7 ms·

How about a mention that so many "conspiracy theories" have a certain grain of truth to them, and the fact that corporate media tries so hard to make sure you'r

• fortuna86 5y ago
  > but no one in media will touch it in any depth. He was eventually arrested because of a single reporters non-stop work: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/business/media/miami-herald-epstein.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/business/media/miami-hera...
• woodruffw 5y ago
  > The arrogance of articles like this talk is to down to the "stupid people" who believe in such things. I didn't read condescension in this article. What I read was a defense of innate rationality, and an attempt to understand why otherwise rational human beings (i.e., all of us) get sucked so easily into conspiratorial thought.
  • mistermann 5y ago
    The reason people get sucked into conspiratorial thought is because the human mind is highly susceptible to believing what it is told is true, based on not great reasoning or evidence. We are surrounded by this phenomenon, we just don't notice because if everyone agrees on not-actually-true "truths", it is *normal, and therefore completely bypasses our intuitive filter....and if someone is to point out imperfections in popular mainstream narratives, intuitive responses like "That's different!" or "That's just a conspiracy theory!" will be typical responses. If one was to actually study this phenomenon in journalism and social media, I suspect the abstract variations of these responses would be a fairly small list, so similar is intuitive thinking between individual human beings. As long as our humanity (and science) continues to not expose the varieties of extremely important patterns of behavior in the human mind, these exploits will remain unseen, and can be used for good or evil. If we want conspiracy theories to go away for good, expose what makes them possible, and in turn give up the magical power authorities have over the public. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.
    • woodruffw 5y ago
      This is a really oblique response. Could you be more explicit about what "not-actually-true "truths"" you're referring to? As for conspiracy theories as a whole: I'm not necessarily sure I want them to go away. Conspiracies are sometimes real, so it stands to reason that societies should tolerate some amount of conspiracy theorizing. I think the larger risk is the blurring of conspiracy theory and conspiracy culture, the latter being closer to the cult dynamics that we see with groups like QAnon.
      • mistermann 5y ago
        > This is a really oblique response. Could you be more explicit about what "not-actually-true "truths"" you're referring to? It's not always so cut and dried as ~"false truths", but more like normalcy/convention/cultural-norms are unquestioned. Look how we conduct journalism, in largely narrative form with a few cherry picked stats here and there. What the media decides and broadcasts is reality is what "mainstream" consumers believe/perceive reality is composed of. Sure, freedom of speech allows differing opinions to be broadcast, to some degree (and with limitations), but we have decades of experience in seeing that the Right beliefs are what prevail, attaching a "conspiracy theory" sticker is just one of the latest. Take "democracy", our most sacred institution - there are an infinite number of variations of democracy, but how many people think of it any more complexly than a binary? Yes, vigorous debate is allowed and even encouraged about mild tweaks, but how often does one encounter discussion of fundamental changes to how we practice democracy? Take our financial system - I think we're all aware of some of the interesting decisions that are made in this area on a regular basis. Consider covid and the "moral obligation" people have to get vaccinated and put up with any financial hardship resulting from lockdowns. I'm not opposing this on its own, but why is saving the lives of primarily boomers who've lived long, relatively lovely lives a moral imperative, spare no expense, and anyone who doesn't fall in line is considered selfish if not evil....but when it comes to children around the world dying of malnutrition, or people at home dying from drug issues, why is there zero moral imperative? "That's different"? Indeed it is, but I would very much like to see it stated explicitly and precisely why one "is" a moral imperative that demands setting aside all other concerns, and the others do not. If it is actually about saving lives, shouldn't we be concerned about all lives? Take how we live in general: how we educate our children and the public ((or don't as is often the case - see: financial literacy, critical thinking, etc), how we choose to design our cities, you name it. All of this is just "how it is", rarely do we seriously question the optimality of the fundamental ways we run things. But when something goes wrong, oh boy are we quick to point a finger at this or that policy/person, typically with zero regard whatsoever for the comprehensive causality that preceded the event. I propose that it is the psychological phenomenon/exploit described in this parable that enables this comedy of errors to continue on generation after generation, and I do not think I am the only person who is well aware of it: There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”
• crazy_horse 5y ago
  Why do you use biased language? Yes,there were lots of people in the media that dealt with Epstein. Epstein's arrest was public in what 2008 or 2009, you could find information about it on wikipedia in 2015. Now there have been multiple documentaries about it. That's why Gates acting all dumb about it years later is dumb. The conspiracy theorists that point at everything as child abuse weren't right just because they found one of the most public instances of it. It doesn't make their other dozens of claims true.
