 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
31 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
47 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
120 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
3 new comments | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | This Story Does Not Exist, We Are Not Controlling You | | | | | found in a shady back-alley from a man in a trenchcoat
written by JackH, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Thu 15 May 5:50am | | | | |
 | "One of the quickest ways to dismiss an argument in the United States today is with the epithet 'conspiracy theory.' Any mention of the word conspiracy, if not shutting down discussion completely, immediately brands as suspect any further speculation," JackH writes. "Conspiracy theories by their nature carry a huge amount of political baggage — recent rumors of a conspiracy by the U.S. government to cover up or even to have committed the September 11th terrorist attacks are not likely to come from staunch supporters of President Bush, and it is extremely difficult when examining the 'evidence' to separate the real anomalies relating to the attacks from an overwhelming impression that the authors are more interested in showing the depth's of Dubya's evil than in pursuing the troubling anomalies themselves.
| |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 1. Conspiracy vs groupthink | | | | by mawgwy |  | | | at Thu 15 May 6:11am | score of 2 clever | | | | | | |
The number of people whom believe in a conspiracy tends to push the view of such as credible or not. Also aside from the number of people it is important whom those people are. Farmer bob in Idaho is gonna be less believed about the anal probe from visiting aliens than the U.S. President.
Historical (sort of) example...
If 20 people believe that the earth is round they are a wack job. If a Queen can be convinced of such though, then you have an expedition to the West Indies.
Equalism.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 2. In Some Parts, That's Called a Date | | | | by Notyou | | | | at Thu 15 May 6:36am | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
Farmer bob in Idaho is gonna be less believed about the anal probe from visiting aliens than the U.S. President.
That depends on who the president is and who he's trying to convince. There's a fair chance that most Plasticians already believe that Dubya continues to suffer the effects of the Alien anal probe he underwent during his lost years of youthful indiscretion (which, incidentally, also sucked out his brain and refilled the cavity with sentient light, sweet crude).
But I take your point (figuratively speaking).
Me neither.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 61. Re: Conspiracy vs groupthink | | | | by Thornstein |  | | | at Fri 16 May 7:52am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 4 | | | | | |
Actually, the Columbus story could make an interesting conspiracy theory example. Think of Columbus as the crank who comes up with a crazy theory (that the world is pear-shaped) to reconcile a contradictory piece of information (old Norse/Basque/Irish maps that showed land fairly close across the Atlantic) with accepted scientific fact (Isabella's advisors knew of Eratosthenes measurement of the Earth, and the refinements by Roman and Arab geographers which were as accurate as possible before the Space Age.)
(Un)fortunately (now there's a can of worms) Isabella was crazy/stupid enough to listen to Columbus and lend him a few ships.
Isabella's advisors may well have seen Columbus as a conspiracy theorist, and he might have considered them (basically the scientific community of Europe) as conspiring to supress the truth.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 12. Re: Conspiracy vs groupthink | | | | by rough ashler | | | | at Thu 15 May 9:05am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
brush with them visiting aliens.
From your source:
"I don't laugh at people any more when they say they've seen UFOs," Carter said at a Southern Governors Conference a few years later. "I've seen one myself."
UFO != Alien. A really new high-tech government plane would not be identifiable. And if it is flying, that makes a UFO.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 3. The Lure of a Great Conspiracy | | | | by 0tim0 | | | | at Thu 15 May 6:36am | score of 2 compelling | | | | | | |
One of the quickest ways to dismiss an argument in the United States today is with the epithet 'conspiracy theory.'
I'm not sure that's true. I don't need someone to tell me a wacky story is a 'conspiracy' for me to dismiss it. But, if someone tries to convince me of something wacky, with almost no proof, then I think 'conspiracy theory.'
Usually, the ones I've heard are just a collection of insignificant facts that help a person create a justification to believe what they want to believe.
That's how good lawyers do it. That's how Johny Cochrane did it. Who wanted to belive that 'The Juice' was guilty? Throw enough 'facts' and insinuation around and it's really easy for a juror who wants him to be innocent to find him so.
I was reading a thread on Plastic about Paul Wellstone. One submitter posted a link and said "Bush may have killed Wellstone." So I read the link. The evidence was literally nothing more than: "A handfull of Democrats have been killed in small plane crashes in the past 50 years; and Wellstone would have voted against Bush often." It was clearly someone who didn't like Bush. And this was enough evidence for him/her to think Bush was behind Wellstone's death. I called the poster a 'crackpot' to which he/she responded by calling me a 'sheep' for believing whatever the media tells me.
Who knows. Maybe someday they'll find out that Bush did kill Wellstone — or that O.J. really was innocent. But unless I see some hard evidence, I'll continue to call these kinds of stories 'conspiracy theories.'
--t
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 15. Re: The Lure of a Great Conspiracy | | | | by deeluxx | | | | at Thu 15 May 9:44am | score of 2 compelling | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Well, better theory behind their being foul play behind Wellstone's death would be that he died 11 days before an election. Had he died just one day later the Dems could have run his name on the ticket and then (assuming he won) replaced him in office. As was, they had to bring in a brand new candidate in Mondale, leaving him just 10 days to campaign. This is basically what happened when Ashcroft was running in Missouri and lost to Carnahan, a dead guy (due to a plane crash), who was replaced in office by his wife.
The tin-foil hat crowd would probably say that the 'powers-that-be' learned their lesson with the Carnahan situation — don't wait too long or you'll give the dead guy a chance to win.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 16. The Fuel of Conspiracy | | | | by peppyhare | | | | at Thu 15 May 10:01am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
One of the things that tends to reinforce conspiracy theories is post hoc-style reasoning. In the case of the Wellstone crash, it came too conveniently close to an election campaign in which Wellstone's party got their asses kicked. I have trouble buying it myself. A rash of unexplained deaths among political opponents would be rather more alarming.
I shit and I stink, I'm real, join the club -- Pearl Jam, Satan's Bed
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 33. Re: The Lure of a Great Conspiracy | | | | by Bearpaw | | | | at Thu 15 May 2:03pm | score of 2 interesting | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
One of the quickest ways to dismiss an argument in the
United States today is with the epithet 'conspiracy theory.'
I'm not sure that's true. I don't need someone to tell me a wacky story is a 'conspiracy' for me to dismiss it. But, if someone tries to convince me of something wacky, with almost no proof, then I think 'conspiracy theory.'
Well, first, if someone slapping a "conspiracy theory" label on something really doesn't affect how likely you are to perceive a theory as wacky, I think you're in the minority. It's definitely become a powerful spin phrase, especially because most people are intellectually lazy. If a supposed authority — particularly one that for various reasons they're pre-disposed to agree with — rolls their eyes and says "conspiracy theory", most people are not going to bother to actually think the possibilities through. They're going to smirk to themselves about how gullible other people can be and flip the channel to "American Idol".
