3 ms·

There's a huge difference between "they're putting chemicals in our water to make us more docile" and "technologies and products which revolutionized food produ

by cerol 4y ago

There's a huge difference between "they're putting chemicals in our water to make us more docile" and "technologies and products which revolutionized food production and made it affordable for an increasingly larger population have now been shown to be harmful, but corporate interest acting on local monetary optimization coupled with government corruption (also acting on local monetary optimization) are preventing policies to be made for the sake of global human health". The latter is boring but useful. The former sells more books.

logicalmonster 4y ago
1) To be precise, I've heard the water quality concerns from some conspiracy theorists for many years, but I don't know which of them have specifically said why this is happening. That comment about a docile population was solely my speculation on its effects, and not a quote from anybody. 2) Certainly it's fair to point out that mind-reading isn't a thing and you can't prove why anybody does anything. Thoughts and motives of others are internal to their brain, and while they can be in evidence, they cannot be fully known. This idea that you can mind-read is something that virtually every media entity, whether it's a mainstream corporate outlet or some indie conspiracy theorist, gets wrong. Many news headlines are literal mind-reading headlines that are impossible to verify. Once you start looking for this, you'll see media mind-reading everywhere. 3) I'd like to point out that you arguably committed the same mind-reading error in your post that you're critiquing. By saying that that "the former sells more books", you're stating an assumption that their motives are fiduciary and not driven by a genuine desire for human freedom and quality of life. Your statement may or may not be accurate, but certainly isn't a provable summary of their motives. 4) A lot of the ivory tower crowd likes to scoff at the conspiracy theorists, saying they always get things wrong. That can be debated until the cows come home, but I'd like to point out one small thing. There's no war in my lifetime (other than Ukraine, imagine that) that a large chunk of the corporate media weren't hooting, hollering, and cheerleading for, and I can't think of many conspiracy theorists who ever supported the constant random wars. Just think about that when deciding if contrarian voices are needed or not.

by cerol 4y ago

logicalmonster 4y ago

1) To be precise, I've heard the water quality concerns from some conspiracy theorists for many years, but I don't know which of them have specifically said why this is happening. That comment about a docile population was solely my speculation on its effects, and not a quote from anybody. 2) Certainly it's fair to point out that mind-reading isn't a thing and you can't prove why anybody does anything. Thoughts and motives of others are internal to their brain, and while they can be in evidence, they cannot be fully known. This idea that you can mind-read is something that virtually every media entity, whether it's a mainstream corporate outlet or some indie conspiracy theorist, gets wrong. Many news headlines are literal mind-reading headlines that are impossible to verify. Once you start looking for this, you'll see media mind-reading everywhere. 3) I'd like to point out that you arguably committed the same mind-reading error in your post that you're critiquing. By saying that that "the former sells more books", you're stating an assumption that their motives are fiduciary and not driven by a genuine desire for human freedom and quality of life. Your statement may or may not be accurate, but certainly isn't a provable summary of their motives. 4) A lot of the ivory tower crowd likes to scoff at the conspiracy theorists, saying they always get things wrong. That can be debated until the cows come home, but I'd like to point out one small thing. There's no war in my lifetime (other than Ukraine, imagine that) that a large chunk of the corporate media weren't hooting, hollering, and cheerleading for, and I can't think of many conspiracy theorists who ever supported the constant random wars. Just think about that when deciding if contrarian voices are needed or not.