jamyskis: I honestly think that conspiracy theorism in its own right has unfairly got a bit of a bad rep in recent years...
Wow, nice post. Very well said, and I couldn't agree more with the points you make. This post pretty much sums up this entire thread.
jamyskis: Healthy conspiracy theorism takes something that appears to be a fact, develops a theory is developed around this fact - usually a conspiracy of some kind, hence the name - and then conducts active, unbiased research to try and prove or disprove that theory. And yes, this is how some of the best conspiracy theories out there have been proven. Bernstein & Woodward's relentless pursuit of the Watergate scandal is among the best of them.
But unfortunately, what passes as "conspiracy theorism" today is nothing of the sort.
Firstly, especially among non-professional investigators, conspiracy theorism has a knack of turning sour when the "evidence" they procure turns out to be falsified or misinterpreted. They develop entire unfounded theories in a bid to try and discredit the discreditors, getting themselves tied up in a web of psychoses and delusions in a desperate bid to try and keep their sense of self-importance alive.
Yeah it seems the difference between most current "theorists" and the Woodward/Bernsteins is that the genuine guys know to give up on something, no matter what their feelings are on the subject, when the evidence just isn't there. These crap-theorists would never concede that they were wrong, no matter how completely the evidence proves it. That's because its more about keeping their audience hooked than any sort of actual interest in truth.
That should be a clear call-out to anybody who follows one of these "theorists" - look, if the guy is never willing to concede he's been wrong, while throwing around all this dubious "info", *that* is someone who is trying to make a living off of you, not "trying to spread the truth". A guy who simply wants to get the truth out there would admit it when he's been wrong, and when you're constantly churning out new conspiracies, well... you're gonna be wrong plenty of the time.
jamyskis: Not all people who forward this rubbish are perpetrators. Some are apolitical victims. Their emotions and sensibilities are being played and manipulated so that they might eventually become active perpetrators. I don't know what rtcvb32 is - perpetrator or unwilling participant - but he/she needs to get his/her head of his/her arse, wake up and realise that they're being played like a fiddle.
I tried making this point to the OP much earlier in this thread. I think you worded it much better than I did, but I still doubt he'll listen.
jamyskis: I think when the internet first became a "thing", people were so excited about the possibility of information being allowed to flow freely that they forgot that disinformation could flow just as freely - and it has, meanwhile on an industrial scale. It was a very naive thought to believe that people would be wise or discerning enough to filter facts from lies, be objectively critical, and not let their own prejudice and sense of self-importance distort their own perception of reality. The far left were the first to catch onto this, the far right have recently followed on.
You know, in the pre-internet/early internet years, a few futurists and writers saw this coming. That in the "coming information age" they were considering, the way you would discredit an idea *wouldn't* be by refuting it - but rather by burying it in misinformation about the topic. Misinformation that occasionally contains a grain or 2 of truth here and there to gain maximum believability. Which then creates a series of contradictory facts/theories about the idea, and if these are promoted repeatedly, they will eventually all become somewhat "equally plausible" in the eyes of the public. Which is pretty much exactly what has happened, here in the US at least, where your version of "the facts" typically is tied to your political leanings. False Equivalence is the name of the game, and is more or less the guiding principle of the mainstream media here now. They fan the flames of this with that crap as much as the conspiracy nuts do.
I don't know what the answer is to that. Censorship? You'd hate to think we have to resort to that. Yet somehow that needs to change. One thing I believe is that our Democratic systems weren't meant to function in an environment where there is this much dispute over basic facts. It wasn't like that even 20 years ago.