Should Conspiratorial Thinking Be The Default Position?
posted by 
SoulTraveller 1 year ago
SoulTraveller 1 year ago Considering the number of times governments have been caught lying over the last few decades, we have to ask the question, should the belief that major world events and political developments happen as a result of a conspiracy of some form or other be the default position in contemporary thinking, or should we continue to blindly trust government and afford it the credibility it plainly doesn’t deserve in order to maintain a perceived sense of order?
3 Comments
"You're either with us, or against us."
There are way too many assumptions in this question:
1. That people blindly trust their government.
2. That people describe the government as credible.
3. That to the extend that people do give credit to the government, the government doesn't deserve it.
4. That you either (A) believe major events are the product of conspiracy, or (B) you believe people should blindly trust the government in order to preserve "a sense of order."
There are likely many more, but these are the ones I find questionable at the very beginning.
My question is: "Are conspiracy theorists, who by default assume the conspiratorial position, credible?"
good research topics, all
The word conspiracy gets a little warn out with varied emotional baggage, but then, ambiguity is one of the favorite human pastimes. Worse still, metaphor is the basis of human language and too much of science for that matter-- Metaphor is the use of word symbols to designate distinct, or differentiated things. Very confusing, at some point down the line. The premise to do anything in private groups, almost touches the 'conspiracy' definition, if some disgruntled competitor finds a strange loophole to bring legal challenges. Even the gate keepers of 911 use the term 'conspiracy' in their report, which was the chief excuse for more industrialized war mongering. To take off on a 'perpetual' warfare binge, as a giga-big business plot. Separately, adjectives themselves heavily borrow on meanings. Funny too is that i think Latin and Italian for instance, lack the word 'privacy'-Roman law and culture crystalized so much of Anglo and American society. Conspiracy primarily emphasizes unlawfulness. Yet legislators have to introduce new laws and require funding by small groups whose business plans, might otherwise be initially and otherwise deemed unlawful. Interesting! Take any point into a unique context so that laws can become 'nullified'. It is a huge subject and the word 'default' does creep in, to some extent. Penetration is so irresistible to alpha-macho mindsets. What a world, what a time.
default assumptions?
The main fault I see here is the concept of a default assumption.
I think its safe to assume that any position founded in this manner cannot be credible. Really it should be obvious. Even if the default assumption is that the government cannot be trusted and in most cases that would be a safer bet than not. Still, its rather foolish to assume that is the case.
The main problem with this type of limited thinking (besides the obvious illogical reasoning) is that many issues especial ones of a conspiratorial nature have multiple levels and layers to them. Truth in most cases is only going to be available to a seriously thorough investigator who can decode the cipher of info/dis-info/mythology.
Any conspiracy researcher should be familiar with the term controlled opposition. If your not then most likely you have already been misled. Sorting the wheat from the chaff in our age of information is the real hat trick here.