Why Conspiracy Theories?
- Thread starter sherief
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apples are not racist black eyed babies conspiragasms conspiranauts control craner's defence league haugen 2024 homedawg1 king of the goblin nonces lizards moon unit mr tea is a cop nanoo nanoo nazis all over the shop nazis in exeter nazis nazis nazis nebuchadnezzar patty is an old whig pogrom massive san francisco is a suburb of ipswich steve jobs is living egypt the day yyaldrin went vegan tin foil hats where is ghislaine’s other foot? zoom in
john eden
male pale and stale
Briefly (sorry) I think this is a fair point. I think I would try to differentiate the subcultural aspects of conspiracy theory now with investigative activism/journalism though. With the difference being "coming up with the goods" and perhaps being able to stay focussed.
The campaigns for investigations into Hillsborough, Orgreave and spy cops are not based on Conspiracy Theories and have borne some fruit (although not great results for Orgreave... yet). I am sure they have all been dismissed as conspiracy theories at various times. But I do think there is a difference in approach - they have stayed quite tightly focussed on getting achievable results rather than everyone pitching in with theories which are limited only by the power of someone's imagination. Ditto the very sober investigations into the bases used for extraordinary rendition that Crofton has been doing.
It is probably a fine line but if you are just on the internet 24 hours a day going on about lizards, chem trails, the illuminati or whatever almost interchangeably then you are doing something very different. That seems to be to be about broadening the scope of a question to insane and unhelpful proportions.
And if you want to get involved with something like this for the poetic wackiness of it, then you will have to ask yourself whether you are helping or hindering justice for the real human victims of these very real conspiracies.
Last edited:
john eden
male pale and stale
I do not wish to do that, so I think we are good?
john eden
male pale and stale
Also perhaps this short piece which was just published today will save some people time:
Chris Bovey: A 9/11 Truther On Leaving Conspiracism Behind http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cul...1-truther-on-leaving-conspiracism-behind.html
Chris Bovey: A 9/11 Truther On Leaving Conspiracism Behind http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cul...1-truther-on-leaving-conspiracism-behind.html
luka
Well-known member
Do we really want to align ourselves with 'reason' and 'rationality' as defined by reactionary old men? It just seems like going backwards to me. You're an ageing leftist John you don't need me to point out how reason is used by power as a truncheon to shut down debate and investigation. I find your position troubling. Droid is a literalist he can't help it but you know better.
CrowleyHead
Well-known member
2 Cents that may or may not dilute/detract from the arguments here.
Given a lot of conspiracy culture as Luka would call it has various reaches into things such as... politics, esoterica/religion, psychology, 'culture'... I can't think of all the right boxes to check so I'll just kind of press on... its hard to be succinct for everyone who might be critical. There's a willful questioning of the matter of fact "how things are" as a shorthand or a dismissal, knowing historically authorities of any kind may not hold our 'best interests' at all times. And boundaries do not exist where the clearly rational doesn't spill over into the irrational.
Crime conspiracies is a great indicator of that on the most ; how many criminal organizations end up holding occult obsessions to fuel their sense of empowerment? You could easily say "You'd become criminals because you want money" and that happens, but why would criminal organizations require such a flair for the dramatic as the burning of saints. Why do so many criminal organizations serve as patriotic/conservative social organizations if they are inherently anti-social (or rather, anti-law)? You emerge into a blurring of lines once you delve into makeups of what should be such a cut and dry element in society. And that blurring gestures to the levels of interconnectivity culturally.
Its that blur that is perilous for anyone who's investigating. You look at Reagan's CIA, you look at the groups whom they supported who later return against the west. You study their interpretations (false or not) of dogma, you look at inconsistencies in the evidence of their shadowy existence. You study how terror functions in a proposed cybernetic outlook in the government. You consider how easily religious organizations become involved in militarization. These aren't things you can cleanly isolate. And the problem is, once you're proven enough that exists behind the curtain, everything is 'fair game', because you've already gone ahead to prove things aren't what they seem.
The realms of the concrete and the 'out there' in the conspiracy culture aren't a duality of validity in other words, which is easily a hindrance. But its not an automatic invalidation.
Given a lot of conspiracy culture as Luka would call it has various reaches into things such as... politics, esoterica/religion, psychology, 'culture'... I can't think of all the right boxes to check so I'll just kind of press on... its hard to be succinct for everyone who might be critical. There's a willful questioning of the matter of fact "how things are" as a shorthand or a dismissal, knowing historically authorities of any kind may not hold our 'best interests' at all times. And boundaries do not exist where the clearly rational doesn't spill over into the irrational.
