Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Conspiracy Theories and Their Effect on Democracy

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Conspiracy Theories and Their Effect on Democracy
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 22, 23, 24 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Mosley

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject:

bacasper: the site you cited as a "source" gave me the bellylaugh of the day. Marxist and(more accurately)neo-Marxist gobbledygook. And what is Marxism? I'm tempted to say it's a scab on a boil but I'll content myself with this: it's quite likely the most sophisticated and well-crafted conspiracy theory(read:nonsense of the most dangerous kind) in history. The opiate of frustrated pseudo-intellectuals.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject:

Mosley wrote:

bacasper: the site you cited as a "source" gave me the bellylaugh of the day. Marxist and(more accurately)neo-Marxist gobbledygook.

And what is Marxism? I'm tempted to say it's a scab on a boil but I'll content myself with this: it's quite likely the most sophisticated and well-crafted conspiracy theory(read:nonsense of the most dangerous kind) in history.

The opiate of frustrated pseudo-intellectuals.

That site says nothing of Marxism. Yours is just another resort to innuendo and name-calling when you cannot refute the facts presented.

regicide

Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:52 am Post subject:

jinju wrote:

For me its rather obvious. The internet has allowed the anti social to gravitate to each other. Its sort of a paradox, but its true. A bunch of anti social losers, who in the real world would have trouble forming a sentence in the presence of a warm body are gravitating to each other. Strenght in numbers combined with anonymity? I suppose. As far as conspiracy theories go, theyve been around for ages. It allows certain dellusional rejects to feel like they have some power over those they were rejected by. Its like "you may think Im a lsoer and you humiliated me in highschool but look who is laughing now, I know something big you dont know and that makes me better". The internet just gives them a forum.

I used to like the X-Files, btw. I just didnt take it to be more than a story. FICTION.

Reminds me of an Amazon review of the ridiculous book , Case Closed by Gerald Poser Posner

Mind closed is the more appropriate title , July 9, 2006
By A Reader - See all my reviews

This book is not only tendentious garbage--it is dangerous as well. All of Posner's deceptive shaping of the evidence depends entirely on the reader not knowing a damn thing about the case.

He is a good writer--a genius worthy of Sammy Glick and Joseph Goebbels. Read carefully, Posner's sources are revealed to be official ones--current or former members of governments, police forces, courts. And all sources that he attacks are citizens--and there are thousands of non-governmental sources in this case who provide a mountain of evidence for conspiracy.

Posner trashes every one he can get his tricky hands on. So pro-conspiracy witnesses are not just mistaken, they are insane, drunkards, abusers, liars, publicity hounds ( unlike himself , of course) . grudge holders, folks with hidden agendas ( again, unlike all those intelligence agents he believes in so devoutly).

Let the reader beware: This is State Propaganda at its most clever and diabolical, and the purpose of the book is to convince the reader that only losers believe in conspiracies, those who have not succeeded in this greatest of all possible societies. Sour Grapes , in other words.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:16 am Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

Quote:

That is not for you to decide. This thread belongs in current events, because many people resort to conspiracy theories in order to explain current events.

it would help if you used some examples. your theory may not be applicable to all conspiracy theories.

Well then, if it doesn't apply to certain or even all conspiracy theories, go ahead and demonstrate how. It's not up to me to do your research for you.

Quote:

You used the moon landing as a simple example. but does your theory extend beyond this simple example?

Quote:

If my hypothesis is of merit, it can stand on its own, it doesn't need to be supported with links. And, if you feel there is a flaw in my argument, you should be able to disprove it without resorting to links.

apply your theory to something other than the moon example and we'll talk.

as of now your theory is still suspect in my books. you need more examples if you don't want to rely on links.

