"Conspiracy theories" do not thrive because the masses are stupid; but because they are excluded

[MischievousMonkey]

Honestly, I'm a lil jaded on some aspects of democracy. So you're probably right in that aspect, but I tend to defer if I'm not knowledgeable.

Can you imagine we were told an asteroid was one year out that would take out let's say most of Africa. Imagine the range of opinions that would be formed. At those times people you need to decide quickly what needs to be done, not trying to get community consensus. When you could spend time developing solutions, you don't need to be arguing with people telling you asteroids don't exist or it's God's will.

So yeah it might be in undemocratic, but major changes rarely are. The majority tends to like what they're already comfortable with

Good point. I agree with you that in some cases, urgency might require to defer to institutions holding the defined knowledge, and also to sacrifice temporarily some agency.

What bugs me though, is that in most of the cases we discuss, urgency is missing from the equation. Capitalist interests and values, political stakes are definitely present though. Building of new train tracks crossing a community's region, a new mall on indigenous territory, using a fertilizer or a pesticide that the people fear, setting up 5G towers...

Why aren't communities where these actions take place consulted? Where is the urgency? Why aren't structures such as EIA (two of my posts above talk about them) at the forefront of the installation process? And if locals still don't fukk with them... Who gets to have the final call?

Even worst, sometimes, situations are indeed urgent, and when those the most affected find solutions... They get muzzled and handcuffed, fought and subverted by institutions which decide the doxa for them. I talked at lengths about the case of artemisia and malaria in Africa, and how the WHO is sacrificing millions of lives for nefarious goals.

The funny thing is that I have a love-hate relationship with democracy as well. The system we live under just resembles it vaguely though, like a distant cousin.

 

[HiphopRelated]

Good point. I agree with you that in some cases, urgency might require to defer to institutions holding the defined knowledge, and also to sacrifice temporarily some agency.

What bugs me though, is that in most of the cases we discuss, urgency is missing from the equation. Capitalist interests and values, political stakes are definitely present though. Building of new train tracks crossing a community's region, a new mall on indigenous territory, using a fertilizer or a pesticide that the people fear, setting up 5G towers...

Why aren't communities where these actions take place consulted? Where is the urgency? Why aren't structures such as EIA (two of my posts above talk about them) at the forefront of the installation process? And if locals still don't fukk with them... Who gets to have the final call?

Even worst, sometimes, situations are indeed urgent, and when those the most affected find solutions... They get muzzled and handcuffed, fought and subverted by institutions which decide the doxa for them. I talked at lengths about the case of artemisia and malaria in Africa, and how the WHO is sacrificing millions of lives for nefarious goals.

The funny thing is that I have a love-hate relationship with democracy as well. The system we live under just resembles it vaguely though, like a distant cousin.

No argument here. I was tempted to use the railroads example too. But you also have to be wary of the consultation, because it might just be to placate you. "We'll have a fair trial, then we'll hang him"

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Conspiracy theories thrive......because of past conspiracies being busted open...

A conspiracy theorist mind starts in hindsight....

"Well if those a$$holes did this and got away with it before...they can do it again! And they will/are!"


This country was founded on a conspiracy lol

A bunch of privileged cacs got together and "conspired" against their British paymsters...then "Conspired" and Convened in private to figure out to keep it that way.

I agree a 100%. The generalized lack of trust is fueled by the lack of accountability and transparency of the institutions who were caught the hand in the jar... In a house which shouldn't have walls.

I wasn't allowed to lock my door as a child. When I grew up, my parents would just knock real quick and immediately bust through the door. When it comes to bodies of decision in a democracy... Citizens should have the same rights as my parents.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

No argument here. I was tempted to use the railroads example too. But you also have to be wary of the consultation, because it might just be to placate you. "We'll have a fair trial, then we'll hang him"

Facts. True democracy is not supposed to prevent the majority from acting evil. In fact, it legitimizes it.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

"Reality" is the ultimate conspiracy theory as its founded on the sketchiest of information from questionable sources filtered through a flawed inductive device filled with generations of personal biases and countless appeals to authority. And yet its a construct unhappily accepted by the vast majority around the globe apart from the poet, madman and mystic who sense a different realm and try - with the medium at hand - to convey their message.

I wouldn't say "reality is a conspiracy theory" even though the rest of your post is actually factual.

I'd say the "traditional" conception of reality is more of a dogma, and probably an organic one at that.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

the internet gives you direct insight into everything you're speaking on...

the issue is people being able to discern fact from fiction....

