27 ms·

> At least Alex Jones is thinking for himself Conspiracy theories are fun and all until stuff like this happens: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/t

> At least Alex Jones is thinking for himself Conspiracy theories are fun and all until stuff like this happens: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/this-sandy-hook-father-lives-in-hiding-because-of-conspiracy-theories-fueled-by-alex-jones/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/this-sandy-hook-f... And the then claimed that actually, he was literally psychotic when he was saying that stuff and blamed "mass group think": https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/30/us/alex-jones-psychosis-sandy-hook/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/30/us/alex-jones-psychosis-sandy...

mistermann 6y ago
> Conspiracy theories are fun and all until stuff like this happens: A refusal to consider conspiracy theories is also all fun and all until stuff like this happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates (Death estimates range from 150,000 to 1,000,000). > And the then claimed that actually, he was literally psychotic when he was saying that stuff and blamed "mass group think" Did anyone responsible for the war have to atone for their error? I happen to think total body count is a perfectly reasonable metric (one of many) for evaluating the risks inherent in various styles of thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be) - I'm curious if you agree or disagree?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Well, this is literally true. I don't know if people don't want to remember, but people saying that there was no evidence of WMD and that the Iraq War shouldn't happen was a conspiracy theory have, in a very real sense, blood on their hands. "Conspiracy theory" is a category with a high false positive ratio. It's better for all of us to at least entertain them and give them a fair shot before dismissing them.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    Unfortunately, that's susceptible to a sort of Pascal's mugging. People can come up with new conspiracy theories faster than you can give them a fair shot, because they're very easy to generate.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      While that's true, there are many more debunkers than credible conspiracy theorists. As long as they can maintain their reputation and that no one is too dismissive, and as long as a sufficient amount of actual conspiracies are defeated, I don't think it would be too much of a problem.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      I wonder if "brown people" (you know, those people that "Trump supporters, and only Trump supporters, want to see die") in faraway lands who have had their relatives killed in yet another Western war will feel comforted by sophisticated rhetorical excuses written by informed Western "liberals" on a programming forum. Hopefully they sleep as well at night as the fine folks here do.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > I happen to think total body count is a perfectly reasonable metric (one of many) for evaluating the risks inherent in various styles of thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be) No. It cannot be used to evaluate "risk", without quantifying what you mean by "risk" or even having something like full information. How much was (bad)luck? How much was inevitable, regardless if it was March 20 or 21 where the SEALs had cameras on the beach, waiting for them to appear? We will never have full information to understand what was going on, but the stated reasonings behind the Iraq War, outside of the shoot-first Bush Doctrine^, were lies of convenience^^, at best. The thinking was not simple, nor were the initial motivations strictly good or bad. I would argue the outcome was bad. ^ If you don't help us find the terrorists that ran into your country, you're against US ^^ Knowing Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past, it was a bet that old weapons or evidence of them could be found...making a claim of WMDs convenient.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > It cannot be used to evaluate "risk", without quantifying what you mean by "risk" Dead bodies laying around on the ground is usually considered a sign that some sort of risk was in play, but I'm clearly not as well versed in the field as you. Your absolutely flawless logic has certainly changed my mind. I wonder if the relatives of the dead are as as easily convinced as me. What's your intuition on that (if you care enough to bother generating an opinion that is)?
- roywiggins 6y ago
  There's conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories. When someone targets random people like, I don't know, parents of murdered children, when it turns out they're wrong, the failure case is absolutely devastating. The failure case when the conspiracy is "George W Bush did 9/11" is going to involve a whole lot fewer death threats to random private people. Telling stories about powerful people matters a lot less because even if they're lies, powerful people will go along with their day. They'll be fine. So, sure, entertain stories about powerful and possibly malevolent public figures. It's when people with significant power like Jones take to telling stories about random parents of murdered children that they do serious damage.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > The failure case when the conspiracy is "George W Bush did 9/11" is going to involve a whole lot fewer death threats to random private people. This is a rather interesting detour. How about when the conspiracy is "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"? Did that result in any deaths? Like, oh I don't know, many many hundreds of thousands? Was that "failure case" devastating, or is there some sort of a conversion factor between brown skinned Middle Easterners and Righteous Pale Westerners that I should be aware of? > It's when people with significant power like Jones take to telling stories about random parents of murdered children that they do serious damage. In the range of multiple hundreds of thousands of innocent dead people? I would enjoy reading any serious reasoning for why Alex Jones' Sandy Hook rantings are more serious than the innocent civilians killed in Iraq. Is that not what multiple people here are asserting? If you have no regret (as a taxpayer who funds the war machine) about the situation, I wonder if any of you people have any sympathy? My son was learning in school last year about the Holocaust, and part of the curriculum was how it was possible that the German public could go along with something that was so obviously wrong. I am going to show him this thread when he gets home from school today, so he can get a real world, firsthand, modern day impression of how human psychology can so easily find a way to justify war crimes.
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      You misunderstand me. I'm saying: just because Bush did lie America into Iraq doesn't mean that we should shrug our shoulders at people like Jones who prey on random parents of murdered children for personal fame and money. Yes, government conspiracies exist. That doesn't mean we should take every ranting of publicity-addled nutcases seriously. People like Jones are not performing a public service, and aren't going to actually uncover future real conspiracies. That's not the business they're in. They're in the business of making shit up for money.

