btw. an interesting interview which you might have a deeper look into, is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EZq9S2VJc&t=4644s It is in Dutch (but maybe you can get it auto-subtitled or translated) with the Flemish psychologist/researcher/philosopher Jan Storms, who deeply studies the intricate dance between psychopathy, power and politics. He also has a book about the subject. If you ever get the chance to interview him, it would certainly be an interesting talk! Psychopaths and their victims - the gullible - have an intricate relationship, and as far as I estimate, they need each other to exist.
This is absolutely marvelous. My goodness. Would that there were a way to ensure that every single person read this with a serious intent to take it in. My husband and I have been trying to articulate these very ideas for what feels like eons, because we have been so confused by our own families. Your articulation of this mechanism was a pleasure to read. Thank you for making the effort to write this and thanks to OffGuardian for posting it (that is where I found it).
A brilliant paper indeed. Do you mind if I add one or two observations? They are ment to be constructive. I do believe that the essential problem lies with the caregiving archetype. Yes, people deliberately avoid unsettling truth because of their social instinct and the trust they place into the caregiving archetype. A form of "secure attachment" build in childhood. But let us not forget also that a majority of people will have had some kind of negative experience in their childhood, an experience which has not allowed them to build a fully secure attachement. Hence, their trust in the caregiver is often going to remain immature, blindly "clinging". Or maybe they will all the more easily trust an abusive caregiver because they know nothing else. And we know that for a majority of people attachment instinct to the primary caregiver tends to trump pretty much everything.... On the other hand, I believe many people (including me) who are aware of the corruption of the Powers that Be, have themselves been through various adverse childhood experiences. Their own attachment structure is compromised. They have insight precisely because they don't trust authority figures that easily anymore. Sometimes they became a bit of an outcast (let's think of Orwell). They can struggle with life as consequence. They sure know that social instincts can be very misleading. But they payed a dear price for this, and still do actually.
Have you had a conspiracy denier read this article? How did it go?
I am not suggesting it isn't true but it will not convert many (If it was constantly presented by the mainstream that would be a different story).
I have had some success with conspiracy deniers and it is only through showing many admitted (by the mainstream) 'conspiracy' events (48 fake bombings in Iraq are a good start) and eventually showing the corruption in the other political party and the other religions and older corporations and nations. Then moving on to undeniable visual evidence of fakery (like London Bridge attacks etc) that I have had that success. Even then you will loose many to the fske Q and Trump movements (basically back to blind trust in authority and zero logic)
Your article (and it's moking of conspiracy deniers) most will refuse to read and if they do they will double down on their submission to authority which enhances the divide.
Anyway I enjoyed the read and it made me feel better. I do agree with most of what you have written.
Ps I always told my kids Father Christmas was not real. Yet they still believed (my youngest until she was 8) and thought I was wrong. I showed my older girls two fake terror attacks (Iraq bombing very obvious followed by Ply board man on the Bridge in London) at the age of about 10 and 11 (without telling them they were fake) after showing them the dancing bear video they were concentrating hard looking properly. The 10 year old could pick multiple discrepancies in the Bridge incident the older one couldn't until they were pointed out exitedly by her sister. At that age they both had no problems understanding terrorism was faked because they had no attachment to it or the larger system. Now they are 3-4 years older and attached to the system it is much harder for them. It is now like Santa they just want to believe like their friends and try to deny the evidence in front of their faces.
Well I'd be happy if it made one person go hmm. Other than that I'm just trying to understand a situation that has long baffled many of us. I've had a couple of critical responses, but nothing very robust yet... I'm waiting...
You can't get a robust critical response because most of what you said is true. The problem is it's just like telling a child Santa isn't real. They hate you for it and don't believe you until either enough 'important'people around them tell them the same (normally how it works, they are then still ripe for the next level of control be it black panthers or q or Nazism or whatever is cooked up) or they gain the critical thinking skills to actually think and use them.
In my work small section of my work place (about 15 of us) over 80 percent of the permanent employees realise Covid and Terrorism were faked because so many of us know all the new guys are exposed discussions on it regularly and eventually see enough to also realise only those who struggle with English are not aware. We are fortunate we have a 11 minute warm up break every hour most of us sit in a room together sometimes with the TV on until someone switches it off in disgust. The new workers are relatively young watch very little news and don't have as much in the way of political bias or attachment to the system because we are just warehouse workers.
Most peoples supposed thoughts on political, medical, religious moral even sporting issues are not truly their own but rather fed to them out of Langley or some sports commentator or where ever else and they seem to be happy with that for some reason. This includes most conspiracy theorists who are always looking for some one to follow. But once they do start to really think for themselves it is amazing the light you see in their eyes and the level of discussion you can have with such a person. It's worth all the hate and derision you receive many times over.
Psychologically, you can actually not convince anyone with facts. Only the very deep and pure thinkers (of which there are few), would be susceptible to that, but those are the last in row by definition. The best results in convincing a conspiracy denier (or as I like to call them, a 'coincidence theorist', pointing out the opposite delusion of what they dislike the most), is to leave them alone with their thoughts and just check on them once in a while if they have made progress by themselves, at most asking questions, but never giving answers which will only enrage their child-like character. It is the hardest kind of people to be helped. From a given age, the human mind considers itself as settled, and rejects any 'education' which takes a parental form. Contradictory to the mental state the 'coincidence theorist' is in - always eagerly striving for this parental protection but never finding it in the real world, and thus reacting against anything that might replace it - giving them certainty in the real world does not help. It just strengthens their isolated psychosis, and makes the situation worse. Asking questions, letting them explain their own delusions but never giving answers is the slowest but actually most secure way of letting them grow up. Most of them never will, because the human mind is shaped early and settles in whatever shape it remains in afterwards. That's exactly why sociopaths and psychopaths in power find such an easy prey in them, and can manipulate them with the illusion of certainty in (usually faulty) science and other manipulative tricks. It requires truly a personal awakening to change that, and few ever do. It is exactly because of this capacity for rigidity, the world has become what it is now, and will probably evolve further in the direction it has taken, to the detriment of all. This might sound rather pessimistic, because it actually is. It is probably easier to focus on eliminating the psychopaths, than to change the immovable minds of the gullible, but that's a story for a different day.
It's just a phase they're in, wanting to fit in. Give them a few years, and they'll be back around to your way of thinking- you taught them critical thinking, and they can't unlearn it!
I always took my kid shopping for her presents at Christmas, and casually said that Santa told me to do it as he didn't have time. She later told me later that she enjoyed, 'believing,' but kinda figured it was nonsense at an extremely young age.
So well written. Thank you. Have have struggled with frustration of why many more people didn't see what is happening and why they cling to the status quo. Thank you for articulating the physiological reasons.
Most conspiracy theories involve a certain mindset that engages with questions that it is not qualified to analyze. This results in the misapplication of techniques and methods which in turn leads to inaccurate conclusions. If you want an example of this, I recommend the book "Denying the Holocaust" by Deborah Lipstadt. The psychology of a conspiracy denier is a healthy one that does not ague for conclusions beyond what the evidence confirms and does not fabricate or misuse evidence in opposition to the established methodologies of the various disciplines.
This piece isn't about conspiracy theories. It's about why people refuse to recognise patterns of criminal behaviour and would rather trust institutions and people who have never earned that trust than ask obvious questions and speculate beyond the evidence. Each of us is free to analyse whatever questions we choose regardless of another's judgment of our 'qualifications'. That's freedom.
How do you distinguish between a conspiracy theorist and someone who identifies a conspiracy "beyond the evidence"? To me this sounds like a distinction without a difference. Actual conspiracies indeed exist but they are rather difficult to hide in proportion to the number of people involved. That is not what is in question. The real question is how can one go "beyond the evidence" and expect their speculation to be taken seriously by those who have examined the evidence (and are qualified to do so) and have determined that the evidence does not substantiate the conclusion reached by the conspiracy theorist? I'm not interested in the question of freedom here but the question of truth. How does one find truth "beyond the evidence"?
I am not a skeptic. I am a Catholic who accepts both reason and Revelation as sources of knowledge. Aristotle (and Aquinas) hold that knowledge begins in the senses (though it certainly does not end there). I just don't know how to distinguish "beyond the evidence" from making things up. Even theology needs to have evidence (Scripture or Tradition) to proceed in argumentation.
You're using a lot of fallacies for a fan of Aristotle:
* appeal to authority: "taken seriously by those who have examined the evidence (and are qualified to do so)" - experts can be bought or just be wrong, happened many times
* argument from incredulity: "Actual conspiracies indeed exist but they are rather difficult to hide in proportion to the number of people involved" - easy to solve with threats, compartmentalisation and propaganda
Your accusations fail to prove. I did not make an argument from authority because I did not cite an authority as evidence that I'm correct. I simply asked a question in order to allow the author to develop his thoughts so that I can understand exactly what he is trying to claim. See my above reply to "dhen phu" if you want to understand my ideas on experts. Nobody is claiming that experts are always correct, and I made that rather clear in the above in regards to disputes among scholars. Nor am I saying that every single conspiracy will necessarily be discovered. I made a rather accurate statement: the greater the number the people involved in a conspiracy, the more difficult it will be to prevent those involved from talking about it and thereby alerting non-participants. And I said this to clarify what I was not claiming, not to argue that conspiracies cannot be covered up.
Since you have consistently failed to engage honestly with my postings, this will be my last response to you in this thread. Feel free to have the last word if you care to.
Anon - When someone consistently lies to you, you do not need evidence that they are doing so again to doubt their word - it's rational to do so. Absolute truth is hard to come by, that’s why we rely on pattern recognition and always have done to survive. The very thing that qualifies you in the eyes of one person might disqualify you in the eyes of another - trust me, I'm from [insert favourite institution here]. Attempting to remove freedom from the question of truth is an error. Truth is not something you can impose on another. I’m not here to define or defend the term conspiracy theory - you brought that up. Do you deny that questions and speculation are legitimate and necessary?
