Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Because conspiracies in general are a fact, or facet of humanity. Merely recognizing this in general cannot be problematic. Of course, this should revolve around Cui Bono, Hanlon's Razor, etc.

Pointing out that A. A (given) official story is unlikely B. Those concocting the given official story have a conflict of interest, is not on the same level as the lizard people theorists.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would agree that conspiracies are a facet of humanity, if by conspiracy we mean two or more people keeping a secret from someone else. But conspiracy theories aren't intended to illuminate secret master plots or identify hidden details or actors. Conspiracy theories feed a general sociological desire, which is for explanation regardless of the facts.

The origins of conspiracy theories are like the origins of jokes: impossible to locate. They circulate among a group of people because someone at some point in time notices a coincidence of some sort. Others might begin to pick up on this, repeat it, and some particularly intelligent people might even consider it an unlikely coincidence and explore further - think the Watergate journalists, or Noam Chomsky even. The theory itself may then lead to a development that reveals previously obscure information, or crystallizes it in some way. But the theory itself, the lost center or origin of the tale, is rooted in a form of mass paranoid fantasy. Whether or not it happens to be true is purely happenstance.

All I'm saying is that conspiracy theories fulfill a need that have little to nothing to do with the recovery and processing of actual information. Their origins circle wildly tenuous and often inconsequential coincidences, not legitimate strands of related data. The theory always precedes the research.

 

[Dak]

A theory, or let us say a hypothesis, usually precedes research.

 

[Einherjar86]

Indeed. But it does not persist unless research is performed in the matter. Conspiracy theories, because of their function, persist regardless.

 

[Dak]

Indeed. But it does not persist unless research is performed in the matter. Conspiracy theories, because of their function, persist regardless.

I disagree here. All manner of untested or untestable theories persist. When research is done or more facts become available, that doesn't even always banish incorrect theories - whether they be social or scientific. There is still a Flat Earth society after all - a combination of both bad scientific theories and subsequently some supporting conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories of different kinds persist for different reasons with different groups. If you already believe in lizard people, conspiracy theories are merely support for your lizard people beliefs, rather than an attempt to suss out the full contingency of an event.

In short, "conspiracy theories are not a homogeneous suite".

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think so, and I think your flat earth example only goes to reinforce the unrealistic relationship that conspiracy theories have to the world.

Theories of science, culture, economics, philosophy, etc. are only exposed to the public (or academic) audience after considerable evidence has been gathered, and is then judged accordingly. Conspiracy theories await no such affirmation, but instead begin to circulate regardless because they are based in something other than their relationship to the external world. They operate in a totally different way. The theory of the flat earth precedes the theory (and eventual fact) of the round earth, it doesn't emerge as a response to round-earth theory.

Please bear in mind that I am not saying that conspiracy theories cannot be correct; I'm only saying that their function doesn't concern their correctness. The function of an academic theory does concern its correctness, or at least its plausibility.

 

[Dak]

I understand what you meant. My point is that some conspiracy theories have a function that doesn't concern their correctness, while others do. If you are merely defining "conspiracy theory" as all those theories with function(s) that do not concern correctness, then of course there isn't an argument. But conspiracy theory isn't used widely used in that way.

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course it isn't used that way. Who would possibly use it that way? It entirely undermines the fantasy of correctness that they perpetuate! It would be like saying "I save up my money because I know it's worthless." It makes no sense.

I'm talking about the socio-psychological "origins" of conspiracy theory, which are not rooted in reality (or, rather, they are derived from the most fragile of links). They are "used" as though they do correspond to reality.

 

[Dak]

I'm talking about the socio-psychological "origins" of conspiracy theory, which are not rooted in reality (or, rather, they are derived from the most fragile of links). They are "used" as though they do correspond to reality.

And some do, and some don't. Some people attempt to prove their theories and theses and some don't. Of course they are all going to be used as though they do, for as you said, what would be the point otherwise?

