conspiracy theories: well-founded fears or the wellspring of lunacy?

[Anita Blake]

Well, that last thread which was closed got me thinking of something somewhat tangential.

Conspiracy Theories.

(i'm going to use some examples used in the last thread, but the examples are not meant to be discussed. we're talking about the legitimacy or lack thereof of conspiracy theories, got it?)

Now, take, for example, these proposed RFIDs that the american government would like to use. Some people think it's a great idea that will increase security, while other feel that it is the first step down a slippery slope that will lead to an orwellian state of constant surveillance of location, purchase history, and ultimately thoughts. Those in the first camp call the latter conspiracy-theorist-nutballs, while those in the latter camp call those in the former blind, ignorant sheep.

Since we're going to talk about conspiracy theories, though, let's dismiss the first camp, who we'll prosaically call the "optimists", while we'll call the latter camp the "conspirasts". i don't know if that's a word, but for the sake of this post, it is now.

are the conspirasts really nutballs? or are they merely looking down one avenue of the future, realizing the potential negative outcomes of certain legalities and declaring a worst-case scenario, while realizing that it might not come to that particular situation, but that the situation in question is fully possible within the law?

Do so-called conspirasts do themselves a disservice with their doomsday nay-saying, thereby causing an equal and opposite reaction in the optimists that "everything is fine, everything is ok, and you guys are f***ing nuts!"?

I'd like to see what people's takes are on so-called "conpiracy theories", and how much water they hold, and similar takes on "optimism", and how realistic it is.

feel free to post your personal opinions, but if you must respond to another opinion, mind your temper!

[Waffles]

Considering some in the US government would like the US to be the police of the world, I don't think it is too far fetched. However, I don't think its such an issue, once aluminium wallets become commonplace ;)

[Anita Blake]

well, people are taking too long to reply, so i'm going to go ahead with what i think! :p

i think that the conspirasts of the world have a lot of valid ideas. I think that they should be listened to more often. Ignoring the consiracy theorists is a good way to make their dire predictions come true.

there's a danger, i feel, in over-optimism. Hope is a double-edged thingamabobber. It makes you feel good and blinds you to the dangers that exist. Hoping that things will work out OK has never really done the human race much good. Fearing the worst tends to cause action to prevent something bad from happening.

Some people, though, take things too far. They act on their fears in irrational, uninformed ways. Some modern conspiracy theorists are little more than ancient people giving in entirely to superstition. i mean, tin foil can't be the answer to everything! (can it?! :ninja: :eek: )

anyway, that's my 2 cents. maybe i'll have more to add later...

[GoodScott]

I think you should have a stable balance between the two. If you automatically assume the worst of everyone, then you start over compensating and either nothing gets done or you end up with martial law. However, if you remain entirely nieve to these things, then your bound to eventually get bitten.

I do think they the ultimate goal of the government is to make life better for americans. However, we have rules people died for about how to do it. To think that no one will ever try to get around these rules is foolish. However, some people seem to forget the ultimate goal.

[Darth Everhate]

I think it depends on the conspiracy really ~insert creepy X-Files theme~
I mean the whole concept and allure behind conspiracy theories is that we really don't know, and that fear of the unknown is possibly the greatest fear of all.
Every gov't tries to find ways to control their population. It's a fact. One of my sigs stated something along the lines of 'history being a diversion for the secret influences behind every great event'.

So what else are we talking about here other than what America is trying to do?
The Illuminati? Area 51? Bigfoot? Nessy? Wyoming? Do zombies and werewolves really hold top positions in our gov't?

[Anita Blake]

Do zombies and werewolves really hold top positions in our gov't?

but really, was that ever really in question? (and by that i mean, of course they do!)

[Malcor Sylverwood]

*cough*

Carry on...

-Malcor "Admin" Sylverwood

[Darth Everhate]

*cough*
Carry on...
-Malcor "Admin" Sylverwood
~narrows eyes and grins~ Oh what delight!!!
~coughs~ back to my theory of gov't
"Power attracts the corruptible, suspect all who seek it" -F.Herbert
A conspiracy theory? Should we distrust ALL who seek and have power?


