[–] permatruth 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
The phrase "conspiracy theory" has become code for "stuff we're not going to let you discuss freely." As in, if you talk about it in communities the media participates in, then you'll have to endure harassment and threats while people work to disrupt discussion.
But let's give it a chance. Here's a quote from the top of the article.
Secret oil fields in the North Sea, ‘powerful forces’ conspiring against Ed Miliband, the EU to blame for Russia pouring arms into Ukraine. Enough already
Those sound like actual conspiracy theories to somebody who hasn't heard of those topics before. Can it be that this piece will actually use the phrase correctly?
Troublingly, at the height of the referendum debate YouGov found that 26% of Scots believed MI5 was trying to prevent a yes vote.
Abuse of the phrase. And it's also a non sequitur. In that instance, the author is discussing the oil fields topic, and blames it entirely for Scots suspecting interference with the vote. The author would have us believe that polls have shown that the majority of the population of Scotland would vote "Yes" today and that members of the British government have been subjected to criminal investigations for prematurely revealing results because oil rumor. And only because oil rumor. Dunce.
In the aftermath of the referendum itself, out-of-context clips that wrongly purported to show vote-fixing in the count spread like wildfire – encouraged by a Russian observer and Sillars once again.
And clearly, that only happened because oil rumor.
Ed Miliband sounded like a bit-player from the X-Files when he recently warned of “powerful forces” who wanted to keep him out of power.
Umm, no he didn't. Every influential person faces powerful adversaries who compete for power. That's not a conspiracy; it's just politics and business. So, now you need a tin foil hat to believe in business competition or campaigns for election? The author needs a tin foil dunce cap.
Scratch the surface and it’s disturbing how common it is in Labour circles to believe that Britain’s newspaper editors gather in darkened rooms to plot the publication of Miliband’s many gaffes.
Political journalism is a conspiracy theory now? If that's true, then this article is on the level of contact with extraterrestrials.
Pussy Riot – no CIA stooges or members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy – recently spoke out to warn the British left against swallowing the “Kremlin propaganda” pumped out by Russia Today. Understandably, they’re concerned to see supposed progressives backing the tyrant whose gay-bashing, journalist-oppressing regime threw them in jail.
Let's throw a reference to a name people sympathize with into the article so they know we're on their side and that we're good people even though we're essentially calling people schizophrenic for everyday, mundane discussion.
Apparently unconcerned by Kremlin-backed rebels shooting down a plane carrying British citizens, it routinely alleges that it is the EU’s fault that Russian arms, tanks and men have been pouring into eastern Ukraine.
Well, that is an actual conspiracy theory being used to try and persuade people regarding international politics. And you'd actually have to be crazy to believe it. So far, the article contains one actual conspiracy theory.
Let's stop here to define what the phrase "conspiracy theory" actually means. The term "conspiracy" is a legal term that means, "any agreement to commit a crime." The term "theory" means, "an informed guess that seems to be supported by evidence uncovered after it was formulated." Therefore, the phrase "conspiracy theory," means, "a guess that somebody intends to break the law, that is supported by evidence uncovered since the guess was made."
And the original "conspiracy theorists" made guesses about just that. They tried to look for instances where some story was best explained by somebody conspiring to break the law. We could guess that media and politicians wouldn't want citizens trying to figure out if anybody is breaking the law because they don't want to be caught conspiring, but then they'd remind us of imagery involving newspaper clip wallpapered rooms inhabited by schizophrenics to essentially imply that anybody who thinks they'd ever bend or break a rule is utterly insane.
But in this case, the possibility of illegal actions is theorized about by somebody with ulterior motive to present such a theory. In every sense of the phrase, including the illiterate bastardization of language it has become, this bit about blaming the EU fits.
The waves of effluent continue to lap at our political life from every side – fans of Julian Assange who think the Swedish judiciary is an outpost of the Pentagon
Citation required. Last I checked, people have claimed that the Swedish government cooperates with US law enforcement. OMG! Cooperation between nations in times of peace, prosperity, alliance, and bond? No wai! Totally a "conspiracy theory".
I'd like to borrow the author's words to describe the kind of manipulation of weak, ignorant minds that depicts as insane anybody who doesn't cowtow to one of any number of arbitrary, conflicting political positions.
This is not merely ridiculous, it’s dangerous.
Unfortunately, what the author means is that anybody who doesn't agree with his/her/its perspective is crazy and dangerous. Interesting that this author doesn't have the courage to attach a name to this piece of tabloid trash. If you're a professional author of any kind and you write something so terrible that you won't even associate your name with it, then maybe you shouldn't publish it.
[–] flyawayhigh 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Very nice comment. So much for the "liberal" Guardian.
[–] DukeofAnarchy 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Alright - let's apply some critical thinking to this piece of propaganda trash.
"There was a time when conspiracy theories were confined to the lunatic fringes of British politics. But like any form of erosion, they are making their way towards the centre – the grounded sanity of normal democratic politics is at increasing risk of subsidence."
What Wallace means by the term "conspiracy theory" (as is made very clear in the article) is any opinion that diverges from a narrow range set by the political and media establishment. It is true that distrust of politicians and the "mainstream" regime media mouthpieces is becoming more widespread. This is largely the result of the revolution in communication over the past 20 years. The old gatekeepers of information have lost much of their power. In the past, only a tiny fraction of people saw through the sophisticated and extensive propaganda apparatus created in World War 1 and its aftermath. They could easily be ridiculed as part of the "lunatic fringe". Now the heretics are becoming harder to dismiss so easily. The "grounded sanity of normal democratic politics" - that is, the liberal-democratic facade of the regime - is showing cracks.
"Pussy Riot – no CIA stooges or members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy – recently spoke out to warn the British left against swallowing the “Kremlin propaganda” pumped out by Russia Today. Understandably, they’re concerned to see supposed progressives backing the tyrant whose gay-bashing, journalist-oppressing regime threw them in jail."
Russia Today certainly promotes the Russian government's preferred view, just as British state media (and the supposedly independent press) do for the British government. We should not thoughtlessly swallow the propaganda of either side. But that is not Wallace's message: he wants his audience to swallow anti-Russian propaganda, and he even offers some of his own. The members of "Pussy Riot" were jailed because they were guilty of a crime (in fact, of a series of crimes). They would have been treated similarly in most western countries. President Putin is no more (and no less) a "tyrant" than Barack Obama or David Cameron.
"Sadly, Putin apologism isn’t confined to the left. Not only did Nigel Farage admire the former KGB man as “an operator”, also his party is convinced that Moscow is the victim of an imperialist Brussels. Apparently unconcerned by Kremlin-backed rebels shooting down a plane carrying British citizens, it routinely alleges that it is the EU’s fault that Russian arms, tanks and men have been pouring into eastern Ukraine."
It is a fact that NATO has pursued a relentlessly aggressive, expansionist and anti-Russian policy in eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. Russia for a long time made every effort to appease the west, making repeated ill-advised concessions. Now that NATO aggression has finally provoked determined resistance, the regime propaganda line is to denounce the Russians as the aggressors. In the past, with most people relying on the word of an easily controlled handful of information sources (Radio/TV stations and newspapers) this would have been easy to get away with. (The Nazis succeeded in convincing most Germans that Germany was being forced to fight a defensive war.) Today, a better-informed public makes the job of propagandists harder than ever. That is why Wallace is worried.
[–] flyawayhigh ago
The moment I see the term "conspiracy theories," I expect a really junky article. No surprise with this one.
Sure, sometimes relatively innocent articles use this propaganda term. When that happens, I send 'em an email or give them a call and ask them not to use that term.