Second, by the very nature of most conspiracies, you (and I) often don't have enough information to meaningfully decide how wacky they are.
I mean, sure, I think it's pretty safe to write off alien sex abuse as wacky. But when it comes to conveniently-timed deaths of politicians, or real motivations for pursuing questionable wars, I doubt that you (or I) know enough about the workings of power and influence at that level to have a meaningful opinion about what's wacky and what isn't.
I hope that Wellstone wasn't assassinated, and mostly I think it's unlikely. But assassinations do happen, and given the possible motives involved — people have killed for much smaller reasons — I have zero doubt that there are people who would've offed Wellstone if they were damned sure they could get away with it. What I don't know enough about to make the wacky/not-wacky call is how likely it is that the motivation, will, and safe opportunity lined up.
And on a more mundane level, at what point do the existence of quiet and legally-questionable backroom dealings qualify as conspiracies? Or why aren't they thought of as such? (I think it's a safe assumption that such things happen — why would this moment in time be any different in that regard?)
Proud member of the reality-based minority.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 6. It depends... | | | | by paul_holloway | | | | at Thu 15 May 7:44am | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
It may be reasonable to say that something is a conspiracy theory if it does not rely on direct and tested evidence, but is solely based on a prejudicial reading of the available facts. And we can say that it is a flat out whack conspiracy theory when attempt to prove it fail.
On that basis, you really have to congratulate the US administration for their "Iraq has WOMD" conspiracy theory.
"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 62. Learning from the Masters | | | | by rmurf62 | | | | at Fri 16 May 7:58am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
On that basis, you really have to congratulate the US administration for their "Iraq has WOMD" conspiracy theory.
I'll try to avoid dragging Godwin's Law into this...the Bushies have learned quite a bit from the Old Masters about how to sell their message — keep repeating it over & over & over & over & over. Simple, forceful repetition will persuade the public into accepting the most amazing bullshit as gospel truth.
YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 7. The great thing about conspiracy theories... | | | | by rombuu | | | | at Thu 15 May 7:50am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
...is you can throw out any evidence that doesn't support your pet point of view as being misleading evidence thrown out there by (looking around) "them" to cover up their devious plans.
Meanwhile back here in the real world, most people can't manage to get down to the store for a quart of milk and back without major complications, never mind manage the Rube Goldberg like mechanations most good conspiracy theories call for. Phooey.
fnord
http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 31. Re: The great thing about conspiracy theories... | | | | by katieo | | | | at Thu 15 May 1:37pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
most people can't manage to get down to the store for a quart of milk and back without major complications, never mind manage the Rube Goldberg like mechanations most good conspiracy theories call for
Good point, but often times the very salient issues of political control the conspiracy theorists are trying to address are unfortunately lost in the pointless speculation on these mechanations.
For example, a conspiracy theorist might postulate that oil companies control the world. He might openly speculate on how they do it — that they secretly meet in the Temple of the Canyon of the Crescent moon in Jordan on Rosh Hashanah, or something similarly ridiculous — and be embarrassingly wrong. But it don't change the fact that oil companies do control the world, pretty much, or that they at least openly engage in price fixing simply in the pursuit of similar interests. Any more than the Greek conspiracy theory that Apollo made the sun rise by flying his chariot across the sky meant that the sun didn't actually rise.
Kids, you've tried and you've failed. The lesson is: never try.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 39. Re: The great thing about conspiracy theories... | | | | by Airbag | | | | at Thu 15 May 3:02pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 31 | | | | | |
Your comment reminds me of an interview I saw of the mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr. (of A Beautiful Mind fame) who described his years of generating conspiracy theories while being submerged in paranoid schizophrenia. His training and genius made him very good at seeing all sorts of connections but his condition made him obsessed with looking for intentions where they did not exist.
When asked why he was so certain of these conspiracies, he said they came to the same way his mathematical concepts did.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 60. Re: The great thing about conspiracy theories... | | | | by tlacolotl | | | | at Fri 16 May 7:09am | score of 1.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 31 | | | | | |
There are a lot of conspiracies out there, and that (in my opinion) is why so many conspiracy theories pop up, erroneous as they might be. The problem is that there will be so many unknowns in the world that we have to fill in the gaps with something, and it's all just a matter of how crazily we do it.
In the 70s, I probably would have assumed Nixon was a conspiring evil mastermind, but I would have little to back up that feeling. After Watergate, all the people previously labelled as (to some degree) were pretty much justified, even if they didn't predict the specific misdeeds that got him canned. You could just tell he was a phony, evil piece of shit, just by looking in his eyes; same thing with GW today. There's just way too much information and misinformation out there to make any specific claims about the creepy plans being hatched by our Leaders; anyone who posits some specific claim is probably fulla shit. But that doesn't mean they're wrong in general. Because, of course, They are after you.
The eye in the pyramid sees all. Don't leave your $1 bills out if you're doing anything you don't want the cameras to pick up. And your tinfoil hat should be made from generic brand tinfoil, not commercial brands — those have been specially prepared by Them...
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 8. The thing about conspiracy theories... | | | | by Prisoner | | | | at Thu 15 May 8:02am | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
Conspiracy theories are attractive to some people, because they often answer questions and address concerns that are unanswerable or unaddressable.
It can be comforting, in a demented way, to know that it's the Illuminati's fault that the world is an fucked up place. My job sucks and I can't pay my bills. We're in a war that doesn't make any sense. There is someone at fault and it isn't me.
Another reason people find it easy to believe some of the crazier theories is that conspiracies really exist. Watergate and Iran Contra were definitely conspiracies, the JFK assassination might have been a conspiracy, and Aaron Sorkin is placing hidden messages about real coverup of life on mars in episodes of the West Wing.
If conspiracy A is real, then why can't conspiracy B be real as well?
As a fan of all kinds of conspiracy theory I see that logic all the time.
We know the government covered up the existence of the SR-71, the Stealth Bomber, and the Stealth Fighter, therefore they are covering up the existence of crashed UFOs.
The Universe is a practical joke by the general at the expense of the particular.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 10. Just because you're paranoid... | | | | by Sir Real |  | | | at Thu 15 May 8:59am | score of 3 informative | | | | | | |
...doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
I would think that the unsealing of recent records documenting government-funded opposition to desegregation and supporting feeding radioactive cereal to children should make people a little more agnostic about those things labeled "conspiracy theories". In 1994, a person who claimed the government gave them cancer by injecting them with plutonium would be a "crack-pot"- today, they're survivors.
While correctly applied to some crackpots, "conspiracy theory" is also a convenient dismissal of hypothesis that the listener DOESN'T WANT TO BE TRUE. This is not to say that most conspiracy theories aren't false- just to say that labeling something a "conspiracy theory" can sometimes be a substitute for investigation and thought, rather than the genuine article.
p.s. frankly, I'm surprised to note the absence of the John Birch Society and Richard Mellon Scaife in the write-up. If only he were an alien lizard...
