4 ms·

This is what conspiracy theorists fail to keep in mind: in politics usually you do not create anything, you reframe and exploit whatever events happen to occur.

• jack_tripper 11mo ago
  >to accept a world where there is no mastermind and where randomness and chaos sit at the bottom of history Except the stuff people actually care about like purchasing power, bills, wages, and housing are manipulated by purposely designed economic policies and not by randomness.
  • joachimma 11mo ago
    It seems perfectly plausible to me that the economic incentives are such that there is no need to "design" any of this, no smoke-filled back room needed.
    • jack_tripper 11mo ago
      What?! That statement is self contradictory. If you have economic incentives then somebody or a group of people put those incentives into place in order to reach a desired outcome(typically accumulation of wealth and/or power for a target group). We're not talking about facts of nature like gravity or the speed of light. You don't exist in a truly random system but one where you're playing by the rules made by someone else, rules that can change on a whim, as the government intervenes at every level to manipulate the scales, for better and for worse, resulting in it picking winners and loosers.
    • Retric 11mo ago
      Economic incentives never point in just one direction. There’s always tradeoffs around time horizons, risks, etc which is where individual people’s decisions come into play. Should we subsidize industry X is rarely a question decided on economic merits alone. And so it goes with individual interests shaping the entire global economy in surprisingly profound ways. Extreme ultraviolet lithography for example shapes industries, but has a history steeped in various public/private partnerships and global politics.
• pjc50 11mo ago
  It's a bad day for anti-conspiracy theorists when there's a dump of Epstein emails which are basically all "hey guys any news on the conspiracy? would you like some underage girls to go with that?" I would note that the public conspiracy theorists tend to be "exactly wrong", though. Claiming that everything is a conspiracy, without evidence, except the things that have documentary evidence about the conspiracy.
  • krapp 11mo ago
    >It's a bad day for anti-conspiracy theorists when there's a dump of Epstein emails which are basically all "hey guys any news on the conspiracy? would you like some underage girls to go with that?" "anti-conspiracy theorists" aren't claiming that conspiracies don't exist, so no. I don't think anyone is actually "debunking" Epstein other than conspiracy-minded Trumpists who were laser-focused on the Pizzagate/satanic cabal/Monarch deprogramming bullshit until for some reason they decided Epstein was a cool guy who did nothing wrong. Many such cases.
  • toyg 11mo ago
    > Claiming that everything is a conspiracy, without evidence, except the things that have documentary evidence Because where is the fun in that? If something is documented, your brain is not doing any work; it's where the canvas is clean, that you get a sense of satisfaction by firing synapses in original ways. Conspiracy-theorism, at its core, is fundamentally a creative endeavour. It's not a coincidence that, in the '90s, that world overlapped pretty hard with fandoms of open-world franchises like Star Trek, where it's easy to expand and enrich the original content with your own productions.
    • lo_zamoyski 11mo ago
      Conspiracy theories appeal to people for various reasons. 1. It's something for bored people to do and to believe. 2. It's something that offers supposed explanations for various real or imaginary events or states of affairs at a lower cost than actual explanation. 3. It gives people something more satisfying than "shit happens", and in this way, gives people a feeling of the possibility of control over the unpredictable (superstitions like astrology and fortune telling have the same motive). 4. It allows people to rationalize their misfortunes, dissatisfaction, and grievances, and to deflect responsibility from themselves, or to give their envies the appearance of a moral basis.
• MangoToupe 11mo ago
  It sounds more like you're describing paranoid schizophrenics or antisemites than conspiracy theorists.
  • krapp 11mo ago
    >It sounds more like you're describing paranoid schizophrenics or antisemites than conspiracy theorists. 99% of the time, this is the same picture. Peel back the layers of just any popular conspiracy theory, study its origins and the people who started it, and eventually you'll get to the part where "it was the Jews all along."
    • lazide 11mo ago
      Considering how clearly Abraham appeared to have something going on - maybe schizophrenia? - it’s all a jumble of the same noise anyway?
      • krapp 11mo ago
        I think there is an argument to be made for conspiracy theory as a modern form of folk religion. Although a lot of that is due to the overlap between the religious and conspiracy communities, and thus very intentional, they do seem to serve many of the same social and psychological functions.
        • MangoToupe 11mo ago
          > folk religion This seems a bit of a contradiction, no? "folk" beliefs seem like the opposite of religion (which, to my ear, requires organization and some sort of canon).
          • krapp 11mo ago
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_religion
• jasonvorhe 11mo ago
  As a conspiracy nut I always wonder how much mental effort it takes to actually find reasons to believe all these takes when basically every somewhat relevant historic event of the last ~200 years surfaces at least a dozen rabbit holes involving people, institutions and connections that often intertwine.
  • deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
• Atlas667 11mo ago
  Well in my comment I said they established modern art. Keyword: established. And the CIA definitely creates some things/narratives. But on the note of natural development, I do agree. You can call it conspiracies or incentives, its the same, really. If its not democratic its conspiratorial by definition. They use tax money (and drug money, possibly) to do this, so they have a lot of funds. If you watch the video I link he talks about HOW they actually do this. He doesnt claim they sit down and brief professors, he says they built an apparatus that simply filters through them and fund the right ones. He talks about how its hard to find jobs if you dont peddle the right narratives and topics.
  • bazoom42 11mo ago
    This is an even crazier claim. Modern art was created by Braque, Picasso, Duchamp, and many others, primarily in Europe, and it was established as a major artistic movement a long time before CIA existed. The more realistic claim is that CIA promoted abstract expressionism which is a primarily American 1950s art movement which is of course a sub-movement in modern art.
    • Atlas667 11mo ago
      You are right, I just repeated it wrong, see my original comment. I do claim they established abstract expressionist art, but that is also beside the point. This art would have existed either way. The wider claim is that they controlled the dissemination and narrative around art and the humanities in the US and around the world in order to inflate the opinion of the United States while promoting narratives about the Soviet Union that even the CIA knew were false, as stated by them in released memos. This is the claim: that large sections of the art and humanities were funded and controlled by the CIA for propaganda purposes.