The compounded problems associated with conspiracy theories

There are lots of academic articles on this, but I just want to float a personal opinion. Feel free to add your own.

Problem 1
- Do conspiracies occur.
- Of course they do. But the existence of conspiracies as a thing, doesn’t mean all conspiracy “theories” are true.
- So conspiracies are a thing and people can theorise about them. Fair enough.

Problem 2
The JFK style ladder of escalated events :
1. We can look at a highly significant event and there is reasonable evidence, theorised or otherwise, to assume that LHO was a lone gunman or he wasn’t.
2. if there was more than one gunman it’s a technically a “conspiracy”
3. Suppose LHO had a lone conspirator; not very exciting but still a “conspiracy”.
4. Suppose he had 6 other terrorist conspirators who helped set up the plan and situation. None of them govt officials, just terrorist thugs. Still not very exciting.
5. Suppose on of those 6 other conspirators was a manager at the book suppository. A bit more interesting but still not a movie in the making.
6. Suppose this manager was connected with a Dallas police chief who had some ties/connection to the mob. Hello that’s interesting but now the emphasis and interest has shifted from LHO and some thugs with guns to a government official possibly on the mob payroll. Interesting but a corrupt cop is hardly an earth shattering revelation of itself.
7. Suppose this corrupt Police chief was found to have previously been a ranked member of the FBI and still has strong connections with that group. Hello! suddenly the current has flapped open but do we see the wizard? Or a lizard?
8. On further investigation it is found that the links this corrupt cop has to the FBI are actually because he was legitimately retired from the organisation after a relatively minor incompetency case and demoted to uniform policing with rank.
9. Oh well, that was fun while it lasted.
10. Yeah but there will be other links elsewhere to other government officials … there HAS to be!! Doesn’t there??

Problem 3.
Looking for meaning
- when hugely significant events occur we tend to look for the meaning behind them. But why should every event have a deeper meaning that the superficial one presented ?

4. The lying government
- many politicians are dishonest, selfish and manipulative. True.
- therefore they have have manipulated the massive event to hide a selfish interest. Have they?
- evidence comes to light that during the big event there was a corrupt decision to farm out some contracts to a company owned by a political donor. This is investigated and found to be true. Ah-ha!

Problem 5
Therefore … escalation
- therefore JFK was killed by the government in order to precipitate the war in Vietnam, limit the social equality programmes and stop the NASA program so that aliens hiding on the far side of the moon won’t be discovered because they provide the elite with sexual favours.
- covid was engineered in lab to drive vaccine uptake and governments conspired to ensure that their buddies in big pharma made billions while future population is controlled using nano-bots hidden in the vaccine.

And suddenly you’re in La-La land.

Edit (Apologies for missed typos)

People like whatever it is that allows them to say, "See! I was right about this all this time!" and that's just about all they care about.

@divegeester

"book suppository" [sic] is one your better typos.

There is a body of research into the people who fall for false narratives. There are some common features, which include: disgruntlement and a sense of entitlement denied, hence the need to find a scapegoat (the 'they're taking away my x' syndrome), and sense of failed belonging ('we're victims of this conspiracy to take away our x' ), a failure to apply rational criteria to drawing valid conclusions from sparce data. And, as you pointed out, making sense of seemingly senseless events, even if the narrative is manifestly implausible and lacking substantiated evidence.

Moreover, spreading false narratives is stock in trade of manipulating masses of people for political ends. The KGB were masters of this technique and their successor agency is no less adept at it.

@moonbus said
@divegeester

"book suppository" [sic] is one your better typos.

@moonbus said
@divegeester
There is a body of research into the people who fall for false narratives. There are some common features, which include: disgruntlement and a sense of entitlement denied, hence the need to find a scapegoat (the 'they're taking away my x' syndrome), and sense of failed belonging ('we're victims of this conspiracy to take away our x' ), a failure to apply rationa ...[text shortened]... ical ends. The KGB were masters of this technique and their successor agency is no less adept at it.

@divegeester said
There are lots of academic articles on this, but I just want to float a personal opinion. Feel free to add your own.

Problem 1
- Do conspiracies occur.
- Of course they do. But the existence of conspiracies as a thing, doesn’t mean all conspiracy “theories” are true.
- So conspiracies are a thing and people can theorise about them. Fair enough.

Problem 2
T ...[text shortened]... s hidden in the vaccine.

And suddenly you’re in La-La land.

Edit (Apologies for missed typos)

@moonbus said
@divegeester

"book suppository" [sic] is one your better typos.

There is a body of research into the people who fall for false narratives. There are some common features, which include: disgruntlement and a sense of entitlement denied, hence the need to find a scapegoat (the 'they're taking away my x' syndrome), and sense of failed belonging ('we're victims of this con ...[text shortened]... ical ends. The KGB were masters of this technique and their successor agency is no less adept at it.

