Although I suspect you know that, the rules around here say I should assume the most gracious possible explanation, so:
My long sentence did not in fact suggest any coordinated behavior at all, nor is there any known evidence to suggest any part of the sentence is wrong.
That's the difference between something being proven false, like racist birtherism, and a lack of evidence to support your misreading of my assertion. Do I need to provide links for "shots fired in a pizza parlor" or "protesters murdered by car" or "protestors murdered by gun" or "illegal voter intimidation" or "not quite ruling out the possibility that a huge chunk of elected officials and others are part of a cabal of devil-worshipping pederasts who drink the blood of children," really?
You go on a bit suggesting that the only reason any of the above might possibly be considered bad is that it's labeled a certain way, but I think you've got that very, very backward. All of the above are considered bad, and it turns out that all of them seem to be linked to a somewhat popular and growing source which happens to fall into a category popularly known as a conspiracy theory. Call it that, or call it harmful garbage, I don't care.
This sentence is the one that would give away your game, by the way:
> If truth and rationality is truly on the side of the "anti-conspiracy" side of the divide, you'd think it would be child's play to "destroy conspiracy theorists with facts and logic". And yet, what accompanies the heuristic seems to be an inoculation to any epistemic challenges: circling of the wagons, typically via insubstantial/rhetorical dismissals (ad hominen character attacks), appeals to ends justifying the means, or simply downvoting + silence.
That's a doozy, and wrong both in fact and in what I think is its clear intent.
For all the appeals to objectivity, the sea-lioning[0] is very much one-sided.
Knowing(!) what the walls of text are "designed to do" requires ESP abilities (are you suggesting these exist, and you possess them?), and is also inconsistent with what they are actually designed to do (I know, because unlike you, I happen to have direct access to my mind) - a more accurate motivation was arrived at (and confirmed by me) by one exceptionally skilled thinker if you care to read the thread.
> ...should note that anyone not in favor of letting Qanon run amok is required to produce incontrovertible evidence of every single assertion they make, held to an impossible standard if anyone is being dishonest
Observers should "note" this "fact"? Well, it's your claim, not mine. Not only have I not claimed this, I do not believe or agree with it - I consider this idea incredibly unrealistic, to the point of categorizing it under silly.
> ...while on the other side, statements like 'it's mostly "the left" doing the censorship these days' can be dropped without any supporting evidence at all.
"While on the other side" sounds like you're referring to me. Have I made any such claim about the left? Why are you speaking as if I have? Is that an honest mistake, or are you perhaps using deceit to implant invalid invalid ideas into the minds of other readers? This is actually the essence of my very complaint: the implanting of ideas that are not supported by evidence into vulnerable minds of other people - which ironically, is the very thing QAnon and conspiracy theorists do!
> For all the appeals to objectivity, the sea-lioning[0] is very much one-sided.
I find it very interesting (and ironic/hypocritical - see my other comment in the thread on this) that the collective brainpower of HN is not able to come up with a single argument that does not consist of rhetoric like this (individual sentence, and overall comment). I also find it interesting that when I point this out, it is only responded to with more rhetoric.
> http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/
I notice the author has posted some interesting followup errata comments on that comic:
http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/
> It has been suggested that the couple in this comic, and the woman in particular, are bigots for making a pejorative statement about a species of animal, and then refusing to justify their statements. It has been further suggested that they be read as overly privileged, because they are dressed fancily, have a house, a motor-car, etc. This is, I suppose, a valid read of the comic, if taken as written.
> But often, in satire such as this, elements are employed to stand in for other, different objects or concepts. Using animals for this purpose has the effect of allowing the point (which usually is about behavior) to stand unencumbered by the connotations that might be suggested if a person is portrayed in that role — because all people are members of some social group or other, even if said group identity is not germane to the point being made.
> Such is the case with this comic. The sea lion character is not meant to represent actual sea lions, or any actual animal. It is meant as a metaphorical stand-in for human beings that display certain behaviors. Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors — is not analogous to a prejudice based on race, species, or other immutable characteristics.
> My apologies if the use of a metaphorical sea lion in this strip, rather than a human being making conscious choices about their own behavior, was in any way confusing.
As you can see, the point of the comic is about behaviors: "Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors".