[/quote]
Well, two things here: Laughing

First, something is not more true, or correct, simply because of a 'link'. If that were true, nothing in the universe would have been true before the invention of the Internet. (Although I do realize some people believe that.) Very Happy

Second, I have suggested a hypothesis about the effects of conspiracy theories on democracy and public policy. The fact that they consist of false infomation is a given. You don't like the hypothesis and think it's wrong, yet you want me to do your work for you in demonstrating that it's right or wrong. That's your job. You say that my hypothesis "is still suspect in your books".

Ok, if you don't like the hypothesis, prove that it's wrong.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:36 am Post subject:

SPINOZA wrote:

This is a demonization of conspiracy theorists. You advocate they have a lot of power, which they simply don't, as the fringe members of society that they are. Conspiracy theorists simply misinterpret evidence and sometimes deliberately refuse to look at alternatives and rebuttals.

Yes, absolutely. Some would argue that they refuse to engage in "fair play", so to speak. They pursue "alternative" theories to explain major public events not as a means to an end (to discover the truth), but as an end in itself.

Quote:

If one doesn't know much about physics, conspiracy theories such as 9/11 and Apollo 11 can sound very convincing ... but it's only a small minority of people who take them on and these individuals have a minimal influence on wider society. Look at 'Loose Change'. We've all seen 'Loose Change' but most ordinary people have never heard of it. To most - I dunno, 90% - the Apollo 11 guys did indeed walk on the moon and 9/11 was indeed perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.

Well, when Fox News can broadcast a documentary saying, "were the moon landings a hoax?" to millions of people, and when an agency like NASA has to spend millions of dollars documenting and refuting that hoax, you have to wonder about how 'minor' an influence these people have. Fox deliberately mislead, and intended to mislead, millions of people with that documentary.

Quote:

It's also important not to demonize legitimate comment. I no longer believe in the 9/11 conspiracy or Apollo 11 conspiracy because I - unlike others with a fancy for conspiracy theories - am happy to look at the evidence opposing (completely refuting) those positions. However, the question "why did the undamaged parts of Twin Towers offer almost no resistance during collapse?" is a legitimate question. Can science answer? Yes it can. So fair enough. Can the Apollo 11 astronauts explain what appears to be evidence of trickery in the photos of them half way to the Moon? Yes, they can, because those conspirators were extremely selective in the bits they used. So fair enough. And like you said, there's no evidence whatsoever for manned missions to the Moon being genuine other than 800 pounds of Moon rock.

Absolutely, but again, my hypothesis is not about whether or not conspiracy theories are 'true', or about whether or not historical events should be open to third-party inquiry. Of course they should be. But it is a given that most conspiracy theories are nonsense. Their perniciousness lies in their intentions, and results. These theories and theorists are intended to deliberately mislead people and confuse them about what is going on in the real world. This is demonstrated by the fact, as you say, they refuse to accept rebuttal arguments, even when all physical evidence shows these rebuttal arguments to be true.

And when people are mislead about the power and influence of government agencies - and by corollary, are lead to believe in a lack of power and utter lack of influence by the average voter - they come to believe that they live in a world where the levers of power are far beyond the reach of the average person. And that is not the way you maintain 'liberty', as another person noted.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:42 am Post subject:

ED209 wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

apply your theory to something other than the moon example and we'll talk.

No, you'll just ramble away posting your links and proving MOS right that you are interested in something other than truth as your ends, your goal is simply 'See! Told you I was right!' not 'This is what happened'. Then you'll open another six threads about melting steel. When in the end if Bush&Co did do it it won't rock my world since my world isn't a 9/11 w*nk off, nor is most people's.

Nice work MOS

Thanks ED209 Very Happy

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:18 am Post subject:

I also like the OP. It is pretty dead on. It appeared the same day I wrote a response to regicide in which I mentioned Chicken Little and quoted this from Wikipedia: "The sky is falling," has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent... In other versions the moral is usually interpreted to mean "do not believe everything you are told". In the latter case, it could well be a cautionary political tale: Chicken Little jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit." I think Manner of Speaking and I are responding to the same concern about conspiracy theories.

