Conspiracy Theories

[Jackmannii]

@Winsling

Does your definition of conspiracy theory exclude those in which a government is involved? Do you believe that the successful classification of ULTRA is irrelevant when people claim that governments inherently cannot keep secrets?

Don’t you think the definition of conspiracy is getting expanded beyond all recognition? So far here we’ve had things like classified wartime codebreaking and potentially unethical but non-secret medical research mentioned in the same breath as “conspiracies”.

Do you have a point you’d like to make, or do you prefer to simply sneer?

When encountering the feeble logic of people incapable of explaining events without resorting to conspiracy theories, sneering is sometimes indispensable, particularly when factual rebuttal is ignored or repeatedly glossed over in favor of continued delusional spouting.

I do, however, tend to avoid picnics where the CIA brings the potato salad.

[mswas]

@Jackmannii

Don’t you think the definition of conspiracy is getting expanded beyond all recognition? So far here we’ve had things like classified wartime codebreaking and potentially unethical but non-secret medical research mentioned in the same breath as “conspiracies”. When encountering the feeble logic of people incapable of explaining events without resorting to conspiracy theories, sneering is sometimes indispensable, particularly when factual rebuttal is ignored or repeatedly glossed over in favor of continued delusional spouting.

I do, however, tend to avoid picnics where the CIA brings the potato salad.

I’d say your definition of conspiracy is arbitrarily narrowed.

From Dictionary.com

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Where in that definition does any of those things not fit? I guess it all depends on whether or not you think that the purpose is evil. I certainly think that MKUltra was evil, it was certainly unlawful (The CIA isn’t supposed to operate on domestic soil) and it was most certainly secret and carried out by two or more persons.

[Winsling]

@Jackmannii

Don’t you think the definition of conspiracy is getting expanded beyond all recognition? So far here we’ve had things like classified wartime codebreaking and potentially unethical but non-secret medical research mentioned in the same breath as “conspiracies”. When encountering the feeble logic of people incapable of explaining events without resorting to conspiracy theories, sneering is sometimes indispensable, particularly when factual rebuttal is ignored or repeatedly glossed over in favor of continued delusional spouting.

I do, however, tend to avoid picnics where the CIA brings the potato salad.

On the first page, you posted “It is always bizarre to me that a federal government that is constantly shooting itself in the butt and leaking news all over the place, could manage to maintain decades-long conspiracies.” Other people have made similar points. I point out that multiple governments managed to keep a lid on the extent and success of code breaking in WWII. But that doesn’t count because… It’s history? It really happened? If you define “conspiracy theory” as “an insane theory that can’t possibly be true,” then there’s not much to discuss.

Why are all conspiracy theories false? If they’re true, none dare call it conspiracy. That’s your position?

By the way, you may want to actually make a factual rebuttal of any of my examples before proceeding directly to the sneering.

[FinnAgain]

MS, you are not grokking how the English language works. Just because the word “conspiracy” means something does not mean that “conspiracy theory” means a theory about a conspiracy. Why you’re so insistent on that point is odd, especially you’ve already admitted, in your own words, that the phrase “conspiracy theory” has its own, separate definition in many people’s minds. That, in a nutshell, is the linguistic definition of a new, separate meaning.

And, (I’m surprised on this point myself), it actually does have a different denotation.

[

: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
— conspiracy theorist noun

](Conspiracy theory Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)

I think the distinction is important, and the way that Merriam goes about explaining it might clear up your confusion. A CT is typified not by a rational analysis of the facts that seeks to get at the heart of the matter, but almost more a post-hoc rationalization to justify a conclusion one already holds about an event.

[FinnAgain]

@Winsling

I point out that multiple governments managed to keep a lid on the extent and success of code breaking in WWII. But that doesn’t count because… It’s history? It really happened?

CT’s are typified by their irrational, often counter-factual rationalizations designed to explain an event. They’re, as a rule, sinister and bad, which is why people are alleging that they’re being conspired about and kept hidden in the first.

Putting them along side such basic things as keeping code-breaking secret is absurd. By that level, if you meet a couple and they keep the details of their sex life secret, they’re engaged in a conspiracy theory. If a bank doesn’t tell you its exact procedures for storing, guarding and moving money? Conspiracy theory. Coke won’t release the formula for its soda, McDonalds won’t tell you what’s in the Special Sauce? Conspiracy theories.

