Conspiracy Theory Debate

[TordelBack]

  An uptick in the public suddenly believing more daffy shit than usual while also feeling like they can't trust even monolithic organisations like the BBC are not-unrelated things.  Without objective truth, people will find their own.

This is me.  For the first time since I was a teenager I find myself entertaining what are by definition conspiracy theories, with the simultaneous knowledge that they are both ludicrous and plausible. I continue to put this down to my worsening mental issues and try not to let these thoughts guide my behaviour (as with so much else), but at the same time I can't shake the fact that I can believe these alternative things in part because I don't believe so many of the things I'm told by media,  government and authority: and this because so much is demonstrable lies.

I'm not at the Flat Earth, um, level yet, but I can see the road you might take to get there.

[Funt Solo]

I have sympathy for people being turned off when they view a media organization's output as biased. But to then turn on to just another random source seems, as was said, daffy.

To speak to the mentioned case of the BBC - I keep hearing people say they're not to be trusted, but in a very ad hominem* way - nobody cites particular articles, for example.

I'm willing to accept that the BBC probably has an establishment bias in its political commentary, but that doesn't mean their report on, say, the Boeing engine failure, shouldn't be believed.

Or: people getting in a huff with the BBC doesn't mean Covid is a global governmental conspiracy to reset the economy. (Which is what Shark alluded to on the Covid thread, by the way.)

I'm not immune - I've always had a tendency (still do, really) to buy into some of the JFK conspiracy stuff. It's a very popular c-theory, that one. But, I suppose there are levels and levels. When pressed on what he believed, over in the C-thread, Shark eventually confessed that he didn't really know - but he knew that something (anything, really) smelt fishy. So, he's just throwing mental shit at the wall and wondering at the patterns. By his own admission. Which is fine (as a hobby), except that an admin asked him not to do it there.


* Spell-checker wants this to be "ad Eminem", which is where you attack someone's argument based on them being Michael Mathers.

[Professor Bear]

"Marshall" Mathers.  Michael Mathers is the primary antagonist in the Halloween film series.

Losing trust affects your standing, even if something you say later is provably true.
I can only speak for myself, but I believe the BBC if it says that 5G towers are not transmitting the Covid virus, but I don't trust the BBC on an objective basis, because they lost that trust many times over down through the years, and have done nothing to earn it back.
If it matters, it started with my awareness of the dissonance between their reporting on Northern Ireland and my own experiences (starting with a demonstration in our town center that I attended and which involved a sit-down protest that lasted 30 minutes and then dispersed peacefully that was described by the BBC as "clashes" with police)  I also gather Scottish nationalists in recent years have had some thoughts on the idea of BBC impartiality.

To speak to the mentioned case of the BBC - I keep hearing people say they're not to be trusted, but in a very ad hominem* way

Operation Yewtree?

[Funt Solo]

"Marshall" Mathers.  Michael Mathers is the primary antagonist in the Halloween film series.

Holy Shinola! The funny thing is that my olde brain kept telling me something was wrong with what I wrote, but I couldn't actually identify it. Possibility of early onset brain issues happening right here. 

[Funt Solo]

Losing trust affects your standing, even if something you say later is provably true.
I can only speak for myself, but I believe the BBC if it says that 5G towers are not transmitting the Covid virus, but I don't trust the BBC on an objective basis, because they lost that trust many times over down through the years, and have done nothing to earn it back.
If it matters, it started with my awareness of the dissonance between their reporting on Northern Ireland and my own experiences (starting with a demonstration in our town center that I attended and which involved a sit-down protest that lasted 30 minutes and then dispersed peacefully that was described by the BBC as "clashes" with police)  I also gather Scottish nationalists in recent years have had some thoughts on the idea of BBC impartiality.

Thanks. The protest reporting must have been incredibly frustrating. I recall the time when some people required voice overs because their voices weren't allowed to be broadcast. The Day Today took the piss out of the situation by having them forced to inhale helium before speaking.

My only counter is that, to an extent, nearly all media presents exaggerations, or mistakes, or deliberate bias: it's our job (!?) to filter that as best we can. If I abandon the BBC reporting entirely, I'm going to lose a lot of valid information alongside stuff that needs filtering. I used to appreciate the Gruniad when I was more local, but it also sometimes throws up duffers. And C4 News (a personal favorite) sometimes opts for attack-dog interviews that don't seem able to move past an obvious sticking point.

I was wondering if part of the swing to conspiratorial sources is also down to Teh Interwebs naturally destroying local news sources and print media, the incredibly polarized politics of the past few years, Facepalm feeding everyone their own echos and lock-down moving people literally into isolationist situations.

[Mister Pops]

"Marshall" Mathers.  Michael Mathers is the primary antagonist in the Halloween film series.

I think you'll find that's the Austin Powers guy. Michael Mathers was Mr Blonde in Resevoir Dogs.

