Posted by: [deleted]
Posting time: 6 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 201
SCP: 5
5 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
~1 user(s) here now
Minimum CCP required to downvote: 10
NSFW: No
Authorized: No
Anon: No
Private: No
Type: Default
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.
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?
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.
And clearly, that only happened because oil rumor.
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.
Political journalism is a conspiracy theory now? If that's true, then this article is on the level of contact with extraterrestrials.
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.
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.
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.
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.