3 ms·
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they tend to be less useful as a way to sus out actual abuses of power and more useful as an ink blot test. People
by kmeisthax 4y ago
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they tend to be less useful as a way to sus out actual abuses of power and more useful as an ink blot test. People see what they want to see, because humans are creatures of fiction that can't stand the thought of living in an objective reality where coincidences are just coincidences and the most boring explanation is probably true.
The World Economic Forum is just a bog-standard capitalist outfit. Their more out-there views are not particularly divorced from the rentier capitalism of the New Gilded Age. To be unambiguous about it, that means a heady mix of international megacorporations, uncensored corporate speech[0], copyright maximalism, and the Brussels Effect[1]. The Occam's Razor explanation for the WEF is that greedy corporations that want to maximize profits are going to be greedy and profit-maximizing - in other words, it's the "capitalist agenda".
But if you have particular kinds of brainworms[2], you're going to ignore the greed that you don't want to talk about and start making up reasons for their actions wholly unrelated to what they actually think. For example, if you think white people are being "replaced", then you'll look past the obvious explanation and into the fringes of the ink blots, and come back thinking that the WEF was created by the powerless to oppress the powerful with... power they don't have.
In cases where conspiracies have actually tried to discredit defectors, it usually fails. In fact, it fails so hard that it becomes a meme, like "Russia denies" or "I did not have sexual relations[3] with that woman". Most actual conspiracies are just not that well thought out[4] enough for this to work, while the people writing the conspiracy theories are actually overthinking things.
What actually kills conspiracy theories is conflicting information - i.e. the conspiracy theory not actually lining up with reality. There will always be people who still buy it, though, because conspiracy theories that are not true always substitute veracity with narrative salience. In fact, sometimes being widely known to be false benefits the conspiracy theory, because now you can work the debunking of obvious lies into your conspiracy narrative and make it more salient than ever. And there's no actual conspiracy on the debunking side, either. You are not being smeared by the media because they're all in on trying to hide the truth - remember, coordination leaves evidence. You are being smeared by the media because you are on the side of narrative fiction.
[0] Sometimes complained about under the banner of "money is not speech"
[1] The process by which treaties agreed to by rich countries tie the hands of non-party countries by way of tolerance.
[2] Typically the "50s red scare" strain of anticommunism
[3] it's only sex if the balls are touching - Bill Clinton
[4] Reason being that being in a position of power gives you symptoms of brain damage. In order to implement a successful conspiracy you need power, and that power will blunt your reasoning over time.
- User23 4y ago> humans are creatures of fiction that can't stand the thought of living in an objective reality where coincidences are just coincidences and the most boring explanation is probably true. Alternately, they can’t stand living in an objective reality where powerful people are systematically up to bad things and they’re helpless to do anything about it. Given the response to the comment you’re replying to, even the possibility that there might be any kind of conspiracies is displeasing to many. As for the most boring explanation probably being true, well that would be a terrible heuristic to use for any of the hard sciences. I don’t see why it would be the case for the considerably more complex and chaotic social sciences. > The World Economic Forum is just a bog-standard capitalist outfit. That’s certainly what the prestige media will tell you! In any event I just tossed it out there as an example. > Typically the "50s red scare" strain of anticommunism You may want to pick another example, given that there were in fact communist sympathizers in the State Department at the time.
- XorNot 4y agoSympathisers aren't implicitly traitors, and the idea that there was going to be one global communism, with power centred in Moscow was thoroughly discredited by history since.
- User23 4y agoYou're giving a wonderful example of the phenomenon I'm discussing. You learned, probably in grade school, about McCarthyism and whatnot and now you're ironclad convinced the whole thing was a paranoid fantasy conspiracy theory or if there is any truth to it at all that it was insignificant. Meanwhile, there are a large number of known communist traitors and spies from the era[1] and probably many more that weren't discovered. It's been the better part of three decades since the Venona Papers were declassified. This is ironclad history[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eastern_Bloc_agents_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eastern_Bloc_agents_in... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venon...
- zmgsabst 4y ago