Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Manner of Speaking]

[some waygug-in]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090528113103188

[bacasper]

[Manner of Speaking]

And if these conspiracies are physically impossible, logic compels us to look elsewhere for an explanation for their persistence. And the obvious place to look is in the minds of those individuals who advocate these theories. Hence the purpose of this thread.

[bacasper]

It is physically impossible to get three shots off a 1945 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in 5.6 seconds, and it is physically impossible for jet fuel to melt steel. I'd look into the minds of those who are hyperselective in emphasizing physical impossibilities.

[Manner of Speaking]

It is true that we live in a world of large, powerful organizations who attempt to promote their interests, and often attempt to promote their interests at the expense of the average voter. There are marketing firms, professional lobbyists, government 'information' agencies, public relations agencies, political parties, and even branches of the military. There are patron-client relations everywhere.

But however large and powerful these organizations are, they still live in the same physical world that we do. They are powerful, but their power is not infinite. They are influential, but they can be influenced by the average voter in concert, or even just the average citizen. Martin Luther King, for example, was just one man, but by the force of well-fashioned argument and moral suasion, he was able to bring about large-scale changes in the interrelationships of power in American society...even though there were concerted efforts by a number of large-scale organizations to negate his influence.

But whether you are a Martin Luther King or just an ordinary person, in order to have an influence on public policy, you need to have two things: a) a realistic understanding of the power relationships within your society (realistic in that your model is couched in reality), and b) a belief that you, as an individual or in concert with others, can bring about change. Even if this belief merely extends to believing that your vote counts.

In light of this, it is apparent how conspiracy theories have a pernicious effect on democracy and citizen participation in the political process. If conspiracy theorists successfully persuade large numbers of people that 911 was an inside job, or that the moon landings never occured, or that it was impossible for a lone gunman to get lucky and assassinate a US president, or that ancient aliens have built pyramids on the moon...then the average citizen's paradigm of the world becomes replaced with something(s) that is(are) patently inconsistent with physical laws.

Yes, governments, politicians, and large corporations lie to us. That's why we have journalists. Yes, some journalists also lie to us. But the methods that journalists use to dissect the lies and discover the truth, can be turned on the journalists themselves. That's why we have investigative journalists.

The other reason why conspiracy theories are pernicious to democracy is patently obvious. If the average citizen of a democratic country comes to believe he/she lives in a world where everything, every major event, every "accident", is the result of the manipulations of large, hidden, unaccountable government agencies and organizations, all powerful...then that same citizen becomes convinced that their own voice, their own vote, their own efforts to lobby government, are meaningless.

If you really think aliens run the government from Area 51, then what is the point of voting, let alone participating in a political party or attending a policy debate? If you really believe this is how the world works, then (logically) your voice is meaningless.

And this is exactly the belief system, and pattern of action, that conspiracy theories are intended to bring about in the average voter. To induce a state of cynical, self-satisfied 'learned helplessness' in the average citizen.

Conspiracy theorists pursue questioning the "official doctrine" as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. The purpose of any "questioning" is to arrive at the truth. If, for example, some people allege the moon landings never really occurred, and the preponderance of physical evidence demonstrates that yes, they did occur, then you have arrived at the truth.

Skepticism, by its very nature, means placing equal weight of skepticism on the "official version" as well as the alleged "the truth is out there version", and weighing the balance of evidence to see which explanation is true. To place greater weight on one or the other, simply because the other is the "alternative", is just stupid and naive. But for some, it's a lifestyle choice. A supremely stupid one.

Because it's just as stupid, naive and dangerous to believe everything that a conspiracy theorist tells as it is to believe everything that a government says. There is nothing wrong with questioning or exploring the "official" version of anything. There are, however, hazards associated with doing - and deliberately choosing - to do it badly.

[Manner of Speaking]

The average citizen has a great deal of respect for people who are willing to admit they are wrong. They are capable of separating the error for the person and realizing that a person can be honestly pursuing the truth while making mistakes. But the average citizen has no respect for people who are never willing to admit they might be wrong. It's difficult to trust their intentions, and such people might be deliberately deluding themselves as well as the general public.

And the advocates of these theories seem to exhibit a preference for the novel and the bizarre. It's as though the real world is not interesting enough, so it's fun to contemplate the the bizarre explanations and pretend this is how things really work.

[Manner of Speaking]

But in fact, many of the conspiracy theorists out there cling to implausible theories because, paradoxically, they're comforting. Humans are thinking animals. Aside from high endurance for long distance walking, humans don't stand out very much, physically. Humans survive by their wits, detecting patterns and warning signs less intelligent animals would miss. Having special knowledge is an advantage, so it's natural to feel more secure when you know what's going on. Or if you think you know what's going on. Wisdom makes a person valuable and revered. That's why nearly every sort of woo, altie, or fundie pride themselves on being a "red pill": They have what they believe to be special knowledge.

On the flip side of the special knowledge angle is the fear of uncertainty. Many people, for example, couldn't deal with the idea that a lone gunman could kill the president during lax security, hence the need to assure themselves JFK had an enormous conspiracy of enemies out to get him. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists can't deal with the idea that the USA could be successfully attacked in such a manner, so they make up a special exception of an inside job of American conspirators.

The psychology is supremely interesting to watch...rather than make an effort to understand reality, they attempt to alter reality in order to adjust it to their limited ability to comprehend how the real world works.

[bacasper]

Real conspiracies are much more damaging to democracy than theories.

[curlyhoward]

[bacasper]

So not only you are better than the supposed expert with whom they did that test way back when, but it is "easy?" And a sharpshooter couldn't do it? Anyway, what about with pinpoint accuracy from hundreds of feet away at a moving target? Sorry, it is just not adding up.

(If we want to continue this discussion, it is better done in the JFK sticky.)

[some waygug-in]

Conspiracies that did happen:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15974_7-insane-conspiracies-that-actually-happened.html


For some reason, they are listed in reverse order. I think #1 on page 2 is the most interesting.


Here's a more serious article with a more robust list:

http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-conspiracies-from.html

[curlyhoward]

[bacasper]

curlyhoward, see my reply in the JFK sticky.

[Manner of Speaking]

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms�he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date fort the apocalypse. (�Time is running out,� said Welch in 1951. �Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.�)

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman�sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid�s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone�s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).