The serpent, meanwhile, Sleeps his meal off in Paradise -Smiling to hear God's querulous calling.- Ted Hughes
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 11. Logical Quick Fixes | | | | by Jeff Jorgensen | | | | at Thu 15 May 9:01am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
In a day and age when people want everything instantly conspiracy theories are kind of the logical equivalent of Prozac. It gives you a quick and simple explaination for really complex matters. To me it's like the creationist who can't quite get his mind around evolution and defaults to "god did it" or the person who can't quite deal with the idea that some people in the world hate us so much that they are willing to die just to take a few americans out with them thinking that our own government did it.
This is confused by the fact that there are some real conspiracies, Like Scaife-Mellon funding all kinds of mischief against Bill Clinton. It is also confused by institutionalized secrecy like that of the Bush administration. Most conspiracies are just people trying to bring some understanding to a very complicated and random world.
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | | 14. Speaking of groupthink | | | | by sven_haagendaas | | | | at Thu 15 May 9:39am | score of 2.5 astute | | | | | | |
It's interesting how the "neocon" (God I hate that word) thesis for the pursuit of an Iraqi invasion is put on par with aliens and black helicopters.
There is plenty of evidence, including voluminous public statements and writings by the people involved, to support the notion that a relatively small number of likeminded ideologues strongly influenced the decision to attack Iraq.
Those writings and statements, which stretch back well before 9/11, suggest the primary motivation was to strategically stick a foot in the Middle East door and, if need be, continue to throw some weight around the region.
On the other hand, there is very scant evidence that the decision was based on a WMD threat, a link between Hussein and al Qaeda or a desire to "liberate" the Iraqi people. It's looking more and more like those were simply marketing tools.
Ironically, people like Lieber wave off the suggestion with a wacky conspiracy theory of their own — that a bunch of anti-semitic leftists colluded to cook up baseless accusations to discredit the administration. Lieber's article sounds more conspiratorial than most of those he cites.
Another tactic is to point to the "blood for oil" nutjobs, creepy Buchananites and unthinking loudmouths like Eric Alterman to discredit all skepticism of the Bush Administration's motivations and conduct.
But this avoids the central issue: How and why did Iraq become the lynchpin in the war on terror, so much so that it was worth trashing a half-century of diplomacy and international law and distorting if not outright lying about the threat to the American public, when there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11?
That's not an unreasonable question to ask, and it's not unreasonable to examine the motivations of the people who have the president's ear.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 19. Policy, Leadership and Conspiracy | | | | by uncarved block | | | | at Thu 15 May 10:52am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | |
like minded ideologues
There's the crux of it; in the minds of Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al, they're leaders, and leaders of a specific kind. Do you know that anecdote about the politician during the French revolution who looks out the window, sees the mob go by, and runs out saying, "Those are my people, and I must lead them"? To the administration, this is exactly the opposite of the leadership they want to practice. Rather than follow the path of least resistance most leaders of democratic societies end up following (Clinton and his polls), they want to pursue the 'smartest' policy, no matter what the CW is.
Why wreck the international balance of power? Well, I suspect this was part of the program, because Iraq was only a step in a larger policy change, one that started well before 9/11: to be precise, the removal of the Powell doctrine. Why? To speculate, because the Powell doctrine was conceived in, and very much a product of, the Cold War-- and that war has now been over by a decade. Remember the line on the ABM Treaty? "Why follow a treaty with a state that no longer exists?" I'd suggest this was more than a momentary strategy to help push for NMD, but an indication of a larger view of the world. To put it in a hostile way, if we're going to be a hyperpower, it's about time we start acting like one.
A lot of the public tactics you mention are just classic rhetorical ad hominem attacks; take the extreme voice on the other side and try to make it the whole argument. I imagine the neocons (an expression I do not hate, because they didn't object to it when they were out of power) are a little touchy on the conspiracy angle, though, because they know how incredibly unpopular their absolute support of Israel would be if ever stated flatly as policy. The opposition makes it easy by throwing around the expression Zionist too much, but as near as I can tell, the neocon answer to the Palestinian issue is an unconditional surrender by Palestinians. As it becomes more and more clear that this isn't going to happen, even though they're now driving policy, I predict an even worse series of events is coming up.
Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 45. Re: Policy, Leadership and Conspiracy | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Thu 15 May 4:49pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
The opposition makes it easy by throwing around the expression Zionist too much, but as near as I can tell, the neocon answer to the Palestinian issue is an unconditional surrender by Palestinians. As it becomes more and more clear that this isn't going to happen, even though they're now driving policy, I predict an even worse series of events is coming up. I see two conspiracy theories. One is that the neocons wanted to assert US power in the Middle East because of the oil. The other is they wanted to take care of Iraq on behalf of Israel. (And minor variations on each.) I think the first is reasonable, but it seems only anti-semitism drives the second. But I wasn't aware of anyone confounding the two — the motives are both fairly exclusionary.
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 47. Re: Policy, Leadership and Conspiracy | | | | by Airbag | | | | at Thu 15 May 7:18pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 45 | | | | | |
In the interest of precision, I think the narrative of the conspiracy involving the "neocons" is that the vacuum at the top has allowed a particular branch of the Executive to assume effective control of all the other Departments so that even reliable motivators of policy such as the desire for profit is now just another piece in a bigger plan. The driving force resides in the DofD and is enabled by "fellow travellers" who appear like spring flowers here and there in all the other branches of Government.
The "its all about oil" theory brings a different cabal on to the stage. This crowd is more interested in the bottom line than the new world order as such. Since these terms are largely algebraic (which is to say that they have a value in a formula but do not signify an essential property), it would not be amiss to refer to this second cabal as "paleocons."
While the Neos have explicitly supported Israel's interests and the Paleos are reluctant to completely piss off Israel's adversaries, the truly anti-semitic conspiracy doesn't distinguish between these points of view and basically has the entire spectrum of the US Government being run by Zionist puppeteers through a cunning combination of hypnosis and clever software.
With these distinctions in mind, I think there is some confounding of motives going on.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | | 20. Conspiracy Theory for Beginners | | | | by gonzocanuck | | | | at Thu 15 May 11:07am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I highly recommend a book from the Paradox Press "Big Book" series called The Big Book of Conspiracies by Doug Moench (also the author of The Big Book of the Unexplained.
It covers almost every popular conspiracy theory from JFK to Jim Morrison, to the face on Mars to the moon landing hoax. In between, are the lesser known conspiracies surrounding things like secret societies and hemp.
