>Wearing one signals to others that you’re unhinged, have a deep distrust of the government, or that you’re really worried about aliens.
>have a deep distrust of the government
sure Gizmodo, being distrustful of a massive power entity is a lunacy /s
>have a deep distrust of the government
sure Gizmodo, being distrustful of a massive power entity is a lunacy /s
Of course one can have a deep distrust of the government without believing it’s run by lizard people from another planet.
Put another way without specific example or analogy: if there is some organization as large as a nation's government (thousands upon thousands of organizations, possibly millions of people) and you can't weigh things done by said government without always invoking a single nefarious/secretive plot or group being behind it every time then you've left the realm of standard or reasonable distrust and entered the realm of unfalsifiable, unhinged thinking the article is meaning by deep distrust. Even the worst governments in our world's history aren't reasonably measured that way. The alternative to this is not blind trust, it's normal distrust GP was arguing for.
That being said, you still haven’t convinced me. I claim I t’s very possible to hold deep distrust without attributing intentions/motivations to conspiratorial actions.
The act of distrusting does not require an assumption of motivations (or a nefarious/secretive plot, as you put it).
I think we both agree distrust doesn't require a universal underlying motivation but you're continuing to use "distrust" and "deep distrust" interchangeably without explaining why people should consider them interchangeable in context of the article.
One may distrust their state, but in some regards can still trust. One with deep distrust will likely never trust, their level of distrust is much higher. This does not require a conspiratorial mindset.
The real question is when will they start treating skepticism as a medical condition, and how can I invest now in the drugs that will be advertised to treat it?
An entity with that level of power and reach deserves extreme scepticism. As we discovered through the noble sacrifice of a lot of Chinese and Russians the people in bureaucracies are quite comfortable with accidentally causing millions of needless deaths through sheer administrative efficiency in implementing bad policies.
The problem with deep state conspiracies isn't the level of scepticism, it is that the theories don't protect the people who hold them. Knowing that a bureaucrat is willing to disarm you then starve you to death ... does not help that much when the army or secret police gets involved.
the unelected bureaucrat branch of the US government, referred to as the "deep state" by some, is so large and powerful due to funding.
The people who use the term "deep state" unironically are engaged in political activism where they are arguing for dismantling, drawing down, and defunding bureaus that they feel are out of control.
it's ironic that these activists are dismissed by you as being mere "conspiracy theories". it's like calling BLM a conspiracy theory. people who are fighting the power of unelected bureaucrats are political activists. They're just defamed by the same machine that they're opposed to. What a shock! The people in power defame and attempt to discredit those who seek to remove them from power.
Truly, if you do not understand the complaints of those who decry the undeserved and overgrown power of the deep state, you are not thinking about the position of those who hold those views long enough to understand them. You don't have to AGREE with them, but they aren't touting a conspiracy theory. The administrative state exists, is large, has power, and these are activists who want to change that.
They want to stop it before there are secret police or the army is corrupted. Of course, the CIA is secret police, and they coined the epithet "conspiracy theory" that you repeat in order to discredit these activists. Coincidence?
The government is not "an entity", it is layers and levels of elected and unelected officials working towards their own personal goals.
The idea that many of them do things that they shouldn't for personal gain is fairly obvious.
Ideas that huge numbers of them are working together in secret across both public and private sector to execute a singular master plan, fake a moon landing, mess with the population via brain wave broadcasts, spread chemtrails via commercial aircraft, etc. with zero hard evidence are on an entirely different level.
But this is a straw man. Do you know any conspiracy theorists that believe that a large percentage of the state is working together on a secret project that they have guarded from the public, or is that just the easiest thing to discount? The conspiracy theories I hear about are about small groups of people that "control things from behind the scenes."
> The government is not "an entity", it is layers and levels of elected and unelected officials working towards their own personal goals.
This is a false dichotomy. The non-existence of government as an entity is a conspiracy theory so wild that very few people believe it. It's like saying Apple doesn't exist, just some people who happen to be sitting at desks near each other that conspiracy theorists decided to make a big deal about.
The moon landing conspiracy theory is a good example. It would involve hundreds of thousands of people across public and private sector all keeping such a secret. It would even involve the governments of other countries (namely Russia, or Australia who received and relayed many of the lunar broadcasts on the US's behalf) who had their own tracking and radio equipment and could have at least attempted to discredit the mission, but did not.
Chemtrails is a common conspiracy theory as well that again would require cooperation and secret keeping among thousands across both public and private sectors.
Part of my point is that a small number of people keeping a secret for a short time is plausible, but as the number of people and length of time scale up it becomes less plausible due to human nature.
In countries with extreme state corruption, secret police, rigged elections, people being "disappeared", etc. those things are not secrets, and the problem is not a lack of evidence of the corruption.
The citizens know that the secret police exist and that you are at risk of being detained by the secret police for publicly stating forbidden positions. The citizens know the autocrat will always win each election. They are just powerless to change it.