How to talk to conspiracy theorists – and still be kind
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
It is of course a simple matter to disapprove the notion that all conspiracy theories have been false. Many prove to be true.
I remember well when the notion that LIBOR looked manipulated was ridiculed as a conspiracy theory. Years later it was front page news.
Are most conspiracy theories false? Probably.
But the notion that "talking to conspiracy theorists" starts with a presumption of superiority of one's own assumptions is to be fundamentally unscientific -- and is often merely an appeal to authority.
Take the death of Jeffrey Epstein: I place myself squarely on the side of the conspiracy theorists. How would you "talk to me"?
Which ones? Most conspiracy theories are over-thought, under-researched, pure horseshit. Out of the most well-known, "the moon landing was faked" - false, based on no real evidence and a whole lot of denying reality. "The earth is flat" - absolutely false. "5G towers cause COVID" - it's really not difficult to understand how ridiculous this one is. And the conspiracies just keep getting crazier from there...
Sorry, no, "many prove true" is just not workable.
I wouldn't because I think your belief is not bad.
I think the problem with Epstein is the moronic centrist public who can't differentiate between the legal definition of Human Trafficking and the Hollywood definition.
But, I would say to you if you want me to try, you are correct, something happened. But I think it was the complex emergence from a system, conspiracies like this are not people sitting around tables, it's subtle behaviours amongst large groups of people that cause things to happen.
I think the article gives some pretty good tips eveb form normal discussions about things we disagree about. So if you think, Jeffrey Epsteins death is a conspiracy, it's something else than believing, G5-towers all arou d the world are spreading Corona. Epstein obviously was part of a consiracy - that is way he was in jail. Harvey Weinstein was part of a consiracy. People knew whta they were doing and they helped them keep doing what they were doing.
That is hiw I would start. And if I wanted to convince you of a different view on Epsteins case, I'd ask you something.
Your first line is bristling with defense, you're not going to believe anything else even if the truth was laid out in front of you.
The article is a bit loose with using both interchangeably, but it's clearly about conspiracy theorists - people for whom conspiracy theories are a pastime.
From my own experiences of people who would define themselves this way, this seems to manifest itself in enjoying discovering new conspiracies from the conspiracy theorist community. And, perhaps more importantly, the conspiracies need to stay conspiracies for the most satisfaction. It's not a desire to unmask the truth so that the world can agree and benefit, it's the buzz of superiority from being in an "enlightened" minority. It is difficult to talk to these people about these topics, hence the article.
In one of the cases the prosecution was interviewing one of the arresting officers.
The officer stated "While survailing the subject we noticed he became increasingly paranoid that he was being watched, most likely from his heavy cocain use"
The judge had to correct him that because of the fact he was being watched by the officer, it was not parinoia.
All the points in this article are good, I just wish they didn't get so specific about particular theories and then just dismiss them as debunked over and over. Just because you say they have been debunked in the article doesn't make it so or convince anyone who believes in the theory. I find the media, on both left and right tend to do this far too often, far better to lay out the facts and or logic for the argument you're trying to make.