ED209

Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:47 am Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

ED209 wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

why don't you send me a report of the official explanation of the WTC collapses. I will show you ALL the fallacies.

Don't you have enough 9/11 threads going?
Sorry, you're gonna have to toss yourself off.

you say you've looked at the science describing the collapse sequence. what science might that be? what link might that be?

there is no scientific explanation that describes the collapse sequence.

there is no report that adequetly describes a plausible collapse sequence.

so how did you form your opinion?

What's the matter? Can't get it up by yourself?

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:04 am Post subject:

Quote:

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end."[1] However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.

from OP i assume you are using the second definition. fake moon landings, and aliens running the government are some of your examples.

these conspiracy theories gain in popularity for awhile and then fade away leaving a small group of dedicated followers. i can see your point here. however its affect on the democratic process for an entire country, in my opinion is very limited. believing in these theories would render individuals with a perceived notion of being powerless, and thus hinder the democratic process for these individuals and not a country as a whole.

however, you aren't merely concerned with the above style of conspiracy theories. you seem more concerned with the larger conspiracy theories from the past and at present. JFK, 9/11. These larger conspiracy theories have a larger following and thus may be able to hinder democratic process if believers perceive themselves to be powerless.

however you whitewash the larger conspiracy theories by using trivial conspiracy theories as your working examples. conspiracy theories that you can obviously disprove and thus support your own theory.

lets us 9/11 as a better working example, as it actually has the power to affect democratic process. moon landing and aliens??? come on.

truthers were born when the government initially refused to do a formal investigation of 9/11. These movements began with the families of 9/11 victims.

the government finally decided to do an investigation, and thus the official 9/11 report was released. it is considered a failure by many, including some involved in the process.

in fact the government was forced into doing a second investigation into the collapse of the WTC. Collapse sequence theory was revised and given a new name. a computer model was applied but values used were not released.

this report has also been highly criticized by the public for very good reasons.

as a result, people have done their own research and found many cases where the evidence does not fit the official theory. and thus, conspiracy theory is born.

so i propose that the 'grand' conspiracy theories, are a result of governments being unable to provide reasonable answers to the questions its citizens demand and are entitled to.

the inability for our elected officials to satisfy their voters, can be seen as a degradation of the democratic system. politicians are no longer for the people and by the people.

thus, i argue, that a degradation of the democratic system has led to 'grand' conspiracy theories.

if governments did their jobs honestly and for the people, we would have no reason to question 'official' theories. the only conspiracy theories that would exist would be the examples that you provided: no moon landings and aliens controlling the government. as mentioned earlier, these movements are very small and thus would not affect a country as a whole.

in conclusion, you use simple, obviously untrue conspiracy theories to whitewash all conspiracy theories, including those that have merit.

and the fact that large conspiracy theories exist is because the government in unwilling to do the jobs they were set forth to do.

thus your theory is completely backwards.

the 'grand' conspiracy theories are born because their is a lot to question about the 'official' stories, which in definition, are no different than the conspiracy theories governments use.

if you don't think 'official' stories are full of fallacies and lies, I can easily provide you with pages of evidence for 9/11.

i'm sure a certain individual on this site can provide you with pages of evidence for JFK.

Summer Wine

Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:40 am Post subject:

Quote:

I agree with this position.

I find that now days many people who disagree with the status quo or who question political changes are presented as conspiracy freaks.

I know my history and I also know that many actions carried out today would be classified as fascist if my grandfathers generation had a say.

Though today, its supposed to be only about our security. Don't use conspiracy arguments as a way to silence vocal dissent about political changes that aren't in the liberal democracy's best interests.

We are innocent until proven guilty or at least thats what we still stand for.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:30 am Post subject:

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

bacasper wrote:

It is a fact that an expert sharpshooter tested the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Lee Harvey Oswald was supposed to have used to kill JFK. He was unable to get off three shots within 5.6 seconds, the time frame in which Oswald supposedly did so, not to mention with pinpoint accuracy.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. Assuming this is true, what exactly does it prove? And how does it prove that thee was more than one shooter involved in the Kennedy assassination?