Darth "Fight the Power" Everhate

[AquaFizz]

Hmm. I'm going to poke my optimism in. And, I'll be nice about it. (Surprise! you can all breath again!) :D

Should you distrust all who seek power? Mm...you can, but it won't get you far. A lot of people are just down right evil. They want power for the money or the limelight. And thats no good. But, I do think some people really just want power because they're trying to make things better. Hitler, for instance, just happened to think people who weren't of the Arian race were impure, thus..he tried to better the world by ridding everyone else. Obviously, not the greatest example because he was a jackass. But, do you get my point? Not everyone is out for something they see as evil. Another bad example...Iraq...I'm SO against the fact that we're in Iraq it's incredibly insane. And I'm sure a lot of you feel lied to. But, I do truly believe that Bush thought he was doing the right thing by going there (I mean...think about it...a lot of you think he's an idiot. If he's really so stupid-do you think he could have fooled so many people? I don't). Obviously he wasnt...and I knew that all along. But, still. Someone who had a little bit of power (not so much in a political sense...but more in a charasmatic sense), was Princess Diana. She used her power to win peoples hearts to raise TONS of money for charities. She wasn't going after money for herself..or even power for herself. She just wanted to use what she had to help people out. I'm not saying you should trust everyone, either. There are very few people I trust...I just think you can't spend your life hating everyone who comes into power because they MIGHT be bad.

As far as conspiracies... I'm sure there is definitely a lot of corruption in the gov'ts throughout the world. It's just my belief that dwelling on it, won't accomplish anything...nor will it help you out in the long run. If you have the power and the money to fight back...go for it. However, I've got better things to worry with and other petty things raining on my parade, so I'm not one to add paranoia to my list of things that freaks me out and ruins my day. Perhaps I'm delusional...but like I said before, atleast I'm happy. :D

All done! Discuss amongst yourselves. ~nods happily at avoiding trouble but still being able to be opinionated~

[Anita Blake]

But, I do think some people really just want power because they're trying to make things better. Hitler, for instance, just happened to think people who weren't of the Arian race were impure, thus..he tried to better the world by ridding everyone else. Obviously, not the greatest example because he was a jackass. But, do you get my point? Not everyone is out for something they see as evil.


i don't want to be harsh here and say "duh", but i mean, i feel this is rather obvious. Perhaps i'm a good person, but i agree with you here: i don't believe anybody sets out to do something they think is bad. People aren't actively evil. But there's a well-known proverb about this:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

people trying to do good can actively achieve evil. it's about unintended consequences. Hitler's a great example of someone who thought he was doing a good thing, but was actually acting in an incredibly evil manner. I don't think the issue is about whether or not leaders have good intentions, because it seems quite obvious to me that they do have good intentions (or else are acting purely out of greed. which is a good intention for themselves and their family/corporate sponser/lobby group, but not for the good of the whole of society.)

why do you believe that "not dwelling" on the negative impacts of the government of your country (anyone's government, i'm not limiting this to the obvious choice of American) will make life better? Would it not be better to educate yourself about what your government is actually achieving (not intending to achieve) and taking appropriate steps as a citizen to ensure that your feelings on the matter are clear? You call talking about potential conspiracies "paranoia", but do you not feel that is limiting what is in fact a genuine concern for social change to little more than the fancy of a mentally ill person?

i'm not making an attack here, i'd like a genuine response. i suppose you're of the mindset that there's a whole big world out there and you're just one little person who can't change much of anything, but i challenge that notion and call it indoctrination by the forces that would keep you silent. One person CAN change things, but only if they believe they can.

i feel that to ignore potential negatives in the world because they are both potential and negative, because one would rather focus on the happy things in the world, forcus on the minutiae of daily life and the individual rather than the society as a whole is to give up on one's community. Certainly, there are many wonderful things in life and society to be thankful for, to appreciate and be glad of, just as there are many things that are fairly neutral and nonessential or important. But many times those neutral or positive thigns have negative side-effects, consequences, or just plain flip-sides, and to ignore the fact that the beautiful coin in your hand has poisoned-razor-spikes on the bottom is to stab yourself in the hand. appreciate the beauty, certainly, but have respect and awareness for the spikes.

