After thinking about this for a day, I've decided to ask this question out loud, rather than silently. I agree that "it's a conspiracy theory" is dismissive, but what about conspiracy theories that really are untrue, like Flat Earth? What next step do you propose, once we've decided not to dismiss a proposal as a conspiracy theory?
It is not a conspiracy theory that the Earth is flat. It's just wrong. No one's pushing it to try to get across some secret idea.
In fact, it's never been a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory was supposed to mean something like the CIA killed kennedy. I ate a theory about a conspiracy.
Considering how abused the term is, we certainly don't need to use it for something like flat earth or whether we've been to the Moon, things like that which are just matters of scientific fact. We don't call other scientifically exploded theor I'mies conspiracies.
To me the plausibility of a given conspiracy theory is driven by how many people would have to be in on it to the extent of keeping a secret.
To fake the moon landing would have required the active participation of thousands of people, who would have to be flat out lying, so I feel pretty safe discounting that one out of hand.
The Left supporting genital mutilation on the other hand isn’t a conspiracy theory at all. No secretive behavior is alleged. They openly espouse it.
Believing we didn't go to the Moon is believing in a large conspiracy. But the term is so abused, that would be better off just saying the person's wrong.
Or directing them to Bill Whittle's What We Saw: Apollo 11, which debunks most of the claims.
(Oh wait, Daily Wire has this now and gave a different name, but it is still worth watching.
I like that except... Look at how many people are in on climate change.
But, yeah, there's no particularly motive for pretending we went to the moon over such a large number of people. And by now some of them would have talked... whilel there's plenty of financial motive for pushing climate change.l
But it's dangerous. Because the reason a lot of people today do not believe a number of the things that are going on is because they jsay: too many people would be involved. And so what's happening right now is the real villains of the world are doing their crimes at a tremendously large level, just because it's so hard to believe.
At least ten yeas ago, I had a scientist friend who told me he had a number of collegues whose work showed the Climate Change premise was wrong...but they were too afraid to speak out, and for good reason, if one looks at what happened to those who did.
At this point, I'm fairly certain that most of the really crazy conspiracy theories that aren't true - and that get the most media attention (and mockery) are astroturfed, made up to distract attention away from the real things, and usually with a few elements of a real one mixed in to better be dismissed in the public mind.
At this point, the "birds aren't real" mock-theory has got me looking into the possibility of surveillance devices disguised as birds.
"The Devil, that prowde Spirit, cannot abide to be Mocked."
He probably thinks he's the winner with this one.
After seeing stuff like this, I no longer dismiss any theory out of hand, no matter how crazy it sounds.
Language gets a bit foul, but points to Metokur for conveying something utterly horrific while still being entertaining and funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCdRvwjUSQ&t=3693s
After thinking about this for a day, I've decided to ask this question out loud, rather than silently. I agree that "it's a conspiracy theory" is dismissive, but what about conspiracy theories that really are untrue, like Flat Earth? What next step do you propose, once we've decided not to dismiss a proposal as a conspiracy theory?
I think it is just a false theory.
It is not a conspiracy theory that the Earth is flat. It's just wrong. No one's pushing it to try to get across some secret idea.
In fact, it's never been a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory was supposed to mean something like the CIA killed kennedy. I ate a theory about a conspiracy.
Considering how abused the term is, we certainly don't need to use it for something like flat earth or whether we've been to the Moon, things like that which are just matters of scientific fact. We don't call other scientifically exploded theor I'mies conspiracies.
To me the plausibility of a given conspiracy theory is driven by how many people would have to be in on it to the extent of keeping a secret.
To fake the moon landing would have required the active participation of thousands of people, who would have to be flat out lying, so I feel pretty safe discounting that one out of hand.
The Left supporting genital mutilation on the other hand isn’t a conspiracy theory at all. No secretive behavior is alleged. They openly espouse it.
I will add:
Believing we didn't go to the Moon is believing in a large conspiracy. But the term is so abused, that would be better off just saying the person's wrong.
Or directing them to Bill Whittle's What We Saw: Apollo 11, which debunks most of the claims.
(Oh wait, Daily Wire has this now and gave a different name, but it is still worth watching.
Okay, flat earth was a bad example. What's an example of a conspiracy theory that is untrue?
I like that except... Look at how many people are in on climate change.
But, yeah, there's no particularly motive for pretending we went to the moon over such a large number of people. And by now some of them would have talked... whilel there's plenty of financial motive for pushing climate change.l
But it's dangerous. Because the reason a lot of people today do not believe a number of the things that are going on is because they jsay: too many people would be involved. And so what's happening right now is the real villains of the world are doing their crimes at a tremendously large level, just because it's so hard to believe.
> Look at how many people are in on climate change.
Climate Change is more like what Eric Raymond calls a "prospiracy" here:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=67
Yeah, he's spot on about how most of these things spread.
Interesting!
At least ten yeas ago, I had a scientist friend who told me he had a number of collegues whose work showed the Climate Change premise was wrong...but they were too afraid to speak out, and for good reason, if one looks at what happened to those who did.
That seems to be thawing a bit.
Wow, really? What are the signs?
At this point, I'm fairly certain that most of the really crazy conspiracy theories that aren't true - and that get the most media attention (and mockery) are astroturfed, made up to distract attention away from the real things, and usually with a few elements of a real one mixed in to better be dismissed in the public mind.
At this point, the "birds aren't real" mock-theory has got me looking into the possibility of surveillance devices disguised as birds.
Interesting how it could eventually backfire if people got savvy.