What Drives Conspiracism

1,449 Views | 17 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Whiskey Pete
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is Noonan's take on the conspiracy theorists. It makes a lot of sense to me.

What Drives Conspiracism
The dominant culture has gone mad. Of course lonely people on the internet believe crazy things.
By
Peggy Noonan

Here is an attempt to get at some of what's behind conspiracism, the rising belief in and promotion of political conspiracy theories. In recent years those theories have been heavily associated with QAnon: that a cabal of child sexual abusers running a world-wide trafficking ring has been a major force in opposing Donald Trump ; that "the storm," the day the cabal is exposed and jailed, is coming. In the past year, it includes the charge the presidential election was stolen through state-by-state fraud. In the past week there is increasing talk of the coming "reinstatement," in which proof of election fraud is revealed through state audits, previously reported results are overturned, and Donald Trump is inaugurated again.
1x
Belief in these things is growing. An online poll this week from Ipsos reported 15% of Americans agree that the government, media and financial worlds are controlled by Satan-worshiping pedophiles. Not 15% of Republicans or conservatives, but of Americans. That's a lot. Twenty percent believe in "the storm." Axios last weekend quoted Russell Moore, the evangelical theologian, saying he talks every day to pastors of virtually every denomination "who are exhausted by these theories blowing through their churches."
What is behind the growth of conspiracism? Many things. In no special order:
It is pleasurable to know and hold a higher knowledgeyou get it, others don't. In confusing times it's good to have a Theory of Everything that explains it all to you. America has always had more than its share of cranks and crackpotsit's the darker side of what gives us our gifts and original thinking. We're open to the outlandish. America is a lonely place. When you hold to a conspiracy theory, you join a community. You're suddenly part of something. You have new friends you can talk to on the internet to whom you're joined at the brain. They see the world the way you do; it is a very intimate connection.
Church affiliation and practice have been falling for decades, but people always have a spiritual hole inside, and if God can't fill it, Q will do. The unrealized and unhappy are always in search of a cause to distract themselves from the problems of their lives.
Conspiracy believers don't believe what the mainstream media tell them. Why would they? Newsrooms are undergoing their own revolution, with woke progressives vs. journalistic traditionalists, advocacy versus old-school news values. It is ideological. "We are here to shape and encourage a new reality." "No, we are here to find and report the news." It is generational: The young have the upper hand and the Slack channel. The woke are winning. If a year ago you thought the obviousmaybe the coronavirus that came from Wuhan leaked out of the Wuhan lab where they were studying coronavirusesyou were shut down as racist, bigoted, divisive. The progressives' great talent is policing, and they are always on patrol. Everyone, even the most unsophisticated news consumer, can kind of tell.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-drives-conspiracism-11622759795?mod=opinion_lead_pos8
C. Jordan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you leave out the last paragraph, it's a good article.

Somehow, conservatives' belief in conspiracy theories is actually the fault of liberals! Who knew?

First, conspiracy theories aren't new. They're as old as humanity. People have made a lot of money off of them. They've also done horrific harm (see the Holocaust).

Second, they're universal. People all over the world get caught up in them, particularly in the Middle East.

Third, I think Moore and Newnan are on to something in that the decline of church involvement in America has a role in the growth of it today. It seems the most fertile soil for conspiracy theorists (and Trump, for that matter, but I digress) consists of people with conservative religious views but who aren't religiously active in terms like attending church often.

Many of them grew up on premillennial dispensationalism (though they didn't really know it), which specialized in looking for "signs of the times" with constantly-shifting "fulfillments." For example, in my lifetime, I've seen the antichrist identified as Henry Kissinger, Saddam Hussein, Barack Obama, and others. The paradigm remains the same, but the "fulfillment" keeps getting shifted forward so as not to disprove the paradigm.

They also don't really understand the gospel. They think it's merely a matter of personal decision. They don't see that Jesus called us to live the gospel, meaning to live as kingdom citizens in this world, working for the values of the kingdom. They don't realize that the gospel they believe in is infected by a deadly parasite: Christian nationalism.