I found it a very entertaining book and I think out of the dozen or so Big Books that I own, it's one of the best. Every story is narrated by a mysterious man in black and illustrated by a different comic book artist. The author doesn't suggest that the conspiracies might be true — only that they have been proposed. It's also extremely affordable and a lot easier on the eyes than reading blinking green text on black starry backgrounds ;-)
You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 46. I second that recommendation... | | | | by Maddog-20_20 | | | | at Thu 15 May 5:01pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
... although I regret sitting down to read it on the couch before posting. Ya' beat me to the chance to pimp it :)
The Big Books are great for stretching on the couch with and drinking too much coffee.
I do sort of wish there was a decent 'serious' primer on all these theories though. It's neat reading.
Kevin
PS — I also recommend the Big Book of Bad
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 73. Re: I second that recommendation... | | | | by Prisoner | | | | at Fri 16 May 2:53pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 46 | | | | | |
Try this book.
I have the earlier The Sixty Greatest Conspiracies of All Time which gives a pretty good overview of some of the more famous theories floating around out there.
Or try this one which has handy icons that cross-reference the different figures, agencies, and agendas so you can see how numerous conspiracy theories tie together in a grand opera of paranoia. It's written with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
This one is also good for a general overview from the man who introduced conspiracy theory to a great many people.
The Universe is a practical joke by the general at the expense of the particular.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 48. And I Third it | | | | by bitter_engineer | | | | at Fri 16 May 1:53am | score of 1.5 intriguing | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
The forward to the book from the Elder of the Church of the Subgenious has stuck with me whenever the subject of conspiracies comes up. He pointed out that that a lot of the weirder conspiracies could be thought of as a way of saying "why not?" After all, if it's true that the US government secretly dosed some of its citizens with LSD, why not believe that they're still dosing us right now, from airplanes? If we helped smuggle Nazi war criminals into the US after WWII, then why not believe that more Nazis are ruling the planet, side by side with the reptilian overlords? The problem is compounded by the fact that rumor spreads faster than evidence. I don't doubt that there was talk amongst Black Power movement groups in the 60s about secret medical experiments performed by the government on black men, but who's going to believe that? Once you've got Tuskegee, it's a much smaller step to believe that AIDS was created to wipe out black people.
Conspiracy theories are going on all around us. I wish I could remember the name of the man who pointed out that any political party, be it the Democrats, the Republicans, or The Light Party, is little more than a conspiracy to seize power of a nation and promote its own agenda. And I firmly believe that the September 11th attacks were a conpsiracy--A conspiracy of Islamist Arabs that trained in old US-created secret bases in Afghanistan, then went into deep cover in our own country in order to to make a spectacular attack on American landmarks so as to increase their power base in the Middle East and eventually the world, once they overthrow the Saudis and establish control of Arabian oil. Ha! Try saying that back in 2000!
Non estat prandium gratuitum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 68. Re: And I Third it | | | | by gonzocanuck | | | | at Fri 16 May 1:00pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 48 | | | | | |
Glad that there are other Big Books fans out there. I'm not sure if they are still being published. The last one I bought was The Big Book of the 70s and that was a while ago. I always thought it was a great outlet for a comic artist to do other types of stories.
There's only one I didn't like — Weirdos. I'm not sure why, I guess the people in it weren't weird enough for me :-D. Martyrs, Scandal, Bad, Little Criminals, Thugs, Brothers Grim, Urban Legends, the Unexplained and Wild West were all very good — I just like the bits of trivia in them and the obscure stories that the authors dig up. The Big Book of Death kept me awake at night :-D
Probably the next best one is Vice — it shows how civilization has been going to hell in a handbasket for eons — ie, gambling, alcoholism, drug use and prostitution are as old as the sands and not a problem of the modern age.
Whew! Sorry to ramble on but I really do enjoy this series. They are an example of how educational and entertaining comics can be. They are perfect for reluctant readers — short, humorous, illustrated and intensely fascinating.
You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 22. Who killed JFK? | | | | by Lieb | | | | at Thu 15 May 11:23am | score of 3 compelling | | | | | | |
Was it really Oswald? Was it the mob? J. Edgar Hoover? Was LBJ behind it all? Was it Oliver Stone?
I have a friend who reads a lot about the murder of JFK, and I asked him once what version of events, which conspiracy theory he thought was the truth. He said, none of them. He doesn't know who killed JFK and he doesn't think we'll ever know what happened that day.
I was surprised by that admission, but then he made a provocative point. Conspiracy theorizing is a sort of futile mental exercise, an attempt to rationalize and explain a set of circumstances that, in the back of your mind, you know couldn't be just coincidence. But if you go any farther than identifying them, pointing out the number of odd circumstances that are too numerous or too convenient to be just coincidence, you've left the realm of facts. Next stop, fantasyland. And you won't get to the truth, but you might delude yourself into thinking you have.
The first step is a good one. You look at the facts, and you start to notice things that aren't right. Isn't it weird that Secret Service agents didn't recognize the bullet entered into evidence as being the same one recovered from the crime scene? Isn't it weird that someone found Oswald's wallet near the dead cop, but the Secret Service later took his wallet from him when he was arrested? Wasn't it weird that the picture of Oswald and the rifle shows him holding the newsletters of opposing Communist organizations, or that Oswald's wife couldn't operate their camera and didn't remember taking one picture, let alone three? Isn't it weird the way the autopsy was botched so badly?
Gee, those terrorists sure were lucky to get their visas approved after filling them out with stuff like this — "Destination: no" or "Destination: hotel."
All are things that can and have been explained individually. But when you have all those coincidences acting in concert...it just makes you stop and think for a minute.
And in those kinds of situations, it's perfectly appropriate to ask "why?" In fact, it's important, and conspiracy theorists could do the public a great service by simply raising those questions loudly and often.
But when you ask that of authority and all you get is stony silence (or worse yet, "we're looking into that"), and you don't happen to be Fox Mulder, you pretty much have to accept that as a dead end to your search. And I think a lot of people don't want to do that. People don't like to just stop. They want an end, they want a resolution. They can't just throw their hands up and say "Oh, well! Guess we'll never know!" So they try to write their own endings. It's hard to start down that road, come to an impassable ravine, and not sit down and think, "how do I get across?" But the truth is, you probably can't, and you'll just end up deluding yourself into thinking you can fly.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 36. Yeah, well | | | | by sglover910 | | | | at Thu 15 May 2:40pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 22 | | | | | |
Might it be that any event, buying a cheeseburger, say, might be surrounded by all sorts of weird little coincidences that show up under intense scrutiny? Maybe the burger was made from a cow treated by a veterinarian who attended the very same section of American history that I did back in college. I mean, all that you say is true, but I think it's important to remember that brains really like to build order out of noise. And brains interested in conspiracies might be even a little more prone to that than most.
Of course, the clincher argument against conspiracy theories is that anyone who's even close to knowing what's really going on is marked down by the overlords and quietly... Dealt with....
