When Inferring to a Conspiracy might be the Best Explanation - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14954443
Pants-of-dog wrote:Who is the establishment in this case?


Sir Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh. :lol:

By the Establishment, I do not only mean the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. The exercise of power cannot be understood unless it is recognized that it is exercised socially.


How do they have leverage over all the participants?


They control the politics inside discipline. They have a lot of influence over careers and reputations.

What is their common agenda?


To preserve the authority and credibility of their institutions and that of the larger institution of science itself. Science is a priesthood and just like any priesthood it closes ranks when its integrity is challenged.

Again, they are all competing for the same awards, grants, positions, funding etc. if they are all climatologists.


People who spend a decade studying to make a career for themselves inside academia aren't natural born world shakers, science isn't the cutthroat world you seem to imagine it is. In that line of work people get awards, grants, positions, and funds by developing relationships and playing ball, not by rocking the boat. And if climategate didn't come out right those awards, grants, positions, funding etc could have been jeopardized for everyone.

Then there is also fossil fuel money for any climatologists who wish to claim that ACC is incorrect.


And along with that fossil fuel money comes excommunication from academia and exile from polite society and a lot of heat that nobody in their right mind would want to subject themselves to when they could have a comfortable career without the conflict and controversy.

I found it heavy on opinion and light on facts.


Just like you. :D
#14954445
Sivad wrote:Sir Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh. :lol:


First of all, they were responsible for only two out of eight inquiries. It would be impossible for them to have controlled the other six.

Second of all, please provide evidence for your claim that rigging inquiries is standard practice for them.

They control the politics inside discipline. They have a lot of influence over careers and reputations.


Please provide evidence that these two men have so much influence over careers and reputations that they were able to exercise control over all eight inquiries.

To preserve the authority and credibility of their institutions and that of the larger institution of science itself. Science is a priesthood and just like any priesthood it closes ranks when its integrity is challenged.


So many of them have no reason to preserve the credibility of UEA or the specific scientists accused in the manufactured scandal we call climategate.

Since no one was questioning the integrity of science itself, it makes no sense to assume they were closing ranks to defend it.

People who spend a decade studying to make a career for themselves inside academia aren't natural born world shakers, science isn't the cutthroat world you seem to imagine it is. In that line of work people get awards, grants, positions, and funds by developing relationships and playing ball, not by rocking the boat.


They get these rewards both ways: by developing relationships, and by looking better than their competitors.

And if climategate didn't come out right those awards, grants, positions, funding etc could have been jeopardized for everyone.


Not really. No.

And along with that fossil fuel money comes excommunication from academia and exile from polite society and a lot of heat that nobody in their right mind would want to subject themselves to when they could have a comfortable career without the conflict and controversy.


Please provide evidence that tenured professors will be fired simply for advocating that ACC is wrong.

One of the things I noticed about the Atlantic editorial is how the author ignores how the fossil fuel industry is actually conspiring about ACC.
#14954663


In this talk, Professor Uscinski will show that conspiracy theories follow a strategic logic: they are tools used by the powerless to attack and defend against the powerful. Conspiracy theories must conform to this logic, or they will not be successful. In this way, conspiracy theories are for losers.
#14954682
Sivad wrote:There are systemic conspiracies where you have a large number of people who haven't orchestrated the conspiracy and haven't been formally initiated into it but are consciously and willfully complicit in it.
Sure, so if I take this at face-value, are you suggesting that automobile operators are consciously and willfully complicit in man-made climate change? Also, if you do not believe in man-made climate change, you may strike that notion and use big oil instead. Is this truly a conspiracy, or are you mincing words to get a point across? In which, you offer a social critique. A critique that has been expounded by many other people, mind you.

The establishment news media is a good example of that kind of conspiracy, the owners and the top journalists and editors are deliberately manipulating news and information in the interest of a corrupt establishment and everybody else in the industry is just going along to get along.
Again, propaganda follows conspiracy. Ignorance isn't an attribute of the word conspiracy. Deception IS an attribute of the word conspiracy. There must be collusion at the top (technically a conspiracy can take place at the top, middle, or bottom. But one at the top will most likely impact a large swath of people), propaganda and compartmentalization take care of the rest when the plan is put into motion. It's impossible to litigate your definition of a systemic conspiracy, and that's why it's an inaccurate definition. A functional legal system can prosecute conspiracies, but not an entire population, Sivad. :lol:

Yes, people are responsible for their actions (true change starts with the self. Go watch my video- Nutrition for the Shadow. Shadow, as in the Jungian subconscious), but deception is deception. And it's a key ingredient in the art of war. This of course, leads us to the notion that there is (and always has been) a war on consciousness. Minus anecdotal narratives, people are not naturally evil, people are not naturally good. People are like potter's clay. Is potter's clay evil or good?