It fascinates me that nearly all current American conspiracy theories pretty much lead back to the biggest conspiracy work of all time, "The Protocols of Zion." All conspiracy theories that postulate some kind of secret cabal running things trace back to it.

It leads to weird combinations of things among evangelicals, like supporting Israel while at the same time believing and spreading Jewish conspiracy theories (see Marjorie Taylor Greene).
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C. Jordan said:

If you leave out the last paragraph, it's a good article.
I left out about half of the piece because it was long. The link is included so you can see the rest.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
She's not wrong about the generational battle in the journalistic world, or the way that wokeness fuels the fire of right-wing paranoia.

It would be an odd thing if only half a society went mad and that half were all registered with a single political party. A little too convenient. More likely it's manifested everywhere in different ways.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe q anon is controlled opposition designed to attract conspiracy theorists and drive them towards public displays of craziness in order to be off-putting towards conservative beliefs. The left prefers it's existence because it plays right into their hands.

Humanity is susceptible to mass hysteria and we like to think we're different from past humans, but we're really not. Salem witch trials, Nazism, Maoism and so on are extensions of hysteria. Enough so to convince people to murder innocents in cold blood.
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What Drives Conspiracism?

hmmmm.....

* Rigged Elections

* UFO's

* Hall of Fame Coach Resigns

I think that about covers it for this forum.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C. Jordan said:

If you leave out the last paragraph, it's a good article.

Somehow, conservatives' belief in conspiracy theories is actually the fault of liberals! Who knew?

First, conspiracy theories aren't new. They're as old as humanity. People have made a lot of money off of them. They've also done horrific harm (see the Holocaust).

Second, they're universal. People all over the world get caught up in them, particularly in the Middle East.

Third, I think Moore and Newnan are on to something in that the decline of church involvement in America has a role in the growth of it today. It seems the most fertile soil for conspiracy theorists (and Trump, for that matter, but I digress) consists of people with conservative religious views but who aren't religiously active in terms like attending church often.

Many of them grew up on premillennial dispensationalism (though they didn't really know it), which specialized in looking for "signs of the times" with constantly-shifting "fulfillments." For example, in my lifetime, I've seen the antichrist identified as Henry Kissinger, Saddam Hussein, Barack Obama, and others. The paradigm remains the same, but the "fulfillment" keeps getting shifted forward so as not to disprove the paradigm.

They also don't really understand the gospel. They think it's merely a matter of personal decision. They don't see that Jesus called us to live the gospel, meaning to live as kingdom citizens in this world, working for the values of the kingdom. They don't realize that the gospel they believe in is infected by a deadly parasite: Christian nationalism.

It fascinates me that nearly all current American conspiracy theories pretty much lead back to the biggest conspiracy work of all time, "The Protocols of Zion." All conspiracy theories that postulate some kind of secret cabal running things trace back to it.

It leads to weird combinations of things among evangelicals, like supporting Israel while at the same time believing and spreading Jewish conspiracy theories (see Marjorie Taylor Greene).
No surprise a liberal would disagree with that last paragraph, even though it's spot on. It's a pretty seeing indictment of wokeism. Is it any surprise that when the powers that be characterize conservative dissent or a difference of opinion as crackpot conspiracy theories, and then cancel or deplatform those who hold those positions, that it would actually feed a conspiracy theory? Of course not.

When you start restricting what can be published in the marketplace of ideas, you give a breeding ground to conspiracy theories. That is why more speech is always the right thing. Let the crackpot conspiracy theories be subject to scrutiny in the marketplace.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

She's not wrong about the generational battle in the journalistic world, or the way that wokeness fuels the fire of right-wing paranoia.

It would be an odd thing if only half a society went mad and that half were all registered with a single political party. A little too convenient. More likely it's manifested everywhere in different ways.
No kidding.

The last article is very good at explaining why those falling for conspiracy are no longer trusting media. They no longer report truth, but an ideology with News matched to fit the ideological narrative. Virtually all media does this.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok, hate to admit no knowledge of it, but what is "the storm" that 20% believe in.

Never heard of it.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

She's not wrong about the generational battle in the journalistic world, or the way that wokeness fuels the fire of right-wing paranoia.

