03-02-2024, 12:15 PM
I hope our esteemed BeTheGoddess can forgive me the indulgence, but I want to add on another example of literary work designed to "hammer down" the topic of general conspiracy theory (and theorists) as pseudo-religious, and/or paranoid deviance.
It comes from an aggregator sire called "Big Think" which seems to take lengthy works of other authors and repackages them in what, I presume, they estimate is more "interesting" packaging.
The trail began at: Why are there conspiracy theories? (What is the psychology of fake news?)
[Note the title itself tells us that "conspiracy theories" are all fake news.]
Stolen elections. Phony pandemics. Faked moon landings. Lizard people. It’s not just Americans who love a good conspiracy theory; it seems to be a trait shared by humans everywhere. It is a curious paradox that in the Age of Information — when all of our acquired knowledge is available at the click of a button or the tap of a screen — that we should choose to believe lies and fiction rather than truth and facts. Why? The answer involves a combination of psychology, widespread distrust, and malevolent actors. Propaganda has existed since humans were able to speak and write, but now, those lies can circle the globe within seconds. Here, we tackle one of the hardest problems facing the world today: how to inform a public that prefers to be misinformed.
Once again, we see the gist of the argument - without exploring the fact that someone had to declare them lies and fiction... and they are somehow indisputably 'the final word' on the matter. To question them renders you "conspiracy crazy.' A neat, self-sealing, and 'authoritarian' reality in a world which apparently is defined, in their view, as "preferring to be misinformed."
Unfortunately, I could only access one of the two links this leads to... America’s 10 most popular conspiracy theories
Now I really dislike articles belaboring "lists" for numerous reasons, but I won't delve into the elements, or I will get lost in the details...
Political scientists Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood, who studied the subject, defined a conspiracy theory as “an explanation that makes reference to hidden, malevolent forces seeking to advance some nefarious aim.” A conspiracy theory does not have to be untrue, but it is sure to contradict the usual, popularly-accepted version of the same event or phenomena.Once a conspiracy theory becomes the accepted explanation, it stops being a conspiracy theory and becomes a fact of history. This certainly is one reason people continue to believe—they hope their views will eventually be proven right.
Oliver and Wood authored a paper, sure to please establishment audiences, and began with a precept... Their cited work is another "academic" paper entitled Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion The inclusion in the title of the word "paranoid" should indicate strongly where their "intent" is...
Conspiracy Theory = ... reference(s) to hidden, malevolent forces seeking to advance some nefarious aim.
Really? Any linguist will tell you that "conspiracies" in and of themselves are neither malevolent nor benevolent, and "aims" aren't specifically nefarious or otherwise. It is the author who describes intent who makes that assertion... not the words themselves. As usual these 'respected' authors distinguish themselves by creating and supporting a "redefinition" which suits the status-quo establishments' need to characterize all unwelcome inquiry as socially repugnant, and therefore worthy of outright rejection. It seems to fly in the face of the scientific method, doesn't it?
Another cited source is Historian Richard J. Hofstadter’s essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” wherein this author perpetrates the trope that "a paranoid strain that runs through the thinking of far right politicians." This despite the acknowledged fact that modern research seems to contradict any such notion, establishing that conspiracy theory is not any more prevalent in one particular ideology or politics than any other.
I don't expect anyone else to dig deep into this, but I must say that it is very evident to me that whenever an "expert" speaks of "conspiracy theory" it usually means they are 'experts' because someone approves of their message ... not because they are masters of the topic.
It comes from an aggregator sire called "Big Think" which seems to take lengthy works of other authors and repackages them in what, I presume, they estimate is more "interesting" packaging.
The trail began at: Why are there conspiracy theories? (What is the psychology of fake news?)
[Note the title itself tells us that "conspiracy theories" are all fake news.]
Stolen elections. Phony pandemics. Faked moon landings. Lizard people. It’s not just Americans who love a good conspiracy theory; it seems to be a trait shared by humans everywhere. It is a curious paradox that in the Age of Information — when all of our acquired knowledge is available at the click of a button or the tap of a screen — that we should choose to believe lies and fiction rather than truth and facts. Why? The answer involves a combination of psychology, widespread distrust, and malevolent actors. Propaganda has existed since humans were able to speak and write, but now, those lies can circle the globe within seconds. Here, we tackle one of the hardest problems facing the world today: how to inform a public that prefers to be misinformed.
Once again, we see the gist of the argument - without exploring the fact that someone had to declare them lies and fiction... and they are somehow indisputably 'the final word' on the matter. To question them renders you "conspiracy crazy.' A neat, self-sealing, and 'authoritarian' reality in a world which apparently is defined, in their view, as "preferring to be misinformed."
Unfortunately, I could only access one of the two links this leads to... America’s 10 most popular conspiracy theories
Now I really dislike articles belaboring "lists" for numerous reasons, but I won't delve into the elements, or I will get lost in the details...
Political scientists Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood, who studied the subject, defined a conspiracy theory as “an explanation that makes reference to hidden, malevolent forces seeking to advance some nefarious aim.” A conspiracy theory does not have to be untrue, but it is sure to contradict the usual, popularly-accepted version of the same event or phenomena.Once a conspiracy theory becomes the accepted explanation, it stops being a conspiracy theory and becomes a fact of history. This certainly is one reason people continue to believe—they hope their views will eventually be proven right.
Oliver and Wood authored a paper, sure to please establishment audiences, and began with a precept... Their cited work is another "academic" paper entitled Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion The inclusion in the title of the word "paranoid" should indicate strongly where their "intent" is...
Conspiracy Theory = ... reference(s) to hidden, malevolent forces seeking to advance some nefarious aim.
Really? Any linguist will tell you that "conspiracies" in and of themselves are neither malevolent nor benevolent, and "aims" aren't specifically nefarious or otherwise. It is the author who describes intent who makes that assertion... not the words themselves. As usual these 'respected' authors distinguish themselves by creating and supporting a "redefinition" which suits the status-quo establishments' need to characterize all unwelcome inquiry as socially repugnant, and therefore worthy of outright rejection. It seems to fly in the face of the scientific method, doesn't it?
Another cited source is Historian Richard J. Hofstadter’s essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” wherein this author perpetrates the trope that "a paranoid strain that runs through the thinking of far right politicians." This despite the acknowledged fact that modern research seems to contradict any such notion, establishing that conspiracy theory is not any more prevalent in one particular ideology or politics than any other.
I don't expect anyone else to dig deep into this, but I must say that it is very evident to me that whenever an "expert" speaks of "conspiracy theory" it usually means they are 'experts' because someone approves of their message ... not because they are masters of the topic.
