|
xssve -> RE: Alex Jones Creates Hysteria Amongst His Readers/Listeners (6/29/2011 6:38:10 AM)
|
quote:
I disagree, I dfon't think we are responsible for our own perceptions. We can't knowingly shape he we wish to see the world. Perception is a complex mix of education, social background, upbringing etc. We can make an effort to educate and better ourselves but that is guaranteed to change our perceptions. I agree though that there is no final authority other than empirical evidence. And yet even when presented with it, many conspiricists simply reject it. This is one reason why I think it is unhealthy. One example would be Obama's birth cert, the veracity of which is still denied by many.
I find this first line disturbing, and the repeated characterization of conspiracy theory as somehow "dangerous" does indeed smack of censorship.
Do outside forces influence perception? Sure, absolutely, the very reason there should be no monopoly on opinion, arguing these points is the process of democracy itself.
However anybody feels abut it, people with similar interests align themselves in order to increase their political pull, it's called a consensus, and a specific consensus may have a name, we call them "special interest groups" etc., and there's myriad citizens groups and caucuses, NGO's, lobbies, etc., etc., each with it own particular agenda, and each may be aligned or opposed to other such groups depending on convergence/divergence of their goals - this is just the way it works, it'll happen spontaneously with a group of schoolchildren, there are even studies that suggest population as a determinant, i.e., a cohesive group is usually sized at about 20 people per leader, the group gets larger than that, another leader will emerge, factions formed, there may be rivalry and the group may split into Two groups - the Branch Davidians were a splinter sect of the Davidians, etc., there is a whole story there about how that happened.
When a group like that engages in deception, particularly when that deception appears contrary to the public interest (the broadest consensus), then we may call it a conspiracy, and ultimately the deciding factor in whether it's a conspiracy or a special interest group, hinges largely on to what degree they engage in deception and why.
And, there is enough deception, to pretty much call any one of them a conspiracy - is there a Zionist conspiracy? Probably, every consensus has it's nut cases, it's Machiavellian strategists, it's paranoid schizophrenics, it's bitter haters, etc. - doesnt' mean there isn't' a pro-Arab conspiracy, there definitely is, there are literally multitudes of anti-semetic conspiracies, "Zionists" have every reason to be paranoid, it's an established historical fact - the only danger lies in the perception that the Zionist conspiracy is a conspiracy, an anti-semetic conspiracy is not, they're all conspiracies, take a number, the Zionists are going to have to wait in line like everybody else, whattaya think you're special?
I don't have a dog in that fight, I think they're all a bunch of silly bastards, but its the same thing with "The Homosexual Agenda" - is there a homosexual agenda? If even two homosexuals engage in deception against the public interest, that's a conspiracy, but we know for a fact there's an Anti-Gay agenda, they don't even try to hide it, and they routinely engage in disinformation and deceit, again, take a number - the only way to sort it out is to stop taking sides and look at the facts, be responsible for your own perceptions, it's your job as a citizen of a democratic society, it's only "dangerous" if you don't do that, take responsibility for your own perceptions.
You consider your perceptions "responsible" presumably, mine "irresponsible" - but you engage in deception to do it - I mentioned a US court of law w/regard to cocaine smuggling, but the link you mentioned avoid mentioning that, focusing instead on media coverage, which is basically narrative based (presumably) on primary sources, not primary sources themselves.
"Spin" is a form of deception, and I take great exception to your opinion that Jones is somehow dangerous while Fox is harmless - Fox has a great deal more influence than Jones will ever have, and moreover, they really push the line in terms of inciting violence, and the market has responded to that - they have a patina of a legitimate news organization and establishment authority, so when they lie, it sounds like official, whereas Jones sounds like an exemplar of the tinfoil hat crowd, that's basically the premise of this thread.
|
|
|
|
