Counteracting Conspiracy Theories

@shavixmir said
You seriously live in an alternative universe, don't you?

I'm not some retarded American you're talking to.

who cares where you are retarded at?

@shavixmir said
You seriously live in an alternative universe, don't you?

I'm not some retarded American you're talking to.

Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel. Coincidental suicides and camera failures for both or a conspiracy to kill them? Which is it?

https://abcnews.go.com/International/jeffrey-epstein-associate-jean-luc-brunel-found-dead/story?id=83001807

@soothfast said
Interesting little article released a few months ago here:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-can-you-fight-conspiracy-theories/

What follows are some interesting snippets.

Conspiracy Theories Can Be Undermined with These Strategies, New Analysis Shows

When someone falls down a conspiracy rabbit hole, there are very few proved ways to pull ...[text shortened]... on human mistakes of perception and logic. The result was a reduction in conspiracy beliefs.

People who have bought into a narrative won’t be unconvinced by arguing particular facts with them, for the same reason a paranoid won’t be unconvinced assassins are lurking behind every tree: for, if you show the paranoid there is no one behind the first tree, he deflects and claims there was an assassin behind that tree but he moved away just in the nick of time, and if you then take the paranoid to another tree and show him there is no one there either, he deflects again. You can never pin him down with singular facts because he keeps moving the goal posts. This is the metalbrain type.


Then there is the kellyjay type: if you show kellyjay that there is no one behind the first tree, he claims there IS an assassin there and YOU’RE blind not to see it.

In both types, it’s the narrative that matters, not the facts.

@moonbus said
People who have bought into a narrative won’t be unconvinced by arguing particular facts with them, for the same reason a paranoid won’t be unconvinced assassins are lurking behind every tree: for, if you show the paranoid there is no one behind the first tree, he deflects and claims there was an assassin behind that tree but he moved away just in the nick of time, and if you ...[text shortened]... re and YOU’RE blind not to see it.

In both types, it’s the narrative that matters, not the facts.

Very true. That is what the believers of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory do. Crowdstrike admitted under oath that there is "no evidence of exfiltration" but there is circumstantial evidence. Then they argue circumstantial evidence is as good as evidence. You cannot convince these paranoid democrats that "no evidence" means "no evidence".

@metal-brain said
Very true. That is what the believers of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory do. Crowdstrike admitted under oath that there is "no evidence of exfiltration" but there is circumstantial evidence. Then they argue circumstantial evidence is as good as evidence. You cannot convince these paranoid democrats that "no evidence" means "no evidence".

Trump supporters tend to mix up two distinct issues. There is ample evidence that Russian agents manipulated public opinion in an attempt to influence the election result in 2016 (which largely succeeded, in getting Hilary not elected), that they hacked the DNC and various govt. agencies, etc.; furthermore, that Russian agents continued their activities after 2016 and hacked several state's voter registration databases, corrupted the SolarWinds update rollout affecting many U.S. govt agencies, and much much more. This has been confirmed by several independent investigations. What has not been proven is that Trump's campaign colluded with any of this. Trump claimed total exoneration (of collusion only) and denied the rest of it (the interference and hacking and so on), much to the consternation of the intelligence community. Trump's supporters to this day continue to disbelieve the truth of the matter, that the Russians are actively interfering in U.S. elections and the institutions of democracy (not only in the U.S. but in Western Europe as well) because they embrace Trump's 'total exoneration' narrative (which applies only to Trump's collusion, not to cyber-warfare and a broad range of interference tactics). Russia was not exonerated.

Mott's claim that other govts do it, too, is a non sequitur. That does not mean that Russia is not doing it or that America can afford to ignore it.