The difference is that you’re equating something which would have no “whistle blowers”, like valid military secrecy, with actual conspiracy theories, like the Jews’ control of the global financial markets or what have you.

You’re also ignoring the fact that all the conspiracies we do know about, rather than having the outlandish hallmarks that Malthus elaborated on, were fairly basic. MKULTRA had the CIA wanting to know if LSD would work as a truth serum. So they used it on people to see if it worked on a truth serum. And when it was investigated, the evidence was pretty clear and unambiguous, which is why they got caught.

A CT would be that the CIA, in collusion with the British royal crown, wanted to promote hedonism as part of the social agenda of the Bohemian Grove, and so they gave Hoffman the idea and sent him peddling off on his bicycle that day. And that’s all proven by the fact that the CIA once had an agent who wore a blue tie on Thursday to a press conference, which we all know is a covert symbol for sexual anarchy.

@Winsling

If you define “conspiracy theory” as “an insane theory that can’t possibly be true,” then there’s not much to discuss.

No… we can discuss if something is a CT or not. I’m not sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp. The phrase has entered public use with a definite semantic value, that means it means something. A CT is differentiated from an actual conspiracy because one may or may not exist and stands or falls on the evidence, and the other is batshit bugnuts bazooie.

It’s like getting upset that “bullshit” is defined as “something that isn’t true”, and that when someone is labeled as “bullshit”, all we can o is say whether or not the label is accurate but that there’s not much to discuss.

@Winsling

Why are all conspiracy theories false?

Because if they weren’t, they’d be called something else.

@Winsling

If they’re true, none dare call it conspiracy.

No. People have shown, and pointed out, plenty of actual conspiracies. The OSP is one I just mentioned, IIRC.
Bonus points, though, for working in the name of the Kook Bible.

@Winsling

By the way, you may want to actually make a factual rebuttal of any of my examples before proceeding directly to the sneering.

My vote goes to the sneering.

[Jackmannii]

@mswas

I’d say your definition of conspiracy is arbitrarily narrowed.

From Dictionary.com 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

According to that definition, we can include the Obama presidential campaign, proposed government health insurance plan, the organizing of Paul McCartney’s CitiField concert and the governance of the SDMB under the heading of “conspiracies”.

Oooh, and even more so the situation in football where plays are discussed in a SECRET huddle, designed as a combination to bring about a result while excluding outside scrutiny and carried out for evil purposes (assuming, say, that the Green Bay Packers are involved and you’re a Vikings fan).

C’mon, no one is saying that conspiracies have never existed. The vast majority of purported conspiracies (especially the ones feverishly discussed in Internet forums) are the province of nutters and people who hunger for simplistic explanations of complex occurrences.

The wailing of those whose conspiratorial balloons are punctured is pitiful indeed.

[mswas]

@FinnAgain

MS, you are not grokking how the English language works. Just because the word “conspiracy” means something does not mean that “conspiracy theory” means a theory about a conspiracy. Why you’re so insistent on that point is odd, especially you’ve already admitted, in your own words, that the phrase “conspiracy theory” has its own, separate definition in many people’s minds. That, in a nutshell, is the linguistic definition of a new, separate meaning.

I grok how it works just fine. There are several connotations and you are insisting upon one. That’s the thing. You are insisting that that one particular one that implies both the words government and false are the only possible connotation. This is not in fact that case. I am admitting that there are several different connotations, of which yours is one. Yours is the most muddled and confusing of them as well.

And, (I’m surprised on this point myself), it actually does have a different denotation.

[url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy+theory]

Right, and this supports my usage.

I think the distinction is important, and the way that Merriam goes about explaining it might clear up your confusion. A CT is typified not by a rational analysis of the facts that seeks to get at the heart of the matter, but almost more a post-hoc rationalization to justify a conclusion one already holds about an event.

That’s one particular usage that you are elevating above all others. As it is the most muddled and anti critical thought of them all, I am opposing it and pointing out why. Basically if we accept your connotation then people get to be intellectually lazy, as soon as something gets labelled a conspiracy theory the critical faculty can shut off and the mindless derision may begin.

