4 ms·

It all comes down to how much proof you require before you believe something. Some people do not require iron clad proof before they agree something looks fishy

It all comes down to how much proof you require before you believe something. Some people do not require iron clad proof before they agree something looks fishy. Others require a very high level of proof before they agree something happened. If you require a high degree of proof you will always have to wait for declassified documents or leaks before you agree on anything. I can understand why people chose to wait. You have so many different conspiracies and most people simply do not have the time to sift through hundreds of documents to make yourself an opinion. People already barely have the time to read the news let alone follow the conspiracy rabit hole. Most people simple chose to wait and see. It does get annoying when people immediately dismiss any doubts you have as conspiracy nonsense though. Most people believe in some form of conspiracy without realizing it. How many agree that Epstein did not kill himself?

lazide 3y ago
Or, most people don’t want to believe something uncomfortable until it no longer matters (if ever), and classifying/making these programs secret is exactly so the general public (which is composed mostly of those people) has plausible deniability? Which is also why whistleblowers get at most some feathers rustled, but rarely results in actual structural change. Because the public mostly is concerned about how they feel, not what is actually happening.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  You're conflating the CIA with the public which makes no sense.
  - lazide 3y ago
    How so? I’m saying that the public tolerates this situation (and the CIA et al use the classification system this way) because the public prefers feeling a certain way about what their government is doing, over knowing what their government is doing. Nominally, if the public cared more about what was actually happening: 1) Church commission type investigations would be a monthly occurrence (at the scale the gov’t current works at), not a one time fluke (historically) 2) Classified information and secret programs would require third party independent oversight (actual oversight. Not FISA like rubber stamping, which BTW came out of the Church commission investigations). 3) classified information would have very short timeframes before mandatory publication (at most a decade) 4) people would actually go to jail for abuses. None of which happens.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      > I’m saying that the public tolerates this situation (and the CIA et al use the classification system this way) because the public prefers feeling a certain way about what their government is doing, over knowing what their government is doing. Based on what evidence? Think about what you are saying. 1. The clandestine arms of the US government has hidden things from the public 2. But this was because the public wanted it Explain how (2) came about. The US was much more open about things like the Vietnam War because there was virtually no public opposition at the start of it. Then a culture of opposition eventually emerged. When Reagan took office his administration interferred in Latin America. But then they found out that they couldn't just do that in the open like in the past because there was too much public opposition. So the operations had to be more clandestine. Public interest in US government operations abroad directly lead to a more clandestine approach—the exact opposite effect that you are claiming. > Nominally, if the public cared more about what was actually happening: And these things would come about how? Again, you're missing a step and somehow think that the public can will these concrete legislations into effect. How? The US government has been around for centuries while what could be called universal democracy only came about in the 1960's (arguably). And what democracy? A stronger one than pre-WWII, but still an elite-ruled democracy.
      - lazide 3y ago
        My position is de-facto true - if it weren’t, after the Snowden leaks (among others), the next round of representatives/President would have as their top issue disbanding the NSA/CIA no? As freedom from an abusive gov’t surveillance apparatus would have to be a major concern! Or at least there would have been a serious investigation with large scale imprisonment of gov’t employees on the top of the list of issues? Instead, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone outside of a small minority of mostly computer geeks that cared at all. Because most folks didn’t want to look or know. After all, the evidence in those leaks is damning. And they were very widely distributed. And they shows large scale illegal spying on the US population, abuse of power (spying on ex’s being one well documented behavior), lying to Congress and the American public, etc. Instead, Snowden has been actively hunted down as a traitor (with pronouncements of him as a public enemy being common), a token investigation was done which resulted in no actual changes or actions except for the Director of the NSA being brought up to (verifiably) lie to Congress and the Public, and some hand waving pronouncements that they totally stopped doing what they denied doing in the first place. And then they made sure to be more clandestine. Which Congress and the public never tried to stop them from doing! The US public wants to be ‘safe’ and know their government is ‘protecting them’, and ‘the bad guys are getting punished’. If you don’t believe me, look up the polls for those in favor of torture after 9/11. I certainly overheard