They know what's expected of them and they play their part in the rigged system in exchange for the sweet status and the filthy filthy lucre.
This is a zealous and bombastic description of the average citizen. This kind of cynicism is not fruitful, hence why you're pushing everyone away by taking jabs at everything we say. A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The system didn't rig itself, the world is a dastardly plan conceived by villains and carried out by whores.
I hope you're being facetious. You just told me that large systemic conspiracies control everyone, and that everyone is complicit in its execution because they're greedy. That's a very simplistic approach, and I'm not fond of your underhanded reasoning. Perhaps you should study criminology. Crime at the top typically affects crime at the bottom. This is, again, due to the nature of hierarchical organization. It certainly is a multifaceted problem (profit motives, search for identity, existential power trips, etc), but the world is not a one-dimensional plan conceived by villains and carried out by whores. :roll:

I'm not sure why you're so angry when you post on Pofo.






Systemic-Conspiracy as Social Pathology

Many social systems theorists are considering this. The critique is- as groups become larger and more complex over time, psychopathic (sociopathic/narcissistic/borderline personality disorders) personality types rise to the top of the social pyramid. This is due to their lack of empathy or the way their brain is conditioned (child hood trauma/abuse) and/or wired. Once a psychopath has the opportunity to shape or influence policy, the group emulates the vision/direction. Hence a systemic and pathological conspiracy.

Despite fancy words and academic journals, this isn't a new phenomenon. Whole empires collapse when the wrong people are at the helm successively.

On a spiritual note: Secret societies, blackmail, and spiritual wickedness play a large role in psychopathy or parasitic social behavior.

Lastly, a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory is an exercise in critical thinking. When a conspiracy theory becomes a pathological belief it's typically a cognitive coping mechanism and a sign of underlying psychological alienation/conflict. Mental illness is not always characterized by a belief in a conspiracy theory. Also, dogmatic tenacity is not always a sign of mental illness. Pofo has a knack for fostering psychological splitting (all-or-nothing/black-and-white thinking), and that kind of irrational dialogue can ruin discussion.

Be seeing you,


-RT
#14959691
Here's an excellent documentary on the 2008 financial crisis

In it, we can see how a conspiracy at the top of a financial hierarchy influenced people's behavior. Someone had to say "let's give out loans to poor people." A conspiracy is like a pathogen, it infects various areas of society. AS for the people taking out loans... People are prone to chasing fads and sometimes a fad is a conspiracy. Remember big tobacco?

If you make it far enough, the doc explores this point as well
The critique is- as groups become larger and more complex over time, psychopathic (sociopathic/narcissistic/borderline personality disorders) personality types rise to the top of the social pyramid.
#14959884
RhetoricThug wrote:Systemic-Conspiracy as Social Pathology

Many social systems theorists are considering this. The critique is- as groups become larger and more complex over time, psychopathic (sociopathic/narcissistic/borderline personality disorders) personality types rise to the top of the social pyramid. This is due to their lack of empathy or the way their brain is conditioned (child hood trauma/abuse) and/or wired. Once a psychopath has the opportunity to shape or influence policy, the group emulates the vision/direction. Hence a systemic and pathological conspiracy.




I posted a wiki article on meta-power a while back, you should read it. If you look at the system with that concept in mind you'll see that it's not so much "psychopaths" hijacking otherwise virtuous institutions but power designing institutions and systems to serve its own ends. Take the founding of the US for example, the system of government was literally devised in secret, by plutocrats, in a smoke filled room with the primary concern being "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." The system itself is a conspiracy.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public
— Adam Smith


The trade of the ruling class is power and when the ruling class gets together the conversation always ends in a conspiracy against the public.
#14959886
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.


That's the Father of the Constitution(James Madison) hatching a massive systemic conspiracy against the public interest. That's how power works, it's not incompetent, it's not haphazard, it's organized, deliberate, and effective.

#14960395
^How does a post about the American Revolution address my last two posts? BTW Sivad, if you study colonialism and the founding of America, you'd realize that political differences were put aside to fight a common enemy/the crown.

Take the founding of the US for example, the system of government was literally devised in secret, by plutocrats, in a smoke filled room with the primary concern being "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
Oh I wonder why they had to meet in secret, Sivad... :lol: For real man...