In otherwords your connotation is for people who like to shut out conspiracy theories quickly. Those who are more skeptical and believe we should give them a greater examination don’t use the term the way that you are using it.

Not everyone uses the term the way that you do, though I understand perfectly that some people do.

[Winsling]

Wow, FinnAgain, a point by point rebuttal that missed my points. Again, I brought up ULTRA to point out that governments have kept secrets.

Are you maintaining that the Vela incident didn’t happen? That the CIA is not and has never been involved in the drug trade? I’m not advocating Icke’s fairy tales here, so why are you pretending I am?

XT asked, “Name a conspiracy that lasted for years and was eventually proven to be right.” Then you jump my shit for… naming conspiracies.

I’m done here. Have fun claiming that I’m paranoid and have a persecution complex.

[mswas]

And Winsling points out the intellectual bankruptcy of FinnAgain’s connotation.

xtisme “Have their been any conspiracy theories that later turned out to be true?”

Winsling and mswas Yes, A, B, C, D, and X, Y,and Z.

FinnAgain Those can’t be conspiracy theories because they eventually turned out to be true and weren’t convoluted enough.

-Mind numbing bullshit semantic argument ensues-

Imagine in the 60s you tried to tell people the CIA was using a drug to attempt to erase people’s memories, to control them and get them to do things they might not normally, and for use as a truth serum. People would have told you that you were nucking futs.

It just so happens to be true.

[FinnAgain]

@mswas

There are several connotations and you are insisting upon one.

If you ask 100 people, I’d be very surprised if any more than 4 or 5 don’t understand that “conspiracy theory”’ is used as a pejorative. That shows what it’s use, and thus definition, is in our language.

@mswas

Yours is the most muddled and confusing of them as well.

No, and this is why I say you’re not grokking it. It’s not muddled or confusing at all. It means “an alleged conspiracy that is bullshit and whose support is laughable/insane/laughable and insane.” It’s quite clear. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t even understand what you were arguing against.

@mswas

Basically if we accept your connotation then people get to be intellectually lazy, as soon as something gets labelled a conspiracy theory the critical faculty can shut off and the mindless derision may begin.

No. As I pointed out, then the debate is over whether something really is a CT or not. It’s just like claiming that something is bullshit. We don’t then have a big problem saying “It is not bullshit” or “Yeah, it really is bullshit”.

@Winsling

Again, I brought up ULTRA to point out that governments have kept secrets.

Yes, which shows that while complaining about me allegedly missing the point, you actually did. I never denied that the secret was kept (for a while). I pointed out that it didn’t reach the level of Malthus’ well delineated example, that it was actually proven and that it didn’t require irrational conjecture and guessing games to make the charge stick.

Yet again, nobody is arguing that conspiracies don’t happen. The point is that for MKULTRA we found out what happened, prove it, and that was that. It doesn’t require Genius Fools who control all information and manipulate the entire world so that contradictory information gets suppressed and the truth of the conspiracy is deliberately covered up by everybody. MKULTRA actually shows that even when there’s government misdeeds, that armed with the facts it’s fairly easy to prove. As does the OSP. As does Watergate. As does Iran-Contra. Etc, etc, etc.

@Winsling

Are you maintaining that the Vela incident didn’t happen?

Now you’re aggressively missing the point.
The point isn’t just that they happened, but that when analyzed the facts showed the truth beyond any rational disagreement and didn’t require bizarre irrationality to make it stick.

@Winsling

Have fun claiming that I’m paranoid and have a persecution complex.

Do I really need to note the irony that I’ve never implied let alone said anything about you being paranoid or having a persecution complex?

[mswas]

FinnAgain So say I have gotten some circumstantial evidence that leads me to believe that some group within the government is doing something very bad. I can’t prove it for certain, but I am very suspicious. It just so happens that unbeknownst to me that I am 100% correct about this.

What should we call it in the interim before it’s proven correct? Or what if it’s successfully covered up and never proven to be correct? What is the term for that? What do we call it since we can’t use conspiracy or theory based on their proper denotation and instead are saddled with some unecessary implied emotional baggage?

