4 ms·

The idea that small cabals of individuals can act in collusion like this goes against the commonly held view of the economy as an anonymous force of nature that

by itmag 15y ago

The idea that small cabals of individuals can act in collusion like this goes against the commonly held view of the economy as an anonymous force of nature that always moves toward efficient equilibrium. But sometimes that's just what happens.

michaelochurch 15y ago
Why I find "conspiracy theories" ridiculous: with "friends" (above-board entities like corporations, proud of having titled nobility... er, I mean, executives; I forgot that "America doesn't have a hereditary aristocracy") like our leading large institutions, who needs enemies? Why invent shadowy evil organizations when there are so many objectively-visible and extremely greedy (if not quite evil, and most often too stupid and poorly-run to pull off the levels of evil we imagine) ones? The evil-evils don't meet in shadowy mansions with bad lighting and creepy piano music. They meet in private parties in Aspen and executive boardrooms and on the boards of "charities" that really exist as a scoreboard for the social status of rich people. They also don't have huge orgies. They visit prostitutes half their age whom they pay $1500/night to endure their post-coital crying about their mistakes (such as marrying dumb trophy/corporate wives and having to write high-six-figure donation checks to shove their low-IQ kids into Ivies). There isn't "one conspiracy to rule them all", but there are lower-case-c conspiracies all over the place.
- itmag 15y ago
  Conspiracy just means "in the same spirit" (from the latin con spirare - breathe together).
  - michaelochurch 15y ago
    Upvote back to +1, just because I think it's interesting how words fairly arbitrarily acquire strong signed (positive or negative) meanings, e.g. awful vs. awesome, collaboration vs. collusion. It's not at all stable across languages. If you call someone a "collabo" (collaborator) in France, that's a huge insult (referring to Nazi collaborators in the Vichy era).
    - itmag 15y ago
      I think my comment is valid and on-topic. People make fun of conspiracy theories, but the fact is that conspiracies go on all the time. There is even a crime called "conspiracy", after all. It would be better to say "implausible crank theories" or something when that is what one refers to.
      - ambler0 15y ago
        Thank you for bringing this fact up. "conspiracy to commit x" is an extremely common charge in our legal system. The Orwellification of the word is such that, only when we try to apply this term to the powerful do we suddenly become crazy kooks, despite the fact that the powerful are often the ones with the motive, and certainly the means, to engage in conspiracy.
      - adambyrtek 15y ago
        I find it amusing when well-meaning people try to dictate what a given word or phrase should mean. Language evolves in a chaotic way, often against logical arguments. You might be right, but "conspiracy theory" already has an established meaning, and you are not going to change that.
        itmag 15y ago
        Sure, but that also means I am free to try and re-re-define words back to their origin as well :)
        andrewflnr 15y ago
        Indeed, you are free to. On occasion I've tried to do the same thing. But in practice, I don't think it usually helps. It muddies up the waters of conversation, which depend on everyone having roughly the same definitions of words. At least, you have to be careful, and know that most people won't (immediately) change, and that you're making things more complicated.
        15y ago
- ambler0 15y ago
  So it sounds like you don't have a problem with "conspiracy theories" after all. Neither do I. Conspiracies happen all the time, as you say. When you talk about shadowy mansions and orgies, it sounds to me like you're invoking a straw man conspiracy. But real conspiracies are plenty shadowy (isn't that the whole idea?) The upper level meetings of the very powerful seem to be quite secretive, with great security, be they in boardrooms or at parties in Aspen. What frustrates me is that "conspiracy theory" has just become code for "thing that can't possibly be even considered". This is the message that comes down to us whenever people want to discuss, e.g. income equality, or the reasons for going to war. People internalize this, making it difficult for them to evaluate the real everyday conspiracies that take place around them, and, of course, benefiting conspirators.

by itmag 15y ago

michaelochurch 15y ago

Why I find "conspiracy theories" ridiculous: with "friends" (above-board entities like corporations, proud of having titled nobility... er, I mean, executives; I forgot that "America doesn't have a hereditary aristocracy") like our leading large institutions, who needs enemies? Why invent shadowy evil organizations when there are so many objectively-visible and extremely greedy (if not quite evil, and most often too stupid and poorly-run to pull off the levels of evil we imagine) ones? The evil-evils don't meet in shadowy mansions with bad lighting and creepy piano music. They meet in private parties in Aspen and executive boardrooms and on the boards of "charities" that really exist as a scoreboard for the social status of rich people. They also don't have huge orgies. They visit prostitutes half their age whom they pay $1500/night to endure their post-coital crying about their mistakes (such as marrying dumb trophy/corporate wives and having to write high-six-figure donation checks to shove their low-IQ kids into Ivies). There isn't "one conspiracy to rule them all", but there are lower-case-c conspiracies all over the place.

itmag 15y ago
Conspiracy just means "in the same spirit" (from the latin con spirare - breathe together).
- michaelochurch 15y ago
  Upvote back to +1, just because I think it's interesting how words fairly arbitrarily acquire strong signed (positive or negative) meanings, e.g. awful vs. awesome, collaboration vs. collusion. It's not at all stable across languages. If you call someone a "collabo" (collaborator) in France, that's a huge insult (referring to Nazi collaborators in the Vichy era).
  - itmag 15y ago
    I think my comment is valid and on-topic. People make fun of conspiracy theories, but the fact is that conspiracies go on all the time. There is even a crime called "conspiracy", after all. It would be better to say "implausible crank theories" or something when that is what one refers to.
    - ambler0 15y ago
      Thank you for bringing this fact up. "conspiracy to commit x" is an extremely common charge in our legal system. The Orwellification of the word is such that, only when we try to apply this term to the powerful do we suddenly become crazy kooks, despite the fact that the powerful are often the ones with the motive, and certainly the means, to engage in conspiracy.
    - adambyrtek 15y ago
      I find it amusing when well-meaning people try to dictate what a given word or phrase should mean. Language evolves in a chaotic way, often against logical arguments. You might be right, but "conspiracy theory" already has an established meaning, and you are not going to change that.
      - itmag 15y ago
        Sure, but that also means I am free to try and re-re-define words back to their origin as well :)
        andrewflnr 15y ago
        Indeed, you are free to. On occasion I've tried to do the same thing. But in practice, I don't think it usually helps. It muddies up the waters of conversation, which depend on everyone having roughly the same definitions of words. At least, you have to be careful, and know that most people won't (immediately) change, and that you're making things more complicated.
        15y ago
ambler0 15y ago
So it sounds like you don't have a problem with "conspiracy theories" after all. Neither do I. Conspiracies happen all the time, as you say. When you talk about shadowy mansions and orgies, it sounds to me like you're invoking a straw man conspiracy. But real conspiracies are plenty shadowy (isn't that the whole idea?) The upper level meetings of the very powerful seem to be quite secretive, with great security, be they in boardrooms or at parties in Aspen. What frustrates me is that "conspiracy theory" has just become code for "thing that can't possibly be even considered". This is the message that comes down to us whenever people want to discuss, e.g. income equality, or the reasons for going to war. People internalize this, making it difficult for them to evaluate the real everyday conspiracies that take place around them, and, of course, benefiting conspirators.