I was going to whine and bitch about the last 20 years or so of trending, but decided to quarantine the W&B to this thread:

Before: Letting downtown areas fall into decay is terrible and racist!
After: Gentrification is terrible and racist!

Damned if you do and damned if you dont: This is why we can't have nice things. Falls nicely in line with a link out from OI that captures what I find to be the obvious social dynamic quite nicely:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

Disclaimer: Super long read, labels are very general and thusly not perfect etcetcetc

 

[Einherjar86]

And some do, and some don't. Some people attempt to prove their theories and theses and some don't. Of course they are all going to be used as though they do, for as you said, what would be the point otherwise?

That's weak, man.

I was going to whine and bitch about the last 20 years or so of trending, but decided to quarantine the W&B to this thread:

Before: Letting downtown areas fall into decay is terrible and racist!
After: Gentrification is terrible and racist!

I'm arguing neither one way or another; but gentrification by no means includes those who suffer the poverty issues in the first place. All it does is drive them from the neighborhood. If the original premise (i.e. letting downtown area fall into decay) is racist, then there's no reason why the second shouldn't be. It can't be either/or; it must be that both premises are racist, or neither one is.

It's a mistake to treat the two of them as opposites.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

Disclaimer: Super long read, labels are very general and thusly not perfect etcetcetc

Labels are very general; and thusly, not perfect (I didn't read any of it, way too long ).

 

[Dak]

That's weak, man.

I think it's just a statement of fact.

I'm arguing neither one way or another; but gentrification by no means includes those who suffer the poverty issues in the first place. All it does is drive them from the neighborhood. If the original premise (i.e. letting downtown area fall into decay) is racist, then there's no reason why the second shouldn't be. It can't be either/or; it must be that both premises are racist, or neither one is.

It's a mistake to treat the two of them as opposites.

Edit: I don't think either is racist, but there is certainly an "opposite" appearance in an urban area pre and post "gentrification".

An area falls into disrepair because of at least the following reasons: Broad demand is low and existing use is of poor/destructive quality.

"Gentrification" occurs because demand experiences a (usually) abrupt swing and capital and high quality usage pours in - and by high quality usage I mean constructive or at least maintaining rather than destructive.

That there are broader cultural dynamics that pressure constructive/destructive use is rather beside the point here. You might find some other label but it simply isn't racist. I have a semi-distant relative that lives in my area that does vehicle maintenance for the city/county, and describes the sorts of destructive usage he spends most of his time repairing on public transportation, city work vehicles etc, and there's no "black type destruction" vs "white type destruction". There is simply the class of "underprivileged" who tear up what they are given. Again "this is why we can't have nice things".

I don't judge someone who drifts through life, if they accept the juice that comes with that squeeze. But the people who didn't care enough to clean up their own shit have no room to bitch when they can no longer afford the yard after someone else does. There are two books that, if you had to force mandatory reading at an early age, would teach more/save more than anything probably on a school reading list through college:

I use an example from IED to explain Kant with great effectiveness to college students. If the sort of Ethics covered invoked specific principles from the Little Red Hen I'd use that too.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think it's just a statement of fact.

It is. It's a statement of fact that didn't contribute anything new to the discussion, it merely repeated what I'd already said.

Edit: I don't think either is racist, but there is certainly an "opposite" appearance in an urban area pre and post "gentrification".

An area falls into disrepair because of at least the following reasons: Broad demand is low and existing use is of poor/destructive quality.

"Gentrification" occurs because demand experiences a (usually) abrupt swing and capital and high quality usage pours in - and by high quality usage I mean constructive or at least maintaining rather than destructive.

That there are broader cultural dynamics that pressure constructive/destructive use is rather beside the point here. You might find some other label but it simply isn't racist. I have a semi-distant relative that lives in my area that does vehicle maintenance for the city/county, and describes the sorts of destructive usage he spends most of his time repairing on public transportation, city work vehicles etc, and there's no "black type destruction" vs "white type destruction". There is simply the class of "underprivileged" who tear up what they are given. Again "this is why we can't have nice things".