So in the context of this thread, the behavior that can be observed is people choosing to broadcast specific ideas [1] for which they do not have evidence, and are unwilling to defend with anything other than rhetoric. An overly imaginative person might also pick up a whiffs of things like intellectual superiority (the ironic kind), groupthink, peer pressure, tyranny of the majority, chilling effect, Overton Window enforcement, etc. Luckily, I am not such a person, I am simply making that observation.
Although, I do take exception with: "Since behaviors are the result of choice...". If one studies psychology and neuroscience, it becomes not so clear how much choice or free will people have when it comes to what they believe. At times, some beliefs seem to be (so they say) intertwined with the very identity of the person who holds them, and consequently, these beliefs can be very stubbornly held (within the subconscious mind) and if not formed via a logical process, cannot be dispelled with logic (and are often not defended by logic,or cannot be). Probably the most famous example of this type of belief is religion, which can come in many forms.
[1] ...which can affect belief formation in other people's minds, which can then infect other minds, rinse/repeat - this "virality of ideas" phenomenon can be more easily recognized by observing QAnon type subcultures rather than subtler instances like this thread.
https://www.google.com/search?q=case+study+propagation+of+me...
Although, considering the content of the conversations in this thread, could I not simply invoke evidence-by-mind-reading? Is what's good for the goose not also good for the gander?
Regardless, while I have your attention....I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the ideas (specifically, "ESP" and "sea-lioning" nuances) in my previous comment? I think these sorts of things are quite interesting ideas.
This statement is objectively incorrect. The "lot of words" contained within my comment cannot, in fact, be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'"
This is the sort of response that interests me, especially on a high-intellect site like HN.
> My long sentence did not in fact suggest any coordinated behavior at all
This statement is objectively incorrect.
You wrote: "...combined with some [ [conspiracy theories] popular among ["the Tea Party movement"] ] as they were known, [propelled our current president into office].
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy
- the act of conspiring.
- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
- a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. Law.
- an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
.
> nor is there any known evidence to suggest any part of the sentence is wrong
This sounds like you believe that you can assert anything, and the onus is on others to disprove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
> That's the difference between something being proven false, like racist birtherism, and a lack of evidence to support your misreading of my assertion.
I don't think it's actually true that I've misread or mischaracterized your assertion. I have provided some information above upon which my reasoning is based.
More likely, I suspect your objection is that I have interpreted it literally, as opposed to "knowing what you mean" - the issue with the latter approach is, it has a dependency on the manner in which each individual reader unpacks the text you have written into complex ideas in their mind. The advantage of speaking explicitly/precisely/literally is that it is far more immune to errors during transmission. Of course, this can also e a disadvantage, such as when endeavouring to persuade people to believe certain ideas, that are not actually (known to be) True (which is why I suspect my style of writing is so unpopular - it interferes with that process).
> Do I need to provide links for "shots fired in a pizza parlor" or "protesters murdered by car" or "protestors murdered by gun" or "illegal voter intimidation" or "not quite ruling out the possibility that a huge chunk of elected officials and others are part of a cabal of devil-worshipping pederasts who drink the blood of children," really?
No, but it would be preferable if you speak in more precise terms (less vagueness, less rhetoric), or at least acknowledge the form in which you are speaking. But of course, you are free to do whatever you would like.
> You go on a bit suggesting that the only reason any of the above might possibly be considered bad is that it's labeled a certain way
Not quite. I did point out that this labelling is bad, but I also pointed out some specifics of why it is bad. And, I did not suggest that this is "the only thing that is bad" - that is your interpretation of what I've said, an interpretation that is distinctly different than what I actually said. It is this phenomenon (and the increasing frequency of it, on certain important topics) that bothers me.
> but I think you've got that very, very backward. All of the above are considered bad, and it turns out that all of them seem to be....
When you say "they seem to be X linked to..." - what information is your perception of this linkage based on? Did you roll up your sleeve and do the associative backtracing yourself, or did you outsource that to a third party, and accepts the resulting assessment at face value, with no concern for its relative, quantitative accuracy?
> ...linked to a somewhat popular and growing source which happens to fall into a category popularly known as a conspiracy theory. Call it that, or call it harmful garbage, I don't care.
