urban75: Ten characteristics of conspiracy theorists
Note from editor: because of the high profile nature of the urban75 bulletin boards, we often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) ‘truth seekers’ filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut’n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site.
We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.
(Hat tip: Rachel.)
Posted on July 24th, 2006 at 8:36 am
| See also • Water, water everywhere • Say it ain’t so… • Jim Bliss: The sorry state of journalism |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Chicken Nuggets, Miscellaneous misanthropy |
Not a big fan of this for three reasons:
1. In large part, these are also the characteristics of serious researchers - are you sure you’d like to score yourself (or even a real high-energy type like Tim Ireland) against this checklist.
2. Calling it “ten characteristics of conspiracy theorists” just invites people to spot someone with one or two of the characteristics and treat them as if they had the whole ten.
3. If someone is being a dick, it is OK to ban them for being a dick. If someone isn’t being a dick, then the fact that they are pursuing a parapolitical or “conspiracy” theory shouldn’t be used against them.
There is a problem both ways here; the conspiracy community often behaves in utterly unacceptable ways that I will not try to defend, but it is usually a result of quite extraordinary provocation.
Who might have written this? A ‘conspiracy theorist’, a ‘conspiraloon’, or a ‘conspiracy nut’ to use Justin’s choice of term?
Well, none of the above. In fact, the quote forms the introduction to an article entitled ‘Reasonable Doubt, What if the four London bombers didn’t know they were bombers?‘ by Professor J K Galbraith, as published on 27th July 2005 in American Prospect Magazine.
Thanks to Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, author of ‘The London Bombings - An Independent Inquiry’ for reminding us of Professor Galbraith’s insightful analysis, almost all of which still stands a year after it was written.
And, while those who find it easier to believe without that it is young, British, working class brown men, with no history nor inclination towards terrorism, without defence budgets, armies, navies, air forces and marines, nor Secret nor Special Intelligence Services, let’s deal with that ever-so-quaint term of reference, ‘conspiracy theorist’.
Most definitions of ‘conspiracy’ centre around the notion that a ‘conspiracy’ is when two, or more, people plot together to commit a crime. Therefore, any crime involving two, or more, people technically constitutes a ‘conspiracy’. The question therefore becomes not whether you are a conspiracy theorist but for which conspiracy you find the evidence most compelling.
Furthermore, unless the explosions in London were orchestrated by a lone bomber, unaided by anyone else, then any theory about what happened is, by definition, a ‘conspiracy theory’, including the government’s Official Report which the Home Secretary has finally, graciously, admitted, was wrong.
One more time, with feeling and HTML tags fixed….
Who might have written this? A ‘conspiracy theorist’, a ‘conspiraloon’, or a ‘conspiracy nut’ to use Justin’s choice of term?
Well, none of the above. In fact, the quote forms the introduction to an article entitled ‘Reasonable Doubt, What if the four London bombers didn’t know they were bombers?‘ by Professor J K Galbraith, as published on 27th July 2005 in American Prospect Magazine.
Thanks to Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, author of ‘The London Bombings - An Independent Inquiry’ for reminding us of Professor Galbraith’s insightful analysis, almost all of which still stands a year after it was written.
And, while those who find it easier to believe that it is young, British, working class brown men, with no history nor inclination towards terrorism, without defence budgets, armies, navies, air forces and marines, nor Secret nor Special Intelligence Services, let’s deal with that ever-so-quaint term of reference, ‘conspiracy theorist’.
Most definitions of ‘conspiracy’ centre around the notion that a ‘conspiracy’ is when two, or more, people plot together to commit a crime. Therefore, any crime involving two, or more, people technically constitutes a ‘conspiracy’. The question therefore becomes not whether you are a conspiracy theorist but for which conspiracy you find the evidence most compelling.
Furthermore, unless the explosions in London were conducted by a lone bomber, unaided by anyone else, then any theory about what happened is, by definition, a ‘conspiracy theory’, including the government’s Official Report which the Home Secretary has finally, graciously, admitted, was wrong.
Wot u on abaht? Wikipedia - v - J.K. Galbraith?
Sites like yours shd not try to ‘ban’ things just because u don’t agree with them.
Necessary but not sufficient conditions to be a conspiriloon. By those ten points, you can’t rule out our trans-Atlantic poodler Tony Blair…
by Professor J K Galbraith
Stylebook issue: it’s often a good idea to refer to James K Galbraith as “James K Galbraith” or (in context) “Jamie Galbraith” to avoid confusing him with his father.
Copy. Paste. Send to Daily Express.
