The rise of conspiracy theorists and entitlement culture

SPECTRUM001

fob said:

I hope you'll forgive me quoting your previous post as the follow up seems to be asking for clarification.

SPECTRUM001 said:

The OP’s thread question talks about how can we stop people thinking their opinion is as valid as experts.

I felt that way about Brexit - why are the masses being asked their opinion on what is a very complex subject, and so much more than just ‘taking back control’.

I think it's a fair inference here to assume that you mean Brexit shouldn't have been put to a vote as the public wouldn't be able to deal with the complexities in the same way the goverment could. The problem is there were plenty in the goverment at the time who wanted Brexit (for whatever reason) as well. Our current prime minister wanted Brexit and fought for it.

SPECTRUM001 said:

 I like the idea, but sadly feel that society just isn’t smart enough and does need to be governed.

The society that isn't smart enough supplies those governors. Matt Hancock governs you. Matt Hancock governs all the people who aren't smart enough.

SPECTRUM001 said:

Which is why we have governments - to recommend direction and decision.

Is that why we have governments? Maybe. I'd prefer to think of them as admin for the voters they 'serve': carrying out the will of the people rather than imposing their will on the people.

Absolutely fine to quote - although to clarify :

My comment above about society needing governing relates to thoughts of an ideal (originally somewhat misguidedly inspired by anarchy) whereby we would not need organised government. I don’t actually think that would work, as we (society) are not able to govern ourselves (we are not collectively smart enough).

Are you suggesting society is smart enough to self govern ? 

Obviously our elected representatives are part of and come from our society, but the majority (both left and right) are from the intelligent end (I despise Boris, Rees-Mogg etc, however they are certainly capable - is that intelligence ?). Society is restricted to voting for the officials placed in front of them.

Much of our population is under educated (which is wrong) and easily led (which is a shame) and all too prevalent and enabled by the internet and social media.

The discussion is fascinating, though I dearly wish we had solutions to the cycle the world seems to inevitably find itself in.

Funkfingers

RaymondLin said:

SteveRobinson said:

The biggest conspiracy? Father Christmas.

I distinctly recall when I was told about Father Christmas, I thought the idea was STUPID.

Thinking about it, Father Christmas;
1) has several aliases
2) is a middle-aged man, who lets himself into family homes, with the intention of lavishing attention on children.
3) is probably suspected by pro-Trump conspiracy theorists of being a pædophile.

Expect gunfire up chimneys next December.

There ain't no Sanity Clause. 

Emp_Fab

So....  how do we push back against this tide of idiots ?  How can you divest someone of their crazy beliefs when they lack the basic cognitive tools to think rationally ?

sinbaadi

How long did it take us to stop burning 'witches'?

ToneControl

the first 5 years of the WWW were different, mostly academics and IT people

siremoon

SPECTRUM001 said:

I felt that way about Brexit - why are the masses being asked their opinion on what is a very complex subject, and so much more than just ‘taking back control’.

 You only think that about Brexit because you don't like it.  If you're trying to say that you would have accepted it if a Government committee had concluded it was in the long term best interests of the country then I'm the King of Siam.  Remain wanted another "people's vote" to try and stop Brexit as it is so what do you suppose their stance would have been if the Government had announced its intent to withdraw the UK from the EU with no public vote?  Acceptance?  Yeah right.

Indeed why bother with elections at all?  Running the Government is far too important to allow ordinary people to be able to influence it.  They might be stupid and vote for the wrong people.  Far better to have a panel of Tony Blair, Lady Hale, John Major, Gina Miller, AC Grayling, Gary Lineker and the editor of the Guardian choose all the MPs.  That way we'll always get what's good for us.

In the wider context of conspiracy theory evangelists; as Chilli said earlier they've always been around but in the old days they were confined to shouting at people walking past Speaker's Corner.  Now the internet has given them a megaphone to the world.

prowla

The problem with experts is that you can always find one who says one thing and another who says the opposite.

Plus, you have to consider whether they have vested interests and/or are being paid by someone else.

zepp76

SPECTRUM001 said:

The OP’s thread question talks about how can we stop people thinking their opinion is as valid as experts.

I felt that way about Brexit - why are the masses being asked their opinion on what is a very complex subject, and so much more than just ‘taking back control’.

So it makes me wonder - if the public were given the chance to vote on the death penalty, would they approve it ? 

Which is why we have governments - to recommend direction and decision. And worryingly, it feels to me that social media is creating an environment supposedly superior to government (a la Trump - who let’s face it, wasn’t an actual politician, interested in debate and policy. His views and iron reign really do merge into pseudo fascism).

When I was in my teens, I was quite interested in anarchy and a society led by ideals. I like the idea, but sadly feel that society just isn’t smart enough and does need to be governed.