An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 24. Conspiracy Theories and the Scientific Method | | | | by Zi | | | | at Thu 15 May 11:40am | score of 2.5 interesting | | | | | | |
I'm actually very open to grand concepts that attempt to unify and create themes out of the vast effluvia of information. It's very human to want to know — Why? I also have no doubt that most official explanations of events are tainted due to desire for secrecy, fear of repercussions, personal bias, general ass-covering, financial concerns and political considerations; whether any of these reasons are valid or not. I also think that the American news media have thier own agendas which preclude objectivity. Whenever one reads a news story, one has to tie oneself into intellectual knots to parse true meaning from the end result of all the histrionics.
All that said, great claims require great evidence, and most conspiracy theories don't hold up.Whether this is due to the inaccuracy of the theory or the effectiveness of the conspiracy is left to the reader. Since I am open to larger explanations, I am very skeptical, in a defensive way. I want to believe, but I don't want to be fooled.
Whenever I an exposed to grand claims, I try to parse validity through rational means.
1. Prima facia
Is the claim beyond possibility?
Has the claimant made a statement that is patently false, ie, the world is flat, or 1 + 1 = 3. This doesn't preclude a challenge to existing concepts, but the claim has to pass an "is it at least possible" test. The Lizard Leaders mentioned in the writeup fail this test.
2. Source
Is the claimant a lunatic?
Or rather, does his passion for a subject, or his inability to think clearly, preclude objectivity or rationality? Every dog has his day, but this severely limits the claimants odds in being right. Think of the TimeCube guy.
3. Profit
What does the claimant stand to gain in having people accept his ideas? Profit can severely limit veracity. Whether the profit is power, money, etc. doesn't matter. Infomercials are a good example here.
4. Logic
Is the claim based on deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning? Have they objectively taken facts and deduced the most reasonable explanation or did they start with a premise and selectively choose facts to fit the premise? Much can be made of selective editing, and one can get a reasonable sounding explanation by ignoring facts. Most of what Rush Limbaugh says falls into this category.
If the claim passes these preliminary tests, then one can look at the data and determine its truthfulness. Even if a claim gets to this point, it still has to validly reasoned, and present the most compelling evidence.
So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 37. Re: Conspiracy Theories and the Scientific Method | | | | by Aigeanta | | | | at Thu 15 May 2:40pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 24 | | | | | |
How do you know that extra-dimensional reptilians are impossible?
Suppose existence is the set of all things which exist. Non-existence is not possible, because if there is such a thing as non-existence, it exists, and it is therefore a member of the set of existence. Since non-existence is not possible, everything exists, because if something didn't exist, it would be non-existent, which is not possible.
a prophet on the burning shore
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 41. Re: Conspiracy Theories and the Scientific Method | | | | by Zi | | | | at Thu 15 May 4:03pm | score of 1.5 scholarly | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
Well, your theory rests on a set of all things, and Bertrand Russell discovered that one cannot create a set that includes all things, the rest of your argument falls apart.
Good try, though!
So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 44. Re: Conspiracy Theories and the Scientific Method | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Thu 15 May 4:37pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
There are other ways to get there*, but if you want to use conventional logic, then you can't define a set as "the set of all X." Bertrand Russell proved that. So your supposition isn't based on a "set" in a mathematical or logical sense and might not exist. If you can't prove it exists, then the argument doesn't hold.
*All false statements are equivalent. There are false statements which can be proven (Tarski-Banach, eg.). Therefore God is a purple pustule on my ass, you killed the Lindbergh baby, and extra-dimensional reptiles exist. Furthermore, my spelling is correct. QED
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 40. A test example | | | | by pyramid termite | | | | at Thu 15 May 3:08pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 24 | | | | | |
Very good. Let's take the so-called "neo-con" conspiracy theory against Iraq and see how it measures up.
Is the claim beyond possibility? No. Clearly people of all persuasions who write position papers on issues have a chance of influencing the government and have in the past.
Is the claimant a lunatic? There have been quite a few claimants, across the political spectrum. I strongly doubt they can ALL be dismissed as lunatics as this itself would be an "extraordinary claim".
What does the claimant stand to gain in having people accept his ideas? Obviously, an awareness on the part of other people of how our government can be influenced by the ideas of a few, who do not represent the interests of the people as a whole. This does not seem to result in solely personal gain for the proponents.
Is the claim based on deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning? Let's see — people who are well-known public opinion proponents express an opinion publically. They are known to have been listened to by many, including Bush administration figures. Decisions that are made later are in keeping with the views expressed.
Conclusion — there is certainly enough reason to continue to look at what happens in the light of this theory and it is not merely an irrational "conspiracy theory" of the paranoid.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 27. Neither Dem nor Rep... they are the Loon Party | | | | by Azathoth | | | | at Thu 15 May 12:14pm | score of 1.5 informative | | | | | | |
recent rumors of a conspiracy by the U.S. government to cover up or even to have committed the September 11th terrorist attacks are not likely to come from staunch supporters of President Bush
Although it is true that they are not likely to vote for Bush, they aren't Dems or Greens, either. I spent some time arguing with believers in this particular conspiracy (and the related idea that the US government was also behind the OK City bombing) and they were all what I would describe as "gun-toting fundamentalist-Christian right-wing wackos."
We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 49. That's funny. | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Fri 16 May 3:37am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
Recently spent an evening at Herbst Theatre in San Francisco with an overflow crowd of hundreds of people exploring the same subject, and as far as I could tell, few if any of them were "gun-toting fundamentalist-Christian right-wing wackos" as you describe.
In fact there were a lot of Doctors, Lawyers, Media Personalities and present and former Cops hanging around; nobody was toting guns, nor affirming right wing affiliations, though some may have been Christians.
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 64. Re: That's funny. | | | | by Azathoth | | | | at Fri 16 May 9:38am | score of 1.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 49 | | | | | |
That was truly illuminating. Thanks for the link.
I'm certainly concerned about what the Bush Administration knew or should have known, and what they should have done based on that knowledge. But I don't think the government was involved in perpetrating the attacks, as a majority of this San Francisco audience apparently did.
My particular comment about right-wing wackos is only based on my experience with a few people. I admit that as a generalization of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, my characterization now appears to be, um, inoperative. But I stick by my assessment that they are neither Dem nor Rep... they are Loons.
We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 74. Re: That's funny. | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Fri 16 May 3:02pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 64 | | | | | |
"I'm certainly concerned about what the Bush Administration knew or should have known, and what they should have done based on that knowledge. But I don't think the government was involved in perpetrating the attacks, as a majority of this San Francisco audience apparently did."