Truth indeed is not something that can be imposed on another but truth imposes itself on the mind, so to speak. I do think the question of truth and freedom can be divorced on a speculative level because the ability to say or not say something does not alter the fact that it is true or false. I agree that pattern recognition is necessary and this is exactly why we have experts who spend their life dealing with a small set of possible knowledge. And I agree that it is rational to require a greater level of proof from those who have consistently shown themselves incapable of being honest.
As to the last part, I do not deny that questions and speculations are legitimate. I would add the caveat that the ability to ask relevant questions and engage in fruitful speculation very much depends on previous knowledge of the subject and therefore awareness of the relevant evidence. I think my above comment on experts serves as a more complete exposition on my position. The book I recommended, if you care to read it, also suggests that this is the case through its meticulous documentation of real-world examples in both historical and scientific matters.
Perhaps I overstepped the boundaries of this article by assuming that the opposite of "conspiracy denier" is "conspiracy affirmer" and took "conspiracy affirmer" to be synonymous with "conspiracy theorist."
Each of us is free to interpret the evidence for ourselves. That is why freedom is essential to the debate.
The relevance and fruitfulness of questions are determined by the person asking them - anything less is an unacceptable restriction of their freedom to think.
You say that we have experts to help us recognise patterns. An argument can be made that we have experts in order to limit the thinking of the ordinary person - to determine the Overton window and to promote and provide justification for approved narratives. Both explanations for the existence of experts can be true.
You clearly place a lot of trust in experts - does such a designation render one impervious to corruption? I like the Feynman quote: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Your first claim sounds very much like the idea of equality of opportunity in the sense that you claim that everyone is ABLE and SHOULD BE ABLE to interpret the evidence for themselves. But, while everyone has the potential to be able to do so, this is not the case in actuality. Evidence can be hard to come by. No police is going to let you anywhere near crime scene evidence. You might not have the language skills necessary to read a medieval document in some archive in a foreign country. You might not have the equipment to replicate a laboratory experiment or the knowledge needed to interpret the findings.
The limitations with regards to relevant questions and and fruitful speculation is not one of external limitations, at least not entirely. You have the freedom to think, but you do not have the freedom to barge into your local police station and demand to see evidence collected regarding a murder. You do not have the freedom to enter an archive unannounced and demand to see a medieval document. But let's pretend that you do and you are granted access. Can you read Latin? Can you read medieval handwriting and shorthand (arguably a more difficult skill than knowing Latin)? Are you familiar with the relevant context so that you can understand and make use of the document?
This is precisely where the expert steps in. They have dedicated their lives to studying a particular set of ideas. The medievalist can read Latin because they took the time to study the language. The medievalist can read the document because they have the necessary paleographical skills. The medievalist has access to the archive because they have the trust of the archive and the necessary funding to spend time digging through obscure material. But that medievalist is not entirely free of external limitations either. He cannot go to a Russian archive and study Russian documents pertaining to the USSR. Even within his own area, he likely will not be permitted in the Vatican archives without serious effort.
The non-expert is necessarily limited, largely due to their inability to do the hard work necessary to answer every question that arises (which even experts cannot do in their particular fields). They can do the work and obtain credentials, but then they start moving towards the status of an expert. But this is time consuming and expensive and the expert in one field will always be a non-expert in another. A medievalist, as a historian, is not going to solve the local murder case.
The argument also shows the same problems as the equality of opportunity argument, leading one to mask the real position of equality of outcome because actual equality cannot exist. Not everyone has the same ability to make the most of their opportunities. Likewise, while someone may be free to interpret the evidence, they often cannot and should not have access to the evidence (you might contaminate the evidence, etc.). And if they obtain the evidence, they will likely not know what to do with it.
Lastly, I will state outright that experts are not always correct. Historians are always arguing with each other over interpretations of events. Scientists often contract each other's findings. Homicide detectives may entertain competing theories that they cannot rule out. We do not trust experts because they are always correct. We trust them because they have been trained in a way that makes it more likely that they will reach a correct answer. And if they cannot do so, it will be quite probable that we will not do any better. Obtaining knowledge is hard work, which is why we pay people to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of truth. They may be wrong, but they are trying.
Dear 'Anon'. As you clearly demonstrate, conspiracy deniers have a tendency to reason by 'power argument' and throw around statements of 'qualification' to gain terrain: they will quickly dismiss any argument made by a fellow human, and revert to 'you are not qualified', as if qualification for free speech and opinion needs to come from some all-knowing figure, a school, a professor or someone higher than anyone else. While it is certainly helpful to study a subject - that's exactly the subject here: the mindset of a certain way of thinking - the conspiracy denier will use this form of power argument to shut up other people, if they are shy enough to fall for this. The power argument is of course an instance of false reasoning. If only experts' opinions count, then how can one ever become an expert, granting one the right to an opinion or otherwise have no say in it? Logically, it implies there was some all-knowing expert in the long forgotten past, which overshadowed everyone else and from which all truth is derived. How this all-knowing expert got to be so smart, is left in the dark and not talked about. This by itself is not only unfeasible, but almost an appeal to an exterior god-like figure, which is ironically often also shunned by conspiracy deniers, who are - in my experience - equally allergic to everything religious, because it lacks the latest fad of scientism, the projected holy grail of all knowledge. A clear catch-22 arises, and the complete argument falls down like a sack of bricks in the mud. As you do, from your 'qualification required' point-of-view, it is also rather typical to recommend books to paternalistically educate the un-educated.. but only to false-generously 'inform them', not to grant others the right to a voice at the table of course. Which brings us to one of the core problems of conspiracy deniers, which you so aptly demonstrate: they mostly want to shut other people up and are afraid of free speech, resulting in a drive to censor others who do not adhere to their simplistic and child-like view of the world, as described by Tim Foyle (the scale of the conspiracy making it impossible to exist). This indeed confirms the original suspicion, that it is the confrontation with a mental dichotomy, the breakdown of the fragile world view, which the conspiracy denier fears like nothing else. Growing up is painful for conspiracy deniers, as it is for everyone, but there is no substitute than to be confronted with other ideas, be they rational, wildly out-there, completely true or untrue. In a world of grown-ups, speech invites more speech, not power arguments and censorship. By the recommendation of a certain book, you prove absolutely nothing, except that your point-of-view is a mainstream one. You also pulled the holocaust card as your first and only example, a clear 'trick in the book' to make other people shut up, because after all, you probably reason this is the quickest way to do so, being sensitive to emotional status - and thus emotional blackmail - yourself. As long as other people's thoughts conflict with the illusion of safety and the blind faith in authority, the conspiracy denier can simply not accept them and will dismiss or quench them if he can. They claim to reason by ratio and science - as if these are the only sources of knowledge, btw - but in essence, they do exactly the opposite: reasoning by emotion, unchecked shallow beliefs and assumptions, and in the process.. censor people. Everything as long as the internal faulty reference point does not get confronted. That's why freedom of speech is extinguished by the conspiracy deniers, and not by their challengers, the realists or even the conspiracy theorists, who get louder just because of this. It actually proves their point that there is an effort to silence them, which is by itself a conspiracy. It's a matter of sheer logic: you only need to shut other people up, pull the holocaust card and do these (by now almost boring) 'qualification' things, if you are afraid of them, and if you don't have any better arguments. Mentally grown-up people don't have to do that.. they just discuss and exchange ideas for better solutions, discussing the matters at hand, e.g. power and how it actually corrupts, so we all suffer.. yes, also the conspiracy deniers. I hope you can see that, and re-join the conversation without the need for power arguments or approved stamps of authority. You can, of course, but it will just expose more uncertainty than it will do anything else.
I'm sorry to inform you that your reply is a confirmation of my previous post. You've extrapolated from my rather short post a string of inferences without considering that such a move is invalid. Basically nothing that you wrote of me or my motives is correct. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence you decided to accuse instead of ask, something which is not conductive to the free speech you claim to value so dearly.
I'll take your assertions one at a time in the most expedient order. Why did I recommend that particular book? For three reasons: 1) I assume nobody here is a Holocaust denier and therefore there will be no emotional attachment when it comes to identifying the mistakes in reasoning that the deniers engage in. 2) The book is a rather rare genre that mixes both a historical investigation into a phenomenon while simultaneously explaining the epistemology behind such a phenomenon. 3) The book is rather short and interesting and therefore will be time well spent for the reader. None of this was an attempt to silence anyone, given that I have no moderator powers on this comment section. Nor was it an attempt to accuse anyone as point one explains.
Ironically, one of the chapters of the book is an investigation into how the Holocaust deniers used a free speech argument to convince universities to publish their antisemitic ravings in their campus papers (with a scary level of success!). I'm convinced that you in particular should read this book.
With regards to authority, the relationship is the exact opposite of what you describe. The authority of the expert comes from years of study and investigation in a particular area. By familiarizing themselves with their discipline, they become capable in engaging in high levels of argumentation that the non-expert simply lacks. For the historian, this involves spending hundreds of hours in archives looking at primary documents and studying the secondary sources written by other historians (as well as identifying the historiographical problems that have arisen in the study of a particular subject). For the scientist, this involves laboratory experience, repeating experiments over and over again until one is confident that the results are of value. All of this knowledge was acquired through hard work and the proper use of evidence. For someone to look at the sky and say "chemtrail" is the epitome of the non-expert making erroneous judgments based on a lack of understanding of the relevant evidence. (And if the government can control people with chemtrail, why can't they make invisible or sky blue chemicals...) Nor can it be claim that there is a conspiracy of scholars, since scholars are often the very ones who critique other scholars. Everything a scholar says is under scrutiny from those who are equally qualified to judge of the matter. In the case of historians, this might involve pointing out the neglect of relevant primary sources or the ignoring of the findings of other historians in the field. For the scientist, this might involve pointing out methodological problems or studies that contradict the findings.
