Korean Job Discussion Forums

[On the other hand]

[mises]

And a whole bunch of people from all over the spectrum who don't give a damn either way.

[catman]

Pretty much all White Nationalists believe the Jews were behind 9/11.

[bacasper]

[bucheon bum]

[Manner of Speaking]

[Manner of Speaking]

If conspiracy theorists successfully persuade large numbers of people that 911 was an inside job, or that the moon landings never occured, or that the Bilderberg group is out to get the world, 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 filled with things that are patently inconsistent with physical laws. 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.

For some, this results in disengagement from the political process and the (real) world around them. For others, like von Brunn, it fuels their paranoia and conspiracy fantasies, and they end up on a rooftop with a sniper rifle. Because they are that much out of touch with reality. And the conspiracy fantasists who helped put him there are just as morally culpable.

[Manner of Speaking]

There is such a thing as academic freedom, which can be roughly defined as 'the right to formulate, test, and explore ideas and hypotheses in order to advance the course of human knowledge. But academic freedom, according to some philosophers, has never been viewed as an end in itself. In the academic realm, the purpose of academic freedom is to allow ideas to be discussed and compared freely, in order to determine which hypotheses and theories explain the world best. So that in the process of academic inquiry, those explanations which don't fit the facts and are defective can be identified and put aside.

Some people are uncomfortable with this idea, and you can see this on this thread and on other threads. They agree that most conspiracy theories nowadays are nonsense, but they are uncomfortable with the idea of condemning or calling out conspiracy theories because they have this sense that somehow this leads to the suppression of freedom of speech. It's an understandable reaction, but in fact it is a confusion of two ideas. They are confusing the idea of freedom of speech with the idea of freedom to be wrong.

And yes, society does place limits on the freedom to be wrong. Scientists have to be accountable for their actions and their intellectual honesty when they publish in academic journals. They are not free to lie, be intellectually dishonest, or make up the results of experiments and pass them off as real research or real science. Journalists are not free to make up the news or the weather and pass it off to the public, no matter how badly everybody wants it to be a sunny day tomorrow.

[Manner of Speaking]

Conspiracism is neither a healthy expression of skepticism nor a valid form of criticism; rather it is a belief system that refuses to obey the rules of logic. These theories operate from a pre-existing premise of a conspiracy based upon careless collection of facts and flawed assumptions. What constitutes �proof� for a conspiracist is often more accurately described as circumstance, rumor, and hearsay. And as a result, it is nearly always a distraction from the work of uprooting hierarchies of unfair power and privilege.

Conspiracist theories are attractive in part because they start with a grain of truth embedded in preexisting societal beliefs. They believe that the status quo is not acceptable, which is a laudable belief. They have accurately understood that there are inequalities of power and privilege in the world�and threats to the world itself�that need to be rectified.

What conspiracy theorists lack is the desire or ability to follow the basic rules of logic and investigative research.

Conspiracy theories spotlight lots of fascinating questions, as well as some really boring and irrelevant ones. But they seldom illuminate meaningful answers. While conspiracists tell compelling stories, they frequently create dangerous conditions as these stories can draw from pre-existing stereotypes and prejudices. Cynical movement leaders then can hyperbolize false claims in a way that mobilizes dangerous forms of demonization and scapegoating. People who believe conspiracist allegations sometimes act on those irrational beliefs, and this has concrete consequences in the real world.

REAL consequences. Like the murder of this week of an innocent person at a museum. A security guard at the Holocaust Museum, of all places. A guy whose biggest daily problem was probably finding lost backpacks for kids or making sure the washrooms are unlocked before 10:00am.

How dangerous a place is that to anyone? How messed-up does that have to be before anyone is shocked by it?

[Theme]

[Manner of Speaking]

Well, as I mentioned in another thread:

[Manner of Speaking]

Why is it that no professional historian, in academe in the United States or in any other country in the world, takes the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories seriously? Because as trained academic professionals, they are able to evaluate the evidence themselves and have dismissed these theories as nonsense, and can/have moved on to dealing with the real world. It is only these so-called "independent researchers" who still cling to these theories. Are there any possible psychological reasons why they still do so? You betcha. Paranoia. Meglamania. A need for attention and relevance. It may be the only way they can express themselves as they lack talent in most other fields.

[Beeyee]

[Manner of Speaking]

[Manner of Speaking]

And if that's impossible, than the rest of the whole theory falls apart.