[AquaFizz]

(PS-Its really longwinded! Sorry!!)
Heh. I think, more than anything, I'm just really burnt out on Politics. That was my THING for a very long time. I worked for RPoF (Republican Party of Florida), did college republicans, did young replublicans (Did the Dems for awhile too. :p), argued with anyone about anything and usually won. But then I just kinda grew out of my argumentative stage (...though, its not very obvious here).

I care. Don't get me wrong. I read. I seriously am paying for cable just so i can have CNN and CSPAN. But I'm at this point in my life where I do a lot more taking in than putting out. I'll argue with y'all...more for the sake of just getting the minority side heard. If we all agreed...what fun would it be? To do all the things I want to do for my country, I'd have to quit school. That sounds dumb, but when I set out to do something, I'm an all or nothing girl. And, just doing both politcal work and school work half-arsed would leave me still completely unsatisfied.

Plus, only so many people can protest one thing. There are so many SMALLER, yet far more important issues (to me)! To me, what we were talking about before-doesn't matter. I don't do anything wrong anymore (expect for the occasional, slightly underaged drinking..and..speeding), so the idea of having to carry a card around, doesn't really phase me, and to me it doesnt seem to be hindering my freedoms. I'd still carry on doing the same things I've always done. And I know other people disagree..and thats fine..so let them argue for it.

I think everyone has 'baby' issues. Issues that mean a lot to them and that they will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS stand up and fight for. Then they have issues that they could care less about. A lot of the things we talk about, just aren't one of my babies. I promise, some day we'll hit the right subject and you'll see that I'm not as apathetic as I come off. But, right now...I can't care about EVERYTHING...I'd be a bigger ball of stress than I already am.

I educate myself on whats going on, I take everything in. Even threads I don't comment on. Even news articles I may not post. Everything is in this brain of mine. I'm not saying we should ignore all the issues. If people ignored issues...I'd be in ireland right now...living under horrible rule and fighting to practice the religion of my chosing (actually, I'd be fighting for OTHER people to be able to practice their religion of choice..since..well.. nevermind... thats a sidesubject... anyway....). All I really mean is that... RIGHT NOW... I have more important things to focus on than some of the things I've gotten into arguements about lately. I can't change the world with a High School Diploma. And if i spend all my time researching and ranting with y'all about everything, I'll never get beyond that.

I think its important for people to educate themselves. I cant remember the EXACT quote...but Winston Churchill once said something like, "To spend 5 minutes with the average voter is reason enough to believe democracy is a bad idea." Most americans are not at ALL aware of whats going on in this country...and its rediculous. I think you should have to take an IQ test to be allowed to vote (well, okay, not really...but..you get what I mean). I think it's important to watch whats going on, to contemplate the decisions they're making and to always know what your gov't is up to. But, I also think that you can't let that hender you from being happy and being a normal person. And, lately I've seen a lot more bitterness than happiness and THATS why I've been so anti-protesting. Not because I think you should shut up and just not care-but because you can't live the rest of your life so angry. Its like...the people who stood outside protesting the Michael Jackson hearing...DON'T THEY HAVE BILLS THEY NEED TO PAY?! Standing there shrieking isn't going to make a difference! Go to work, pay your bills, come home and write your senator. But, don't get so caught up in things that you're constantly annoyed because someday you MIGHT have to carry an ID card or because your favorite singer might be going to jail (and should have gone there...DANG IT!).

I guess, what I mainly mean is..pick your battles..fight for them...but know when to fight and when to focus on staying afloat. Right now, if I fight...I'll drown. I have the attention span of a chihuahua and the energy of a newborn...i get worn out really easy. So, for me, I really just can't get all caught up in every issue thats out there.

But, Anita, I agreed with your first post as well. I guess, in the long run, its all about finding a happy medium between looking like you care and looking like you're mentally ill. lol. :D

[Anita Blake]

hehe, you're making this all about you. it's not personal. i understand that there is only so much protesting one person can do, and that often organized protests do little to further their cause. i'm not talking specifically about protesting, canvassing, doing anything at all really than discussing the things that are important. nor do i care to discuss the previous thread or how important one particular "conspiracy theory" is to a specific person on this forum. I mean, i think we all pretty know how everyone stands on most things like this. that's a little like beating a long-dead horse, which is why i often don't post things in political threads - you all know where i stand, and unless i have something to add, i won't.