I found the BBC has accusations of both being a Tory Mouthpiece and a Liberal haven of Political Correctness. Which may sound like balance, but I'm taking that from BBC HYS threads I used to read when I worked in a call centre two decades ago.

It's our job (!?) to filter that as best we can.

See I always thought the journalists should do that. Instead we have to navigate through a mire of sensationalism and clickbait.

You want to hear a conspiracy? Every time you look at a screen that's connected to the internet, there's a super-computer looking back at you, analysing you. It doesn't know why but it must do everything in its vast power to keep you looking at it and clicking on things. And there is no algorithm for truth.

[shaolin_monkey]

One of the co-authors of the booklet attached above did a fantastic podcast not long ago, discussing his academic history of studying human psychology, and why he became interested in conspiracy theories. It’s a fascinating listen.

Here’s the YouTube link, but you can find it in your usual iPhone/android podcast sites too:

https://youtu.be/cOhuFYHccEM

[Jim_Campbell]

I found the BBC has accusations of both being a Tory Mouthpiece and a Liberal haven of Political Correctness. Which may sound like balance, but I'm taking that from BBC HYS threads I used to read when I worked in a call centre two decades ago.

The thing is, there’s a false equivalence here, as if the two things cancel each other out. The revolving door between Conservative Central Office and senior BBC news positions is well-documented, but when HIGNFY does a gag mocking Johnson for something stupid he’s actually said or done, the right screams “liberal bias” but when a guest calls Corbyn a Nazi sympathiser, it’s just moaning lefties who can’t take a joke.

[Mister Pops]

I found the BBC has accusations of both being a Tory Mouthpiece and a Liberal haven of Political Correctness. Which may sound like balance, but I'm taking that from BBC HaVE YOoR SaY threads I used to read when I worked in a call centre two decades ago.

The thing is, there’s a false equivalence here, as if the two things cancel each other out. The revolving door between Conservative Central Office and senior BBC news positions is well-documented, but when HIGNFY does a gag mocking Johnson for something stupid he’s actually said or done, the right screams “liberal bias” but when a guest calls Corbyn a Nazi sympathiser, it’s just moaning lefties who can’t take a joke.

We don't disagree, I was just being more facetious than I failed convey initially.

[Jim_Campbell]

We don't disagree, I was just being more facetious than I failed convey initially.

Sorry, I wasn’t specifically disagreeing with you, it’s just a very common argument that people frequently use in all seriousness, one I subscribed to myself until relatively recently, and I just kind of piggy-backed off your post to have a moan.

[IndigoPrime]

The BBC’s biggest problems in politic news coverage are certain high-ranking journalists reporting government spokesperson leaks as facts, with zero objectivity. Add to that the corporation’s obsession with ‘balance’ and you’ve the current shitshow’s rocky foundation. I’m all for balance, but not the straight 50:50 ‘create a fight’ rubbish the BBC—and many other corporations—go for.

I’m not sure how any of this gets fixed. So many people argue you should make up your own mind about subjects, but we’re not experts on more than a handful of subjects—and algorithms are designed to increase engagement. They don’t give the slightest shit about truth.

[Funt Solo]

It's our job (!?) to filter that as best we can.

See I always thought the journalists should do that. Instead we have to navigate through a mire of sensationalism and clickbait.

Aye, well: don't believe everything you read. I once had drinks with a journalist who was explaining that someone (another journo) was trying to drum up a story about Boy George buying a castle, so my journalist pal had called BG's publicist to ask about it and been told "eh, no, that's bollocks".  Two days later, front page of the Daily Record (I know, I know, what did I expect) was the headline "IS BOY GEORGE BUYING THIS CASTLE?". So, you know, entirely fabricated bollocks that bore no relation whatsoever to reality.

In that case journalism just equated to asking questions you've just thought of and presenting them in such a way as to suggest there was something other than whimsy behind it.

[Mister Pops]

We don't disagree, I was just being more facetious than I failed convey initially.

Sorry, I wasn’t specifically disagreeing with you, it’s just a very common argument that people frequently use in all seriousness, one I subscribed to myself until relatively recently, and I just kind of piggy-backed off your post to have a moan.

To be fair I was originally going to say I was surprised Kuenssberg was willing to take Boris' dick out of her mouth long enough to ask any questions of him, but that would be horribly inappropriate.

[Professor Bear]

That would certainly explain why her mouth always looks like that.

"Marshall" Mathers.  Michael Mathers is the primary antagonist in the Halloween film series.

I think you'll find that's the Austin Powers guy. Michael Mathers was Mr Blonde in Resevoir Dogs.

No, you're thinking of the guy who shot Brandon Lee.

[Funt Solo]

Or we could impugn a female journalist's professional integrity without suggesting that she's an ugly slut ... right? There's a time and a place for that sort of casual, everyday misogyny.