5 ms·

>> And yet, the majority of the people do not care at all. > I really, really dislike this meme. I dislike it too, but for a different reason. This story is

>> And yet, the majority of the people do not care at all. > I really, really dislike this meme. I dislike it too, but for a different reason. This story is a conspiracy theory. Literally. At least one difference I notice in this case is that neither the article itself, nor the comments in this thread (at the time of writing this) contain either of the terms "conspiracy theory" or "QAnon" - but attach either of those, and you'll find all sorts of people who will suddenly develop a very passionate sense of caring/interest of a different kind: in discrediting, downvoting, and silencing anyone who in any way supports or perpetuates this type of a story. Conspiracy theories: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=conspiracy%20theories&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... QAnon: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=qanon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... In this case, I suspect the main difference is that the "public relations" departments of the Canadian Government and CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) are bush league compared to that of the US. In the US, this story would probably have been preemptively "taken care of" in the media before it even broke, or in 24 hours via a full court press if it did happen to accidentally fall through the cracks, and people would fall in line as they always do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour#Biological_swarming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour#Biological_swa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour#People https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour#People Let's wait and see how the Canucks respond, assuming this gets any traction in mainstream newspapers (I'm guessing it does not).

verall 6y ago
How is this story related to QAnon or a conspiracy theory? I feel like this is a true example of "begging the question", you just sort of assumed that part was true. Who in the US is "taking care of" stories? If you're going to make bold claims like this, include some details.
- mistermann 6y ago
  It isn't related (more precisely: a relation has not been established) - that was my point. I was describing how these types of stories can be discredited, by simply attaching a label to them...and how this can act upon people's interest levels and thinking styles. > I feel like this is a true example of "begging the question", you just sort of assumed that part was true. I feel like this sort of rhetoric is a fine example of the very phenomenon that I described ("...but attach either of those, and you'll find...). > Who in the US is "taking care of" stories? Not sure who it is exactly. And unless they for some reason decide to voluntarily confess, I suspect we will never know for sure. Are you under the impression that the United States government never uses propaganda? Maybe you guys have the state on a much shorter leash than the Canadians. > If you're going to make bold claims like this, include some details. I wonder: does your mind desire evidence when it encounters the inverse of my ideas? Regardless, to answer your question, here is an example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-dominion-voter-fraud-conspiracy-theory-reaches-n1247780 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-domin... This article implicitly(!) asserts that the Dominion story is an invention of QAnon. How it works (from a neuroscientific, "belief formation" perspective) is, these stories are printed in the news, and then people who read them believe what is in the story. Whether it is actually true or not has very little bearing. Not only do most people (who voice an opinion) not care what is actually true, they will go to great lengths to discredit anyone who mentions the very notion of 'What is Actually True'. This is not just an opinion - the phenomenon can be observed. To me, this behavior is absolutely fascinating. Why most people have such a strong aversion to the topic is also interesting. Back to the article... > "While the theory has already been debunked — including by Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is tasked with national security related to the internet and technology..." Notice the language used in such articles, words like debunked. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debunk https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debunk - to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear If you have an eye for detail, you may notice that this is a very popular word with journalists these days. You may also notice that "debunk" has a fair amount of uncertainty and wiggle room in its explicit definition (if not so much in how it is interpreted by people who read it). This sort of wiggle room can come in handy if one is ever called to testify in court. I won't bother doing a full analysis of the article, I have not once encountered a single non-conspiracy-theorist who is able to discuss this topic with the same attention to accuracy as they would if we were discussing a technical topic like programming - I am merely drawing people's attention to the phenomenon. I have no illusions whatsoever that I am going to change a single person's mind (and believe me, I've tried), in the slightest. You are free to believe whatever you would like, as is everyone else. And Mother Nature will reward us accordingly, in the long run. But I will say this: What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so. - Mark Twain

verall 6y ago

How is this story related to QAnon or a conspiracy theory? I feel like this is a true example of "begging the question", you just sort of assumed that part was true. Who in the US is "taking care of" stories? If you're going to make bold claims like this, include some details.

mistermann 6y ago
It isn't related (more precisely: a relation has not been established) - that was my point. I was describing how these types of stories can be discredited, by simply attaching a label to them...and how this can act upon people's interest levels and thinking styles. > I feel like this is a true example of "begging the question", you just sort of assumed that part was true. I feel like this sort of rhetoric is a fine example of the very phenomenon that I described ("...but attach either of those, and you'll find...). > Who in the US is "taking care of" stories? Not sure who it is exactly. And unless they for some reason decide to voluntarily confess, I suspect we will never know for sure. Are you under the impression that the United States government never uses propaganda? Maybe you guys have the state on a much shorter leash than the Canadians. > If you're going to make bold claims like this, include some details. I wonder: does your mind desire evidence when it encounters the inverse of my ideas? Regardless, to answer your question, here is an example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-dominion-voter-fraud-conspiracy-theory-reaches-n1247780 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-domin... This article implicitly(!) asserts that the Dominion story is an invention of QAnon. How it works (from a neuroscientific, "belief formation" perspective) is, these stories are printed in the news, and then people who read them believe what is in the story. Whether it is actually true or not has very little bearing. Not only do most people (who voice an opinion) not care what is actually true, they will go to great lengths to discredit anyone who mentions the very notion of 'What is Actually True'. This is not just an opinion - the phenomenon can be observed. To me, this behavior is absolutely fascinating. Why most people have such a strong aversion to the topic is also interesting. Back to the article... > "While the theory has already been debunked — including by Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is tasked with national security related to the internet and technology..." Notice the language used in such articles, words like debunked. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debunk https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debunk - to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear If you have an eye for detail, you may notice that this is a very popular word with journalists these days. You may also notice that "debunk" has a fair amount of uncertainty and wiggle room in its explicit definition (if not so much in how it is interpreted by people who read it). This sort of wiggle room can come in handy if one is ever called to testify in court. I won't bother doing a full analysis of the article, I have not once encountered a single non-conspiracy-theorist who is able to discuss this topic with the same attention to accuracy as they would if we were discussing a technical topic like programming - I am merely drawing people's attention to the phenomenon. I have no illusions whatsoever that I am going to change a single person's mind (and believe me, I've tried), in the slightest. You are free to believe whatever you would like, as is everyone else. And Mother Nature will reward us accordingly, in the long run. But I will say this: What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so. - Mark Twain