it a lot! Gitmo became a common term. That doesn’t mean they wanted to see or know about the reality of it though. If they did (despite their efforts to ignore it), it would be outrage not indifference from the general population, and it wouldn’t be a small handful of activists going after the agencies, but enterprising politicians of all stripes taking advantage of the new ‘mandate’ to clean things up. MKULTRA and ARTICHOKE before it existed because ‘The Russians are figuring this out so we need to figure it out first’. A natural response, and if they panned out, all the sins would have been forgotten. The US would be a world power from more than just Nukes! They have to be clandestine about the sins, and the failures though or it gets folks worked up and then they get actual problems (Church commission, funding cuts, etc.). Which as long as they hide it (and they are allowed many tools to do so) no problems. I certainly haven’t seen any public discourse or overheard any conversations about getting rid of the ability to classify things. Have you? It’s the ‘he’s not cheating if I don’t know about it’ response.
avgcorrection 3y ago
> It all comes down to how much proof you require before you believe something. Not really. It's about making educated guesses based on history. If some institution (a totally hypothetical one) has consistently worked a certain way based on proof for decades then you can expect it to be more likely for it to continue to do so. So if this institution tends to lie 95% of the time based on the evidence, which is more reasonable? 1. Maintain the stance that they might be lying with a high likelihood 2. Assume good faith until iron-clad evidence to the contrary (X years later). Then after that, of course, in any new scenario keep assuming good faith because there has been no FOIA or release of declassified documents yet
- celtoid 3y ago
  > 2. Assume good faith until iron-clad evidence to the contrary (X years later). Then after that, of course, in any new scenario keep assuming good faith because there has been no FOIA or release of declassified documents yet A lot of Americans suffer from "lazy decency bias". It allows for the worst of humanity to regularly skate for some heinous actions.
- almatabata 3y ago
  I agree that probably they currently have many illegal programs ongoing or in the works. But that does not tell you the exact purpose of these programs. Which of these conspiracies actually hit upon an accurate piece of information and which extrapolated a bit too far? I have zero trust in the CIA but that does not really help to judge which leaks have merit. Just because the CIA lies 95% of the time does not mean that other people cannot lie and fake documents.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > I have zero trust in the CIA but that does not really help to judge which leaks have merit. Fair. So when somebody shares their pet theory about the CIA doing some shit and they don't have evidence on hand, how do you respond? "I don't know if that's true. It might be true but I'm not persuaded of it." "That's a conspiracy theory, it isn't true. Take your meds, schizo/troll." I'm not accusing you personally of this, but the second kind of response is very common.
mcpackieh 3y ago
> Most people believe in some form of conspiracy without realizing it. Virtually everybody does, but the term 'conspiracy theory' has twisted to mean only those theories about conspiracies which the government doesn't officially endorse. If the federal government tells the public a theory about a group of men who conspired to hijack four airliners and crash them into buildings on the same day, that is literally a conspiracy theory but isn't considered to be a conspiracy theory in the twisted colloquial sense of the word because the government endorses it as truth. And it's not really about the evidence. How many people have personally sifted through all the evidence before deciding what to believe? Few people have the time, inclination and access. Instead people delegate that responsibility, usually to the government. The veracity of the evidence is taken on faith. For instance, how many people who take the 9/11 Commission Report as truth have even read the report itself, let alone reviewed all the evidence that supposedly backs it up? I think not many. How many people who believe the report have also heard that intact passports from four of the hijackers were supposedly found in the rubble of the fiery wrecks? How many have heard that one of those passports was supposedly found on the street of NYC, and nobody knows the identity of the person who found it? But this theory about a conspiracy isn't a conspiracy theory because.. the government says it's true.
- improv 3y ago
  >"there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail" -Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission#:~:text=The%20two%20co%2Dchairs%20of,experience%20co%2Dchairing%20the%20Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commis.... Also Lee Hamilton: >As chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (1987), Hamilton chose not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be "good for the country" to put the public through another impeachment trial.[5] Hamilton was later chair of the House October Surprise Task Force (1992). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hamilton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hamilton
coldtea 3y ago
>Others require a very high level of proof before they agree something happened. If you require a high degree of proof you will always have to wait for declassified documents or leaks before you agree on anything. A lot of those people are just too naive politically...

