4 ms·

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 the

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.
  - kian 6y ago
    I think the poster you are replying to is saying that shutting down people for spreading false conspiracies will be a net negative, because all of net harm from spreading false conspiracies is a tiny little drop against the vast hurricane of actual governmental conspiracies and the harm that can come from them, and that anything that might make it harder to hear about those conspiracies is far more harmful to the world than letting people say things that are untrue. (as evinced, here, by the poster pointing out that there was an actual governmental conspiracy in living memory, whereby hundreds of thousands or millions of (innocent) people died, in part because people were shut down as conspiracies theorists [or in some cases, even branded enemies of the state] and removed from discourse.) I find it hard, as the poster seems to, to imagine a scenario in which even 100k clones of Alex Jones could cause the same level of harm. And while Alex himself may never uncover any real conspiracies (and really, how could you personally guarantee that?), that doesn't mean the same tactics used on him won't be turned on someone who has uncovered genuine malfeasance. (keep in mind, I've never been a fan, and I think he is a personally odious, obnoxious, and ill-intentioned individual who no one should listen to. Still, he shouldn't be silenced.)
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      Who said anything about shutting him down? I was talking about the damage he's caused and why people shouldn't just shrug and say, well, he's "thinking for himself" as if there's some independent virtue to coming up with nonsense that outweighs the damage that coming up with nonsense can do. > while Alex himself may never uncover any real conspiracies (and really, how could you personally guarantee that?), I can probably "uncover" real conspiracies by claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag. At some point, I'll be correct. That doesn't mean I'm actually performing a public service, a mindless chatbot could do that. If he's not lying[0] and actually was psychotic when he said those things, then we should not take any of the conspiricizing he says seriously because it was literally the product of his own disordered thinking. If he was lying, then he's the sort of person who will disclaim all his positions as soon as they get uncomfortable for him to hold. [0] he is

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.
- kian 6y ago
  I think the poster you are replying to is saying that shutting down people for spreading false conspiracies will be a net negative, because all of net harm from spreading false conspiracies is a tiny little drop against the vast hurricane of actual governmental conspiracies and the harm that can come from them, and that anything that might make it harder to hear about those conspiracies is far more harmful to the world than letting people say things that are untrue. (as evinced, here, by the poster pointing out that there was an actual governmental conspiracy in living memory, whereby hundreds of thousands or millions of (innocent) people died, in part because people were shut down as conspiracies theorists [or in some cases, even branded enemies of the state] and removed from discourse.) I find it hard, as the poster seems to, to imagine a scenario in which even 100k clones of Alex Jones could cause the same level of harm. And while Alex himself may never uncover any real conspiracies (and really, how could you personally guarantee that?), that doesn't mean the same tactics used on him won't be turned on someone who has uncovered genuine malfeasance. (keep in mind, I've never been a fan, and I think he is a personally odious, obnoxious, and ill-intentioned individual who no one should listen to. Still, he shouldn't be silenced.)
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    Who said anything about shutting him down? I was talking about the damage he's caused and why people shouldn't just shrug and say, well, he's "thinking for himself" as if there's some independent virtue to coming up with nonsense that outweighs the damage that coming up with nonsense can do. > while Alex himself may never uncover any real conspiracies (and really, how could you personally guarantee that?), I can probably "uncover" real conspiracies by claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag. At some point, I'll be correct. That doesn't mean I'm actually performing a public service, a mindless chatbot could do that. If he's not lying[0] and actually was psychotic when he said those things, then we should not take any of the conspiricizing he says seriously because it was literally the product of his own disordered thinking. If he was lying, then he's the sort of person who will disclaim all his positions as soon as they get uncomfortable for him to hold. [0] he is