I'm not sure what the majority thought, but you may be correct here. There are a lot of unanswered questions about what the administration knew, or did not know. The most difficult questions surround whether or not there was some dampening down of the immediate military response to the planes going off course. The last is the core of any "conspiracy," and is what I'm most interested in looking into. I very strongly doubt government agents assisted in carrying out the attacks, but there really are unanswered questions concerning the efficacy of our response to them.
Part of what facinated me in the film was the lawyer representing many of the families of 9-11 victims stating her commitment to get to the bottom of the unanswered questions. If there was a conspiracy (other than the extant conspiracy of the Al Qaeda terrorists) involved, it's through the victims cries for justice that any suppressed facts will be exposed.
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 28. Makes one think | | | | by jasonm1 | | | | at Thu 15 May 12:31pm | score of 2 interesting | | | | | | |
I am not a believer in conspiracy theories. Without hard evidence, there is simply no point in believing such stories. There are lots of interesting cases, however, where people in power are buddies with each other — friends, not just coworkers. The New Yorker had an interesting profile of Karl Rove, sometimes called "George W. Bush's brain," who is personal friends with the Bushes as well as many other important political figures.
From the viewpoint of a conspiracy theorist, this looks like evidence. From a rational perspective, it's just common sense: people become friends with others in their industry. What gets the conspiracy theorists going is when the friends connection puts people in power, removes them from it, or otherwise seems to have a hand in policy. And in that way, it's true that something more than rational policy decision-making was going on; but it's nothing more sinister than giving away those extra concert tickets to your buddy instead of a stranger.
"Always be willing to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you" -- William Blake
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 29. What?!? | | | | by Airbag | | | | at Thu 15 May 12:41pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
(David Icke's belief that the entire Earth is secretly ruled by lizard-like aliens disguised as human beings)
Are you trying to suggest that this is not true? The reason I have spent so much time on Plastic is that I thought you other guys were these master lizards and I was hoping to horn in on the action. Well if you are all just ordinary humans, I might as well go back to watching day time TV.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 67. Obey! | | | | by MC Nally | | | | at Fri 16 May 11:19am | score of 1.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
Are you trying to suggest that this is not true? The reason I have spent so much time on Plastic is that I thought you other guys were these master lizards and I was hoping to horn in on the action. Well if you are all just ordinary humans, I might as well go back to watching day time TV.
Move along, then. There are no lizardsssss to ssssssee here..
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 34. What's your motivation? | | | | by Jonas Cord | | | | at Thu 15 May 2:11pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Conspiracy theories are popular amongst nearly every part of the population, for whatever reasons. Generally, Conspiracies are developed to characterize a persons ideological opponent or perceived opponent. And therein lies the problem: generally, we disagree with our ideological antagonists so strongly, that are our ability to discern or understand their motivation are severely crippled. Moreover, one prefers to characterize their opponents not as merely misled, misinformed or wrong; they must be evil. The sad state of affairs is the vast majority of those who have, in a popular consensus, committed atrocities or done wrong — these people believed that what they did was for the greater good. Meanwhile, the diehard conspiracy theorist wants to think so highly of him or herself, being virtuous and right, and so dismissive of their opponent, that they will not try to honestly determine whether such conspiracies would actually serve any interest or motivation of their opponent.
As an example, I present the everpresent "Israel committed 9/11." The conspiratorial line goes that in order to have the U.S. unconditionally support Israel against Palestine, the attacks would serve that purpose — we would both be battling Terrorism, be closer allies, and not make demands of Israel. Anyone who developed such a plan would have to be a moron. Pre 9/11, the Bush Administration made it clear it did not give a rats ass about what Israel did, nor was it making any demands of Israel. They had a free hand without any repurcussions from the administration of their most powerful ally. After 9/11, that changed — Bush is talking about a roadmap, Powell is asking that Sharon do x, y, z to get it done — simply put, it's the U.S. business now because it suffers from terrorism because of it. We can argue how hard Bush is being on Sharon (not particularily, yet) but the point is this is a shitty state of affairs if you didn't want the U.S. interfering in the first place.
I find that more than factual errors or impossible to verify claims, it's the motivation that gives conspiracies away as unlikely realities.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 38. Let's Take It Down A Step | | | | by uncarved block | | | | at Thu 15 May 2:48pm | score of 1.5 | | | | | | |
As is often the case, I think the conspiracy theories mentioned in the writeup are extreme instances of normal behaviour-- that there's an agreed line between okay/not okay, largely left unspoken. Well, I'm going to talk about it. (A lot of this comes from mulling over Robert Anton Wilson and his later comments about the Illuminatus! trilogy. I strongly recommend Cosmic Trigger and Cosmic Trigger II if you've read the trilogy).
Conspiracies are all around us, if you take 'conspiracy' merely as "working together for a common goal". The Catholic church is conspiring to make everyone Catholic; potheads are conspiring to score an illegal drug, and the police are conspiring to prevent this; Pepsi is conspiring to sell more cans of pop; etc. If you find anything sinister about, say, Pepsi's conspiracy, it doesn't (necessarily) suggest that you're crazy, merely hypersensitive-- much like an allergy, which is an overreaction to a normal substance. Christian families are right, for instance, that the schools are trying to force secularism on their children-- but taking the schools to court is the overreaction.
If you like, my pet phrase for this is "for some, inculturation is indoctrination". Communism is anathema to a capitalist thinker, just as heterosexuality is an imposition on someone born gay. Even tolerance of a viewpoint can be intolerable; lest you think this is merely a linguistic trick, ask yourself whether tolerance of paedophiles and tolerance of adulterers are separate, or merely points on a gradient of sexual acceptance. Consider as well how these rules are hardly set in stone, either-- being divorced had a stigma 50 years ago that we can't imagine today.
So this is one way to dismiss an argument as 'conspiracy theory', what might be called the "well, duh" reaction: "Catholics are trying to convert the world" might elicit this response.
Another way to dismiss a conspiracy theory argument is as an evident sign of mental illness. This is where the "tinfoil hat" aspersion comes from. There are voices in your head; since they can't come from you, they must come from somewhere else; that 'somewhere else' can take as many forms as there are people: demons, satellite beams, Jews, giant lizards, etc. When something is rejected as 'too conspiratorial', the connotation is clearly this, whether the original argument is close to it or not.
Then there's what can be called the classic conspiracy theories: the JFK assassination, the Masons, the Jewish bankers, the Area 51 coverup, etc. I'm not going to dwell on these, as I've already written too much, and you all presumably have a nodding familiarity with them.
So where does this urge to posit secret powers come from? It's certainly not old, as even a brief look at anti-semitism in Europe demonstrates, and it hardly seems a purely European madness (Africa: sodomizing a virgin cures AIDS; Mid-East: the Jews stayed home on 9/11; China: no specific example, but in a nation under communist rule, can you doubt there are hundreds?). If a problem is pandemic, even universal, I suggest psychology, not political science, is the place to look.
