Conspiracy Theories

... belief in conspiracy theories can be more accurately characterised as a disbelief in official or received explanations – that the content of the conspiracy theory doesn't matter as much as the fact that it opposes whatever the official explanation is. The focus is not on promoting an alternative explanation, but in debunking the official story.

D is for Denialism. No matter what beliefs are held by the mainstream and supported by solid evidence, you can always find someone who thinks we're being lied to about them. Everything from the existence of AIDS to the moon landings to vaccine safety has an accompanying movement that says "everything we know is wrong" about these subjects, usually with nothing to prove it. Most of these movements are tied together, because if you're going to be contrarian, you might as well be really contrarian.

Some aspects of conspiracy theories:

• Self-sealing: any contrary evidence is immediately absorbed into the conspiracy; it becomes evidence that the conspiracy is even wider.
  
  
• Always negative: there's never a theory about a conspiracy to do something good.

Conspiracy theories follow these three laws:

Law #1: Authority's version of events is untrue, by default.

Law #2: Everything that differs from the authoritative version is more likely true.

Law #3: All evidence that contradicts #1 or #2 is part of the conspiracy.

No conspiracy theory has ever been proven true. I stand by this statement as fact, given the distinction between a real conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. So let's define that distinction clearly.

Conspiracies, as we refer to them, are crimes or schemes carried out in secret by a group of conspirators. Sometimes they are discovered, like the three I just mentioned; and others have undoubtedly successfully remained undetected. These clearly exist. But they are quite distinct from what we colloquially call a conspiracy theory, which is claimed knowledge of a conspiracy that has not yet been discovered by law enforcement or Congress or the newspapers or the general public. They are, in fact, future predictions. They are the beliefs or conclusions of the theorist that they predict will eventually come true or be discovered. ... Unlike a Julius Caesar conspiracy discovered when or after it took place, a conspiracy theory is of a discovery that has yet to take place.

I maintain my claim that a real conspiracy is very distinct from a hypothesized conspiracy; and I maintain my claim that no hypothesized conspiracy, believed within the conspiracy theory community, has ever subsequently been discovered to be true.

Conspiracy Theories were used by Hitler and the Nazis to enslave and exterminate the Jews. In the 1950's, Senator Joseph McCarthy invented a Conspiracy Theory that disloyal communists had infiltrated the highest levels of government and society and used the ensuing panic to trash many a person's career.

Conspiracy Theories are often used to gain political or financial power. People take advantage of existing prejudices and suspicions to compose intricate plots that appeal to some other people who lack the knowledge and reason to confront them effectively. The result of this is that many people are misled into shifting the blame for real problems from the actual source to imaginary enemies. This leads to a lot of time, energy and intellect being wasted that would be better spent on actually improving our communities and places of work.

[Re: German Holocaust denier sent to jail:]

> Let people live their lives in peace and
> let them believe whatever nonsense they want to believe.

As a German, I find myself groaning whenever I see this discussion come up.

You seem to start with the assumption that these are fringe beliefs that forever stay on the fringe when left unchecked and never, ever have an impact on anyone else. This is simply not so.

The ban on holocaust denial was instituted on a nation literally filled with Nazis. Every village, every city, every school, every government institution - Nazis everywhere. The suppression of Nazi ideology was absolutely vital to rebuilding the country.

And it's not like there wasn't precedent about just how harmful letting a conspiracy theory run free can be. Are you familiar with the DolchstoBlegende? It was a right-wing conspiracy theory circulating in Germany after WW1 that said that the German army hadn't truly lost the war but were "stabbed in the back" by cowardly revolutionaries (read: The Jews) at the home front - revolutionaries who went on to found the new democratic Weimar Republic. This conspiracy was widely believed by the German people as it fed into their victim complex and was one of the key tools with which the Weimar goverment's legitimacy was undermined - which allowed the Nazis to take power.

Speech has consequences. And sometimes, those consequences are so much more harmful than the consequences of outlawing it. Your rights end where harm to others begins. I see such unbelievable naivety about this matter from the Freeeeee Speeeeeech advocates.

> I'm of the opinion that the best way to expose
> a dumbass is show it off. Dismantle them violently
> and thoroughly.

Conspiracy theorists are not rational. If they could be swayed by facts and reason, they would not believe sh*t that even the most minor bit of fact checking would reveal to be untrue. Allowing them to spew their bullsh*t freely doesn't make them seek out people who'd disabuse them of their notions, it makes them seek out other people who share their beliefs - and who radicalize them further. We see the echo chamber effect right here on reddit.

Whether or not the holocaust happened is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Making up your own facts is called lying. And when your lies are so malicious and harmful that they actually pose a threat to other people or the nation itself, then yes, that should absolutely be punishable. It's no different than slander or libel.

What value is there to allowing holocaust denial? Serious question. And I don't mean appealing to the slippery slope of how it leads to other worse prohibitions. There's a lot of arguing for Free Speech for its own sake - that Free Speech is the highest virtue in and of itself that must never, ever be compromised, for any reason, and that this should be self-evident. But I ask, what's the harm in not allowing holocaust denial, specifically? What is the benefit in allowing it?