It would be an odd thing if only half a society went mad and that half were all registered with a single political party. A little too convenient. More likely it's manifested everywhere in different ways.
No kidding.

The last article is very good at explaining why those falling for conspiracy are no longer trusting media. They no longer report truth, but an ideology with News matched to fit the ideological narrative. Virtually all media does this.

You guys act like the only alternative to declining traditional media is radical, crackpot, bull***** The mainstream media being underfunded, understaffed and prone toward polarization and sensationalism is no excuse to dig deeper into your tribal trenches and lose all critical thinking skills. If anything, it necessitates the opposite.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

She's not wrong about the generational battle in the journalistic world, or the way that wokeness fuels the fire of right-wing paranoia.

It would be an odd thing if only half a society went mad and that half were all registered with a single political party. A little too convenient. More likely it's manifested everywhere in different ways.
No kidding.

The last article is very good at explaining why those falling for conspiracy are no longer trusting media. They no longer report truth, but an ideology with News matched to fit the ideological narrative. Virtually all media does this.

You guys act like the only alternative to declining traditional media is radical, crackpot, bull***** The mainstream media being underfunded, understaffed and prone toward polarization and sensationalism is no excuse to dig deeper into your tribal trenches and lose all critical thinking skills. If anything, it necessitates the opposite.
No I don't.

I'm not a you guy either.

I'm saying the last paragraph is a good expose on why entrenched media cannot be trusted with the truth and people prone to hysteria will glom onto anything to fill the void.

Good grief you sound like one of those hysterical weirdos with your last post, though I know you aren't.

Brother you don't know me at all.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

She's not wrong about the generational battle in the journalistic world, or the way that wokeness fuels the fire of right-wing paranoia.

It would be an odd thing if only half a society went mad and that half were all registered with a single political party. A little too convenient. More likely it's manifested everywhere in different ways.
No kidding.

The last article is very good at explaining why those falling for conspiracy are no longer trusting media. They no longer report truth, but an ideology with News matched to fit the ideological narrative. Virtually all media does this.

You guys act like the only alternative to declining traditional media is radical, crackpot, bull***** The mainstream media being underfunded, understaffed and prone toward polarization and sensationalism is no excuse to dig deeper into your tribal trenches and lose all critical thinking skills. If anything, it necessitates the opposite.
No I don't.

I'm not a you guy either.

I'm saying the last paragraph is a good expose on why entrenched media cannot be trusted with the truth and people prone to hysteria will glom onto anything to fill the void.

Good grief you sound like one of those hysterical weirdos with your last post, though I know you aren't.

Brother you don't know me at all.

My point is that the state of our media and our electorate's susceptibility to wild-ass conspiracies are both conversations worth having. But they should be had independently of each other.

Using the former to justify the latter, as the author does here, is little more than whataboutism -- meant only to distract from the conversation at hand.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

She's not wrong about the generational battle in the journalistic world, or the way that wokeness fuels the fire of right-wing paranoia.

It would be an odd thing if only half a society went mad and that half were all registered with a single political party. A little too convenient. More likely it's manifested everywhere in different ways.
No kidding.

The last article is very good at explaining why those falling for conspiracy are no longer trusting media. They no longer report truth, but an ideology with News matched to fit the ideological narrative. Virtually all media does this.

You guys act like the only alternative to declining traditional media is radical, crackpot, bull***** The mainstream media being underfunded, understaffed and prone toward polarization and sensationalism is no excuse to dig deeper into your tribal trenches and lose all critical thinking skills. If anything, it necessitates the opposite.
No I don't.

I'm not a you guy either.

I'm saying the last paragraph is a good expose on why entrenched media cannot be trusted with the truth and people prone to hysteria will glom onto anything to fill the void.

Good grief you sound like one of those hysterical weirdos with your last post, though I know you aren't.

Brother you don't know me at all.

My point is that the state of our media and our electorate's susceptibility to wild-ass conspiracies are both conversations worth having. But they should be had independently of each other.

Using the former to justify the latter, as the author does here, is little more than whataboutism -- meant only to distract from the conversation at hand.
Noonan?
It isn't whataboutism, it's an explanation of why there are nuts on the fringe right.