I think I'll leave my response off here without responding to the attacks on my character. Hopefully I've provided some food for thought, though I most certainly have not said everything that there is to say about these rather complex matters involving both institutional questions and epistemological systems.
As often encountered in real life and among friends, you can see them in the wild: the 'normies' (those who adhere to the norm without questioning it), the bullies, the 'defenders of the crown' (which they do not carry themselves). Rarely do they realize that the crown is not there to protect them against harm, but to exploit and rule them. It is a blind belief in the childish practice of feeding the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last (or preferably, never). The typical conspiracy denier is indeed a 'big kid' who usually was raised in a protected environment and got a bit too dependent on its parents for too long. Men tend to cling to their mother and revere their father, women do the opposite. One of their biggest fears is the death of the parents. The aggression you meet when you confront them with facts that point out their own suppression - which they are inherently actively promoting - is sometimes baffling. For these grown kids, the mental security of not having to check their world view is proportionally much more important than possible resolution of wrongdoing and so they persist in defending their own suppressors. The most clear demonstrations of this can be seen when those who suppress everyone - including the conspiracy denier, the eternal child - point their power at them. Without faltering, the conspiracy denier will rationalize away the wrongdoing, and readily find some unrelated or side-tracked excuse of why this is just an exception or an unhappy coincidence, but never intentional or systematic. Even when the facts point out the opposite. Psychologically, this stems from the biased weighing of the balance between internal conflict to accept a more realistic world view versus the easier-way-out: a one-time justification of why this is just a coincidence. In this way, the conspiracy denier becomes a true 'coincidence theorist', on par with the degree with which he or she blames the 'conspiracy theorist' to be unrealistic. The perpetual taboo in these immature minds is in essence the linking of cause and effect into absurdity, the rejection of common sense, the Pareto Principle and general - though never exact - truths as found in the principle of Occam's Razor. For the coincidence theorist, only absolute proof can serve as justification for changing one's mind and view of reality, although one will find they never do, when absolute proof is given. When confronted with absolute proof, the coincidence theorist will isolate the case and not draw longer term conclusions or essentially change the world view, perpetuating and self-re-enforcing the taboo. Contrary to their own beliefs, these people are usually very easy to fool and manipulate, given their one-sided and unrealistic way of thinking. When approached in the right way - emotionally soothing, flattering, justifying and encouraging their overly optimistic world view - anyone who realizes this mechanism can steer them like a child's cart, equipped with a handle out of sight (which the parent is holding) while providing them the illusion their thoughts are their own, they are steering their lives themselves. An obvious example is the wearing of masks by people alone in their car. It has become a habit of them, or they find it convenient and 'extra safe', even when there is no rational reason to keep wearing the mask. They actually like to conform to rules, because it offers them an emotional stability which they cannot generate themselves or have never learned to live without. They are by consequence the ideal prey for the psychopath, living in a detrimental symbiosis, as we can now aptly observe all around us each day. The effort it takes to wake them up, is tremendous, even at the speed of proof with which the current events are evolving in front of everyone's eyes. It is an 'encapsulated psychosis': whereas people function rather normally in most respects of their life, in certain subjects they abandon all logic and regular mechanisms of scrutiny of facts in their world, and become astoundingly illogical and gullible. That's also why they generate such tremendous anger towards the 'conspiracy theorists', their perceived counterpart but in reality their equally stumped equal, because deep down they realize their own weakness. They simply cannot bring change in themselves, resulting in reflected projection and disproportionate anger at the other who they estimate to suffer from what is wrong inside themselves. As always, the prizes are distributed at the finish line, which is coming closer day by day. Today it is manipulated vaccinations, which are taken without a second thought, 'just to go on holiday once more' - but deep down to strengthen the mental deformation and the group who feels they are right because they are scared in the same way, so it must be true - tomorrow it is something else. The conspiracy denier will always move the goal post, in accordance with the nefarious habit of the psychopath who rules them:, to move the goal post in manipulation, accordingly. It is the symbiosis of the nefarious and the gullible. The conspiracy denier alias 'coincidence theorist' will faithfully follow the psychopath to the depths of hell, simply to not have to give up the childish illusion of certainty, mentally still inhabiting a protected world. Looking back and making long-term comparisons to how the world functioned some longer arbitrary time ago, is something the conspiracy denier will explicitly avoid or reason away in the typical coincidental way, stating you cannot compare these things. They do this, because they actually cannot, it is a taboo in their mind to compare and draw conclusions. It is also a mental construct which is blind for its own existence. You can compare it to the driver who hears on the radio 'A ghost-driver is reported on the motorway...', to which the conspiracy denier will faithfully respond 'One ghost-driver? You mean a thousand ghost-drivers!'
There's a reason I was skeptical that Donald Trump would be inaugurated on March 4 and Joe Biden jailed. The trouble with generic conspiracy theories is that when you go to check the facts it's stuff you can't verify or some anonymous source. The chem-trails theory is the one that is most laughable. I have pictures of B-17s in WWII streaming white contrails behind them at altitude. Contrails are caused by hot engine exhaust (piston or jet) passing through cold moist air. The idea that we're being sprayed by some humanicide is absurd. Why would the evil cabal spray themselves along with everyone else and give me just one logical reason why they would.
Somebody looked up, saw the same contrails I've seen behind aircraft since I was a kid 60 years ago, and decide to run the snowflakes and unbalanced souls around the rosy bush for a good laugh. Are groups of people plotting against us? Yup. These are people with a natural shared belief system and desired outcomes who, because they share similar things, appear to be working together.
If you've ever seen large groups, especially government bureaucracies, they (1) are notoriously inefficient. (2) Can't keep a secret to save their lives. Truth is their inability to keep secrets increases exponentially the more people are in on the secret. (3) Would require that evil geniuses be able to attract minions who will be loyal in sufficient numbers to carry out the evil plot without too many developing a conscience and ratting them all out. (4) Human beings are far too self-absorbed to remain loyal to an evil cause when it starts to lose. It takes a religion to accomplish that, so unless I can find the religion, emperor worship or some other cult-like belief system behind it, I tend to doubt the conspiracy theory. Follow the money. That's one motivation. The belief in a religion with the rewards of an afterlife or a fanatical belief in some political system that promises an earthly reward.
I've been watching and tracking conspiracy theories for a long time. I am well aware of the number of utter failures, EVENTS that didn't pan out, missed dates for "bombshells" and promises of BIG SURPRISES that weren't surprising at all. According to the conspiracy theory crowd, virtually every Democrat on Earth should be in prison right now, given the number of sure things, supposed perp walks of major Democrat officials and military revolts against some conspiracy cabal. And the ludicrous chem-trails conspiracy theory. There's plenty of stuff arrogant power-hungry leaders are trying to do under the table, but they are not nearly as organized or smart as their publicity. The reality is that the real brains behind things like the Third Reich, Progressive Socialism, the rise of communism in both Russia and China, Atilla the Hun, Tojo and the Mafia.
Do you know what a limited hangout is? What controlled opposition is? Real researchers knew how wrong Q was gonna be about everything, how "trust the plan" was stupid wishful-thinking for couch potatoes who can't be bothered fighting for their own freedom and need a human-saviour like Trump to come and save them. Real truthers could smell the bs of Q from a mile away. Please make the distinction between individual researchers researching the same thing and coming to the same conclusion because of its objective reality vs a limited hangout/controlled opposition which is way closer to the way a cult operates. We would be the first to dissociate ourselves from the likes of Q cult followers.
Mostly agree except the 'it isn't possible' because to many people would need to know about it and they can't keep secrets... Compartimentalisation is the key. Most taking part of it don't even know, were just following an order from their chief above them and so on...Wir haben es nicht gewusst (remember)
So, I read your article and I might be one of the people you'd call conspiracy deniers. I must say that I can't find myself in any of your wordings or explanations. It is rather more complex than you think it is.
It's not that I am denying that evil might exist in a big complex system.
It's just that I think that most people who believe the narrative of a big evil conglomerat aren't really interested in the real truth, whatever that might be. They just want you to follow their narrative without real interest in solving the underlying problem.
They don't question their opinion hard enough. They just follow their guts, which in many cases really isn't the best way to solve such complex problems like oppressing systems.
I don't deny conspiracies, it's more about the people who deeply believe in them which I despite, because they follow the same rules in their argumentation as those who they accuse to be a part of the 'big evil'. It seems more like they are mirroring their true inside onto others and that concept is not really hard to see through.
Most people who I witnessed believing in those conspiracies are emotion driven, undermine others opinions and defame them just because they don't want to believe in the big evil theory. They are arrogant and ignorant.
Also they try to simplify a rather complex system in a rather complex world, which was never a good idea in history. Black and white thinking won't get you anywhere and they try to put on a good and evil system just like religion. And just btw, even buddhists aren't safe from falling into toxic beliefs imposed by toxic leaders.
It's easy to just follow one side with completely losing sight for the grey scales.
Have you maybe tried understanding what makes an individuum believe in conspiracy theories? Maybe you find some interesting input there.
I just can't take conspiracy theorists seriously, because everyone who happens to be one just thinks they are on the higher ground which automatically sparks reactance in the person they try to convince to their side. They think they are more intelligent and infact they don't know about the easiest mechanisms how the human brain works.
