Is it a conspiracy, or are you an ostrich?
26 Sep '09 22:22As I’ve posted over the years, various impressions have nestled in my booze drenched mind. One, for example, is that religious folk never actually convince unreligious folk that a God exists and visa versa. No matter how strong their arguments, I’ve not ever once seen one person converted either way. If something is so rigid, it can only be right. And considering the two are contradictory (either there is a God or there is not), it can only mean that God is personal. You either believe or you don’t. Which means, to me, that it’s either genetic or brainwashed.
But, that’s a whole other topic for a whole other thread (or my manuscript: “The g gene”, should you ever be able to get hold of it).
Another theme I’ve noticed is that no matter how much proof one arguments a political stance with, people who are opposed to it always refer to it is as conspiracy nonsense.
Whether it’s right-wingers declaring there’s a Southern American communist coup happening or it’s left-wingers claiming the Iraq war was about the price of oil. The opposite side screams: “Conspiracy.”
To do a Carrie Bradshaw on you: “Is calling ‘conspiracy’ then an actual exclamation of defeat? Does it mean you can’t win the argument with facts?”
Sorry. I hate her monologues too.
A recent example from a two friends of mine:
One of them suggested that the Chinese were responsible for the European renaissance. Another cried: “Rubbish.”
The argument commenced and eventually they were both calling each other conspiracy nuts.
Funnily enough, the whole debate is based upon a single semi-academic, known bender of truths and drunken submarine captain who wrote one book on the subject, which was never scientifically tested and was laughed at by all his peers (including me, when I read he’d actually caused a submarine accident as well… there goes one’s reliable sources… hehehe).
But back to politics.
I claim that Israel is actively undermining any peace initiative with the Palestinians, because they want the whole of Israel for themselves.
I claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons and is hell bent on blowing Israel back to 1001BC… just before they had a homeland.
There would seem ample proof in both cases. Yet some of us will shout conspiracy at one of them. Some of us will shout conspiracy at the other of them.
How many of us shout conspiracy at both or neither of them?
Does this mean that we’re so simplistic that our personal politics actually stop us from looking into matters in more detail? And if so, does calling “conspiracy” actually mean: “Too lazy to actually bother?”
Or, what if someone claims their house is being bugged by aliens. They claim there’s a conspiracy against them and we claim that they’re a conspiracy theorist.
And in this case, it would seem that calling someone ‘a conspiracy theorist’ is actually calling them paranoid. And it’s not nice to call people names, especially considering that just because they’re paranoid, doesn’t mean the aliens aren’t out to get them.
What do you reckon?
But, that’s a whole other topic for a whole other thread (or my manuscript: “The g gene”, should you ever be able to get hold of it).
Another theme I’ve noticed is that no matter how much proof one arguments a political stance with, people who are opposed to it always refer to it is as conspiracy nonsense.
Whether it’s right-wingers declaring there’s a Southern American communist coup happening or it’s left-wingers claiming the Iraq war was about the price of oil. The opposite side screams: “Conspiracy.”
To do a Carrie Bradshaw on you: “Is calling ‘conspiracy’ then an actual exclamation of defeat? Does it mean you can’t win the argument with facts?”
Sorry. I hate her monologues too.
A recent example from a two friends of mine:
One of them suggested that the Chinese were responsible for the European renaissance. Another cried: “Rubbish.”
The argument commenced and eventually they were both calling each other conspiracy nuts.
Funnily enough, the whole debate is based upon a single semi-academic, known bender of truths and drunken submarine captain who wrote one book on the subject, which was never scientifically tested and was laughed at by all his peers (including me, when I read he’d actually caused a submarine accident as well… there goes one’s reliable sources… hehehe).
But back to politics.
I claim that Israel is actively undermining any peace initiative with the Palestinians, because they want the whole of Israel for themselves.
I claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons and is hell bent on blowing Israel back to 1001BC… just before they had a homeland.
There would seem ample proof in both cases. Yet some of us will shout conspiracy at one of them. Some of us will shout conspiracy at the other of them.
How many of us shout conspiracy at both or neither of them?
Does this mean that we’re so simplistic that our personal politics actually stop us from looking into matters in more detail? And if so, does calling “conspiracy” actually mean: “Too lazy to actually bother?”
Or, what if someone claims their house is being bugged by aliens. They claim there’s a conspiracy against them and we claim that they’re a conspiracy theorist.
And in this case, it would seem that calling someone ‘a conspiracy theorist’ is actually calling them paranoid. And it’s not nice to call people names, especially considering that just because they’re paranoid, doesn’t mean the aliens aren’t out to get them.
What do you reckon?
Back to Top