💾 Archived View for sud0nim.smol.pub › conspiracy-theory-discourse-sucks captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:06:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-06-11)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems like nowadays any piece of information that goes counter to mainstream consensus is now deemed a conspiracy theory. Before, theories behind alternative narratives on things like the JFK and MLK assassinations were rightly deemed conspiracy theories because they in fact theorized that a conspiracy was carried out to do a thing in secret.
Now let me be clear when I say conspiracy theory, I am not implying any form of falsehood. There are many conspiracy theories that have merit, MLK and JFK most notably, but there are many that frankly don't: chem-trails. The very fact that the phrase conspiracy theory has a connotation of falsehood is beneficial for the powerful. Suddenly any valid suspicion and stringing together of documented evidence can be deemed crazy ramblings if enough people call it a conspiracy theory. This is made especially more dangerous when those who should be reporting on wrongdoings of the powerful have a relationship with those powerful people. The US intelligence agencies are practically tied at the hip with major US publications. The intelligence agencies have a well documented history of lying and doing detestable things, yet members and former members (once a spook, always a spook) of these agencies are regularly quoted in the New York Times and Washington Post on foreign and domestic affairs. It was intelligence officials who declared the Hunter Biden laptop story to be "Russian disinformation".
I can go on for days about how the intelligence agencies have fucked us all but I will save that for a different time. My main point for today is that the bar of a conspiracy theory is too low and the mainstream discourse around theories is lacking in any nuance. For an example I am using the discourse around Ivermectin treating covid, though I'm going to gloss over the horse dewormer smear campaign since that would be beating a dead, dewormed horse.
Is Ivermectin a conspiracy theory? That's what the mainstream media labeled it as. Now mind you I'm not commenting on its efficacy in treating covid, I'm referring simply to the trial and/or use of it for treating covid. After Trump made favorable remarks regarding hydroxychloroquine, any suggestion of alternative treatments were no longer permittable in public discourse without being labeled a conspiracy theorist. Generally the line was "Ah you believe Ivermectin might treat covid in some way, the CDC says it is unproven to cure or treat covid and I trust the CDC, you don't trust the CDC so that makes you a conspiracy theorist". Now mind you that they just made the leap from "it might help" to "it cures covid, and people are hiding it", and many of those who initially were shining the light on Ivermectin were and still are calling for more research into it, not outrightly saying that it definitely does treat it.
This is probably the worst part of modern conspiracy theory discourse, a presumption of the worst argument and/or augmenter. When the Tokyo Medical Association recommended the use of Ivermectin in covid treatment, countless "fact-checkers" declared it to be false. This was because many no-name, anti-covid-consensus, conservative commentators said Japan is using Ivermectin in its treatment of covid. The "fact-checkers" clung to the technically incorrect statement, that Ivermectin was approved in all of Japan as a treatment, and attacked it, but glossed over that a major medical body in Japan was suggesting Ivermectin as a potential treatment.
This is a major tactic in conspiracy theory debunking. A piece of evidence which hurts the official narrative comes out, people on the fringe who were paying attention (many of who are unfavorables) bring attention to the evidence, the debunkers find a small slip-up or technical untruth and declare the whole thing to be false, and then normally pad the rest of the article with a detailed list of everything "wrong" the person has done to put the nail in the coffin.
This is true in the JFK assassination as well. In Oliver Stone's original JFK movie, he makes the false statement that in order for the magic bullet theory to work the bullet would need to change direction mid-air. It's been focused on that this statement is false, but disproving this one statement doesn't then support the ludicrous magic bullet theory, or disprove the rest of the mountain of evidence showing wrongdoing.
Another shortcoming of conspiracy theory discourse is an undue trust in existing institutions and the official narrative. Most of the time, this is coming from a reasonable place. When the lay person is presented with a conspiracy theory, most of the time it's not in a favorable light and the official narrative is presented as much more straight-forward. This is aided by the lay person's lack of knowledge of the institution or individual's history.
Back to Ivermectin as an example, you can make one argument seem much stronger by highlighting certain aspects and not mentioning others.
For example: "The consensus among medical professionals is that the vaccines are proven to treat covid and Ivermectin is not, as well it is not approved for treatment by the FDA. Those who are supporting Ivermectin as a treatment point believe that it's use is being suppressed by a conspiracy between large pharmaceutical companies and the FDA because the drug is off patent and they can't make money off of it. The only evidence they have are a few inconclusive studies, some of which have been redacted."
The official narrative seems much neater but this ignores the huge amount of corruption between the FDA and big pharma as well as big pharma's long list of sins and prioritization of profit over treatment. As well as ignoring Pfizer's attempted suppression of the findings of their own vaccine trials.
Furthermore it eliminates pretty much all middle ground on the issue, maybe you think Ivermectin might treat covid but there wasn't a cover-up by big pharma and that the suppression goes along with a larger trend in American culture wars. Suddenly the waters are more murky when all the cards are on the table.
Conspiracy theories and the research behind them are important. It wasn't too long ago that questioning the narrative on the Iraq war would mark you as a conspiracy theorist and now it's common knowledge. As history moves forward the dust will eventually settle and we'll know what really happened but until that time comes we must continue to question those in power, stay strong in the face of ridicule, and try to stay sane in the process.