Some of us care. Firstly, I care about what is actually true. Secondly, I care that so many people exhibit signs of not caring about what is true, while simultaneously accusing other people of doing that very thing - and seem to be completely unaware that this phenomenon is occurring. Based on my (admittedly imperfect) understanding of history, the long term consequences of this sort of mindset is often unpleasant.
> This sentence is the one that would give away your game, by the way
That you consider truth to be some sort of a game is similarly concerning.
> That's a doozy, and wrong both in fact and in what I think is its clear intent.
Are you able to point out what is factually wrong with it (and if so, could you please state explicitly what that is)? I am also very curious to know what you think my intent is, as well as how that belief formed in your mind, but that's purely optional.
Lest you allow your intuition that I am "up to something", or "trying to gaslight you" dissuade you from addressing the points that I have actually made (as opposed to addressing inaccurate, non-comprehensive interpretations of them), I would like to preemptively point out that the thinking style I am using here is no different than that which most of us use all day long when we are writing code: disciplined, fact-based (consistent with observable reality) logic. If we write unsound code based on incorrect premises, will our programs not produce incorrect (inconsistent with reality) results, and do we not exert significant effort to ensure that we avoid that? Well then, if that is appropriate for matters in the workplace that affect only small slices of the world population, is there some logical reason that this style of thinking becomes inappropriate when dealing with arguably more important matters: events in the real world, many of which have complex cascading effects on very large slices of the world population?
Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site. Try just writing paragraphs? We can all read the comment you're replying to; we don't need to read it twice.
I've seen such used before (though with italics to help the eye find the breaks), when a comment makes too many points or is too complex to reply to without making it clear which part of the comment is relevant to which part of a reply.
Is there a better way to format conversations on HN when comments reach this level of branching complexity?
A long back-and-forth of quote and rebuttal though is definitely not the style here. That style makes sense in Email and Usenet, because you're often using readers that don't show the parent comment at the same time or in a thread. It makes very little sense here, where we're essentially reading the same comment twice.
For standard/default conversations, I agree that it doesn't make sense (as is the case with many standard situations). But for non-standard situations, sometimes non-standard approaches are more suited.
Anyway, there is nothing in the site guidelines defining "the style here," as you call it. Are you the sole repository of the style here, or are there others?
Counterpoint (with the quote for irony): I find that in politicized discussions like this one, when I want to jump in to correct something, it is horrifyingly common to find that the original comment has been editted to sneak around the point I wrote. The quotes act as protection against bad faith discussion.
a) You do not know what I know
b) I would say that I am not on "rhetorical ice" at all - rather, I am combating rhetoric with precise, non-rhetorical ideas
> and also kind of outside the norms of our community
This is my very complaint. It may be true that I am "outside of the norms (Overton Window) of the community", but have I violated the HN guidelines? Is strict epistemology (disciplined adherence to that which is actually true) a formal violation of explicit community rules, or an undocumented, culturally imposed one?
> when you start quoting the dictionary as a rebuttal.
Adherence to formal, broadly accepted definitions of words (upon which someone else's argument is based) is improper behavior?
> The person you're debating told you what they meant; what they meant is no longer a part of the debate.
How does one know what portions of reality are acceptable to discuss, and which ones shall not be discussed? I see nothing in the guidelines. And I would strongly disagree to objections based on "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It is a fine guideline, but when it starts being used as a wildcard to suppress true ideas, the discussion of which may not to be some people's liking, I think that crosses an important line.
> Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site.
Certain forms of communication (precise, non-narrative) lend themselves to different writing styles.
Do you have any objections that are based on the actual content of the ideas I have written? Or might your objection be not to the ideas themselves, but that I am stating them out loud?
Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or informal) and pretending they do not exist?
Based on how I see events unfolding in the world, now seems like an opportune time to be discussing just what exactly we humans are actually up to on this planet (as opposed to what we like to tell ourselves we are up to), from a more philosophical/abstract perspective - this facilitates the ability to rise above the repetitive loop of object-level "he said, she said" conversations, and ascend to a level of more thoughtful, less combative/partisan communication and sense making - at least in theory. Are we formally opposed to that level of conversation, is that "outside the norms of our community" - or not? This is not my decision to make, I am only asking the question.
> Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or informal) and pretending they do not exist?
And I believe this is your end goal:
> the abilty ... to ascend to a level of more thoughtful, less combative/partisan communication and sense making
Is that a fair set of summary quotations?
Completely agree that this isn't how human psychology works. However, in debate (which is what is happening here), facts and logic can indeed be used to vanquish one's counterpart. When the facts are in favour of one side of the debate, it is fairly typical that they will leverage them in the debate. If you observe a debate where one side does not use facts but instead opts for pure rhetoric, it is often (but not always) a sign that they do not have facts on their side. If you ask them about the abstract notion of facts/truth, repeatedly, and the response is, repeatedly, as if they did not see the question, this may be considered another sign.
> ...and without that axiom I think the rest of this analysis falls apart
This is interesting - are you able to articulate how you consider this to be the case?
I in no way considered "Destroying people with facts and logic" to be a key component of my overall argument, it was mostly just an off the cuff bit of snark.
Had you been referring to HN, you'd still have been wrong: "destroying" with anything, facts and logic included, is opposite to the spirit of this site.
Reading someone's mind and then asserting it as what they are doing and knocking that down (a classic strawman argument) is the rhetorical sleight of hand (and also an innate capability that develops from a very young age, as far as I can tell).
In fact, what I was actually referring to was the particular angle I am arguing in this thread, here on HN, an argument that has been opposed by nothing other than rhetoric.
> Had you been referring to HN, you'd still have been wrong: "destroying" with anything, facts and logic included, is opposite to the spirit of this site.
Framing the argument via semantics (cherry picking one word, that was placed within quotation marks to explictly* indicate that it is being used in a figure-of-speech manner) to (again) turn it into a non-representative proxy of the actual argument and then sidetracking the discussion onto that, is another clever rhetorical slight of hand.
What remains, unaddressed, is the original argument.
The tactics are annoying, but I don't mind so much - seeing them on full, unapologetic display is actually kind of the point of the whole exercise from my perspective.
That it is an excellent attractor for downvotes and rhetoric? :)
Wikipedia defines Qanon as "QAnon[a] (/ˌkjuːəˈnɒn/) is a far-right conspiracy theory.[b] It alleges that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against US President Donald Trump, who is battling against the cabal"
The ACTUAL TRUTH is that... there is not a cabal of Satanic pedophiles plotting against Donald Trump.
If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles. Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory, and many others, are obviously false. Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate.
I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect.
This happens on every type of definition, from Feminism to Socialism, to Nazism. If you want to have a nuanced discussion about aspects of QAnon in the context of what it means to you, you need to recognize that there's not point in pushing the brand. You need to state specific issues with their own identity.
All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man. Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate.
I browsed some conspiracy sites back in the day, including 4chan and /r/conspiracy. There seemed to be three levels of thought about Jews. A small number of people thought that Jews had a conspiracy whereby they coordinated with each other to run the world (active collusion). A larger number of people thought that powerful people generally ran the world in a way that actively benefited the powerful and hurt the poor (without active collusion) and that a disproportionate portion of those powerful people were Jewish. A third, even larger group, didn't really think it was about Jews - like the second group, they thought powerful people subtly colluded to benefit themselves, but they weren't really interested in the religious background of those people, or recognized that the disproportionate representation of Jews among the powerful is more likely a result of a higher than average interest in education and a lower rate of divorce among Jews - just normal population demographics playing out.
One of the things that was interesting is that all three groups (even those that disavowrd anti-Semitism) used "anti-Semitic" memes like (((globalists))) and that the vast majority of contributors (from the second and third group) looked down on the first group. Thinking that Jews actually got into a secret room and actively conspired - this was low-brow - and you'd see comments mocking such views - the village idiots of conspiracy village.
It's my observation that the media often describes conspiracy groups as the first group only. E.g. with Pepe in 2016, the media described a green frog as an anti-Semitic symbol. But on conspiracy forums, commenters were saying "no, Pepe doesn't refer to Jews, it refers to globalists / illuminati."
I think a similar thing is going on the Q. I have one friend who has been watching and describes himself as a fan - he doesn't believe it all, or even most of it - but he does believe that powerful people conspire to evade laws that is common people follow and that powerful people in particular often engage in illegal sexual liasions, including prostitution and in some cases, prostitution involving minors.
