Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

In that case, the conspiracy theory looks to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The conspiracy theory, as a cultural phenomenon, occurs regardless of whether there is a conspiracy or not. In the case of there being honest mistakes, errors, or poor judgment, perhaps a government acts to protect those involved because it knows that admission of "honest mistakes" or simple "inadequacy" wouldn't placate conspiracy theorists but merely add fuel to the fire, and perhaps even jeopardize the safety of those involved.

So the government has, in effect, created a conspiracy in response to a conspiracy theory that already existed. The conspiracy theory makes itself true purely through its suggestion.

We cannot say that conspiracy theories reflect a true state of things, even if they are true, because their source doesn't lie in their approximation to non-theoretical events. Even if certain agents possess malign intentions, the conspiracy theory exists regardless of this fact. Conspiracy theories are cultural phenomena that result from mass consensual paranoia. Now, it may certainly be the case that some theories aren't entirely off-base; some may even be correct. But the nature of conspiracy theory isn't one of correspondence; it's one of rationalization. It's rationalization so powerful that it even yields measurable effects in the political and media gestalt of a given culture.

 

[Dak]

So you're saying that it doesn't matter if conspiracy theories are true because conspiracy theories.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm saying that even if conspiracy theories happen to be accurate, they cannot be assessed on the basis of their accuracy - their correspondence to real conditions.

Conspiracy theories are never disproven. This is part of their internal resistance to evidence or refutation. They adapt and morph according to the conviction of their perpetrators. The source of conspiracy theories doesn't lie in some ultimate truth that exists external to them, but in their own paranoid fascinations. Even if one happens to hit the nail on the head, it has nothing to do with the logic of the theory itself.

Like religious belief, conspiracy theories adapt and persevere regardless of evidence against them not because of any accurate representation of the world, but because of a socio-cultural desire for explanation. Those who believe in conspiracy theories have to keep believing in them. There's no such thing as proving someone who believes in conspiracy theories wrong, because the force of conspiracy theory doesn't come from without. Conspiracy theorists thrive on coincidence, and for organisms evolutionarily conditioned to see pattern in randomness, there will always be a plethora of coincidences to choose from.

 

[Dak]

I have to take issue with the equivocation of all conspiracy theories on the basis of the theorizing of a conspiracy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, fine. Why?

 

[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.