EPTConspiracies - Page 2
| Blogs > notesfromunderground |
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 28 2015 10:40 Doodsmack wrote: This conversation only has a point if we talk about specific conspiracy theories (not necessarily with a negative connotation to that phrase). I don't see how a discussion about whether conspiracies theories exist can advance without looking at specific ones. So can you please explain your claim that the equities market is rigged? it's just a big credit bubble. basically a bunch of smoke and light show being put on by the big banks and the central bankers (which is a revolving door relationship).... in the context of a global currency war. but I really do in this thread want to stick to the idea of conspiracy, secrecy, and power in a more general way. sorry if that feels vague to you  I don't want the discussion to live or die on my own ability to convincingly argue for this specific thing; I want to examine the epistemological concerns in a more general way. The fact that TLers are dumb money is not my main worry  | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 28 2015 11:20 notesfromunderground wrote: @djapz - great post! so you think that there's a sort of informational barrier to most things we would call conspiracies - that they just can't happen because they require a sort of organizational capacity which would be beyond the 'computational capacity' of people, even the very powerful. an interesting point Well it's hard to discuss these things without referring to a specific case, but basically, yes. Let's just say that some conspiracy theories tell the story an immense number of "moving parts", so to speak. And by moving parts, I mean a lot of people coordinating events in a way that is way too complex to be planned for reliably. If some alleged conspiracies are too complex to be planned and executed flawlessly, others are just too vile to happen without anybody speaking up. How can you have hundreds of people committing unspeakable crimes without anybody coming forward about it? I mean, we get whistleblowers and leaks into the news for all kinds of stuff, and we know that government agencies suck both at coordinating stuff and at keeping secrets. Say what you will, powerful people are mostly rational and they, formally or informally, weigh their options carefully. They know that at any moment some of the shady stuff they've done could leak to the media because it's truly impossible to find more than a handful people whom you can trust. High places of power are very... backstabby. So how are you going to recruit all the people you'd need to put an elaborate devious plan into practice? At the end of the day, elaborate conspiracies are way too risky, and sometimes there doesn't even seem to be anything to gain from doing them, and a LOT to lose if they were to fail. That's why conspiracies happen in closed circles. They're mostly subtle. And undoubtedly there have been very consequential conspiracies that we'll never heard about, but nothing as spectacular as the fairytales we sometimes hear about. That's my take anyway. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
What if conspiracies sort of assemble themselves without having to be 'masterminded,' so to speak? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17486 Posts
He was laughed at before his book was published and told his ideas were idiotic and he has zero credible evidence. Basically painted with the same brush as any one who introduces a conspiracy theory. Now, European Football organizers and Olympic organizers hire him as a consultant to learn how to tighten up their leagues and organizations. http://the11.ca/2011/05/19/match-fixing-expert-declan-hill-invites-csl-csa-to-seek-him-out/ in the NBA , Tim Donaghy was the tip of the iceberg and not an isolated individual case as the league and David Stern would have us believe. Stern had to claim every referee was clean, otherwise, the credibility of the entire league falls into question and franchise values fall. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17486 Posts
 http://mashable.com/2015/10/06/new-york-attorney-general-draftkings-fanduel/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link#JB_8oasYHZqJ their database guys are fucking with the data and producing their own winning teams do you know who your biggest security threat is within any IT infrastructure? its the IT security speclalist. LOLhave you been watching MLB this year? ads for "DraftKings" were plastered across every ballpark in the United States. All of a sudden, about 3 weeks ago every single fucking ad just disappeared | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 28 2015 13:03 IgnE wrote: Conspiring about sports usually involves gambling which involves money. And everyone likes money. Just see the explosion in totally inane daily fantasy sports betting this year. Counterpoint: conspiring about equities markets involves gambling which involves money. And everyone likes money | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11504 Posts
