6 ms·

People conspire, and always have from the earliest civilizations. Just because absolutely idiotic theories have conveniently been highlighted like Q or Flat Ea

People conspire, and always have from the earliest civilizations. Just because absolutely idiotic theories have conveniently been highlighted like Q or Flat Earth we shouldn't equate it to the last sad remnants of what would have been standard research journalism just 20 years ago. People are turning to cartoonish conspiracies because "Journalism" has either died or been bought. It's a dystopian media landscape we live in and the power brokers benefit from both the vacuum and the circus that has come in its place.

loriverkutya 4y ago
> always has been from the earliest civilizations Can you provide something to support your statement?
- kossTKR 4y ago
  I mean it's literally right in standard macro-history; religious cults, clubs, closed societies in all forms through literally all ages. A newer very interesting book on the subject going back even further: [The Power of Ritual in Prehistory Secret Societies and Origins of Social Complexity](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-ritual-in-prehistory/1C80D07EC1D8036E3633F8A8F4527467 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-ritual-in-preh...) I find it weird that - especially americans - still don't think in terms of groups, but see the individual as the driver of history - a historiographical school that has been outdated for 70 years now.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > americans still don't think in terms of groups As an American, I find this statement radically perplexing. Through the scourge of identity politics, we do nothing but categorize people into groups in basically every avenue of society. You can't go to college without your group affecting you. You can't find a good job without your group mattering. Individualists who essentially want to take the Martin Luther King Jr speech literally (I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.) can be castigated as the most vile people by some for not wanting to treat anybody differently from anybody else.
    - paulluuk 4y ago
      > You can't go to college without your group affecting you. You can't find a good job without your group mattering. Do you have any evidence to back this up? Which "group-membership" prevents you from going to college or getting a good job? Edit: I think I misunderstood, obviously different ethnical groups have different experiences in their careers and lives in general.
      - pc86 4y ago
        Just ask anyone, of any group, and they'll tell you how being in their group made both of these harder while less qualified people of the other groups had it easier than they did.
        paulluuk 4y ago
        You're right, I'm not sure what I was thinking. I thought OP was hinting that being white was preventing them from going to college or getting a good job because of positive discrimination, but now I'm not sure how to interpret their comment any more and my reply is very dumb.
      - logicalmonster 4y ago
        You are presenting a strawman. I did not say that you are prevented from going to college or getting a good job, but your group can affect your life outcome and does matter in these decisions. Look at the Asian-American discrimination case against Harvard entrance as one of many examples.
        paulluuk 4y ago
        It was not my intention to present a strawman: I assumed that by "affect" you really did mean "prevent". I.e. being Asian-American prevents some people from gaining entrance to Harvard, in this case.
    - kossTKR 4y ago
      Identity politics is exactly the kind of circus that is opposite analysis of the power dynamics in society. Realpolitics or material analysis - "follow the money" is the only way to understand the networks of power but that's not allowed because a tiny class of people want to stay in the shadows for good reason. Culture wars are very convenient, and yes very annoying.
- soVeryTired 4y ago
  It’s a bit perplexing that you’d even ask this. Wouldn’t it be incredibly surprising if people in early civilisations never conspired with one another?
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  Is a citation of human nature really necessary?
- hoseja 4y ago
  Have you ever given any thought to how human collectives actually work.
phiy 4y ago
Investigative journalism is dead, and with it, the checks and balances that the first amendment was supposed to guarantee. Soviet-esque silence on important issues doesn't win confidence.
- simonw 4y ago
  Investigative journalism is alive and well, though funding sources for it have been changing now that there are less traditional newspapers who can afford to invest heavily in it. https://www.propublica.org/ https://www.propublica.org/ is one great example of the non-profit model applied successfully to investigative reporting.
- pohl 4y ago
  Soviet-esque, but if the party was driven by profit motive, though, right?
bigger_inside 4y ago
There's a sub-field in sociology that asks, HOW does something get called a conspiracy theory[1]. As a processual question, it's much more interesting than the deterministic "is this a conspiracy theory or not". Part of it is an interesting difference: sometimes, we call secret coordination simply, "organization" or "planning" - when we think it's legitimate to do, expect that it happens, and intend to make it seem harmless (which it often is not; the vast majority of organizational action can be characterized as that, and there is someone harmed by this coordination more often than not. Teachers "organizing" grades happens behind students' backs in closed conferences; the results are life-changing. In principle, people think this is legitimate (where the sociological question is "wait, why?" - not inviting an argument on the pros and cons, but asking the historical question, how did it come about that we developed this process as "normal", with the mere recognition that it need not be this way - without making a judgment on whether this is better or worse, just pointing out a contingency.) Goffman calls the actions of a family behind the back of a family member "collusion" and outlines how circles of collusion expand, like when people start including more and more people, including doctors, without the member's knowledge, to confront them with a "fait accompli" [2]. Again, not arguing for or against at this point, just noting: from the point of view of the member on the other side, this is a secretly organized betrayal. Much of society largely approves, shown by the involvement of accredited authority figures (including, later on, courts, if it comes to that). This, again, is neither obvious nor natural; it's just what developed (and can be criticized). So, saying this happens is not a conspiracy theory. Then come the sociological studies about how this -actually- happens. How students get punished through grade adjustments for being a general pain to teachers. How families use the medical system to get rid of unwanted actions that shame them in public (Aunt Hilda is claiming weird things to neighbors. A medical label will calm the situation; or, Uncle Joe doesn't want to sell the house, but we, the children, think he should. A court decision will make this simpler.) All of these things happen, all day every day. NOW they call into question the legitimacy of these institutions. NOW they get called conspiracy theories; a tool to protect the institution from this questioning. [1] Anton, Andreas, Michael Schetsche, and Michael K. Walter. "Einleitung: Wirklichkeitskonstruktion zwischen Orthodoxie und Heterodoxie–zur Wissenssoziologie von Verschwörungstheorien." Konspiration: Soziologie des Verschwörungsdenkens (2014): 9-25. [2] Goffman, Erving. "The insanity of place." Psychiatry 32, no. 4 (1969): 357-388.