what i'm talking about here is the basic fundamentals of why do we feel that there are "conspiracies", what is the nature of a "conspiracy", and why do some people feel that such things are utter nonsense while others are so engrossed by them that they forget to live their lives.

there are the conspiracy theories, and then there are the Conspiracy Theories. the legitimate concerns and the loony nutball everyone-is-out-to-get-us ideas. The funny thing is that the loony nutball ideas and their adherents have become so prevalent in today's society (and there's got to be a reason for this. something in the water, perhaps?) that they are undermining completely the legitimate concerns. I'm going to use the RFID once again as an example because it's fresh in my mind. The government is in league with the aliens and they are beaming thought-restricting beams into the minds of all Americans in order to make them purchase more footwear - this would be a loony nutball conspiracy theory (or is it? :ninja: ) The government wants to use radio frequencies to keep track of Americans to keep a firmer control over it's citizenry - this is a legitmate concern. But they're both so very alike, (excepting alien involvement, ultimately). Vocal proponents of the first idea might have a tendency to be a little socially inept, awkward with their word-choice, and just plain kooky, citing fixes like tinfoil hats. Vocal proponents of the latter might seem more educated, but ultimately, they're telling you that tinfoil can save you from the spying government as well, which makes you think of those first kooks, and wonder if maybe the kooks just got smarter and better dressed, keeping the tin foil in their pockets, not on their heads (which, in side, i must point out : do many conspiracy theorists work for aluminum foil corporations, do you think? or are the tin foil companies just really clever with their marketing? maybe tin foil is a conspiracy! )

so now that there is a legitimate concern, has it been cried wolf by the kooks so that the townsfolk are just going to sigh and say "yeah yeah shepherd kid. sure there's a wolf. whatever." and keep drinking their ale? meanwhile, there's a wolf at the door, a hungry wolf, possibly rabid, possibly pregnant and rabid, about to give birth to rabid baby wolves who are also really hungry and full grown mutant rabid wolves, all because some nutjobs got their information wrong and saw jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich!?

so now we're all sitting here calling various legitimate possibilities "wacko conspiracy theories" and letting our elected representatives walk all over us in blind trust because we are oversaturated by fear and apathy?

~head spins~

that's what i was talking about.

[AquaFizz]

I suppose that was all about me. I feel really egocentric right now.

But, i think this is a more personal thing. its easy to debate a lot of policies without EVER getting personal...because there's cold hard facts. And, theres definitely cold hard facts supporting a LOT of conspiracies. But, to which extent you follow them IS very personal.

Hmmm ~catches her head before it comes unscrewed and twists it back on tight~

The gov't definitely hides some things (aliens, for one.). Aluminum could definitely be another....they're probably working right now with Reynolds to break down the chemicals in foil so that everyone THINKS its still hiding their ID cards, but it's really not (Bucks gunna kill me). Technically, Bush could be working with Tony Blair to help destroy america and help turn Britain and all of the European Union into the most powerful......thing...on the face of the planet (because...lets face is...NAFTA isn't that great.). Then there's the whole landing on the moon thing...people think THATS a conspiracy. (heh. Did anyone see that episode of Family Guy? ..or was in American Dad? DANGIT. I just lost it) Hmm...I dunno.

But, what could ordinary americans do about these conspiracies? Ranting and shrieking to one another really doesn't get us very far...it just..means we got to vent.

For instance...Area 51...what could one do to find out the secrets behind that?
( :eek: That should SO be the next quillfest! A RAVE out in the middle of the desert..and we can all go in search of it! ~..just so you know...I'm actually kind of serious~)

[wiggin]

Anita - despite your distinction, I think you're misusing the word 'conspiracy' here. People generally don't call those worried about universal RFIDing conspiracy theorists. Rather, they call them liberals.

I'm not joking. A healthy distrust of government should be ingrained in everyone. In the US (as with most Western countries) we are not only allowed or encouraged to question the choices of our leaders, but we are required to do so - else, elected leaders would have carte blanche after getting the 'mandate' of a plurality in the elections. This doesn't mean we should always assume the worst - but rather, that we should be cognizant of the possible misuses of power and be prepared to counteract this. History has shown that one cannot be too careful in worry about a government's true intentions. (Obviously, the most prominent example in modern times would be that the most democratic government in the world brought the Nazi party to dictatorial power in a national crisis, but there are dozens or less glaring ones.)