Oh and maybe to give you some extra fuel for thinking: who says that those who try to fight the big evil in the world aren't the real big evil, just failed, and now trying to take advantage of those who are likely to believe such theories? Why should I believe what they say and not think that it's just another system of psychopaths who try to trick people into believing this, to fulfill their own agenda? Or maybe those conspiracy theorists are infact just henchman of the big players trying to destabilize the system even more, so warlords and such get even more power? They might be part of the system and they are not even knowing it. What makes them so sure they aren't?
As I've said elsewhere, this piece isn't about the relatively harmless problem of paranoia and gullibility in regards to conspiracy theories, or the conspiracy theory that such theories are propagated by elites. It is about a much more serious problem - that while institutional criminality on a global scale is clearly commonplace, anyone attempting to draw attention to this fact or suggest alternative explanations for events and decisions in the public sphere based on recognition of previous patterns is roundly mocked, dismissed and censored. This is an insane and untenable situation.
Well, I see. I always try to be open minded. Tried to talk to many of those individuals, of course in a respectful manner, but I often got rejected, because I do have a different opinion and that should be tolerated also in my humble opinion.
What do you think is the best way to communicate with each other? What does one person who has a strong belief in underlying evil structures need the most to feel safe and understood? What is the best way to not feel so disconnected?
I think in the end both groups fear the same exact thing, it's just a different approach to comprehend with the huge overwhelming feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. I think that is an important point and both parties should keep this in their minds. And we should try to be allies. In the end we both just don't want to be ruled by people who don't want the best for us or the country we live in. Wether they might just be stupid, incompetent or evil warlords in a big system of elites.
So, I read your comment and I might be one of the people you'd call conspiracy theorists. I must say that I can't find myself in any of your wordings or explanations.
🤷♂️ Good for you, thanks for your complex opinion on what I had to say. Really gives an indepth view into your mind and I can understand your complex and meaningful words better now. Hope to get into a better dialogue with individuals like you in the future more often so that we can learn from each other. Thank you for making up for All the conspiracy theorists I put in the wrong context, I can see clearly now. Thank you for your input, I hope you stay well and sane. Hope your family stays safe aswell.
Be nice to the 🕎🐑... they can't help themselves. Facing your inner demons is a bitch but is inevitable to understand your ego. Most ppl choose to avoid that effort (took me personally years of energy, pain, darkness and 'soul searching'. Being and staying able to critical thinking includes the option of taking some hard at times. But yeah, that's life. Most just choose to escape (denial, drugs legal and illegal, materialism, gambling, sex, work, etc.).
You spot on, but problem is most don't appreciate it hearing or being told the truth 🎗
The response by Benedict was not to be anything else but a personal situationing, from my reading... yours, an emotive overreaction. (And I note that he has elaborated elsewhere, anyway.) But your sarcasm and focus upon complexity as some kind of bulwark illustrates that you persistently fail to perceive your apparently consistent commission of another fallacy; the assertion that deeper complexity (and parallel labyrinthine focus by expertise, etc.) somehow aligns better with truth. However, further complexity (and concurrent 'expertise') is frequently the tool of those who seek to obfuscate and distract from the truth. Example--all of the complexity draped around the PCR test as justification for variation in cycles for the vaccinated etc. does nothing to relinquish the fact that the test is inaccurate, or indeed wholly inappropriate to the purpose for which it is now being used.
You sound like someone who relies on their expertise for a living, and does not like being fundamentally questioned.
Most common logical fallacies committed by conspiracy deniers mostly based off the past year:
1. Appeal to authority - "If you don't have Dr. or Prof. in front of your name, you better shut up." Which leads to censorship, which in turn leads to technocracy (medical technocracy in the current case with WHO, Fauci, Gates etc.)
2. Appeal to majority - This is probably the most psychologically motivating fallacy. It's very challenging to stand-up for the truth when everybody is against it. It can be a very lonely feeling. This I believe is what holds most people back from moving camp. Fear of being made to look like an absolute nutter, fear of being canceled, fear of being ostracized and losing relationships. (Search Asch Conformity Experiment)
3. Appeal to ridicule/Ad hom/ Poisoning the well - Crazy conspiracy theorist, tin-foil hat wearer, you're probably a Trump supporter, Q-anon follower, anti-vaxxer, far-right fringe conspiracy theorist, science denier. "Because you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist to me, your position is wrong.
4. Appeal to emotion - "How dare you be so selfish protesting on the streets, don't you know millions have died!! It's people like you who are killing granny and grandpa because of your selfish privileged mindset. God forbid your grandparents get the virus. Shameful."
5. Reification fallacy - "Science says", "I trust science" You're just reifying what science is as if science is this personal being that just blurts out a bunch of brute facts. Science doesn't say anything. SCIENTISTS say things and scientists often come to different conclusions when looking at the same thing. Why? Because it depends on the paradigm the individual is working within. Scientists are humans. Humans are bias, fallible beings. The scientists conclusions on something are going to be determined by their ultimate presuppositions found in their web of beliefs/worldview. You know, certain presupps that the scientific method itself is predicated upon (principle of induction, belief in the uniformity of nature and the universal law like qualities of the world, belief in the reliability of the senses, belief in the external world, laws of logic, math.
This is still trying to simplify things and isn't helping in any way to get into a much better dialogue to help and understand each other. It's just a back lash to people who don't share your opinion. It just divides the two groups even more.
I am so sorry that another opinion hurts you so much.
How about I live in Australia, a literal scientific experiment that shows lockdowns worked to stop the spread of a potentially deadly virus?
I've lived the success of this experiment. So to hear asshats in other countries tell me lockdowns or masks aren't worth doing because they don't work goes in the face of reality.
Trump supporters are also clearly supporting a monstrous narcissist who cares nothing for them. This is obvious to anyone who wants to assess the facts.
"...a literal scientific experiment that shows lockdowns worked to stop the spread of a potentially deadly virus?"
That line of reasoning just presupposes that the whole process has been legit right from the jump for example;
1. The reporting of the cause of deaths are true
2. The testing is reliable (false positives)
In other words, you're putting your trust/belief/faith in the authorities reports that the numbers are true. Perhaps they are, perhaps not, but you don't know for sure because you don't empirically verify them ourselves. Also correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. How come majority of say Western countries have implemented the same measures yet only Aus/NZ have returned to slightly more freedoms? The same measures, but different aftermaths, for different places. So is it really cause of lockdowns/masks? Or is it cause of something else?
"Trump supporters are also clearly supporting a monstrous narcissist who cares nothing for them. This is obvious to anyone who wants to assess the facts."
The inclusion of the Trump example was just to show that people when ridiculing will just heap a bunch of labels which have no connection or relevance on top of a person for simply espousing a non-mainstream position as if questioning the legitimacy of media reports regarding covid for example, has anything to do with being a Trump supporter. I've had this happen to me before.
"Conspiracy "deniers" need to be listened to."
Yes I would agree. I believe everybody should be listened to and that debate should be welcomed instead of discouraged and then opting for censorship. But that's all we've gotten is censorship. Now why do you think that is?
There is nothing scientific about lockdowns. It hasn't proven anything - the virus doesn't exist. It has never been isolated. The contagion theory is also riddled with fraud.
As a skeptic, I believe we should use evidence to reach conclusions. Most conspiracy theories start with conclusions and then find evidence to support them. Humans have particularly pernicious mind bugs, like confirmation bias and apophenia, which lead to conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence or data.
Most conspiracies are constructed to avoid falsifiability. The most important question you can as is "How would I know if I was wrong?"
If you don't have a simple and direct answer to that question, you aren't being skeptical, you are engaging in magical thinking and wish fulfillment.
We all do that to some degree, but it is not a bad idea to figure out where and try to minimize as much as possible.
I don't deny any conspiracy theories. I just find that there is usually not enough falsifiable evidence for me to warrant belief in them. Should that evidence become available, I am willing to accept the theory.
You're willing to accept a theory that is supported by evidence? That's big of you. Meanwhile, sociopaths run rampant, safe in the knowledge that anyone who dares to speculate about their crimes will be vilified, mocked and censored. That's what this piece is about. I strongly disagree that the most important question is, 'how would I know if I was wrong'. The most important question might be something like, 'how do we disempower sociopaths and establish a humane world'.
The evidence for conspiracies is everywhere - from big tobacco to big pharma to big banks being fined on an almost monthly basis. In fact, in the way that modern human societies generally construct it is probably ergodic, common even, from families to the supra-national level. The point you are making is that you will wait until each begins to be revealed until you believe them, which I accept. I would guess this most likely happens when the incentives for keeping a conspiratorial agreement are no longer strong enough in the face of other options.
A great piece and my introduction to your writting. Enlightening and at the same time reassuring that I am not the only person with these same observations. One observation I commonly write in posts or blogs, that gets no response is this. Why does our government of yesteryear and today accept and encourage people to settle in the UK who follow an ideology who's followers pray 5 times a day to a mass murdering, slave trading, rapist, paedophile, war lord and see nothing wrong with this but mention you belong to a nazzi organisation and you are instantly vilified and condemned.
Is it possible to Re-publish this article on LifeSiteNews.com. Respond to Jalsevac at LifeSite.net
Hi, emailed you
btw. an interesting interview which you might have a deeper look into, is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EZq9S2VJc&t=4644s It is in Dutch (but maybe you can get it auto-subtitled or translated) with the Flemish psychologist/researcher/philosopher Jan Storms, who deeply studies the intricate dance between psychopathy, power and politics. He also has a book about the subject. If you ever get the chance to interview him, it would certainly be an interesting talk! Psychopaths and their victims - the gullible - have an intricate relationship, and as far as I estimate, they need each other to exist.
Thanks I'll have a look.
This is absolutely marvelous. My goodness. Would that there were a way to ensure that every single person read this with a serious intent to take it in. My husband and I have been trying to articulate these very ideas for what feels like eons, because we have been so confused by our own families. Your articulation of this mechanism was a pleasure to read. Thank you for making the effort to write this and thanks to OffGuardian for posting it (that is where I found it).