  • daenz 5y ago
    Epstein and his connections, and everyone involved, should have been the biggest story of the century, given how high up his influence reached. But it wasn't, and that should tell you all you need to know.
    • fortuna86 5y ago
      > given how high up his influence reached This thread is filled with people stating conspiracies as fact (without a hint of irony). We have no idea what his "influence" was, it's all speculation and conjecture. Yet that unknown is somehow proof it's all real ?
    • ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
      Could you explain why? I'm not arguing just wanting to hear your perspective. I know a bit about the story, but from my limited knowledge it seems like a Pedophile had a lot of powerful connections. Which seems roughly on par with Michael Jackson. A BIG story, but not biggest story of the century.
• bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  I think your comment is simplistic thinking, and is a meta-conspiracy theory, i.e. "my conspiracy theory: the media is hiding conspiracy theories!". > there is often a truth at the center of these theories. Some theories have been proven to be somewhat right, like supercomputers monitoring our communications (as proven by Snowden), but your "often truth" seems to be a broad generalization trying to say we should at least consider any nutjob theory to be legitimate. Lizard people? Flat earth? GTFO!
  • grawprog 5y ago
    >seems to be a broad generalization trying to say we should at least consider any nutjob theory to be legitimate. Lizard people? Flat earth? GTFO! This issue is something that seems odd to me. Why are blatantly ridiculous theories lumped in with things that have some possibility of truth under one big 'conspiracy theory' label? Things like flat earth and lizard people are so obviously ridiculous yet the media seems to treat theories like that the same as theories that question government or corporate motives or other such things as equivalent.
    • crazy_horse 5y ago
      Kyrie Irving - flat-earther, anti-vaxxer. To some people both are ridiculous positions. Conspiracy thoerists tend to groupp together and tend to pick up additional beliefs
      • bellyfullofbac 5y ago
        Some people wonder what's the point of believing the flat earth theory, but for people looking for marks to con, it's a great "tool". The FE theory expands to "Everyone is lying to you, your teachers, the scientific community, the government, everyone who tries to tell you the world is spherical!" and "teaches" you to not believe accepted science, because according to them, accepted the science is just a global (ha) conspiracy. Of course it's not hard to see why Fe'ers end up being antivaxxers. Or believing about pedophile pizza chains and furniture stores..
  • 5y ago
• saul_goodman 5y ago
  I love that NBC was suggesting the bizarre blue and white building on Epstein's island was his "workout building". Meanwhile, drone footage of the building shot through the windows clearly shows mattresses on the floor and no workout equipment. So strange for the MSM which ordinarily loves to run wild with speculation but gives a convicted pedophile all the benefit of the doubt.
• andrewla 5y ago
  > The Jeffrey Epstein story is so deep and disturbing, but no one in media will touch it in any depth. Or even do anything more than superficially acknowledge it. It's claims like this that alienate me from conspiracy theories like this one. What do you mean by "no one in media will touch it in any depth"? There have been innumerable front page and long form articles written about every aspect of it, including bits that are barely substantiated by reality or just barely hint at connections to nefarious forces. What would be the appropriate amount of coverage? I assume that for many people (not necessarily for you; I don't mean to tar too broadly with this brush) it would be media coverage that confirms the entirety of the theory; from his death at the hands of Hillary Clinton to his private sex island where he pimped out underage girls to his powerful friends and collected the videos to be used as blackmail by his intelligence service (Israeli? French? CIA? Russian?) connections. Every story with even vague connections to Epstein is plastered over every news outlet in the world. Maybe you would argue that the coverage is superficial, but it might be that the reason that they don't go beneath the surface is because ... there's nothing there. Epstein was a serial rapist who recruited underage girls and convinced them to recruit their friends, for his sexual exploitation. When caught, he used his connections to weasel out of paying for his crimes. When caught again, realizing that his connections could no longer protect him, he attempted to kill himself, failed, and then tried again and succeeded. He was wealthy and thought that his wealth could protect him. He was a big fan of technology and transhumanism and donated extensively in the area and cultivated relationships with people in those spaces. Our jails are not great at keeping people alive when they wish to end their lives, and they failed here, as they do so depressingly often for so many people accused of crimes.
