The Political Thread

[JayzusB.Christ]

All I said was think about it, not believe. Beliefs evolve over time as more information comes to light. We none of us believe the same thing - and God help the rest of the universe if we ever do - which I think is great.

What I meant was really what you said, to not be afraid of thinking about something just because somebody's nailed a thought-stopper to it. To think about something doesn't mean to accept it but to not think about something does mean to accept it as either true or false.

I wasn't having a go or anything, I'm just fascinated by the ubiquity of labels and how they guide us both physically and mentally, and how they can be weaponized and spread like linguistic viruses.

No, I know you weren't having a go or anything like that.  I just don't like the idea that people who don't agree with conspiracy theories haven't thought about them - on this board, in particular, the people who argue against the 'alternative theories' have looked long and hard at the evidence before presenting their counter-arguments.  I've learned a lot from them. 

I used the tin-foil hat thing jokingly.  I know not all conspiracy theorists wear tin-foil hats.  As for the label  conspiracy theorist - well, if someone has a theory about a conspiracy (conspiracies like Watergate were discovered through incontrovertible evidence, and therefore can't really be classed as theories), then it's hard to see them as anything else.  There may be negative connotations connected to the name, but what can you do?  You yourself label other boarders 'statists' fairly often, and this has negative connotations for you. (Personally, I'm not a statist, but nor do I subscribe to your vision of a stateless society.)

As for 'just asking questions' - fair enough, but once it strays into devil's advocate territory, then I start wondering what the point is.  I think it's essential to see the opposite point of view and discuss it, but once someone starts adopting that viewpoint as if it's their own purely for the sake of causing heated argument, then I see them as just as disingenuous as a person puts aside their own values to tow the party line.  Not that I'm accusing you specifically of that or anything, Sharky, I'm just putting forward my own view of the distinction between seeing both sides of an argument and belligerent devil's advocacy.

[The Legendary Shark]

Well, good for me. Do I get a gold star for "getting you"?

My point is that thought-stoppers are nailed to loads of ideas and we must beware of them - not only of falling for them but of using them ourselves. Which is not easy, because as soon as that camel's nose is in the true Scotsman's tent the straw man will have no choice but to slide the red herring down the slippery slope of sixty million obviously correct Frenchmen until our subjects go around in ever decreasing circles, finally disappearing up their own predicates.

And that would be bad, man.

[IndigoPrime]

Not all ideas are created equal and viewpoints don't require equal billing. This is something society—and especially news organisations—frequently fail to get their heads around. Why Toby Young is always on the TV, spouting his anti-lockdown garbage is beyond me. Young vs Dunt gives each the same amount of time, when the UK is overwhelmingly in favour of lockdown. But it's the same everywhere. Doing something on climate change? Then get in someone from the anti brigade. Only if you were doing that properly, you'd have 99 vs 1, not 1 vs 1.

[Funt Solo]

We've been here before, Shark. You made a statement about the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" - that using that term made the user somehow lacking in thought*. You said that. Now that you're confronted on that specifically, you've shifted to talking about generalities and denying that you made the point you made**.

And around and around in circles we go like some demented circus act.

* You called it a "thought-stopper label".
** Except you'll respond that this isn't what you're doing.

[Jim_Campbell]

Doing something on climate change? Then get in someone from the anti brigade. Only if you were doing that properly, you'd have 99 vs 1, not 1 vs 1.

Often not even equivalent in expertise, either — see the various Qualified Climate Scientist vs Nigel Lawson discussions where both parties are given equal time and their opinions equal weight by the interviewer.

[The Legendary Shark]

Fair points all, JBC.

I know I get a little Devil's Advocatey from time to time (though I hope not belligerently) and yes, I absolutely do call people statists. I don't mean it as an insult, although any label by its very nature can be construed that way, but as a kind of signpost. In my experience, most people I've met believe in the state without really knowing they believe in it, without question. When I call someone a statist it's simply to highlight the fact that statism is just one option.

However, I do try not to apply hasty generalisations as a rule and have knowingly broken that rule in calling people statists. Perhaps I should stop doing this, or amend my usage. I'll give it some thought.

I can only say that the things I believe are not arbitrary (at least, I don't think they are) and, although I may sometimes argue my corner with some determination, it is never my intention to cause ill will - though I often seem to manage it with alarming ease; maybe it's my superpower - The Amazing Annoyarizer.

[The Legendary Shark]

Funt, the term "conspiracy theorist" can and is used as a thought-stopper. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the "user," but, yes, it can lead to a lack of thought - that is the purpose of the label "conspiracy theorist" when used in an ad hominem context.

