Conspiracies
I hate conspiracies. I hate 'em, I hate 'em, I hate 'em!
Once upon a time, in my youth, I thought conspiracies were real and happened. There were shadowy government organizations keeping obfuscated sinister plots or other information from the prying public eye. Holy good god, if you gave me some kind of UFO government cover-up story I was all over it.
Then I grew up.
Conspiracies happen but not on the scale politicians and pundits on one side or the other say. There is no neocon/right wing conspiracy. There is no Zionist conspiracy. There are no groups of wealthy white men in a dimly lit, smoke filled room exchanging secret handshakes, enacting ancient rituals at the opening of each meeting just before they get to the business of ruling the world.
Conspiracies are the crutch of those who need to blame something for things they don't like or the bad stuff that happens to them in their life. They don't blame someone because that someone can respond. They can defend themselves. But if you blame something, well then, who can respond? "Something" cannot answer for anything.
Additionally, conspiracies can never be disproven. It simply cannot happen. And liking science as I do I know this to be an irrational position to come from. If something cannot be disproven, according to science, then it cannot be true. That is, if something cannot be tested then it cannot be accepted by science. Conspiracies can never die no matter the evidence because there will always be someone who will not accept it and even accuse the attempt to disprove it as proof of the conspiracy's reality. How can you argue with someone who feels that any attempt to disprove their position is only further evidence that their position is correct? You can't!
What makes me talk about this topic is a book I picked up, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man. As you can probably tell by the none-too-subtle title is that it takes a fairly critical look at the man's work. I think anyone who takes a critical look at his work will have a hard time disagree with the premise of this book. Either way you come out on the topic you can't help but notice that instead of responding to criticism, Mr. Moore attacks those who criticize by implicating them in some sort of conspiracy. Criticize Roger & Me and you're a puppet of GM. Criticize Bowling For Columbine and you're an NRA patsy. Criticize Fahrenheit 9/11 and you're a tool of the right wing or the Bush Administration. And on and on it goes. What's interesting is that this is the exact approach Ralph Nader warned not to take when dealing with GM but it also applies here:
Moore cannot answer direct criticism of his works so, instead, he attack the motives of the one doing the criticizing. And his fans buy it. I don't know how many times I've heard, "Well, he may have gotten his fact wrong but he's still essentially correct." What the hell does that mean? How can the premise be correct when the facts supporting it are not?
It's easier to blame an impersonal something than it is specific individuals because when you do that your proofs come under scrutiny. Your proofs can be tested, researched and rebutted. But launch an accusation at some impersonal something and you don't need proof simply because you create a situation where it can never be disproven - at least to those who don't want to be.
When people try to blame things on phantom organizations or groups in front of me I don't allow the discussion to progress unless they can specifically give me a name of someone who had a hand in what they're trying to prove. If something did happen then, if follows, someone had a hand in it. Who? When? Where? Why? How? I want to know these things so that I can check it out for myself. The moon landing didn't happen and was filmed in the desert? Okay, who provided the equipment? Who filmed it? Where was the film developed? Who funded it? Who were the actors? Something other than a passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon? What else could have? Where did the jet wreckage we have come from? Who planted it? Why did they plant it? What are the qualifications of those who disagree from the government investigation? Why would the government cover it up? What happened, then, to the fourth plane?
And on and on I ask.
I ask the same of those who use the term "right wing conspiracy". Who is a member of this group? What is their agenda? How do you know these things? Where do you get your proofs?
If you have a problem with something then tell me who is behind it and why you don't like what they are doing. Don't get lazy and stop at blaming the effect - blame the cause and tell me their name.
Once upon a time, in my youth, I thought conspiracies were real and happened. There were shadowy government organizations keeping obfuscated sinister plots or other information from the prying public eye. Holy good god, if you gave me some kind of UFO government cover-up story I was all over it.
Then I grew up.
Conspiracies happen but not on the scale politicians and pundits on one side or the other say. There is no neocon/right wing conspiracy. There is no Zionist conspiracy. There are no groups of wealthy white men in a dimly lit, smoke filled room exchanging secret handshakes, enacting ancient rituals at the opening of each meeting just before they get to the business of ruling the world.
Conspiracies are the crutch of those who need to blame something for things they don't like or the bad stuff that happens to them in their life. They don't blame someone because that someone can respond. They can defend themselves. But if you blame something, well then, who can respond? "Something" cannot answer for anything.
Additionally, conspiracies can never be disproven. It simply cannot happen. And liking science as I do I know this to be an irrational position to come from. If something cannot be disproven, according to science, then it cannot be true. That is, if something cannot be tested then it cannot be accepted by science. Conspiracies can never die no matter the evidence because there will always be someone who will not accept it and even accuse the attempt to disprove it as proof of the conspiracy's reality. How can you argue with someone who feels that any attempt to disprove their position is only further evidence that their position is correct? You can't!
What makes me talk about this topic is a book I picked up, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man. As you can probably tell by the none-too-subtle title is that it takes a fairly critical look at the man's work. I think anyone who takes a critical look at his work will have a hard time disagree with the premise of this book. Either way you come out on the topic you can't help but notice that instead of responding to criticism, Mr. Moore attacks those who criticize by implicating them in some sort of conspiracy. Criticize Roger & Me and you're a puppet of GM. Criticize Bowling For Columbine and you're an NRA patsy. Criticize Fahrenheit 9/11 and you're a tool of the right wing or the Bush Administration. And on and on it goes. What's interesting is that this is the exact approach Ralph Nader warned not to take when dealing with GM but it also applies here:
Nader's concept was that, rather than blaming impersonal firms for their harmful conduct, one should understand that the conduct was the product of specific human beings and their choices.
Moore cannot answer direct criticism of his works so, instead, he attack the motives of the one doing the criticizing. And his fans buy it. I don't know how many times I've heard, "Well, he may have gotten his fact wrong but he's still essentially correct." What the hell does that mean? How can the premise be correct when the facts supporting it are not?
It's easier to blame an impersonal something than it is specific individuals because when you do that your proofs come under scrutiny. Your proofs can be tested, researched and rebutted. But launch an accusation at some impersonal something and you don't need proof simply because you create a situation where it can never be disproven - at least to those who don't want to be.
When people try to blame things on phantom organizations or groups in front of me I don't allow the discussion to progress unless they can specifically give me a name of someone who had a hand in what they're trying to prove. If something did happen then, if follows, someone had a hand in it. Who? When? Where? Why? How? I want to know these things so that I can check it out for myself. The moon landing didn't happen and was filmed in the desert? Okay, who provided the equipment? Who filmed it? Where was the film developed? Who funded it? Who were the actors? Something other than a passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon? What else could have? Where did the jet wreckage we have come from? Who planted it? Why did they plant it? What are the qualifications of those who disagree from the government investigation? Why would the government cover it up? What happened, then, to the fourth plane?
And on and on I ask.
I ask the same of those who use the term "right wing conspiracy". Who is a member of this group? What is their agenda? How do you know these things? Where do you get your proofs?
If you have a problem with something then tell me who is behind it and why you don't like what they are doing. Don't get lazy and stop at blaming the effect - blame the cause and tell me their name.
Posted by Kevin D. on
Friday May 20, 2005 at 1:57am
