Status
Not open for further replies.

IdleRich

IdleRich
I don't really see the conspiracy theory behind C19. I see things online saying "You sheeple haven't realised that it's a way to control you, the government wants you locked down and they will keep extending it and if you're naive enough to believe will ever end then you're a fool". And that seems really stupid to me cos it will very quickly be proven totally wrong when lockdwon ends.
But basically, as far as I can tell, all the governments don't want lockdown. They have clear incentive to play down the number of deaths and the number of cases and the seriousness and so on. Cos the more deaths there are the worse they look, the more cases there are, the worse their inaction looks and so on. The more it carries on spreading, the harder it is to justify making people go back to work and so on.
All governments have a vested interested in saying that the outbreak in their country hasn't been that bad. That's what common sense tells us, and it's confirmed by the fact that every time someone in power gets busted cheating it's always in that direction.
So it's silly to argue that it's a government conspiracy... in fact i'd go further, that argument is dead, it's done, we know that there is not a government conspiracy.
And I think that what MB is arguing - not wanting to put words into his mouth - is more that there has been a kind of hysterical over reaction where the thing came along, infection rate and death rate was high at first, the most frightening predictions were - naturally - the ones that were loudest and it kind of scared everybody and there was a sort of chain reaction of confirmation bias where people looked for the virus as a cause of death and so they found it and this PR outcry sort of forced governments into overreacting and a softened up populace into going along with it and a kind of storm of hysteria built up and brought us to here.
Which is guess what you guys just kinda said. And yeah it's sort of boring. And, I think, unlikely, but - again not wanting to put words into mouths - the only reason for arguing that is cos you think it's true. No-one is romantically wedded to that idea. It's like an accidental conspiracy theory.
I don't know what other options there are... I guess the one that remains is some sort of coordinated doctor driven conspiracy but it doesn't really work for me. I've not even seen anyone suggest it really, but they're the only players with any agency left once governments are ruled out, as they have to be. Unless it's Soros and Bill Gates perhaps
 

luka

Well-known member
no conspiracy theory has really stuck as you say. it's been grafted onto pre-existing paranoias, around 5g for instance, but you haven't got what you had with 9/11, Bush knocked down the towers, one strong theory for all the sceptics to rally round. you need to have quite outre ideas about how the world works already to really get started on one.
 

droid

Well-known member
Part of the reason why Sweden don't put the elderly in ICUs. They let them die at the retirement homes, but as cynical as that might be - perhaps a more dignified death.

I believe the survival rate for Covid19 ICU patients was 20% in NY (and 50% in the UK), compared to 80% in Sweden.

This is the most shocking thing about Sweden. they could have saved anywhere from 20-60% of those patients, instead they let them die without medical intervention.

It could be argued that this qualifies as a crime against humanity.
 

luka

Well-known member
there does seem to be something biscuits is romantically wedded too though. not the idea, which is boring. but the emotional and intellectual stance which underlies it perhaps. it's fun to speculate about in any case.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
it's a reason i like to have this array of specimens on dissensus. just one or two of each type so they can be studied and contemplated and dissected.
I think that with a lot of debates and positions that arise from them people can really hold their position in one of two ways. Sometimes they pick the position and then argue for that position - I have to use the same example here cos it's such a good one I'm afraid - with Trump that's clearly it now with the majority of his remaining supporters. The axiom they are working with is "Trump is good" and so all facts must be made to fit that.
The other way is people look at all the facts that they can and arrive at the position that appears to follow from facts. This is the way that everyone wants to think that they themselves think, but obviously it's a lot rarer than we'd like it to be.
In fact, Luka, I think that you would probably say that that never happens. I personally think that it does happen.
One interesting question though, is can you get a mix of those two things? I really don't know, part of me feels that you can't.
Let me try and look at myself objectively, on a subject I feel passionate about. Brexit. Every way I look at it does make me convinced that I'm right, Brexit is a massive fucking disaster. But did I originally get to my hatred for Brexit by that route, or do I hate it ideologically (for want of a better word) and it's just lucky that the facts fit the stance that I like? Hmmmm. I suppose that I'm asking myself, if the case for Remain could be powerfully and logically destroyed (in the way that Trump's credibility has been) then would I be capable of saying "oh yes, I have been convinced by your arguments, I am now a Leaver"?
(apologies if none of this makes sense by the way, I'm really high).
 