[FinnAgain]

@mswas

Those can’t be conspiracy theories because they eventually turned out to be true and weren’t convoluted enough.

Yes, something not being a CT s a good reason why it’s not a CT. You keep pointing out simple conspiracies and acting all shocke when it’s pointed out that they’re not CT’s.

@mswas

-Mind numbing bullshit semantic argument ensues-

Oh noeeeeeeeees! You called it bullshit. That’s muddled and confusing!!! How are we supposed to tell the difference between actual semantic arguments and bullshit ones? It’d be like telling the difference between actual conspiracies and CT’s.
How intellectually bankrupt of you.

@mswas

Imagine in the 60s you tried to tell people the CIA was using a drug to attempt to erase people’s memories, to control them and get them to do things they might not normally, and for use as a truth serum. People would have told you that you were nucking futs.

It just so happens to be true.

Again you are missing the point.
Yet again, we are perfectly able to debate the accuracy of the label. Just like I can point out that trying to show you the nature of linguistics is not “bullshit” semantics, someone could call MKULTRA a “CT” and be wrong about it.

This isn’t rocket science here. It’s rather clear that the general populace uses the term CT, understands it, an you’re arguing against it for some strange reason.

What should we call it in the interim before it’s proven correct? Or what if it’s successfully covered up and never proven to be correct? What is the term for that? What do we call it since we can’t use conspiracy or theory based on their proper denotation and instead are saddled with some unecessary implied emotional baggage?

Despite your protestations, this shows you really aren’t getting it. Those who think it’s bullshit can call it “bullshit” or, its synonym, “A conspiracy theory.”
Those who think it’s accurate can argue that it’s "not bullshit’ or “not a CT”.
This isn’t rocket science.

[Cisco]

mswas,

Say the truth about MKULTRA was discovered yesterday instead of however many years ago. Can you imagine the headline:

MKULTRA NOT JUST ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY’

?

[Malthus]

@mswas

FinnAgain So say I have gotten some circumstantial evidence that leads me to believe that some group within the government is doing something very bad. I can’t prove it for certain, but I am very suspicious. It just so happens that unbeknownst to me that I am 100% correct about this.

What should we call it in the interim before it’s proven correct? Or what if it’s successfully covered up and never proven to be correct? What is the term for that? What do we call it since we can’t use conspiracy or theory based on their proper denotation and instead are saddled with some unecessary implied emotional baggage?

I do not think that anyone would deny that there are no real conspiracies to do bad things.

There is however a certain type of thinking that differentiates real concerns about bad acts by governments and others, and your typical “conspiracy theory”.

The difference is, if you like, that real concerns are built on actual evidence which stands up to logical scrutiny, whereas your typical “conspiracy theory” does not; moreover, those motivated by genuine concerns can have their concerns addressed by cogent counter-evidence, whereas those pursuing a “conspiracy theory” tend not to be susceptable to evidence that runs counter to the theory.

That at least seems to be both the popular usage and to have a basis in reality.

[mswas]

FinnAgain I get it just fine. It’s funny how you need to argue this tactically with personal attacks rather than just address my point. I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, I just disapprove of such a corruption of the language. This isn’t ‘hanged’ and ‘normalcy’ here. This is an even more perverse corruption, where we imply words that aren’t even there rather than accepting a colloquialized but otherwise grammatically incorrect spelling into the lexicon. It’s actually YOU who does not get it.

MKUltra would be a theory until it’s proven correct, thus making it a conspiracy theory up until that point. That the hoi polloi are perfectly happy with such a debasement of the English language doesn’t make it good. It’s on the same level as ebonics really. A place where slang has overtaken the actual meaning of a term rather than being accepted as slang.

The problem here is that people are defending grammatically incorrect slang as the appropriate and final usage of a term, where those same people would likely be the first to attack such poor language in any other instance. The usage you propose lends itself to ad hominem dismissals of ‘conspiracy theory’ for political purposes. After the Bush administration you’d think y’all learned why that’s dangerous, but clearly not.

[Jackmannii]

Girls that don’'t exist
dressed up in clothes I’ve never seen
On every subway wall
On every TV screen
Maybe it’s a con-spiracy
Girls that don’t exist are haunting me.

