For the conspiricist, a well-documented and well-exposed actual conspiracy with mundane and straightforward aims just doesn’t hold the same excitement as a fake one based on bogus and baroque and ever-changing claims of non-existent evidence. There’s a certain drama and frisson to holding “secret knowledge” that others can’t see.
And then, as you note, when the proven motivations of real conspirators (e.g. increasing short-term profits) are ones that the conspiricist has been conditioned to accept, there’s no question he’ll instead choose an overly complicated whackadoodle one perpetrated by shadowy types he’s been conditioned to mistrust or hate.
The origins of a lot of these conspiracies are corporate, protect out profits at all costs sorts of things, but the ones that stick play hard into the gnostic, secret knowledge “we know the inner workings, you sheeple” sort of mindset. Basically, it makes the believers “special” and superior to the “mere fact based plebeians” who are not privy to this special knowledge. It’s pathetic and sad, but also really powerful if you need that reinforcement of your self image.
“The more intelligent you are, and the more educated, the more data at your disposal, the better you become at rationalising and justifying your existing beliefs and attitudes, regardless of their accuracy or harmfulness.”
I consider myself intelligent and educated, and that would imply I’m very likely to be wrong about a lot of things, and there is a significant chance that – even though this is not consistent with my current beliefs – the most productive course of action is indeed mocking others, writing them off, and preventing them from doing too much damage. Can you show me some specific examples where that was helpful?
The moderation policies of this BBS and the design of the underlying Discourse software and the resulting community culture, for one. It’s not by random chance that this place is a lot more reality-based and free of conspiricist tr0lls than most on-line forums, while still allowing for reasonable difference of opinion (those who fret about this place being an “echo chamber” or “bubble” inevitably turn out to be bad actors in both senses of the term).
And again, I’m specifically arguing against trying to change the minds of these dopes. That way lies madness in the form of wasted time, compromise with fascists and fantasists, and Bothsidesism.
ETA: This is an orphan post, the post I was replying to having been removed by mods.
Of course we have. That’s the problem: these things are happening again and again, more and more often. Global warming increases the frequency and severity of such events, it doesn’t “cause” them in the way you’re suggesting. Cultivating a sense of nuance is necessary in understanding this and other topics in science, as well as not coming across as an idiot on the internet. It can be difficult at times, but give it a shot.
Good point. I wonder, are those people doing no more damage, now they’re no longer on this forum, or are they simply doing the damage elsewhere?
Well, there are two kinds of respect: the universal respect we grant to any fellow human being, and the kind of respect that has to be earned.
So as long as we would still extend that universal respect even to “someone like this”, because we can hardly exclude them from those we consider human, we need to find a way to coexist, and one consequence of that might be that there is an argument for an obligation to engage with them as a person – not necessarily with their delusions – in the hope of them finding a more productive place in society than the one they currently inhabit, and letting go of their delusion.
I think all the mocking, and finger-pointing is a distraction, a way of dealing with the frustration that we can’t seem to reach some people. Excluding them from “those who are worthy” is actually a pretty fucking slippery slope.
I have no doubt they’re doing damage elsewhere. We’ve done what we can to stop them damaging our community.
The people we’re discussing are demanding the latter, without putting in serious effort to earn it. The former is a low bar to clear for most of us here (but often not for the people we’re discussing). I’m not worried about this slippery slope you’re trying to put us on because, as far as universal respect granted to our fellow human on the basis of their being human, most of us here have traction on very level ground.
So we’re back to earned respect, which is the actual matter being discussed.
Did I say that? No, I understand how they can sink into that hellhole, but that does not make it OK. Engaging with that does not help, it only reinforces the delusion. I have no idea how to retrieve them. Logic does not work, compassion is useless, and ignoring them tends to convince them they are right. I am open to suggestions, but have no clue myself.
Sorry, I should made it more clear that was a rhetorical question.
One interesting suggestion I’ve heard is that, since they’re already suckers with short attention spans, we should find ways to shunt them off to relatively less toxic woo. Kind of a harm reduction technique, where you get the individual focused on homeopathy or crystals instead of white supremacy or insurrection. It won’t work with the hard cases, and as a physician you’d have legitimate ethical qualms, but it’s worth exploring as an approach.
Can I just point out that “Kansas Livestock Association” has 26 letters in it? Which just happens to be the exact same number of letter as in the English alphabet. And you know what letter is also in the alphabet? Q!!!
Yeah, it’s interesting and it describes aspects of the world we are inhabiting (or creating, I suppose) in a useful way. I’d like to know more, but if I have to go all the way back to Terry Eagleton for deep background, it’s probably a project too big for my current margins.
It appears that you and I have slightly different concepts of universal respect, and of its implications, and that’s probably why I missed that you are talking about earned respect, and you missed why I see this as a slippery slope.
I just find many of the things said about other people pretty condescending, and I find that this is not what I want to spend my time with, because even though I’m pretty good at this too, it doesn’t feel right to me.
Probably so. I don’t think people peddling long-discredited ideas are due a fair hearing or respect as a universal condition. I don’t think it automatically dehumanises someone when you object to and impose appropriate consequences their abhorrent (and often anti-humanist) views.
Sometimes condescension is the most effective response to bad actor (e.g. a climate -change denier who uses condescending language himself).