This was a bolt-action, WW2 Italian-made weapon. Since you need me to explain what it proves, I will: it was physically near-impossible to get the three shots off in the time frame. This proves Oswald could not have fired all three shots with that weapon (if he fired any).

Actually, no it doesn't. It raises two possibilities:

- Oswald physically could not have fired all three shots;
- by some quirk of nature, on this one occasion he was able to do so. Physically near-impossible is not the same as completely impossible.

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Being a Canadian, I view the institution of the US Presidency from a different perspective than you do.

How do you know how I view the US Presidency?

Being a Canadian, I view the institution of the US presidency from a different perspective than you do. If you feel my statement is wrong, go ahead and prove so.

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

I think one of the reasons why - and I am just expressing an opinion, I admit I may be wrong - people believe there was more than one assassin, is that it was/is viscerally very difficult for Americans to believe that a single man with a high-powered rifle could through sheer dumb luck, manage to pull off a presidential assassination.

As I stated, I shy away from opinions and stick to facts.

Actually no you don't, which I demonstrate in my next comment.

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Quote:

It is a fact that no fire has brought down a steel building before or since the WTC attacks, convoluted pseudoexplanations to the contrary notwithstanding.

The problem here is that this is a debate that involves structural engineering issues, so by its very nature any such discussion must involve "convoluted pseudoexplanations". It's necessary to resort to "convoluted pseudoexplanations" to explain how to get from the Earth to the moon.

There is no "debate" here unless you want to claim that fire HAS brought down a steel building. If there is some other point you would like to debate, please state it clearly.

There are and have been detailed engineering analyses and debates as to what happened to the two towers of the World Trade Center, that caused them to collapse. I'm not an engineer, so I'm not qualified to analyze or judge the explanations and analyses that have been offered.

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

In any case, how does that prove that 911 was an "inside job"?

You lost me here. Please refer me to where I said this. (I didn't.) In fact, I have specifically said 9/11 was no conspiracy. (See next post.)

You brought it up, I didn't. You said:

bacasper wrote:

It is a fact that no fire has brought down a steel building before or since the WTC attacks, convoluted pseudoexplanations to the contrary notwithstanding.

This thread is about conspiracy theories and their effect on democracy. If this sentence has got nothing to do with conspiracy theories, why did you bring it up?

Incidentally, your sentence is an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that the engineering analyses that have been done to explain the collapse of the two towers are "convoluted pseudoexplanations". It demonstrates that reasonable explanations of what happened to the two buildings have been offered by qualified engineers, and you reject them out of hand.

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Quote:

It is a fact that Bush Sr. and bin Laden Sr. were partners in the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm that profits from war.

Yes, and it is a fact that, bin Laden Sr. and Bush watched the collapse of the WTC towers from the same television, before bin Laden flew home. The explanation for this is very simple: the utter failure of the US press, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the US electorate to hold Bush accountable for the people with whom he was associated. If this had happened in Canada, Bush would have resigned in disgrace within a month.

You start out well here, with a "fact," but then go straight into your opinion, or personal "conspiracy theory," which, in any event, does not explain what they were doing together in the first place. Doesn't it creep anyone else out that these two families are in bed together? (N.B. This is a question asking specifically for an opinion.)

It's hardly a conspiracy theory. It's an opinion on the sorry state of accountability in the US political system, supported by a fact, a fact you yourself pointed out. It would be a conspiracy theory to allege that because of the close ties between these two families, one can conclude that either 911 was an "inside job", or the Bush family colluded to protect bin Laden from being captured.

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

If, by this evidence, one concludes that there is something seriously wrong and morally repugnant with the current political system in the US, that hardly amounts to a conspiracy theory.