There is none.

Nothing good will ever come out of someone spewing holocaust denial. Ever. You won't get a thoughtful debate beneficial to both parties. They're wrong, simple as that. The "best" outcome you'll get out of it is that you can convince a denier or someone on the fence that they're wrong. Great. The best outcome involves suppressing it.

There are, however, a hell of a lot potentially bad consequences in that their stupidity can infect others and shift the Overton window their way.

The reason that the vast majority of modern Germans look at the Nazi flag and feel nothing but revulsion whereas a sizable portion of US southerners actually fly the confederate flag and defend it ("Heritage, not hate", "It was about states' rights, not slavery", "Slaves weren't treated so bad") is because Germans were forbidden from telling each other comforting lies about their past.

MJ: Why do you think Americans cling so loyally to conspiracy theories? Is it the hope that there is planning mastery behind what is actually chaos and madness?

BM: Exactly. Many people can't deal with unanswered questions, which, of course, religion exploits by providing answers, even if they are just made up by someone. This is also why we love TV shows and movies that neatly wrap up everything in exactly an hour or two.

... if you believe that the world is actually flat then you also have to believe that there has been a massive conspiracy involving millions of people all over the world over centuries. If "they" can lie to us about the shape of the world, then they can lie to us about anything. Once you have been convinced that the spherical nature of the Earth is a grand conspiracy, then you can believe anything. Facts, expertise, authority all cease to exist. And that, I think, is the point. That is the appeal of flat Eartherism - it gives you permission to believe anything you want, to reject any claim, any fact, out of hand. You have the freedom to construct reality the way you wish, and can dispense with the tedious part of having to deal with actual reality.

...

... Some of the features that lead to conspiracy thinking are fear, the desire for a sense of control, and the desire to feel special. Conspiracy theories are a narrative, an overarching story that helps us make sense of a complex and often scary world. It also helps that it gives the illusion of knowledge, of peeking behind the curtain to see what is really going on, and paints the conspiracy theorist into the role of savior.

Social media does not create this, but it does pour gasoline onto the conspiracy fire. Warzel argues that social media not only spreads conspiracy theories, but it helps early proponents monetize their absurd beliefs. We still live in a capitalistic society, and the effect of monetization should not be underestimated. But further, social media makes it easy for proponents to knit themselves into a community. Once that happens, then the conspiracy itself becomes a source of belonging, of identity, of purpose. (Where we go one, we go all.) These things are psychological and emotional crack. ...

This says it all: "conspiracy theorists such as Trump thrive in societies that are growing poorer, weaker, more unequal, and where their citizens do not understand why that is happening. And that is America today."

People are scared and angry because the economy is bad, USA has competition through globalization, automation has been taking jobs, inequality rising, housing crash, etc. So they lash out at any authority: govt, police, scientists, corps.

Also because white male Christians see their dominance fading. They are frantic to stop women, gays, minorities, other religions, atheists from getting equality. The changes must be the work of some conspiracy, or Jews, or Satan, or something.

According to a pair of new studies published in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology, conspiracy theorists ... tend to have one thing in common: they feel a lack of control over their lives.

What about the Illuminati ?

From Wiskeyjac:
From crunkjuicer:
From Cryptomeria:

... believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in general and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories also seem to be more compelling to those with low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large. Conspiracy theories appear to be a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness.

Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are massive, looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur or how or what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action. ... the amygdala jump-starts the rest of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist and what should be done now. This may be a useful way to understand how, writ large, the brain's capacity for generating new narratives after shocking events can contribute to so much paranoia in this country.

"If you know the truth and others don't, that's one way you can reassert feelings of having agency," Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep.

What I hate about conspiracy theorists ...

What has always struck me about such people is that they never seem to have any kind of competence in the underlying details of the system that is under scrutiny. I routinely excoriate them for being total idiots, and I do this simply by asking a series of basic questions of competence that you would expect to be correctly answered before believing anyone's theory about anything in any field.

9/11 truthers; What type of fuel did the flights contain? At what temperature does steel deform? What was the load on each foundation? At what speed did the jet fly into the building? How many steel support columns did the towers have? etc. etc.

Moon landings; How much fuel is used during a Saturn V burn? What is the required amount of energy needed to move the command module to the moon? How heavy is the module? etc. etc.

Fluoride: What is the concentration of fluoride in the public water system? How can you test for this? What are the chemical properties of fluoride? etc. etc.

The biggest thing that annoys me with conspiracy theorists, and by extension other pseudoscientists, is their total lack of competence. If you're going to go full retard with some insane theory, you better know your sh*t better than I do. Instead, all I get is vague paranoia about "they", and "them", and "the controllers" and "the group". I mean seriously, get your sh*t together.

...

Who controls the British Crown ?
Who keeps the metric system down ?
We do, we do.

Who keeps Atlantis off the maps ?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps ?
We do, we do.

Who holds back the electric car ?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star ?
We do, we do.

Who robs cave fish of their sight ?
Who rigs every Oscar night ?
We do, we DO !