Jump to content

When conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact

Recommended Posts

The main problem with the OP is that it seeks to create 3 distinct groups of which one is enlightened and wise and the other two are fools. The "everythings a conspiracy mob", the "mainstream media addicted sheeple" and the wise cynic who rules nothing in and nothing out, ever.

If we take an actual conspiracy closer to home than the shenanigans of the CIA, the failure of police and social services to protect children from sexual abuse by pedophile gangs because of the ethnicity of the perps, at what point prior to it becoming public knowledge and thus accepted by the sheeple because it was in the mainstream media did the wise cynics expose it? They didn't. Same with every other proven conspiracy. Who is responsible for exposing most of what could be described as conspiracys...the mainstream media, or the authorities, often prompted by investigations by..the mainstream media.

So what is the wise cynic actually adding to anything other than basically saying trust nobody and believe nothing you are told and then if stuff is exposed jumping in after the fact to claim that proves them right?

Epiphany didn't actually say "cynics" and he definitely never mentioned anything about them trusting nobody and believing nothing.

 

However, if Epiphany is going to categorise people on this, he missed out at least a fourth:

The kind who don't give a fig about conspiracy theories and don't give them a moment's thought either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:confused: I think that's extending my argument to the point of absurdity. I'm not claiming you should deny everything without observable proof. Quite the opposite - don't be afraid to hypothesise just because someone who is unlikely to know the difference between a conspiracy theory based on historical or institutional traits and conspiracy fanaticism based on a wild imagination will call you a "conspiracy theorist".

 

I too believe the MSM media when it comes to things like war and current affairs. What I don't expect them to do (because in many cases it might be a conflict of interest for the media company) is reveal the whole truth the whole of the time.

 

Not that this should be a revelation to anyone.

 

So the whole essence of being a truthseeking wise man is not believing that what you read in the papers or see on TV is the whole truth about everything?

 

I think 99.9% of the global population worked that out on their own.

 

Other than not thinking every secret on earth is revealed on a daily basis in the press are there any other skills the wise few are bringing to the party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the whole essence of being a truthseeking wise man is not believing that what you read in the papers or see on TV is the whole truth about everything?

 

I think 99.9% of the global population worked that out on their own.

 

Other than not thinking every secret on earth is revealed on a daily basis in the press are there any other skills the wise few are bringing to the party?

 

I didn't expect anyone to read the entirety of my post, but it made (I hope) slightly more compelling points than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't expect anyone to read the entirety of my post, but it made (I hope) slightly more compelling points than that.

 

Well, you didn't.

 

Question everything isn't useful advice. Question everything, then jump in saying I told you so when stuff gets declassified isn't useful advice.

 

One or probably many more people within the CIA have with a degree a certainty approaching so close to 100% it's silly will have broken laws and done nasty things outside their authority within the last decade that the public do not know about. Ditto MI6. Ditto the FSB.

 

I have no proof for the above but given what they are tasked with and even under such modern day scrutiny as is available to congress/parliament/not applicable in case of FSB it is inevitable.

 

But what's the point of me saying that? I have no knowledge or proof of whatever ills may have occurred. So why would stating the fairly obvious without any actual evidence make me any more wise or aware than those who just wait for the facts to come out as and when they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting topic epiphany, and I seem to remember starting a similar thread myself (a few years ago now, mind). If you want to completely discredit someone then simply throw the label of 'conspiracy theorist nutjob' at them and conjure up an image of a spotty geek who spends his entire life watching sci-fi, eating takeaways, and sitting at his computer coming up with all sorts of weird and wonderful alternative explanations for historical events.

 

I believe you are correct in that those who jump on any and all conspiracy bandwagons, to the point that their world-view leads them to see things which aren't there, are just as bad as those who, convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority, dismiss them out of hand without bothering to view the evidence. Indeed, it is the existence of this latter group upon which those who conspire to fool the public rely in order to get away with it, because without them generating doubt and pigeon-holing the fervent theorists as social outcasts, a much larger percentage of the population would most likely start doing more digging to try and expose their nefarious activities. But I do not agree with andygardener or RootsBooster's belief that there are only two categories in between. I see the middle ground as a large greyscale with numerous different attitudes towards the subjects, but it is always the two extreme groups that polarise the debate (on SF at least anyway) and the sane and rational voices often get lost amongst the abuse and ridicule they throw at each other, which is a real shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question everything isn't useful advice.