The MSM has lost the respect of a large segment of the population. It doesn't justify 1/6, but it does explain some of the disaffection.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

She's not wrong about the generational battle in the journalistic world, or the way that wokeness fuels the fire of right-wing paranoia.

It would be an odd thing if only half a society went mad and that half were all registered with a single political party. A little too convenient. More likely it's manifested everywhere in different ways.
No kidding.

The last article is very good at explaining why those falling for conspiracy are no longer trusting media. They no longer report truth, but an ideology with News matched to fit the ideological narrative. Virtually all media does this.

You guys act like the only alternative to declining traditional media is radical, crackpot, bull***** The mainstream media being underfunded, understaffed and prone toward polarization and sensationalism is no excuse to dig deeper into your tribal trenches and lose all critical thinking skills. If anything, it necessitates the opposite.
No I don't.

I'm not a you guy either.

I'm saying the last paragraph is a good expose on why entrenched media cannot be trusted with the truth and people prone to hysteria will glom onto anything to fill the void.

Good grief you sound like one of those hysterical weirdos with your last post, though I know you aren't.

Brother you don't know me at all.

My point is that the state of our media and our electorate's susceptibility to wild-ass conspiracies are both conversations worth having. But they should be had independently of each other.

Using the former to justify the latter, as the author does here, is little more than whataboutism -- meant only to distract from the conversation at hand.
Noonan?
It isn't whataboutism, it's an explanation of why there are nuts on the fringe right.

The MSM has lost the respect of a large segment of the population. It doesn't justify 1/6, but it does explain some of the disaffection.

There are nuts on the right -- it's too big a number and prevalent in too high places to call fringe at this point -- because millions worshipped a president who exploited their distrust of the media to convince them of outlandish things.

The media has earned some of that mistrust, and we can have that conversation if you want. But it's not remotely to blame for what these woefully misguided people chose/choose to believe instead. Conflating these two issues is a diversionary tactic.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
" No one could credibly claim that "wokeness" is somehow responsible for 20 years of a disastrous global war on terror, whether from a strategic, legal, or moral perspective. Critical race theory didn't send us into Iraq and Afghanistan. ISIS wasn't inspired by Americans' use of gender-neutral pronouns. It's absurd even to contemplate, but this new narrative probably makes the Republican base mad and fearful. That's the point, right?"

Con. Crenshaw and Sen. Cotton believer out military and intelligence agencies are rife with the Woke, and have set up a hotline for people to report evidence of such. So far it is filled with satire from Starship Troopers. "I have to go to diversity training again. I just want to kill the bugs!"
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No mention of Russian collusion conspiracy theories?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Osodecentx said:

bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

She's not wrong about the generational battle in the journalistic world, or the way that wokeness fuels the fire of right-wing paranoia.

It would be an odd thing if only half a society went mad and that half were all registered with a single political party. A little too convenient. More likely it's manifested everywhere in different ways.
No kidding.

The last article is very good at explaining why those falling for conspiracy are no longer trusting media. They no longer report truth, but an ideology with News matched to fit the ideological narrative. Virtually all media does this.

You guys act like the only alternative to declining traditional media is radical, crackpot, bull***** The mainstream media being underfunded, understaffed and prone toward polarization and sensationalism is no excuse to dig deeper into your tribal trenches and lose all critical thinking skills. If anything, it necessitates the opposite.
No I don't.

I'm not a you guy either.

I'm saying the last paragraph is a good expose on why entrenched media cannot be trusted with the truth and people prone to hysteria will glom onto anything to fill the void.

Good grief you sound like one of those hysterical weirdos with your last post, though I know you aren't.

Brother you don't know me at all.

My point is that the state of our media and our electorate's susceptibility to wild-ass conspiracies are both conversations worth having. But they should be had independently of each other.

Using the former to justify the latter, as the author does here, is little more than whataboutism -- meant only to distract from the conversation at hand.
Noonan?
It isn't whataboutism, it's an explanation of why there are nuts on the fringe right.

The MSM has lost the respect of a large segment of the population. It doesn't justify 1/6, but it does explain some of the disaffection.

