Bowling for columbine never suggested any type of conspiracy. Lobbying for guns and interest group cooperation is not a conspiracy in that sense. Propaganda, PR and political influencing is not conspiracy in the conspiracy theory sense.

School shootings are not part of anyone's plan (except the shooters).

Moore tried to reveal the extend of influence and manipulation, not to reveal some new sinister group with secret plot or "everything is connected" in some completely new way that explains shootings. Advancing ones own interest and that having a negative side effect of school shootings is not a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories have the belief that certain events or situations are secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful forces with negative intent.

Unproven theories that threaten someone's worldview are typically met with the same reaction as an opposing political opinions, and for similar reasons. Rarely is it based in logic and consideration, since adjusting one's worldview takes a lot of energy.

My advice is to foster a worldview in which you accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible, and then you won't have to do significant reorganization (or denial and attack) every time an interesting new idea comes your way.

There have been a lot of posts about conspiracies lately, but they have all been pretty tame (or things that were previously considered conspiracies and later proven true). Here are a few more that show that the USA is and has been capable of horrific things since it became a superpower. Now imagine what an autocracy might be doing. Or what things we might be doing that haven't been proven yet/the government actually makes an effort to cover up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22500231 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

No matter what Snowden uncovered, people who believe the CIA is controlling their thoughts with orbital lasers are wrong, even when they cite Snowden or MKULTRA as "proof." Adopting a worldview that accepts every claim, however absurd, as equally valid to all others is foolish. The world isn't flat, nor hollow. COVID isn't part of a New World Order plot to harvest your adrenochrome, we did on the moon, Hillary Clinton doesn't bathe in the blood of child sex slaves to maintain her human form, Sandy Hook was not a false flag, there are no FEMA death camps, no aliens at Area 51, HAARP doesn't control the weather, CERN didn't hack the Matrix, "cultural marxism" doesn't really exist, and neither does the "Deep State."

You can accept that the world is more complex than you understand, and that conspiracies exist, while still having a standard for obvious bullshit. Or at the very least, while being dubious of extraordinary claims presented without extraordinary proof.

Of course, no one suggests that you accept every claim, but instead that you truly evaluate them, especially those with compelling arguments and evidence. Most people struggle to distinguish between ridiculous and taboo. There is a difference.

Your reaction is the reaction I described -- it sounds like you have some work to do on being more open-minded. Being more open minded has helped me across many facets of my life, and I still have plenty of room for improvement. I highly recommend it.

Which of the mentioned claims do you think need more open-mindness?

There is a kernel of truth to almost all of them, and what's concerning is when the most extreme bullshit is used to discredit this kernel of truth (and guess who benefits from this..). I think the cool kids call it "motte and bailey" nowadays. Most obviously, although indeed "Hillary Clinton doesn't bathe in the blood of child sex slaves to maintain her human form", there is now conclusive evidence of child sex slavery in the highest echelons of society.

This: it's transparent and embarrassing when someone uses hyperbole to misrepresent and discredit someone else's opinion. Yet it's one of the most common forms of "debate" on the internet.

I've found it's probably a futile exercise trying to have a productive discussion with someone who is set in their ways online. I have had much more success in person, because there is more mutual respect, which breeds open-mindedness, even when it challenges a worldview.

Disclaimer: I haven't personally seen any compelling arguments for any of the conspiracies he listed save one, though I doubt anyone would phrase their opinions the way the original poster did.

There's no time for nuance in online discussions.

I think it's just the nature of online discussions. You pop in and out of them scrolling down the links on the front page of this site, or even less time for attention when scrolling twitter posts.

Memes are an evolution of this. Shorter and shorter methods of conveying thought and expressions.

It's like bumper sticker conversations everywhere

I wouldn’t call that a kernel of truth so much as having a tenuous connection to some pre existing collective schema.

Companies lobby the government to get laws passed that positively impact their bottom line. However I would not consider this some kernel of truth supporting the theory that “big seatbelt” is trying to take away your freedom, and seatbelt laws are part of a boiling the frog approach to turn the US into a totalitarian state.