Thank you so much. The response has been very encouraging.
Great description and explanation of an all too common occurrence in the world today.
A brilliant paper indeed. Do you mind if I add one or two observations? They are ment to be constructive. I do believe that the essential problem lies with the caregiving archetype. Yes, people deliberately avoid unsettling truth because of their social instinct and the trust they place into the caregiving archetype. A form of "secure attachment" build in childhood. But let us not forget also that a majority of people will have had some kind of negative experience in their childhood, an experience which has not allowed them to build a fully secure attachement. Hence, their trust in the caregiver is often going to remain immature, blindly "clinging". Or maybe they will all the more easily trust an abusive caregiver because they know nothing else. And we know that for a majority of people attachment instinct to the primary caregiver tends to trump pretty much everything.... On the other hand, I believe many people (including me) who are aware of the corruption of the Powers that Be, have themselves been through various adverse childhood experiences. Their own attachment structure is compromised. They have insight precisely because they don't trust authority figures that easily anymore. Sometimes they became a bit of an outcast (let's think of Orwell). They can struggle with life as consequence. They sure know that social instincts can be very misleading. But they payed a dear price for this, and still do actually.
Totally agree with this brilliant paper, although I could be considered a bit bias and not quite so eloquent.
Fell free to peruse my mind on this, here is a sample, enjoy - https://syllamo.blogspot.com/2020/05/its-because-were-stupid.html
Moron children of the world - grow up.
Thanks I will look at this soon
Fantatsic! Back in 2010, I wrote a satirical article with similar themes: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2010/11/03/compliance-and-acquiescence-disorder-cad/
Great read with a nice bunch of 'disorders'.
Life (as presented) is a 'disorder'.
This is allied with an excessive tolerance for evil, which I discuss in my book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed - https://www.amazon.com/TOLERism-Ideology-Revealed-Rotberg-2013-12-16/dp/B01FEOFYWU
This looks interesting, do you have any shorter pieces online/ interviews etc?
Hi Mr Foyle,
Have you had a conspiracy denier read this article? How did it go?
I am not suggesting it isn't true but it will not convert many (If it was constantly presented by the mainstream that would be a different story).
I have had some success with conspiracy deniers and it is only through showing many admitted (by the mainstream) 'conspiracy' events (48 fake bombings in Iraq are a good start) and eventually showing the corruption in the other political party and the other religions and older corporations and nations. Then moving on to undeniable visual evidence of fakery (like London Bridge attacks etc) that I have had that success. Even then you will loose many to the fske Q and Trump movements (basically back to blind trust in authority and zero logic)
Your article (and it's moking of conspiracy deniers) most will refuse to read and if they do they will double down on their submission to authority which enhances the divide.
Anyway I enjoyed the read and it made me feel better. I do agree with most of what you have written.
Ps I always told my kids Father Christmas was not real. Yet they still believed (my youngest until she was 8) and thought I was wrong. I showed my older girls two fake terror attacks (Iraq bombing very obvious followed by Ply board man on the Bridge in London) at the age of about 10 and 11 (without telling them they were fake) after showing them the dancing bear video they were concentrating hard looking properly. The 10 year old could pick multiple discrepancies in the Bridge incident the older one couldn't until they were pointed out exitedly by her sister. At that age they both had no problems understanding terrorism was faked because they had no attachment to it or the larger system. Now they are 3-4 years older and attached to the system it is much harder for them. It is now like Santa they just want to believe like their friends and try to deny the evidence in front of their faces.
Well I'd be happy if it made one person go hmm. Other than that I'm just trying to understand a situation that has long baffled many of us. I've had a couple of critical responses, but nothing very robust yet... I'm waiting...
You can't get a robust critical response because most of what you said is true. The problem is it's just like telling a child Santa isn't real. They hate you for it and don't believe you until either enough 'important'people around them tell them the same (normally how it works, they are then still ripe for the next level of control be it black panthers or q or Nazism or whatever is cooked up) or they gain the critical thinking skills to actually think and use them.
In my work small section of my work place (about 15 of us) over 80 percent of the permanent employees realise Covid and Terrorism were faked because so many of us know all the new guys are exposed discussions on it regularly and eventually see enough to also realise only those who struggle with English are not aware. We are fortunate we have a 11 minute warm up break every hour most of us sit in a room together sometimes with the TV on until someone switches it off in disgust. The new workers are relatively young watch very little news and don't have as much in the way of political bias or attachment to the system because we are just warehouse workers.
Most peoples supposed thoughts on political, medical, religious moral even sporting issues are not truly their own but rather fed to them out of Langley or some sports commentator or where ever else and they seem to be happy with that for some reason. This includes most conspiracy theorists who are always looking for some one to follow. But once they do start to really think for themselves it is amazing the light you see in their eyes and the level of discussion you can have with such a person. It's worth all the hate and derision you receive many times over.
Psychologically, you can actually not convince anyone with facts. Only the very deep and pure thinkers (of which there are few), would be susceptible to that, but those are the last in row by definition. The best results in convincing a conspiracy denier (or as I like to call them, a 'coincidence theorist', pointing out the opposite delusion of what they dislike the most), is to leave them alone with their thoughts and just check on them once in a while if they have made progress by themselves, at most asking questions, but never giving answers which will only enrage their child-like character. It is the hardest kind of people to be helped. From a given age, the human mind considers itself as settled, and rejects any 'education' which takes a parental form. Contradictory to the mental state the 'coincidence theorist' is in - always eagerly striving for this parental protection but never finding it in the real world, and thus reacting against anything that might replace it - giving them certainty in the real world does not help. It just strengthens their isolated psychosis, and makes the situation worse. Asking questions, letting them explain their own delusions but never giving answers is the slowest but actually most secure way of letting them grow up. Most of them never will, because the human mind is shaped early and settles in whatever shape it remains in afterwards. That's exactly why sociopaths and psychopaths in power find such an easy prey in them, and can manipulate them with the illusion of certainty in (usually faulty) science and other manipulative tricks. It requires truly a personal awakening to change that, and few ever do. It is exactly because of this capacity for rigidity, the world has become what it is now, and will probably evolve further in the direction it has taken, to the detriment of all. This might sound rather pessimistic, because it actually is. It is probably easier to focus on eliminating the psychopaths, than to change the immovable minds of the gullible, but that's a story for a different day.
It's just a phase they're in, wanting to fit in. Give them a few years, and they'll be back around to your way of thinking- you taught them critical thinking, and they can't unlearn it!
I always took my kid shopping for her presents at Christmas, and casually said that Santa told me to do it as he didn't have time. She later told me later that she enjoyed, 'believing,' but kinda figured it was nonsense at an extremely young age.
So well written. Thank you. Have have struggled with frustration of why many more people didn't see what is happening and why they cling to the status quo. Thank you for articulating the physiological reasons.
Most conspiracy theories involve a certain mindset that engages with questions that it is not qualified to analyze. This results in the misapplication of techniques and methods which in turn leads to inaccurate conclusions. If you want an example of this, I recommend the book "Denying the Holocaust" by Deborah Lipstadt. The psychology of a conspiracy denier is a healthy one that does not ague for conclusions beyond what the evidence confirms and does not fabricate or misuse evidence in opposition to the established methodologies of the various disciplines.
This piece isn't about conspiracy theories. It's about why people refuse to recognise patterns of criminal behaviour and would rather trust institutions and people who have never earned that trust than ask obvious questions and speculate beyond the evidence. Each of us is free to analyse whatever questions we choose regardless of another's judgment of our 'qualifications'. That's freedom.
How do you distinguish between a conspiracy theorist and someone who identifies a conspiracy "beyond the evidence"? To me this sounds like a distinction without a difference. Actual conspiracies indeed exist but they are rather difficult to hide in proportion to the number of people involved. That is not what is in question. The real question is how can one go "beyond the evidence" and expect their speculation to be taken seriously by those who have examined the evidence (and are qualified to do so) and have determined that the evidence does not substantiate the conclusion reached by the conspiracy theorist? I'm not interested in the question of freedom here but the question of truth. How does one find truth "beyond the evidence"?
The radical skeptic who is not skeptical about his skepticism or the mainstream narrative...
I am not a skeptic. I am a Catholic who accepts both reason and Revelation as sources of knowledge. Aristotle (and Aquinas) hold that knowledge begins in the senses (though it certainly does not end there). I just don't know how to distinguish "beyond the evidence" from making things up. Even theology needs to have evidence (Scripture or Tradition) to proceed in argumentation.
You're using a lot of fallacies for a fan of Aristotle:
* appeal to authority: "taken seriously by those who have examined the evidence (and are qualified to do so)" - experts can be bought or just be wrong, happened many times
* argument from incredulity: "Actual conspiracies indeed exist but they are rather difficult to hide in proportion to the number of people involved" - easy to solve with threats, compartmentalisation and propaganda
....
Your accusations fail to prove. I did not make an argument from authority because I did not cite an authority as evidence that I'm correct. I simply asked a question in order to allow the author to develop his thoughts so that I can understand exactly what he is trying to claim. See my above reply to "dhen phu" if you want to understand my ideas on experts. Nobody is claiming that experts are always correct, and I made that rather clear in the above in regards to disputes among scholars. Nor am I saying that every single conspiracy will necessarily be discovered. I made a rather accurate statement: the greater the number the people involved in a conspiracy, the more difficult it will be to prevent those involved from talking about it and thereby alerting non-participants. And I said this to clarify what I was not claiming, not to argue that conspiracies cannot be covered up.
Since you have consistently failed to engage honestly with my postings, this will be my last response to you in this thread. Feel free to have the last word if you care to.
Can your peripatetic axiom affirmed by Aristotle and Aquinas be proven via the senses?
