2020-10-07 20:42:51
2020-10-06 12:32:40
2020-10-06 12:16:36
18753
Extracted from a much larger and potentially upsetting conversation:
The sad truth is that at our level, it makes no difference whether we connect any dots or not. However, there are plenty of people ready to sell you dots and fake connections between them for klout or money. They exploit people's inherent biases by providing easy scapegoats for their worries. Worse, some of them don't even use what they deal. It becomes a purely cynical enterprise for personal gain. Many prominent right-wing/alt-right pundits are in this category. Alex Jones himself argued in a legal custody battle that "he's playing a character". Which would mean that anything he says might be just invented (and it mostly is) for his character to say during his shows.
My first real contact with #conspiracy theories was the video Loose Change about the alleged government involvement in the September 11th 2001 attacks. The video was well produced, convincing even. And then I read a written rebuke. It wasn't as easy to consume, but it made excellent points against the ones shallowly developed in the video. After watching the video and reading the rebuke, I wasn't as convinced it was a US government false flag operation. I wasn't completely convinced it wasn't one either. But one thing was certain: whether it had been a US plot or not, there was nothing I and many other people could do about it. Worse, I bought into a conspiracy theory because it appealed to my bias towards a well-told story I was ready to believe, not because the facts were sound.
Maybe this is the takeaway: sometimes wrongly connecting unrelated dots is more harmful than not doing it at all.
It's easy to say [conspiracy theories] are baseless when you haven't connected the dots. I think people tend to perceive what they look for, if you're not looking for something then you won't find it.
The sad truth is that at our level, it makes no difference whether we connect any dots or not. However, there are plenty of people ready to sell you dots and fake connections between them for klout or money. They exploit people's inherent biases by providing easy scapegoats for their worries. Worse, some of them don't even use what they deal. It becomes a purely cynical enterprise for personal gain. Many prominent right-wing/alt-right pundits are in this category. Alex Jones himself argued in a legal custody battle that "he's playing a character". Which would mean that anything he says might be just invented (and it mostly is) for his character to say during his shows.
My first real contact with #conspiracy theories was the video Loose Change about the alleged government involvement in the September 11th 2001 attacks. The video was well produced, convincing even. And then I read a written rebuke. It wasn't as easy to consume, but it made excellent points against the ones shallowly developed in the video. After watching the video and reading the rebuke, I wasn't as convinced it was a US government false flag operation. I wasn't completely convinced it wasn't one either. But one thing was certain: whether it had been a US plot or not, there was nothing I and many other people could do about it. Worse, I bought into a conspiracy theory because it appealed to my bias towards a well-told story I was ready to believe, not because the facts were sound.
Maybe this is the takeaway: sometimes wrongly connecting unrelated dots is more harmful than not doing it at all.
This entry was edited (4 years ago)
Alexander
•The problem here is that we are going to end up doing it anyway unless we stop listening to anyone at all. Half of news are basically conspiracy theories. Then most of them are biased and some of them indeed sell us dots they want us to connect.
Conspiracy theory is a theory about a group of people being up to no good. There are plenty of conspiracies around. While some of what we label as "conspiracy theories" are really weird or simply absurd ones I still wonder how definitely people seem to draw the line between "oh, this is conspiracy crap" and "this is news investigation".
Hypolite Petovan
•Well, in the US it's easy: if you aren't getting in trouble with the United States government and its various law enforcement agencies, then whatever you shout about is worth squat since freedom of speech is broader than in many other countries. Assange was onto something until turning full-on paranoid, Snowden and Winner were onto something. Alex Jones? Not so much. He got in trouble with private companies (Facebook and Youtube at least), which isn't nearly the same ballpark.
Further than that, I'm always asking myself the question: what does it change to me if it's true? If the answer is nothing, then it isn't worth my time. On the other hand I got interested in HTTPS and Signal because of the debate around US Internet surveillance and that supposedly only people with things to hide used encryption.
Alexander
•I tend to agree that this is good mental hygiene policy.
Good point about the Internet surveillance as well. Sometimes things that seem to be crazy turn out not to be that crazy in near (or not so near) future.
Myself I just tend to steer clear of "conspiracy theory" term because now it became a label which is intended to create immediate bias. I try to judge things for what they are - and again, so many of them are not really worth our time and emotion at all.
Hypolite Petovan
•A note about the mental hygiene policy: That it doesn't affect yourself whether it is true or not doesn't mean it doesn't affect anyone. I've asked myself this question about specific topics, like the Freemasons, Agenda 21, the Bilderberg Group for which there is a stem of truth upon which absurd hypotheses are built that are affecting pretty much no one even if they are true.
But I've never dismissed Black Lives Matter's core message about institutionalized police violence towards black people even if it doesn't directly affect me. In this case, if it was true (and it is), it would affect a large number of people.
In the same way, I see all the things Soros is accused of for what it is: plain and bland antisemitism, and so I believe it is worth some of my time to at least contradict it the rare times I get in contact with it on social media because I heavily curate my feed.
vinzv
•You're keeping an eye on it, take care for your body and health. But unless you're drowned 24hrs in antiseptic lotion there will always be a good portion of unhealthy things on your body. And that's okay as hygiene is not avoid bad things 100% but more taking care for yourself.
Hypolite Petovan likes this.
Alexander
•This is not very popular opinion these days but I believe that too much hygiene (when it turns into obsessive sanitization) can be bad - both in regards to physical hygiene and mental one. A bit of exposure helps humans build immunity so they can have better response when the real threat comes - bacterial or mental. Sometimes it isn't malicious even - just something that can be toxic or provoke allergic reaction if previously unknown.
It doesn't mean we should put every dirty thing in our mouths of course. Yet sterile rooms don't work either.
Hypolite Petovan likes this.
Roland Häder
•Same here, over-sensibility towards dirt can lead to psychological sufferings, like that you start thinking everything is dirty when you haven't "properly" washed and sanitized it.
People also tend to think this about sex in general and oral/vaginal/anal sex in particular. They over-use e.g. dental dams where it is clearly not unhealthy to do.
I don't want to shift the topic away from hygiene to sex but both is connected.
Hypolite Petovan
•Roland Häder
•Hypolite Petovan
•Roland Häder
•Hypolite Petovan
•Well, if either partner still believes the vulva is not sanitary for any reason, not using a dental dam sure is not going to help with the relationship either. I would argue that if they still are using one, that they have a way healthier relationship that if they didn't have any oral sex because of fears of uncleanliness.
Also the anus doesn't self-clean as the vulva is, so I'm not sure what you are saying about the cleanliness of the anus.
vinzv
•Roland Häder
•vinzv
•Hypolite Petovan likes this.
Hypolite Petovan
•