You've injected a Marxist critique splitting technique by emphasizing the bold bits, but I'm not sure if you understand what you're bashing.

You might as well say all institutions are systemic conspiracies. :roll: Wait, you did "The system itself is a conspiracy." Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan :smokin:

What's next, something touching like "I grew up in a large family and my father was head of the household. One day, while surfing Wikipedia, I realized my childhood was a LIE. The nuclear family is a systemic conspiracy. It's a social construct created by the Patriarchy! It's organized sexism!"

That's how power works, it's not incompetent, it's not haphazard, it's organized, deliberate, and effective.
Sure, what's your point? Who said power is incompetent and haphazard?
#14962028
If one does accuse you of being a “conspiracy theorist” or a “revisionist,” what do you reply to those critics?

Their instinctive repartee is that anyone doubting the vulgate is self-evidently an unreasoning ‘revisionist-conspiracist’.

The tactic is so inane that it would be risible if the propagandistic stakes of this discursive set-up were not as decisive as they really are. It is their standard inquisitorial trump. Indeed, it is not directly aimed at the critic but at whatever audience might be listening to the debate: it is meant to scare away readers and potential supporters from the critic’s warnings by tarnishing him with the most unsavory label the system has devised for the purpose, that of the truculently stupid paranoid. In the general arena of public opinion, any skeptical attack —carried out outside any conventional party line or schema— on the abuses of the power structure is likewise resisted by its discursive custodians (at all levels and of all political shades), who have been conditioned to brand reflexively the dissenter as an insufferable ‘conspiracy theorist’.

The fact that there is indeed out there a slew of amateurs who churn out a profuse amount of extravagant pamphlets full of wild speculation, referenced by threadbare bibliographies, certainly helps their case. But the question at hand does not pertain to those conspiracy theorists, but to the trahison des clercs: if you are perceived as breaking ranks with your former brothers-in-arms, they will make you pay.

Guido Preparata, Associate Professor of Political Economy, University of Washington
#14962238
Sivad wrote:If one does accuse you of being a “conspiracy theorist” or a “revisionist,” what do you reply to those critics?

Their instinctive repartee is that anyone doubting the vulgate is self-evidently an unreasoning ‘revisionist-conspiracist’.
What's the context, epistemology or macro-economics? The term conspiracist is fairly new, and I wouldn't say revisionist carries the same meaning.

If we're talking about human knowledge, this quote comes to mind: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

The tactic is so inane that it would be risible if the propagandistic stakes of this discursive set-up were not as decisive as they really are. It is their standard inquisitorial trump. Indeed, it is not directly aimed at the critic but at whatever audience might be listening to the debate: it is meant to scare away readers and potential supporters from the critic’s warnings by tarnishing him with the most unsavory label the system has devised for the purpose, that of the truculently stupid paranoid.
That's a fancy way of describing ad hominem. And I would say it is aimed at the critic, because that's what the reader sees. A label can frame perspective.

In the general arena of public opinion, any skeptical attack —carried out outside any conventional party line or schema— on the abuses of the power structure is likewise resisted by its discursive custodians (at all levels and of all political shades), who have been conditioned to brand reflexively the dissenter as an insufferable ‘conspiracy theorist’.
This is true. Nonetheless, it's not always a coordinated effort. Culture can do this. People do not like psychological stress, and that's why people ridicule skeptics. It's not that they're conspiring, it's just conditioning, like he said.

The fact that there is indeed out there a slew of amateurs who churn out a profuse amount of extravagant pamphlets full of wild speculation, referenced by threadbare bibliographies, certainly helps their case.
Sure, amateurs muddy the water.

But the question at hand does not pertain to those conspiracy theorists, but to the trahison des clercs: if you are perceived as breaking ranks with your former brothers-in-arms, they will make you pay.
This is just group-think. Standard group behavior. Happens in society or in the arts & sciences.

Guido Preparata, Associate Professor of Political Economy, University of Washington
Here is a nice followup interview:

Dr. Guido G. Preparata: They Want to Turn Us All into A Global Society of Termites

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your book "Conjuring Hitler" received a laudatory criticism of our friend Peter Dale Scott. Moreover, I share the view of this great intellectual on the fact that this book is essential in the work of historical research. How did you arrive at conclusions against the flow of the historians of the establishment, namely that Hitler was made by the United States and Great Britain and that World War II was inevitable?