Yes, just ask a person born blind to describe color.
Anon - When someone consistently lies to you, you do not need evidence that they are doing so again to doubt their word - it's rational to do so. Absolute truth is hard to come by, that’s why we rely on pattern recognition and always have done to survive. The very thing that qualifies you in the eyes of one person might disqualify you in the eyes of another - trust me, I'm from [insert favourite institution here]. Attempting to remove freedom from the question of truth is an error. Truth is not something you can impose on another. I’m not here to define or defend the term conspiracy theory - you brought that up. Do you deny that questions and speculation are legitimate and necessary?
Truth indeed is not something that can be imposed on another but truth imposes itself on the mind, so to speak. I do think the question of truth and freedom can be divorced on a speculative level because the ability to say or not say something does not alter the fact that it is true or false. I agree that pattern recognition is necessary and this is exactly why we have experts who spend their life dealing with a small set of possible knowledge. And I agree that it is rational to require a greater level of proof from those who have consistently shown themselves incapable of being honest.
As to the last part, I do not deny that questions and speculations are legitimate. I would add the caveat that the ability to ask relevant questions and engage in fruitful speculation very much depends on previous knowledge of the subject and therefore awareness of the relevant evidence. I think my above comment on experts serves as a more complete exposition on my position. The book I recommended, if you care to read it, also suggests that this is the case through its meticulous documentation of real-world examples in both historical and scientific matters.
Perhaps I overstepped the boundaries of this article by assuming that the opposite of "conspiracy denier" is "conspiracy affirmer" and took "conspiracy affirmer" to be synonymous with "conspiracy theorist."
Each of us is free to interpret the evidence for ourselves. That is why freedom is essential to the debate.
The relevance and fruitfulness of questions are determined by the person asking them - anything less is an unacceptable restriction of their freedom to think.
You say that we have experts to help us recognise patterns. An argument can be made that we have experts in order to limit the thinking of the ordinary person - to determine the Overton window and to promote and provide justification for approved narratives. Both explanations for the existence of experts can be true.
You clearly place a lot of trust in experts - does such a designation render one impervious to corruption? I like the Feynman quote: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Your first claim sounds very much like the idea of equality of opportunity in the sense that you claim that everyone is ABLE and SHOULD BE ABLE to interpret the evidence for themselves. But, while everyone has the potential to be able to do so, this is not the case in actuality. Evidence can be hard to come by. No police is going to let you anywhere near crime scene evidence. You might not have the language skills necessary to read a medieval document in some archive in a foreign country. You might not have the equipment to replicate a laboratory experiment or the knowledge needed to interpret the findings.
The limitations with regards to relevant questions and and fruitful speculation is not one of external limitations, at least not entirely. You have the freedom to think, but you do not have the freedom to barge into your local police station and demand to see evidence collected regarding a murder. You do not have the freedom to enter an archive unannounced and demand to see a medieval document. But let's pretend that you do and you are granted access. Can you read Latin? Can you read medieval handwriting and shorthand (arguably a more difficult skill than knowing Latin)? Are you familiar with the relevant context so that you can understand and make use of the document?
This is precisely where the expert steps in. They have dedicated their lives to studying a particular set of ideas. The medievalist can read Latin because they took the time to study the language. The medievalist can read the document because they have the necessary paleographical skills. The medievalist has access to the archive because they have the trust of the archive and the necessary funding to spend time digging through obscure material. But that medievalist is not entirely free of external limitations either. He cannot go to a Russian archive and study Russian documents pertaining to the USSR. Even within his own area, he likely will not be permitted in the Vatican archives without serious effort.
The non-expert is necessarily limited, largely due to their inability to do the hard work necessary to answer every question that arises (which even experts cannot do in their particular fields). They can do the work and obtain credentials, but then they start moving towards the status of an expert. But this is time consuming and expensive and the expert in one field will always be a non-expert in another. A medievalist, as a historian, is not going to solve the local murder case.
The argument also shows the same problems as the equality of opportunity argument, leading one to mask the real position of equality of outcome because actual equality cannot exist. Not everyone has the same ability to make the most of their opportunities. Likewise, while someone may be free to interpret the evidence, they often cannot and should not have access to the evidence (you might contaminate the evidence, etc.). And if they obtain the evidence, they will likely not know what to do with it.
Lastly, I will state outright that experts are not always correct. Historians are always arguing with each other over interpretations of events. Scientists often contract each other's findings. Homicide detectives may entertain competing theories that they cannot rule out. We do not trust experts because they are always correct. We trust them because they have been trained in a way that makes it more likely that they will reach a correct answer. And if they cannot do so, it will be quite probable that we will not do any better. Obtaining knowledge is hard work, which is why we pay people to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of truth. They may be wrong, but they are trying.
Dear 'Anon'. As you clearly demonstrate, conspiracy deniers have a tendency to reason by 'power argument' and throw around statements of 'qualification' to gain terrain: they will quickly dismiss any argument made by a fellow human, and revert to 'you are not qualified', as if qualification for free speech and opinion needs to come from some all-knowing figure, a school, a professor or someone higher than anyone else. While it is certainly helpful to study a subject - that's exactly the subject here: the mindset of a certain way of thinking - the conspiracy denier will use this form of power argument to shut up other people, if they are shy enough to fall for this. The power argument is of course an instance of false reasoning. If only experts' opinions count, then how can one ever become an expert, granting one the right to an opinion or otherwise have no say in it? Logically, it implies there was some all-knowing expert in the long forgotten past, which overshadowed everyone else and from which all truth is derived. How this all-knowing expert got to be so smart, is left in the dark and not talked about. This by itself is not only unfeasible, but almost an appeal to an exterior god-like figure, which is ironically often also shunned by conspiracy deniers, who are - in my experience - equally allergic to everything religious, because it lacks the latest fad of scientism, the projected holy grail of all knowledge. A clear catch-22 arises, and the complete argument falls down like a sack of bricks in the mud. As you do, from your 'qualification required' point-of-view, it is also rather typical to recommend books to paternalistically educate the un-educated.. but only to false-generously 'inform them', not to grant others the right to a voice at the table of course. Which brings us to one of the core problems of conspiracy deniers, which you so aptly demonstrate: they mostly want to shut other people up and are afraid of free speech, resulting in a drive to censor others who do not adhere to their simplistic and child-like view of the world, as described by Tim Foyle (the scale of the conspiracy making it impossible to exist). This indeed confirms the original suspicion, that it is the confrontation with a mental dichotomy, the breakdown of the fragile world view, which the conspiracy denier fears like nothing else. Growing up is painful for conspiracy deniers, as it is for everyone, but there is no substitute than to be confronted with other ideas, be they rational, wildly out-there, completely true or untrue. In a world of grown-ups, speech invites more speech, not power arguments and censorship. By the recommendation of a certain book, you prove absolutely nothing, except that your point-of-view is a mainstream one. You also pulled the holocaust card as your first and only example, a clear 'trick in the book' to make other people shut up, because after all, you probably reason this is the quickest way to do so, being sensitive to emotional status - and thus emotional blackmail - yourself. As long as other people's thoughts conflict with the illusion of safety and the blind faith in authority, the conspiracy denier can simply not accept them and will dismiss or quench them if he can. They claim to reason by ratio and science - as if these are the only sources of knowledge, btw - but in essence, they do exactly the opposite: reasoning by emotion, unchecked shallow beliefs and assumptions, and in the process.. censor people. Everything as long as the internal faulty reference point does not get confronted. That's why freedom of speech is extinguished by the conspiracy deniers, and not by their challengers, the realists or even the conspiracy theorists, who get louder just because of this. It actually proves their point that there is an effort to silence them, which is by itself a conspiracy. It's a matter of sheer logic: you only need to shut other people up, pull the holocaust card and do these (by now almost boring) 'qualification' things, if you are afraid of them, and if you don't have any better arguments. Mentally grown-up people don't have to do that.. they just discuss and exchange ideas for better solutions, discussing the matters at hand, e.g. power and how it actually corrupts, so we all suffer.. yes, also the conspiracy deniers. I hope you can see that, and re-join the conversation without the need for power arguments or approved stamps of authority. You can, of course, but it will just expose more uncertainty than it will do anything else.
I'm sorry to inform you that your reply is a confirmation of my previous post. You've extrapolated from my rather short post a string of inferences without considering that such a move is invalid. Basically nothing that you wrote of me or my motives is correct. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence you decided to accuse instead of ask, something which is not conductive to the free speech you claim to value so dearly.
I'll take your assertions one at a time in the most expedient order. Why did I recommend that particular book? For three reasons: 1) I assume nobody here is a Holocaust denier and therefore there will be no emotional attachment when it comes to identifying the mistakes in reasoning that the deniers engage in. 2) The book is a rather rare genre that mixes both a historical investigation into a phenomenon while simultaneously explaining the epistemology behind such a phenomenon. 3) The book is rather short and interesting and therefore will be time well spent for the reader. None of this was an attempt to silence anyone, given that I have no moderator powers on this comment section. Nor was it an attempt to accuse anyone as point one explains.
Ironically, one of the chapters of the book is an investigation into how the Holocaust deniers used a free speech argument to convince universities to publish their antisemitic ravings in their campus papers (with a scary level of success!). I'm convinced that you in particular should read this book.
