Why Conspiracy Theories?

[luka]

one and the same surely

 

[wg-]

Read that winter oak article, pretty boring. Never trust a skint expert is all I'd say

 

[luka]

its not lurid or original but its a good summary of the dominant conspiratorial narrative, which as vim says,
is pretty standard and mainstream at this stage.

 

[vimothy]

I think what the genuine policy types are coming out with is if anything more crazy at this point. full luxury communism has never been a more realistic option.

 

[forclosure]

@luka @Mr. Tea i'm gonna tell you two what A-Wax told Caine and O Dog maaan both of ya'll shut the fuck up

 

[forclosure]

I think what the genuine policy types are coming out with is if anything more crazy at this point. full luxury communism has never been a more realistic option.

I mean the luxury communism was MEANT to be a joke that along the line of it being repeated became something that people thought was possible.

Its like how that line of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" was originally meant to highlight how impossible it was do that kind of thing but was turned into a line of condescending encouragement

 

[vimothy]

it's still a joke, but war time keynesianism, for eg, doesnt seem impossible

 

[Clinamenic]

if that;s the case then explain to me all the very vocal black people who believe these things?

Yeah I agree. I think its a cultural thing that doesn't neatly map onto ethnic distinctions. Maybe it maps more onto rural/urban distinctions somewhat? Those who feel left out of mainstream pop culture?

 

[luka]

Yeah I agree. I think its a cultural thing that doesn't neatly map onto ethnic distinctions. Maybe it maps more onto rural/urban distinctions somewhat? Those who feel left out of mainstream pop culture?

no it doesnt

 

[Clinamenic]

no it doesnt

Yeah and even if there is a moderate correlation there, I'd suspect its a spandrel.

I do think it has something to do with one's own scope of reality. The narrower the scope, seemingly the more susceptible one is to distrusting whoever/whatever is operating outside that scope. The boundary separating us and them.

Thats why I'm inclined to make the rural/urban association, even if it isn't a significant or causal association. I'm inclined to think rural folks naturally have a narrower scope, what with their culture being almost literally more parochial than that of cities with international residents.

Same goes for suburbs, perhaps. But then this still leaves unexplained why urban residents may be prone to reactionary paranoia, or at least left susceptible to being populistically pushed in such a direction.

 

[luka]

Yeah and even if there is a moderate correlation there, I'd suspect its a spandrel.

I do think it has something to do with one's own scope of reality. The narrower the scope, seemingly the more susceptible one is to distrusting whoever/whatever is operating outside that scope. The boundary separating us and them.

Thats why I'm inclined to make the rural/urban association, even if it isn't a significant or causal association. I'm inclined to think rural folks naturally have a narrower scope, what with their culture being almost literally more parochial than that of cities with international residents.

Same goes for suburbs, perhaps. But then this still leaves unexplained why urban residents may be prone to reactionary paranoia, or at least left susceptible to being populistically pushed in such a direction.

no youre wrong again. your tendency to self congratulation is leading you astray as usual.

 

[Clinamenic]

Yeah I don't get the sense any of these things really offer good insight into the social phenomenon in question. Could be something of a fool's errand, at least the way I'm approaching it.

 

[Clinamenic]

I do think there is something to be said for the scope though, nationalist contra globalist, on a largely ideological level.

 

[sufi]

not even a conspiracy theory but since we're piling on why not

Western Double-Standards – Russian Oil Bad, Saudi Oil Good – 🏴 Anarchist Federation

www.anarchistfederation.net

 

[luka]

you have to leave aside the idea that people beleive these things cos they are worse than you. this is what i was on about last night by saying all conspiracy people are brighter than leo. they are not literally, not all of them, but what im saying is, stop thinking your better than them

 

[Clinamenic]

you have to leave aside the idea that people beleive these things cos they are worse than you. this is what i was on about last night by saying all conspiracy people are brighter than leo. they are not literally, not all of them, but what im saying is, stop thinking your better than them

Well, its not just that I think I'm better than them. My arrogance is far more virulent and indiscriminate than that.

 

[Clinamenic]

I am a globalist, after all.

 

[Clinamenic]

Ahem, a planetarian, if I may pervert that definition to my own ends.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yeah and even if there is a moderate correlation there, I'd suspect its a spandrel.

I do think it has something to do with one's own scope of reality. The narrower the scope, seemingly the more susceptible one is to distrusting whoever/whatever is operating outside that scope. The boundary separating us and them.

Thats why I'm inclined to make the rural/urban association, even if it isn't a significant or causal association. I'm inclined to think rural folks naturally have a narrower scope, what with their culture being almost literally more parochial than that of cities with international residents.

Same goes for suburbs, perhaps. But then this still leaves unexplained why urban residents may be prone to reactionary paranoia, or at least left susceptible to being populistically pushed in such a direction.

There was a really interesting analysis done a few years ago - I'll share a link if I can find it - that showed that, in the 50s and 60s, there were many millions of rural and small-town Democratic voters, and many millions of big-city Republicans. In other words, there was almost no correlation between the size of settlement American voters lived in, and their voting proclivities. But now, there is a remarkably strong correlation between size of settlement and likelihood of voting Democrat (and, conversely, between smallness of settlement and likelihood of voting Republican).

Edit: the main article is behind a paywall, but this gist of it is this:

 

[Clinamenic]

There was a really interesting analysis done a few years ago - I'll share a link if I can find it - that showed that, in the 50s and 60s, there were many millions of rural and small-town Democratic voters, and many millions of big-city Republicans. In other words, there was almost no correlation between the size of settlement American voters lived in, and their voting proclivities. But now, there is a remarkably strong correlation between size of settlement and likelihood of voting Democrat (and, conversely, between smallness of settlement and likelihood of voting Republican).

Interesting, this switch would map onto the narrative that the Democrats lost touch with their working class appeal. Even if Democratic policy trends stayed true to that (I couldn't confirm or deny), maybe this shift is due to a more purely cultural development, i.e. the democrats appealing more to an upper-class liberal contingency?