Read more: https://ahtribune.com/in-depth/1802-gui ... arata.html


It's nice to see academics compile alternate history. Alternate history is often overlooked until a certified intellectual publishes something. Thank you for bringing this to the thread, Sivad. :up: I'm trying to remember which philosopher said this, but I'll paraphrase the quote: "Human history is a crime story."
#15131251
Until the events of this year, I have allied myself, for the most part, with the political Left; I have been a member of the Labour Party, and a Guardian watcher, if not quite reader. I have no compunction now in expressing my total abhorrence at the near-orgasmic enthusiasm for authoritarian control that has come to dominate the Left, and my gratitude for the reason and humanity that have, by contrast, characterised many on the political Right.

But there is a blind spot on the Right, which threatens the reason if not the humanity of its analyses of the Covid-response. It is the insistence that there is no ‘conspiracy’ afoot and that this whole unfortunate affair is attributable to the blunders of those in power.

It seems to me that there is something in this repeated denial of ‘conspiracy theory’ that is akin to our Government’s repeated refusal to ‘let the virus rip.’ It mischaracterises as silly that which it rejects, and then rejects it because it is silly. Those who argue for the acknowledgement of herd immunity are not, for that reason, arguing for ‘letting the virus rip’ – they suggest many and nuanced possibilities for the management of the virus as it tracks through the population. Similarly, those who suggest that there is more to the Covid restrictions than mountains of blunders by politicians and their advisers are not, for that reason, ‘conspiracy theorists’ – they do not, if they are at all rational, imagine that some bunker somewhere is filled with evil geniuses conducting the whole sorry affair.

I am moved to write this now because I have been listening to the excellent podcast featuring James Delingpole and Mike Yeadon, who, in their discussion, actually admit and articulate well the very thing that almost all so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ are trying to point out. Yeadon contributes the phrase ‘convergent opportunism,’ and argues that, while there are no bunkered geniuses inventing all of this, there are plenty who have availed themselves of the opportunities it has presented and whose doing so has contributed to the escalation and continuation of the mess. Delingpole responds by contributing his own phrase – ‘the concatenation of interests’ – to describe what he too sees as a contingent but coherent coming together of opportunities for interested parties, whose actions then, we presume, exacerbate and extend the conditions which have emerged as so beneficial to them.

‘Convergent opportunism’ and ‘the concatenation of interests’ are sufficiently abstract descriptors that I am emboldened to contribute another – it is not of my inventing, being one of the most important insights of a philosopher who seems unfortunately and erroneously to be regarded as entirely the property of the Left: Michel Foucault.

In the first volume of his The History of Sexuality, Foucault sets out the way in which events can, and mostly do, unfold as ‘intentional but not subjective.’ That is, we are able, if we look carefully, to discern a design or a pattern in events, even if, as is almost always the case, there is no one person or group at the helm. There is no ‘headquarters,’ as Foucault says – no bunker of geniuses. In fact, as with many of those who reject ‘conspiracy theories,’ Foucault is of the view that those who insist on finding the subject of intentional developments will inevitably misunderstand the meaning of events.

None of this implies that there are never any subjective intentions in play in the unfolding of events. For example, Mike Yeadon points out how intelligent and successful has been the career of Patrick Vallance, who, he says, cannot possibly be ignorant of the basic facts about respiratory viruses that belie many of Vallance’s pronouncements. Vallance, Yeadon says, is lying. So, here we have subjective (mal)intention that can be identified and analysed and punished. And, for all that there do seem to be some blunderers in Government and elsewhere at present, it cannot be that all others who are pushing the Covid restrictions are unwitting. There are plenty of liars and cheats and aggressors, and even murderers perhaps. Hopefully, they will be held to account.

To attest to the ‘convergent opportunism,’ the ‘concatenation of interests,’ or the ‘non-subjective intentionality’ of what is happening to us does not mean, therefore, that there are no villains in the piece. What it does mean is that the – may I say, ever more implausible – claim that this global lockdown of populations, this assault-without-end on enterprise, this concerted attack on all that is human, is the result of a pile of blunders that admits of no further analysis, is not the only alternative to theories about geniuses in bunkers.

In fact, blunder theories are as guilty of looking for a subject to blame as are conspiracy theories, and as unconvincing in the attempt. That subject may be calculating or clueless, devious or delirious; but either way, the far-fetched implication is that they are pulling the strings of what is happening to us.