Crime conspiracies is a great indicator of that on the most ; how many criminal organizations end up holding occult obsessions to fuel their sense of empowerment? You could easily say "You'd become criminals because you want money" and that happens, but why would criminal organizations require such a flair for the dramatic as the burning of saints. Why do so many criminal organizations serve as patriotic/conservative social organizations if they are inherently anti-social (or rather, anti-law)? You emerge into a blurring of lines once you delve into makeups of what should be such a cut and dry element in society. And that blurring gestures to the levels of interconnectivity culturally.
Its that blur that is perilous for anyone who's investigating. You look at Reagan's CIA, you look at the groups whom they supported who later return against the west. You study their interpretations (false or not) of dogma, you look at inconsistencies in the evidence of their shadowy existence. You study how terror functions in a proposed cybernetic outlook in the government. You consider how easily religious organizations become involved in militarization. These aren't things you can cleanly isolate. And the problem is, once you're proven enough that exists behind the curtain, everything is 'fair game', because you've already gone ahead to prove things aren't what they seem.
The realms of the concrete and the 'out there' in the conspiracy culture aren't a duality of validity in other words, which is easily a hindrance. But its not an automatic invalidation.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Has anyone mentioned that the same impulse seems to be activated in conspiracy theories as with the urge many people feel to 'solve' films like Mulholland Drive or Inception? Seeing the human world as a work of art with a creator, and approaching it resolutely from an angle of intentionality - what's in there must be there for a reason.
I would have thought that most people oscillate between that desire for endless complexity/uncertainty to break down into something simpler and more ordered (suddenly makes me think of the anecdotal accounts of how major politicians end up making big decisions based on hunches or single sources, because looking at all the info is overwhelming), and a willingness to confront the extreme complexity of the world as it is.
I would have thought that most people oscillate between that desire for endless complexity/uncertainty to break down into something simpler and more ordered (suddenly makes me think of the anecdotal accounts of how major politicians end up making big decisions based on hunches or single sources, because looking at all the info is overwhelming), and a willingness to confront the extreme complexity of the world as it is.
luka
Well-known member
We've moved past the people are into conspiracy theory cos they are stupid phase of the discussion baboon. See also people are into conspiracy cos it's 'comforting' and other assorted clichés and patronising 'explanations'
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Well I wasn't saying any of those things, so that's lucky. i was drawing a parallel between outright conspiracy theorists, and lots of people who don't think of themselves as conspiracy theorists. Most people like a good narrative that draws links between things that initially seem to be disparate, and sometimes, as Sufi pointed out, those narratives as applied to the real world turn out actually to be true against all the 'odds'.
Last edited:
john eden
male pale and stale
The problem is that sometimes "reactionary old men" are correct. They are correct, for example, when they are scientists talking about climate change. Dicking about with conspiracy theories about climate change now is going to have a profound effect on our ability to ensure that the world is inhabitable by future human generations. You can see this with the election of Trump. Do we take Trump's open-mindedness and ability to ask questions and embrace wackiness over boring old men with beards and their reason?
I am all for embracing the weird and the different and am not one of these new-atheist bro types as you know. But one should not open one's mind to the extent that one's brain actually falls out.
john eden
male pale and stale
I think that's interesting as one of my issues with conspiracy theorists is overreaching - maybe creatively filling in the gaps.
If you look at the Independent Inquiry into the death of Colin Roach by gunshot in Stoke Newington police station you can see that they have been incredibly rigorous in gathering evidence and analysis of the various people involved and their roles: https://hackneyhistory.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/policing-in-hackney-1945-1984/
Their conclusion after this huge exercise was that firstly the police version of events (suicide) did not stack up. And secondly that it was not possible to know how Colin Roach was killed because of failures by the police.
