Conspiracy Theory: how it doesn't work
A problem with being regarded as a 'conspiracy theorist' demonstrates how effective misinformation can be. How it works to assist those wishing to hide something.
The perception is one of negative thinking rather than clear and highly objective thinking. The type of 'subjective' thinking that rarely gets supported by fact. Mostly innuendo. Suggestion.
Stating: "wrong".
The response shouldn't be one of why you think I am wrong (usually can't make an argument anyway), but why you think you are right.
Belief systems: why do you believe that Apollo happened? I am only putting forward a case to challenge it. I have no proof it didn't happen anymore than you could prove that it did. It all depends on your belief system. Mine exists within the confines of logic although I do think 'outside the box'. Consider all the likely alternatives and not be selective. I don't 'cherry pick' by selective argument.
So, when a rationale is expressed that does not conform to dogma, it is 'ridiculed' by those who pander to such dogma. The message is then one that is not well-received, even though the message may be accurate. People don't want to hear it because it is 'odd'. Not the right way of thinking. Not the accepted "toe-the-line" way.
Surprisingly, I've found, there are more people around than you are led to believe that do listen to properly argued information. There's the incredibly arrogant posturing that assumes everybody else is too stupid to understand any type of argument. It should be within the skill of the proposer to use language understood by all. To adapt argument to be understood. Not dress it up with jargon and complex phraseology to attempt to flummox someone of average intelligence. These are the very people to whom the viewpoint should be clearly explained. Not deliberately excluded and undermined.
Mostly, those who are such 'conspiracy theorists' provide supportive evidential facts that are interpreted as simply wrong without any counter argument to defend a rebuttal.
This could be regarded simply as misinformation disseminated by those who have an interest in rubbishing sensible comment. I am such 'an easy target'. It never ceases to fascinate me: this rejection based on nothing and a total disregard of the supportive evidence. Not even listening. Just rejection.
I can understand why 'dumming down' is encouraged so much today. It removes the need for the Orwellian 'thought police'. And makes it all the easier to control people by telling them how to think. If you fall into the trap of believing dogma, then your reward is that you are not considered a conspiracy theorist! Such reward!! And if you don't accept dogma you must be a conspiracy theorist. QED.
Who does seriously objectively 'read' the tabloid 'newspapers' like TDE? My experience is that the opinions of the day are most definitely created by these newspapers.
It seems to be a constant battle between the planted crowd-thinking mentality and independent thought.
The perception is one of negative thinking rather than clear and highly objective thinking. The type of 'subjective' thinking that rarely gets supported by fact. Mostly innuendo. Suggestion.
Stating: "wrong".
The response shouldn't be one of why you think I am wrong (usually can't make an argument anyway), but why you think you are right.
Belief systems: why do you believe that Apollo happened? I am only putting forward a case to challenge it. I have no proof it didn't happen anymore than you could prove that it did. It all depends on your belief system. Mine exists within the confines of logic although I do think 'outside the box'. Consider all the likely alternatives and not be selective. I don't 'cherry pick' by selective argument.
So, when a rationale is expressed that does not conform to dogma, it is 'ridiculed' by those who pander to such dogma. The message is then one that is not well-received, even though the message may be accurate. People don't want to hear it because it is 'odd'. Not the right way of thinking. Not the accepted "toe-the-line" way.
Surprisingly, I've found, there are more people around than you are led to believe that do listen to properly argued information. There's the incredibly arrogant posturing that assumes everybody else is too stupid to understand any type of argument. It should be within the skill of the proposer to use language understood by all. To adapt argument to be understood. Not dress it up with jargon and complex phraseology to attempt to flummox someone of average intelligence. These are the very people to whom the viewpoint should be clearly explained. Not deliberately excluded and undermined.
Mostly, those who are such 'conspiracy theorists' provide supportive evidential facts that are interpreted as simply wrong without any counter argument to defend a rebuttal.
This could be regarded simply as misinformation disseminated by those who have an interest in rubbishing sensible comment. I am such 'an easy target'. It never ceases to fascinate me: this rejection based on nothing and a total disregard of the supportive evidence. Not even listening. Just rejection.
I can understand why 'dumming down' is encouraged so much today. It removes the need for the Orwellian 'thought police'. And makes it all the easier to control people by telling them how to think. If you fall into the trap of believing dogma, then your reward is that you are not considered a conspiracy theorist! Such reward!! And if you don't accept dogma you must be a conspiracy theorist. QED.
Who does seriously objectively 'read' the tabloid 'newspapers' like TDE? My experience is that the opinions of the day are most definitely created by these newspapers.
It seems to be a constant battle between the planted crowd-thinking mentality and independent thought.
posted by Louis Brothnias at 1:19 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home