How is anarchy defined these days? There are estates around the country literally run by the kids/teens who will attack and vandalise ambulance/fire crews and their vehicles simply for trying to help but are also set up purely for the purpose of doing that. People live in fear and don’t leave their homes at night or even day in some places, and the old Bill are helpless (I refrained from using the word useless) is that anarchy?

Jalapeno

VimFuego said:

grumpyrocker raises some interesting talking points re average age of a tin foil hatter. IME (which is limited) it seems to be more confined to younger generations, i.e. people 60 or lower. I don't know any of my mums generation who are, say, vaccine averse. I know a lot of anti vaxxers in the 40 to 60 age range. It'd be interesting to see what other people's experience of the age of conspiracy nuts to be. 

I think people over 60 still remember people in calipers from Polio, and healtthy people being talked about in hushed terms when they contracted it and were scared shitless at the thought of ending up in an Iron Lung.  They know of people who died from measles/whooping cough etc

Emp_Fab

So.... again.....  we've established that the rapid (rabid?) proliferation is a relatively new phenomena and that social media is the vehicle - but what can we do about it ?

It's a very serious threat to humanity....  a world where half or more might end up refusing vaccines in the future, have no faith in elections or democracy etc etc...   These are things that separate us from third-world countries that are rife with superstitions of voodoo and witches.  We cannot let our society march backwards through evolution.

Given that social media is the fan that's spreading the germs, should we be looking at censorship ?  If not, then how do we stop it ?

zepp76

Emp_Fab said:

So.... again.....  we've established that the rapid (rabid?) proliferation is a relatively new phenomena and that social media is the vehicle - but what can we do about it ?

It's a very serious threat to humanity....  a world where half or more might end up refusing vaccines in the future, have no faith in elections or democracy etc etc...   These are things that separate us from third-world countries that are rife with superstitions of voodoo and witches.  We cannot let our society march backwards through evolution.

Given that social media is the fan that's spreading the germs, should we be looking at censorship ?  If not, then how do we stop it ?

I think the word censorship is a word that would rile the conspiracy theorists rather than quell the problem.

ThePrettyDamned

Emp_Fab said:

So.... again.....  we've established that the rapid (rabid?) proliferation is a relatively new phenomena and that social media is the vehicle - but what can we do about it ?

It's a very serious threat to humanity....  a world where half or more might end up refusing vaccines in the future, have no faith in elections or democracy etc etc...   These are things that separate us from third-world countries that are rife with superstitions of voodoo and witches.  We cannot let our society march backwards through evolution.

Given that social media is the fan that's spreading the germs, should we be looking at censorship ?  If not, then how do we stop it ?

I imagine one small part of solution could be for social media to offer balanced sources of information - for every click on a right wing source, it will offer a more left wing perspective. For every anti-vax click, an advert that disproves it. For every centrist viewpoint, an offer of more left or right wing. 

We need to stop treating people as if they are simple - we're not. In a dyed in the wool lefty, but I have some right wing views that are quite strong. That's okay - it doesn't make me someone who sits on the fence, and if it did, maybe the fence is where good answers lay sometimes. 

boogieman

You can’t censor or restrict social media without taking away people’s freedom of speech. That’s a very slippery path to head down and I can’t imagine it would gain any traction here, unless you really want to end up living in a Big Brother society like North Korea. There’s no simple answer that I can see. While you have free sources of information and democratic freedom of speech, people are entitled to publicly spout whatever crap they want, within legal limits. Of course it’s also your choice to read it in the first place. 

Grumpyrocker

Jalapeno said:

VimFuego said:

grumpyrocker raises some interesting talking points re average age of a tin foil hatter. IME (which is limited) it seems to be more confined to younger generations, i.e. people 60 or lower. I don't know any of my mums generation who are, say, vaccine averse. I know a lot of anti vaxxers in the 40 to 60 age range. It'd be interesting to see what other people's experience of the age of conspiracy nuts to be. 

I think people over 60 still remember people in calipers from Polio, and healtthy people being talked about in hushed terms when they contracted it and were scared shitless at the thought of ending up in an Iron Lung.  They know of people who died from measles/whooping cough etc

Agree. I feel that as far as vaccinations go it's less of an issue with the baby boomer generation. But on other topics - such as Brexit - they've fallen hook line and sinker. Partly I feel because many of the grifters were appealing to their false memory of a war they didn't experience - they experienced the immediate post-war retelling of war myths in art and other media. 

crunchman

Jalapeno said:

VimFuego said:

grumpyrocker raises some interesting talking points re average age of a tin foil hatter. IME (which is limited) it seems to be more confined to younger generations, i.e. people 60 or lower. I don't know any of my mums generation who are, say, vaccine averse. I know a lot of anti vaxxers in the 40 to 60 age range. It'd be interesting to see what other people's experience of the age of conspiracy nuts to be. 