This is the sort of sober community investigation that is helpful. What isn't helpful is someone coming along and guessing that Colin Roach was murdered by some sort of unelected global conspiracy and then fitting it into all sorts of other things, which is then uncritically taken up by a wider community of people who enjoy doing that, so that every time someone researches Colin Roach they get a bunch of crazy noise rather than the facts.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I've missed out a few pages of discussion here, but I'm going to inhabit Luke's favourite character, Saint Reason, and take issue with this:
Firstly, I think you're confusing genuine rationality with the pseudo-rationality used by guys like Dawkins as a cover for their own prejudices (although admittedly you gesture towards this with the use of scare quotes). Much of what he comes out with isn't rational at all, like the notion that kids shouldn't read Harry Potter or watch The X-Files because apparently it'll turn them into science-phobic muddle-heads! That's not rational at all, that's nuts. More seriously, there's the severe anti-Islam stance taken by people like Sam Harris, which goes way beyond a reasonable wariness of the problems of jihadism and intolerance among fundamentalist Muslim communities and into the realms of out-and-out Us-vs-Them tribal prejudice; just the sort of thing Enlightenment-loving types are supposed to abhor.
Second, how about aligning ourselves with genuine reason and rationality as defined by progressive young men and progressive young women? Or, if you reject the idea that any definition of 'reason' can be genuinely universal and absolute, how about some version of it that rejects the reactionary tendencies of both religion and some of those who most harshly criticize religion; that says "religion isn't for us, but we accept that it can be a force for good, or at least neutral, and that forcefully trying to beat it out of people is a bad idea because it often ends up causing them to adopt a more hardline and reactionary version of their faith". In fact, some people are already identifying as part of a "New New Atheism" movement.
Lastly, it's pretty fucking obvious that taking an anti-science/anti-reason position is by no means exclusively "left-wing" (and even when it is, it's generally found among the more regressive elements of the Left). Look at the massive, and I mean massive, anti-science prejudice held by vast swathes of white, conservative, Christian America - the people who've put Trump in the White House. Anti-evolution, anti-vaccine, AGW-denying, young-Earth creationist. This is the vanguard of the Counter-Enlightenment just as surely as po-mo philosophy professors and the Social Text journal.
So really, I see this:
Firstly, I think you're confusing genuine rationality with the pseudo-rationality used by guys like Dawkins as a cover for their own prejudices (although admittedly you gesture towards this with the use of scare quotes). Much of what he comes out with isn't rational at all, like the notion that kids shouldn't read Harry Potter or watch The X-Files because apparently it'll turn them into science-phobic muddle-heads! That's not rational at all, that's nuts. More seriously, there's the severe anti-Islam stance taken by people like Sam Harris, which goes way beyond a reasonable wariness of the problems of jihadism and intolerance among fundamentalist Muslim communities and into the realms of out-and-out Us-vs-Them tribal prejudice; just the sort of thing Enlightenment-loving types are supposed to abhor.
Second, how about aligning ourselves with genuine reason and rationality as defined by progressive young men and progressive young women? Or, if you reject the idea that any definition of 'reason' can be genuinely universal and absolute, how about some version of it that rejects the reactionary tendencies of both religion and some of those who most harshly criticize religion; that says "religion isn't for us, but we accept that it can be a force for good, or at least neutral, and that forcefully trying to beat it out of people is a bad idea because it often ends up causing them to adopt a more hardline and reactionary version of their faith". In fact, some people are already identifying as part of a "New New Atheism" movement.
Lastly, it's pretty fucking obvious that taking an anti-science/anti-reason position is by no means exclusively "left-wing" (and even when it is, it's generally found among the more regressive elements of the Left). Look at the massive, and I mean massive, anti-science prejudice held by vast swathes of white, conservative, Christian America - the people who've put Trump in the White House. Anti-evolution, anti-vaccine, AGW-denying, young-Earth creationist. This is the vanguard of the Counter-Enlightenment just as surely as po-mo philosophy professors and the Social Text journal.
So really, I see this:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
...as entirely parallel to this:
In each case, people are clinging to a comforting myth that can only survive in the hothouse environment of their respective safe space, cossetted from the chill wind of fact, evidence and logic that would destroy them in an instant if they were exposed to it. Academia and intellectual culture (such as it is) in the Anglophone world, and perhaps 'the West' in general, has signed its own death warrant by tolerating and encouraging this madness.
In each case, people are clinging to a comforting myth that can only survive in the hothouse environment of their respective safe space, cossetted from the chill wind of fact, evidence and logic that would destroy them in an instant if they were exposed to it. Academia and intellectual culture (such as it is) in the Anglophone world, and perhaps 'the West' in general, has signed its own death warrant by tolerating and encouraging this madness.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Racist.
Respect is due for totally controlling the discussion from top to bottom. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a safe space.