The larger point is - there's a spectrum here that ranges from literally believing Clinton and Trump hang out in the same pizza parlor raping children, to believing that powerful people are generally aware of the availability of prostitution and the prostitution of minors at expensive hotels (hello, Russia Ritz Carlton, can I get a room in the presidential suite). Many of the softer versions of these "conspiracies" don't seem too far fetched to me - after all, we know that powerful people were aware of Epstein and purchased services from Epstein well before the rest of us knew. On sites like 8chan, you see the whole range - with, frankly, the majority of the commenters on the softer end - but the media represents those sites as dominated or exclusively the harder versions. And it's misleading. Such misleading descriptions attached to an attempt to restrict free speech are very dangerous IMHO, as they can be used to restrict legitimate speech e.g. about the extent of complicity of major hotel chains and just general awareness of rich people and illegal sexual transactions.
> All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man. Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate.
If you think there may be some rich people who engage in with underage prostitutes, you are almost certainly correct. It's kind of dumb to make that a salient issue in your day to day if you don't have any specifics, but sure, it's probably still true somewhere. But let's say you, for whatever reason, still think its really important to make sure people ask the question, are there rich pedophiles.
It should be patently obvious that aligning yourself at all with stupider ideas, even if they share a similar vein, is a bad idea. It harms your credibility to defend QAnon and then qualify that you only mean your portion. If you want to have a discussion, all you need to do is say "pizza parlor stuff is dumb, QAnon is dumb, but there is some merit to rich pedophiles somewhere.
The weakness of conspiracy theorists is that they align themselves with other conspiracy theorists who offer some form of affirmation to their beliefs because they think a larger force is telling them lies. And maybe they are being told some lies. Because that's really all it is. You can adjust your level of craziness but the entire point of a conspiracy theory in-group is getting affirmation from others. If you had a genuine interest in an issue that you wanted to raise in public awareness or do something to combat it, the route of the conspiracy theorist is an awfully dumb way to do it. The spectrum is, at worst, dumb as rocks, and at best, unwise and lacking in self awareness.
First, it's not just that some rich people are pedophiles. It's called a conspiracy theory for a reason - there's conspiring going on. The CEO of the Ritz knows that his hotels offer underage prostitutes. The personal concierge directs the CEO to club which is known to be "good for rich people." The club owner knows that the company they outsource to for renting table dancers on the weekends also has dancers doing some prostituting on the side. The other rich attendees of the club (who are not purchasing) can see that that girl is clearly not 21. There's more than just pedophilia going on here - a system of winks and nods whereby powerful people are offered the opportunity to engage in illegal behavior and make no moves against the powerful people who facilitate these opportunities.
The second thing is that you're missing the point around alignment. These people DON'T align themselves with each other. They frequent the same forums as each other (e.g. 8chan) and disagree with each other on those forums. It's only in the eyes of the media and in people influenced by the media that the various flavors of conspiracy people are actually aligned.
Edit: was thinking about this line.
> If you had a genuine interest in an issue that you wanted to raise in public awareness or do something to combat it, the route of the conspiracy theorist is an awfully dumb way to do it.
What is the right way to address e.g. the widespread availability of illegal prostitution in hotels owned by American companies in foreign countries? I saw a few news articles in the press exploring the phenomenon a few years back, but nothing changed. Am I supposed to found a non-profit? A newspaper? Do the investigation myself and publish it to LiveLeak? Write a letter to my congresswoman? I'm honestly not sure how to work that problem, other than just talking to other people about it.
And? Is the claim made more meaningful by these specifics?
> The second thing is that you're missing the point around alignment. These people DON'T align themselves with each other. They frequent the same forums as each other (e.g. 8chan) and disagree with each other on those forums. It's only in the eyes of the media and in people influenced by the media that the various flavors of conspiracy people are actually aligned.
People who regularly meet and discuss things are aligned on the part that counts. They might not be organized, but they're definitely aligned
Yes? It's a different claim. Somebody doing X and a culture where many people turn a blind eye to and enable X aren't the same thing.
> People who regularly meet and discuss things are aligned on the part that counts. They might not be organized, but they're definitely aligned
We're talking about forums on the internet. Are you an I "aligned" because we had this discussion here?