A handful of Muslim fundamentalists armed with little more than boxcutters managed to take take down two of the tallest buildings in New York and cause severe damage to the Pentagon.
Not forgetting also managing to knock down WTC 7 through methods yet explained.
How’s that for a conspiracy theory?
Surely all arguments are worth listening to if argued correctly.
From yesterday’s Mail on Sunday:
Could you tell me how Norman Baker MP fits into the U75 profile of a ‘conspiraloon’?
Perhaps U75 could have another category that describes those that show integrity, courage and tenacity in questioning the official version of events.
David Kelly did not commit suicide and may have been the victim of a murder and subsequent coverup, according to a campaigning MP.
This sentence sums up the real problems with what I’ll call broadly the “conspiracist” approach.
The first clause “David Kelly did not commit suicide” is actually quite well supported by evidence - at least, there appears to me to be overwhelming evidence that the particular account of how he died from the coroner’s report does not account for a number of medical facts which are not in dispute. While obviously nobody knows the true facts with certainty, I would regard the view as entirely defensible that the cororoner should have recorded an open verdict, and this is fairly paraphrased as “did not commit suicide”.
However, there is no evidence at all for any other particular theory of how David Kelly died. It is not on to go from the evidence in favour of the negative case to act as if you had reason to believe in another particular theory about murder. This IMO marks the distinction between the parapolitics researcher and the conspiracy theorist; the willingness to say “but we cannot be sure of any more than this”. I personally prefer the conspiracy approach to the simple one of unquestioning acceptance (particularly since it is never clear what we are meant to accept - considered on objective standards of evidence, the story in the Times about a fifth bomber is a conspiracy story) but the tendency of conspiracists to extrapolate far beyond the evidence is a big factor in preventing them from being taken seriously.
Bridget’s point is well taken and is similar to one made by Robert Anton Wilson - we have all sorts of terms like “conspiracy nut”, “paranoid loon”, “tin foil hat brigade” etc, but no succinct phrase in the English language to describe an entirely rational and well-founded suspicion and distrust of the government, despite a very great seeming need for one.
>by Professor J K Galbraith, as published on 27th July 2005 in American Prospect Magazine.
Who clearly, 20 days after the events, was a world authority who had all the facts at his fingertips.
He may not be a ‘nutter’(etc), but his “insightful analysis” is all pure theory and speculation. And the stuff about the bombers not having left videos – well two of them did.
The fact the government sometimes/often lies doesn’t mean it always lies. The fact there are bits of a story that seem odd doesn’t mean that whatever you can imagine might explain it does explain it.
Questioning is fine. Filling in your own answers ain’t.
Ah, the videos, vivifying villains after all vestiges of their virtuosity have been vanished, with verve, by the vapid, venal, vituperators who vaunt verisimilitude via invidious invective to inveigle the vacillators. Verily, any voracious and veracious investigator would endeavour to verify the verbiage verbalized in video form and, fortuitously, veritable verification has been provided in the form of evidence averring vagabondic vendettas that vapourise the vapid veils and the vicious veneers of the ever-variable prevaricators.
Thanks for that, Antagonist. Ever heard of the signal to noise ratio?
While you’re here, have a look at this. I think you have a case to answer.
Questioning is fine. Filling in your own answers ain’t.
Well, until a full, authoratative account has been given, what’s wrong with having your own thesis?
The rather dilatory attitude to the worst atrocity nu britain has seen is baffling to say the least. A public inquiry, as demanded by North, would seem to be in order.
Our secret services are accountable to no one but themselves. They seem alone in the public sector in not requiring reform,transparency, modernisation and all the rest.
What little we do know (Stakeknife,Spycatcher,Abu Hamza,Forest Gate) suggests an extremely strange organisation, often with a tendency to keep its enemies perhaps too close.
Urban75’s glib list reflects an almost Denning like aversion to intellectual discomfort. Sure, there is often too much heat and not enough light, but you could say that of most information we receive. Gorgeous George Galloway has been on the end of the most ridiculous accusations from our fourth estate (oil concessions found in front of a telegraph journalist in iraq is my favourite), and they show no signs of letting up.
Cui Bono? That has its place, it might not help in a hit and run case, but I’m sure it directed the natwest three prosecution.
Previous conspiracies? Well induction has its limits but also its uses, indeed its hard to live without. These previous instances took a while to become accepted.
Occams razor? Well the london bombings ‘narrative’ is ripe for its application. Spare bombs back in the motor for suicide bombers? Young folk dyeing their hair rather than bleaching it during bomb making?
As d2 says, its always worth keeping an open mind