I think people over 60 still remember people in calipers from Polio, and healtthy people being talked about in hushed terms when they contracted it and were scared shitless at the thought of ending up in an Iron Lung.  They know of people who died from measles/whooping cough etc

I work with a tin foil hatter who is about 66.  She has a physics degree and should know better.

She's a fully paid up member of the David Icke fan club, thinks the moon landings were fake, and thinks Covid is fake to get us to take vaccines to depopulate the Earth.

She was also on board with the nanobots in the vaccine idea.  When I pointed out that they wouldn't have any way to power them, she basically said they have lots of technology they aren't telling us about.   That seems to be the default answer.  Something that doesn't stack up in their theories always seems to be linked to hidden technology (maybe linked to Roswell). 

SPECTRUM001

Emp_Fab said:

So.... again.....  we've established that the rapid (rabid?) proliferation is a relatively new phenomena and that social media is the vehicle - but what can we do about it ?

It's a very serious threat to humanity....  a world where half or more might end up refusing vaccines in the future, have no faith in elections or democracy etc etc...   These are things that separate us from third-world countries that are rife with superstitions of voodoo and witches.  We cannot let our society march backwards through evolution.

Given that social media is the fan that's spreading the germs, should we be looking at censorship ?  If not, then how do we stop it ?

Indeed - thanks for bringing this back on point. The very real problem is getting worse and what can be done ?

Censorship is a risky game, because when it falls into the wrong hands you can have a single perspective. That said, we do already have forms of censorship that are considered acceptable and in line with common law. But one person should be allowed to say what they want to say (eg Trump) because they are entitled to their ideas. The problem (as we have established) is that many do not agree with the ideas and behaviour (but many do - I think it was 48% in November). 

And this is where I get really freaked out - what to do if I find myself in the minority, and I am surrounded by others who I believe to be irrational and full of hate. Thankfully that has not happened (yet), but US events have highlighted how easily a divided public can be manipulated.

Personally (and as I tried to express above), I grew up with an idealistic fantasy that we could all get along and live together happily. I would still love to believe that to be so, however I am not sure it is possible ( can the Middle East ever find peace ?).

Solutions ? As individuals we can try to be more tolerant, less focussed on ourselves and more on others (I am generalising), and try to highlight and educate what we as society recognises as wrong. I would like to think that doing the right thing can win out (reminding myself that Trump lost the election).

WiresDreamDisasters

Some conspiracy theories are socially acceptable. Some are not. If you start treating one part of the venn diagram with an authoritarian approach, and the other part of the venn diagram with friendy kid gloves, you'll create widespread resentment and social disorder. Which suits some tribes, and heavily skews society towards a stultifying experience for all.

prowla

I was uneasy about twitter banning Trumpf, I have to say.

I suppose it was the combination of him talking rubbish and being the most powerful man in the World.

JezWynd

Emp_Fab said:

So.... again.....  we've established that the rapid (rabid?) proliferation is a relatively new phenomena and that social media is the vehicle - but what can we do about it ?

It's a very serious threat to humanity....  a world where half or more might end up refusing vaccines in the future, have no faith in elections or democracy etc etc...   These are things that separate us from third-world countries that are rife with superstitions of voodoo and witches.  We cannot let our society march backwards through evolution.

Given that social media is the fan that's spreading the germs, should we be looking at censorship ?  If not, then how do we stop it ?

Removing Trump from social media was a good start. I'm hoping that when/if Trump's base finally come to their senses they will turn their anger on social media as the realisation dawns that they've been played by cynical hucksters. Ideally they will turn it off as an act of revenge but it's unlikely to happen as this stuff is very addictive.

Trump realised the power of the big lie repeated again and again. Imagine being a Trump follower on Twitter for the past 5 years. Every day your phone will ding multiple times to reveal another lie sent directly to you by your President, complete with helpful links to draw you ever deeper into into the warren of alternative facts.

Censorship in the short term might be a solution. It would give some people the breathing space they desperately need, the opportunity to look up from the screen and realise that real world is carrying on around them without 99% of the dire threats they've been told to believe, actually occurring. If censorship was to be effective (and be accepted) then policy discussions would need to take place quickly to make social media companies and the infrastructure that underpins them more responsible for the content they show. They are only going to act if it costs them money not to. And it needs to have global acceptance.

This is very unlikely to happen. Can you imagine the unfettered rage of Fox hosts, conservative radio and right minded 'patriots' everywhere of this attack on their freedom? No, unfortunately we're stuck in this morass of lies and bullshit for the foreseeable future. Perhaps some new, positive thinking charismatic will appear, to open everyone's eyes; it's about the best we can hope for atm. Vacancy: Messiah.

ThePrettyDamned

Controversial point for sake of conversation:

Even if no one was banned on social media, the way social media works to generate money leads to an effective censorship of views it has determined you have some bias against. 

Discuss?