3 ms·

> To be a conspiracy theorist just means to not be aligned to the dominant narrative I don't believe that. One can be skeptical of, or even opposed to, the dom

> To be a conspiracy theorist just means to not be aligned to the dominant narrative I don't believe that. One can be skeptical of, or even opposed to, the dominant narrative without becoming a conspiracy theorist. The key is in the word itself: conspiracy. It means people operating together toward some hidden and generally nefarious goal. That's not only attribution of motive (a fallacy) but also positing something that's often quite implausible. How many people would have to retain perfect secrecy for how long to support the "fake moon landing" conspiracy, and how likely is that really? Even if we decide that "conspiracy" is being misused and focus on "theory" instead, that theory is also based on assumptions and coincidences that are as "absurd" (your word) as the dominant narrative. For example, you're assuming that the leaders "exploiting a crisis" to drive a "radical agenda" outnumber those interested in seeking the truth and/or serving the public. You're assuming that being able to "smell farts through" a mask means they're useless, even though the offending molecules are smaller than even the smallest virus particles and real-world results show that widespread mask wearing does reduce transmission. Your theories are no less "dissonant" than anyone else's, but even if they had some sort of internal consistency that doesn't make them correct. Conspiracy theorists are people so desperate to be not only right but more right than others that they throw true skepticism and logic out the window.

motohagiography 5y ago
I'd accept the definition of conspiracy requires co-ordinated intent and deception, and that divergence from dominant narratives does not require a belief in a conspiracy, but I would reassert that accusations of conspiracy theories are used exclusively to isolate and delegitimize dissent from dominant narratives. Anyone who makes predictions based on percieved incentives and not official narratives is a conspiracy theorist. You can't just use the epithet as a synonym for inferior and outgroup and expect people to treat it as a serious argument. This qualifer that the goal of a conspiracy has to be nefarious is ridiculous, because that just means it's fine when our side does it becuase no-nefariousness means no-conspiracy. People who think that way aren't engaged in discourse, they're at war, which is fine, but pretending you're not at war when you in fact are is called perfidy. Calling something a conspiracy theory isn't discourse. I'm pretty sure we landed on the moon, but I'm also pretty sure that hundreds of thousands of people worked in secrecy over decades and conspired to intercept the private communications of pretty much everyone in the world, while subverting standards bodies, science, academia, and open source projects, as we found out in 2011-2013 thanks to Binney and Snowden. Conspiracies are not exceptional, they're common as muck, ask any regulated professional. We could probably share an Ig Nobel for comparing virus cells to fecal particulates (farticles?), but even charitably, comparing any transmission reduction effect of masks to the cost of enforcement and the effects of cynical policy response still yields a co-ordinated effort to decieve the public with noble lies "for their own good." There has absolutely been a co-ordinated effort to leverage the crisis to institute radical policies, denying that is so unserious as to be gaslighting. What we're likely haggling over is the point where facts dissolve into focus and narrative, and where shared ideology becomes conspiracy. My view is that ideology is inextricable from conspiracy, where a more materialist view would be that a conspiracy is just when you've been caught and convicted of it.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > accusations of conspiracy theories are used exclusively Exclusively? Really? Like there are no actual crazy or malign conspiracy theories out there? Literally none? > This qualifer that the goal of a conspiracy has to be nefarious is ridiculous I very specifically said "generally nefarious" to indicate that nefariousness was non-essential. The essential parts (as you'll find in a dictionary) are "operating together" and "hidden" and you already conceded on those. Your original key claim ("to be a conspiracy theorist...") was clearly ridiculous, and you even seem to have admitted as much. What's the point of quibbling about non-essential and secondary parts? > conspired to intercept the private communications Nice red herring you've got there. Be a shame if anyone thought you were avoiding actual productive discourse by resorting to it. > You can't just use the epithet as a synonym for inferior and outgroup and expect people to treat it as a serious argument. Never did. Is that a strawman, or attributing motive, or both? You've dug yourself a nice deep hole of bad faith here. Either start climbing out of it, or at least stop digging.
  - conspiracist 5y ago
    > You've dug yourself a nice deep hole of bad faith here. Either start climbing out of it, or at least stop digging. This tone is working against you more than you realize. Don't respond until you can process what they're saying without wrapping it off with such provocative emotionally-charged bait please.
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    I think I'm being trolled! What a hoot.:) However, litigation isn't persuasive. I'm glad to have struck a nerve, because I get to read final boss level arguments that I still think reduce to backbiting, envy, and nihilism, but this fundamental and probably irreconcilable level of disagreement on principle is too meta and off topic for us to have here. One hopes you will one day use your powers for good. See you in battle!