lazide 3y ago

Or, most people don’t want to believe something uncomfortable until it no longer matters (if ever), and classifying/making these programs secret is exactly so the general public (which is composed mostly of those people) has plausible deniability? Which is also why whistleblowers get at most some feathers rustled, but rarely results in actual structural change. Because the public mostly is concerned about how they feel, not what is actually happening.

avgcorrection 3y ago
You're conflating the CIA with the public which makes no sense.
- lazide 3y ago
  How so? I’m saying that the public tolerates this situation (and the CIA et al use the classification system this way) because the public prefers feeling a certain way about what their government is doing, over knowing what their government is doing. Nominally, if the public cared more about what was actually happening: 1) Church commission type investigations would be a monthly occurrence (at the scale the gov’t current works at), not a one time fluke (historically) 2) Classified information and secret programs would require third party independent oversight (actual oversight. Not FISA like rubber stamping, which BTW came out of the Church commission investigations). 3) classified information would have very short timeframes before mandatory publication (at most a decade) 4) people would actually go to jail for abuses. None of which happens.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > I’m saying that the public tolerates this situation (and the CIA et al use the classification system this way) because the public prefers feeling a certain way about what their government is doing, over knowing what their government is doing. Based on what evidence? Think about what you are saying. 1. The clandestine arms of the US government has hidden things from the public 2. But this was because the public wanted it Explain how (2) came about. The US was much more open about things like the Vietnam War because there was virtually no public opposition at the start of it. Then a culture of opposition eventually emerged. When Reagan took office his administration interferred in Latin America. But then they found out that they couldn't just do that in the open like in the past because there was too much public opposition. So the operations had to be more clandestine. Public interest in US government operations abroad directly lead to a more clandestine approach—the exact opposite effect that you are claiming. > Nominally, if the public cared more about what was actually happening: And these things would come about how? Again, you're missing a step and somehow think that the public can will these concrete legislations into effect. How? The US government has been around for centuries while what could be called universal democracy only came about in the 1960's (arguably). And what democracy? A stronger one than pre-WWII, but still an elite-ruled democracy.
    - lazide 3y ago
      My position is de-facto true - if it weren’t, after the Snowden leaks (among others), the next round of representatives/President would have as their top issue disbanding the NSA/CIA no? As freedom from an abusive gov’t surveillance apparatus would have to be a major concern! Or at least there would have been a serious investigation with large scale imprisonment of gov’t employees on the top of the list of issues? Instead, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone outside of a small minority of mostly computer geeks that cared at all. Because most folks didn’t want to look or know. After all, the evidence in those leaks is damning. And they were very widely distributed. And they shows large scale illegal spying on the US population, abuse of power (spying on ex’s being one well documented behavior), lying to Congress and the American public, etc. Instead, Snowden has been actively hunted down as a traitor (with pronouncements of him as a public enemy being common), a token investigation was done which resulted in no actual changes or actions except for the Director of the NSA being brought up to (verifiably) lie to Congress and the Public, and some hand waving pronouncements that they totally stopped doing what they denied doing in the first place. And then they made sure to be more clandestine. Which Congress and the public never tried to stop them from doing! The US public wants to be ‘safe’ and know their government is ‘protecting them’, and ‘the bad guys are getting punished’. If you don’t believe me, look up the polls for those in favor of torture after 9/11. I certainly overheard it a lot! Gitmo became a common term. That doesn’t mean they wanted to see or know about the reality of it though. If they did (despite their efforts to ignore it), it would be outrage not indifference from the general population, and it wouldn’t be a small handful of activists going after the agencies, but enterprising politicians of all stripes taking advantage of the new ‘mandate’ to clean things up. MKULTRA and ARTICHOKE before it existed because ‘The Russians are figuring this out so we need to figure it out first’. A natural response, and if they panned out, all the sins would have been forgotten. The US would be a world power from more than just Nukes! They have to be clandestine about the sins, and the failures though or it gets folks worked up and then they get actual problems (Church commission, funding cuts, etc.). Which as long as they hide it (and they are allowed many tools to do so) no problems. I certainly haven’t seen any public discourse or overheard any conversations about getting rid of the ability to classify things. Have you? It’s the ‘he’s not cheating if I don’t know about it’ response.

