2 ms·

Something interesting about humans is that they often criticize members of their outgroups for being bad at thinking or holding false beliefs, but in the proces

Something interesting about humans is that they often criticize members of their outgroups for being bad at thinking or holding false beliefs, but in the process of doing so the person doing the criticizing demonstrates that they suffer from the very same problem. Case in point: > They're hardly new. The QAnon/Pizzagate "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory is just the old Jewish blood libel with a slightly scifi modernization and a touch of the 80s Satanic panic. It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people. And yet to the (standard) human mind, the exact opposite seems true. It is strange that our whole world runs on this phenomenon, but it seems like it is not possible to get anyone to discuss the phenomenon. Granted, expecting someone who is suffering from the phenomenon to acknowledge it at the time that it occurs isn't terribly realistic, and I can accept that. But the weird part to me is that it is rarely possible to get anyone to acknowledge the phenomenon....it is very much like the fable of the emperor having no clothes, but in real life, right here and now.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Nah, arguing "you can't ever analyze the belief structure of a large group" is a non-starter for me. We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Nah, arguing "you can't ever analyze the belief structure of a large group" is a non-starter for me. I know, that's my point (of "It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people"). One HAS TO use one's imagination to perform such an "analysis"....but it is imagined - the very thing (the imaginary, and some actual) conspiracy theorists are mocked for! If the topic was something other than conspiracy theories (or any culture war topic), presenting one's imagination as fact would not stand on Hacker News...but when the topic is a culture war one, this standard inverts: then, acceptable norms to a large degree change to "imagination is ok, but appeals to truth are considered bad/unacceptable/weird". > We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again. Where is it? Can you point it out in a way that I also can see it? And how did it get here, by you making a reference to it?

ceejayoz 4y ago

Nah, arguing "you can't ever analyze the belief structure of a large group" is a non-starter for me. We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again.

mistermann 4y ago
> Nah, arguing "you can't ever analyze the belief structure of a large group" is a non-starter for me. I know, that's my point (of "It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people"). One HAS TO use one's imagination to perform such an "analysis"....but it is imagined - the very thing (the imaginary, and some actual) conspiracy theorists are mocked for! If the topic was something other than conspiracy theories (or any culture war topic), presenting one's imagination as fact would not stand on Hacker News...but when the topic is a culture war one, this standard inverts: then, acceptable norms to a large degree change to "imagination is ok, but appeals to truth are considered bad/unacceptable/weird". > We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again. Where is it? Can you point it out in a way that I also can see it? And how did it get here, by you making a reference to it?