loriverkutya 4y ago

> always has been from the earliest civilizations Can you provide something to support your statement?

kossTKR 4y ago
I mean it's literally right in standard macro-history; religious cults, clubs, closed societies in all forms through literally all ages. A newer very interesting book on the subject going back even further: [The Power of Ritual in Prehistory Secret Societies and Origins of Social Complexity](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-ritual-in-prehistory/1C80D07EC1D8036E3633F8A8F4527467 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-ritual-in-preh...) I find it weird that - especially americans - still don't think in terms of groups, but see the individual as the driver of history - a historiographical school that has been outdated for 70 years now.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > americans still don't think in terms of groups As an American, I find this statement radically perplexing. Through the scourge of identity politics, we do nothing but categorize people into groups in basically every avenue of society. You can't go to college without your group affecting you. You can't find a good job without your group mattering. Individualists who essentially want to take the Martin Luther King Jr speech literally (I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.) can be castigated as the most vile people by some for not wanting to treat anybody differently from anybody else.
  - paulluuk 4y ago
    > You can't go to college without your group affecting you. You can't find a good job without your group mattering. Do you have any evidence to back this up? Which "group-membership" prevents you from going to college or getting a good job? Edit: I think I misunderstood, obviously different ethnical groups have different experiences in their careers and lives in general.
    - pc86 4y ago
      Just ask anyone, of any group, and they'll tell you how being in their group made both of these harder while less qualified people of the other groups had it easier than they did.
      - paulluuk 4y ago
        You're right, I'm not sure what I was thinking. I thought OP was hinting that being white was preventing them from going to college or getting a good job because of positive discrimination, but now I'm not sure how to interpret their comment any more and my reply is very dumb.
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      You are presenting a strawman. I did not say that you are prevented from going to college or getting a good job, but your group can affect your life outcome and does matter in these decisions. Look at the Asian-American discrimination case against Harvard entrance as one of many examples.
      - paulluuk 4y ago
        It was not my intention to present a strawman: I assumed that by "affect" you really did mean "prevent". I.e. being Asian-American prevents some people from gaining entrance to Harvard, in this case.
  - kossTKR 4y ago
    Identity politics is exactly the kind of circus that is opposite analysis of the power dynamics in society. Realpolitics or material analysis - "follow the money" is the only way to understand the networks of power but that's not allowed because a tiny class of people want to stay in the shadows for good reason. Culture wars are very convenient, and yes very annoying.
soVeryTired 4y ago
It’s a bit perplexing that you’d even ask this. Wouldn’t it be incredibly surprising if people in early civilisations never conspired with one another?
logicalmonster 4y ago
Is a citation of human nature really necessary?
hoseja 4y ago
Have you ever given any thought to how human collectives actually work.