Kursaal Flyers - “Girls That Don’t Exist”

[FinnAgain]

@mswas

FinnAgain I get it just fine. It’s funny how you need to argue this tactically with personal attacks rather than just address my point. I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, I just disapprove of such a corruption of the language.

1. If you believe there were any personal attacks you should report the post. I haven’t’ personally insulted you.
2. I have addressed your point, several times, directly.
3. You still do not understand, and the fact that you call the accepted usage “corruption” underscores that. If a group of native language speakers use a phrase a certain way it’s not a corruption, it’s what it means.

@mswas

MKUltra would be a theory until it’s proven correct, thus making it a conspiracy theory up until that point.

Yet again, those who were claiming it was bullshit would call it a CT, those who were claiming it wasn’t would dispute that. Whether or not it really was would be an objective matter regardless of the label. And yes, some people might have called it bullshit even when it wasn’t. You’ve yet to explain how that’s at all different from anything else that’s called bullshit.

@mswas

That the hoi polloi are perfectly happy with such a debasement of the English language doesn’t make it good.

1. Yes, it does. That’s what makes something have meaning in a language.
2. Ironically enough, if the language wasn’t “debased”, you’d simply have said hoi polloi since “the” is redundant grammatically but correct in common English usage.

@mswas

It’s on the same level as ebonics really.

AAVE is quite real, so yes, I’d agree that just like AAVE, the use of words in SAE determines what they are used to mean.

@mswas

The usage you propose lends itself to ad hominem dismissals of ‘conspiracy theory’ for political purposes.

This is silly.
You’ve called my argument bullshit.
Should I really need to point out that electrons are not bovine fecal matter?
Should I get upset that you are “debasing” the language?
Should I really need to point out that calling bullshit on anything, from supposed government action to message board arguments is completely kosher and not a problem?

Do I need to point out that I wasn’t really saying that my message board argument was created in accordance with hallaichic law?

[ronbrewington]

Greetings…I’m Ron Brewington, former National Public Relations Officer, Tuskegee Airmen, Inc. (TAI)…

As I read the numerous posts of this website, I noticed that people were calling the “Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment” the “Tuskegee Experiment”

Please be informed that history records the “Tuskegee Experiment” as the period of 1941 through 1949 when blacks were trained to be aviators at Tuskegee Army Air Field; Moton Field, Tuskegee, AL and other fields (until 1946) and later re-located to Lockbourne AFB in Ohio…

The “Tuskegee Experiment” was later called the “Tuskegee Experience” and was conducted by the U.S. War Department and the U.S. Army Air Corps.

For more info, please go to: www.tuskegeeairmen.org (click on “History”)

The “Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment” was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men from 1932 until 1972…

Please click on the below link from Tuskegee University describing the “Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010486/posts
Please note that even though both events occurred in the same town, and around the same times, that there was NO connection between the two events…

In other words, the legendary Tuskegee Airmen were NEVER injected with the syphilis disease…

Thanks…

[FinnAgain]

@ronbrewington

history records

Actually, if you google “Tuskegee Experiment” you tend to get hits for the syphilis study, including an NPR piece by that name. If you google “Tuskegee Airmen”, you get hits for the pilots.
The website you provided seems to conform to that nomenclature as its name is www.tuskegeeairmen.org.

The other link you gave goes to freepers.
Probably best to give the direct link. They, too, refer to “the Tuskegee experiment.”

History, as much as it can be spoken of as a unified, reified entity, seems to use that nomenclature pretty consistently.

@ronbrewington

Please note that even though both events occurred in the same town, and around the same times, that there was NO connection between the two events…

In other words, the legendary Tuskegee Airmen were NEVER injected with the syphilis disease…

I don’t think that anybody here was confused.
Also, the syphilis study didn’t inject people, either.

[E-Sabbath]

Also, Mr. Brewington, we salute you and the Airmen, the sacrifices you made, and the good that you continue to do in this world to this very day. (Without giving up anonymity, I can not say further.)

That said, while I appreciate your correction, I believe, while the words are the same, I do not think one will be confused for the other any time soon. Although… and you would be in a better place to answer this than I… is it possible it was changed from Experiment to Experience to remove the chance of confusion between the two? When was it changed, and why?

Could you kindly investigate that for us?