Also, please do respond to my edit. I'm still pretty clueless as to the better way to work the problem of powerful people turning a blind eye to and enabling lawbreaking by other powerful people other than just talking about it.
I don't think it makes a huge difference tbh.
> We're talking about forums on the internet. Are you an I "aligned" because we had this discussion here?
No. But this is a forum that generally frowns on and downvotes conspiracy theories. If you go to a forum that's primary function is discussing them, then I would say yes.
> Also, please do respond to my edit. I'm still pretty clueless as to the better way to work the problem of powerful people turning a blind eye to and enabling lawbreaking by other powerful people other than just talking about it.
>What is the right way to address e.g. the widespread availability of illegal prostitution in hotels owned by American companies in foreign countries? I saw a few news articles in the press exploring the phenomenon a few years back, but nothing changed. Am I supposed to found a non-profit? A newspaper? Do the investigation myself and publish it to LiveLeak? Write a letter to my congresswoman? I'm honestly not sure how to work that problem, other than just talking to other people about it.
Well given that your theory could be wrong, yeah, you should probably either do the investigation yourself, fund someone else to do the investigation, or find a different problem to solve that is within your power to affect. Raising awareness of something in the form of a conspiracy theory delegitamizes it.
For example, how legitamite anti human trafficking non-profits have had a harder time doing productive things due to conspiracy theory influence: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/qanons-obsession-with-s...
> If you had a genuine interest in an issue that you wanted to raise in public awareness or do something to combat it, the route of the conspiracy theorist is an awfully dumb way to do it.
I said:
> What is the right way to address e.g. the widespread availability of illegal prostitution in hotels owned by American companies in foreign countries?
And you said:
> find a different problem to solve that is within your power to affect.
You clearly haven't answered the question. "There are better ways to solve this problem." "What are the better ways to solve this problem?" "You should solve a different problem." This is not engaging in good faith - you've made assertions and then refused to back them up.
Fwiw, I read the 538 article a few weeks back. They get more phone calls and also more donations and complain about the extra phone calls. I'm fairly certain the funding is worth more than the phone calls cost. So QAnon has actually helped here, if not in the way they intended, or as effectively as they could have. Claiming that a cost of a few phone calls significantly outweighs extra donations is just silly - and seems like the sort of political head-in-the-sand fake news that partisans publish constantly.
One of the things that shows the total bankruptcy of QAnon is that despite the long history of trump sexual abuse and several credible rape claims and the fact that Trump peeked on underage teenage girls changing at a miss teen usa contest, almost none of these conspiracy theories accuse Trump of anything. Instead it's always perceived enemies of trump Democrat or Republican or celeb that doesn't like Trump accused almost always without any evidence
No, the actual truth of what Qanon -is-, is what Qanon is. There is that which exists in reality, and then there is mankind's best efforts to measure and describe it (what you read in Wikipedia, history books, scientific textbooks and papers, etc). These things are related, but they are not the same thing.
> If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles.
The difference between you and I is that I base my beliefs on what is known to be true, rather than on what others tell me is true, or on my subconscious heuristic predictions of what is true (ie: what I "want" to claim). What the "firm consensus" of what Qanon (or anything, for that matter) is may be interesting, but I am more concerned with what is actually True. If the "firm consensus" of global warming was that it's not happening, would your mind willingly accept that with no complaints? If not, why not?
> Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory
a) I have not denied this story.
b) Is "Conspiracy Theory != False, necessarily)" logically correct, or incorrect?
> and many others, are obviously false
"Obvious" falseness is a heuristic prediction - it has not been objectively established what is known(!) to be False (or True, or Unknown) in many instances - rather, it has only been asserted (typically with little if any evidence) what is False. Again, apply your same logic to climate change and see if your thinking changes.
> Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you took this philosophy into the workplace when implementing software, or if a new hire brought it to you.
> I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing.
You have no way of knowing what most conspiracy theorists are, or are not, or what they believe, just as a racist has no way of knowing the same about people who have a different skin color than them. This should be fairly easy to realize: ask yourself what the literal source of that knowledge is. Is it a broad, accurate survey of a large number of conspiracy theorists, or is it a subconscious heuristic operating on a dataset of some anecdotal personal experiences combined with large numbers of news articles and forum conversations that are also not based on direct evidence?
