4 ms·
> They become a problem when they go viral, among groups of people with limited critical thinking skills. Agreed, and to expand on this: I believe another prob
by notreallyserio 5y ago
> They become a problem when they go viral, among groups of people with limited critical thinking skills.
Agreed, and to expand on this: I believe another problem is that these conspiracy theorists also believe that they have secret knowledge that the man doesn’t want you to have. Finally, they are smarter about something than those folks with education and success.
This makes them an easy target for real conspiracies, conspiracies by folks that merely want to take their money. See, for example, the anti-GMO movement and specifically the anti-GMO seed packs you can buy.
- denton-scratch 5y ago> See, for example, the anti-GMO movement I'm against GMO. Not because I believe retail GMO food is likely to be harmful; I mean, harmful foods could be made, but we have testing. I'm against GMO because (a) a lot of GMO plants have been engineered to be grown with heavy use of herbicides and pesticides, (b) GMO crops make a farm non-organic, and I'm in favour of organic farming for environmental reasons; and (c) GMO companies lobby incessantly against food labelling. If a food supplier doesn't want to label my food, then absent any other excuse, I presume there's something they don't want me to know (yes, I read food labels in supermarkets. I carry a credit-card-sized magnifier in my wallet, for that purpose). What is an "anti-GMO seed pack"? Would that just be a pack containing seeds that are not genetically modified?
- bulatb 5y agoIt's rational for them to lobby against GMO labeling because it's a lose-lose proposition, even if they honestly believe their food is safe and eat it themselves. Either it scares off consumers (some of whom won't know what GMO means but understandably assume it's bad because it's disclosed) or they have to spend a bunch of money on "consumer education" and lose some of them anyway. That's whether GMOs are safe or not. Water companies would also lobby against "Warning: heavy water" and Cisco would lobby against "gigahertz radiation" labels, but not because they have something to hide.
- denton-scratch 5y ago> Doesn't mean they're hiding something. No it doesn't. But without a label of the form "contains GM ingredients", I am being deprived of choice about what I eat. It's reasonable to expect people to care a lot about what they eat. > Water companies would also lobby against "heavy water" labels If you mean labelling ordinary water as "heavy" because it contains a tiny amount of deuterium, I'm not that's analogous. Even if it is, I'm not sure that saying "They would say that, wouldn't they" makes their arguments against labelling more persuasive.
- bulatb 5y agoIt's not a prefect analogy because it only really captures the producer's point of view. They are hiding the product's heaviness or GMOness itself, but because they think that doesn't tell you anything about its safety or general worthiness and so should not be part of your decision. You should still be able to avoid the product for environmental reasons, or just because, but of course they don't think so. (HN's favorite Sinclair quote about men and salaries and understanding.)
- kbelder 5y agoYou probably mean "hard water"?