4 ms·

The problem is in my opinion, that the "conspiracy" websphere is a quite a closed circle. They either go full blown "bow to our UFO overlords", or nothing. I wi

by stfu 14y ago

The problem is in my opinion, that the "conspiracy" websphere is a quite a closed circle. They either go full blown "bow to our UFO overlords", or nothing. I wish there were a few in-between media outlets that had a decent level of sanity and look & feel more linkable for "non believers".

mtgx 14y ago
I have a rule of thumb these days. Anything crazy that I hear the military, NSA or FBI are doing - I take it as being true, rather than a "conspiracy theory". I think I have a much higher chance of being right than not, in most cases. So I'd rather think like that by default, especially with many former "crazy conspiracy theories" being confirmed as true by more recent leaks and whistleblowers. I think most people still think the opposite, though, so even if something big gets uncovered, they won't really believe it to be true "in their hearts".
- criley 14y ago
  So you really believe that the government is setting up concentration camps around the country, is going to use the military domestically to round up guns and all dissenters, and Obama is going to seize dictatorial control of the USA then hand sovereignty over to the New World Order? Maybe we just hear different conspiracies but I'm pretty positive that the conspiracy nonsense regarding the government shouldn't be taken as "true by default".
  - runn1ng 14y ago
    Don't forget the Area 52 where they combine alien and human DNA.
    - rglovejoy 14y ago
      Right, because Area 51 is just a decoy.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - nacker 14y ago
    The fact that you are "pretty positive" about that only means that you are the kind of person who is too lazy to investigate the facts. You probably still believe that JFK was killed by a crazed lone gunman, that Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise to FDR, and that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. In other words, you are the kind of complacent rube that makes it all possible, thanks a lot.
rockyleal 14y ago
Well, then you can read the actual serious intellectuals and researchers like Chomsky, for example. Read "Manufacturing Consent", no ufo stuff there just the real deal. There is extensive literature and documentation of what is really going on, but its not going to be part of the narrative, you have to look for it. Assange's new book is another example. There are tons of authors, just follow the thread. Note: HN, any other reading material you would recommend to me or to stfu?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Chomsky is decidedly not a conspiracy theorist. One of the main points in "Manufacturing Consent" is that you can have a healthy production of propoganda without any conspiratorial relationship between the media and government.
  - neumann_alfred 14y ago
    At the same time, Chomsky ain't dumb. Of course powerful people look out for their own interests; that leads to an overlap in goals with other powerful people, and a defensive/paranoid stance towards those you wield power over. Just like a lot of analog clocks hanging on a wall will synchronize, so will they. Does it have to be explicitly expressed and planned to be a conspiracy? Nah. And if people get sorted and filtered based on how well they internalized rationalizations and outright lies, that's your "conspirational relationship" right there. Though "the government" is hardly the driving force here -- have you even read Chomsky? But yes, Chomsky isn't a pussy and Chomsky pays attention. But what he points out are conspiracies in effect, and they are every bit as sinister as some James Bond BS you could come up with; it's just that "none of this is controversial", no paranoia required.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > Does it have to be explicitly expressed and planned to be a conspiracy? That's pretty much the definition of "conspiracy." > And if people get sorted and filtered based on how well they internalized rationalizations and outright lies, that's your "conspirational relationship" right there. No, that's not a conspiracy. It might be something else, but it's not a conspiracy. > Though "the government" is hardly the driving force here -- have you even read Chomsky? I read "Manufacturing Consent."

by stfu 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

I have a rule of thumb these days. Anything crazy that I hear the military, NSA or FBI are doing - I take it as being true, rather than a "conspiracy theory". I think I have a much higher chance of being right than not, in most cases. So I'd rather think like that by default, especially with many former "crazy conspiracy theories" being confirmed as true by more recent leaks and whistleblowers. I think most people still think the opposite, though, so even if something big gets uncovered, they won't really believe it to be true "in their hearts".

criley 14y ago
So you really believe that the government is setting up concentration camps around the country, is going to use the military domestically to round up guns and all dissenters, and Obama is going to seize dictatorial control of the USA then hand sovereignty over to the New World Order? Maybe we just hear different conspiracies but I'm pretty positive that the conspiracy nonsense regarding the government shouldn't be taken as "true by default".
- runn1ng 14y ago
  Don't forget the Area 52 where they combine alien and human DNA.
  - rglovejoy 14y ago
    Right, because Area 51 is just a decoy.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- nacker 14y ago
  The fact that you are "pretty positive" about that only means that you are the kind of person who is too lazy to investigate the facts. You probably still believe that JFK was killed by a crazed lone gunman, that Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise to FDR, and that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. In other words, you are the kind of complacent rube that makes it all possible, thanks a lot.

rockyleal 14y ago

Well, then you can read the actual serious intellectuals and researchers like Chomsky, for example. Read "Manufacturing Consent", no ufo stuff there just the real deal. There is extensive literature and documentation of what is really going on, but its not going to be part of the narrative, you have to look for it. Assange's new book is another example. There are tons of authors, just follow the thread. Note: HN, any other reading material you would recommend to me or to stfu?

rayiner 14y ago
Chomsky is decidedly not a conspiracy theorist. One of the main points in "Manufacturing Consent" is that you can have a healthy production of propoganda without any conspiratorial relationship between the media and government.
- neumann_alfred 14y ago
  At the same time, Chomsky ain't dumb. Of course powerful people look out for their own interests; that leads to an overlap in goals with other powerful people, and a defensive/paranoid stance towards those you wield power over. Just like a lot of analog clocks hanging on a wall will synchronize, so will they. Does it have to be explicitly expressed and planned to be a conspiracy? Nah. And if people get sorted and filtered based on how well they internalized rationalizations and outright lies, that's your "conspirational relationship" right there. Though "the government" is hardly the driving force here -- have you even read Chomsky? But yes, Chomsky isn't a pussy and Chomsky pays attention. But what he points out are conspiracies in effect, and they are every bit as sinister as some James Bond BS you could come up with; it's just that "none of this is controversial", no paranoia required.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > Does it have to be explicitly expressed and planned to be a conspiracy? That's pretty much the definition of "conspiracy." > And if people get sorted and filtered based on how well they internalized rationalizations and outright lies, that's your "conspirational relationship" right there. No, that's not a conspiracy. It might be something else, but it's not a conspiracy. > Though "the government" is hardly the driving force here -- have you even read Chomsky? I read "Manufacturing Consent."