There are nuts on the right -- it's too big a number and prevalent in too high places to call fringe at this point -- because millions worshipped a president who exploited their distrust of the media to convince them of outlandish things.

The media has earned some of that mistrust, and we can have that conversation if you want. But it's not remotely to blame for what these woefully misguided people chose/choose to believe instead. Conflating these two issues is a diversionary tactic.
Sounds like a left wing conspiracy theory
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Osodecentx said:

bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

bear2be2 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

She's not wrong about the generational battle in the journalistic world, or the way that wokeness fuels the fire of right-wing paranoia.

It would be an odd thing if only half a society went mad and that half were all registered with a single political party. A little too convenient. More likely it's manifested everywhere in different ways.
No kidding.

The last article is very good at explaining why those falling for conspiracy are no longer trusting media. They no longer report truth, but an ideology with News matched to fit the ideological narrative. Virtually all media does this.

You guys act like the only alternative to declining traditional media is radical, crackpot, bull***** The mainstream media being underfunded, understaffed and prone toward polarization and sensationalism is no excuse to dig deeper into your tribal trenches and lose all critical thinking skills. If anything, it necessitates the opposite.
No I don't.

I'm not a you guy either.

I'm saying the last paragraph is a good expose on why entrenched media cannot be trusted with the truth and people prone to hysteria will glom onto anything to fill the void.

Good grief you sound like one of those hysterical weirdos with your last post, though I know you aren't.

Brother you don't know me at all.

My point is that the state of our media and our electorate's susceptibility to wild-ass conspiracies are both conversations worth having. But they should be had independently of each other.

Using the former to justify the latter, as the author does here, is little more than whataboutism -- meant only to distract from the conversation at hand.
Noonan?
It isn't whataboutism, it's an explanation of why there are nuts on the fringe right.

The MSM has lost the respect of a large segment of the population. It doesn't justify 1/6, but it does explain some of the disaffection.

There are nuts on the right -- it's too big a number and prevalent in too high places to call fringe at this point -- because millions worshipped a president who exploited their distrust of the media to convince them of outlandish things.

The media has earned some of that mistrust, and we can have that conversation if you want. But it's not remotely to blame for what these woefully misguided people chose/choose to believe instead. Conflating these two issues is a diversionary tactic.
Speaking of believing in outlandish things:

1) The Founding Fathers of the United States are so racist, offensive, and objectionable that we should take down their statues and rename things named after them, that it will solve everything.

2) That not only can you change your gender, but that the only thing it takes for you to make it happen is to decide to do it.

3) That being color blind is actually racist.

4) That the best way to respond to a black man getting shot after refusing to cooperate with officers is not to encourage people to stop acting like lunatics around the cops, it's to defund the police.

5) That when liberals hear something they disagree with, they don't need to refute it, build a case against it, or offer an alternative to it, they need to censor it to keep other people from finding out about it.

6) That traditional masculinity is a bad thing and that masculinity itself needs to be re-imagined into some sort of pale, mediocre imitation of femininity.

7) That the same country that just had a black man as president from 2008 to 2016 was then and still is a systematically racist nation.

8) That the best way to deal with criminals using illegal guns is to disarm all the legal gun owners.

9) That whether a policy works doesn't matter as long as it sounds compassionate.

10) That the only possible explanation for a conservative disagreeing with a liberal position on an issue that runs contrary to his principles must be hatred. Oppose gay marriage? You must hate gays. Against abortion? You must hate women.

11) That the solution to global warming, a sketchy, unproven scientific theory that supposedly has its roots in the behavior of people across the world, is for the United States to put a Green New Deal in place that will destroy its energy sector, ban air flight, get rid of cars, and stop cows from farting.

12) That people should have gender pronouns of their choice, regardless of their actual sex, that everyone else should have to learn and use.

13) That we should have open borders and allow anyone who enters our country illegally to become citizens of the United States.

14) That biological men should be able to compete in women's sports, use women's bathrooms, and watch women change in a locker room as long as they claim to be women.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

No mention of Russian collusion conspiracy theories?
I don't think humck has noticed this thread - yet
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.