On the other hand, one might argue that hypervigilance causes a 'crying wolf' phenomenon that cannot be dismissed. Furthermore, government 'conspiracies' rarely use the same tack twice - at least not fully successfully. There is always an unexpected angle that well-meaning citizens will miss because it hasn't been tried before.

In short, one should be wary, but not afraid. It is our duty as citizens.

Ender

[Anita Blake]

Anita - despite your distinction, I think you're misusing the word 'conspiracy' here. People generally don't call those worried about universal RFIDing conspiracy theorists.


hehe, it's been known to happen...

where have you been man! ~smacks wiggin for his non postiness~ :D

what then, do you propose as an acceptable form of "wariness" (i like that, by the way)? you can be aware of a thing, but how can you prevent it/ stop it from affecting you unduly? or should you just know about these things, talk about them amongst your friends, and hope for the best?

(i for one, can't come up with a solution aside from signing petitions and talking amongst my friends :umm: i mean... i have all the solutions! )

[wiggin]

*smiles* I've been online less and less lately - lots of stuff going on IRL (moving, new school, girls, friends, work, etc.), so I've had less time for my chums here and elsewhere. :( But I do lurk here every now and then. ;)

Hehe... an acceptable form of wariness. There's the rub. It depends on the circumstances. In some cases, that could mean something as simple as keeping abreast of what's going on and talking with other voters about it. The other end is, of course, armed insurrection to end a government's rule.

I've made a small study of the fascinating beginnings of democratic nations. Almost all of them proceed through a spectrum of responses to what they feel is unjust rule (some, of course, separate peacefully from a parent nation - but that is rare). The question is: When should popular dissent switch from working within the system to overthrowing the system? When is it legal, moral, or permissible to rebel? What are the alternative forms of dissent that one can practice within the system, and when are they sanctioned?

There are a number of interesting cases going on the world today. In particular, the reaction of the American public to the entire Iraq war controversy was illuminating. In a country of 300 million people, about half of whom were opposed to a war on Iraq or were skeptical of the reasons given, there was virtually zero violent dissent. There was plenty of politicking, protests, angry editorials, etc. - but virtually all of it was legal, and none was violent. Therefore, apparently the American people decided that we did not have sufficient cause to toss out our leaders (either by election or by revolution). (Remember the price: international outcry against the US, 2,000 American citizens dead, loss of valuable allies, on the order of 100,000 Iraqis dead, etc.) 230 years ago, Americans made a different choice with different stakes - why, and were both those decisions justified? Tough to answer.

Look at another current case: the upheavel in Israeli society over Sharon's disengagement plan. The majority of the population approves of the move, but a vocal and well-organized minority is strongly opposed to uprooting 8,000 settlers from their homes (which, in a country of less than 7 million, is actually a pretty large number of people) - and calls the disengagement plan a dictatorial move by a corrupt government. Their protests have thus far been mostly nonviolent - blocking roads throughout the country, large rallies, vitriolic speeches, and vows not to leave the settlements. Yet now combat soldiers who disagree with disengagement (remember, they have universal conscription) have refused and have said they will refuse evacuation orders (also, the pro-settler minority is disproportionately represented in the combat units of the IDF). Is this justified? Can this level of countrywide civil disobedience and lawlessness be condoned on the basis of disagreeing with a government's choices? What if it erupts into civil war?

The examples could continue - what about Chechnya? Spain/Basque? Antisocialist voices in China? (Or hell, Tibet?) etc, etc.

I have no answers for this - the reactions of citizens should be proportional to the threat to their freedom/individuality/pocketbooks/whatever (depends on what one values, eh?). I think that truly democratic societies, if kept that way, can resolve differences without resorting to violence - but there are few, if any, true democracies in the world. One should use one's best judgement. Voice dissent when it is constructive. Always keep apprised of things - from a number of perspectives - at all times. Form opinions, but do not become dogmatic in one's adherence to them; if more evidence sways you another way, so be it. And always weigh the possible dangers of a governmental policy against the dangers of each level of 'wariness'.

*shrugs* Complex, eh?

Ender