For many things there are simpler explanations than what the conspiracy theorist gives us. Much the same as with religion.

Take this corporate news media that modern day conspiracists “blame”.
From a slanted angle there is some truth in complete unbiased reporting not possible.
Yet, if every “corporate” news coverage is saying the same, the BBC, the NOS, Al Jazeera, Reuters, etc. generally backed up by scientists, professionals, etc. then suddenly the chances of it being a conspiracy are greatly diminished.

You’ll often hear conspiracy theorists refer to the corporate media as a singularity. Which, of course, it is not. They’ll tend not to include international sources.

It’s very difficult to keep things secret. If every corporate mainstream media is in on the hoax and not critical, you’re talking about hundreds of thousands of people and not 1 person squeaking.

Look at one news station: Fox.
Spreading the lie about a rigged election. Even their main presenters didn’t believe what was being said. And left a (digital) paper trail.

To blame the CIA for the murder of JFK is complete nonsense. To blame 3 people in the CIA or FBI or KKK for the murder is, considering all the facts I’ve seen about it, quite possible. But you’re talking a small group of people within whichever organisation. Not the whole organisation itself.

And then the “not releasing” the files.
Again. That’s a small group of decision makers. And it’s more than likely because of something along the lines of: “The CIA was tracing the killer and lost sight of him on the day of the assissination.” Or “The CIA discarded the possibility of a shot from the library being possible.” Or “The CIA forgot to question…” etc.

Something small which they should have done, didn’t and don’t wish to own up to yet.
If there is talk of something like they, themselves, carrying out the assissination, do you really think it would be written down in the bloody files?
Of course not!
Lesson one in complotting treason: DON’T LEAVE A PAPER TRAIL.

Pretty much goes for most things.

@shavixmir said
For many things there are simpler explanations than what the conspiracy theorist gives us. Much the same as with religion.

Take this corporate news media that modern day conspiracists “blame”.
From a slanted angle there is some truth in complete unbiased reporting not possible.
Yet, if every “corporate” news coverage is saying the same, the BBC, the NOS, Al Jazeera, R ...[text shortened]...
Lesson one in complotting treason: DON’T LEAVE A PAPER TRAIL.

Pretty much goes for most things.

@metal-brain said
If the CIA did not assassinate JFK why is it still a secret?

The corporate news media is not a monopoly because I can get real news from elsewhere, but arguing that Zero Hedge or the Gray Zone is getting as many viewers as the corporate news media is stupid. By your logic the 10% informed people should overcome the propagandized 90%. It doesn't work that way.

When will NBC Nightly News have Aaron Mate on to give you the other side of the story?

@shavixmir said
Your first question does not make any sense. Especially in light of my previous post.

Your second point does not make any sense. I didn’t compare corporate news media to conspiracy ridden right-wing propaganda tanks. I’m on about the people working in the corporate media themselves.

Your third point doesn’t make sense. Many corporate media outlets, all over the world, ...[text shortened]... Pillow guy” Lindell?

Even Andrew Neill blew Alex Jones out of the water, before calling him nuts.

@metal-brain said
You are stuck in the past. JFK was assassinated by the CIA. They will not release the documents that say so, but people have read the documents and they say it was the CIA that killed JFK.

https://rumble.com/v21y4ze-kim-iversen-billions-more-to-ukraine-while-americans-go-hungry-and-did-the-.html

https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/08/17/5-decades-later-some-jfk-probe-f ...[text shortened]... Have you heard the full JFK "secret society" speech?

https://www.corbettreport.com/qfc-jfksecret/

@metal-brain said
"I didn’t compare corporate news media to conspiracy ridden right-wing propaganda tanks. I’m on about the people working in the corporate media themselves."

Thanks for confirming that. You obviously think the corporate news media is the only credible source in the USA. Anything else is propaganda to you, but only right wingers for some bizarre reason only you understan ...[text shortened]... you ever wonder why they will not have debates with left wingers? Because they will win the debates.

@shavixmir said
First of all. The world is larger than the US.
I would take CNN over Fox news anyday, however. And CNN gets on my mammary protruberances.

I do read non “main stream” media as you put it. For example: socialistworker.co.uk
And take into account it’s slant.

Tha BBC is excellent. But if you want the lowdown on British politics, it’s not the place to be. Much better to ...[text shortened]... nal. If your own media contradicts itself, look to see what they’re saying in the rest of the world.

@metal-brain said
"I would take CNN over Fox news anyday, however. And CNN gets on my mammary protruberances"

Why would you take either one? They both lie and I can easily prove that. Joe Rogan should sue CNN for lying about him.