Another class of BS “conspiracy” theories are simply contested political issues. Here the wacko conspiracy part usually comes into play as some erroneous motive ascribed to one of the parties.

Now I'm really intrested in which ones there are kernels of truth - FEMA death camps, hollow Earth, false-flag Sandy Hook? The problem I have with "kernel of truth" is that every loosely connected scandal becomes proof of conspiracy theory being "real" when in reality the shady actions are made elsewhere and no one is really intrested, or worse, conspiracy is more intresting than truth. For example, when USA spend milions of dollars during satanic panic trying to prove conspiracy theory true (and ruined innocent people lives), the Catholic church was doing it's thing freely (in my country we have hundreds of people fighting with sex-ed because it's "child abuse and LGBT indoctrination plan", when information about Church officials hiding cases of abuse is just another Monday). We have people scared to death by toothpaste and fluor in water or vaccines (another example of innocent people being in risk of harm due to conspiracies), when opium crisis and dubious antidepresants are basically ignored. I really doubt that looking for children hidden by Hilary Clinton is not going to help with finding another pedophile circle.

It's a valid point that when something real is uncovered, nothing is really done about it. I think that's really the same kind of powerlessness that the article gives as a motivation for "conspiratorial thinking".

btw, at the risk of sounding exceedingly cranky, here's some little kernels of truth I can see if I squint at the ridiculousness we started with:

- CIA is keenly interested in mind control

- Globalist ideals harmed the response to COVID (e.g. by insisting on continued air traffic)

- Weather modification is real (e.g. cloud seeding)

- The possibility of high-energy physics experiments doing some fundamental damage to our little corner of the milky way should at least not be completely dismissed out of hand. Which nuclear bomb was it, where they calculated beforehand whether it would not set the whole atmosphere on fire?

- Political influence is absolutely being exerted through universities

- Don't know about sandy hook but false flags have happened and oppressive regimes have taken people's guns away before oppressing them a bit more

- Can you really read the wikipedia article on "deep state" and say none of that is happening in the US?

I don't think Krapp was really arguing against any of these things, but it just annoys me to no end that all you hear is "bill gates 5g vaccine nanobots" when there are legitimate issues to be discussed.

Ridiculous conspiracies are a real problem, and certainly exacerbated by social media, but are not as significant as closed-mindedness, in my opinion. Not that closed-mindedness as a human trait is really a solvable problem (nor is paranoid conspiratorial thinking), but still. Closed-mindedness as a general human phenomenon holds back progress and keeps bad actors in power. It's the reason we have had more VC money invested into bike sharing companies than into aerospace, defense, chemical, and materials startups combined over the same period [0]. It's the reason Galileo had to suspend his work lest he end up facing serious punishment. It's the reason the NSA is still reading this comment.

[0] https://graphics.wsj.com/venture-capital-deals/

I think we have different scale in mind. You see closed-minded VC capital (which I personally believe works this way due to focus on sure, short-term gain), I see amygdalin sold in pharmacies. You don't need flat Earth level of conspiracy to have victims, and bad actors can emerge from every background and attack people opened to new ideas as easily as old bad actors will still have their following.

The "kernel of truth" isn't the problem - of course sex slavery exists in the highest echelons of society, that's always been the case. The extreme bullshit that leads from there to QAnon is the problem. That the former exists doesn't mean the latter serves some kind of useful purpose or that they're at least half-right. In fact, QAnon does more harm than good to the legitimate causes fighting child abuse and exploitation.

Yet here I am being attacked and called closed-minded for even pointing things like this out.

It's the tone, hyperbole, and dishonesty that is earning you ire. You are arguing against a point no one made to claim something obvious that goes without saying on a place like HN, and using hyperbole to make your imagined opponents seem ridiculous.

"Unproven theories that threaten someone's worldview are typically met with the same reaction as an opposing political opinions, and for similar reasons. Rarely is it based in logic and consideration, since adjusting one's worldview takes a lot of energy."

I disagree that most opposition to conspiracy theories comes from fear of having to adjust one's worldview, or that logic and consideration are rare. This statement makes critics of conspiracy theories out to be closed-minded and unreasonable, which is a common argument made by proponents of conspiracy theories to justify not having their worldview threatened by criticism.

Rather, logic and consideration are the reason most conspiracy theories are rejected, because most such theories are not rational, nor do they present compelling evidence.

"My advice is to foster a worldview in which you accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible, and then you won't have to do significant reorganization (or denial and attack) every time an interesting new idea comes your way."

Speaking of something obvious that goes without saying, most people already accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible. I believe that. That has nothing to do with the credibility of any particular conspiracy theory, and it does seem as if you're arguing against either accepting or rejecting any particular one under the implication that because the world is poorly understood, anything could be possible.

The most charitable interpretation I can make is that you're just arguing against rejecting conspiracy theories for purely emotional reasons... but my reply to you didn't contradict that premise at all, yet you and everyone else here assumes I'm simply closed minded and irrational.

I believe your point of view contributes to the problem. Even if that's not your intent, that is the result.

I do apologize for singling you out personally. That was unnecessary, and you did nothing to deserve it.

> I disagree that most opposition to conspiracy theories comes from fear of having to adjust one's worldview, or that logic and consideration are rare. This statement makes critics of conspiracy theories out to be closed-minded and unreasonable, which is a common argument made by proponents of conspiracy theories to justify not having their worldview threatened by criticism.

This is the crux of the disagreement then. Many of the prominent critics of conspiracy theories, especially ones who becomes full-time skeptics, are indeed closed-minded, in my opinion. But you describe it as a conscious activity (experiencing a fear of adjusting one's worldview) when really it's subconscious and most people are unaware of the mental gymnastics they are doing to shoot down an idea. Or for the more dedicated ones, they are playing debate rather than caring about the issue at hand, which can also be seen by groups such as the flat Earth-ers (if you think most of them actually think the Earth is flat, you have been memed).

I think you are in the minority in that most people agree this phenomenon exists, but very few can apply that knowledge to themselves. I can mostly only do so in hindsight, but entertaining ideas is definitely a practice-able skill.

> Speaking of something obvious that goes without saying, most people already accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible.

Perhaps among the average populous, but amongst people who are often the smartest in the room, especially the people perusing HN, this is definitely NOT true. A decade ago, I was certainly one of these people. I felt I could understand any technology from first principles rather easily, and no one around me seemed to be provoking any questions I couldn't answer. It was arrogance, and now I see it in others, too. Far more so in educated and scientifically minded circles.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. It is deeply concerning that there isn't a general consensus that you are correct.

It makes me think the great filter theory is true and we are going to destroy ourselves because a very significant number of people are incapable of basic reasoning, and the number seems to be growing...

> Unproven theories that threaten someone's worldview are typically met with the same reaction as an opposing political opinions, and for similar reasons. Rarely is it based in logic and consideration, since adjusting one's worldview takes a lot of energy.

This is the proverbial two-way street: unproven theories that reinforce someone's worldview are typically met with the same reaction as supporting political opinions and for similar reasons. Rarely is it based in logic and consideration, since adjusting one's worldview takes a lot of energy.

While paranoid conspiratorial thinking does definitely exist, accusing others of conspiratorial thinking is a very handy way to dismiss other points of view. And as you rightly point out, what you consider to be a conspiracy theory depends often on your opinions on a subject.

Climate change activists have claimed for a long time that our failure to address climate change is partly due to conspiratorial behaviour by oil companies- but this is of course perfectly fine.

Did they claim there was some grand conspiracy? Or that they were being opposed by an oil industry funded lobby?

Interest and advocacy groups exist and make no secret of their agendas. Do these pass for conspiracies now?

There are plenty who would accuse him of being part of the conspiracy theory to take away their guns, but the reason he wasn't accused broadly of being a conspiracy advocate then is that he advocated something that the media broadly wanted, whereas an expose of the failures of handling COVID will be attacking in part the media and in a great part the FDA which is not something the media is interested in, hence it would be labeled a conspiracy theory.