But that is not what people mean by "conspiracy theory." As another said, people are dismissing things like the Illuminati- whether it is Jews, the Satanists of the 80's, the bankers/ the Bilderberg group, the anti-Christ all leading to a One World Government by means of convoluted plans that would make Emperor Palpatine's head spin. But I don't know if we are any further ahead by having established that. What we still come down to is you force the anti-conspiracy theorist folks to pause and say 'yes people plan things and secret' but the faked moon landings and the Illuminati theories are just as crazy before forcing the clarification as after. (Unless you are implying that if all these small c conspiracies are true (x), then it is probable that big C Conspiracy Theories are true (simply x multiplied). Whereas conspiracies theories are not even in the same category as small conspiracies- rather than x multiplied, it is y.) | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
And also, as you like ancient greece examples, were hetairei conspiracy clubs ? Was the Hermes affair an elaborate plot to instaure oligarchy ? Was it Alcibiade, his friends or his ennemies ? How can we know ? Is there anything new under the sun ? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11504 Posts
On October 28 2015 17:28 corumjhaelen wrote: Falling I guess the question is how, from an epistemological standpoint, can one differentiate one category from the other. I'll just add two little question, who are the people who fall for the crazy one, and how does it happen ? If you know that, maybe you can know the difference, maybe it's the opposite. Might help, but I can't do more And also, as you like ancient greece examples, were hetairei conspiracy clubs ? Was the Hermes affair an elaborate plot to instaure oligarchy ? Was it Alcibiade, his friends or his ennemies ? How can we know ? Is there anything new under the sun ? My brother works in a pizza shop between two small cities and some of the regulars are conspiracy theory nutters so I hear a fair a bit from him about chem trails, vaxx conspiracies, etc, etc. I would say a common trait for those that fall for the crazy ones is they tend to personalize most bad things that come their way. One fellow is CONVINCED that the former premier of our province was out to grab HIS pay cheque. And not like generic tax increases for everyone, but that the premier is personally out for his money above and beyond the regular tax payer's money. But you see this fairly commonly- little allowance is made for undirected bad events or unintended consequences. Everything fits into the pattern of a deliberate, master plan. It's personal. There is also a tendency to reduce a wide array of interests to one secret and shadowy organization (a League of Shadows, if you will.) There must be one prime mover- somewhat akin to an evil pagan god, if you think about it. They also tend to have a real shot-gun approach to facts- an indepth knowledge of a certain peculiar set of facts, but nothing around it because they tend to cycle through their arguments in a rather rapid pace, making it difficult to pin down any one of piece of their menagerie of facts. This is makes it fairly difficult to discuss their theories because you can never stay on one topic long enough to get down to their ground level assumptions, but they WILL cycle back to that set of facts again- possibly multiple times in the same discussion. Alex Jones is very much like this, but my brother and I have had very similar experiences with the local conspiracy theorists. They also tend to have an unrealistic of view of human's capacity for secrecy (or rather the lack.) Franklin's "Three can keep a secret, if two are dead" never applies. They drastically underestimate (or else do not consider) just how many people would need to be in on the secret and how many people would need to be silenced. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 29 2015 00:04 Doodsmack wrote: Chomsky's "political economy of the mass media" (forget if that's the exact title) is a good example of a conspiracy that assembles itself rather than achieves direct manipulation through deliberate coordination. Basically political power structures accomplish media complicity not through direct puppet stringing but through a system structure that forces the media to live off the government. The result is a lesser degree of control than could be achieved by puppet stringing or straight up state run media. And it may not even be a deliberate effort by those in power but rather an emergent feature caused by natural self-interest on the part of political power components of the "system". Is it a conspiracy if it's uncoordinated though? I previously asked that question. I'd personally say that no, you might want to use another word for spontaneous systems which are manipulative but were generated by common interests. It may have the effect of a conspiracy but I don't think it is. To me, a conspiracy requires direct hands on planning by at least two people or entities that have some direct contacts. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 28 2015 17:28 corumjhaelen wrote: Falling I guess the question is how, from an epistemological standpoint, can one differentiate one category from the other. I'll just add two little question, who are the people who fall for the crazy one, and how does it happen ? If you know that, maybe you can know the difference, maybe it's the opposite. Might help, but I can't do more And also, as you like ancient greece examples, were hetairei conspiracy clubs ? Was the Hermes affair an elaborate plot to instaure oligarchy ? Was it Alcibiade, his friends or his ennemies ? How can we know ? Is there anything new under the sun ? That's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm reading Herodotus and following all these hints about secret financial crises in the temples and falling down a rabbit hole... | ||
| ||