 

Sorry, I have to disagree. I think it is very good advice. One of the things I have learned during my recent studies is that it is always helpful to check the sources of any information and question what motives the author may have. Certain media organisations are very skilled at cherry-picking data and presenting it in such a way as to shock and generate anger (an excellent example of this is the way in which the Daily Mail reports on the subject of climate change) so if people do not question it, accept it without reviewing the evidence for themselves and then pass it on as fact then they are unwittingly furthering the political agenda of others. This is clearly demonstrated at this time of year by all the moronic "AAARGH - bloody immigrants telling us we can't celebrate Christmas any more! Pass it on if you agree!" Facebook updates, which are invariably based on complete falsehoods to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I have to disagree. I think it is very good advice. One of the things I have learned during my recent studies is that it is always helpful to check the sources of any information and question what motives the author may have. Certain media organisations are very skilled at cherry-picking data and presenting it in such a way as to shock and generate anger (an excellent example of this is the way in which the Daily Mail reports on the subject of climate change) so if people do not question it, accept it without reviewing the evidence for themselves and then pass it on as fact then they are unwittingly furthering the political agenda of others. This is clearly demonstrated at this time of year by all the moronic "AAARGH - bloody immigrants telling us we can't celebrate Christmas any more! Pass it on if you agree!" Facebook updates, which are invariably based on complete falsehoods to begin with.

 

Assuming you're not 8 "consider the source and look at other sources" can hardly have come a recent revelation to you. What I'm looking for from epiphany is an epiphany, not "don't believe everything you read in the Mail/Sun/Grauniad etc".

 

How does the conspiracy "considerer" for want of a better word distinguish themselves from those who wait for facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming you're not 8 "consider the source and look at other sources" can hardly have come a recent revelation to you. What I'm looking for from epiphany is an epiphany, not "don't believe everything you read in the Mail/Sun/Grauniad etc".

 

A little harsh. Of course this is something I have always believed in, although the teachers at my school down south were pretty poor and were much better at teaching what to think than they were at how to think. It's just that my recent studies have re-iterated the importance of it.

 

How does the conspiracy "considerer" for want of a better word distinguish themselves from those who wait for facts?

 

By proactively engaging in some research and looking for them, obviously. Not sure of your point here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By proactively engaging in some research and looking for them, obviously. Not sure of your point here.

 

So we go out and work, we get back from a hard days work, have dinner and then instead of lounging in front of the mainstream media we bally well get stuck in and look for conspiracies.

 

How exactly do you propose we do that? Bally up and burgle the local travelodge on the off chance it's the new watergate? Mug a random stranger on the basis they may be carrying proof that David Cameron plans to sell us all for spare parts to China?

 

Or do you actually mean logging onto rense and the like and regurgitating their drivel over the rest of the web?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you didn't.

 

Question everything isn't useful advice. Question everything, then jump in saying I told you so when stuff gets declassified isn't useful advice.

 

One or probably many more people within the CIA have with a degree a certainty approaching so close to 100% it's silly will have broken laws and done nasty things outside their authority within the last decade that the public do not know about. Ditto MI6. Ditto the FSB.

 

I have no proof for the above but given what they are tasked with and even under such modern day scrutiny as is available to congress/parliament/not applicable in case of FSB it is inevitable.

 

But what's the point of me saying that? I have no knowledge or proof of whatever ills may have occurred. So why would stating the fairly obvious without any actual evidence make me any more wise or aware than those who just wait for the facts to come out as and when they do?

 

If everybody 'just waited for the facts to come out,' they never would.

 

Every 'fact' in this context is driven by somebody, somewhere asking awkward questions and looking for answers, ie being a 'conspiracy theorist' (though I hate that term) In other words seeking evidence to prove a theory, and often that evidence only comes about bit by bit until the balance of probability is overwhelming.

 

Would you call investigative journalists 'conspiracy theorists'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[/b]

 

If everybody 'just waited for the facts to come out,' they never would.

 

Every 'fact' in this context is driven by somebody, somewhere asking awkward questions and looking for answers, ie being a 'conspiracy theorist' (though I hate that term) In other words seeking evidence to prove a theory, and often that evidence only comes about bit by bit until the balance of probability is overwhelming.

 

 

Disagree. Investigation is looking at all the evidence and see where it leads. People with a theory tend to disregard evidence that doesn't fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree. Investigation is looking at all the evidence and see where it leads. People with a theory tend to disregard evidence that doesn't fit.

 

Wrong. Investigation is digging for evidence that is often hidden, disguised or confusing, and mired in red herrings and misinformation. Certainly they need to see where it leads which is why information tends to trickle rather than gush.

In uncovering anything there will always be information which doesn't fit, sometimes it is put there deliberately to put people off the scent. That doesn't necessarily mean that a theory is wrong, just that the whole picture has yet to emerge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.