Did I say something about a conspiracy theory?

The thread is about conspiracy theories. If your point has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, as you yourself said, why bring it up?

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

And those who would lie to the electorate, mislead the gullible, and induce the free to believe they have no say or stake in their polity are as great a danger as any foreign power.

Don't be vague. I have given you very specific names, dates, etc. Please give me the courtesy of doing the same.

Again, you are taking my statement out of context. You said:

bacasper asked MOS a specific question when he wrote:

Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Was he a conspiracy theorist?(my italics - MOS)

...and in specific response to that question, MOS wrote:

He didn't limit the parameters of that vigilance. He didn't say, "eternal vigilance against big government", "eternal vigilance against foreign military powers", he said 'vigilance', period. And those who would lie to the electorate, mislead the gullible, and induce the free to believe they have no say or stake in their polity are as great a danger as any foreign power.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

They are a deliberate attempt to give the average citizen a false view of the world they live in, and a false view of how much power the average citizen has to influence their government. So yes, they are a conspiracy against democracy. A deliberate one.

Manner: good thread and our views coincide on this issue.

You might also consider looking into the American antiFederalists, their anticentralist-government hyperbole, and their influence over subsequent generations. This tendency goes back much further than The X-Files...

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Gopher, I'm wondering if you've read Conor Cruise O'Brien's essay against Jefferson, published in The Atlantic late 90s or so. He also apparently wrote a book along the same lines, called The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800.

O'Brien discussed at some length the fact that Timothy McVeigh was wearing a t-shirt with a Jefferson quote on it, and argued that many in the media were reluctant to mention this, presumbaly for fear of linking Jefferson's ideology to McVeigh's. (It's been a while since I read the article, so don't quote me.)

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

I also like the OP. It is pretty dead on. It appeared the same day I wrote a response to regicide in which I mentioned Chicken Little and quoted this from Wikipedia: "The sky is falling," has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent... In other versions the moral is usually interpreted to mean "do not believe everything you are told". In the latter case, it could well be a cautionary political tale: Chicken Little jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit."

I think Manner of Speaking and I are responding to the same concern about conspiracy theories.

Ya-ta Boy, thank you. Very Happy

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject:

Summer Wine wrote:

Quote:

I agree with this position.

I find that now days many people who disagree with the status quo or who question political changes are presented as conspiracy freaks.

That may very well be true, at least in the US, and I think it's very interesting, and I'm very pleased, that in this discussion we are all starting to narrow our focus and separate the wheat from the chaff. Myself included.

But I think there is a twist to this that I think you would find salient. The fact that there are a significant number of genuinely nutbar conspiracy theories out there does harm to people who disagree with the status quo, or feel that political changes are necessary and warranted. Because people who do want to advance change end up getting labeled.

Political change is necessary...but in order to bring it about, people who want change need to have good research skills, good reasoning skills, and good argument/debating skills. And a sense that the polity of thir country is something that still belongs to them, something that they can still influence, participate in, and change. That's why I think it's necessary to address the conspiracy theorists and call them out on their misrepresentations. To end that sense of powerlessness that such theories can perpetuate in their believers.

Quote:

Though today, its supposed to be only about our security. Don't use conspiracy arguments as a way to silence vocal dissent about political changes that aren't in the liberal democracy's best interests.

I don't think that I am trying to do that. I am trying to draw a distinction between paradigms of the world that are so bizarre, out there, and unreal that they make people feel powerless, and paradigms of the world that make people who are dissatisfied with the status quo, bring about change. You can't bring about change if you are led to believe that the levers of power - real power - are always inaccessable, remote, hidden, murky, and unaccountable to the average citizen, and are under the control of infinitely powerful organizations that can't be reached.

They CAN be reached. That is my point. But people who blow smoke in your face all the time are trying to keep you from knowing where and how you can reach those levers of power.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 22, 23, 24 Next
Page 3 of 24

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe