Comment by leftyted | Hacker News Reader

Comment by leftyted | Hacker News Reader

His conclusion is that this style of paranoia belongs to "the dispossessed" rather than to one political faction. Or at least to those who feel dispossessed.

Another data point for that thesis: Arabs are very into what we would call conspiracy theories. A decade ago there were all these polls showing fairly broad approval among Arabs for Osama Bin Laden. That makes sense when you consider other polls showing that most Arabs didn't think Bin Laden was involved in 9/11 [0].

Personally I have a soft spot for conspiracy theorists. At least Alex Jones is thinking for himself. Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are on HN a lot and I feel similarly about them -- which is not to say I put them in the same category as Jones. I think they get some stuff right, I appreciate their fire-and-brimstone approach (at least it's fun to read), but both of them frequently write sentences that cause my eyes to roll back in my head.

I think the ultimate source of conspiratorial thinking is linked to reductio ad absurdum. In our minds, we seem drawn to the extremes. Everything reminds everyone of Hitler, Stalin, Maoist struggle sessions, and so on. Trump is a vile white-supremacist-fascist. Biden is kowtowing to critical-theory-reading neo-Marxists. Reducing an argument to the absurd makes sense in logic and math but perhaps not in the real world where there's no guarantee that an argument is based on anything logical.

Or maybe it makes sense in the real world too. It seems to me, sometimes, that conspiracy theorists are actually fairly good at identifying the ultimate goal of an ideology. But ultimate goals are ideals, they're never realized and, in practice, they provide a direction rather than a destination. It's one thing to identify the ultimate goal of the ideology animating leftists but are you so sure our society shouldn't be a little more left-wing? Because, in practice, that's what electing the left-wing candidate is likely to accomplish. It's unlikely to recreate The Cultural Revolution.

On the other hand, maybe the fact that such ultimate goals came astonishingly close to being realized, on the right and left, in the 20th century, is a good reason to be alarmed.

[0] - https://newrepublic.com/article/94546/middle-east-radical-co...

> At least Alex Jones is thinking for himself

Conspiracy theories are fun and all until stuff like this happens:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/this-sandy-hook-f...

And the then claimed that actually, he was literally psychotic when he was saying that stuff and blamed "mass group think":

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/30/us/alex-jones-psychosis-sandy...

> Conspiracy theories are fun and all until stuff like this happens:

A refusal to consider conspiracy theories is also all fun and all until stuff like this happens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates

(Death estimates range from 150,000 to 1,000,000).

> And the then claimed that actually, he was literally psychotic when he was saying that stuff and blamed "mass group think"

Did anyone responsible for the war have to atone for their error?

I happen to think total body count is a perfectly reasonable metric (one of many) for evaluating the risks inherent in various styles of thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be) - I'm curious if you agree or disagree?

Well, this is literally true. I don't know if people don't want to remember, but people saying that there was no evidence of WMD and that the Iraq War shouldn't happen was a conspiracy theory have, in a very real sense, blood on their hands.

"Conspiracy theory" is a category with a high false positive ratio. It's better for all of us to at least entertain them and give them a fair shot before dismissing them.

Unfortunately, that's susceptible to a sort of Pascal's mugging. People can come up with new conspiracy theories faster than you can give them a fair shot, because they're very easy to generate.

While that's true, there are many more debunkers than credible conspiracy theorists. As long as they can maintain their reputation and that no one is too dismissive, and as long as a sufficient amount of actual conspiracies are defeated, I don't think it would be too much of a problem.

I wonder if "brown people" (you know, those people that "Trump supporters, and only Trump supporters, want to see die") in faraway lands who have had their relatives killed in yet another Western war will feel comforted by sophisticated rhetorical excuses written by informed Western "liberals" on a programming forum. Hopefully they sleep as well at night as the fine folks here do.

> I happen to think total body count is a perfectly reasonable metric (one of many) for evaluating the risks inherent in various styles of thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be)

No. It cannot be used to evaluate "risk", without quantifying what you mean by "risk" or even having something like full information. How much was (bad)luck? How much was inevitable, regardless if it was March 20 or 21 where the SEALs had cameras on the beach, waiting for them to appear? We will never have full information to understand what was going on, but the stated reasonings behind the Iraq War, outside of the shoot-first Bush Doctrine^, were lies of convenience^^, at best. The thinking was not simple, nor were the initial motivations strictly good or bad. I would argue the outcome was bad.

^ If you don't help us find the terrorists that ran into your country, you're against US

^^ Knowing Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past, it was a bet that old weapons or evidence of them could be found...making a claim of WMDs convenient.

> It cannot be used to evaluate "risk", without quantifying what you mean by "risk"

Dead bodies laying around on the ground is usually considered a sign that some sort of risk was in play, but I'm clearly not as well versed in the field as you. Your absolutely flawless logic has certainly changed my mind.

I wonder if the relatives of the dead are as as easily convinced as me. What's your intuition on that (if you care enough to bother generating an opinion that is)?

There's conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories.

When someone targets random people like, I don't know, parents of murdered children, when it turns out they're wrong, the failure case is absolutely devastating. The failure case when the conspiracy is "George W Bush did 9/11" is going to involve a whole lot fewer death threats to random private people.

Telling stories about powerful people matters a lot less because even if they're lies, powerful people will go along with their day. They'll be fine. So, sure, entertain stories about powerful and possibly malevolent public figures. It's when people with significant power like Jones take to telling stories about random parents of murdered children that they do serious damage.

> The failure case when the conspiracy is "George W Bush did 9/11" is going to involve a whole lot fewer death threats to random private people.

This is a rather interesting detour. How about when the conspiracy is "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"? Did that result in any deaths? Like, oh I don't know, many many hundreds of thousands? Was that "failure case" devastating, or is there some sort of a conversion factor between brown skinned Middle Easterners and Righteous Pale Westerners that I should be aware of?