> But they're still terribly incorrect.
If you were to attempt to compile a substantial list of their beliefs and their correctness that is consistent with measurable reality, I propose that you would immediately notice a problem - a severe lack of specific content.
> This happens on every type of definition, from Feminism to Socialism, to Nazism.
Indeed it does, including right here on HN.
> If you want to have a nuanced discussion about aspects of QAnon in the context of what it means to you, you need to recognize that there's not point in pushing the brand.
Completely agree, and I do realize this, and I am not "pushing the brand" - rather, I am discussing abstract principles like the value and importance of truthfulness, and the possible consequences of a culture that decides to turn its back on such principles. These are not exactly easy conversations to have, but that's why they are so important.
> You need to state specific issues with their own identity.
Actually, this is what I am requesting of others who are asserting that reality is composed of a specific state - my disagreement should not be considered an assertion of the opposite, because it isn't - that is undisciplined, non-logical thinking. In fact, I am simply following the "critical thinking" advice suggested by the media: do not accept things you read at face value - ask questions, challenge assertions (especially those that lack evidence, especially when their proponents are opposed to discussing evidence, preferring instead to use rhetoric), etc.
> All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified
Oh? What was it nullified by?
> and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man.
Pure rhetoric.
> Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate.
Implying that I have implied that is yet another example of the very thing I am protesting: a lack of concern for what is true.
Why don't you list them for us then and give us your opinion on whether something is Provably True, Not provable but probably true, not provable but probably false, and provably false.
Let's say top 5 beliefs to keep it simple.
Here's why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
When two parties are in a discussion and one [makes a claim] [that the other disputes], [the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim] especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
The claim in question:
"...most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect."
The context:
>> If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles. Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory, and many others, are obviously false. Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate.
>> I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect.
So my questions to you are:
1. How is it that you know(!) the mental state and epistemic quality of the beliefs held by not only one person, but most conspiracy theorists? (Note: you are the one who made the claim, my inability to disprove it does not constitute a proof of your assertion.)
2. Are you averse to touching upon the abstract idea I have mentioned many times: What is actually true?
These conversations are always rather ironic: right-thinking critical thinkers can regularly be observed opining at length about the intellectual inferiority of their out-groups, how they believe things without the need for evidence, how they refuse to listen to logic, how their beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny, and so forth and so on.
All of this is very often true, and perfectly reasonable criticism. But what people seem to not realize is that this behavior is not derived from <out-group membership>, but rather from a more universal place: the human mind. Challenge any individual's axioms (a self-evident truth that requires no proof), and they will exhibit the very same behavior, if perhaps with more sophistication and a better vocabulary.
If anyone was actually curious why <group x> believes what they do, or was truly concerned about the alleged "danger" they and their ideas impose upon society, you'd think they might perhaps have a little genuine curiosity about what is actually going on. However, as can be seen in this thread, there is not only no interest, but extreme aversion to touching the topic in a serious, non-rhetorical way.
Something to maybe keep in mind for the next time you find yourself criticizing those who you do not actually know much about.
My statement about mental health of conspiracy theorists is based on a journalist who interviewed dozens of conspiracy theorists and found that almost all of them had suffered an incident where they were betrayed in their personal lives and believed that most people were lying about them. I found that compelling. He wasn't god though. Maybe he was wrong.
Not quite - it can easily be assumed false - I offer this thread as evidence. And I am certainly not making that claim - it is being inferred that I am making that claim, but if you read the text I have written, you will find no sign of it. Isn't that interesting...what might be going on here?
What I am complaining about is that everything that has had a "conspiracy theory" label attached to it, is asserted as being(!) False.
> That's fine, but just because something can't be proven false, one doesn't need to assume it has merit beyond a random statement.
No one here has done that. But plenty of people have done essentially the opposite: if something hasn't been proven True (regardless of any actual effort), then therefore it --is-- False. This is such comically flawed logic, it is near impossible to believe that it is being simultaneously followed by so many people who rely upon strict logic for their daily job. I would say that this paradox hints at the potency of the power that is in play.
