5 ms·

So what, we should disbelieve all conspiracy theories by default? In the rare case it happens to be true, it'll probably be too late to act upon, just like COI

So what, we should disbelieve all conspiracy theories by default? In the rare case it happens to be true, it'll probably be too late to act upon, just like COINTELPRO and MKULTRA. We can assign the possibility of Q being true without actually taking a side and acting on it. I can say "this is both compelling and unlikely to be true, but as I long as I don't have to act on it, it doesn't matter if I believe in it or not". We can let the evidence over time build a stronger case for it or destroy it. The only reason I can see not to do that is if it introduces unacceptable consequences in the meantime, as the article is suggesting, but it seems like the reporting against it is ridiculously cherry picked and disingenuous. There's probably a much stronger case for stopping BLM as a organization at the moment, but I don't think I've seen an Atlantic article suggesting that. For the time being, Q seems like a harmless movement. It would be a red flag if Q denounced a group of people without justification, but Q has been pretty specific about the things and people it denounces, and if things go according to Q's plan the people it's denouncing are going to have their chance in court .

drdeca 6y ago
Our prior probability for most conspiracy theories should be low, and we should update our probabilities in an approximately Bayesian way.
- briefcomment 6y ago
  The point of my first post was to say we don't have to assign any probabilities at the moment. I'm just viewing it as compelling entertainment. Outside of this thread, I haven't mentioned it to anyone. It's probably premature to unwaveringly denounce or support it. When we have to actually act on it, or if it causes actual crime in the real world, that's when it helps if you take a stand.
  - drdeca 6y ago
    If knowing for certain one way or the other would influence one’s choices, a truly rational agent (which humans only approximate) must always at least implicitly assign a probability. Some people are appealing to people who believe it in their political campaigns. I think this is sufficient to make it relevant.
youareostriches 6y ago
>Q seems like a harmless movement. Q-anon is dangerous and baseless libel that undermines democratic institutions. One person has already been murdered: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744244166/shooters-lawyer-he-wasn-t-trying-to-kill-a-mob-boss-he-was-under-qanon-delusion https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744244166/shooters-lawyer-he-... Many others have been threatened with violence. >It would be a red flag if Q denounced a group of people without justification Which they have. Only well-known Democratic-party-affiliated personalities are implicated. The blatantly partisan narrative creates great potential for political violence. And like many other conspiracy theories, the narrative is full of antisemitic tropes: https://www.adl.org/qanon https://www.adl.org/qanon Finally, there's the obvious logical difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. The latter has actual evidence supporting it. And the probability of this menagerie of preposterous claims actually turning out to be true would be close to zero due to the vast number of participants who would have to keep silent. The more people who participate in any given conspiracy, the less time it can be kept secret on average: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

drdeca 6y ago

Our prior probability for most conspiracy theories should be low, and we should update our probabilities in an approximately Bayesian way.

briefcomment 6y ago
The point of my first post was to say we don't have to assign any probabilities at the moment. I'm just viewing it as compelling entertainment. Outside of this thread, I haven't mentioned it to anyone. It's probably premature to unwaveringly denounce or support it. When we have to actually act on it, or if it causes actual crime in the real world, that's when it helps if you take a stand.
- drdeca 6y ago
  If knowing for certain one way or the other would influence one’s choices, a truly rational agent (which humans only approximate) must always at least implicitly assign a probability. Some people are appealing to people who believe it in their political campaigns. I think this is sufficient to make it relevant.

youareostriches 6y ago

>Q seems like a harmless movement. Q-anon is dangerous and baseless libel that undermines democratic institutions. One person has already been murdered: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744244166/shooters-lawyer-he-wasn-t-trying-to-kill-a-mob-boss-he-was-under-qanon-delusion https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744244166/shooters-lawyer-he-... Many others have been threatened with violence. >It would be a red flag if Q denounced a group of people without justification Which they have. Only well-known Democratic-party-affiliated personalities are implicated. The blatantly partisan narrative creates great potential for political violence. And like many other conspiracy theories, the narrative is full of antisemitic tropes: https://www.adl.org/qanon https://www.adl.org/qanon Finally, there's the obvious logical difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. The latter has actual evidence supporting it. And the probability of this menagerie of preposterous claims actually turning out to be true would be close to zero due to the vast number of participants who would have to keep silent. The more people who participate in any given conspiracy, the less time it can be kept secret on average: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...