Some of my scribblings on the paranoid conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories, posted earlier, if you think I'm being unfair here.
1. climate-resistance.org/2016/02/the-gr…
1. climate-resistance.org/2016/02/the-gr…
The world is a complex place.
One of the things I didn't mention in those two articles is that the main office of the publisher of one of the most influential contemporary books on conspiracy theories is on the small street I grew up on.
Coincidence?
(Yes).
One of the things I didn't mention in those two articles is that the main office of the publisher of one of the most influential contemporary books on conspiracy theories is on the small street I grew up on.
Coincidence?
(Yes).
It's all getting a bit weird.
It turns out that the anti conspiracy theorists are driven by a conspiracy theory.
It turns out that the anti conspiracy theorists are driven by a conspiracy theory.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1463186342171627520
In order to be able to see their conspiracy theory, you need to be able to stick your head up your arse, while simultaneously sticking it up Dawkins' arse, too.
And that's why so few people know the Truth.
And that's why so few people know the Truth.
https://twitter.com/ruskin147/status/1463077027737710596
It's all about *which* conspiracy theories are respectable, and which conspiracy theories are low-status. That's all.
https://twitter.com/mariannaspring/status/1453075500935614474
Once the idea of high and low-status conspiracy theories can be reframed as 'truth' and 'lies', then the *actual* conspiracy theory can be leveraged to support legislative interventions.
That suits governments and broadcasting monoliths, of course.
Or is that a conspiracy theory?
Or is that a conspiracy theory?
The answer is contained in this, a bloody damn good question.
https://twitter.com/LoftusSteve/status/1463223532981297157
In their part to establish the actual truth, "journalists" (ha ha ha) used to have to take part in debate. Now they are flattered by titles such as 'fact checker' or 'misinformation specialist', straight out of uni.
So when things happened in the past, like a newspaper published claims such as "[PERSON X OF ETHNICITY A] shot and killed [N] people of [ETHNICITY B]", people were *rightly* able to say "you're full of shit", and "your agenda is showing".
But now, quite glaring facts, such as the fact that "PERSON X OF ETHNICITY A] *DID* *NOT* shoot and kill [N] people of [ETHNICITY B]" are omitted from the authorised discussion, raise no discussion, and prompt no reflection from news monoliths.
Whether or not it's a conspiracy, it's quite *obviously* an agenda that drives the narrative, and that the putative, zombified authors of those narrative, are incapable of and unwilling to enter into critical dialogue about narratives, to recognise it as such.
Instead "journalists" (ha ha ha), on behalf of publishers seek seemingly *authorised* opinion, to counter half-baked understandings of the other putative side.
That is not seeking truth through dialogue, by means of the tools and methods established over millennia. Debate. Reason. Science. Philosophy.
It is simply might is right.
It is simply might is right.
The "fact checker" would of course protest otherwise.
But all that she is doing is checking one set of claims against another, albeit authorised set of claims produced by what turns out to be political and special interests with big budgets and ideological mission statements.
But all that she is doing is checking one set of claims against another, albeit authorised set of claims produced by what turns out to be political and special interests with big budgets and ideological mission statements.
My suggestion is this. The discovery of truth is an adversarial process. Reconciling different perspectives could produce a number of different outcomes, including the possibility that neither is correct. But it's *fear* of such a contest that motivates 'fact checking'.
Ultimately, then, "fact checking" and challenging "conspiracy theories" becomes a smear-fest.
Man, up, fact-checkers. Or FO. Either way, you're in way.
Man, up, fact-checkers. Or FO. Either way, you're in way.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