phiy 4y ago

Investigative journalism is dead, and with it, the checks and balances that the first amendment was supposed to guarantee. Soviet-esque silence on important issues doesn't win confidence.

simonw 4y ago
Investigative journalism is alive and well, though funding sources for it have been changing now that there are less traditional newspapers who can afford to invest heavily in it. https://www.propublica.org/ https://www.propublica.org/ is one great example of the non-profit model applied successfully to investigative reporting.
pohl 4y ago
Soviet-esque, but if the party was driven by profit motive, though, right?

bigger_inside 4y ago

There's a sub-field in sociology that asks, HOW does something get called a conspiracy theory[1]. As a processual question, it's much more interesting than the deterministic "is this a conspiracy theory or not". Part of it is an interesting difference: sometimes, we call secret coordination simply, "organization" or "planning" - when we think it's legitimate to do, expect that it happens, and intend to make it seem harmless (which it often is not; the vast majority of organizational action can be characterized as that, and there is someone harmed by this coordination more often than not. Teachers "organizing" grades happens behind students' backs in closed conferences; the results are life-changing. In principle, people think this is legitimate (where the sociological question is "wait, why?" - not inviting an argument on the pros and cons, but asking the historical question, how did it come about that we developed this process as "normal", with the mere recognition that it need not be this way - without making a judgment on whether this is better or worse, just pointing out a contingency.) Goffman calls the actions of a family behind the back of a family member "collusion" and outlines how circles of collusion expand, like when people start including more and more people, including doctors, without the member's knowledge, to confront them with a "fait accompli" [2]. Again, not arguing for or against at this point, just noting: from the point of view of the member on the other side, this is a secretly organized betrayal. Much of society largely approves, shown by the involvement of accredited authority figures (including, later on, courts, if it comes to that). This, again, is neither obvious nor natural; it's just what developed (and can be criticized). So, saying this happens is not a conspiracy theory. Then come the sociological studies about how this -actually- happens. How students get punished through grade adjustments for being a general pain to teachers. How families use the medical system to get rid of unwanted actions that shame them in public (Aunt Hilda is claiming weird things to neighbors. A medical label will calm the situation; or, Uncle Joe doesn't want to sell the house, but we, the children, think he should. A court decision will make this simpler.) All of these things happen, all day every day. NOW they call into question the legitimacy of these institutions. NOW they get called conspiracy theories; a tool to protect the institution from this questioning. [1] Anton, Andreas, Michael Schetsche, and Michael K. Walter. "Einleitung: Wirklichkeitskonstruktion zwischen Orthodoxie und Heterodoxie–zur Wissenssoziologie von Verschwörungstheorien." Konspiration: Soziologie des Verschwörungsdenkens (2014): 9-25. [2] Goffman, Erving. "The insanity of place." Psychiatry 32, no. 4 (1969): 357-388.