I see how you're painting them as opposites, but just remember that gentrification doesn't aim to improve the lives of those living in the already dilapidated areas. It aims to improve the quality and cost of living in those areas, thereby making them more appealing to wealthier people who live outside the area and enticing them to move there. It targets the commodity, not the individual. All it does to those already living there is force (most, if not all, of) them out.

Regarding the accusations of racism, I don't think that anyone is trying to say that gentrification targets blacks in order to exclude them, or that there is a specific type of destruction committed by black people that needs to be addressed, or some other essentialist form of argumentation. Construing it in this way misses the point, which is that the majority of people living in these dilapidated areas are blacks, and this is due to a specific socio-historical pattern of racism that goes back to slavery.

I don't judge someone who drifts through life, if they accept the juice that comes with that squeeze. But the people who didn't care enough to clean up their own shit have no room to bitch when they can no longer afford the yard after someone else does. There are two books that, if you had to force mandatory reading at an early age, would teach more/save more than anything probably on a school reading list through college:

I use an example from IED to explain Kant with great effectiveness to college students. If the sort of Ethics covered invoked specific principles from the Little Red Hen I'd use that too.

This does sound like it belongs in the whining and bitching thread. Did you encounter a certain lively individual on campus, or in some other capacity?

People don't always think logically when experiencing economic crises or hardships. If people are suffering, then those people have the right to bitch regardless of whether or not they have "cleaned up their own shit." It doesn't mean they'll get help, but there's a lot of suffering in this world. People have the right to complain if they want; and hopefully those who deserve some help will be heard.

 

[Dak]

I see how you're painting them as opposites, but just remember that gentrification doesn't aim to improve the lives of those living in the already dilapidated areas. It aims to improve the quality and cost of living in those areas, thereby making them more appealing to wealthier people who live outside the area and enticing them to move there. It targets the commodity, not the individual. All it does to those already living there is force (most, if not all, of) them out.

Regarding the accusations of racism, I don't think that anyone is trying to say that gentrification targets blacks in order to exclude them, or that there is a specific type of destruction committed by black people that needs to be addressed, or some other essentialist form of argumentation. Construing it in this way misses the point, which is that the majority of people living in these dilapidated areas are blacks, and this is due to a specific socio-historical pattern of racism that goes back to slavery.

When people get tired of living in shit, they fix it or move. It doesn't take a lot of money to fix a community, but it does take shared values. If you happen to acquire or have different values than the community you come from, it's much easier to go find a matching phyle than change everyone else. I don't see why this is problematic, but many do.

This does sound like it belongs in the whining and bitching thread. Did you encounter a certain lively individual on campus, or in some other capacity?

People don't always think logically when experiencing economic crises or hardships. If people are suffering, then those people have the right to bitch regardless of whether or not they have "cleaned up their own shit." It doesn't mean they'll get help, but there's a lot of suffering in this world. People have the right to complain if they want; and hopefully those who deserve some help will be heard.

No I didn't. I read where a certain small town I'm familiar with, that is run down and crime ridden has had some successful people come back in to town and are trying to basically start a gentrification process - and I can already project how that is going to go over at some point, because I read all the gentrification bashing articles about places in SF, NY, etc etc. There are even complaints about the downtown revitalization [in my town].

The most absurd thing I read is complaints about "my neigborhood is being taken over" or "I'm getting forced out of my own neighborhood". This ranks right up there with "my customers" complaints. Funny how people suddenly feel so infused with the spirit of ownership, that they didn't have or at least express when the place was a shithole.

 

[Einherjar86]

When people get tired of living in shit, they fix it or move. It doesn't take a lot of money to fix a community, but it does take shared values. If you happen to acquire or have different values than the community you come from, it's much easier to go find a matching phyle than change everyone else. I don't see why this is problematic, but many do.

