We need to stop classifying whole swaths of ideas as junk because they sound too similar to 'conspiracy theories'. This dogma is unspeakably harmful to the truth and is easy to cultivate by those on the other end, by those who would be served better if the opposition were bearers of tinfoil, not bearers of bad news. Most of it is bullshit, sure, but most people are indeed 'sheep' (for lack of a better word), they don't do any sort of digging to figure out the truth for themselves. Whoever gets to them first earns the right to spread their own opinion, since the first opinion is the hardest to change.
Totally agree, but how would you go about categorizing ideas into those that are worthy of equivalency and those that aren’t? Seems easy enough for fringe conspiracy theories but harder as you get into the realm of well sourced but bad ideas.
Reflexive skepticism just limits our ability to think. We don't need more of it. We need intelligent people to debunk conspiracy theories, not just say 'that smells like a conspiracy theory'.
How about, instead of putting derogatory labels on people to belittle their efforts to understand truth, we all simply strive for truth?
> The conspiracists takes a dogmatic stance
What, all of them? And who are the "conspiracists"? Those who disbelieve the 9/11 myth, who question the long-term health effects of drugging water systems, who question the safety of wireless transmitters installed in every cubic inch of the world, who see through war propaganda and manufactured history? There are a thousand more "trigger topics".
All of these people are the same, huh? Dogmatic dolts who can't do research? Dummies who don't accept official narratives simply because they're trouble-makers?
The power system maintains its stranglehold over the population because our implicit slavery has been normalized. Is there any earthly reason why we should have billionaires next to people starving to death? We accept this because it has been normalized. There has always been a war on information, but we finally have the means to take back control. But in order to do so, we have to want it.
This whole fear of being labeled a "conspiracy nut" for exploring less trodden paths needs to end. Calling people conspiracy nuts for looking behind curtains they shouldn't was a good tactic by various entities to cover up secrets and misdeeds, but it has spilled over into the non political arena and poisoned everything.
Humans don't have a full understanding of everything, and in fact it's quite the opposite, in that we don't understand almost everything. Almost all paths are untrodden. It's fine to look where others haven't and come up with your own theories and ideas, as long as you retain a healthy skepticism and back things up with data as much as you can.
Science and exploration should not use fear of social reprisal as a guide.
If questioning why certain people + orgs want to push/parrot a self-fulfilling narrative is "wearing a tinfoil hat", I'll gladly buy the whole tin foil aisle in the local grocery store.
You don't even know which came first, the facts or the belief. Stop pretending like this is "science" when the only thing that matters is whether or not we choose to believe we can find common ground.
Stop calling opinions and projection of a possible future 'disinformation and conspiracy theories'. That you disagree with something does not make it disinformation. Nor a conspiracy theory.
You can’t stay on a high horse like that if your opinion is that some other opinion is a dumb, ridiculous conspiracy theory and then you change your opinion to that theory.
If you want a fair discussion of theories you can’t label the other one a conspiracy theory.
I've always felt that conspiracy theorists provide a certain value to the internet. They are almost the vaccine itself to misinformation. The foreign pathogen that teaches the body to defend itself from a worse foe.
If you can't understand, and also form a series of arguments for yourself, as to why the tin foil hat conspiracy theorist is wrong, why the earth almost certainly isn’t flat, or run by a cabal of shapeshifting alien lizard people, 5G, etc. how are you going to respond to the more insidiously cogent arguments about other more important things that are just as wrong but harder to spot?
I personally credit my upbringing by my religious parents into creationism (the concept that the earth is only 6 thousand years old and evolutionary science is a conspiracy against God.) as what ultimately led to my development of critical thinking and healthy skepticism, as I dug myself out of that belief system and deconverted in my late teens.
I remember feeling so deeply and irradeemably stupid, for being so completely convinced without any reason or evidence. And then, as a result, feeling so desperate for a specific formula or system of thought that could let me avoid this kind of personal failing in the future.
Which led me to listening to debates, learning about things like burden of proof, and the preponderance of evidence. And the very simple and straightforward concept of spot checking whether a stated “truth” used by someone in an argument is actually valid, or if they are lying to bolster their points, expecting (correctly, unfortunately) that the vast majority of their audience will never even check to see if they are telling the truth or a lie.
How else are you going to teach someone to think critically without showing them the examples of what a bad argument is, and how to respond to it rationally? Tell them to just trust the “good” sources? That’s arguably worse than telling them nothing at all.
It certainly is largely the fault of our garbage public schooling system, but the existing penchant to call for the banning and censcoring of stupid conspiracies online as if it were some sort of panacea for stupidity itself is certainly not helping the problem.
So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas.
Btw: I think conspiracy theories are good indicators for what certain people want to believe. I personally don't want to be disconnected from these indicators.
'Tinfoil hat' and 'conspiracy theorist' are just debate-stopping names thrown around.
This is obviously true because anyone who tries to introduce an idea typically feels compelled to put a disclaimer 'I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but' as a leader.
The same pattern appears whenever whole topics of discussion are regarded as not allowed. It's the unmistakable signature of a move by someone to shut down debate using labels over arguments.
I think it's counter-productive to label everyone who believes conspiracy theories "stupid". Not only does it make it more difficult to talk to and help change their opinion, it further polarizes use. Sure, I will readily admit that some people are just being obstinate and stupid, but when you have the places you get your news from feeding you misinformation, or worse, feeding you facts, but not all the facts, or the details get lost in transit (e.g. the cdc not recommending masks and then recommending masks), it's not hard to see how some things become ideas.
We can't help correct misconceptions if we believe they're driven solely by stupidity.
reply