Having insight in what's happening to you is different from having the freedom to control it.

 

[Savvir]

Having insight in what's happening to you is different from having the freedom to control it.

list the specific things citizens don't have control over....

 

[MischievousMonkey]

list the specific things citizens don't have control over....

I have posted several specific examples in my posts on this thread. Pick some

 

[AJaRuleStan]

I've become extremely pessimistic over the years about the power of logic and evidence to change minds in a purely verbal setting. Its to the point that I don't even engage in arguments anymore unless the ideas being debated carry consequence for the person holding the wrong idea. And this is my point, on a lot of topics, nonsense will systematically outcompete sense-making in free discussion. And I think that's always been the case thru history. And when you think about it, its not all that surprising. Humans are not perfect logic machines, we are instead naturally inherently self-interested beings with an enormous ability to use rationalization to validate our beliefs and actions.

Its really only in non-verbal conflict will people be persuaded out of a wrong idea real quick or they perish. You can intellectualize all you want, but if you're in something like a war and have a bad idea, reality will phase you out. Empiricism has the advantage there. Same thing like betting or ideas in fields like engineering. In free discussion, there is no mechanism for that. And its even worse when there is self-gain in holding a untruth or bad idea.

 

[Homer Simpson]

the alphabet boys be like "there are no conspiracies but i'm going to put your whole block under the jail on conspiracy charges"

 

[dangerranger]

I think the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle and that we give people too much credit as individuals in terms of critical thinking skills, comprehension, and accountability. I realized this during the electing of Trump which helped me see the world much differently. Often times, people assume because someone went to an Ivy League school or is a doctor that they are "smart". This false assumption in being smart is treated like a one size fits all glove. Someone maybe competent or an expert in one area but it doesn't mean they are in all areas. So when I saw people like doctors and lawyers voting or supporting Trump it made me realize that most people only know what they do everyday, which is natural because that's repetition. More likely than not, the other stuff they have limited knowledge and are either too busy, too lazy, or too dumb to recognize that and work to learn more.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

I think the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle and that we give people too much credit as individuals in terms of critical thinking skills, comprehension, and accountability. I realized this during the electing of Trump which helped me see the world much differently. Often times, people assume because someone went to an Ivy League school or is a doctor that they are "smart". This false assumption in being smart is treated like a one size fits all glove. Someone maybe competent or an expert in one area but it doesn't mean they are in all areas. So when I saw people like doctors and lawyers voting or supporting Trump it made me realize that most people only know what they do everyday, which is natural because that's repetition. More likely than not, the other stuff they have limited knowledge and are either too busy, too lazy, or too dumb to recognize that and work to learn more.

Most definitely. Intelligence is multidimensional as well as influenced by character.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

I've become extremely pessimistic over the years about the power of logic and evidence to change minds in a purely verbal setting. Its to the point that I don't even engage in arguments anymore unless the ideas being debated carry consequence for the person holding the wrong idea. And this is my point, on a lot of topics, nonsense will systematically outcompete sense-making in free discussion. And I think that's always been the case thru history. And when you think about it, its not all that surprising. Humans are not perfect logic machines, we are instead naturally inherently self-interested beings with an enormous ability to use rationalization to validate our beliefs and actions.

Its really only in non-verbal conflict will people be persuaded out of a wrong idea real quick or they perish. You can intellectualize all you want, but if you're in something like a war and have a bad idea, reality will phase you out. Empiricism has the advantage there. Same thing like betting or ideas in fields like engineering. In free discussion, there is no mechanism for that. And its even worse when there is self-gain in holding a untruth or bad idea.

I think truth is a multifaceted, axiomatic concept whose name turned into this doxa that is supposed to be at the foundation of our every move. So you're bound to have ideas that don't make sense in a particular designated frame of truth, but will show resilience because their tenants can't afford to be cast out of that frame. Being untrue, whatever the frame is stigmatizing for an idea.

That's not even getting into the role of the ego and biases

 

[MischievousMonkey]

The term itself isn't even organic and it would have never been organic outside the Alphabet Boys dictionary. Now believing in old wives tales, myths and propaganda are major factors in how people shape their viewpoint.

I guess the alphabet boys are the FBI or CIA?

 

[HarlemHottie]

My school scholarship allows me (when the system wants to work) to access some scholars' articles on platforms with which my institution got partnerships, while the citizens who are not enrolled in this kind of institutions are barred from reading anything but the abstracts.

FYI: JSTOR IS FREE TIL THE END OF YEAR!!!!


Sorry, I'm excited.