Or perhaps not psychology alone, but add in a little evolution too. What is mankind's most effective evolutionary strategy? Cooperation. Reaching adulthood alone requires an incredible degree of it, much less thriving as anything other than hunter/gatherers. Simple, right? Well, we have sex to reproduce, but thwarted sexual urges manifest themselves in very, very different ways. To use Jungian language, conspiracy theories seem to be the Shadow of the psychology of cooperation, a projection of the chafing the individual feels every day as his or her absolute freedom is crimped. If this 'cooperation Shadow' is less of a problem than sexual one, I would suggest its effects are far less primal, and have a good deal more release valves (being rude (or friendly) to strangers, or declining an objectionable demand).
Just a thought.
Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 81. Re: Let's Take It Down A Step | | | | by gordon shumway | | | | at Sat 17 May 1:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 38 | | | | | |
"Conspiracies are all around us, if you take 'conspiracy' merely as "working together for a common goal"
But that isn't what is meant by use of the term conspiracy. A conspiracy is secret collusion, and for illegal ends. So drug dealers do conspire when they sell drugs. But police don't conspire when they try to stop it, that is the police's admitted intent. Police being involved in selling drugs would be a conspiracy.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 84. Connotation And Denotation | | | | by uncarved block | | | | at Sun 18 May 10:30am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 81 | | | | | |
was a point I felt compelled to leave out for space. To be precise, there's nothing in the latin roots, or the notion of the word, that demands that 'secret' be part of it-- but there are centuries of accepted usage behind it.
I try to restrain my English major urges ('see? how interesting that the OED only attaches the third meaning in 1665'), but in a thread, indeed a comment, that mentions R. A. Wilson, examining cultural assumptions we bring to the table seemed appropriate. And if you want secret in your definition anyway, a good deal of police work occurs out of sight of the public-- undercover cops, surveillance, even the examination of tax records to match real and apparent incomes (this is a common tactic catching US double agents, as you know that Americans tend to sell out for large sums of cash rather than idealogy). The illegal point is quite valid, though.
Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 50. Simple stupidity is usually the best explanation | | | | by bytesex | | | | at Fri 16 May 3:43am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Always attribute to malice what is obviously to be attributed to stupidity. People are stupid, but they have a hard time swallowing that fact. In a system where people who are usually more aggressive and malicious make it further up the food-chain, it serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Down below, people reason that the army did not defend the Baghdad museum or radio-active materials because they wanted only the oil and Saddam, and they do not accept the argument of (lack of oversight, lack of manpower, sheer stupidity, etcetera) because the orders come from GWB or Rummy, and GWB and Rummy are so sneaky that they should know what they're doing, because otherwise they would not have made it into the white house in the first place — it's a dog eat dog world out there, you know.
These people do not accept, or cannot fathom, that war creates messy, unoverseeable situations quite regularly, GWB and Rummy were remote-controlling this endevaour to begin with, and that they are a bit thick in certain areas of the brain as well (as is everybody), that the success of the invasion was so overwhelming that too few people arrived first at the scene, etc, etc, etc. And hoopla — a conspiracy theory is born.
But Bush and Rummy also suffer from the same malfunction, you know — they maintained, and maintain, that Saddam had WMD, and that even if they didn't find them, it was simply evidence for their having been transported somewhere else. This is how you see democracy in action; your leaders are so much like you; they even suffer from the same kind of paranoia.
Casey.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 51. Lovely discussion, but... | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Fri 16 May 4:01am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
the real question for me is: If there is a man behind the curtain — would we know it? Or could he act so creatively that most the participants in the game simply could not know it, even if they were contributors?
People claim conspiracy theories are somehow comforting, and give a context for the unexplainable. This is not my experience. When I follow the unanswered questions, I just get more and more disturbed. Fortunately, I have some practices that take the edge off of the weirdness. Eventually!
What if the political landscape really is weirder than we can even suppose? Wouldn't the real kicker be if some of the freakiest conspiracy theories turned out to have more than a few grains of truth buried within them?!
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 65. Re: Lovely discussion, but... | | | | by eduardo | | | | at Fri 16 May 9:42am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 51 | | | | | |
The real question for me is: If there is a man behind the curtain — would we know it? Or could he act so creatively that most the participants in the game simply could not know it, even if they were contributors?
Exactly. That's why all these theorists are full of shit. The idea is that there's an agency manipulating the world, sufficiently sophisticated to conceal itself from the casual observer, BUT not so good at what it does that the conspiracy theorist himself is fooled.
Like, if there's a conspiracy of Jewish Bankers to run the world, why the fuck would they let some dirty KKK rednecks find out about it?
J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 71. Re: Lovely discussion, but... | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Fri 16 May 2:14pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 65 | | | | | |
Actually, what I'm pointing to is: Maybe the world doesn't quite work the way we think (and hope) it does. Perhaps consensus reality isn't all it's cracked up to be. In a sense, it's just a more exotic use of skepticism.
I'm pretty convinced concensus reality isn't...well...quite real. What I'm not sure of is how deep and how far the crack goes. So with people such as R. A. Wilson, I keep peering in and occasionally spelunking down into this crack, to check out its shape, and try to make sense of it all.
And granting the theorists themselves are mostly full of shit, many of us wallowing in it to find its pearls of wisdom — are not. More like the shit is full of us.
All the best,
Norman
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 52. I love conspiracy theories... | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Fri 16 May 4:53am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Not so much buy into, but certainly love.
The basics behind all conspiracy theories are as follows: there is a force behind activities that carries out plans of actions for their own purposes. In a world of conspiracy theories nothing just "happens", someone or several people make things happen. There's no randomness, no noise, simply a pattern of interlocking conspiracies that drive the world. It's a world of order, of predictability, of reason. Well, if you can "see" it.
I don't really believe in most conspiracy theories, directly. But I do believe that most events are causal (one action leads to an effect, which is the action that leads to effect, and so forth) and so I believe in a grand notion of conspiracy. It's not the Illuminati (Ewinge Blumenkraft!) or UMMO ( -+)*(+- ) or any other documented conspiracy. It's one vast system of interlocked sub-agendas driving from one another.
And it's the closest thing I have to a God, really.
Conspiracy removes the need to account for things by coincidence. There is an order, a reason, and a goal. Conspiracy means that I am not, though I may not understand my role, an isolated fragment and am instead a piece of the whole. There's a comfort in that. A place that I can stand and make connections and say that I have purpose.
