When conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact

[andygardener]

Not "every other". Most.

 

Cointelpro was perhaps the most significant example of a conspiracy that was exposed by people outside the mainstream media. The MSM had no reason to investigate such matters until the paranoid left wing conspiracy nuts broke in and stole the relevant documents.

 

Even if the MSM happens to report on most of these revelations, that doesn't mean they weren't tipped off or given the lead info. It also doesn't mean we should look to the MSM as some kind of crusading force for truth and justice, since its interests lie firmly in the business sector (the propaganda model covered why this is significant as far as information being gatekept from the public).

 

The point I really wanted to get across was highlighted in my hypothetical test of public opinion on conspiracy theories. If we all develop the mindset that anything that so much as smells of a conspiracy theory should be rejected with a flippant remark such as "u-oh here come the lizard people", then say goodbye to genuine critical thinking. Whether we're willing to accept it or not, conspiracy is part of the nature of certain groups, whether based on historical traits or analysing how their interests influence behaviour.

 

Like with anything, each case needs to be judged on its merits but, as I mentioned before, not everyone is informed enough (beyond half hour media soundbites - we all have busy lives) to even be in a position to validate what they read and hear.

 

That's just basically saying unless you have seen with your own eyes definitive proof of anything then disbelieve it.

 

What use is that?

 

I'm total by the "MSM" that there is a civil war in Syria. I've never been to Syria. Does Syria even exist? I'm satisfied that it does and a civil war is happening there. Does that make me blind or manipulated?

 

Your concept of the heroic cynic can only exist in a very brief window between facts starting to come out and their becoming common knowledge. The only way to do that is to accept low standards of proof and rumors when they first get mentioned and eventually you'll call one right.

[epiphany]

That's just basically saying unless you have seen with your own eyes definitive proof of anything then disbelieve it.

 

What use is that?

 

I'm total by the "MSM" that there is a civil war in Syria. I've never been to Syria. Does Syria even exist? I'm satisfied that it does and a civil war is happening there. Does that make me blind or manipulated?

 

Your concept of the heroic cynic can only exist in a very brief window between facts starting to come out and their becoming common knowledge. The only way to do that is to accept low standards of proof and rumors when they first get mentioned and eventually you'll call one right.

 

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.

[RootsBooster]

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.

[andygardener]

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?

[epiphany]

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.

[andygardener]

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?

[Smithster]

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.

[Smithster]

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.

[andygardener]

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?

[Smithster]

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.