mistermann 6y ago

> Conspiracy theories are fun and all until stuff like this happens: A refusal to consider conspiracy theories is also all fun and all until stuff like this happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates (Death estimates range from 150,000 to 1,000,000). > And the then claimed that actually, he was literally psychotic when he was saying that stuff and blamed "mass group think" Did anyone responsible for the war have to atone for their error? I happen to think total body count is a perfectly reasonable metric (one of many) for evaluating the risks inherent in various styles of thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be) - I'm curious if you agree or disagree?

sudosysgen 6y ago
Well, this is literally true. I don't know if people don't want to remember, but people saying that there was no evidence of WMD and that the Iraq War shouldn't happen was a conspiracy theory have, in a very real sense, blood on their hands. "Conspiracy theory" is a category with a high false positive ratio. It's better for all of us to at least entertain them and give them a fair shot before dismissing them.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Unfortunately, that's susceptible to a sort of Pascal's mugging. People can come up with new conspiracy theories faster than you can give them a fair shot, because they're very easy to generate.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    While that's true, there are many more debunkers than credible conspiracy theorists. As long as they can maintain their reputation and that no one is too dismissive, and as long as a sufficient amount of actual conspiracies are defeated, I don't think it would be too much of a problem.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    I wonder if "brown people" (you know, those people that "Trump supporters, and only Trump supporters, want to see die") in faraway lands who have had their relatives killed in yet another Western war will feel comforted by sophisticated rhetorical excuses written by informed Western "liberals" on a programming forum. Hopefully they sleep as well at night as the fine folks here do.
Supermancho 6y ago
> I happen to think total body count is a perfectly reasonable metric (one of many) for evaluating the risks inherent in various styles of thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be) No. It cannot be used to evaluate "risk", without quantifying what you mean by "risk" or even having something like full information. How much was (bad)luck? How much was inevitable, regardless if it was March 20 or 21 where the SEALs had cameras on the beach, waiting for them to appear? We will never have full information to understand what was going on, but the stated reasonings behind the Iraq War, outside of the shoot-first Bush Doctrine^, were lies of convenience^^, at best. The thinking was not simple, nor were the initial motivations strictly good or bad. I would argue the outcome was bad. ^ If you don't help us find the terrorists that ran into your country, you're against US ^^ Knowing Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past, it was a bet that old weapons or evidence of them could be found...making a claim of WMDs convenient.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > It cannot be used to evaluate "risk", without quantifying what you mean by "risk" Dead bodies laying around on the ground is usually considered a sign that some sort of risk was in play, but I'm clearly not as well versed in the field as you. Your absolutely flawless logic has certainly changed my mind. I wonder if the relatives of the dead are as as easily convinced as me. What's your intuition on that (if you care enough to bother generating an opinion that is)?
roywiggins 6y ago
There's conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories. When someone targets random people like, I don't know, parents of murdered children, when it turns out they're wrong, the failure case is absolutely devastating. The failure case when the conspiracy is "George W Bush did 9/11" is going to involve a whole lot fewer death threats to random private people. Telling stories about powerful people matters a lot less because even if they're lies, powerful people will go along with their day. They'll be fine. So, sure, entertain stories about powerful and possibly malevolent public figures. It's when people with significant power like Jones take to telling stories about random parents of murdered children that they do serious damage.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > The failure case when the conspiracy is "George W Bush did 9/11" is going to involve a whole lot fewer death threats to random private people. This is a rather interesting detour. How about when the conspiracy is "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"? Did that result in any deaths? Like, oh I don't know, many many hundreds of thousands? Was that "failure case" devastating, or is there some sort of a conversion factor between brown skinned Middle Easterners and Righteous Pale Westerners that I should be aware of? > It's when people with significant power like Jones take to telling stories about random parents of murdered children that they do serious damage. In the range of multiple hundreds of thousands of innocent dead people? I would enjoy reading any serious reasoning for why Alex Jones' Sandy Hook rantings are more serious than the innocent civilians killed in Iraq. Is that not what multiple people here are asserting? If you have no regret (as a taxpayer who funds the war machine) about the situation, I wonder if any of you people have any sympathy? My son was learning in school last year about the Holocaust, and part of the curriculum was how it was possible that the German public could go along with something that was so obviously wrong. I am going to show him this thread when he gets home from school today, so he can get a real world, firsthand, modern day impression of how human psychology can so easily find a way to justify war crimes.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    You misunderstand me. I'm saying: just because Bush did lie America into Iraq doesn't mean that we should shrug our shoulders at people like Jones who prey on random parents of murdered children for personal fame and money. Yes, government conspiracies exist. That doesn't mean we should take every ranting of publicity-addled nutcases seriously. People like Jones are not performing a public service, and aren't going to actually uncover future real conspiracies. That's not the business they're in. They're in the business of making shit up for money.