It is not surprising that we find ourselves in this rut – of looking for the villain or the hero, or the fool, of the piece – among other things, the languages we use now hardly let us do anything else. Our correct sentences include a verb, an object and a subject. Even our ‘They’ (as in ‘They want us under control’), for all its vagueness, still gestures to the bunker headquarters with its geniuses pressing our buttons. To be prepared to research and analyse the intentional character of current events, we must be prepared to work against the grain of what our very language makes difficult. We act. We act intentionally. But history rarely moves on the back of what we intend.

And history does move. We study its moves in school. We are all familiar with the most famous of them. And no one suggests that it has all been merely a hotch-potch of human blunders.

Indeed, the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, an outspoken critic of Covid measures from the very beginning and vilified by the Left of whom he had been the darling, has recently posted a reflection on the erosion of our critical faculties by the persistent rejection of ‘conspiracy theories,’ pointing out that if we pull back from looking for and articulating the larger stakes in the current attack on the life and liberties of populations across the globe, we might as well deny that there is anything to see here folks in respect of the whole of history itself; we might as well claim that history is just one big conspiracy theory.

This is history. This is what it feels like to live through history. And we will be swept away by it if we continue to retreat from seeking out its rationale.

Dr Sinéad Murphy, Lecturer in Philosophy at Newcastle University.
#15131497
The Great Reset: Globalists using the virus to destroy the 'Old World Order'

Spectator Columnist James Delingpole says the World Economic Forum is seeking to use COVID-19 to reshape the world with its "Great Reset" in what globalists see as a chance to destroy capitalism and the "old world order".

"I started off this pandemic thinking it was just people being a bit stupid and it would all pass, but now I realise this is organised," he said.

"When you hear the phrase "Build Back Better"... this is the code phrase for the great reset of our lives.

"They don't want us to own anything, it will be provided for us. Who does own the property? Who's renting it out to us? Some shadowy elite. This is a takeover by the technocrats."

Mr Delingpole said the reset involved The World Economic Forum combined with UN Agenda 2030 - formerly Agenda 21 - is a complete transformation of the world's societies on Communist or Fascist lines.
#15131501
Sivad wrote:"When you hear the phrase "Build Back Better"... this is the code phrase for the great reset of our lives.

....


Mr Delingpole said the reset involved The World Economic Forum combined with UN Agenda 2030 - formerly Agenda 21 - is a complete transformation of the world's societies on Communist or Fascist lines.


Are these your ideals or just the words of Delingpole? You, as a socialist should be aiming for a 'New World Order' right? If these Covid responses, which are foolhardy at best, were an attempt to reestablish a new order, they would be fully supported by me. But I doubt that was the aim and nor have I seen evidence this is the aim either. I suspect governments around the world suffered from fear porn, scared their populous with very large casualty figures and now would rather keep digging the hole than admit they were wrong. I guess what I am saying, is there is no conspiracy, just stupidity.
#15131503
Rancid wrote:People believe in conspiracy theories, because sometimes they are right.


People rightly don't trust the government, or the media. So they are skeptics. Sometimes people figure out things others don't want you to know, other times people leap to conclusions without evidence based on paranoia of being screwed over again.
#15146247
I worry the apparent cynicism does little to escape the limitations as authentic belief in institutions.
[url]criticaltheorylibrary.blogspot.com/2011/02/slavoj-zizek-key-ideas.html?m=1[/url]
The Return of the Big Other
Besides the construction of little big Others as a reaction of the demise of the big Other, Zizek identifies another response in the positing of a big Other that actually exists in the Real. The name Lacan gives to an Other in the Real is "the Other of the Other". A belief in an Other of the Other, in someone or something who is really pulling the strings of society and organizing everything, is one of the signs of paranoia. Needless to say that it is commonplace to argue that the dominant pathology today is paranoia: countless books and films refer to some organization which covertly control governments, news, markets and academia. Zizek proposes that the cause of this paranoia can be located in a reaction to the demise of the big Other:

When faced with such a paranoid construction, we must not forget Freud's warning and mistake it for the "ilness" itself: the paranoid construction is, on the contrary, an attempt to heal ourselves, to pull ourselves out of the real "illness", the "end of the world", the breakdown of the symbolic universe, by means of this substitute formation. Looking Awry: an Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture)

Paradoxically, then, Zizek argues that the typical postmodern subject is one who displays an otright cynicism towards official institutions, yet at the same time believes in the existence of conspirancies and an unseen Other pulling the strings. This apparently contradictory coupling of cynicism and belief is strictly correlative to the demise of the big Other. Its disappearance causes us to construct an Other of the Other in order to escape the unbearable freedom its loss encumbers us with. Conversely, there is no need to take the big Other seriously if we believe in an Other of the Other. We therefore display cynicism and belief in equal and sinceres measures.