  • wahnfrieden 5y ago
    Thanks for your nothing to see here defense of Epstein and his enablers, and the kind reference to his scientific interests
  • orangepurple 5y ago
    The reason people believe in mass cover ups is because of cases such as the death of Vincent Foster which was written off as a regular suicide by all major media publications.
• ben_w 5y ago
  > The Jeffrey Epstein story is so deep and disturbing, but no one in media will touch it in any depth. Or even do anything more than superficially acknowledge it. Should they? “Convicted child sex offender whose previous punishments were surprisingly minor died in jail” feels like a dog-bites-man story to me. Would you have noticed his death if he wasn’t famous? There are far too many possibilities to jump to any strong conclusions. For example, I’m not saying the guards who were supposed to check on him every 30 minutes did decide to take the law into their own hands (even ignoring libel laws that’s just my imagination and I have zero evidence), nor if the reason they “fell asleep” was being drugged by someone else who wanted to take the law into their own hands (ditto, my imagination and no evidence), but I also wouldn’t be surprised if either of these were the case. Nor would I be surprised if it was suicide. There are probably at least a dozen stories that wouldn’t surprise me, but no reason to prefer any given one of them, and that is one of the problems with conspiracy theories.
  • dathinab 5y ago
    Or: Person convicted of a crime even highly criminal prisoners often loath dies in prison. This sounds like a not that unusual thing to me tbh. especially if many people know about that crime and we are speaking about countries with a problematic prison system like the US and that person not joining/"bowing to" a gang in prison for protection. I would even go as far and say it's probably somewhat common in many parts of the world.
  • akvadrako 5y ago
    Epstein's death in jail is not much of a mystery; I assume the parent was talking more about the rest of his life.
• danbruc 5y ago
  How about a mention that so many "conspiracy theories" have a certain grain of truth to them [...] Examples? And also what do you mean with conspiracy theories, may a group of corrupt politicians and businessmen qualify as a conspiracy in your sense?
  • newacc9 5y ago
    When five swing states shutdown voting at the same time, it is a signal that someone with power made a phone call. When Governor Blagojevich declares that the state of Illinois will no longer due business with the Bank of America, and the next day he is taken into custody and prison, it is a signal that someone with power made a phone call. All we have are signals.
  • pwned1 5y ago
    The example I cite -- MK-ULTRA, Charles Manson, and Jack Ruby.
• dathinab 5y ago
  While there is a lot of fault on the "traditional press"(1) for the current situation it's not that simple. (1): I'm speaking from a German POV and as such about German press, but it probably applies to many other countries, too. In my experience the "small but of truth" somewhere hidden in there is not just often quite distorted, the consequences /lesson people are made to believe this has/should have is often inanely distorted. Very often by using clever subtile manipulative layering of various conspiracy theories, lies, distortions etc. So the moment you say "of point A in way A is actually true", a lot of people will interpret it a "point W,X,Y are true in way Z" where both the truth and interpretation they take from your statement have little to nothing to do with your statement at all. So acknowledging some truth hidden in some conspiracy theory can easily become quite dangerous. I have seen cases of this in my environment. What we are missing is I think proper purely objective and exploratory non linear press content and especially "scientific communication" (not sure how to translate it, basically science press for non science people). But it's hard to start it now, and if we do we need to be very careful. Because we life in a messed up world, and I fare if we go from 0 to 100% objective truth about everything a lot of people would either claim it's conspiracy or totally end if entangled in conspiracy theories. I mean just confront ~60y people with climate change and/or environmental damage facts and see how many accept them and how many try to find all kind of excuses labeling thinks as being exaggerating or out right a conspiracy theory because they can't accept that their generation has majorly fucked up. Similar topic confronting ~60y old people with cooperate corruption in Germany.
• drewcoo 5y ago
  Agreed. The article seeks to vilify conspiracy thinking, which it seems to only see on one side of the political aisle. This is in keeping with the author's partisan take on political polarization.[1] [1] https://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-of-Political-Polarization/Prooijen/p/book/9780367487164 https://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-of-Political-Polari...