avgcorrection 3y ago

> It all comes down to how much proof you require before you believe something. Not really. It's about making educated guesses based on history. If some institution (a totally hypothetical one) has consistently worked a certain way based on proof for decades then you can expect it to be more likely for it to continue to do so. So if this institution tends to lie 95% of the time based on the evidence, which is more reasonable? 1. Maintain the stance that they might be lying with a high likelihood 2. Assume good faith until iron-clad evidence to the contrary (X years later). Then after that, of course, in any new scenario keep assuming good faith because there has been no FOIA or release of declassified documents yet

celtoid 3y ago
> 2. Assume good faith until iron-clad evidence to the contrary (X years later). Then after that, of course, in any new scenario keep assuming good faith because there has been no FOIA or release of declassified documents yet A lot of Americans suffer from "lazy decency bias". It allows for the worst of humanity to regularly skate for some heinous actions.
almatabata 3y ago
I agree that probably they currently have many illegal programs ongoing or in the works. But that does not tell you the exact purpose of these programs. Which of these conspiracies actually hit upon an accurate piece of information and which extrapolated a bit too far? I have zero trust in the CIA but that does not really help to judge which leaks have merit. Just because the CIA lies 95% of the time does not mean that other people cannot lie and fake documents.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > I have zero trust in the CIA but that does not really help to judge which leaks have merit. Fair. So when somebody shares their pet theory about the CIA doing some shit and they don't have evidence on hand, how do you respond? "I don't know if that's true. It might be true but I'm not persuaded of it." "That's a conspiracy theory, it isn't true. Take your meds, schizo/troll." I'm not accusing you personally of this, but the second kind of response is very common.

mcpackieh 3y ago

> Most people believe in some form of conspiracy without realizing it. Virtually everybody does, but the term 'conspiracy theory' has twisted to mean only those theories about conspiracies which the government doesn't officially endorse. If the federal government tells the public a theory about a group of men who conspired to hijack four airliners and crash them into buildings on the same day, that is literally a conspiracy theory but isn't considered to be a conspiracy theory in the twisted colloquial sense of the word because the government endorses it as truth. And it's not really about the evidence. How many people have personally sifted through all the evidence before deciding what to believe? Few people have the time, inclination and access. Instead people delegate that responsibility, usually to the government. The veracity of the evidence is taken on faith. For instance, how many people who take the 9/11 Commission Report as truth have even read the report itself, let alone reviewed all the evidence that supposedly backs it up? I think not many. How many people who believe the report have also heard that intact passports from four of the hijackers were supposedly found in the rubble of the fiery wrecks? How many have heard that one of those passports was supposedly found on the street of NYC, and nobody knows the identity of the person who found it? But this theory about a conspiracy isn't a conspiracy theory because.. the government says it's true.

improv 3y ago
>"there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail" -Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission#:~:text=The%20two%20co%2Dchairs%20of,experience%20co%2Dchairing%20the%20Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commis.... Also Lee Hamilton: >As chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (1987), Hamilton chose not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be "good for the country" to put the public through another impeachment trial.[5] Hamilton was later chair of the House October Surprise Task Force (1992). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hamilton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hamilton

coldtea 3y ago

>Others require a very high level of proof before they agree something happened. If you require a high degree of proof you will always have to wait for declassified documents or leaks before you agree on anything. A lot of those people are just too naive politically...