With regards to authority, the relationship is the exact opposite of what you describe. The authority of the expert comes from years of study and investigation in a particular area. By familiarizing themselves with their discipline, they become capable in engaging in high levels of argumentation that the non-expert simply lacks. For the historian, this involves spending hundreds of hours in archives looking at primary documents and studying the secondary sources written by other historians (as well as identifying the historiographical problems that have arisen in the study of a particular subject). For the scientist, this involves laboratory experience, repeating experiments over and over again until one is confident that the results are of value. All of this knowledge was acquired through hard work and the proper use of evidence. For someone to look at the sky and say "chemtrail" is the epitome of the non-expert making erroneous judgments based on a lack of understanding of the relevant evidence. (And if the government can control people with chemtrail, why can't they make invisible or sky blue chemicals...) Nor can it be claim that there is a conspiracy of scholars, since scholars are often the very ones who critique other scholars. Everything a scholar says is under scrutiny from those who are equally qualified to judge of the matter. In the case of historians, this might involve pointing out the neglect of relevant primary sources or the ignoring of the findings of other historians in the field. For the scientist, this might involve pointing out methodological problems or studies that contradict the findings.
I think I'll leave my response off here without responding to the attacks on my character. Hopefully I've provided some food for thought, though I most certainly have not said everything that there is to say about these rather complex matters involving both institutional questions and epistemological systems.
As often encountered in real life and among friends, you can see them in the wild: the 'normies' (those who adhere to the norm without questioning it), the bullies, the 'defenders of the crown' (which they do not carry themselves). Rarely do they realize that the crown is not there to protect them against harm, but to exploit and rule them. It is a blind belief in the childish practice of feeding the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last (or preferably, never). The typical conspiracy denier is indeed a 'big kid' who usually was raised in a protected environment and got a bit too dependent on its parents for too long. Men tend to cling to their mother and revere their father, women do the opposite. One of their biggest fears is the death of the parents. The aggression you meet when you confront them with facts that point out their own suppression - which they are inherently actively promoting - is sometimes baffling. For these grown kids, the mental security of not having to check their world view is proportionally much more important than possible resolution of wrongdoing and so they persist in defending their own suppressors. The most clear demonstrations of this can be seen when those who suppress everyone - including the conspiracy denier, the eternal child - point their power at them. Without faltering, the conspiracy denier will rationalize away the wrongdoing, and readily find some unrelated or side-tracked excuse of why this is just an exception or an unhappy coincidence, but never intentional or systematic. Even when the facts point out the opposite. Psychologically, this stems from the biased weighing of the balance between internal conflict to accept a more realistic world view versus the easier-way-out: a one-time justification of why this is just a coincidence. In this way, the conspiracy denier becomes a true 'coincidence theorist', on par with the degree with which he or she blames the 'conspiracy theorist' to be unrealistic. The perpetual taboo in these immature minds is in essence the linking of cause and effect into absurdity, the rejection of common sense, the Pareto Principle and general - though never exact - truths as found in the principle of Occam's Razor. For the coincidence theorist, only absolute proof can serve as justification for changing one's mind and view of reality, although one will find they never do, when absolute proof is given. When confronted with absolute proof, the coincidence theorist will isolate the case and not draw longer term conclusions or essentially change the world view, perpetuating and self-re-enforcing the taboo. Contrary to their own beliefs, these people are usually very easy to fool and manipulate, given their one-sided and unrealistic way of thinking. When approached in the right way - emotionally soothing, flattering, justifying and encouraging their overly optimistic world view - anyone who realizes this mechanism can steer them like a child's cart, equipped with a handle out of sight (which the parent is holding) while providing them the illusion their thoughts are their own, they are steering their lives themselves. An obvious example is the wearing of masks by people alone in their car. It has become a habit of them, or they find it convenient and 'extra safe', even when there is no rational reason to keep wearing the mask. They actually like to conform to rules, because it offers them an emotional stability which they cannot generate themselves or have never learned to live without. They are by consequence the ideal prey for the psychopath, living in a detrimental symbiosis, as we can now aptly observe all around us each day. The effort it takes to wake them up, is tremendous, even at the speed of proof with which the current events are evolving in front of everyone's eyes. It is an 'encapsulated psychosis': whereas people function rather normally in most respects of their life, in certain subjects they abandon all logic and regular mechanisms of scrutiny of facts in their world, and become astoundingly illogical and gullible. That's also why they generate such tremendous anger towards the 'conspiracy theorists', their perceived counterpart but in reality their equally stumped equal, because deep down they realize their own weakness. They simply cannot bring change in themselves, resulting in reflected projection and disproportionate anger at the other who they estimate to suffer from what is wrong inside themselves. As always, the prizes are distributed at the finish line, which is coming closer day by day. Today it is manipulated vaccinations, which are taken without a second thought, 'just to go on holiday once more' - but deep down to strengthen the mental deformation and the group who feels they are right because they are scared in the same way, so it must be true - tomorrow it is something else. The conspiracy denier will always move the goal post, in accordance with the nefarious habit of the psychopath who rules them:, to move the goal post in manipulation, accordingly. It is the symbiosis of the nefarious and the gullible. The conspiracy denier alias 'coincidence theorist' will faithfully follow the psychopath to the depths of hell, simply to not have to give up the childish illusion of certainty, mentally still inhabiting a protected world. Looking back and making long-term comparisons to how the world functioned some longer arbitrary time ago, is something the conspiracy denier will explicitly avoid or reason away in the typical coincidental way, stating you cannot compare these things. They do this, because they actually cannot, it is a taboo in their mind to compare and draw conclusions. It is also a mental construct which is blind for its own existence. You can compare it to the driver who hears on the radio 'A ghost-driver is reported on the motorway...', to which the conspiracy denier will faithfully respond 'One ghost-driver? You mean a thousand ghost-drivers!'
'The symbiosis of the nefarious and the gullible'. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, lots to chew on.
There's a reason I was skeptical that Donald Trump would be inaugurated on March 4 and Joe Biden jailed. The trouble with generic conspiracy theories is that when you go to check the facts it's stuff you can't verify or some anonymous source. The chem-trails theory is the one that is most laughable. I have pictures of B-17s in WWII streaming white contrails behind them at altitude. Contrails are caused by hot engine exhaust (piston or jet) passing through cold moist air. The idea that we're being sprayed by some humanicide is absurd. Why would the evil cabal spray themselves along with everyone else and give me just one logical reason why they would.
Somebody looked up, saw the same contrails I've seen behind aircraft since I was a kid 60 years ago, and decide to run the snowflakes and unbalanced souls around the rosy bush for a good laugh. Are groups of people plotting against us? Yup. These are people with a natural shared belief system and desired outcomes who, because they share similar things, appear to be working together.
If you've ever seen large groups, especially government bureaucracies, they (1) are notoriously inefficient. (2) Can't keep a secret to save their lives. Truth is their inability to keep secrets increases exponentially the more people are in on the secret. (3) Would require that evil geniuses be able to attract minions who will be loyal in sufficient numbers to carry out the evil plot without too many developing a conscience and ratting them all out. (4) Human beings are far too self-absorbed to remain loyal to an evil cause when it starts to lose. It takes a religion to accomplish that, so unless I can find the religion, emperor worship or some other cult-like belief system behind it, I tend to doubt the conspiracy theory. Follow the money. That's one motivation. The belief in a religion with the rewards of an afterlife or a fanatical belief in some political system that promises an earthly reward.
I've been watching and tracking conspiracy theories for a long time. I am well aware of the number of utter failures, EVENTS that didn't pan out, missed dates for "bombshells" and promises of BIG SURPRISES that weren't surprising at all. According to the conspiracy theory crowd, virtually every Democrat on Earth should be in prison right now, given the number of sure things, supposed perp walks of major Democrat officials and military revolts against some conspiracy cabal. And the ludicrous chem-trails conspiracy theory. There's plenty of stuff arrogant power-hungry leaders are trying to do under the table, but they are not nearly as organized or smart as their publicity. The reality is that the real brains behind things like the Third Reich, Progressive Socialism, the rise of communism in both Russia and China, Atilla the Hun, Tojo and the Mafia.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, this piece isn't about conspiracy theories.
Then what is it about?
It's about 2,000 words
The best part of this 'ride' is the constant need to repeat one's self. Hehe
Do you know what a limited hangout is? What controlled opposition is? Real researchers knew how wrong Q was gonna be about everything, how "trust the plan" was stupid wishful-thinking for couch potatoes who can't be bothered fighting for their own freedom and need a human-saviour like Trump to come and save them. Real truthers could smell the bs of Q from a mile away. Please make the distinction between individual researchers researching the same thing and coming to the same conclusion because of its objective reality vs a limited hangout/controlled opposition which is way closer to the way a cult operates. We would be the first to dissociate ourselves from the likes of Q cult followers.
Mostly agree except the 'it isn't possible' because to many people would need to know about it and they can't keep secrets... Compartimentalisation is the key. Most taking part of it don't even know, were just following an order from their chief above them and so on...Wir haben es nicht gewusst (remember)
So, I read your article and I might be one of the people you'd call conspiracy deniers. I must say that I can't find myself in any of your wordings or explanations. It is rather more complex than you think it is.
It's not that I am denying that evil might exist in a big complex system.
It's just that I think that most people who believe the narrative of a big evil conglomerat aren't really interested in the real truth, whatever that might be. They just want you to follow their narrative without real interest in solving the underlying problem.
They don't question their opinion hard enough. They just follow their guts, which in many cases really isn't the best way to solve such complex problems like oppressing systems.
I don't deny conspiracies, it's more about the people who deeply believe in them which I despite, because they follow the same rules in their argumentation as those who they accuse to be a part of the 'big evil'. It seems more like they are mirroring their true inside onto others and that concept is not really hard to see through.
Most people who I witnessed believing in those conspiracies are emotion driven, undermine others opinions and defame them just because they don't want to believe in the big evil theory. They are arrogant and ignorant.
Also they try to simplify a rather complex system in a rather complex world, which was never a good idea in history. Black and white thinking won't get you anywhere and they try to put on a good and evil system just like religion. And just btw, even buddhists aren't safe from falling into toxic beliefs imposed by toxic leaders.
It's easy to just follow one side with completely losing sight for the grey scales.