The breakdown itself seems to be the breakdown of social subjectivity as people really do experience themselves as isolated individuals who can’t trust on anything beyond their own experience.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/macintyre2.pdf
Thus, the social bases of liberalism are two-fold: the raising of property to the status of the primary social relation, and the loss of community, the loss of the capacity to appeal to or rely upon shared meaning beyond the satisfaction of individual desire.
MacIntyre uses an analysis of the use of place names in foreign countries to point out the difference between a place name for the inhabitants of an area where the name has multiple shared meanings and connotations, and the use of either same name in the context of a foreign language, or the use of a foreign name. For a foreigner, the place name is nothing but a reference pointing to a spatial location, having lost all the connotations and layers of meaning present when a native-speaker utters the name. He refers to this impoverished kind of meaning as “reference.” Nominalism is thus the characteristic epistemology of liberal society.

I have a skepticism of someone trying to sell me another spiel for the real truth behind the lies as much as the person trying to sell real change and revolution.

And I use the world sell as that is what it can often feel like. Buying into different explanations and speculations but to no greater benefit than perhaps the feeling of finally explaining the chaotic world around me. Where I desire to make sense and meaning out of it than experience myself as inconsequential and powerless in a society where the individuals autonomy is decreased by the sort of property and social standing they have.

On more specific note, Ive heard conspiracy theories which are unsatisfactory as they don’t actually explain anything. They ask questions across a series of things with a kins of oooo scary something might be happening here but don’t actually relate the facts but only foster suspicion and speculation and provide an illusion of explanation. The stand out one for me was when my dad got me to watch some illuminati youtube video. It was quite unsatisfying as I thought it would be more coherent and with a point but I gained nothing by the end of it except an attempt as suspicion. Suspicion seems to characterize our modern lives more and more with the breakdown of bonds by markets and where trust is dissolved.
#15152690
Unthinking Majority wrote:People rightly don't trust the government, or the media. So they are skeptics. Sometimes people figure out things others don't want you to know, other times people leap to conclusions without evidence based on paranoia of being screwed over again.


but what about those who have trust in her? in world where propaganda rulz one cant see clearly the truth between the lines, usually depends of the prejudice, and with Free Will people can chose to look through their biased glasses as optimists or pessimists, see the waterglass half full or half empty, after all its their personal right in what they'll believe or not, so it would be wrong to say someone is paranoid but more skeptical than others, and vice versa ...

Image

... and yes we are thirsty for evidence, but eventually what we lack as locally so as globally is constant measurement of particular truth by standardized ngo bodies who in their field of interest would demystify and doubt in particular mainstream truth ... usually in case of conspiracies due to lack of evidence or propaganda mood any half truth presented as final is wrong, but capitalism consumerism exhibitionism careerism etc. liberalisms and everything is presented as truth that should be swallowed instead opinion that should be examined, and coz various reasons not rare brainwashed mindset people are swallowing conspi-theories like crazy probably coz most conspiracies are demystifying usually the Too Big To Fail events or things!

in my opinion the problem gets bigger just because there is no inferring approach on the matter, but exactly that could lead to chaos when and if is introduced such approach at least until there is steady flow of demystification, but how so in world where there are too many interests and too many opportunists that constantly produce gray market wrongdoings as governmentally so as corporately on top individually!? thus for sure any system cant afford entropy risks, even small ones can destabilize its core, so best way to treat any revisionist theory is by labeling it as conspiracy, yet again if we have had True Open Society there would be big room for questioning and revisioning any theory ...

... till then brushing sensationalism through massmedia (for any news not just conspi one) is indeed waste of time, simply we cant even demystify our own life purposes what about collective one even less methaphysical, yet if there is substantial evidence there could be found common will for deconstruction on some revisionistic theory, but again as counterargument instantly pops up someones propaganda or skepticism so there is need of judge and judgement, but who would be that in this confused liberal times, fakebook or twitter, maybe amazon ranking, eventually local and international academic bodies, who knows maybe people will start this process with history [1]
Election 2020

@Drlee , not a good sign; I am not going down […]

Election 2024 Thread

By hook or by crook... The Democrats won in 2020.[…]

This is a tough question. I grew up reading fairyt[…]

The hypocrisy of the Left is extremely repulsive. […]