4 ms·

There's a difference between views you disagree with and conspiracy theories.

asxd 5y ago
Well yeah, the difference is that conspiracy theories purport that a group of people are secretly conspiring in order to fool the public into believing a false narrative. I disagree with some views that fit that description and I disagree with some that don't. But this is more about people close to me espousing fringe views that seem to do nothing but cause them anger. These views are baseless, but I'm not particularly interested in trying prove them wrong at this point. I just don't like seeing my loved ones being hateful.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > Well yeah, the difference is that conspiracy theories purport that a group of people are secretly conspiring in order to fool the public into believing a false narrative. You mean like this: 1. https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ 2. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/15/1046519838/katie-courics-ethics-are-questioned-for-concealing-justice-ginsburgs-comments https://www.npr.org/2021/10/15/1046519838/katie-courics-ethi... How much more do we need to see before we realize that indeed there is a group of people conspiring in order to fool the public into believing a false narrative. The only thing the conspiracy theorists have wrong is that it is secret.
  - asxd 5y ago
    I mean sure, although the time article uses the word "conspiracy" in a sensationalist sort of way. It's about Trump's efforts to weave a false narrative and the bi-partisan "conspiracy" to ensure the election was fair. But again, my point is not towards uncovering or debunking conspiracy theories or convincing anyone one way or the other. I just appreciated the approach described in the article where they instead targeted emotional issues to help loved ones disagree amicably. EDIT: As an unrelated aside, I really did appreciate you posting that Time article, it was quite an interesting read. And a related aside, to your point, I agree that we should be vigilant of actual malicious conspiracies, that just wasn't my intended topic of my initial response.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      > It's about Trump's efforts to weave a false narrative and the bi-partisan "conspiracy" to ensure the election was fair. No it's not. That is a conspiracy itself. The times article clearly articulates an at-the-time secret cabal of people meant to swing the results of the election via control of information and putting out a narrative (for example, by censoring the hunter biden laptop stories, which we now have pretty incontrivertible proof of). Please stop the gaslighting. Have you considered your conspiratorial friends are correct and you are wrong?
      - asxd 5y ago
        That's just not what I took away from the article. Out of sincere curiosity I would happily re-read it if you provided some quotes from the article that led to your interpretation. Maybe I can try to see it from your perspective if you highlighted parts that stuck out to you--I may have glossed over some parts that you read more carefully. My intention is not to gaslight; I'd like to keep an open mind, and of course I'd like to understand viewpoints currently counter to my own. And again, please hear me when I say this curiosity is sincere. As I said previously, what I appreciated from the original slate article was the focus on amicable disagreement.

asxd 5y ago

Well yeah, the difference is that conspiracy theories purport that a group of people are secretly conspiring in order to fool the public into believing a false narrative. I disagree with some views that fit that description and I disagree with some that don't. But this is more about people close to me espousing fringe views that seem to do nothing but cause them anger. These views are baseless, but I'm not particularly interested in trying prove them wrong at this point. I just don't like seeing my loved ones being hateful.

iammisc 5y ago
> Well yeah, the difference is that conspiracy theories purport that a group of people are secretly conspiring in order to fool the public into believing a false narrative. You mean like this: 1. https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ 2. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/15/1046519838/katie-courics-ethics-are-questioned-for-concealing-justice-ginsburgs-comments https://www.npr.org/2021/10/15/1046519838/katie-courics-ethi... How much more do we need to see before we realize that indeed there is a group of people conspiring in order to fool the public into believing a false narrative. The only thing the conspiracy theorists have wrong is that it is secret.
- asxd 5y ago
  I mean sure, although the time article uses the word "conspiracy" in a sensationalist sort of way. It's about Trump's efforts to weave a false narrative and the bi-partisan "conspiracy" to ensure the election was fair. But again, my point is not towards uncovering or debunking conspiracy theories or convincing anyone one way or the other. I just appreciated the approach described in the article where they instead targeted emotional issues to help loved ones disagree amicably. EDIT: As an unrelated aside, I really did appreciate you posting that Time article, it was quite an interesting read. And a related aside, to your point, I agree that we should be vigilant of actual malicious conspiracies, that just wasn't my intended topic of my initial response.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    > It's about Trump's efforts to weave a false narrative and the bi-partisan "conspiracy" to ensure the election was fair. No it's not. That is a conspiracy itself. The times article clearly articulates an at-the-time secret cabal of people meant to swing the results of the election via control of information and putting out a narrative (for example, by censoring the hunter biden laptop stories, which we now have pretty incontrivertible proof of). Please stop the gaslighting. Have you considered your conspiratorial friends are correct and you are wrong?
    - asxd 5y ago
      That's just not what I took away from the article. Out of sincere curiosity I would happily re-read it if you provided some quotes from the article that led to your interpretation. Maybe I can try to see it from your perspective if you highlighted parts that stuck out to you--I may have glossed over some parts that you read more carefully. My intention is not to gaslight; I'd like to keep an open mind, and of course I'd like to understand viewpoints currently counter to my own. And again, please hear me when I say this curiosity is sincere. As I said previously, what I appreciated from the original slate article was the focus on amicable disagreement.