And maybe that's what people look for when the look for conspiracies.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 82. Re: I love conspiracy theories... | | | | by gordon shumway | | | | at Sat 17 May 1:38pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 52 | | | | | |
I would add that conspiratorial explanations for reality are non-refutable. Any evidence which suggests the conspiracy is false has been faked by the conspirators as part of the plot and is simply a wrinkle in (yet) another layer of conspiracy.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 56. Convergence at the frontiers... | | | | by rdww | | | | at Fri 16 May 6:00am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
An intriguing aspect of conspiracy theories is the way they assemble many of the same building blocks (Jews, Freemasons, Templers, the CIA, Communists, Big Bidness, etc. etc.) into wildly divergent conspiracies. Hence, paranoids from both antiglobalist/anarchist AND Aryan Nations perspectives can each assemble conspiracy theories that are deadly opposites, and yet include many of the same conspirators.
Also, "conspiracy theories" are always the domain of those on the OTHER end of the political spectrum from one's self. Thus, at Plastic, paranoia about Big Bidness/the CFR/the VRWC gains respectful murmuring, while tales of Vince Foster/Clinton Arkancide coverups are laughed out of court.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 66. Re: Convergence at the frontiers... | | | | by Airbag | | | | at Fri 16 May 10:07am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 56 | | | | | |
I see what you mean. The idea, for instance, that Osama and Saddam used to be in the same book group is patently absurd but is nonetheless widely believed by those of a certain political spectrum.
What do the acronyms "the CFR and "the VRWC" stand for?. Confederates for Re-seccession? Very Right Wing Christians? Joking aside, I don't recognize them.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 75. Re: Convergence at the frontiers... | | | | by MC Nally | | | | at Fri 16 May 3:18pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 66 | | | | | |
What do the acronyms "the CFR and "the VRWC" stand for?. Confederates for Re-seccession? Very Right Wing Christians? Joking aside, I don't recognize them.
CFR = Council on Foreign Relations
VRWC = Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
(or so I presume. I've never seen the latter acronym but my personal superpower is the ability to decode acronyms I've never before seen.)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 57. Conspiracy theories = civil law suits. | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Fri 16 May 6:19am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Fact based theories = criminal law suits.
The most attractive thing about conspiracy theories is that they really don't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is required for a conspiracy theory is a willing mind and a enough factoids to string together to allow that willing mind to connect the dots. What they connect the dots with are their oftentimes unfounded perceptions of what the truth is.
It worked for the Kennedy assassination with the facts being that Kennedy was shot at least twice from a distance to allegations that the mob did it, Castro did it, the CIA did it, whacked out Dallas conservatives did it, LBJ did it, the Dallas Police Department did it. All those conspiracies, each of them buttresses by a fact here and a fact there, and those facts stitched together to create for the stitcher a comforting picture of the truth they won't let you know.
Oh yeah, and then there's that totally whacked out one about how a loner by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald did it. Amazing. And it's all the more amazing because these conspiracy theorists are essentially saying that the evil forces in a). the government, b). the mob, c). the lunatic political fringe, or d). all of the above, have managed to keep the truth of the crime of the 20th century hidden from the American people for close to 40 years. Yet, a lot of these people will also get up on a soapbox and be among the first to claim that government is incompetent.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 63. The government is incompetent... | | | | by maml | | | | at Fri 16 May 8:14am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 57 | | | | | |
...have managed to keep the truth of the crime of the 20th century hidden from the American people for close to 40 years. Yet, a lot of these people will also get up on a soapbox and be among the first to claim that government is incompetent.
The government is incompetent, but the shadow organizations that actually run things are very, very efficient.
Or that's the theory, anyway.
I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 69. Re: Conspiracy theories = civil law suits. | | | | by KazaK | | | | at Fri 16 May 1:47pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 57 | | | | | |
"d). all of the above, have managed to keep the truth of the crime of the 20th century hidden from the American people for close to 40 years."
I don't think organizations have to hide the truth all the time, just put out enough background noise to make the truth indistinguishable from fiction. Plausible deniability.
KazaK
Everything in moderation, including moderation.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 70. Damn, I wish I'd written this | | | | by sven_haagendaas | | | | at Fri 16 May 1:47pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
The official story about the WTC attack is a conspiracy theory.
A mysterious Muslim religious sectarian, holed up in a far valley in distant Afghanistan, sends teams of suicide terrorists halfway around the world to destroy the nerve center of world trade. This tops Professor Moriarty, Fu Manchu, and Rasputin all put together. But are the conspiracy theorists happy? NO! They want another, different conspiracy!
On the other hand, in mainstream political circles anyone who talks about conspiracies at all is ridiculed. This smug habit is either ignorant or dishonest, since even a little study shows us that there have been many conspiracies in human history, and that some of them had a major effect.
Guidelines for sorting out conspiracy theories
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 72. The Bonesmen are running things. | | | | by advancedatheist | | | | at Fri 16 May 2:15pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
The Bush Adminstration seems a bit top-heavy with members of Yale University's Skull and Bones secret society. If John F. Kerry runs against Bush in '04, we'll have our first Bonesman versus Bonesman Presidential race.
Now what's that all about? Skull & Bones' insurance that they stay in control?
"There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 77. My .02 on Prior knowledge. | | | | by Ben Bridenbaugh | | | | at Fri 16 May 11:03pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Hmm, always have to leave my computer when a good discussion pops up here...
Anyways, considering alone that the 9/11 probe was stopped from the president's desk, just as it was heading that way, there has to be something going on. "Partisan Politics" my @$$. Do you not think that if he could even point at Clinton over this, he'd try to get the guy in prison?
I strongly doubt Dubya knew about 9/11, and let it happen. However, I would not be suprised if the truth came out and it turned out to be something like him doing nothing but working on payoffs to campaign helpers and ignoring the stack of papers the CIA puts on his desk daily. Maybe he even shouted down the annoying CIA man who kept trying to get his attention. IMHO, if he had had any idea how serious things would get he would have 'empowered' someone at least, but oooopppssss....
OF COURSE, if that's true, he covered it up. He and the entire Republican party would be gutted from office in such a way that Green and Communist canidates would beat them at the voting places.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 79. Them | | | | by SteamboatDreamboat | | | | at Sat 17 May 10:40am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Them: Adventures with Extremists is a pretty good book about conspiracy theorists. The author heads out to verify the claims of extremists, and discoveres there is some truth to their claims. He comes to the conclusion that there are "secrect" societies, like the Bilderburg Group, but that they don't control all the policies of the world. At least not yet.
"When life hands you lemons, make coffee... and then you'll have the desire to make lemonade." --Jon Friedman
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | Member Login | | | |
| Man, It's Hard To Even Bash Em
|
|
|
| (3 hrs, 18 mins ago) | -----=-o--- |
Sarah Palin stumps for Tx gub'ner, Rick Perry. The intellectually elite come out to show their support. - n29_w95 |
| Hot Air Aloft
|
|
|
| (Sun 7 Feb 11:34am) | -----=o---- |
Submitted for your consideration, the most intriguing idea for political communication in many a moon: The Peace Blimp. - Petronius |
|
