This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Yes, well ego anyway. There is a flaw in the attention-seeker motive; but I don't think the only reason.
Others might be: -
- Feelings of belonging to something grand or significant - Qanon traded on that with its supposed code messages that used the old "Emperor's New Clothes" trick.
- Disaffection with one's lot on life. That may be genuine but the conspiracy theory gives an easy way to blame anyone or anything else.
- A general mistrust of any "authority", be that political, legal or academic. Again that reflect a real, bad experience which may or may not have been avoidable or overcome, but the holder allows it to fester into the realms of fantasy to duck any sense of personal responsibility or choice.
- A genuine lack of knowledge or understanding of some difficult matter, met not by honest admitting of the fact and attempt to learn, but with a morose decision that this too, is "their" fault.
- Scapegoating, from a simple refusal to see anything could possibly go wrong by straightforward misjudgement, only by wilful act. We see that more often not in a conspiratorial way, but in the strident calls for dismissals, Full Public Inquiries and the like when actually, all that's happened is that someone said or did something wrong or foolish, or upset somebody, by misjudgment or ignorance. If all these calls were heeded, nowt would get done! It is not helped when the unfortunate scapegoat is a local, lowly-ranked official or two while their senior managers [i]appear[/i] to get off scot-free.
- A simple refusal by the people or organisations that have made a mistake, to admit it honestly and do something constructive about it. This leads to the wild speculation and accusations of cover-ups, upon which the conspiracy lovers feed.
- Jealously of wealth and opportunity.
- A desire to undermine some political or social opponent or ideology, not by analysis and reasoned debate, but by shallow destruction, however absurd and nasty the means.
- Last but not least, simple gullibility. A simple failure to see, or a desire to ignore, the basic, the simple, the obvious; in favour of the silly, and the sillier the better. This is not new: past centuries threw up "witch-hunting", alchemy, the South Sea Bubble, the "Cottingley Fairies", Erich von Daniken's tales, etc.
.
So the flaw? Some of those [i]spreading[/i] the theories - or fantasies - may be attention-seekers even if "known" only as nick-names on social-media sites. The [i]originators[/i] are usually totally anonymous and hope they will not be traced: tracking an electronic message leads to the sending instrument, but not necessarily the author.
Not long ago, the BBC ran a fascinating series on Qanon, after its journalist Gabriel Gatehouse, in Washington to cover Mr. Biden's Presidential inauguration, met someone calling himself the "Q Shaman" among the crowd. Intrigued, he started to uncover the "movement"; finding its door to open publicity was opened by a party-political activist called Tracy Diaz, from its development on an obscure, tacky forum called 8Chan. That was run by Phillipines-resident American, Ron Watkins and his father, for types with various unpleasant "---ist" tendencies. Some people thought Watkins wrote some of the Qanon posts, but there is no evidence that he did. Gatehouse was though, unable to find who had actually started it and why, although he easily exposed the pizza-restaurant "basement" lie and discovered the child-murdering accusation came from a strange but totally unconnected series of false accusations that had circulated outside of politics, some years previously.
Others might be: -
- Feelings of belonging to something grand or significant - Qanon traded on that with its supposed code messages that used the old "Emperor's New Clothes" trick.
- Disaffection with one's lot on life. That may be genuine but the conspiracy theory gives an easy way to blame anyone or anything else.
- A general mistrust of any "authority", be that political, legal or academic. Again that reflect a real, bad experience which may or may not have been avoidable or overcome, but the holder allows it to fester into the realms of fantasy to duck any sense of personal responsibility or choice.
- A genuine lack of knowledge or understanding of some difficult matter, met not by honest admitting of the fact and attempt to learn, but with a morose decision that this too, is "their" fault.
- Scapegoating, from a simple refusal to see anything could possibly go wrong by straightforward misjudgement, only by wilful act. We see that more often not in a conspiratorial way, but in the strident calls for dismissals, Full Public Inquiries and the like when actually, all that's happened is that someone said or did something wrong or foolish, or upset somebody, by misjudgment or ignorance. If all these calls were heeded, nowt would get done! It is not helped when the unfortunate scapegoat is a local, lowly-ranked official or two while their senior managers [i]appear[/i] to get off scot-free.
- A simple refusal by the people or organisations that have made a mistake, to admit it honestly and do something constructive about it. This leads to the wild speculation and accusations of cover-ups, upon which the conspiracy lovers feed.
- Jealously of wealth and opportunity.
- A desire to undermine some political or social opponent or ideology, not by analysis and reasoned debate, but by shallow destruction, however absurd and nasty the means.
- Last but not least, simple gullibility. A simple failure to see, or a desire to ignore, the basic, the simple, the obvious; in favour of the silly, and the sillier the better. This is not new: past centuries threw up "witch-hunting", alchemy, the South Sea Bubble, the "Cottingley Fairies", Erich von Daniken's tales, etc.
.
So the flaw? Some of those [i]spreading[/i] the theories - or fantasies - may be attention-seekers even if "known" only as nick-names on social-media sites. The [i]originators[/i] are usually totally anonymous and hope they will not be traced: tracking an electronic message leads to the sending instrument, but not necessarily the author.
Not long ago, the BBC ran a fascinating series on Qanon, after its journalist Gabriel Gatehouse, in Washington to cover Mr. Biden's Presidential inauguration, met someone calling himself the "Q Shaman" among the crowd. Intrigued, he started to uncover the "movement"; finding its door to open publicity was opened by a party-political activist called Tracy Diaz, from its development on an obscure, tacky forum called 8Chan. That was run by Phillipines-resident American, Ron Watkins and his father, for types with various unpleasant "---ist" tendencies. Some people thought Watkins wrote some of the Qanon posts, but there is no evidence that he did. Gatehouse was though, unable to find who had actually started it and why, although he easily exposed the pizza-restaurant "basement" lie and discovered the child-murdering accusation came from a strange but totally unconnected series of false accusations that had circulated outside of politics, some years previously.
Unrepressed · 61-69, M
@ArishMell Thank you for this list! It encapsulates why people disbelieve, the most obvious reason for me being their lack of science or engineering knowledge.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Unrepressed That lack of technical knowledge is one that's often worried me, and in real matters, too, not just the fantasy-world of conspiracy-theorists.
Many might not know the difference and relationship between energy and power, but could hazard a guess at what scientists do, by mentioning some examples of what [i]some [/i]scientists do, such as astronomy, operating the Large Hadron Collider and performing medical research.
Asked though what engineers do, and I fear they'd be unable to go further than thinking engineers service your car or central-heating boiler; let alone comprehend that without engineers they would have no car or boiler to service at all. Nor, come to that, all their electronic goods. Not even electricity! To some extent this is not helped by the trade itself using the term rather loosely.
Many might not know the difference and relationship between energy and power, but could hazard a guess at what scientists do, by mentioning some examples of what [i]some [/i]scientists do, such as astronomy, operating the Large Hadron Collider and performing medical research.
Asked though what engineers do, and I fear they'd be unable to go further than thinking engineers service your car or central-heating boiler; let alone comprehend that without engineers they would have no car or boiler to service at all. Nor, come to that, all their electronic goods. Not even electricity! To some extent this is not helped by the trade itself using the term rather loosely.