> It's when people with significant power like Jones take to telling stories about random parents of murdered children that they do serious damage.

In the range of multiple hundreds of thousands of innocent dead people?

I would enjoy reading any serious reasoning for why Alex Jones' Sandy Hook rantings are more serious than the innocent civilians killed in Iraq. Is that not what multiple people here are asserting? If you have no regret (as a taxpayer who funds the war machine) about the situation, I wonder if any of you people have any sympathy?

My son was learning in school last year about the Holocaust, and part of the curriculum was how it was possible that the German public could go along with something that was so obviously wrong. I am going to show him this thread when he gets home from school today, so he can get a real world, firsthand, modern day impression of how human psychology can so easily find a way to justify war crimes.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying: just because Bush did lie America into Iraq doesn't mean that we should shrug our shoulders at people like Jones who prey on random parents of murdered children for personal fame and money.

Yes, government conspiracies exist. That doesn't mean we should take every ranting of publicity-addled nutcases seriously. People like Jones are not performing a public service, and aren't going to actually uncover future real conspiracies. That's not the business they're in. They're in the business of making shit up for money.

I think the poster you are replying to is saying that shutting down people for spreading false conspiracies will be a net negative, because all of net harm from spreading false conspiracies is a tiny little drop against the vast hurricane of actual governmental conspiracies and the harm that can come from them, and that anything that might make it harder to hear about those conspiracies is far more harmful to the world than letting people say things that are untrue. (as evinced, here, by the poster pointing out that there was an actual governmental conspiracy in living memory, whereby hundreds of thousands or millions of (innocent) people died, in part because people were shut down as conspiracies theorists [or in some cases, even branded enemies of the state] and removed from discourse.)

I find it hard, as the poster seems to, to imagine a scenario in which even 100k clones of Alex Jones could cause the same level of harm. And while Alex himself may never uncover any real conspiracies (and really, how could you personally guarantee that?), that doesn't mean the same tactics used on him won't be turned on someone who has uncovered genuine malfeasance. (keep in mind, I've never been a fan, and I think he is a personally odious, obnoxious, and ill-intentioned individual who no one should listen to. Still, he shouldn't be silenced.)

Who said anything about shutting him down? I was talking about the damage he's caused and why people shouldn't just shrug and say, well, he's "thinking for himself" as if there's some independent virtue to coming up with nonsense that outweighs the damage that coming up with nonsense can do.

> while Alex himself may never uncover any real conspiracies (and really, how could you personally guarantee that?),

I can probably "uncover" real conspiracies by claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag. At some point, I'll be correct. That doesn't mean I'm actually performing a public service, a mindless chatbot could do that.

If he's not lying[0] and actually was psychotic when he said those things, then we should not take any of the conspiricizing he says seriously because it was literally the product of his own disordered thinking. If he was lying, then he's the sort of person who will disclaim all his positions as soon as they get uncomfortable for him to hold.

[0] he is

> Who said anything about shutting him down?

Several had more than just something to say about it:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/7/17659026/alex-jones-deplat...

>> The great de-platforming of Alex Jones began last week, when Spotifyand Stitcher removed Infowars podcasts from their respective networks. (Spotify initially removed a handful of episodes before removing whole shows.) On Sunday night, Apple followed suit, removing his podcast from iTunes for violating its rules against hate speech.

>> Apple’s move was followed almost immediately by a rash of similar moves. Facebook removed Jones’ pages, citing repeated hate speech violations. YouTube followed suit, terminating an account that had 2.4 million subscribers. Pinterest came next.

> I was talking about the damage he's caused

Exactly how much damage has he caused? Serious question.

> and why people shouldn't just shrug and say, well, he's "thinking for himself"

People also shouldn't accept their subconscious heuristic predictions about the thoughts of others as representative of reality - this is a wise strategy not only when it comes to people who have a different skin color than you.

> ...as if there's some independent virtue to coming up with nonsense that outweighs the damage that coming up with nonsense can do.

Present your numbers and we can discuss.

> I can probably "uncover" real conspiracies by claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag. At some point, I'll be correct. That doesn't mean I'm actually performing a public service, a mindless chatbot could do that.

Are you suggesting that "claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag" is what (the average) conspiracy theorists do? If you don't mind, could you please state, in detail, which specific conspiracy communities you frequent, and how much time you spend there per week/month? I have a hunch that you're running purely on intuition and stories that you've read about conspiracy theory communities, as most people here clearly do.

> If he's not lying[0] and actually was psychotic when he said those things, then we should not take any of the conspiricizing he says seriously because it was literally the product of his own disordered thinking.

This is some interesting logic.

> [0] he is

This is some interesting mind reading. You know who are often big believers in ESP? Conspiracy theorists.

> I think the poster you are replying to is saying...

You are exactly correct.

> ...against the vast hurricane of actual governmental conspiracies and the harm that can come from them, and that anything that might make it harder to hear about those conspiracies is far more harmful to the world than letting people say things that are untrue

There are several going on at all times. What's fascinating is how easily the vast majority of people, even smart ones, can so easily have heuristics planted in their minds that result in a Pavlovian response to the very mention of a conspiracy theory - any story that has had a "conspiracy theory" label attached to it by the media is from that point immediately classified as False - many people seem quite literally unable to concede there's a possibility that not every single conspiracy theory is wrong. What makes it even funnier is, from reading many comments on HN, it couldn't be more clear that people's knowledge of what the conspiracy world consists of comes directly from the mainstream media. The average /r/conspiracy subscriber has far(!) superior epistemic skills than the average that I've observed here.

What is an example of an eye-rolling claim from Taibbi?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com