3 ms·

> Your "possibly political" statement is conspiracy theory nonsense. what does this mean exactly? could you (or anyone else who shares this sentiment) elaborat

> Your "possibly political" statement is conspiracy theory nonsense. what does this mean exactly? could you (or anyone else who shares this sentiment) elaborate?

runeks 5y ago
What makes you think this attack was politically motivated?
- adamrezich 5y ago
  nothing, especially because I haven't looked into it at all, and there probably is no reported evidence anyway. hence, my comment referring broadly to this wave of attacks, and my use of the qualifying "possibly." why is everyone (mainstream news, etc.) so quick to refer to any attack originating from a Russian IP address as "Russian" (either implied or directly stated to mean "Russian government")—yet positing that these attacks might have political motivations behind them is a "conspiracy theory"?
mc32 5y ago
To me it means that the main motivator is maximizing financial success (by the perps). That means do it at a time where you get the best return. On the other hand, if they would try to make an administration look bad, then they would pick other times and targets. It’s like when people attack old ladies and other people known to carry cash and instead of looking first at criminal opportunism attribute it to people hating old ladies going to the ATM.
malfist 5y ago
Simple. Things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  right. if the replier above had said "you have no evidence for that claim" I would reply by saying "you are correct, it is however a possibility, surely we can agree on that?" but instead the replier used the term "conspiracy theory nonsense" to characterize my words, which is, to say the very least, a highly loaded term with built-in connotations. I personally believe that dismissing any sort of theorizing as being "conspiracy theory nonsense" is more harmful than any sort of benign theorizing itself. this line of thinking seems to assert that in reality, nothing ever happens with ulterior motives, people and groups in seats of power wouldn't do anything and everything to maintain said power under any circumstances, everything is just an isolated, random occurrence, geopolitics don't exist, and that looking for patterns and connections is something that only delusional people engage in. many people have been programmed to react to anything not commonly-accepted in the mainstream "narrative" by immediately labeling it a "conspiracy theory" and then refusing to think any more critically about it. I believe the rapid spread of this way of thinking to be incredibly dangerous to society as a whole. I am not saying that theorizing should be taken as fact, merely that theories shouldn't be dismissed entirely out of hand using a stock phrase. in fact, when discussing such things, or anything really, any sort of kneejerk word/phrase association-type response should give one pause, because these word/phrase associations are learned behavior, and it may be enlightening to determine the source of this learned behavior.
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
> Your "possibly political" statement is conspiracy theory nonsense. Back in my day we just called it FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt When did FUD go out of style?

> Your "possibly political" statement is conspiracy theory nonsense. what does this mean exactly? could you (or anyone else who shares this sentiment) elaborate?

runeks 5y ago

What makes you think this attack was politically motivated?

adamrezich 5y ago
nothing, especially because I haven't looked into it at all, and there probably is no reported evidence anyway. hence, my comment referring broadly to this wave of attacks, and my use of the qualifying "possibly." why is everyone (mainstream news, etc.) so quick to refer to any attack originating from a Russian IP address as "Russian" (either implied or directly stated to mean "Russian government")—yet positing that these attacks might have political motivations behind them is a "conspiracy theory"?

mc32 5y ago

To me it means that the main motivator is maximizing financial success (by the perps). That means do it at a time where you get the best return. On the other hand, if they would try to make an administration look bad, then they would pick other times and targets. It’s like when people attack old ladies and other people known to carry cash and instead of looking first at criminal opportunism attribute it to people hating old ladies going to the ATM.

malfist 5y ago

Simple. Things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

adamrezich 5y ago
right. if the replier above had said "you have no evidence for that claim" I would reply by saying "you are correct, it is however a possibility, surely we can agree on that?" but instead the replier used the term "conspiracy theory nonsense" to characterize my words, which is, to say the very least, a highly loaded term with built-in connotations. I personally believe that dismissing any sort of theorizing as being "conspiracy theory nonsense" is more harmful than any sort of benign theorizing itself. this line of thinking seems to assert that in reality, nothing ever happens with ulterior motives, people and groups in seats of power wouldn't do anything and everything to maintain said power under any circumstances, everything is just an isolated, random occurrence, geopolitics don't exist, and that looking for patterns and connections is something that only delusional people engage in. many people have been programmed to react to anything not commonly-accepted in the mainstream "narrative" by immediately labeling it a "conspiracy theory" and then refusing to think any more critically about it. I believe the rapid spread of this way of thinking to be incredibly dangerous to society as a whole. I am not saying that theorizing should be taken as fact, merely that theories shouldn't be dismissed entirely out of hand using a stock phrase. in fact, when discussing such things, or anything really, any sort of kneejerk word/phrase association-type response should give one pause, because these word/phrase associations are learned behavior, and it may be enlightening to determine the source of this learned behavior.

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

> Your "possibly political" statement is conspiracy theory nonsense. Back in my day we just called it FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt When did FUD go out of style?