luka

Well-known member
The breakdown of the official lie is good. One official lie (eg Rome and the pope) breaking down into competing lies is obviously going to lead to conflict but that is not a strong enough reason for me to want to uphold the one big official lie.
 

luka

Well-known member
When I get irritated with inane bleating then i sometimes play the role you have assigned to me 'it's all a laugh innit' but that's not where I'm coming from
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Conspiracies don't target the one official lie though. That's just a convenient sellotaping over of the damage they do. And it doesn't take into account that big States are regularly using them to further their goals and interests. When China smear people investigating Uighar genocide that's not exposing a big lie, it's furthering it.

and absolutely your position is edgelordism, you've just taken 10m offline to thing of something else to say
 

luka

Well-known member
If you don't get where I'm coming from that's fine. Leave it alone. Find someone else to annoy.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Conspiracies don't target the one official lie though. That's just a convenient sellotaping over of the damage they do. And it doesn't take into account that big States are regularly using them to further their goals and interests. When China smear people investigating Uighar genocide that's not exposing a big lie, it's furthering it.

and absolutely your position is edgelordism, you've just taken 10m offline to thing of something else to say

I mean in that case that conspiracy was invented by upper middle class harvard students - the same old appeal that deposed monarchs used to have at foreign courts. Please free me from my oppressor daddy China - which is code word for why am I not famous?
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
If you don't get where I'm coming from that's fine. Leave it alone. Find someone else to annoy.
But that's reciprocal. You saying "hey, lets undermine truth isn't it great" is equally annoying. I've been explaining why above.
 

luka

Well-known member
It's not always a bad thing obviously it's often good fun, and often it's a very good way of making a point and sometimes actually it's all you feel capable of cos of frustration, impatience and indolence.
Like, you just can't be bothered reiterating your mature, adult, all-things-considered position. And sometimes you're annoyed with people and want to annoy them back and so on and so forth.
There's a whole litany of reasons why you might post in those ways.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
I mean this is the thing I was trying to say to @DannyL - conspiracy theory arguments are in part unfalsifiable. They are designed to work that way. You show someone evidence xyz isn't the case and then they will cite an obscure footnote or an obscure article. If you have a life dedicated to debunking conspiracies it's like dedicating your whole life to finding a response to every argument for the existence of God. The key is to see where these crude personalisations of shadowy elites and the powers that be (this is why I use the more technical bourgeoisie btw because even that formulation in mainstream politics ranks of conspiracism to me.) It is dangerous to say for instance that theories of moral decline are fine when they are crude anti-elitist and a defence of the common man but not when they are reactionary and far right/disinformation related. This is why I linked that article, which talks about the nostalgism inherent in this sort of political thinking.
 
Top