luka

Well-known member
i'm always happy when i've been understood. all that makes sense. the drugs are giving you a moment of perfect clarity and sustained insight
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
no conspiracy theory has really stuck as you say. it's been grafted onto pre-existing paranoias, around 5g for instance, but you haven't got what you had with 9/11, Bush knocked down the towers, one strong theory for all the sceptics to rally round. you need to have quite outre ideas about how the world works already to really get started on one.
I think the problem is the governments have (in general) been very reluctant to lock people down. And they've been extremely convincing in that reluctance. To the extent that it was easier for people to believe that Bush wanted to knock down the towers than it is to believe that Johnson wants to lock down the country and stop economic activity.
Rightly so. I just cannot believe that Boris Johnson wanted lockdown... and so any conspiracy theory based on our government using C19 to lock us in our homes and control us simply can't get past that problem, that our government obviously did not want to do it. And who else can gain by controlling the population, locking them away? That's the thorny problem that anyone coming up with a truly convincing theory, has wrestle with and overcome. And I've not seen anyone manage it yet.
 

luka

Well-known member
well there is a fairly convincing answer to that question isnt there? the tech companies stand to gain by having all of reality mediated through the screen
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
you're right. i would say that never happens.
And what about my (rhetorical) question?'
I'm saying that you can arrive at a point by ideology (or less grandiosely cos it's the point you like). -call this A
Alternatively you can arrive at a point by examining all the facts and working out what they point. You may say that this never happens - but conceptually it's possible right? - call this B.
My question is, can you get to a point by a mixture of A and B. I think the answer is no. They are mutually exclusive. You may get to a point by route A and then find out that the logic backs it up but you must take one route or the other there.
 

catalog

Well-known member
well there is a fairly convincing answer to that question isnt there? the tech companies stand to gain by having all of reality mediated through the screen
It's true that all the tech companies have been the real winners out of the pandemic, its sort of forced their vision onto everyone who was not getting involved, has forced them. But it's unintended isn't it?
 

luka

Well-known member
'all the facts' is quite tricky in itself isn't it? i dont think i beleive in facts in that way. like with the virus. what are 'the facts'? various wildly differing projections.
 

luka

Well-known member
It's true that all the tech companies have been the real winners out of the pandemic, its sort of forced their vision onto everyone who was not getting involved, has forced them. But it's unintended isn't it?

i think so. but if you were building a relatively credible conspiracy theory
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
well there is a fairly convincing answer to that question isnt there? the tech companies stand to gain by having all of reality mediated through the screen
Ah there may be people who gain. But I'm not sure that they had much influence on doing it. For there to be a conspiracy theory you want someone to have the ability to make it happen and to be able to profit from it. I guess with a conspiracy theory you can make bits up but the less you have to do that the more robust your theory. I mean. Government locked us down and - if the government wanted us locked down, which in another world and another time they might well do. That's a very neat open and shut one. You could say Amazon wanted us stuck at home so we used them a lot to buy stuff... but you really have to make up a way for Amazon to have made it happen. You can make something up of course. But again, nothing I've seen particularly convincing.
 

luka

Well-known member
'all the facts' is quite tricky in itself isn't it? i dont think i beleive in facts in that way. like with the virus. what are 'the facts'? various wildly differing projections.

biscuits chooses Oxford. another person chooses Imperial.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
'all the facts' is quite tricky in itself isn't it? i dont think i beleive in facts in that way. like with the virus. what are 'the facts'? various wildly differing projections.
Well yeah but it's just a short hand. I mean you could work something out non-ideologically and it might by good fortune match what you wanted to happen cos of your ideology, but, if you originally picked that position ideologically, then the fact that your working out supports that doesn't change how you actually got there.
 

luka

Well-known member
i dont even know that its ideological. Imperial got it drastically wrong from what i understand but i liked them becasue they started from a position of being horrified at the idea of people dying from a weird virus. i like that starting point., it chimes with me.
 

luka

Well-known member
they started from a poisition of fear and horror and their projections followed on from that start point.
 

catalog

Well-known member
You could say Amazon wanted us stuck at home so we used them a lot to buy stuff... but you really have to make up a way for Amazon to have made it happen. You can make something up of course. But again, nothing I've seen particularly convincing.

Yeah I would agree with this
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
It's true that all the tech companies have been the real winners out of the pandemic, its sort of forced their vision onto everyone who was not getting involved, has forced them. But it's unintended isn't it?
I think we're saying the same thing. Tech companies benefited so for us to cook up a good conspiracy theory, we need to argue that they caused the pandemic or tricked people into believing it. It's quite a big thing... but other CTs have had more ridiculous bits.
I mean, if it was West Ham FC who had profitted most then we'd be struggling to come up with a way for them to have caused it, so tech companies work better than football clubs... but worse than health companies, governments, doctors etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top