Pol: "You can't believe her, she's a conspiracy theorist."

Vot: "Sounds reasonable."

Pol: "Excellent."

So yes, logical fallacies like this can short-circuit thought, pulling off the age-old sophists' trick of making bad arguments look good and good arguments look bad.


Pol: "You can't believe her, she's a conspiracy theorist."

Vot: "Maybe so, but what does her evidence say?"

Pol: "Damn!"

[IndigoPrime]

Pol: "You can't believe her, she's a conspiracy theorist."

Vot: "Maybe so, but what does her evidence say?"

Pol: "She's claiming someone has an antifa tattoo, but it's actually from a videogame!"

Vot: "Oh."

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Doing something on climate change? Then get in someone from the anti brigade. Only if you were doing that properly, you'd have 99 vs 1, not 1 vs 1.

Often not even equivalent in expertise, either — see the various Qualified Climate Scientist vs Nigel Lawson discussions where both parties are given equal time and their opinions equal weight by the interviewer.

I reckon this is to give the likes of the BBC the veneer of impartiality when really they're just giving their freinds and/or paymasters an exaggerated platform.

It's not always two opposing views being made to look equally valid. Both sides are just as bad is commonly trotted out, especially here in Northern Ireland. There are currently Republicans (the American kind) trying to claim the Democrats are equally responsible for their shitemare of a country. I'm not trying to say it's either polar or binary or judge either side as the goodies or baddies, but one side is definitely worse.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Pol (with great hair, big muscles, a tight butt, a noticeable bulge in his pants and a winning smile): "You can't believe her, she's a conspiracy theorist."

Vot (with big boobs, long blonde hair, longer legs and an hourglass figure): "Sounds reasonable."

Pol (with great hair, big muscles, a tight butt, a noticeable bulge in his pants and a winning smile): "Excellent."

FTFY, your Strawpeople need to be sexier

[Funt Solo]

But Qanon is a conspiracy theory, and people with 'Q' on their shirts stormed the Capitol Building, and then we can say "The Capitol Building was stormed by conspiracy theorists".

Would you have us say "The Capitol Building was stormed by people who have theories that are just as valid as anyone else's and deserve to be discussed on an equal footing"?

Because, you know those folk believe that Trump is the messiah sent to deliver them from demon-worshipers, right? I'm not sure how you un-pack that into "those guys deserve a fair hearing - stop labeling them!"

[JayzusB.Christ]

Fair points all, JBC.

I know I get a little Devil's Advocatey from time to time (though I hope not belligerently) and yes, I absolutely do call people statists. I don't mean it as an insult, although any label by its very nature can be construed that way, but as a kind of signpost. In my experience, most people I've met believe in the state without really knowing they believe in it, without question. When I call someone a statist it's simply to highlight the fact that statism is just one option.

Fair enough, but if you're going to label other people to highlight that their view is only one option, as is your absolute right, people are going to going label you too for the same reason.

I think I'm quoting you directly in saying on this board 'you're all statists and I'm not' - for one thing, I'm not either, and for another, I think most people who have argued against you on that topic in this forum have proven that they've given plenty of thought to their stance, and have more than enough intelligence to see other points of view.

I also agree that an argument is not balanced simply by having two people with opposing theories - the theory with better supporting evidence wins it for me, every time.

[The Legendary Shark]

I would say that as soon as people start storming things the time for discussing rights and wrongs grows short.

I think you may be looking at what I'm saying from the wrong perspective. You seem to think I mean that every conspiracy theory must be considered equally valid, like 'every child gets a trophy,' which is poppycock. What I'm actually saying is that just because something is labelled as a conspiracy theory that doesn't automatically mean it's rubbish any more than automatically meaning it's unquestionable.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I would say that as soon as people start storming things the time for discussing rights and wrongs grows short.

I think you may be looking at what I'm saying from the wrong perspective. You seem to think I mean that every conspiracy theory must be considered equally valid, like 'every child gets a trophy,' which is poppycock. What I'm actually saying is that just because something is labelled as a conspiracy theory that doesn't automatically mean it's rubbish any more than automatically meaning it's unquestionable.

My last paragraph wasn't directed at you - sorry, should have made that clear. I was more thinking about what other boarders were saying about discussion panels bringing on vacuous mouthpieces to argue with rational and well-informed types in the name of balance. Sometimes, as you rightly say, two arguments are not equally meritorious.

[The Legendary Shark]

I didn't think it was, JBC - you are a proper gent.

I am trying to tone it down from past rabidities - how am I doing?