As you say, it takes shared values, time, and commitment to improve a neighborhood. Organizing people isn't easy. So then, following the failure of improvement, the next option is to move.

Exactly how easy do you think it is to move?

No I didn't. I read where a certain small town I'm familiar with, that is run down and crime ridden has had some successful people come back in to town and are trying to basically start a gentrification process - and I can already project how that is going to go over at some point, because I read all the gentrification bashing articles about places in SF, NY, etc etc. There are even complaints about the downtown revitalization [in my town].

The most absurd thing I read is complaints about "my neigborhood is being taken over" or "I'm getting forced out of my own neighborhood". This ranks right up there with "my customers" complaints. Funny how people suddenly feel so infused with the spirit of ownership, that they didn't have or at least express when the place was a shithole.

I think it has less to do with ownership and more appropriately with the inconvenience and absurdity of being forced to move. Nomadism is a rough life, and moving with hopes of eventually settling again is even rougher.

 

[Dak]

I don't see where the easiness/inconvenience of a thing enters into a discussion on people/plans/policy other than relatively/subjectively, or how needing to move is absurd.

 

[Einherjar86]

I understood you as suggesting that if people are unhappy with living in a shitty neighborhood, then they always have the option of moving. My skepticism derives from the facility which you seem to attribute to the task of moving.

 

[Dak]

I understood you as suggesting that if people are unhappy with living in a shitty neighborhood, then they always have the option of moving. My skepticism derives from the facility which you seem to attribute to the task of moving.

http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2013/may/migration-patterns-reveal-much-us-population-research-finds.html

According to the site, every year about 10 million Americans move from one county to another, and these migration rates vary by age, race, ethnicity and economic conditions over time.
..........
Blacks of every age are leaving large urban centers. At the same time, blacks of every age are moving into suburban counties.

Looks like it is easy enough to be happening. Blacks are getting a shot at that American Dream, moving into the suburbs.

 

[Einherjar86]

Some are, no doubt. Many are likely being left to perish on the streets or be incarcerated.

So let me rephrase. There's no doubt that blacks are moving (after all, gentrification is forcing them to). My skepticism derives from the facility of moving and the subsequent chances of economic success. The types of jobs available in the suburbs are very different from those in the cities, and there are far less of them.

 

[Dak]

The bit about the American Dream was definitely tongue in cheek. The suburbs are dying in most places. Of course that just goes to show that the framework for critiquing migration trends is myopic. Whites leave the inner city, it's racist. Whites move back in, still racist. Blacks "locked out of the suburbs" is racist. Blacks flowing into the suburbs is racist. Race race race. Why aren't more blacks voting for black candidates, don't they know they need to be racist? And on it goes.

But there has been major cross country migration going on for all racial groups. People move toward where they feel they have the best chance of success, and moving is easier the less you have to begin with.

Specifically speaking to the difficulty part for the underprivileged: gubmint cheese can find you at any address, so for the very type that are most likely to leave, it's not like it creates a difficulty with a job (or probably a mortgage either). I even speak with the authority of experience because I somewhat ironically live on gubmint cheese. I've moved multiple times while on gubmint cheese (even cross country), hasn't been a problem.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I am a pessimist about this and my response will likely not make anyone happy; but I think racism is endemic to our culture on a historical level. I think there's no escaping it. Slavery is still incredibly recent in our past, and its consequences continue to weigh heavily on the black demographic. Lynchings continued nearly unchallenged until after WWII, and desegregation didn't make any real strides until the 1950s and '60s. The history of institutional racism in this country can be traced as recently as the teenage years of our parents, and there's no denying that it remains an influential factor in the social well-being of blacks today.

Because of all this, there is absolutely no removing it from our generation, and likely from the generation to follow. Simply bitching about these accusations does no good, because the wounds haven't healed yet. There are blacks alive in this country whose parents, brothers, sisters, etc. were lynched, and there are black youths being targeted by police. Anything can be racist because racism is simply part of our cultural DNA. There's no exorcising it.