, there’s more room for those random mutations to prove truly beneficial to the point where the benefactor is in a better position to breed.
There’s also ‘but what of detrimental mutations’. Well....guess what. That’s also evidence for Evolution. If a mutation is truly detrimental (carnivore with an allergy to meat, or less able to digest meat, for curt examples?) then the sufferer is far less likely to breed in the wild. Rinse and repeat a few generations, and whatever predilection to that mutation exists will likely be bred out, strengthening the gene pool.
To skirt the religious side of things, without knocking any specific religion? A common thread is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Evolution actually predicts.
Very much so. I have yet to met a religious apologist coming even close to accurately representing evolution......or atheists.....or cosmology.....or the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or science, in general.
What annoys me the most, is how religious apologists constantly uses arguments, that they themselves would never accept, if the roles were reversed.
- and to circle back on topic, that is a thing they seemingly share with conspiracy theorists.
To skirt the religious side of things, without knocking any specific religion? A common thread is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Evolution actually predicts.
Very much so. I have yet to met a religious apologist coming even close to accurately representing evolution......or atheists.....or cosmology.....or the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or science, in general.
What annoys me the most, is how religious apologists constantly uses arguments, that they themselves would never accept, if the roles were reversed.
- and to circle back on topic, that is a thing they seemingly share with conspiracy theorists.
Hello, i am catholic, nice to meet you. I am also a philosophy student.
Please don't throw me in the same category of creationists or other nutjobs.
Further, the concept of godlessness or the fact your existence has no point by not achieving something is quite a fundamental total oposition to anything modern society makes you believe, because it is loss of (the ilusion of) controll on a fundamental level. Not everyone can deal with that.
There’s also ‘but what of detrimental mutations’. Well....guess what. That’s also evidence for Evolution. If a mutation is truly detrimental (carnivore with an allergy to meat, or less able to digest meat, for curt examples?) then the sufferer is far less likely to breed in the wild. Rinse and repeat a few generations, and whatever predilection to that mutation exists will likely be bred out, strengthening the gene pool.
Sickle-cell anemia is a good example. Despite it being a nasty thing to have, it is still relatively common in Africa as it conveys a resistance to malaria as a side effect.
There’s also ‘but what of detrimental mutations’. Well....guess what. That’s also evidence for Evolution. If a mutation is truly detrimental (carnivore with an allergy to meat, or less able to digest meat, for curt examples?) then the sufferer is far less likely to breed in the wild. Rinse and repeat a few generations, and whatever predilection to that mutation exists will likely be bred out, strengthening the gene pool.
Sickle-cell anemia is a good example. Despite it being a nasty thing to have, it is still relatively common in Africa as it conveys a resistance to malaria as a side effect.
Aye, its also come about that genetics aren't a single gene for a single "property" as we see it. More often its a collection that combine to produce several results all intermingling. So a negative trait might well be preserved because the genes that influence it also influence several other beneficial traits within the population. There's also different perceptions on what counts as positive and negative
I mean, my ancestry on Dad’s side goes back to Orkney. So I’ve very likely got a decent slice of Viking type DNA.
Which explains my pasty skin. That’s a beneficial mutation in the U.K., at it allows my body to better synthesise the weaker and more limited sunlight into Vitamin D.
If I ever moved closer to the equator, I’d need lots and lots of sun screen, less I a) burn to a crisp and/or b) develop skin cancer, thanks to the stronger intensity and duration of sunlight.
So whereas light skin (let alone my near translucent complexion) is beneficial in area A, it’s detrimental in area B.
Best bit? The classic ‘blonde hair, fair skin’ look claimed as genetically superior by some? All recessive, and therefore less useful and advantageous, genes. Yet to here a racist explain that one.....
I feel you! i was out in the garden on friday with no shirt, back got ridiculously sunburnt, now I have to rub it on brick walls to relieve the itching!
Very much so. I have yet to met a religious apologist coming even close to accurately representing evolution......or atheists.....or cosmology.....or the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or science, in general.
Hello, i am catholic, nice to meet you. I am also a philosophy student.
You are mistaking his criticisms of religious apologists for a criticism of religious belief in general. They are not the same thing, as your very existence demonstrates.
I recognize that authority systems are needed for our society to function, but I have absolutely no qualms acting outside them if I am even vaguely inclined. While somewhat of an ironic appeal to authority, I find that true “Chaotics” are a rare find, not least because we have no drive to organize into groups. 
of course, but it was nice to see the humanity / put a face on something I could never relate to at all previously.
over what I do. (When i got death threats in the mail and someone tried to set fire to my property I stated taking measures to make it harder for people to track me down.)
Why 'd they want your opinion on that matter?