motohagiography 5y ago

I'd accept the definition of conspiracy requires co-ordinated intent and deception, and that divergence from dominant narratives does not require a belief in a conspiracy, but I would reassert that accusations of conspiracy theories are used exclusively to isolate and delegitimize dissent from dominant narratives. Anyone who makes predictions based on percieved incentives and not official narratives is a conspiracy theorist. You can't just use the epithet as a synonym for inferior and outgroup and expect people to treat it as a serious argument. This qualifer that the goal of a conspiracy has to be nefarious is ridiculous, because that just means it's fine when our side does it becuase no-nefariousness means no-conspiracy. People who think that way aren't engaged in discourse, they're at war, which is fine, but pretending you're not at war when you in fact are is called perfidy. Calling something a conspiracy theory isn't discourse. I'm pretty sure we landed on the moon, but I'm also pretty sure that hundreds of thousands of people worked in secrecy over decades and conspired to intercept the private communications of pretty much everyone in the world, while subverting standards bodies, science, academia, and open source projects, as we found out in 2011-2013 thanks to Binney and Snowden. Conspiracies are not exceptional, they're common as muck, ask any regulated professional. We could probably share an Ig Nobel for comparing virus cells to fecal particulates (farticles?), but even charitably, comparing any transmission reduction effect of masks to the cost of enforcement and the effects of cynical policy response still yields a co-ordinated effort to decieve the public with noble lies "for their own good." There has absolutely been a co-ordinated effort to leverage the crisis to institute radical policies, denying that is so unserious as to be gaslighting. What we're likely haggling over is the point where facts dissolve into focus and narrative, and where shared ideology becomes conspiracy. My view is that ideology is inextricable from conspiracy, where a more materialist view would be that a conspiracy is just when you've been caught and convicted of it.

notacoward 5y ago
> accusations of conspiracy theories are used exclusively Exclusively? Really? Like there are no actual crazy or malign conspiracy theories out there? Literally none? > This qualifer that the goal of a conspiracy has to be nefarious is ridiculous I very specifically said "generally nefarious" to indicate that nefariousness was non-essential. The essential parts (as you'll find in a dictionary) are "operating together" and "hidden" and you already conceded on those. Your original key claim ("to be a conspiracy theorist...") was clearly ridiculous, and you even seem to have admitted as much. What's the point of quibbling about non-essential and secondary parts? > conspired to intercept the private communications Nice red herring you've got there. Be a shame if anyone thought you were avoiding actual productive discourse by resorting to it. > You can't just use the epithet as a synonym for inferior and outgroup and expect people to treat it as a serious argument. Never did. Is that a strawman, or attributing motive, or both? You've dug yourself a nice deep hole of bad faith here. Either start climbing out of it, or at least stop digging.
- conspiracist 5y ago
  > You've dug yourself a nice deep hole of bad faith here. Either start climbing out of it, or at least stop digging. This tone is working against you more than you realize. Don't respond until you can process what they're saying without wrapping it off with such provocative emotionally-charged bait please.
- motohagiography 5y ago
  I think I'm being trolled! What a hoot.:) However, litigation isn't persuasive. I'm glad to have struck a nerve, because I get to read final boss level arguments that I still think reduce to backbiting, envy, and nihilism, but this fundamental and probably irreconcilable level of disagreement on principle is too meta and off topic for us to have here. One hopes you will one day use your powers for good. See you in battle!