> My statement about mental health of conspiracy theorists is based on a journalist who interviewed dozens of conspiracy theorists and found that almost all of them had suffered an incident where they were betrayed in their personal lives and believed that most people were lying about them. I found that compelling. He wasn't god though. Maybe he was wrong.
Maybe his report didn't quite line up with reality. Are journalists ever wrong? Do stories ever appear in the newspaper that are "a little" sensationalized?
What matters, is what is true. Or, at least, that's what should matter, and what used to matter. But it seems like a new post-truth culture is developing, and that culture can be found in very high concentrations right here on HN.
To some degree, of both "frequency of escape" and "magnitude of harm", both of which are valid variables to be considered within the aggregate of all(!) variables related to conspiracy theories (of which these are but two, contrary to popular consensus).
> A racist conspiracy theory that posited, contrary to all evidence, that our previous president was born in another country, combined with some conspiracy theories popular among "the Tea Party movement" as they were known, propelled our current president into office, where the theories have snowballed and escalated into shots fired in a pizza parlor, protesters murdered by car, protestors murdered by gun, illegal voter intimidation, and a significant chunk of the population not quite ruling out the possibility that a huge chunk of elected officials and others are part of a cabal of devil-worshipping pederasts who drink the blood of children.
This is an interesting sentence, and certainly a popular story. The interesting part is that it uses epistemology as a tool for dismissal ("contrary to all evidence"), but then proceeds to assert several other complex ideas that involve coordinated behavior between multiple people (there's a word for this sort of thing: conspiracy theory), and does so with no concern whatsoever for whether evidence actually (and entirely) supports it.
> There are people on this page, right here at HN, stating misleading nonsense tangentially related to QAnon. The spread of this stuff is pervasive already.
There are various forms of misleading nonsense on this page. For example, numerous people asserting that QAnon, and conspiracy theories (conspiracy theorists) in general, "are" or "believe" certain things. If one pays close attention to these threads every time they appear on HN (or elsewhere, be it social media or formal media), one may notice that the asserted descriptions are always very vague, and always only include the very worst/silliest of ideas that exist within the communities - very often, ideas that really don't have high consensus agreement in the actual communities themselves. And again, with no with no concern whatsoever for whether the assertions are actually true.
The same talking points can be observed in every thread on these subjects, but one talking point you will rarely make an appearance: what is actually true? What is the actual(!) truth of what is discussed/believed among actual conspiracy theorists, as well as what is the actual(!) truth of of each discrete idea (and the sub-ideas within each)?
It is very concerning to me how easily such a powerful subconscious heuristic can be mass installed into the minds of the populace, even those of the relatively competent critical thinkers here on HN. This heuristic is roughly:
if [an idea has been labelled a Conspiracy Theory], then therefore [the epistemic status is FALSE]
How often does the output of this heuristic make an appearance (as a rhetorical, unchallenged axiom) in this thread (and in all others)? I would say: extremely frequently.
How often does the fundamentally more important heuristic make an appearance: what is actually true, at a discrete level? I would say (as an understatement): rarely.
If truth and rationality is truly on the side of the "anti-conspiracy" side of the divide, you'd think it would be child's play to "destroy conspiracy theorists with facts and logic". And yet, what accompanies the heuristic seems to be an inoculation to any epistemic challenges: circling of the wagons, typically via insubstantial/rhetorical dismissals (ad hominen character attacks), appeals to ends justifying the means, or simply downvoting + silence.
Please pay attention to what is really going on in your countries, and in your media. I do not ask that you believe anything specific, but only that you always ask: what is the actual truth? And also, when forming your worldview, do not consider only what you see (or are told, often without any actual evidence), but also what you do not see.
Pay attention to what portions of reality are freely discussed in the media (and in turn on social media), and the manner in which they are discussed (watch out for framing via a small set of perspectives that are not inclusive of all details). Observe the nature of the ideas being asserted (are they specific, and supported by logic and evidence, or vague conspiratorial slurs?). Compare specific claims (like "X's believe/say Y") to what is actual reality - which requires going and seeing for yourself. It is regularly recommended that climate change "deniers" "educate themselves on the facts" - be careful that you are not holding them to a standard that you are unwilling to meet (or even acknowledge) yourself.