Have you maybe tried understanding what makes an individuum believe in conspiracy theories? Maybe you find some interesting input there.
I just can't take conspiracy theorists seriously, because everyone who happens to be one just thinks they are on the higher ground which automatically sparks reactance in the person they try to convince to their side. They think they are more intelligent and infact they don't know about the easiest mechanisms how the human brain works.
Oh and maybe to give you some extra fuel for thinking: who says that those who try to fight the big evil in the world aren't the real big evil, just failed, and now trying to take advantage of those who are likely to believe such theories? Why should I believe what they say and not think that it's just another system of psychopaths who try to trick people into believing this, to fulfill their own agenda? Or maybe those conspiracy theorists are infact just henchman of the big players trying to destabilize the system even more, so warlords and such get even more power? They might be part of the system and they are not even knowing it. What makes them so sure they aren't?
As I've said elsewhere, this piece isn't about the relatively harmless problem of paranoia and gullibility in regards to conspiracy theories, or the conspiracy theory that such theories are propagated by elites. It is about a much more serious problem - that while institutional criminality on a global scale is clearly commonplace, anyone attempting to draw attention to this fact or suggest alternative explanations for events and decisions in the public sphere based on recognition of previous patterns is roundly mocked, dismissed and censored. This is an insane and untenable situation.
Well, I see. I always try to be open minded. Tried to talk to many of those individuals, of course in a respectful manner, but I often got rejected, because I do have a different opinion and that should be tolerated also in my humble opinion.
What do you think is the best way to communicate with each other? What does one person who has a strong belief in underlying evil structures need the most to feel safe and understood? What is the best way to not feel so disconnected?
I think in the end both groups fear the same exact thing, it's just a different approach to comprehend with the huge overwhelming feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. I think that is an important point and both parties should keep this in their minds. And we should try to be allies. In the end we both just don't want to be ruled by people who don't want the best for us or the country we live in. Wether they might just be stupid, incompetent or evil warlords in a big system of elites.
So, I read your comment and I might be one of the people you'd call conspiracy theorists. I must say that I can't find myself in any of your wordings or explanations.
🤷♂️ Good for you, thanks for your complex opinion on what I had to say. Really gives an indepth view into your mind and I can understand your complex and meaningful words better now. Hope to get into a better dialogue with individuals like you in the future more often so that we can learn from each other. Thank you for making up for All the conspiracy theorists I put in the wrong context, I can see clearly now. Thank you for your input, I hope you stay well and sane. Hope your family stays safe aswell.
Be nice to the 🕎🐑... they can't help themselves. Facing your inner demons is a bitch but is inevitable to understand your ego. Most ppl choose to avoid that effort (took me personally years of energy, pain, darkness and 'soul searching'. Being and staying able to critical thinking includes the option of taking some hard at times. But yeah, that's life. Most just choose to escape (denial, drugs legal and illegal, materialism, gambling, sex, work, etc.).
You spot on, but problem is most don't appreciate it hearing or being told the truth 🎗
The response by Benedict was not to be anything else but a personal situationing, from my reading... yours, an emotive overreaction. (And I note that he has elaborated elsewhere, anyway.) But your sarcasm and focus upon complexity as some kind of bulwark illustrates that you persistently fail to perceive your apparently consistent commission of another fallacy; the assertion that deeper complexity (and parallel labyrinthine focus by expertise, etc.) somehow aligns better with truth. However, further complexity (and concurrent 'expertise') is frequently the tool of those who seek to obfuscate and distract from the truth. Example--all of the complexity draped around the PCR test as justification for variation in cycles for the vaccinated etc. does nothing to relinquish the fact that the test is inaccurate, or indeed wholly inappropriate to the purpose for which it is now being used.
You sound like someone who relies on their expertise for a living, and does not like being fundamentally questioned.
Most common logical fallacies committed by conspiracy deniers mostly based off the past year:
1. Appeal to authority - "If you don't have Dr. or Prof. in front of your name, you better shut up." Which leads to censorship, which in turn leads to technocracy (medical technocracy in the current case with WHO, Fauci, Gates etc.)
2. Appeal to majority - This is probably the most psychologically motivating fallacy. It's very challenging to stand-up for the truth when everybody is against it. It can be a very lonely feeling. This I believe is what holds most people back from moving camp. Fear of being made to look like an absolute nutter, fear of being canceled, fear of being ostracized and losing relationships. (Search Asch Conformity Experiment)
3. Appeal to ridicule/Ad hom/ Poisoning the well - Crazy conspiracy theorist, tin-foil hat wearer, you're probably a Trump supporter, Q-anon follower, anti-vaxxer, far-right fringe conspiracy theorist, science denier. "Because you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist to me, your position is wrong.
4. Appeal to emotion - "How dare you be so selfish protesting on the streets, don't you know millions have died!! It's people like you who are killing granny and grandpa because of your selfish privileged mindset. God forbid your grandparents get the virus. Shameful."
5. Reification fallacy - "Science says", "I trust science" You're just reifying what science is as if science is this personal being that just blurts out a bunch of brute facts. Science doesn't say anything. SCIENTISTS say things and scientists often come to different conclusions when looking at the same thing. Why? Because it depends on the paradigm the individual is working within. Scientists are humans. Humans are bias, fallible beings. The scientists conclusions on something are going to be determined by their ultimate presuppositions found in their web of beliefs/worldview. You know, certain presupps that the scientific method itself is predicated upon (principle of induction, belief in the uniformity of nature and the universal law like qualities of the world, belief in the reliability of the senses, belief in the external world, laws of logic, math.
This is still trying to simplify things and isn't helping in any way to get into a much better dialogue to help and understand each other. It's just a back lash to people who don't share your opinion. It just divides the two groups even more.
I am so sorry that another opinion hurts you so much.
How about I live in Australia, a literal scientific experiment that shows lockdowns worked to stop the spread of a potentially deadly virus?
I've lived the success of this experiment. So to hear asshats in other countries tell me lockdowns or masks aren't worth doing because they don't work goes in the face of reality.
Trump supporters are also clearly supporting a monstrous narcissist who cares nothing for them. This is obvious to anyone who wants to assess the facts.
Conspiracy "deniers" need to be listened to.
"How about I live in Australia..."
I'm from Australia too, so what?
"...a literal scientific experiment that shows lockdowns worked to stop the spread of a potentially deadly virus?"
That line of reasoning just presupposes that the whole process has been legit right from the jump for example;
1. The reporting of the cause of deaths are true
2. The testing is reliable (false positives)
In other words, you're putting your trust/belief/faith in the authorities reports that the numbers are true. Perhaps they are, perhaps not, but you don't know for sure because you don't empirically verify them ourselves. Also correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. How come majority of say Western countries have implemented the same measures yet only Aus/NZ have returned to slightly more freedoms? The same measures, but different aftermaths, for different places. So is it really cause of lockdowns/masks? Or is it cause of something else?
"Trump supporters are also clearly supporting a monstrous narcissist who cares nothing for them. This is obvious to anyone who wants to assess the facts."
The inclusion of the Trump example was just to show that people when ridiculing will just heap a bunch of labels which have no connection or relevance on top of a person for simply espousing a non-mainstream position as if questioning the legitimacy of media reports regarding covid for example, has anything to do with being a Trump supporter. I've had this happen to me before.
"Conspiracy "deniers" need to be listened to."
Yes I would agree. I believe everybody should be listened to and that debate should be welcomed instead of discouraged and then opting for censorship. But that's all we've gotten is censorship. Now why do you think that is?
There is nothing scientific about lockdowns. It hasn't proven anything - the virus doesn't exist. It has never been isolated. The contagion theory is also riddled with fraud.
This is the redpilled version of a response hahah
Your assumptions about lockdowns, tests and masks are all invalid. Your hubris is repulsive. You are the embodiment of the promulgation of lies.
As a skeptic, I believe we should use evidence to reach conclusions. Most conspiracy theories start with conclusions and then find evidence to support them. Humans have particularly pernicious mind bugs, like confirmation bias and apophenia, which lead to conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence or data.
Most conspiracies are constructed to avoid falsifiability. The most important question you can as is "How would I know if I was wrong?"
If you don't have a simple and direct answer to that question, you aren't being skeptical, you are engaging in magical thinking and wish fulfillment.
We all do that to some degree, but it is not a bad idea to figure out where and try to minimize as much as possible.
I don't deny any conspiracy theories. I just find that there is usually not enough falsifiable evidence for me to warrant belief in them. Should that evidence become available, I am willing to accept the theory.
You're willing to accept a theory that is supported by evidence? That's big of you. Meanwhile, sociopaths run rampant, safe in the knowledge that anyone who dares to speculate about their crimes will be vilified, mocked and censored. That's what this piece is about. I strongly disagree that the most important question is, 'how would I know if I was wrong'. The most important question might be something like, 'how do we disempower sociopaths and establish a humane world'.
The evidence for conspiracies is everywhere - from big tobacco to big pharma to big banks being fined on an almost monthly basis. In fact, in the way that modern human societies generally construct it is probably ergodic, common even, from families to the supra-national level. The point you are making is that you will wait until each begins to be revealed until you believe them, which I accept. I would guess this most likely happens when the incentives for keeping a conspiratorial agreement are no longer strong enough in the face of other options.
The evidence simply is: "Follow the money."
A great piece and my introduction to your writting. Enlightening and at the same time reassuring that I am not the only person with these same observations. One observation I commonly write in posts or blogs, that gets no response is this. Why does our government of yesteryear and today accept and encourage people to settle in the UK who follow an ideology who's followers pray 5 times a day to a mass murdering, slave trading, rapist, paedophile, war lord and see nothing wrong with this but mention you belong to a nazzi organisation and you are instantly vilified and condemned.